Summary judgment and discovery

A party is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery in advance of a summary judgment determination. The party contending that a summary judgment motion is premature must demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant. The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat the motion may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion.

Ceesay v. Gotham Bronx, LLC, NY Slip Op 04739 (2d Dep't July 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Releases of claims

A valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release. A  general release may encompass unknown claims if the parties so intend and the agreement is fairly and knowingly made. Although a defendant has the initial burden of establishing that it has been released from any claims, a signed release shifts the burden to the plaintiff to show that there has been fraud, duress, or some other fact which will be sufficient to void the release.

Brighton Beach 2012, LLC v.  TD Bank, N.A., NY Slip Op 04738 (2d Dep't July 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Defaults

On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment against a defendant based on the failure to answer or appear, a plaintiff must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the cause of action, and proof of the defendant's default. In order to defeat a facially sufficient CPLR 3215 motion, a defendant must show either that there was no default, or that there is a reasonable excuse for the delay and a potentially meritorious defense.

Board of Mgrs. of Rosedale Townhouse Condominium v. Batson, NY Slip Op 04736 (2d Dep't July 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Products liability

A party injured as a result of a defective product may seek damages against the product manufacturer or others in the chain of distribution if the defect was a substantial factor in causing the injury. A product may be defective when it contains a manufacturing flaw, is defectively designed, or is not accompanied by adequate warnings for the use of the product. A products liability case can be proven without evidence of any particular defect by presenting circumstantial evidence excluding all causes of the accident not attributable to the defendant's product, thereby giving rise to an inference that the accident could only have occurred due to some defect in the product.

A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a design defect cause of action must establish, prima facie, that the subject product was reasonably safe for its intended use or that the plaintiff's actions constituted the sole proximate cause of the injuries.

C.B. v. Neal, NY Slip Op 04734 (2d Dep't July 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

A driver's negligence

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, a lack of fault in the happening of the accident. A driver is negligent if he makes an unsafe lane change, or fails to see something which, through the proper use of the driver's senses, should have been seen. A violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence as a matter of law.

Atali v. Cole, NY Slip Op 04733 (2d Dep't July 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Suing the City

A notice of claim is a condition precedent to an action or special proceeding sounding in tort against a public corporation, pursuant to General Municipal Law §§ 50-e[1][a]; 50-i[1]. Service of a notice of claim upon the City based upon damage to real property must be served within 90 days of the action's arising.  If the plaintiff fails to serve the proper parties with a written notice of claim within the statutory period, the action must be dismissed.

17 Belvedere, LLC v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04731 (2d Dep't July 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Relation-back

For claims against one defendant to relate back to claims asserted against another, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) that the new party is united in interest with the original defendant such that it may be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits; and (3) that the new party knew or should have known that, but for the plaintiff's mistake as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the new defendant as well. The linchpin of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period.

Louis v. Sood, NY Slip Op 04494 (2d Dep't July 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

Freedom of contract prevails in an arm's length transaction between sophisticated parties such that courts generally may not relieve them of the consequences of their bargain. This right is not without limitation. Aside from the defenses relating to the circumstances surrounding the formation of a contract, a party may seek to avoid the consequences of an otherwise valid contract on the ground that it is void against public policy. Courts may void an agreement only upon balancing the public interests favoring invalidation of a term chosen by the parties against those served by enforcement of the clause and concluding that the interests favoring invalidation are stronger. Only a limited group of public policy interests has been identified as sufficiently fundamental to outweigh the freedom of contract, and courts regularly uphold agreements waiving statutory or constitutional rights.

Hochhauser v. Urban Off. Architecture, PLLC, NY Slip Op 04491 (2d Dep't July 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Jurisdiction

A court may assert general all-purpose jurisdiction or specific conduct-linked jurisdiction over a particular defendant. The court is authorized to exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation when the corporation's affiliations with the state are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State. As to specific jurisdiction, New York's long-arm statute, CPLR 302, provides that New York courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary who transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state. In order to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists under CPLR 302(a)(1), the court must determine (1) whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State by either transacting business in New York or contracting to supply goods or services in New York, and (2) whether the claim arose from that business transaction or from the contract to supply goods or services. In order to satisfy the second prong of the jurisdictional inquiry, there must be an articulable nexus or a substantial relationship between a defendant's New York activities and the cause of action sued upon.

Beltran Tech., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., NY Slip Op 04487 (2d Dep't July 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Service of process

Where service is effected pursuant to CPLR 308(4), the affix and mail method, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the summons was affixed to the door of the dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and mailed to such person's last known residence. At a hearing on the validity of service of process, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. In reviewing a determination made after a hearing, the Appellate Division's authority is as broad as that of the hearing court, and it may render the determination it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that, in a close case, the hearing court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. D'Andrade, NY Slip Op 04484 (2d Dep't July 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Employment law

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders the employer vicariously liable for a tort committed by its employee within the scope of employment. An action may be considered to be within the scope of employment when the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to the employment. However, as a general rule, an employer who hires an independent contractor, as distinguished from an employee, is not liable for the negligent acts of the independent contractor. Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee for the purposes of tort liability is usually a factual issue for the jury.

Bandele v. Rasier-NY, LCC, NY Slip Op 04483 (2d Dep't July 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.