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.