A time-barred defamation claim.

Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action for defamation because they were barred by the one-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 215 [3]. The alleged defamatory statements were made in 2019 and plaintiff commenced this action in 2024, well outside the one-year limitations period. That plaintiff did not discover the alleged defamation until 2023 is not relevant because the limitations period begins to run upon publication.

The statute of limitations was not tolled due to equitable estoppel, as plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he reasonably relied on defendants' alleged deceptions and misrepresentations which in turn induced him to refrain from filing a timely action. This is so given plaintiff's separate ongoing litigation against these defendants and others, commenced in 2015, alleging fraud and misrepresentations. Thus, any claim that plaintiff relied on defendants' subsequent representations was not reasonable. Defendants also had no duty to disclose the purportedly offending documents. The 2015 action, which would have otherwise been in discovery, had been dismissed at the time that the statements were made and was not reinstated by this Court until well over a year later. Further, even upon reinstatement, plaintiff served no discovery demands in that action until 2024.

Brigham vs. Arnold, NY Slip Op 06520 (1st Dep't November 5, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

Plaintiff was not aggrieved by the court's order to compel, which was decided in her favor, and thus her cross-appeal therefrom is dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 5511. This is so even though she disagrees with the opinion supporting the order below. 

Anil vs. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06519 (1st Dep't November 5, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Attorneys' fees

The cause of action for attorneys' fees was properly dismissed because this claim is not recognized in New York as a separate cause of action. They are recoverable only as an element of contract damages.

Ahmed vs Choudhry, NY Slip Op 06518 (1st Dep't November 5, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Time to serve

 Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a plaintiff is required to serve the summons and complaint within 120 days after commencement of the action. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the defendant within that time, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service. To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service.

If good cause for an extension is not established, the court must consider the broader interest of justice standard of CPLR 306-b. Under 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.

CPLR 308(5) vests a court with discretion to direct an alternative method for service of process when it has determined that the methods set forth in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) are impracticable. A plaintiff seeking to effect expedient service must make some showing that the other prescribed methods of service could not be made.

ARCPE 1, LLC vs. Canales, NY Slip Op 06405 (2d Dep't November 4, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Vacatur

Supreme Court providently denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), (a)(4) and in the interest of justice. The motion was not made within the one-year time period under CPLR 5015(a)(1). Moreover, defendant failed to provide any explanation for the default or an affidavit of merit as to its defenses. As the proposed answer was verified by an attorney without personal knowledge of the facts, it was insufficient to set forth a meritorious defense. As to CPLR 5015(a)(4), it was undisputed that plaintiff served the Secretary of State, and, thus, the court obtained jurisdiction even if those documents never reached defendant. Finally, defendant was not entitled to vacatur in the interest of justice.

Whitaker vs. 1975-1983 Jerome Ave. Corp., NY Slip Op 06398 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice

Plaintiff's failure to include some relevant documents in the record on appeal does not preclude a meaningful review. Plaintiff's arguments are based largely on prior decisions issued by the motion court. Moreover, the record contains the notice of appeal, the order appealed from, the initial motion for summary judgment and the amended notice of motion, and the documents submitted in support of those motions.

Ann Arbor Group, LLC vs. Gherardi, NY Slip Op 06399 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Defendant's argument that plaintiff failed to comply with CPLR 3215(g)(4)(i) because a second copy of the summons and complaint were not served by plaintiff at defendant's last known address is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and the Appellate Division declines to review it.

Whitaker vs. 1975-1983 Jerome Ave. Corp., NY Slip Op 06398 (1st Dep't Oktober 29, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday

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.