People of the State of New York v. Trevon Small (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
This case addresses when police may escalate a street stop and frisk after an ambiguous handoff. The First Department reversed the conviction, suppressed the gun, and dismissed the indictment because officers lacked specific facts to detain or frisk, and body‑camera footage showed quick compliance and no visible threat. It underscores that vague observations and “high‑crime area” labels do not justify a stop and pat‑down.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Windermere Properties LLC v. City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 4, 2025)
OATH refused a property owner’s request to reopen defaulted summonses after it paid the penalties, and the trial court dismissed the challenge as barred by a prior case. The First Department annulled OATH’s denials and sent the matter back for a merits review, finding res judicata was waived and did not apply. The decision confirms that paying OATH defaults does not automatically waive the right to seek a new hearing and that agencies must follow their own rules.
Read more:
Click here
John Owens et al. v. New Empire Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 4, 2025)
Condo owners alleged widespread construction defects and sued the sponsor, related entities, board members, and the contractor for failing to build and fix the building as required. The First Department dismissed the fraud and negligent-supervision claims and negligence against the general contractor, but allowed the contract, fiduciary-duty, injunction, and sponsor-negligence claims to proceed. The ruling underscores that sponsors have an independent duty to keep buildings in good repair and that “as-is” clauses do not erase plan/spec obligations, while fraud or tort claims tied only to contract losses will be rejected.
Read more:
Click here
Health East Ambulatory Surgical Center v. Country-Wide Insurance Company (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
– The dispute was over no‑fault benefits and whether the insurer’s court filings could prove claim receipt and toll the 30‑day pay‑or‑deny period.
– The First Department reinstated the Civil Court judgment for the provider, finding a binding admission of receipt, no pay‑or‑deny within 30 days, and no proof of timely verification.
– The ruling means providers may use insurers’ admissions to meet their initial burden, and insurers must prove verification at trial to stop the 30‑day clock.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Aryeh Realty Corp. v. 18 E. 69th St Tenant, LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 4, 2024)
The First Department upheld the finding that the parties orally reduced the rent by $15,000 per month and that the landlord was not entitled to attorneys’ fees. It remanded to determine how the tenant’s admitted breach of Article 45 affects amounts owed, underscoring that oral rent reductions can be enforced based on conduct, while separate breaches still impact damages.
Read more:
Click here
Brigade Calvary Fund Ltd., et al. v. James M. Chirico, Jr., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 4, 2025)
This case asked whether discovery in a New York securities suit should proceed while a related federal class action has motions to dismiss pending. The First Department modified the lower court’s order and kept the state discovery stay in place temporarily, deferring to the federal court to decide if a stay is warranted under federal law. The decision promotes coordination in parallel securities cases and helps prevent end-runs around the federal discovery stay.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Jose A. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 4, 2025)
A youthful offender was assessed a sentencing surcharge after pleading guilty to first-degree robbery. The First Department vacated the surcharge in the interest of justice, citing People v. Chirinos, and otherwise affirmed. The ruling signals that surcharges on youthful offenders may be removed, especially when the People do not oppose.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Alfredo Colon (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
After pleading guilty to attempted weapon possession, Alfredo Colon received six months in jail and five years’ probation. The First Department modified the sentence, reducing probation to three years while affirming the conviction and jail term. The decision highlights the court’s power to cut an otherwise lawful sentence as excessive in the interest of justice, even after a plea deal.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Bredy B. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 4, 2025)
This case asked whether the appellate court could remove mandatory surcharges and fees from a youthful offender who received a conditional discharge. The First Department removed those charges in the interest of justice and left the plea, youthful offender adjudication, and sentence intact. The ruling confirms the court may waive these financial obligations for youthful offenders, especially when the prosecution does not object.
Read more:
Click here
Malgorzata Bolek-Gawin v. White Plains Kensington, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
A guest was hit when a patio umbrella blew out of a table on an elevated terrace. The First Department reinstated her premises liability case, citing testimony that staff routinely removed umbrellas on windy days as evidence the risk was foreseeable. The ruling shows that a property’s own safety practices can block summary judgment in weather-related injury cases.
Read more:
Click here
Kevin O'Brien v. Tectonic Builders Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
A construction worker tripped on a damaged makeshift ramp at a renovation site and sued under Labor Law § 241(6). The First Department granted him partial summary judgment, finding the ramp was both a passageway and work area and that its raised edge was a tripping hazard. The ruling clarifies that owners and contractors must keep temporary ramps safe, and that “integral to the work” and comparative negligence do not defeat § 241(6) liability.
Read more:
Click here
Scott Roth et al. v. Board of Managers of 299 West 12th St. Condominium (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
Condo owners said their board failed to address persistent hallway commotion and unfairly enforced house rules. The First Department reinstated the breach of fiduciary duty claim because there are fact issues about the board’s investigation and enforcement, but affirmed dismissal of the private nuisance claim. The court also confirmed condo boards can be sued as unincorporated associations and that neutral rule enforcement alone is not retaliation.
Read more:
Click here
Rivera v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
A worker was injured when a 400–600 lb gang box began to fall while being hoisted into a truck. The First Department reinstated his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted summary judgment against Site 2 DSA Owner, Delancey Street Associates, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, while affirming dismissal of the § 200 claim. The court held that a falling object during hoisting—even over a short distance—triggers the Scaffold Law if safety devices are lacking, and that pleadings can admit ownership.
Read more:
Click here
PrairieGold Solar LLC v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
PrairieGold sought coverage for Hurricane Maria losses under an all-risk policy that defined windstorm to include named storms. The First Department reinstated the case, holding the insurers did not prove a mutual mistake to rewrite the policy and the policy text favored coverage. The decision reinforces the high bar for reformation and limits insurers’ ability to defeat hurricane claims on summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Rockmore Contracting Corp. v. The City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
A contractor on a City public works project sought delay damages for extended overhead and weather-related delays. The First Department reinstated only the claim for documented, post-bid costs for outside project management by J.S. Held, and otherwise dismissed delay claims calculated from bid estimates and upheld the contract’s bar on weather-delay damages. The decision confirms that bid estimates cannot support delay damages, but documented, unforeseeable post-bid ESO costs may be recoverable if tied to owner-caused delays and proper documentation.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Salvatore Muce v. The City of New York Civil Service Commission, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
A Hostos Community College plumber challenged his firing through an Article 78 proceeding. The First Department reinstated the petition, finding it was filed within four months of the final termination decision and alleged enough facts to avoid early dismissal. The ruling underscores that timeliness runs from the final agency action and that petitions with a concrete factual basis should not be tossed at the outset.
Read more:
Click here
James Vargas v. Mavino Realty Co., Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
The case was about a plaintiff who waited 12–13 years to secure a default judgment after an initial 2011 motion was denied without prejudice. The First Department reversed, vacated the default, and dismissed the complaint as abandoned because the plaintiff did not move for default within one year and showed no good cause. It underscores that CPLR 3215(c) is mandatory and that old, denied motions do not excuse years of delay.
Read more:
Click here
Morgan Realty LLC, et al. v. The Law Office of Aihong You, PC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 2, 2025)
In a legal malpractice case from a real estate contract dispute, The First Department reinstated the claim against The Law Office of Aihong You, PC and Aihong You for not challenging a likely unenforceable liquidated damages clause. It affirmed dismissal of the claims against Joseph & Smargiassi because they were hired after the CPLR 3212(a) summary‑judgment deadline and a prior request to file late had already been denied. The decision signals malpractice risk when lawyers fail to contest a penalty‑like liquidated damages clause, while later counsel are not liable for time‑barred motions or unsupported efforts to shield individuals from personal liability.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Gibson (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
A defendant who pled guilty to first-degree criminal contempt was placed on probation with a blanket consent-to-search condition. The Second Department modified the judgment by striking that condition and otherwise affirmed, after finding the appeal waiver invalid. The ruling underscores that probation search terms must be tailored to the offense and record, and flawed appeal waivers do not bar review.
Read more:
Click here
O'Donnell v. Rocklyn Ecclesiastical Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
A worker fell when the edge of an unguarded 10-foot trench collapsed at a Brooklyn school site. The Second Department reversed and granted the worker summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The ruling confirms trenches must be guarded and that comparative fault, such as wearing sneakers, does not defeat § 240(1) liability.
Read more:
Click here
Toorak Capital Partners, LLC v. 15 Dewey Place Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-03)
This commercial foreclosure case arose after the trial court granted the lender summary judgment and a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The Second Department reversed and reinstated the defendants’ answer and counterclaims because the lender failed to submit admissible proof—its affidavit lacked personal knowledge and it did not provide properly authenticated business records. The ruling underscores that foreclosure plaintiffs must prove the note, mortgage, default, and standing with competent, non-hearsay records.
Read more:
Click here
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Mayer (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
The case asked whether a second foreclosure action filed after six years was saved by CPLR 205-a after the first was dismissed for RPAPL 1304 notice defects. The Second Department reinstated the case, finding the first dismissal was not on the merits and the six-month refiling window ran from when the appeal was deemed dismissed. It confirms lenders can refile and timely serve within six months after appeals as of right are exhausted, even if the six-year limitations period has run.
Read more:
Click here
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hasan (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
This appeal arose from consolidated foreclosure actions on the same Brooklyn property. The Second Department denied ratification of a 2015 judgment on the second mortgage and vacated the sale orders, but affirmed there was no abandonment because the plaintiff moved within a court‑extended deadline. The decision underscores that after consolidation, earlier foreclosure judgments cannot be enforced until lien priorities are resolved, and timely action under a court extension avoids dismissal under CPLR 3215(c).
Read more:
Click here
Luisa Calixto v. A. Balsamo & Rosenblatt, P.C., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
A tenant claimed her landlord and its lawyers used deceptive tactics in a nonpayment case over a rent-stabilized unit, including inflated rent demands and misrepresentations. The Second Department reinstated her General Business Law § 349 consumer-deception claim against all defendants, her gross‑negligence claim, and her Judiciary Law § 487 attorney‑deceit claim against the lawyers, but left negligence per se dismissed. The decision confirms that consumer‑protection and attorney‑deceit statutes can reach conduct in eviction litigation, though GBL § 349 cannot support negligence per se.
Read more:
Click here
ENY Rockaway, LLC v. W 16 East New York, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
A commercial property sale dispute over excess rent payments and a prevailing‑party attorneys’ fees clause. The Second Department affirmed judgment for ENY Rockaway and dismissal of the seller’s counterclaims, and it reversed the denial of attorneys’ fees, sending the case back to set a reasonable amount. The ruling underscores that clear contract terms and fee‑shifting clauses will be enforced as written.
Read more:
Click here
Nationwide HVAC Supply Corp. v. Mosby (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
An HVAC contractor sued a Nassau County homeowner to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and recover payment. The Second Department dismissed the complaint because it did not allege the contractor held the required county home improvement license. The ruling underscores that unlicensed contractors cannot sue for payment or foreclose liens in Nassau County, and hiring a licensed subcontractor does not cure the problem.
Read more:
Click here
ANS 1 Corp. v. Yosef (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
Rosso Law sued another firm for fraud, defamation, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution tied to a derivative shareholder dispute. The Second Department dismissed all claims because the complaint lacked required specifics: no justifiable reliance, no exact defamatory words or who heard them, filing a suit alone isn’t abuse of process, and no favorable termination or lack of probable cause. The ruling reinforces New York’s strict pleading standards for litigation‑related torts.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Aldea (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
The case involved a second-degree assault plea with a five-year probation term. The Second Department affirmed the conviction and probation length but struck a standard condition requiring Aldea to support dependents and meet family responsibilities. The court said probation terms must be individually tailored and tied to rehabilitation, even those listed in Penal Law § 65.10.
Read more:
Click here
170 Tillary Corp. v. Gold Tillary Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
This case asked whether a tenant could use a Yellowstone injunction to block lease termination over late fees, taxes/water charges, and alleged insurance/indemnity defaults. The Second Department denied relief for late fees because they can be handled in a nonpayment case with statutory cure rights, but otherwise upheld the injunction for taxes and water/sewer and found the tenant’s insurance proof sufficient to avoid an incurable default. The Second Department dismissed the tenant’s cross-appeal as academic and dismissed the appeal from the denial of reargument.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Andrewdean Stewart (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
The case stems from two 2017 shootings into an occupied bedroom where children were present. The Second Department dismissed three child-endangerment counts for lack of proof as to three children, three firearm-possession counts as lesser-included, and two weapon-possession counts because uninterrupted possession of one gun is a single offense; it affirmed the remaining convictions, including attempted murder. The ruling underscores the need for child-specific evidence and bars duplicative or lesser-included weapon charges.
Read more:
Click here
Waring v. Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
This case asked whether a slip-and-fall plaintiff could get extra time to serve the Town of Hempstead IDA under CPLR 306-b after service was disputed. The Second Department reversed and granted the extension in the interest of justice, citing timely commencement and service attempts, a prompt motion, the defendant’s actual notice, an expired statute of limitations, and potential merit. It underscores that courts may extend service when the equities favor it, even without strict good cause, especially after the limitations period has run.
Read more:
Click here
Greiber v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
The case asked whether the NCAA had to do more to protect women’s lacrosse players from concussions, such as changing equipment rules and giving extra warnings. The Second Department dismissed the claims, finding concussions are an inherent, known risk the plaintiff assumed, the NCAA provided warnings, and it did not unreasonably increase risk by keeping the then-standard no hard-helmet rule. The ruling reinforces New York’s assumption-of-risk rule in college sports and confirms scholarship pressure does not negate voluntary participation.
Read more:
Click here
Gawel v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
In a Child Victims Act negligence suit against religious institutions, defendants sought to strike multiple allegations as scandalous under CPLR 3024(b). The Second Department modified the order, striking several paragraphs and the phrase “clergy in general,” but left the rest of the case-specific allegations intact. The ruling underscores that complaints can include specific, relevant facts, while generalized, inflammatory claims will be removed without barring related evidence at trial.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Hall (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
This case centers on whether the defendant validly gave up his right to a lawyer to represent himself at trial. The Second Department reversed and ordered a new trial because the judge did not warn him about the risks and possible sentence or test his understanding. It confirms that, without a thorough on-the-record inquiry, a waiver of counsel is invalid.
Read more:
Click here
Angelo Amvrosiatos v. Hanover Insurance Group (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
In a SUM coverage dispute, the insured sought to depose the insurer’s claims adjuster about the claim investigation. The Second Department reinstated the deposition and reversed a protective order, finding the request was narrowly tailored and sought relevant evidence about the timing, adequacy, and good faith of the investigation. The ruling signals that insurers cannot use protective orders to block targeted, relevant claims‑handling discovery.
Read more:
Click here
Samuel Sainplice v. Amram Tuizer et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
In a personal injury suit over a 2015 bicycle–truck collision, the Second Department allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint to add two related companies and a principal under the relation-back doctrine despite the statute of limitations. It refused to add the alleged driver. The court found the corporate parties were united in interest and had notice, and that delay and insurer opposition showed no prejudice; by contrast, the driver claim was speculative and failed those requirements.
Read more:
Click here
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Hasan (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
This case asked whether forged mortgage satisfactions are void and whether a later lender can claim good‑faith protection despite a recorded notice of pendency. The Second Department reinstated removal of the three forged satisfactions against USROF and found USROF was not a good‑faith lender because the notice of pendency and multiple satisfactions required inquiry. The ruling confirms forged satisfactions do not change lien priority, and lenders with constructive notice cannot rely on them.
Read more:
Click here
Heres v. Reese (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
A plaintiff used CPLR 3213 to enforce an installment settlement after a default. The Second Department affirmed liability but limited recovery to $24,500 in overdue installments because there was no acceleration clause, denied attorneys’ fees, and affirmed dismissal of the confidentiality counterclaim for not pleading damages. The ruling underscores that without an acceleration clause only past-due payments are recoverable, fees require explicit authority, and confidentiality claims must allege actual harm.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Treyvon A. E. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
This case asked whether prosecutors showed extraordinary circumstances to keep a 17-year-old’s robbery cases in the Youth Part instead of Family Court under Raise the Age. The Second Department reversed the convictions, denied the People’s motion, and ordered both cases removed to Family Court. The ruling reinforces the high bar for extraordinary circumstances and that serious allegations alone won’t prevent removal, even after guilty pleas.
Read more:
Click here
170 Tillary Corp. v. Gold Tillary Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 3, 2025)
A commercial tenant sought a Yellowstone injunction after receiving a 15-day rent demand for base rent, taxes, and water/sewer charges. The Second Department held the demand cannot support Yellowstone relief for base rent, but left the injunction in place for taxes and water/sewer because collection and RPAPL 751(1) protections were uncertain. The decision clarifies that statutory rent demands typically block Yellowstone relief for base rent, while limited protection may still apply to additional rent items.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Newsday LLC, Respondent-Appellant v. New York State Education Department, Appellant-Respondent (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
Newsday sought FOIL access to physicians’ license-renewal “moral character” answers. The Third Department dismissed the petition, holding the answers are confidential under Education Law § 6510(8) and thus exempt from FOIL; fees were denied because Newsday did not substantially prevail. The ruling confirms these responses are off-limits to encourage candor in licensing oversight.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Richard Miller v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
An incarcerated person challenged discipline after he made a kissing gesture and a personal comment to a correction officer. The Third Department annulled the stalking charge for lack of evidence but upheld the harassment finding under 7 NYCRR 270.2(B)(8)(ii). The decision clarifies that such conduct can be punished as harassment, not stalking, and orders expungement of the invalid charge with no penalty recalculation since no good time was lost.
Read more:
Click here
Loren S. Sullivan v. Gerald R. Flynn et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
A cabinetmaker measuring a kitchen at a construction site tripped over a diagonal brace and sued the contractor under Labor Law § 200 and negligence. The Third Department reinstated the case, reversing summary judgment for the defendants. It held that an open-and-obvious hazard may negate only a duty to warn, not the duty to keep the site reasonably safe, leaving site safety and comparative fault for a jury.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Kevin Moran v. James V. McDonald; Matter of Mary M. Dunn et al. v. James V. McDonald (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
DOH disciplined funeral-service educators for allegedly collecting and sharing confidential National Board Exam questions, accusing them of aiding license fraud. The Third Department reinstated their licenses and annulled DOH’s decision, finding the educators made no false or fraudulent statements. The court said DOH cannot use an aiding‑fraud theory without first rebutting a 2018 law that presumes then‑licensed funeral directors validly passed the exam.
Read more:
Click here
Kosinski v. Wladis (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
The Third Department reinstated a medical malpractice suit against an ophthalmologist after finding the patient’s expert raised factual disputes about misdiagnosis and surgical choices. It held the trial court erred by discounting an out-of-state expert and by weighing competing expert opinions on summary judgment. The decision matters because detailed expert opinions can block summary judgment, and out-of-state experts may testify to national standards.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Jayson Hooks, Petitioner, v. Anthony Rodriguez, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
This case involved a challenge to a prison disciplinary ruling after an inmate assault. The Third Department dismissed the gang-activity charge and ordered it expunged, but otherwise upheld findings for violent conduct, assault, creating a disturbance, and weapon possession, with no penalty change because the time was already served. The decision confirms circumstantial evidence can sustain prison discipline, but gang-activity findings require concrete proof.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Demetrius L. Mack (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
The Third Department reversed a second-degree murder conviction and ordered a new trial because the judge refused to give a self-defense instruction. A reasonable view of the evidence could support self-defense, including the victim’s size advantage, the fight dynamics, and an open knife with the victim’s DNA. The court also reminded trial courts that New York law bars filming or broadcasting witness testimony.
Read more:
Click here
Cockia Turner v. Melvin Quinones and Quality Building & Maintenance LLC (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 4, 2025)
In an FHA 203(k) renovation dispute, a homeowner withheld the final draw and sought repair costs after skipping the contract’s joint walk‑through, punch list, and warranty steps. The Third Department affirmed the contractor’s right to the final draw, rejected the homeowner’s repair damages, and vacated a $12,500 unjust‑enrichment award as duplicative and unsupported. The ruling underscores that parties must follow contract procedures and that unjust enrichment claims require specific proof beyond the contract.
Read more:
Click here