Arbitration provisions

Arbitration is a matter of contract, grounded in an agreement between the parties. Thus, when deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter, the court will apply the principles that govern the formation of contracts. If the parties have broadly agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising out of a contract, the court's sole inquiry is whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the underlying contract.

Under contract law, the general rule is that only a party to an arbitration agreement is bound by or may enforce the agreement. However, an assignee of a contract may avail itself of an arbitration clause contained therein.

Breslin Brookhaven, LLC v. Rose, NY Slip Op 05156 (2d Dep't September 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Medical malpractice

To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the treatment provider failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives thereto; (2) a reasonably prudent patient, if fully informed, would not have undergone the treatment; and (3) the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury. The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants' prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. 

Boutereira v. Grotas, NY Slip Op 05155 (2d Dep't September 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

New York courts routinely enforce liability-limitation provisions, especially when negotiated by sophisticated parties. The Appellate Division has recognized an exception to this general rule in cases where a party's alleged misconduct smacks of intentional wrongdoing that is fraudulent, malicious, or prompted by the sinister intention of a party acting in bad faith. The type of intentional wrongdoing that could render a contractual limitation unenforceable is that which is unrelated to any legitimate economic self-interest. Where the conduct in question was undertaken to advance a legitimate economic self-interest, a party is entitled to rely on the contractual limitation provision, notwithstanding the intentional nature of its actions.

Jeffries, LLC v. Mountain State Energy Holdings, LLC, NY Slip Op 05232 (1st Dep't September 3, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal as abandoned

Pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), "[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed."  In order to avoid dismissal pursuant to the statute, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default. As long as proceedings are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case is not subject to dismissal. Once the plaintiff establishes that it had initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year, it is in compliance with CPLR 3215(c) and is not required to account for any additional periods of delay subsequent to the initial one-year period.

Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Miller, NY Slip Op 05153 (2d Dep't September 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Judicial conduct

Judicial remarks that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases do not support a bias or partiality challenge.

Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgt., L.P., NY Slip Op 05231 (1st Dep't September 3, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Arbitration awards

Under CPLR 7511, a party may move to vacate or modify an award if it demonstrates by clear and convincing proof that its rights were prejudiced by the arbitrator's partiality. Partiality can be established by proof of actual bias or the appearance of bias from which a conflict of interest may be inferred. 

Matter of 57th & 6th Ground, LLC v. Carnegie House Tenants Corp., NY Slip Op 05230 (1st Dep't September 3, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Property law

RPAPL 1371(2) specifies, in pertinent part, as follows: "Simultaneously with the making of a motion for an order confirming the sale, . . . the party to whom [a deficiency] shall be owing may make a motion in the action for leave to enter a deficiency judgment upon notice to the party against whom such judgment is sought or the attorney who shall have appeared for such party in such action. Such notice shall be served personally or in such other manner as the court may direct."

Here, the plaintiff's electronic filing of the motion papers on the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System did not constitute proper service in accordance with RPAPL 1371(2). This constitutes a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment.

11-36 31st Ave. Lender, LLC v. RM Newman, LLC, NY Slip Op 05151 (2d Dep't September 2, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

In New York, to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on a cause of action alleging breach of contract, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate the existence of a contract, the party's performance under the contract, the other party's breach of the contract, and harm suffered by the party as a result. An enforceable agreement requires an offer, acceptance of the offer, consideration, mutual assent, and an intent to be bound.

Banc of Am. Leasing & Capital, LLC v. Wooter Apparel, Inc., NY Slip Op 05069 (2d Dep't August 26, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal for failure to prosecute

A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met. Pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that non-compliance within 90 days will serve as a basis for a motion to dismiss. The statute also requires that where a written demand to resume prosecution of the action is made by the court, the demand shall set forth specific conduct demonstrating a pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation.

Avanza Group, LLC v. Bugz Innovations, LLC, NY Slip Op 05068 (2d Dep't August 26, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Malpractice or negligence

Medical malpractice is a species of negligence. The distinction turns on whether the act complained of involves a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by lay persons, or whether the conduct complained of can be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of fact.  A claim sounds in medical malpractice when the challenged conduct constitutes medical treatment or bears a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment by a licensed physician to a particular patient. When a plaintiff's allegations do not focus on negligence in furnishing medical treatment to a patient, but on a physician's failure in fulfilling a different duty, the claim sounds in ordinary negligence. In categorizing a claim for statute of limitations purposes, the court must focus on the essence of the claim, and, critically, identify the nature of the duty owed to the plaintiff that the defendant allegedly breached.

Lafferty v. Avila, NY Slip Op 05147 (1st Dep't August 27, 2026)

Here is the decision.

Indemnification

A party bringing a common-law indemnification claim does not need to have a contractual relationship with the proposed indemnitor. However, the indemnitee's obligation to pay the plaintiff must be predicated either on liability by operation of law, such as vicarious liability, or on an existing relationship between the indemnitor and the indemnitee, such as in the case of a guarantor and principal. The key element of a common-law cause of action for indemnification is not a duty running from the indemnitor to the injured party, but is a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor.

Fidelity Natl. Tit. Ins. Co. v. Sky Abstract Corp., NY Slip Op 05145 (1st Dep't August 27, 2026)

Here is the decision.