Employment law

In this action alleging disability discrimination under the State and City's Human Rights Laws, plaintiff's summary judgment motion is denied and defendant's cross-motion to dismiss is granted. There is no evidence that defendants made pejorative comments about people with COVID or treated similarly situated employees differently based on their COVID status. Evidence that defendants required plaintiff to present a negative COVID test to return to work does not permit an inference of discriminatory animus. On the contrary, the New York City Commission on Human Rights provides that, "[c]onsistent with employers' need to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of their businesses, employers may require employees to provide evidence of their ability to safely return to the workplace after recovering from COVID-19 and to confirm that they are not contagious."

Frantz v. XL Diamonds, LLC, NY Slip Op 03067 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Motions to intervene

Intervention is to be liberally granted, pursuant to CPLR 1012 and 1013, whether sought as of right or in the court's discretion. However, it is warranted only where the proposed intervenor demonstrates a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

Bapaz NYC W. St. Group, LLC v. Assa Props., Inc., NY Slip Op 03061 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

The denial of defendant's letter application for leave to file a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made upon notice, pursuant to CPLR 5701 [a] [2].

Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Bartlett, NY Slip Op 03092 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given absent prejudice to the non-moving party, pursuant to CPLR 3025(b). However, a motion for leave to amend should be denied when the proposed amendments are palpably insufficient as a matter of law or fail to state a cause of action. Here, the proposed amended answer consists of a recitation of the elements of the claim and conclusory allegations based upon information and belief. Motion denied.

Wiener Realty Mgt., LLC v. One Penn Plaza, LLC, NY Slip Op 03094 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Discovery disputes

Motions relating to discovery disputes must include an affidavit of a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without judicial intervention.

Howari v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., NY Slip Op 03059 (2d Dep't May 14, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

Plaintiff's argument that the affidavit of defendant's vice president was not based on personal knowledge was not raised below, depriving defendant of an opportunity to cure the defect, and so the issue is unpreserved.

Adames v. Galaxy Gen. Contr. Corp., NY Slip Op 03054 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Legal malpractice

The statute of limitations for a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice is three years, which accrues at the time the malpractice is committed, not when the client discovers it. However, causes of action alleging legal malpractice which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies. For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney, which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice.

Chester v. List, NY Slip Op 02962 (2d Dep't May 13, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Extending time to serve

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend and in extending plaintiff's time to serve the amended complaint in the interest of justice, pursuant to CPLR 306-b, 3025[b]). Plaintiff failed to serve Charter within the 120-day period provided in CPLR 306-b, but plaintiff demonstrated that Charter had actual notice of plaintiff's claim shortly after plaintiff filed the original pleadings, that she has a potentially meritorious claim, that the statute of limitations expired, and that she ultimately effectuated service on Charter. Charter failed to show that it was prejudiced by the extension as there is no evidence that the delay in service impaired Charter's ability to investigate the claim or defend it on the merits, and the mere passage of time is insufficient to create prejudice.

Blount v. Verizon, NY Slip Op 02918 (1st Dep't May 12, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

The existence of a valid contract governing the subject matter precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter.

Harbord v. A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc., NY Slip Op 02827 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Referees' reports

The report should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility. However, the referee's findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute.

Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. McDonald, NY Slip Op 02826 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' cross-motions for leave to amend the complaint, as the action had already been certified as ready for trial, approximately 2½ years had passed since the plaintiffs filed the complaint, the new causes of action were based on facts that the plaintiffs had been aware of since the commencement of the action, and the plaintiffs did not provide any excuse for their delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint to add those causes of action.

Dwyer v. Montefiore New Rochelle Hospital, NY Slip Op 02825 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)

Here is the decision.