Summary judgment motions

As defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment, the burden never shifted to plaintiff to raise an issue of fact.

Danisi v. Diker A & V Contr. Corp., NY Slip Op 03755 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur

Pllaintiff established a reasonable excuse for the default through counsel's detailed and credible explanation as to why the office was unaware of the scheduled court appearance. This was sufficient to show that any law office failure was inadvertent, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a][1]. Although counsel improperly commenced a second action asserting the amended claims, rather than moving immediately to vacate the default in this action, there is no evidence of dilatory behavior or an intent to abandon the action so as to warrant denial of the vacatur motion.

Amondi v. Promise Home Care Agency, Inc., NY Slip Op 03754 (1st Dep't June 16, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Moving to dismiss

A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a cause of action alleging negligence may generally sustain its prima facie burden by negating a single essential element of that cause of action. In determining the motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The motion will not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility.

Brendel v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 03660 (2d Dep't June 10, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Admissibility of translations

Defendant's supporting affidavit, which was translated from Spanish to English, is inadmissible because it was not accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the translator's qualifications and to the accuracy of the translation, and, thus, failed to comply with CPLR 2101(b).

Carranza-Rafael v. LRC Constr., LLC, NY Slip Op 03728 (1st Dep't 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

With three exceptions, the general rule is that a contractual obligation, standing alone, does not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party.

Aguilar-Lopez v. Idust Cleaning Servs. Corp., NY Slip Op 03726 (1st Dep't June 11, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Flag Day

Dismissal for failure to prosecute

Defendant satisfied the prerequisites of CPLR 3216 by serving plaintiff with the court's order which warned that failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would result in dismissal of the action. Plaintiff failed to timely serve and file a note of issue or move to extend the time in which to comply with the demand. It was only after defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute that plaintiff filed a note of issue, almost two years after service of the order and six months after a second service of the order.

Plaintiff's conclusory and unsubstantiated claim of law office failure due to firm relocations and staffing changes failed to establish a justifiable excuse for the delay.

The court's scrivener's error in its sole reference to CPLR 3126 instead of CPLR 3216 did not render the order defective where the court repeatedly referred to and quoted from CPLR 3216, making it clear that the action was dismissed under the governing standards of the correct statute.

Aguilar v. TMP Wireless, Inc., NY Slip Op 03725 (1st Dep't June 11, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Entry of judgment

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), "[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed." It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal. As long as proceedings are being taken, and those proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the action but to seek entry of judgment, the complaint should not be subject to dismissal.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Hamawi, NY Slip Op 03659 (2d Dep't June 10, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Depositions

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.20-b(a)(2), unless otherwise stipulated to by the parties or ordered by the court, "depositions shall be limited to 7 hours per deponent." However, "[f]or good cause shown, the court may alter the limits on the number of depositions or the duration of an examination," pursuant to § 202.20-b[f]. Good cause may be based on improper conduct or obstruction by the deponent or the attorney, or a proper showing that 7 hours was an insufficient amount of time within which to complete the deposition under the circumstances of the case.

Abad v. 288 Water St. Owner, LLC, NY Slip Op 03416 (2d Dep't June 3, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend

Leave will be denied where the proposed cause of action is palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit.

75 Cohoes Realty Assoc., LLC v. Machnick Bldrs., Ltd., NY Slip Op 03415 (2d Dep't June 3, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Renewal

A motion to renew is a request by a party for the court to consider anew a prior motion in light of new facts or a change in the law that would change the determination of the prior motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2]. 

Estate of Margaret Kainer v. Christies, Inc., NY Slip Op 03506 (1st Dep't June 4, 2026)

Here is the decision.