A party seeking to vacate an order or judgment 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, pursuant to CPLR 5015[a][1]. The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse, pursuant to CPLR 2005, where there a detailed and credible explanation.
Black v. Taub, NY Slip Op 01177 (2d Dep't March 4, 2026)
On an ample basis in the record, the court may direct a plaintiff to obtain judicial approval before engaging in further vexatious litigation.
Aziz v. Butt, NY Slip Op 01176 (2d Dep't March 4, 2026)
In order to establish a cause of action under General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant's conduct was consumer oriented; (2) the act or practice was deceptive or misleading in a material way; and (3) there was an injury as a result of the deception. Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, do not fall within the ambit of the statute. A single transaction which is tailored to meet the purchaser's wishes and requirements does not constitute consumer-oriented conduct within the meaning of the statute.
Axos Bank v. Michael Gangi Plumbing & Heating Contrs., Inc., NY Slip Op 01175 (2d Dep't March 4, 2026)
While the complaint adequately alleged the unauthorized, knowing, or reckless publishing of a false statement, the statement was not defamatory. Defendant's statement that plaintiff was "lying" was made in the context of a credit card chargeback dispute with plaintiff, who was defendant's customer. The statement, when viewed in this context, and viewed along with the remainder of defendant's written comment to the credit card company, constitutes non-actionable opinion.
Friedman v. Garnet Wine & Liqs., Inc., NY Slip Op 01161 (1st Dep't March 3, 2026)\
Summary judgment on defendant's counterclaims for account stated and quantum merit is granted, as defendant demonstrated that plaintiff received, retained without objection, and partially paid invoices without protest.
North Flats, LLC v. Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, NY Slip Op 01165 (1st Dep't March 3, 2026)
Applications to amend pleadings are within the sound discretion of the court. An application should be freely granted, absent prejudice or surprise directly resulting from a delay in seeking leave, unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, pursuant to CPLR 3025[b]. A proposed amendment that is time-barred is patently devoid of merit.
Becvar v. Our Lady of Consolation Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., NY Slip Op 01026 (2d Dep't February 25, 2026)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)