Court Holiday.

Iwo Jima, February-March 1945

The Sufficiency of a Pleading.

At the pleading stage, all that is required is that the plaintiff plead statements that are sufficiently particular to give the defendant notice of the occurrence intended to be proved, pursuant to CPLR 3013.

TerraCotta Nine, LLC v. BR 52, LLC, NY Slip Op 06149 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Motion for Renewal.

The court providently denied renewal, as defendant admitted that the documents it sought to introduce were previously available and failed to explain why they were not submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CPLR 2221[e][3].

134 Lexington, LLC v. Bhawani Maa, LLC, NY Slip Op 06125 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)

Here is the decision.

The Law of Waiver.

A waiver is the voluntary abandonment or relinquishment of a known right.  A waiver is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence, but, rather, the party claiming a waiver must proffer evidence of a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known and otherwise enforceable right. Contractual rights may be waived if they are knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally abandoned,

Antebi v. Guindi, NY Slip Op 06044 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Fraudulent Inducement.

The court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the fraudulent inducement cause of action, as the record establishes that plaintiff had the means of discovering, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the potential consequences of those terms of the agreement that it alleges caused it to suffer damages. It is significant that plaintiff is a sophisticated party. Moreover, plaintiff has not pleaded any specific misrepresentations or concealment.

Innovative  Sec., LTD. v. OBEX Sec. LLC, NY Slip Op 06023 (1st Dep't October 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Defamation.

 In an action to recover damages for libel or slander, "the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint," pursuant to CPLR 3016[a]. The complaint must also allege the time when, place where, and manner in which the false statement was made, and specify to whom it was made. Compliance with CPLR 3016(a) is strictly enforced, and a cause of action sounding in defamation which fails to comply with these pleading requirements must be dismissed.

Marcigliano v. Coulianidis, NY Slip Op 05945 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Appellate Practice.

Plaintiff's appeal from the order denying her motion to resettle, which Supreme Court treated as a motion to reargue, must be dismissed. Regardless of how the motion is characterized, no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement, clarification, or reargument.

Genna v. Klempner, NY Slip Op 06020 (1st Dep't October 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Auto Accidents.

A driver who fails to yield the right-of-way after stopping at a stop sign is in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142(a), and is negligent as a matter of law. A driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision.

Canchari v. Goberdhan, NY Slip Op 05934 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Adverse Possession.

In order to establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right, (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period of at least 10 years. As to the exclusivity element, the adverse possessor must alone care for or improve the disputed property as if it were his own. The hostility element is satisfied where an individual asserts a right to the property that is adverse to the title owner and also in opposition to the rights of the true owner. A claim of right means a reasonable basis for the belief that the property belongs to the adverse possessor or property owner, and can be founded on a written instrument.

Walters v. O'Quinn, NY Slip Op 05988 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.

A Parent Corporation's Liability.

Absent complete domination and control over a wholly owned subsidiary, the parent corporation is exempt from liability for torts committed by the subsidiary.

Reyes v. 45 & 47 Wadsworth Ave. Co., LLC, NY Slip Op 06038 (1st Dep't October 30, 2025)

Here is the decision.

Piercing the Corporate Veil.

The courts will disregard the corporate form, or pierce the corporate veil, whenever necessary to prevent fraud or to achieve equity. A plaintiff seeking to pierce the corporate veil must show that (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked, and (2) that the domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury. The mere claim that a corporation was completely dominated by its owners or conclusory claims that a corporation was the owners' alter ego do not merit the equitable relief of piercing the corporate veil. The court will consider factors such as whether there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, the lack of capitalization, co-mingling of assets, and the personal use of corporate funds.

Anderson v. ML Real Estate Holdings, LLC, NY Slip Op 05931 (2d Dep't October 29, 2025)

Here is the decision.