Pleading fraud.

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for fraud require a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and damages.  A claim rooted in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 3016(b).

ANS 1 Corp. v. Yosef, NY Slip Op 06684 (2d Dep't December 3, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Discovery

The nature and degree of a penalty imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with discovery is within the trial court's discretion. Although public policy strongly favors that actions be resolved on the merits, a court may resort to the drastic remedies of striking a pleading or precluding evidence upon a clear showing that a party's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful and contumacious conduct. The willful and contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from either the repeated failure to respond to demands or comply with discovery orders without demonstrating a reasonable excuse for these failures, or the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time.

Barua v. IM Peculiar, Inc., NY Slip Op 06591 (2d Dep't November 26, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law

Where there is an inconsistency between a general provision and a specific provision of a contract, the specific provision controls.

Moghtaderi v. Apis Capital Advisors, LLC, NY Slip Op 06548 (1st Dep't November 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Res judicata

A disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties or those in privity with them of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding, even if based on a different theory or if seeking a different remedy. A party may not remain silent in the first action and then bring a second one on the basis of a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action.

Bartley v. Morgan, NY Slip Op 06590 (2d Dep't November 26, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Extending time

Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a court may, in the exercise of discretion, grant an extension of time within which to effect service for good cause shown or in the interest of justice. 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.

Bank of N.Y. v. Hernandez, NY Slip Op 06589 (2d Dep't November 26, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motion Practice.

A plaintiff may not raise a claim for the first time in its opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Myers v. Doherty, NY Slip Op 06550 (1st Dep't November 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Settling an Ordet.

22 NYCRR 202.48(c)(1) provides that "[w]hen settlement of an order or judgment is directed by the court, a copy of the proposed order or judgment with notice of settlement . . . shall be served on all parties." Further, 22 NYCRR 202.48(a) provides that "[p]roposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted." The failure to "submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown," pursuant to § 202.48(b). However, a court should not deem an action or judgment abandoned where the result would not bring the repose to court proceedings that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was designed to effectuate and would waste judicial resources.

Here, the record does not show that the plaintiff settled the order in accordance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48(a). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying vacatur of the order of reference and the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(b). The defendant was not prejudiced by the plaintiff's failure to strictly comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48. Moreover, the denial of vacatur pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48(b) brought repose to the proceedings and preserved judicial resources.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v. Ahmed, NY Slip Op 06588 (2d Dep't November 26, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Escrow.

The purpose of an escrow is to assure the carrying out of an obligation already contracted for. If an escrow is established, the instrument in escrow becomes irrevocable.

United Legwear Co., LLC v. All in the Cards, Inc., NY Slip Op 06557 (1st Dep't November 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Court Holiday.

Storm-in-Progress Rule.

Plaintiff is a tenant of an apartment building owned and managed by defendants. She alleges that she was injured when she slipped and fell on ice on the walkway in front of her building. On the day of the accident, it had been raining and snowing before plaintiff left the building, and the building superintendent had removed sleet and snow from the area around the building entrance, placing salt on the ground near the entrance. The superintendent testified that he was salting the sidewalk in front of the building when he learned of plaintiff's accident.

Defendants established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting climatological data and a meteorologist's affidavit showing that there was a winter storm in progress at the time of the accident. Defendants' evidence was corroborated by the deposition testimony of the superintendent, who stated that sleet was falling around the time that plaintiff fell.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her conclusory deposition testimony that it was not snowing at the time of of the accident does not raise a triable issue. Neither does laintiff's speculation that defendants' snow removal was inadequate  Plaintiff presented no evidence that the superintendent created or exacerbated the icy condition of the walkway through his efforts to clear the snow and ice from the front of the building.

Reversed and dismissed.

Patterson v. 786 E 182, LLC, NY Slip Op 06392 (1st Dep't November 20m 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to Dismiss.

In considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court should liberally construe the complaint and accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and any submissions in opposition to the motion to dismiss.  Evidentiary material submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to dismissal may be considered to remedy defects in the complaint. If the court considers evidentiary material, the criterion becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one.  

Berman v. Sosman, NY Slip Op 06304 (2d Dep't November 19, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Discovery Sanctions.

Pursuant to CPLR 3126(1), the imposition of sanctions against the party from whom discovery is sought requires a pattern of deliberate, contumacious delay, as opposed to aberrant behavior where there otherwise is substantial compliance with discovery demands or a failure to comply based on a mistaken interpretation of what was required to be produced.

Sherman v. Zampella, NY Slip Op 06397 (1st Dep't November 20, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Fraud Claims.

The elements of a cause of action for fraud are a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and damages. A fraud claim must be pleaded with particularity, pursuant to CPLR 3016(b). The purpose of CPLR 3016(b) is to inform a defendant of the complained of incidents, and the statute should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud. CPLR 3016(b) is satisfied when the facts permit a reasonable inference of the alleged misconduct.

American Premium Realty Group, LLC v. 37-19 Realty, Inc., NY Slip Op 06301 (2d Dep't November 19, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Quantum Meruit.

The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum meruit are: (1) the performance of the services in good faith; (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered; (3) an expectation of compensation therefor; and (4) the reasonable value of the services.  The question of whether a party had a reasonable expectation of compensation for services rendered is a matter for the trier of fact to determine based on the evidence before it.

239 E.18th Owners Corp. v. Wade, NY Slip Op 06384 (1st Dep't November 20, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Discovery.

CPLR 3101(a)(4), concerning disclosure from non-parties to an action, provides for full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by anyone, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought. The party who served the subpoena has an initial burden to show that the non-party was apprised of the circumstances or reasons that discovery is sought. If that is satisfied, it is then the burden of the person moving to quash a subpoena to establish either that the requested disclosure 'is irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious. Should the movant meet this burden, the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action.

Dorman v. Luva of NY, LLC, NY Slip Op 06155 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice.

The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Santiago, NY Slip Op 06300 (1st Dep''t November 18, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Legal Malpractice.

In order to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney's breach of duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages. In addition, the plaintiff must establish that there was an attorney-client relationship. An attorney's conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff's damages if but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action, or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages.

Coniglio v. Dansker & Aspromonte Assoc., NY Slip Op 06154 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice.

The Appellate Division is empowered to address an issue which was fully argued by the parties but not addressed by the Supreme Court.

Bamonte v. Charatan, NY Slip Op 06152 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Failure to Appear.

What constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default generally lies within the sound discretion of the motion court. The reasonable excuse determination is sui generis and should be based on all relevant factors, including the length of the delay, the existence of any prejudice, whether the default was willful, and the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits.

Metropolis Elec. Corp. v. Vector Bldg. Corp., NY Slip Op 06259 (1st Dep't November 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Time-Barred Claims.

On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence establishing that the action was timely or to raise a question of fact as to whether the action was timely. Where an action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which there is a specific limitation period, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period. So, where a proceeding could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies.

Argo v. NYCERS, NY Slip Op 06151 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Fraud on the Court.

A fraud on the court involves willful conduct that is deceitful and obstructionist, which injects misrepresentations and false information into the judicial process so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding.

Taveras v. Tuck-It-Away Assoc., L.P., NY Slip Op 06148 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Injunctive Relief.

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor.

Doering v. Oelsner, NY Slip Op 06048 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

A Cause of Action for Conversion.

A cause of action sounding in conversion lies when someone, intentionally and without authority, assumes or exercises control over personal property belonging to someone else, interfering with that person's right of possession.

Antebi v. Guindi, NY Slip Op 06044 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal of Affirmative Defenses.

CPLR 3211(b) provides that "[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more defenses, on the ground that a defense is not stated or has no merit." When moving to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the affirmative defenses are without merit as a matter of law because they either do not apply under the factual circumstances of the case,or fail to state a defense. On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(b), the court should apply the same standard it applies to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), and the factual assertions of the defense will be accepted as true. If there is any doubt as to the availability of a defense, it should not be dismissed.

Diversified Bldg. Co., LLC v. Nader Enters., LLC, NY Slip Op 06047 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Court Holiday.

Iwo Jima, February-March 1945

The Sufficiency of a Pleading.

At the pleading stage, all that is required is that the plaintiff plead statements that are sufficiently particular to give the defendant notice of the occurrence intended to be proved, pursuant to CPLR 3013.

TerraCotta Nine, LLC v. BR 52, LLC, NY Slip Op 06149 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motion for Renewal.

The court providently denied renewal, as defendant admitted that the documents it sought to introduce were previously available and failed to explain why they were not submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][3].

134 Lexington, LLC v. Bhawani Maa, LLC, NY Slip Op 06125 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

The Law of Waiver.

A waiver is the voluntary abandonment or relinquishment of a known right.  A waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence, but, rather, the party claiming a waiver must proffer evidence of a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and otherwise enforceable right. Contractual rights may be waived if they are knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally abandoned,

Antebi v. Guindi, NY Slip Op 06044 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Fraudulent Inducement.

The court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the fraudulent inducement cause of action, as the record establishes that plaintiff had the means of discovering, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the potential consequences of those terms of the agreement that it alleges caused it to suffer damages. It is significant that plaintiff is a sophisticated party. Moreover, plaintiff has not pleaded any specific misrepresentations or concealment.

Innovative  Sec., LTD. v. OBEX Sec. LLC, NY Slip Op 06023 (1st Dep't October 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Defamation.

 In an action to recover damages for libel or slander, "the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint," pursuant to CPLR 3016[a]. The complaint must also allege the time when, place where, and manner in which the false statement was made, and specify to whom it was made. Compliance with CPLR 3016(a) is strictly enforced, and a cause of action sounding in defamation which fails to comply with these pleading requirements must be dismissed.

Marcigliano v. Coulianidis, NY Slip Op 05945 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice.

Plaintiff's appeal from the order denying her motion to resettle, which Supreme Court treated as a motion to reargue, must be dismissed. Regardless of how the motion is characterized, no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement, clarification, or reargument.

Genna v. Klempner, NY Slip Op 06020 (1st Dep't October 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Auto Accidents.

A driver who fails to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign is in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), and is negligent as a matter of law. A driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision.

Canchari v. Goberdhan, NY Slip Op 05934 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Adverse Possession.

In order to establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period of at least 10 years. As to the exclusivity element, the adverse possessor must alone care for or improve the disputed property as if it were his own. The hostility element is satisfied where an individual asserts a right to the property that is adverse to the title owner and also in opposition to the rights of the true owner. A claim of right means a reasonable basis for the belief that the property belongs to the adverse possessor or property owner, and can be founded on a written instrument.

Walters v. O'Quinn, NY Slip Op 05988 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

A Parent Corporation's Liability.

Absent complete domination and control over a wholly owned subsidiary, the parent corporation is exempt from liability for torts committed by the subsidiary.

Reyes v. 45 & 47 Wadsworth Ave. Co., LLC, NY Slip Op 06038 (1st Dep't October 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Piercing the Corporate Veil.

The courts will disregard the corporate form, or pierce the corporate veil, whenever necessary to prevent fraud or to achieve equity. A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked, and (2) that the domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury. The mere claim that a corporation was completely dominated by its owners or conclusory claims that a corporation was the owners' alter ego do not merit the equitable relief of piercing the corporate veil. The court will consider factors such as whether there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, the lack of capitalization, co-mingling of assets, and the personal use of corporate funds.

Anderson v. ML Real Estate Holdings, LLC, NY Slip Op 05931 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract Law: Warranties and Representations.

Where the contract expressly disclaims any warranties or representations, a cause of action alleging breach based on a warranty or representation does not lie.

4 Colonial Dr., LLC v. Suburban Consultants, Ltd., NY Slip Op 05930 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Default Judgments.

A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief from what is demanded in the complaint. The judgment is vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court for entry of an amended judgment limiting the award to the amount originally demanded in the complaint.

Deutsch v. Levy, NY Slip Op 05790 (2d Dep't October 22, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Arbitration.

A party seeking to compel arbitration must establish that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate. General Business Law § 399-c voids arbitration clauses in a written contract for the sale of consumer goods to which a consumer is a party.

Chrzan v. Malinowski, NY Slip Op 05788 (2d Dep't October 22, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract Law: Recission.

Rescission is an equitable remedy, and a claim for rescission may be asserted only against a party to the contract.

Will B. Sandler Disclaimer Trust v. Swersky, NY Slip Op 05909 (1st Dep't October 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motion for Renewal.

Defendant's motion for renewal is denied as untimely, since it was filed after the time to appeal from the judgment had passed.

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. FSB v. Scaffidi, NY Slip Op 05910 (1st Dep't October 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Amending a Pleading.

A party may amend its pleading at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties, pursuant to CPLR 3025[b]. Whether to grant leave to amend is within the trial court's discretion. Leave to amend a pleading should be granted where the amendment is neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and the delay in seeking amendment does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party. The burden of demonstrating prejudice or surprise, or that a proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, falls upon the party opposing the motion. No evidentiary showing of merit is required under CPLR 3025(b).

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. David, NY Slip Op 05791 (2d Dep't October 22, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Written Orders.

A written order must conform strictly to the court's decision, and in the event of an inconsistency, the decision controls. An inconsistency may be corrected either by way of a motion for resettlement or on appeal, pursuant to CPLR 2221 and 5019[a].

American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Hackensack Surgery Ctr., LLC, NY Slip Op 05787 (2d Dep't October 22, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Preclusion.

A conditional order of preclusion requires a party to provide discovery by a date certain, or face the sanctions specified in the order. The court will not inquire as to whether the failure to cooperate had been willful. Failure to comply with the order makes it absolute.

Alston v. New York City Tr. Auth., NY Slip Op 05786 (2d Dep't October 22, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice.

An appellate court's resolution of an issue on a prior appeal constitutes the law of the case and is binding on the Supreme Court, as well as on the appellate court.

Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef, Inc. v. Werzberger, NY Slip Op 05666 (2d Dep't October 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary Judgment.

A party may raise an unpleaded issue on summary judgment if the other party is not taken by surprise and does not suffer prejudice. Here, there was no surprise because the issue was discussed at the depositions of at least two defendants.

White v. Turitz, NY Slip Op 05758 (1st Dep't October 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Disqualification of an Attorney.

The disqualification of an attorney rests within the sound discretion of the court. Although a party's entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of its own choosing is a valued right, that right will not supersede a clear showing that disqualification is warranted. On a motion to disqualify an attorney, the moving party bears the burden of showing that disqualification is warranted.

Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef, Inc. v. Werzberger, NY Slip Op 05665 (2d Dep't October 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Unknown Defendants.

Pursuant to CPLR 1024, "[a] party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known." Reliance on the statute requires the plaintiff to exercise due diligence to identify the defendant prior to the running of the statute of limitations. Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the John Doe's name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party. The John Doe party must be described so as to fairly apprise the party that he is the intended defendant.

Abrego v. Tile World Import Corp., NY Slip Op 05661 (2d Dep't October 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to Renew.

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to renew, finding that the purportedly new facts would not have changed the judgment, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2].  The new information, which concerned whether respondents had relied on similar settlement agreements in other administrative proceedings, would not have altered the applicability of this settlement agreement to preclude judicial review.

383 W. Broadway Corp. v. Solomon, NY Slip Op 05741 (1st Dep't October 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal: Evidentiary Material.

Where evidentiary material is submitted and considered on a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the question becomes whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has stated one. Unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the plaintiff to be one is not a fact at all, and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it, the motion should be denied.

60 E. 196, LLC v. Tokio Mar. Specialty Ins. Co., NY Slip Op 05660 (2d Dep't October 15, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Negligence Claims.

The elements of a common-law negligence claim are a duty, its breach, and an injury proximately resulting therefrom. The duty element may be rooted in a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant or between the defendant and a third-person tortfeasor.

Aydiner v. Quijije, NY Slip Op 05489 (2d Dep't October 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Real Property Law: Purchaser for Value.

Pursuant to Real Property Law § 266, a bona fide purchaser for value is protected in its title unless it had previous notice of an alleged fraud. A bona fide purchaser's title is protected absent notice of the immediate grantor's fraudulent intent, or of fraud rendering void the title of the grantor.  In order to establish that it is a bona fide purchaser for value, a party has the burden of proving that it purchased the property for valuable consideration and that it did not purchase with knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiry. The intended purchaser must be presumed to have investigated the title, and to have examined every deed or instrument properly recorded, and to have known every fact disclosed or to which an inquiry suggested by the record would have led. Accordingly, a purchaser who fails to use due diligence in examining the title is chargeable, as a matter of law, with notice of the facts which a proper inquiry would have disclosed.

Alli v Navins Holdings, Inc., NY Slip Op 05487 (2d Dep't October 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Corporate Law: Boards of Directors.

New York trial courts have expressly held that a board of directors is not an entity that may be sued separately from the corporation, and federal courts have held likewise.

Tahari v. 860 Fifth Ave. Corp., NY Slip Op 05584 (1st Dep't October 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Dismissal: Documentary Evidence.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law.

Artzy v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, NY Slip Op 05488 (2d Dep't October 8, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Court holiday.

Appellate pracctice.

The Appellate Division declines to consider plaintiff's unpreserved argument that the relation back doctrine under CPLR 203(f) is applicable, as it is not a purely legal argument that is apparent on the face of the record.

Wayman v, CPE Hous. Dev. Fund Co.,Inc., NY Slip Op 05485 (1st Dep't October 7, 2025)

Here is the decision

Motions to dismiss: Cross-claims.

Where a defendant is not liable on any causes of action in the complaint, the cross-claims against that defendant must be dismissed.

Dluzen v. Equinox Group, NY Slip Op 05486 (1st Dep't October 7, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Sanctions for frivolous conduct.

In its discretion, a court may award expenses and attorney's fees as a sanction for frivolous conduct. The party seeking sanctions has the burden to demonstrate that its opponent's conduct was frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c).

Contreras v. Jimmy"s Auto Top, NY Slip Op 05215 (2d Dep't October 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Evading service.

Defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment is denied, as the record supports an inference that defendant deliberately attempted to evade service. Through its chief executive officer's affidavit, defendant demonstrated that it did not receive notice of the summons in time to defend because it neglected to update its address with the Secretary of State. However, eight months before plaintiff commenced the action, plaintiff sent defendant a letter that was labeled a pre-litigation notice, that warned defendant that plaintiff would pursue all available legal remedies to recover the balance owed under their agreements, and that reserved all of plaintiff's rights, claims, and causes of action arising from their agreements. Defendant did not dispute that it received this notice. Despite knowing of the looming threat of litigation, defendant never updated its address with the Secretary of State.

Raistone Purchasing v. London Luxury, NY Slip Op 05324 (1st Dep't October 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

A party opposing summary judgment is entitled to obtain further discovery when it appears that there may be facts supporting the opposing party's position but the cannot then be stated. A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant. The mere hope or speculation that discovery may reveal evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment does not warrant denial of the motion.

Charles v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 05213 (2d Dep't October 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Unjust enrichment.

A cause of action for unjust enrichment does not lie where it merely duplicates or replaces a contract or tort claim, including tortious interference.

WarnerDirect, LLC v. Paramount Global, NY Slip Op 05330 (1st Dep't October 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice: Bench Trials.

In reviewing a trial court's findings of fact following a non-jury trial, the Appellate Division's authority is as broad as that of the trial court and includes the power to render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.

Arden Besunder, P.C. v. Harwood, NY Slip Op 05211 (2d Dep't October 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice: Superseding judgments.

The amended judgment, sua sponte, merely corrected typographical errors and annexed plaintiff's costs and disbursements. It did not affect any substantive rights decided upon the original judgment and does not supersede the original judgment for purposes of taking an appeal.

21st Mtge. Corp. v. Jin Hua Lin, NY Slip Op 05288 (1st Dep't October 2, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law: Oral modifications.

The statute of frauds bars an oral modification where the contract provides that modifications must be in writing, but an oral modification is enforceable if there is partial performance.

2261 Realty, LLC v. Cai Ping Wang, NY Slip Op 05210 (2d Dep't October 1, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to amend.

Leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted absent prejudice or surprise or unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, pursuant to CPLR 3025 [b].

Norguard Ins. Co. v. 148 W. Owner, LLC, NY Slip Op 05193 (1st Dep't September 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew.

A motion for leave to renew requires a change in the law that would change the prior determination. A clarification of the decisional law is sufficient to support renewal.

Bank of Am. N.A. v. Levada, NY Slip Op 05056 (2d Dep't September 24, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Striking a pleading.

Plaintiff's motion to strike the answer is denied because counsel's affirmation of good faith is insufficient. Counsel states only perfunctorily that defendants failed to comply with four court orders for a deposition and that he contacted defendants on a certain date to confirm the deposition. Counsel fails to attest that he conducted an in-person or telephonic conference, as required by 22 NYCRR 202.20-f(b).

Servan v. ES Bldrs. Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 05184 (1st Dep't September 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

An agent executing a contract on behalf of a disclosed principal is not liable for breach in the absence of clear and explicit evidence of the agent's intention to assume personal liability.

166-20 Union Turnpike, LLC v. Tavak, LLC, NY Slip Op05054 (2d Dep't September 24, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Personal jurisdiction.

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who, in person or through an agent,  transacts any business within the State, pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1). The statute requires purposeful activities, that is, those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

McGuire v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, NY Slip Op 05154 (1st Dep't September 25, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The Appellate Division will not decide an issue based on a position that was not argued, either on appeal or below. Resolving disputes in such a manner would be impractical and an obstacle to the orderly administration of justice. While dispositive legal arguments may be raised for the first time on appeal, the arguments must actually be raised.

938 St. Nicholas Ave. Lender LLC v. 936-938 Cliffcrest Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., NY Slip Op 05052 (1st Dep't September 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

It is well settled that a court's role in deciding a motion for summary judgment is issue finding, not issue determination. Moreover, in deciding the motion, it is not the court's function to assess credibility. Here, the parties' conflicting versions of how the accident occurred preclude summary judgment.

Wachtel v. Alan Joel Communications, Inc., NY Slip Op 05053 (1st Dep't September 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Quantum meruit.

Quantum meruit may be pleaded in the alternative where there is a bona fide dispute as to whether there is a contract, or where the contract does not cover the dispute in issue.

Kliger-Weiss Infosystems, Inc. v. Darien Sport Shop, Inc., NY Slip Op 04981 (2d Dep't September 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

The court may accept a detailed claim of law office failure as a reasonable excuse for a default, but mere neglect is insufficient.

Feng Li v. Changeling Xue, NY Slip Op 04979 (2d Dep't September 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Employment law.

A plaintiff alleging discrimination by a public employer may proceed pursuant to article 78 or by plenary action. As a department of the City, the NYPD is not a separate legal entity amenable to suit.

Farah v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04978 (2d Dep't September 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Civil contempt.

In order to sustain a finding of civil contempt under Judiciary Law § 753, it is necessary to establish that a lawful court order clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect, that the person alleged to have violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that the violation has defeated, impaired, impeded, or prejudiced the rights of a party. The aim of civil contempt is to vindicate a party's right to the benefits of a judicial mandate or to compensate that party for the interference by the contemnor. The party seeking a finding of contempt bears the burden of proving its elements by clear and convincing evidence.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Raimo, NY Slip Op 04976 (2d Dep't September 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Severance.

It is within a trial court's discretion to grant the severance of a third-party's claim, but the discretion should be exercised sparingly. The statute is CPLR 1010.

Carvajal v. Alcaide, NY Slip Op 04973 (2d Dep't September 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

A guaranty is a promise to fulfill another party's obligations, and is subject to the principles of contract construction. Under those principles, a written agreement that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms. Guaranties that contain language obligating the guarantor to payment without recourse to any defenses or counterclaims are enforceable as absolute and unconditional.  On a motion for summary judgment to enforce a written guaranty, all that the creditor need prove is an absolute and unconditional guaranty, the underlying debt, and the guarantor's failure to perform under the guaranty.

Almark Holding Co,, LLC v. Abbas, NY Slip Op 04969 (2d Dep't September 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

The failure to serve process leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void. The burden of proving that personal jurisdiction has been acquired over a defendant is on the plaintiff.

Service of process upon a natural person must be made in strict compliance with statutory methods of service pursuant to CPLR 308. CPLR 308 requires that service be attempted by personal delivery of the summons to the person to be served, or by delivery to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode. Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where service under CPLR 308(1) or (2) cannot be made with due diligence. The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received. The due diligence requirement may be met with a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant's residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found at such location at those times. In addition, it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant's whereabouts and place of employment.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Simpson, NY Slip Op 04970 (2d Dep't September 17, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Hearsay.

A proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker's business practices and procedures. Computations based on a review of unidentified and unproduced business records constitute inadmissible hearsay and lack probative value.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. Barnett, NY Slip Op 04861 (2d Dep't September 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Duty of care.

Whether there is a duty of care is a question of law. Absent a duty, there is no breach and, without breach, there is no liability for negligence. Courts have imposed a duty of care where there are special circumstances in which there is sufficient authority and ability to control the conduct of third-persons. However, a parent is not liable for the tortious or intentional conduct of an emancipated child.

Ballan v. Greenberg, NY Slip Op 04860 (2d Dep't September 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Lack of personal jurisdiction.

A defendant waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing in an action, either formally or informally, without raising the defense in an answer or pre-answer motion to dismiss. A defendant may appear informally by actively litigating the action before the court. When a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he indicates an intention to submit to the court's jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court. Here, the defendants waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by opposing a prior motion by the plaintiff for leave to enter a default judgment against them on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish the merits of its cause of action against them and by thereafter opposing another prior motion by the plaintiff and filing a cross-motion for affirmative relief, all without asserting an objection to jurisdiction.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Davis, NY Slip Op 04859 (2d Dep't September 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Account stated.

The plaintiff pleads an account stated with evidence that it generated statements for the defendant in the regular course of business, that it mailed those statements on a monthly basis, that the defendant accepted and retained these statements, without objection, for a reasonable period of time, and that the defendant made partial payments thereon.

American Express Natl. Bank v. Zelkovitz, NY Slip Op 04857 (2d Dep't September 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The Appellate Division may not make findings based on matters outside the record.

Olympic Galleria, Co., Inc. v. Sitt, NY Slip Op 04965 (1st Dep't September 11, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment motions.

A plaintiff cannot raise a new theory of liability in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

Alexandre v Shih T. Wang, NY Slip Op 04855 (2d Dep't September 10, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Preliminary injunctions.

Proof establishing entitlement to a preliminary injunction must be by affidavit or other competent proof, with evidentiary detail. The element of likelihood of success on the merits may be sufficiently established even where the facts are in dispute and the evidence is inconclusive.

New York Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Millennia Assur., Inc., NY Slip Op 04964 (1st Dep't September 11, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Piercing the corporate veil.

Allegations that corporate funds were diverted to make it judgment-proof or that the corporation was dissolved without appropriate reserves are sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement to pierce the corporate veil on an alter-ego theory. The law does not require that the parent company's actions be fraudulent, only that they result in a wrong or an inequity. 

Rich v. J.A. Madison, LLC, NY Slip Op 04818 (1st Dep't August 28, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Law of the case.

The doctrine of the law of the case applies to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in the prior decision, and to the same questions presented in the same case, and where the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the initial determination. When the court executes an order which is jurisdictionally valid, that order becomes the law of the case which may be undone only by appellate review and reversal, or by application to reargue or renew or to vacate made to the ordering judge.

Lloyd v. Lloyd, NY Slip Op 04776 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

As the plaintiff's contentions relate to motions previously decided in two orders, and he did not file a notice of appeal from either of those orders, his contentions are not properly before the Appellate Division, pursuant to CPLR 5515.

Kelsey v. Anonymous #2, NY Slip Op 04773 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

Generally, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party. However, there are three exceptions to the general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely. Where the pleadings do not allege facts which establish the applicability of an exception, a defendant is not required to affirmatively demonstrate that the exceptions do not apply in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Kapoian-Trapani v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04772 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Legal malpractice.

A party may plead a cause of action alleging legal malpractice where the defendant drafted a usurious loan document that is not excepted from the usury laws.

Salamone v. Deily & Glastetter, LLP, NY Slip Op 04846 (1st Dep't September 4, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Preclusion.

Plaintiff raises issues that were or could have been litigated in an earlier action, and so he is precluded from relitigating them in this action.

Hall v. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co., NY Slip Op 04768 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

The mere hope that, during discovery, evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered is not enough to deny the motion as premature.

Wilson v. Tillman, NY Slip Op 04819 (1st Dep't August 28, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

A so-ordered stipulation is a contract between the parties thereto and, as such, is binding on them and will be construed in accordance with contract principles and the parties' intent. When an agreement between parties is clear and unambiguous on its face, it will be enforced according to its terms and without resort to extrinsic evidence.

Gounder v Melrose Credit Union, NY Slip Op 04766 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a), a party seeking to vacate a default in opposing a motion must offer a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious opposition.

Gounder v. Melrose Credit Union, NY Slip Op 04766 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Premises liability.

A defendant seeking dismissal on the basis of a trivial defect must make a prima facie showing that the defect is physically insignificant and does not increase any risk it poses. Only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to establish an issue of fact. The issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the facts of each case and generally is a question of fact for the jury. There is no minimal dimension test or per se rule that the condition must be of a certain height or depth in order to be actionable. In determining whether a defect is trivial, the court must examine the width, depth, elevation, irregularity, and appearance of the defect, as well as the time, place, and circumstance of the injury.

Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable. A defendant may establish, prima facie, that an alleged defect was trivial as a matter of law and, thus, not actionable, even without submitting an objective measurement of the alleged defect's dimensions.  However, a defendant moving for summary judgment who does not submit an objective measurement of the alleged defect has greater difficulty and often fails to demonstrate triviality as a matter of law.

Genutis v. 555 Dekalb Ave., LLC, NY Slip Op 04765 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew.

A motion for leave to renew must be based on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and it must offer reasonable justification for the failure to present the facts on the prior motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2], [3].  Leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation.

Esteban v. Dubuisson, NY Slip Op 04763 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Alter ego liability.

In seeking to hold a parent corporation liable for its alter ego's actions, a plaintiff must show that the corporation exercised complete domination and control of the action, and committed a fraud or wrong, causing injury to the plaintiff.

Rich v. J.A. Madison, LLC, NY Slip Op 04818 (1st Dep't August 28, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Sanctions for frivolous conduct.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, a court, in its discretion, may impose sanctions against a party for frivolous conduct.  Conduct is considered frivolous if it is completely without merit in law or fact and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or asserts material factual statements that are false.

DeSimone v. Northport-East Northport Union Free Sch. Dist., NY Slip Op 04762 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff's allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law. If the evidence submitted in support of the motion is not documentary, the motion must be denied. An affidavit is not documentary evidence because its contents can be controverted by other evidence, such as another affidavit.

Curran v. Village of Amityville, NY Slip Op 04760 (2d Dep't August 27, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Failure to prosecute.

CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written notice demanding that the plaintiff resume prosecution of the action and serve and file a note of issue within 90 days after receipt of the demand, and stating that the failure to comply with the demand will serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action. Since CPLR 3216 is a legislative creation and not within a court's inherent power, the failure to serve a written notice that conforms to the provisions of CPLR 3216 is the failure of a condition precedent to dismissal of the complaint.

Terryn v. Rubin, NY Slip Op 04741 (2d Dep't August 20, 2025

Here is the decision.

Contractual indemnification.

A party's right to contractual indemnification depends on the specific language of the contract. A promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement. A party that moves for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contractual indemnification must make a prima facie showing that it was not contractually obligated to indemnify the party asserting the indemnification claim.

Quintero v. 240 Crossways Park Owner, LLC, NY Slip Op 04738 (2d Dep't August 20, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Defamation.

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for defamation are (1) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (2) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (3) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (4) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se. A false statement constitutes defamation per se if it charges another with a serious crime or tends to injure another in its trade, business, or profession.

Absolute privilege attaches to communications of persons participating in a public function, such as judicial, legislative, or executive proceedings. The privilege is based on the personal position or status of the speaker and is limited to the speaker's official participation in the processes of government.

Oxman v. Diana, NY Slip Op 04731 (2d Dep't August 20, 2025)

Here is the decision.

The relation-back doctrine.

The relation-back doctrine allows a party to be added to an action after the expiration of the statute of limitations, and the claim is deemed timely interposed, if (1) the claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence; (2) the additional party is united in interest with the original party; and (3) the additional party knew or should have known that but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against the additional party as well. The linchpin of the relation-back doctrine is whether the new defendant had notice within the applicable limitations period.

Norton v. County of Westchester, NY Slip Op 04729 (2d Dep't August 20, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Landlord-tenant.

A lease provision that the tenant must pay attorneys' fees if it commences an action against a defaulting landlord is unenforceable.

Stromberg v. East Riv. Hous. Corp., NY Slip Op 04757 (1st Dep't August 21, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Default judgments.

A plaintiff seeking leave to enter a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215 must submit proof of: (1) service of a copy of the summons and complaint; (2) the facts constituting the claim; and (3) the defendant's default in answering or appearing. When a default judgment based on non-appearance is sought against a defendant corporation that has been served pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306(b), the plaintiff is required to submit proof of mailing of an additional copy of the summons to the corporation at its last known business address. However, the additional notice requirement does not apply to actions affecting title to real property.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Douge, NY Slip Op 04727 (2d Dep't August 20, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Collateral estoppel.

A litigant seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that the decisive issue was necessarily decided in the prior action against a party, or one in privity with a party. The party to be precluded from relitigating the issue bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination.

Comalgri Holding Corp. v. SC Crossfit, Inc., NY Slip Op 04625 (2d Dep't August 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Attorneys' fees and sanctions.

22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) authorizes an award of costs or the imposition of sanctions in favor of "any party or attorney" in any civil action or proceeding "before the court." The non-party's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is denied as untimely since it was made after the parties had executed a stipulation to discontinue the action.

Baugh v. Seagull 27, LLC, NY Slip Op 04620 (2d Dep't August 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Subject matter jurisdiction.

 A court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable.

Kaius A. v. Abigail H., NY Slip Op 04692 (1st Dep't August 14, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Defective Service: CPLR 2001.

CPLR 2001 may not be used to disregard the plaintiff's failure to properly serve the defendants with process. The court's application of CPLR 2001 presupposes that the court has acquired jurisdiction. Thus, CPLR 2001 may be used to cure only a technical infirmity in service. In deciding whether a defect in service is merely technical, courts must be guided by the principle of notice, that is, whether service is reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Defendant's actual receipt of process is not dispositive of the efficacy of service.

Baptiste v. County of Suffolk, NY Slip Op 04618 (2d Dep't August 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

The defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction on the basis of improper service by failing to move for judgment on that ground within 60 days after serving his answer and otherwise failed to show undue hardship, pursuant to CPLR 3211[e]. Although the statute was amended to provide that the rule requiring the defendant to move for judgment within 60 days "shall not apply in any proceeding to collect a debt arising out of a consumer credit transaction where a consumer is a defendant," the amendment was not in effect at the time this action was commenced, and the defendant does not contend that the amendment should apply retroactively. In any event, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the process server's affidavit.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. McKeon, NY Slip Op 04617 (2d Dep't August 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Filing a referee's report.

The referee's failure to file a report within 60 days of the order of reference was a mere irregularity that the Supreme Court properly disregarded, pursuant to CPLR 2001, 2004.

Bank of Am., N.A. v. ABC Realty Holdings, Inc., NY Slip Op 04616 (2d Dep't August 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Summary judgment.

The court may grant a motion for summary judgment before discovery is completed. To defeat the motion as premature, the opposing party must provide an evidentiary basis to suggest that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were in the exclusive knowledge and control of the moving party. The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat the motion may be uncovered with additional discovery is insufficient to deny the motion.

AccessLex Inst. v. Clunis, NY Slip Op 04613 (2d Dep't August 13, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Leave to renew.

Leave to renew ordinarily requires diligent efforts to obtain the evidence now relied on and a reasonable justification for not submitting the evidence in the prior motion, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]. Courts also may grant the motion in the interest of justice, so as not to defeat substantive fairness.

Forbes v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04608 (1st Dep't August 7, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The Appellate Division declines to reach an issue that the appellant did not raise before the motion court and that is not a purely legal argument apparent on the face of the record.

Victor v. Khatskevich, NY Slip Op 04610 (1st Dep't August 7, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

There is a "mere continuation" exception to the rule against successor liability on a contract claim. While no one factor is dispositive, courts determining whether a successor corporation is a mere continuation of its predecessor have considered whether: (1) all or substantially all assets are transferred to the successor corporation; (2) the predecessor corporation has been effectively extinguished following the transaction; (3) the successor has assumed an identical or nearly identical name; (4) the successor has retained one or more of the same corporate officers, directors, and/or employees; and (5) the successor has continued the same business.

Avamer 57 Fee LLC v. Hunter Boot USA LLC, NY Slip Op 04607 (1st Dep't August 7, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Negligent misrepresentation.

In order to state a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a special or privity-like relationship imposing a duty on the defendant to impart correct information to the plaintiff; (2) that the information was incorrect or withheld; and (3) reasonable reliance on the information or the omission. A conventional business relationship, without more, is insufficient to create a fiduciary relationship. A plaintiff must make a showing of special circumstances that transformed the business relationship to a fiduciary one, such as control by one party of the other for the good of the other.

Away Envtl., Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, NY Slip Op 04535 (2d Dep't August 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Landlord-Tenant.

A residential lease that obligates a tenant to indemnify a landlord for the landlord's own negligence is unenforceable as against public policy. However, in a commercial lease, negotiated between two sophisticated parties, the lessor and lessee may freely enter into an agreement whereby they use insurance to allocate between themselves the risk of liability to third parties.

Arnold v. RJJR Corp., NY Slip Op 04534 (2d Dep't August 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Third-party claims.

Impleader is available even if the impleaded party owes no duty to the primary plaintiff, provided that the third-party claim is sufficiently related to the main action to at least raise the question of whether the third-party defendant may be liable to defendant-third-party plaintiff, for whatever reason, for the damages for which the latter may be liable to plaintiff.

A Real Advantage, Inc. v. Renu Constr. & Restoration, Inc., NY Slip Op 04531 (2d Dep't August 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

So-ordered stipulations.

A so-ordered stipulation is a binding contract that will be construed according to contract principles. As in the interpretation of any contract, the instrument must be read as a whole to determine the parties' purpose and intent, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed so that the parties' reasonable expectations are realized.

A Real Advantage, Inc. v. Renu Contr. & Restoration, Inc., NY Slip Op 04531 (2d Dep't August 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Limitations periods.

Contracting parties may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations. If it is in writing, the agreement is enforceable, absent proof that it is an adhesion contract or the product of overreaching.

95 Crescent, LLC v. Certified Restoration Servs., Inc., NY Slip Op 04530 (2d Dep't August 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Contract law.

A contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party. However, a party that enters into a contract to render services assumes a duty of care and may be liable in tort to third persons, where (1) the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm, (2) the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party's duties, or (3) the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely.

Bell v. Bollenbach & House, Inc., NY Slip Op 04453 (2d Dep't July 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Discovery.

CPLR 3101(a) broadly mandates full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action. However, the court, sua sponte or on motion, may issue a protective order denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating the use of any disclosure device. A party seeking a protective order must make a factual showing of unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice. The Supreme Court may issue a protective order precluding disclosure that is palpably improper in that it seeks irrelevant and/or confidential information, or is overly broad and burdensome. Although trial courts are vested with broad discretion to issue appropriate protective orders to limit discovery, that discretion must be exercised with the competing interests of the parties and the truth-finding goal of the discovery process in mind.

G.B. v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., NY Slip Op 04452 (2d Dep't July 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Negligence actions.

A defendant who moves 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.

Almonte v. First Student, Inc., NY Slip Op 04450 (2d Dep't July 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted by the moving party utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law. In order to be considered documentary, the evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity, that is, it must be essentially unassailable. Affidavits, deposition testimony, and letters are not considered documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1).

All Nations Steel Corp. v. KSK Constr. Group, LLC, NY Slip Op 04449 (2d Dep't July 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Submissions without leave.

The court may refuse to consider a party's supplemental submissions offered, without leave, on its own initiative. A party does not have license to submit its proofs whenever it pleases.

Valley Natl. Bank v. 252 W. 31 St. Corp., NY Slip Op 04528 (1st Dep't July 31, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Discovery.

Parties are entitled to disclosure of all matter material and necessary to prosecution of the action. Any matter which may lead to admissible proof is discoverable, as is any matter which bears upon a defense, even if the facts themselves are not admissible. The test is one of usefulness and reason. A party asserting that material sought in disclosure is privileged bears the burden of demonstrating that the material it seeks to withhold is immune from discovery. Personnel records are discoverable where the plaintiff alleges a cause of action to recover damages for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision.

S.E. v. Diocese of Brooklyn, NY Slip Op 04228 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

The court does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant when a plaintiff fails to properly effectuate service of process. Where process has not been served upon a defendant, all subsequent proceedings will be rendered null and void. Service upon a natural person must be made in strict compliance with CPLR 308. 

CPLR 308(2) provides that personal service upon a natural person may be made by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode of the person to be served, and by mailing the summons to the person to be served at his last known residence. Service is invalid if the service address is not, in fact, the defendant's actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode.

A process server's affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service. Bare and unsubstantiated denials are insufficient to rebut the presumption of service, but a sworn denial of service containing specific facts rebuts the presumption established by the affidavit of service and necessitates a hearing.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Ramcharran, NY Slip Op 04227 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to dismiss.

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same.

Busiello v. Whelan, NY Slip Op 04226 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Vacating a default.

A defendant seeking to vacate a default in answering or appearing pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default in answering the complaint or appearing in the action. The conclusory and unsubstantiated claim that he was hampered by the restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic does not amount to a reasonable excuse. Further, he failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay in moving to vacate the judgment. Since the defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to determine whether he demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action.

Asian Holdings Corp. v. Schiff, NY Slip Op 04225 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Real estate commissions.

In order to prevail on a cause of action to recover a commission, the broker must establish (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) that it was the procuring cause of the sale. However, there is a distinction between brokerage agreements granting an exclusive agency and those conferring an exclusive right to sell, the latter of which permits a broker to recover a commission even if it was not the procuring cause of the transaction.

Angelic Real Estate, LLC v. Aurora Props., LLC, NY Slip Op 04223 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

The matter of defense counsel's summation describing the plaintiff as inattentive and aggressive before the accident is unpreserved for appellate review. Plaintiff's counsel failed to object to these comments at trial, did not request a curative instruction, and did not move for a mistrial on this ground.

Abdenbi v. Walgreen Co., NY Slip Op 04222 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Res judicata.

When a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy.

Yu Chan Li v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 04275 (2d Dep't July 23, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be effected by affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to the person at his last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his actual place of business. Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence. Due diligence is not defined by statute but it has been interpreted and applied to require a few visits on different occasions and at different times to the defendant's residence or place of business when the defendant could reasonably be expected to be found there.

PNMAC Mtge. Opportunity Fund Invs., LLC v. Noushad, NY Slip Op 04195 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Guaranty Law.

The absolute and unconditional guaranty was separate and distinct from the underlying lease and, therefore, constituted an independent agreement that imposed on the defendant a direct and primary obligation of payment. New York courts have routinely upheld such guaranties.

Queens Syndicate Co. v. Daniarov, NY Slip Op 04196 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motions to intervene.

On a timely motion, a party may intervene as of right in an action involving the disposition of property where the moving party may be adversely affected by the judgment, pursuant to CPLR 1012[a][3].  In determining whether the motion is timely, a court will consider the time between the proposed intervenor's knowledge of the basis for the motion and the making of the motion, and whether any delay in seeking intervention is prejudicial to a party.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Severe, NY Slip Op 04198 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

90-day demands.

Where a defendant serves a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3), the plaintiff must comply with the demand by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the demand or to extend the 90-day demand period. Here, the plaintiff did neither. Therefore, in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demands, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3216[e].

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Moran, NY Slip Op 04199 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Constructive trusts.

The elements of a constructive trust are a fiduciary or confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance on that promise, and unjust enrichment. The transfer element extends to instances where funds, time and effort were contributed in reliance on a promise to share in the result. A party with no actual prior interest in the property must show that an equitable interest developed through the expenditure of money, labor, and time in the property.

Angel v. Struvolich, NY Slip Op 04149 (2d Dep't July 16, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate practice.

Guaranty law.

Generally, a guaranty is an instrument that qualifies for relief pursuant to a motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint under CPLR 3213.  In order to meet its prima facie burden on the motion, a plaintiff must prove the existence of the guaranty, the underlying debt, and the guarantor's failure to perform under the guaranty.

Pearl Riv. Campus, LLC v. ReadyScrip, LLC, NY Slip Op 04101 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Collateral estoppel.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action and decided against that party or those in privity, regardless of whether the tribunals or causes of action are the same. The party seeking to invoke the doctrine has the burden to show the identity of the issues, while the party trying to avoid application of the doctrine must establish the lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate. The doctrine is based on principles of fairness and the facts and practical realities of a particular litigation, rather than rigid rules. A court's dicta is not subject to the preclusive effect of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Quiogue Prop. Mgt., LLC v. Torres, NY Slip Op 04115 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Notices of pendency.

Since the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, that branch of the motion which was to cancel the notice of pendency is granted as well.

Bank v. Guzzetti, NY Slip Op 04116 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Service of process.

Service of process under CPLR 308(2) requires that the summons be delivered within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's "actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode," along with a mailing of the summons to the defendant's last known residence or actual place of business. Personal jurisdiction is not acquired absent compliance with both the delivery and mailing requirements of the statute.  At a hearing to determine the validity of service, the burden of proving personal jurisdiction is on the party asserting it, and that party must sustain that burden by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Credibility determinations rendered by the Supreme Court as to the witnesses who have testified are entitled to great deference on appeal.

Rhoe v. Reid, NY Slip Op 04117 (2d Dep't July 9, 2025)

Here is the decision.