Late notice of claim

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to file a late notice of claim, as petitioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing that respondent The City of New York had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time afterward. The police accident report, the record of petitioner's arrest, and the criminal complaint against petitioner did not confer actual knowledge of the essential facts of petitioner's claims; rather, these documents established only that police officers were present on the scene, and that petitioner's motorcycle crashed into a stopped police vehicle while he was travelling at high speed in the wrong direction. These assertions are insufficient to establish actual knowledge by the City of the facts alleged in petitioner's notice of claim, as the documents make no mention of acts that would constitute actionable wrongdoing by any police officers.

In addition, petitioner failed to sustain his burden of showing that the City was not prejudiced by the delay in filing. In order to demonstrate absence of prejudice, petitioner relies solely on the City's purported actual knowledge, concluding that because the City had such knowledge, it did not experience substantial prejudice from petitioner's delay in serving the notice of claim. However, as petitioner failed to sustain his burden of showing that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claims, the burden never shifted to the City to make a particularized showing of prejudice.

Finally, petitioner did not provide any medical records or other evidence corroborating his claim of incapacity. As a result, he failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his delay of serving a notice of claim His purported incapacity is also undercut by his own affidavit, in which he averred that he was still able to attend court appearances and medical treatments, and would have timely served his notice of claim had he been aware of the 90-day requirement.

Matter of Connolly vs. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06383 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Admissibility of business records

The trial court properly excluded from evidence a non-party's invoices which plaintiff sought to admit as business records without supporting testimony from a representative of the non-party. Absent testimony from the non-party, plaintiff was required to establish through testimony or otherwise that it had knowledge of the non-party's business or billing practices or routinely used the invoices in its own business. As plaintiff did not make this showing, the invoices did not qualify for the business record exception, pursuant to CPLR 4518. In any event, the excluded invoices were not relevant, given that they did not purport to describe any defects or damage allegedly caused by defendant.

901 Props., LLC vs. Bear Glass Inc., NY Slip Op 06380 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Preliminary injunction

In order to establish the right to a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the injunction; and (3) that the equities balance in the movant's favor. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo, not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties. Motions for preliminary injunctions pursuant to CPLR 6301 must be made prior to the expiration of the cure period.

217-20 K&A, LLC vs. De Maio Props., LLC, NY Slip Op 06272 (2d Dep't October 28, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Attorney affirmations

The affirmation of a party's attorney who demonstrates no personal knowledge of the matter at issue has no evidentiary value.

Vega vs. Archdiocese of New York, NY Slip Op 06270 (1st Dep't October 27, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Striking a pleading

Defendant's repeated non-compliance with court orders without reasonable excuse warrants striking her answer, especially where at least one prior order warned of the possibility of such a penalty. Defendant's pro se status provides no excuse for non-compliance with her discovery obligations.

Abuzaid vs. Almayouf, NY Slip Op 06238 (1st Dep't October 27, 2026) 

Here is the decision. 

Medical malpractice

Supreme Court providently dismissed the medical malpractice claim pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 since plaintiff had not submitted expert medical opinion evidence necessary to demonstrate that she had a meritorious cause of action. The same cannot be said for the negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims since the merits of those claims, which were asserted in the complaint and the bills of particulars, can be gleaned from the record.

Dupree vs. New York-Presbyterian Columbia Univ. Irving Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 06242 (1st Dep't October 27, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Judicial estoppel

It is well-settled New York law that a party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding may not thereafter assume a contrary position simply because his interests have changed.

Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. vs. Hartsfield, NY Slip Op 06199 (1st Dep't October 22, 2026)

Here is the decision,.

Negligence claims

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he was not at fault in the happening of the accident at issue. Although there may be more than one proximate cause of an accident and proximate cause is generally an issue to be determined by the trier of fact, the issue of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts.

Burton vs. Gurung, NY Slip Op 06088 (2d Dep't October 21, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Default judgments

Supreme Court appropriately denied petitioner's motion for a default judgment, as he moved for relief while the MTA's cross-motion to dismiss was still pending, pursuant to CPLR 7804[f].

Matter of Debnam vs. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., NY Slip Op 06196 (1st Dep't October 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Brokers' commissions

Where an agreement between a landlord and non-party tenant states that the plaintiff is the exclusive broker for the transaction and that the defendant will pay its commission, that representation, supported by documentary evidence, entitles the plaintiff to its commission as a matter of law. The lease renewal agreement between defendant landlord and non-party tenant states that plaintiff is the exclusive broker and that defendant will pay the broker fees relating to the transaction. Defendant's contention that there was no binding agreement or privity between itself and plaintiff is expressly contradicted by this renewal agreement. Plaintiff also submitted emails with defendant's representative showing plaintiff's involvement in the lease negotiations. The court properly rejected defendant's contention that its refusal to execute a subsequent brokerage agreement after the renewal agreement was signed negated its express agreement to pay the commission.

Colliers Intl. NY, LLC vs. City Hall Commons, LLC, NY Slip Op 06195 (1st Dep't October 22, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Expert opinions

An expert should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable.  The admissibility of expert testimony on a particular point is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.

Apuzzo vs. Central Cabinets, LLC, NY Slip Op 06082 (2d Dep't October 21, 2026)

Here is the decision.