Although the order is not appealable as of right, the Appellate Division deems the notice of appeal to be an application for leave to appeal, pursuant to CPLR 5701(c), and grants leave.
Robinson v. Redleaf Capital, LLC, NY Slip Op 01863 (1st Dep't March 26, 2026)
Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned. A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation must show that the party having control over the evidence was obliged to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable state of mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense. A culpable state of mind for purposes of a spoliation sanction includes ordinary negligence. However, in the absence of pending litigation or notice of a specific claim, a defendant should not be sanctioned for discarding items in good faith and pursuant to its normal business practices.
Atsaves v. El Caribe Caterers, LLC, NY Slip Op 01752 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)
Because summary judgment is granted in favor of the moving defendants, the cross-claims against them for common-law indemnification and contribution are dismissed.
Rodriguez v. Madison Sec. Group, Inc., NY Slip Op 01869 (1st Dep't March 26, 2026)
A reasonable attorney's fee is commonly understood to be a fee which represents the reasonable value of the services rendered. In determining the reasonable value of the legal services rendered, the court may consider a number of factors, including the time and labor required, the difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill required to handle the problems presented, the lawyer's experience, ability, and reputation, the customary fee charged for similar services, and the results obtained. While a hearing is not required in all circumstances, the court must possess sufficient information upon which to make an informed assessment of the reasonable value of the legal services rendered.
American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Barakat PT PC, NY Slip Op 01750 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)
A receiver or its agent generally cannot be sued absent prior permission of the court that appointed the receiver. One exception to the requirement of prior permission is where the receiver or agent has acted ultra vires. Determination of whether a receiver's conduct is ultra vires turns on the scope of the receivership and the obligations, duties, and tasks set out by the receivership order. A receiver who is acting within the scope of his role cannot be sued without prior permission.
Seaton v. Babad, NY Slip Op 01745 (1st Dep't March 24, 2026)
An attorney's transcription of a conference call does not constitute privileged material or attorney work product. Therefore, its voluntary disclosure by plaintiffs did not effectuate a broad subject matter waiver of otherwise privileged documents.
Gurney-Goldman v. Soil Mgt., LLC, NY Slip Op 01596 (1st Dep't March 19, 2026)
Plaintiff's motion to restore the action or vacate the parties' stipulation of settlement is denied. as the stipulation was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at all times and the terms were so-ordered by Supreme Court. The stipulation's terms were not so grossly unreasonable or unconscionable as to warrant vacatur.
Fiondella v. 345 W. 70th Tenants Corp., NY Slip Op 01595 (1st Dep't March 19, 2026)
In this negligence action involving a trip and fall on a sidewalk, the daily logs with photographs relied upon by defendant, a contractor hired to perform construction work at the premises, failed to demonstrate that it did not perform any work on the sidewalk before plaintiff's accident. Accordingly, the documentary evidence did not conclusively establish, as a matter of law, a defense to plaintiff's claims.
In any event, plaintiff raised an issue of fact in opposition to the motion by submitting evidence that, two months before plaintiff's accident, defendant received a violation from the New York City Department of Transportation for maintaining a plywood fence on the sidewalk without a permit. Therefore, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendant may have launched a force or instrument of harm that caused plaintiff's accident.
Defendant's request for sanctions is denied because plaintiff's claims cannot be deemed frivolous.
De Perez v. Fordham Valentine Assoc., LLC, NY Slip Op 01594 (1st Dep't March 19, 2026)
Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer - including the State - may be held vicariously liable for torts, including intentional torts, committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment, provided that the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment. In determining whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability, courts look to several factors, including the connection between the time, place, and occasion for the act; the history of the relationship between employer and employee as spelled out in actual practice; whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee; the extent of departure from normal methods of performance; and whether the specific act was one that the employer could reasonably have anticipated. In cases involving a use of force, whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment requires consideration of whether the employee was authorized to use force to effectuate the goals and duties of the employment.
Bracero v. State of New York, NY Slip Op 01484 (2d Dep't March 18, 2026)
Any matter which may lead to admissible proof is discoverable, as is any matter which bears upon a defense, even if the facts themselves are not admissible. The test is one of usefulness and reason. The supervision of discovery and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Personnel records are discoverable where the plaintiff alleges a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision.
Black v. Archdiocese of N.Y., NY Slip Op 01483 (2d Dep't March 18, 2026)
