An owner of a baseball field is not an insurer of the safety of its spectators, but as with any other owner of occupier of land, it is only under a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent injury to those who come to watch the games being played on its field.
Swanson v. Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, NY Slip Op 01392 (2d Dep't March 11, 2026)
A defaulting defendant is deemed to have admitted all factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that flow therefrom.
Schreiber v. Nissan Lift of N.Y., Inc., NY Slip Op (2d Dep't March 11, 2026)
The plaintiff must allege that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff's expense, and (3) it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered. The plaintiff must establish that it conferred a benefit on the other party and that the other party will retain that benefit without adequate compensation. There must be a showing of reliance, and the claim is based on an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties. While privity is not required, the cause of action will not be supported if the connection between the parties is too attenuated. Further, the claim is not available where it simply duplicates or replaces a conventional contract or tort claim.
Ryan v. Guadagnino, NY Slip Op 01390 (2d Dep't March 11, 2026)
The threshold question with respect to any contract-based cause of action is whether a binding contract was ever formed. In order to create a binding contract, there must be a manifestation of mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms. Courts look to the basic elements of the offer and acceptance to determine whether there is an objective meeting of the minds sufficient to give rise to a binding and enforceable contract. An offer not given for consideration may be revoked at any time, and the moment of acceptance is the moment the contract is created. In the case of a contract conveying an interest in real property, the statute of frauds requires that an agreement be reduced to a written instrument signed by the party against whom the plaintiff seeks to enforce the agreement. Here, the contract lacked the signature of one of the sellers and so no binding and enforceable contract was formed.
Real-X Realty, LLC v. Crest Bellport, LLC, NY Slip Op 01389 (2d Dep't March 11, 2026)
A court has the inherent discretionary authority to vacate its own order in the interests of substantial justice when unique or unusual circumstances warrant such relief. A court's exercise of its inherent authority to vacate an order or judgment in the interests of substantial justice should ordinarily be reserved for instances involving evidence of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Brown-Wilks v. Vornado Realty Trust, NY Slip Op 01179 (2d Dep't March 4, 2026)
The court properly dismissed plaintiffs' fraud claim, which is premised largely on allegations made on information and belief and fails to identify any materially false representations on which plaintiffs had relied.
SKYX Group Inc. v. Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, NY Slip Op 01330 (1st Dep't March 10, 2026)
Plaintiff's post-accident statements to his domestic partner and to the responding police officer that he fell on the defendant's scaffolding on the sidewalk are not admissible under the exceptions to the rule against hearsay as excited utterances or present-sense impressions. The statements were not contemporaneous with the incident, nor were they made while plaintiff was still under the stress of excitement after the fall.
Schiff v. Intersystem S&S Corp., NY Slip Op 01294 (1st Dep't March 5, 2026)
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)\