Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to seek disclosure of metadata, pursuant to CPLR 408). Petitioner failed to show unusual circumstances or ample need for the disclosing the metadata, as the documents submitted with the petition and cross-motion to dismiss were sufficient to determine the relevant issue.
Matter of Davis vs. Oddo, NY Slip Op 06522 (1st Dep't November 5, 2026)
Supreme Court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action for defamation because they were barred by the one-year statute of limitations, pursuant to CPLR 215 [3]. The alleged defamatory statements were made in 2019 and plaintiff commenced this action in 2024, well outside the one-year limitations period. That plaintiff did not discover the alleged defamation until 2023 is not relevant because the limitations period begins to run upon publication.
The statute of limitations was not tolled due to equitable estoppel, as plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he reasonably relied on defendants' alleged deceptions and misrepresentations which in turn induced him to refrain from filing a timely action. This is so given plaintiff's separate ongoing litigation against these defendants and others, commenced in 2015, alleging fraud and misrepresentations. Thus, any claim that plaintiff relied on defendants' subsequent representations was not reasonable. Defendants also had no duty to disclose the purportedly offending documents. The 2015 action, which would have otherwise been in discovery, had been dismissed at the time that the statements were made and was not reinstated by this Court until well over a year later. Further, even upon reinstatement, plaintiff served no discovery demands in that action until 2024.
Brigham vs. Arnold, NY Slip Op 06520 (1st Dep't November 5, 2026)
Plaintiff was not aggrieved by the court's order to compel, which was decided in her favor, and thus her cross-appeal therefrom is dismissed, pursuant to CPLR 5511. This is so even though she disagrees with the opinion supporting the order below.
Anil vs. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06519 (1st Dep't November 5, 2026)
The cause of action for attorneys' fees was properly dismissed because this claim is not recognized in New York as a separate cause of action. They are recoverable only as an element of contract damages.
Ahmed vs Choudhry, NY Slip Op 06518 (1st Dep't November 5, 2026)
Pursuant to CPLR 306-b, a plaintiff is required to serve the summons and complaint within 120 days after commencement of the action. If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the defendant within that time, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service. To establish good cause, a plaintiff must demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting service.
If good cause for an extension is not established, the court must consider the broader interest of justice standard of CPLR 306-b. Under the interest of justice standard, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff's request for the extension of time, and prejudice to the defendant.
CPLR 308(5) vests a court with discretion to direct an alternative method for service of process when it has determined that the methods set forth in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) are impracticable. A plaintiff seeking to effect expedient service must make some showing that the other prescribed methods of service could not be made.
ARCPE 1, LLC vs. Canales, NY Slip Op 06405 (2d Dep't November 4, 2026)
Supreme Court providently denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), (a)(4) and in the interest of justice. The motion was not made within the one-year time period under CPLR 5015(a)(1). Moreover, defendant failed to provide any explanation for the default or an affidavit of merit as to its defenses. As the proposed answer was verified by an attorney without personal knowledge of the facts, it was insufficient to set forth a meritorious defense. As to CPLR 5015(a)(4), it was undisputed that plaintiff served the Secretary of State, and, thus, the court obtained jurisdiction even if those documents never reached defendant. Finally, defendant was not entitled to vacatur in the interest of justice.
Whitaker vs. 1975-1983 Jerome Ave. Corp., NY Slip Op 06398 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)
Plaintiff's failure to include some relevant documents in the record on appeal does not preclude a meaningful review. Plaintiff's arguments are based largely on prior decisions issued by the motion court. Moreover, the record contains the notice of appeal, the order appealed from, the initial motion for summary judgment and the amended notice of motion, and the documents submitted in support of those motions.
Ann Arbor Group, LLC vs. Gherardi, NY Slip Op 06399 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)
Defendant's argument that plaintiff failed to comply with CPLR 3215(g)(4)(i) because a second copy of the summons and complaint were not served by plaintiff at defendant's last known address is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and the Appellate Division declines to review it.
Whitaker vs. 1975-1983 Jerome Ave. Corp., NY Slip Op 06398 (1st Dep't Oktober 29, 2026)
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to file a late notice of claim, as petitioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing that respondent The City of New York had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time afterward. The police accident report, the record of petitioner's arrest, and the criminal complaint against petitioner did not confer actual knowledge of the essential facts of petitioner's claims; rather, these documents established only that police officers were present on the scene, and that petitioner's motorcycle crashed into a stopped police vehicle while he was travelling at high speed in the wrong direction. These assertions are insufficient to establish actual knowledge by the City of the facts alleged in petitioner's notice of claim, as the documents make no mention of acts that would constitute actionable wrongdoing by any police officers.
In addition, petitioner failed to sustain his burden of showing that the City was not prejudiced by the delay in filing. In order to demonstrate absence of prejudice, petitioner relies solely on the City's purported actual knowledge, concluding that because the City had such knowledge, it did not experience substantial prejudice from petitioner's delay in serving the notice of claim. However, as petitioner failed to sustain his burden of showing that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his claims, the burden never shifted to the City to make a particularized showing of prejudice.
Finally, petitioner did not provide any medical records or other evidence corroborating his claim of incapacity. As a result, he failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his delay of serving a notice of claim His purported incapacity is also undercut by his own affidavit, in which he averred that he was still able to attend court appearances and medical treatments, and would have timely served his notice of claim had he been aware of the 90-day requirement.
Matter of Connolly vs. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06383 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)
The trial court properly excluded from evidence a non-party's invoices which plaintiff sought to admit as business records without supporting testimony from a representative of the non-party. Absent testimony from the non-party, plaintiff was required to establish through testimony or otherwise that it had knowledge of the non-party's business or billing practices or routinely used the invoices in its own business. As plaintiff did not make this showing, the invoices did not qualify for the business record exception, pursuant to CPLR 4518. In any event, the excluded invoices were not relevant, given that they did not purport to describe any defects or damage allegedly caused by defendant.
901 Props., LLC vs. Bear Glass, Inc., NY Slip Op 06380 (1st Dep't October 29, 2026)
In order to establish the right to a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent the injunction; and (3) that the equities balance in the movant's favor. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo, not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties. Motions for preliminary injunctions pursuant to CPLR 6301 must be made prior to the expiration of the cure period.
217-20 K&A, LLC vs. De Maio Props., LLC, NY Slip Op 06272 (2d Dep't October 28, 2026)
The affirmation of a party's attorney who demonstrates no personal knowledge of the matter at issue has no evidentiary value.
Vega vs. Archdiocese of New York, NY Slip Op 06270 (1st Dep't October 27, 2026)
Defendant's repeated non-compliance with court orders without reasonable excuse warrants striking her answer, especially where at least one prior order warned of the possibility of such a penalty. Defendant's pro se status provides no excuse for non-compliance with her discovery obligations.
Abuzaid vs. Almayouf, NY Slip Op 06238 (1st Dep't October 27, 2026)
Supreme Court providently dismissed the medical malpractice claim pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 since plaintiff had not submitted expert medical opinion evidence necessary to demonstrate that she had a meritorious cause of action. The same cannot be said for the negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims since the merits of those claims, which were asserted in the complaint and the bills of particulars, can be gleaned from the record.
Dupree vs. New York-Presbyterian Columbia Univ. Irving Med. Ctr., NY Slip Op 06242 (1st Dep't October 27, 2026)
It is well-settled New York law that a party who assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding may not thereafter assume a contrary position simply because his interests have changed.
Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. vs. Hartsfield, NY Slip Op 06199 (1st Dep't October 22, 2026)
A defendant moving 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 at issue. Although there may be more than one proximate cause of an accident and proximate cause is generally an issue to be determined by the trier of fact, the issue of proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts.
Burton vs. Gurung, NY Slip Op 06088 (2d Dep't October 21, 2026)
Supreme Court appropriately denied petitioner's motion for a default judgment, as he moved for relief while the MTA's cross-motion to dismiss was still pending, pursuant to CPLR 7804[f].
Matter of Debnam vs. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., NY Slip Op 06196 (1st Dep't October 22, 2026)
Where an agreement between a landlord and non-party tenant states that the plaintiff is the exclusive broker for the transaction and that the defendant will pay its commission, that representation, supported by documentary evidence, entitles the plaintiff to its commission as a matter of law. The lease renewal agreement between defendant landlord and non-party tenant states that plaintiff is the exclusive broker and that defendant will pay the broker fees relating to the transaction. Defendant's contention that there was no binding agreement or privity between itself and plaintiff is expressly contradicted by this renewal agreement. Plaintiff also submitted emails with defendant's representative showing plaintiff's involvement in the lease negotiations. The court properly rejected defendant's contention that its refusal to execute a subsequent brokerage agreement after the renewal agreement was signed negated its express agreement to pay the commission.
Colliers Intl. NY, LLC vs. City Hall Commons, LLC, NY Slip Op 06195 (1st Dep't October 22, 2026)
An expert should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable. The admissibility of expert testimony on a particular point is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.
Apuzzo vs. Central Cabinets, LLC, NY Slip Op 06082 (2d Dep't October 21, 2026)
Mandamus to compel may only be used to enforce a clear legal right where the public official has failed to perform a duty enjoined by law. Mandamus is appropriate to compel public officers to perform ministerial duties but not discretionary acts. A discretionary act involves the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result.
Matter of Troise vs. Marchiano, NY Slip Op 06079 (1st Dep't October 20, 2026)
