Binding stipulations

Defendants' argument that the judgment of foreclosure and sale should be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) is unavailing, as the record reveals that defendants, through their counsel, consented to the entry of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor by attorney stipulation. The court properly declined to set aside the stipulation. Defendants contend that their counsel lacked authority to enter into a stipulation consenting to summary judgment, but a settlement agreement signed by an attorney may bind a client even where it exceeds the attorney's actual authority, if the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the agreement. Defendants failed to present any evidence that their former counsel, their attorney of record at the time of the stipulation, lacked apparent authority to sign the stipulation on their behalf. He was fully authorized to appear in the action on defendants' behalf and was in regular contact with them at all relevant times. In any event, defendants ratified the terms of the stipulation by failing to object to it for more than a year.

Defendants alternatively argue that judgment should be vacated in the interests of justice based on the payment they made to plaintiff, which they believed was for the purpose of curing their default, but that issue is unrelated to whether the stipulation is binding.

Global Bank v. 43 Mott Realty Owner, LLC, NY Slip Op 01125 (1st Dep't February 26, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Trial procedure

It is well-established that trial courts have broad authority to control courtroom proceedings. When an adverse party is called as a witness on the other party's case in chief, the court may permit the use of leading questions against that witness upon a showing of hostility, adversity, evasiveness, or uncooperativeness. 

Matter of Sheltering Arms Children's Servs. v. Yiweiz, NY Slip Op 01146 (1st Dep't February 26, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Notes of issue

When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, the granting of a motion to restore the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. In either of those circumstances, the court will consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file the note of issue.

Alnoukari v. Nokari, NY Slip Op 01025 (2d Dep't February 25, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew

A motion for leave to renew requires facts that were not offered on the prior motion and that would change the prior determination, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2]. The movant must explain why the new facts were not submitted on the prior motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][3]. The Supreme Court may grant renewal upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion if there is a reasonable justification for not submitting the additional facts on the original motion.

Albertson Water Dist. v. Town of N. Hempstead, NY Slip Op 01024 (2d Dep't February 25, 2026

Here is the decision.

Injunctive relief

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, the danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a favorable balance of equities.

Yemeni-American Assn., Corp. v. Alsaede, NY Slip Op 01151 (1st Dep't February 26, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

A party will be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident. A party seeking reformation of a contract by reason of a mistake must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the contract was executed under mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake induced by the other party's fraudulent misrepresentation.

Guzzetta v. Messina, NY Slip Op 00880 (2d Dep't February 18, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Res judicata

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding, The doctrine is grounded in public policy concerns and is intended to ensure finality, prevent vexatious litigation and promote judicial economy. However, in properly seeking to deny a litigant two days in court, courts must be careful not to deprive the litigant of one.

Guzzetta v. Messina, NY Slip Op 00879 (2d Dep't February 18, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Attorneys' fees

The award of reasonable attorney's fees is within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court based upon such factors as the time and labor required, the difficulty of the issues involved, the skill required to handle the matter, and the effectiveness of the legal work performed. When there is a fee dispute between the current and discharged attorneys for the plaintiff in an action to which there is a contingent fee retainer, the discharged attorney may elect to receive compensation immediately based on quantum meruit or on a contingent percentage fee based on a proportionate share of the work performed on the whole case. 

Del Rosso v. Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., NY Slip Op 00877 (2d Dep't February 18, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Expert witnesses

Challenges to an expert witness's qualifications go to the weight to be accorded the expert's views, not their admissibility. Experts need not be a specialist in a particular field if they have the knowledge necessary to opine on the issues presented. If the expert professes such knowledge, the issue of the expert's qualifications is for the fact-finder to determine.

Markman v. New York-Presbyt. Healthcare Sys, Inc., NY Slip Op 00976 (1st Dep't February 19, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

Even if a party is not in breach of its express contractual obligations, it may be in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it exercises a contractual right as part of a scheme to deprive the other party of the benefit of its bargain.

Dairy King, Inc. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 00876 (2d Dep't February 18, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Commercial litigation

A corporation may not proceed pro se, pursuant to CPLR 321[a]. 

Wah Win Group Corp. v. 979 Second Ave., LLC, NY Slip Op 01003 (1st Dep't February 19, 2026)

Here is the decision.