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.