There are three exceptions to the general rule that a contractual obligation, standing alone, will 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)
There are three exceptions to the general rule that a contractual obligation, standing alone, will 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Defendants cannot sustain their prima facie burden on their summary judgment motion merely by pointing to other possible causes of the crash, as there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident and there is no requirement that a plaintiff exclude every possible cause other than a defendant's breach of duty.
DeRobertis v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 03505 (1st Dep't June 4, 2026)
The appeal must be dismissed because no appeal lies from denial of a motion for reargument.
Anthony Partners, LLC v. Mici, NY Slip Op 03502 (1st Dep't June 4, 2026)
When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed. The intention to indemnify in the context of an intraparty dispute must be unmistakably clear from the language of the promise and exclusively or unequivocally referable to claims between the parties themselves,
Board of Mgrs. of the 432 Park Condominium v. 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC, NY Slip Op 03381 (1st Dep't June 2, 2026)
Supreme Court providently dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. Defendant satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3216 (b) and plaintiff failed to show a reasonable excuse for not serving and filing a note of issue within 90 days of defendant's demand or for the delay in prosecuting this action before and after receiving the demand. Plaintiff also failed to submit an affidavit of merit from a person with knowledge of the facts supporting his claim of negligence, as required by CPLR 3216(e). Plaintiff's response to defendant's discovery demands in opposition to the CPLR 3216 motion does not relieve him from the statutory requirements.
Ali v. K&H Steinway, LLC, NY Slip Op 03380 (1st Dep't June 2, 2026)