Christmas Eve 1964

Expert medical testimony

A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, but the witness should have the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable. Questions regarding the precise nature and degree of the expert's experience go to the weight that the opinions should be given, which is a matter for resolution by a jury.

Diamond v. St. Anthony Community Hosp., NY Slip Op 06987 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew

The motion for leave to renew was untimely since it was made after the time to appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale had expired.

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Maron, NY Slip Op 06986 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Extending time

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to extend time for filing the note of issue. Plaintiff had good cause for an extension of time, demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay in providing disclosure, the inability to access bank records that had been locked because of an unrelated fraud, and good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes before proceeding to trial. The delays giving rise to the requested extension did not arise from willfulness in missing deadlines, but from legitimate difficulties encountered by both sides during discovery. Defendants did not oppose plaintiff's motion and they do not oppose plaintiff's appeal, and they had expressed their own need for an extension of time to obtain further discovery. The denial of plaintiff's motion left the parties in limbo where they could neither move forward to trial nor complete the discovery necessary to move forward to trial, thereby frustrating the strong public policy favoring open disclosure to allow the parties to prepare for trial. Motion granted.

SF Consultants, LLC v. 28 W. Group Corp., NY Slip Op 07122 (1st Dep't December 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Estates, powers, and trusts law

There can be no relief as against an estate absent the appointment of an executor or public administrator. The estate itself is a legal fiction which can only be sued through its personal representative, pursuant to EPTL 11-3.1.

Matter of 200 Claremont Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Estate of Elsie Lewis, NY Slip Op 07084 (1st Dep't December 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Setting aside a jury verdict

A jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence if the jury could not have reached the verdict based on any fair interpretation of the evidence.  A jury verdict that is irreconcilably inconsistent must be set aside.

Contona v. Godas, NY Slip Op 06982 (2d Dep't December 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

CPLR 306-b permits a court to dismiss a proceeding without prejudice or extend the time for service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice. Good cause and interest of justice are two separate and independent statutory standards. To establish good cause, a petitioner must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. The more flexible interest of justice standard accommodates late service that might be due to mistake, confusion, or oversight, so long as there is no prejudice to the respondent. In deciding whether to extend time in the interest of justice, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with other factors including the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the proceeding, the length of delay in service, the promptness of the petitioner's seeking an extension, and prejudice to the respondent. The determination of whether to grant the extension in the interest of justice is within the discretion of the motion court.

Matter of Davis v. ACS-Kings, NY Slip Op 06860 (2d Dep't December 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motion practice.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in overlooking the failure to include a copy of the pleadings in plaintiff's initial summary judgment papers, because plaintiff attached a copy in its reply papers and there is no showing of prejudice. Plaintiff did not have to establish that it had standing as a predicate to summary judgment, since defendant waived that defense by not raising it in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss. It is of no moment that plaintiff may not have properly authenticated the two letters submitted in support of the motion, as defendant, in his answer, admitted that he had received a written demand for payment.

CLNC 2019-FL1Funding, LLC v. Bennett, NY Slip Op 06893 (1st Dep't December 11, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Administrative law.

Judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to whether it was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. An agency's determination is arbitrary and capricious when it is without a sound basis in reason or the facts. If the court finds that the determination is supported by a rational basis, it must sustain the determination even if the court concludes that it would have reached a different result than the one reached by the agency. Moreover, an agency's interpretation of the statutes and regulations that it administers is entitled to deference, and must be upheld if reasonable. 

Matter of East Riv. Group, LLC v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, NY Slip Op 06861 (2d Dep't December 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

A written agreement that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.

Stevens v. Audthan, LLC, NY Slip Op 06922 (1st Dep't December 11, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Late notices of claim

In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), the court, in its discretion, must consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, whether: (1) the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim; (2) the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter; and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense. While no single factor is determinative, whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim is a factor of great importance, and the party seeking leave has the burden of establishing this factor through the submission of non-speculative evidence.

Matter of Giustra v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., NY Slip Op 06862 (2d Dep't December 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.