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)
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)
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)
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)