The unjust enrichment claim is dismissed as duplicative of plaintiff's breach of contract claim, as the parties do not dispute that there was an implied contract between plaintiff and defendant, even if they disagree about its terms.
Tapinekis v. Pace Univ., NY Slip Op 03167 (1st Dep't May 19, 2026)
In this action alleging disability discrimination under the State and City's Human Rights Laws, plaintiff's summary judgment motion is denied and defendant's cross-motion to dismiss is granted. There is no evidence that defendants made pejorative comments about people with COVID or treated similarly situated employees differently based on their COVID status. Evidence that defendants required plaintiff to present a negative COVID test to return to work does not permit an inference of discriminatory animus. On the contrary, the New York City Commission on Human Rights provides that, "[c]onsistent with employers' need to take reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of their businesses, employers may require employees to provide evidence of their ability to safely return to the workplace after recovering from COVID-19 and to confirm that they are not contagious."
Frantz v. XL Diamonds, LLC, NY Slip Op 03067 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)
Intervention is to be liberally granted, pursuant to CPLR 1012 and 1013, whether sought as of right or in the court's discretion. However, it is warranted only where the proposed intervenor demonstrates a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
Bapaz NYC W. St. Group, LLC v. Assa Props., Inc., NY Slip Op 03061 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)
The denial of defendant's letter application for leave to file a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made upon notice, pursuant to CPLR 5701 [a] [2].
Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Bartlett, NY Slip Op 03092 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)
Leave to amend a pleading should be freely given absent prejudice to the non-moving party, pursuant to CPLR 3025(b). However, a motion for leave to amend should be denied when the proposed amendments are palpably insufficient as a matter of law or fail to state a cause of action. Here, the proposed amended answer consists of a recitation of the elements of the claim and conclusory allegations based upon information and belief. Motion denied.
Wiener Realty Mgt., LLC v. One Penn Plaza, LLC, NY Slip Op 03094 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)
Motions relating to discovery disputes must include an affidavit of a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without judicial intervention.
Howari v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., NY Slip Op 03059 (2d Dep't May 14, 2026)
Plaintiff's argument that the affidavit of defendant's vice president was not based on personal knowledge was not raised below, depriving defendant of an opportunity to cure the defect, and so the issue is unpreserved.
Adames v. Galaxy Gen. Contr. Corp., NY Slip Op 03054 (1st Dep't May 14, 2026)
The statute of limitations for a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice is three years, which accrues at the time the malpractice is committed, not when the client discovers it. However, causes of action alleging legal malpractice which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies. For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney, which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice.
Chester v. List, NY Slip Op 02962 (2d Dep't May 13, 2026)
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff leave to amend and in extending plaintiff's time to serve the amended complaint in the interest of justice, pursuant to CPLR 306-b, 3025[b]). Plaintiff failed to serve Charter within the 120-day period provided in CPLR 306-b, but plaintiff demonstrated that Charter had actual notice of plaintiff's claim shortly after plaintiff filed the original pleadings, that she has a potentially meritorious claim, that the statute of limitations expired, and that she ultimately effectuated service on Charter. Charter failed to show that it was prejudiced by the extension as there is no evidence that the delay in service impaired Charter's ability to investigate the claim or defend it on the merits, and the mere passage of time is insufficient to create prejudice.
Blount v. Verizon, NY Slip Op 02918 (1st Dep't May 12, 2026)
The existence of a valid contract governing the subject matter precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter.
Harbord v. A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc., NY Slip Op 02827 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)
The report should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility. However, the referee's findings and recommendations are advisory only and have no binding effect on the court, which remains the ultimate arbiter of the dispute.
Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. McDonald, NY Slip Op 02826 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' cross-motions for leave to amend the complaint, as the action had already been certified as ready for trial, approximately 2½ years had passed since the plaintiffs filed the complaint, the new causes of action were based on facts that the plaintiffs had been aware of since the commencement of the action, and the plaintiffs did not provide any excuse for their delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint to add those causes of action.
Dwyer v. Montefiore New Rochelle Hospital, NY Slip Op 02825 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)
A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the moving party's documentary evidence 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. Judicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, may qualify as documentary evidence.
Dimas Tower, Inc. v. North Shore Towers Apts., Inc., NY Slip Op 02822 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)
No appeal lies as of right from an order which did not decide a motion made upon notice, including an order entered sua sponte, pursuant to CPLR 5701[a][2].
Citizens Bank, N.A. v. Abrams, NY Slip Op 02819 (2d Dep't May 6, 2026)
Defendant's assertion that he is entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff did not serve an expert affidavit by the court-ordered deadline constitutes an effort to point out gaps in the plaintiff's proof. Gaps in plaintiff's proof, however, cannot serve as a basis to grant defendant's motion, on which, as the moving party, he bears the burden.
Allen v. Thompson, NY Slip Op 02771 (1st Dep't May 5, 2026)
The reasonable production expenses of a non-party witness are defrayed by the party seeking discovery, pursuant to CPLR 3111, 3122[d].
Matter of Peerenboom v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2903, 1st Dep't April 30, 2026
An employer may be vicariously liable for the torts of its employee acting within the scope of employment, but a claim against the employer does not necessarily preclude a separate claim against the employee. It is immaterial to an agent's liability that the agent's tortious conduct may, additionally, subject the principal to liability.
Castellazzo v. David's New Beginnings, LLC, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2818, 2d Dep't April 29, 2026
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor. The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. Absent unusual or compelling circumstances, appellate courts are reluctant to disturb that determination.
Beckett v. Estate of Thomas Beckett, 2026 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2796, 2d Dep't April 29, 2026
A conditional order of preclusion requires a party to provide specific discovery by a date certain, or incur sanctions. If the party fails to produce the discovery on time, the conditional order becomes absolute.
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Sarwar, NY Slip Op 02621 (2d Dep't April 29, 2026)
Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), "[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . lack of jurisdiction to render the judgment or order." Where a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment raises a jurisdictional objection pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4), and seeks a discretionary vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the court must resolve the jurisdictional question before determining whether to grant a discretionary vacatur of the default.
Atlantica, LLC v. Hunte, NY Slip Op 02619 (2d Dep't April 29, 2026)
In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion. The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. Ignorance of the law, failure to retain an attorney, and confusion about the date of a conference do not constitute reasonable excuses.
166 N. 7 St., LLC v. Sung Kyu Khim, NY Slip Op 02617 (2d Dep't April 29, 2026)
