Service of process

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court, in the exercise of discretion, may grant a motion for an extension of time to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice. In order to establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service. Under the interest of justice standard, the court may consider diligence, or the lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff's request for the extension of time, and prejudice to the defendant.

Farage v. Garden State Veterinary Specialists, Inc., NY Slip Op 04178 (2d Dep't July 1, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Punitive damages

Punitive damages are permitted when the defendant's wrongdoing is not simply intentional but evinces a high degree of moral turpitude and demonstrates such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations. The misconduct must be exceptional, as when the wrongdoer has acted maliciously, wantonly, or with a recklessness that betokens an improper motive or vindictiveness, or has engaged in outrageous or oppressive intentional misconduct or with reckless or wanton disregard of safety or rights. Here, the plaintiff's conclusory allegations that the defendants' conduct was wanton, reckless, and affected the public were insufficient to sustain the demand for punitive damages.

CK Real Estate, LLC v. 2018 Li Lin Realty, LLC, NY Slip Op 04173 (2d Dep't July 1, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

It is the appellant's obligation to assemble a proper record on appeal. The record must contain all of the relevant papers before the Supreme Court. Appeals that are not based upon complete and proper records must be dismissed.

Banks v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04170 (2d Dep't July 1, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Piercing the corporate veil.

Supreme Court properly dismissed the fourth counterclaim, which purports to interpose a cause of action to pierce the corporate veil. The counterclaim, which alleges facts to support an alter ego recovery against plaintiff's principal, fails because veil-piercing is not a stand-alone cause of action.

Avail Holding, LLC v. ICM Funding, LLC, NY Slip Op 04256 (1st Dep't July 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

An appellate court's resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court. 

Alpha Phi Alpha Senior Citizens Ctr., Inc. v. Zeta Zeta Lambda Co., Inc., NY Slip 04166 (2d Dep't July 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Admissibility of evidence

The unaffirmed medical records annexed to plaintiff's pain management specialist's affirmation are inadmissible and cannot not be bootstrapped into evidence through an affirmed report.

Amezquita v. Peguero, NY Slip Op 04137 (1st Dep't June 30, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday

Service of process

A court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant who is not properly served with process. Service upon a natural person must be made in strict compliance with CPLR 308. A process server's affidavit constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service. A mere conclusory denial of service is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service arising from the affidavit. To warrant a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the denial of service must be substantiated by specific, detailed facts that contradict the affidavit.

Here, the process server's affidavit constituted prima facie evidence that the defendant was properly served pursuant to CPLR 308(2). The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service. The defendant's sworn statement submitted in support of his motion contained only conclusory averments that he was not served with process on the date of service and that he lives alone, and was not otherwise substantiated by specific facts. The additional sworn submissions improperly offered by the defendant for the first time in reply may not be considered.

Accesslex Inst. v. Lee, NY Slip Op 04165 (2d Dep't July 1, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default

A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon a default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. A motion to vacate a default is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

Guercia v. Gao, NY Slip Op 03950 (2d Dep't June 24, 2026)

Here is the decision.