Pursuant to CPLR 3126(1), the imposition of sanctions against the party from whom discovery is sought requires a pattern of deliberate, contumacious delay, as opposed to aberrant behavior where there otherwise is substantial compliance with discovery demands or a failure to comply based on a mistaken interpretation of what was required to be produced.
Sherman v. Zampella, NY Slip Op 06397 (1st Dep't November 20, 2025)
The elements of a cause of action for fraud are a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and damages. A fraud claim must be pleaded with particularity, pursuant to CPLR 3016(b). The purpose of CPLR 3016(b) is to inform a defendant of the complained of incidents, and the statute should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud. CPLR 3016(b) is satisfied when the facts permit a reasonable inference of the alleged misconduct.
American Premium Realty Group, LLC v. 37-19 Realty, Inc., NY Slip Op 06301 (2d Dep't November 19, 2025)
The elements of a cause of action sounding in quantum meruit are: (1) the performance of the services in good faith; (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered; (3) an expectation of compensation therefor; and (4) the reasonable value of the services. The question of whether a party had a reasonable expectation of compensation for services rendered is a matter for the trier of fact to determine based on the evidence before it.
239 E.18th Owners Corp. v. Wade, NY Slip Op 06384 (1st Dep't November 20, 2025)
CPLR 3101(a)(4), concerning disclosure from non-parties to an action, provides for full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by anyone, upon notice stating the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought. The party who served the subpoena has an initial burden to show that the non-party was apprised of the circumstances or reasons that discovery is sought. If that is satisfied, it is then the burden of the person moving to quash a subpoena to establish either that the requested disclosure 'is irrelevant to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious. Should the movant meet this burden, the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of the action.
Dorman v. Luva of NY, LLC, NY Slip Op 06155 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)
The denial of a motion for reargument is not appealable.
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Santiago, NY Slip Op 06300 (1st Dep''t November 18, 2025)
In order to state a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession; and (2) that the attorney's breach of duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages. In addition, the plaintiff must establish that there was an attorney-client relationship. An attorney's conduct or inaction is the proximate cause of a plaintiff's damages if but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff would have succeeded on the merits of the underlying action, or would not have sustained actual and ascertainable damages.
Coniglio v. Dansker & Aspromonte Assoc., NY Slip Op 06154 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)
The Appellate Division is empowered to address an issue which was fully argued by the parties but not addressed by the Supreme Court.
Bamonte v. Charatan, NY Slip Op 06152 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)
What constitutes a reasonable excuse for a default generally lies within the sound discretion of the motion court. The reasonable excuse determination is sui generis and should be based on all relevant factors, including the length of the delay, the existence of any prejudice, whether the default was willful, and the strong public policy favoring the resolution of cases on the merits.
Metropolis Elec. Corp. v. Vector Bldg. Corp., NY Slip Op 06259 (1st Dep't November 13, 2025)
On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the time in which to sue has expired. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to present admissible evidence establishing that the action was timely or to raise a question of fact as to whether the action was timely. Where an action involves claims that could have been made in another proceeding for which there is a specific limitation period, the action is subject to the shorter limitations period. So, where a proceeding could have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, the four-month statute of limitations applicable to such proceedings applies.
Argo v. NYCERS, NY Slip Op 06151 (2d Dep't November 12, 2025)
A fraud on the court involves willful conduct that is deceitful and obstructionist, which injects misrepresentations and false information into the judicial process so serious that it undermines the integrity of the proceeding.
Taveras v. Tuck-It-Away Assoc., L.P., NY Slip Op 06148 (1st Dep't November 6, 2025)
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant's favor.
Doering v. Oelsner, NY Slip Op 06048 (2d Dep't November 5, 2025)