Defaults

After having been served with process, the defendant who wants to avoid a default must respond in a proper and timely manner. CPLR 320 specifies three ways by which the defendant can appear in the action: (1) service of an answer; (2) making a motion which has the effect of extending the time to answer; or (3) serving a notice of appearance.

A notice of appearance is a simple document that notifies the plaintiff that the defendant is appearing in the action. Although a defendant appears within the meaning of CPLR 320(a) by merely serving a notice of appearance, service of the notice does not absolve a defendant from complying with the time restrictions imposed by CPLR 320(a) which govern the service of an answer or the making of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Contrary to the defendants' contention, they defaulted in appearing in the action by failing to timely answer the complaint. The filing of a notice of appearance and opposition to the plaintiff's prior motions did not cure the defendants' default.

55-57 Hester Grocery, Inc. v. Queens Metro Stop, Inc., NY Slip Op 04392 (2d Dep't July 15, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

The appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing to determine whether the defendant was properly served with process is dismissed. The challenged portion of the order merely directed a judicial hearing to aid in the disposition of a motion and does not affect a substantial right. Therefore, it is not appealable as of right, and leave to appeal has not been granted.

Chevy Chase Funding, LLC v. Aucapina, NY Slip Op 04274 (2d Dep't July 8, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal for lack of standing

Where the defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) on the ground of lack of standing, the burden is on the moving defendant to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff's lack of standing, rather than on the plaintiff to affirmatively establish its standing in order for the motion to be denied.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co v. Pruitt, NY Slip Op 04271 (2d Dep't July 8, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Motion to renew

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to renew. Plaintiff did not submit newly discovered facts that existed but were unknown to it when it made its original motion. Rather, plaintiff asserted on its renewal motion that the original order to show cause had since been properly electronically filed and that the death of defendant-borrower divested the court of jurisdiction to issue the original order. However, his death was not newly discovered, nor was it unknown to plaintiff at the time of the original motion. On the contrary, by its own account, plaintiff was aware of defendant's 2014 death as early as October 6, 2015, when it was informed of the death at a hearing. Plaintiff also did not offer a reasonable justification for its failure to include the purportedly new facts on the original motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2] and [3].

In any event, the motion fails on the merits. Plaintiff failed to establish how defendant's death would have affected the merits of this case, nor did it establish that a stay of the proceedings was mandated pending substitution of a legal representative under CPLR 1015(a). Before defendant's death, the mortgage was in default, this action had been commenced, and plaintiff had already been granted summary judgment on its complaint as against defendant.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Vitucci, NY Slip Op 04366 (1st Dep't July 9, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Expert witness testimony

While a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable. Where the witness opines outside his area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered.

Akimov v. Bilik, NY Slip Op 04270 (2d Dep't July 8, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Notice of pendency

Pursuant to CPLR 6501, the filing of a notice of pendency provides constructive notice of an action in which the judgment demanded may affect the title to real property. The statute further provides that a person whose conveyance is recorded after the filing of a notice of pendency is bound by all proceedings taken in the action after such filing to the same extent as if he or she were a party.

16011, LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A., NY Slip Op 04269 (2d Dep't July 8, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Arbitration

The petition to vacate the arbitration award is denied, as the arbitrators' decisions were neither arbitrary, capricious, without rational basis, nor contrary to settled law.

Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Mark Heyligers, DC, NY Slip Op 04363 (1st Dep't July 9, 2026)

Here is the decision.

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.