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.

Vacating a default

Defendant timely filed its motion to vacate the default order under CPLR 317 because no entry of judgment was filed. Nevertheless, in this trip and fall action alleging a defect in a public sidewalk, defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense as required by CPLR 317. The affidavit from defendant's property manager contains only general denials of its duty and notice. Vacatur denied.

Arias v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06891(1st Dep't December 11, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motion to vacate

Supreme Court properly denied respondent's motion to vacate the June 2018 judgment. Respondent does not explain how the allegedly new information would have changed the outcome in this proceeding, which is solely to enforce the prior judgment, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a][2]. In addition, the record establishes that respondent learned of the supposedly new information in May of 2021, over three years before respondent filed his motion to vacate on September 25, 2024.

Matter of IGS Realty Co., L.P. v. Brady, NY Slip Op 06786 (1st Dep't December 4, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Constructive trusts.

The four factors to be considered in ascertaining whether the imposition of a constructive trust is warranted are the existence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance thereon, and unjust enrichment.

Corriette v. Mele, NY Slip Op 06687 (2d Dep't December 3, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Expert witnesses

 Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' expert disclosure and to preclude the expert from testifying at trial, pursuant to CPLR 3101[d][1], and finding that plaintiffs' expert disclosure filing was not untimely. The record does not show that the delay in plaintiffs' expert disclosure was due to willful noncompliance or that defendants were prejudiced by the belated disclosure, particularly given that defendants were on notice that plaintiffs intended to engage an economist such as a CPA as an expert witness. Further, Supreme Court's adjournment of the matter to provide defendants time to engage a rebuttal expert if they deemed one necessary was appropriate to prevent any prejudice.

United Medicine & Rehabilitation, P.C. v. Yakobashvili, NY Slip Op 06797 (1st Dep't December 4, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Gross negligence

In order to constitute gross negligence, a party's conduct must smack of intentional wrongdoing or evince a reckless indifference to the rights of others. A party is grossly negligent when it fails to exercise even slight care or diligence. Ordinarily, the question of gross negligence is to be determined by the trier of fact.

Calixto v. A. Balsamo & Rosenblatt, P.C., NY Slip Op 06686 (2d Dep't December 3, 2025)

Here is the decision.

December 8, 1941

December 7, 1941