Improper service of a motion provides a complete excuse for default on the motion and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain it. Failure to provide a defendant with proper notice of a motion renders the resulting order and judgment nullities, warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4).
However, a defendant's participation in an action on the merits confers in personam jurisdiction on the court.
Bharath v. Sitaram, NY Slip Op 00872 (2d Dep't February 18, 2026)
An argument that was not raised before Supreme Court is not preserved for appellate review.
The status conference order is appealable, as it was not issued sua sponte, but, instead, resolved plaintiff's letter application, which defendants opposed through their own letter submissions. The parties had the opportunity to be heard and there is a proper record for appellate review.
Perrotte v. Bloomberg, L.P., NY Slip Op 00632 (1st Dep't February 10, 2026)
The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se. Where the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff is required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defamatory statements were published with actual malice. In an action for libel or slander, the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3016[a], and the complaint must aallege the time, place, and manner of the false statement and specify to whom it was made.
Worob v. Campbell, NY Slip Op 00813 (2d Dep't February 11, 2026)
Plaintiff must allege that the harm complained of was a direct rather than a consequential result of defendant's breaching a duty owed plaintiff.
Priority Mgt., LLC v. Deutsch, NY Slip Op 00633 (1st Dep't February 11, 2026)
A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment. A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature must demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts necessary to oppose the motion are exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant, pursuant to CPLR 3212[f]. The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion.
Romano v. Welsbach Elec. Corp., NY Slip Op 00809 (2d Dep't February 11, 2026)
Plaintiff's claim for civil conspiracy is dismissed with prejudice because New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for conspiracy.
Carvello v. Warner Music Group Corp., NY Slip Op 00635 (1st Dep't February 10, 2026)
CPLR 308(4) requires due diligence in seeking to effectuate service on a defendant before resorting to nail-and-mail service. Generally, a plaintiff can establish diligence by providing an affidavit of service indicating efforts to serve the defendant at the defendant's residence on three different occasions, at different times of day. However, there is not the requisite due diligence where all of the dates of attempted personal service were during the work week and during normal business hours and in the same afternoon window.
Unitrin Safeguard Ins. Co, v. Della-Noce, NY Slip Op 00601 (1st Dep't February 5, 2026)
The emergency doctrine provides that when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance which leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or which is so reasonably disturbing that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct, the actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context. Ordinarily, whether there was an emergency and whether the defendant's response was reasonable are questions of fact. However, summary judgment may be granted on the basis of sufficient evidence demonstrating both an emergency and the reasonableness of the actor's response to it.
Callands v. County of Westcheter, NY Slip Op 00489 (2d Dep't February 4, 2026)
