The proper procedure to cure a default in opposing a motion is to move pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the default, and, if necessary, to appeal that determination. A motion denominated as one for leave to renew an unopposed motion may be construed as one to vacate the default.
Abingdon Realty Co., LLC v. Finkelshteyn, NY Slip Op 04828 (2d Dep't August 5, 2026)
Plaintiff's proposed amendment did not advance a new theory of liability but merely expounded on theories of liability already set forth in the prior bill. There was no showing of sufficient surprise or prejudice to deny the amendment. The motion is granted.
Batchilly v. 610 8th Ave. Corp., NY Slip Op 04910 (1st Dep't August 6, 2026)
The portion of the award for legal fees and costs incurred by the defendant in prosecuting a claim for an award of attorneys' fees - so-called "fees on fees," for services performed to recover a fee award - generally must be based upon a specific contractual provision or statute. Where a contract provides for indemnification for "legal costs and charges, including counsel fees," the Appellate Division has determined that it does not provide for fees on fees in the absence of unmistakably clear intent regarding their recovery. However, both the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division have authorized the inclusion of fees for prosecuting or defending an appeal dealing with an award of attorneys' fees.
21st Mtge. Corp. v Nweke, NY Slip Op 04826 (2d Dep't August 5, 2026)
An employer can be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision where the complaint alleges that the employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury.
D & A Grandview, LLC v. 60 Davidson, LLC, NY Slip Op 04743 (2d Dep't July 29, 2026)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)