Employment law

Under the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment. The employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment. An employer is not liable for assaults or other criminal acts committed by an employee under the theory of respondeat superior where those acts are not in furtherance of the business or within the scope of the employment.

Doe v. Yeshiva of Brooklyn, NY Slip Op 01769 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Service of process

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, grant an extension of time within which 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. The more flexible interest of justice standard accommodates late service that might be due to mistake, confusion, or oversight, as long as there is no prejudice to the defendant. In considering the interest of justice standard, the court may consider diligence, or 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.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Groder, NY Slip Op 01767 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Writs of mandamus

Mandamus does not lie to compel a discretionary act rather than a ministerial one, pursuant to CPLR 7803[1].

Matter of Gomez v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs., NY Slip Op 01915 (1st Dep't March 31, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

In New York, all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance. The covenant is a pledge that neither party will do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the other party's right to the fruit of the contract, even if the contractual terms do not explicitly prohibit such conduct. The duty of good faith and fair dealing is not without limits, and no obligation can be implied that would be inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship.

Zormati v. Citibank, N.A., NY Slip Op 01821 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

Generally, an argument may not be raised for the first time on appeal. There is an exception for a pure question of law, evident on the face of the record, which could not have been avoided if it had been  raised at the proper point.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Weaver, NY Slip Op 01760 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Motions to discontinue

The mere pendency of a motion for summary judgment is not itself a special circumstance warranting denial of a motion to discontinue, pursuant to CPLR 3217(b).

Canara Bank, London Branch v. MVP Group Intl., Inc., NY Slip Op 01868 (1st Dep't March 26, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

Plaintiffs do not address the merits of the order on appeal or the sanctions it imposed. Therefore, plaintiffs' appeal from that order is deemed abandoned and is dismissed.

Drew v. U-Haul Intl., Inc., NY Slip Op 01914 (1st Dep't March 31, 2026)

Here is the decision.

A court's continuing jurisdiction

During the pendency of an action, courts retain continuing jurisdiction to reconsider their prior interlocutory orders. So, the court may properly exercise its discretion to consider an untimely motion to reargue.

Daniello v. J.T. Magen & Co., Inc., NY Slip Op 01913 (1st Dep't March 31, 2026) 

Here is the decision.

Contract law

The best evidence of what the parties to an agreement intended is what they set forth in their writing. When interpreting a contract, the court must read the document as a whole to determine the parties' purpose and intent, giving a practical interpretation to the language used so that the parties' reasonable expectations are realized. The conclusion that a party's promise should be ignored as meaningless is, at best, a last resort.  The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging breach of contract is six years, and the cause of action accrues at the time of the breach.

Breslin Brookhaven, LLC v. Rose, NY Slip Op 01756 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Declaratory judgments

A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration. The general purpose of the declaratory judgment is to serve some practical end in quieting or stabilizing an uncertain or disputed jural relation either as to present or prospective obligations. Where a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court's power to render a declaratory judgment as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy, a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied.

Breslin Brookhaven, LLC v. Rose, NY Slip Op 01757 (2d Dep't March 25, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Evidentiary matters

In this personal injury action, any shortcomings in the witnesses' memory or perception merely go to credibility and the weight of the evidence, not its competence. The value to be accorded to the evidence is a matter for resolution by the trier of fact.

Pichardo v. George Units, LLC, NY Slip Op 01926 (1st Dep't March 31, 2026)

Here is the decision.