Sharelle Felton et al. v. St. Joseph Hospital et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2026)
The First Department dismissed the case, finding the decedent’s long‑term partner qualified as a domestic partner with priority to decide his cremation, not his adult children. The decision confirms domestic partners can outrank adult children on who controls remains, and that hospitals and funeral providers may rely on that authority without right‑of‑sepulcher liability.
Read more: Click here
FORT CRE 2022-FL3 ISSUER LLC, et al. v. Mark Karasick, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2026)
This case asked whether a New York suit to enforce absolute, unconditional payment guaranties must wait for a related Minnesota foreclosure. The First Department reinstated the New York guaranty action and vacated the CPLR 2201 stay, holding the guaranties are payment guaranties with broad waivers that make the foreclosure defenses irrelevant. The decision confirms these guaranties are immediately enforceable in New York and that “actual losses” language does not convert them into collection guaranties.
Read more: Click here
Castle Village Owners Corp. v. Girardi (Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2026)
A co-op sued a shareholder to fix a shower-pan leak that was damaging the apartment below and to allow access under the proprietary lease. The First Department dismissed the resident’s counterclaims and granted summary judgment to the co-op, ordering access for repairs at her expense. The ruling confirms that co-op boards can enforce repair and access duties when they show a building-impacting defect, and their repair choices are generally protected absent proof of bad faith or selective enforcement.
Read more: Click here
Arturo Arita v. FDS Associates, LLC; FDS Associates, LLC v. The City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2026)
In a personal-injury case, the City sought to add fraud defenses and pause the schedule based on a separate federal RICO complaint against the plaintiff’s lawyers and doctors. The First Department refused to add those defenses or stay the case, but allowed limited post-note-of-issue discovery—a deposition on the plaintiff’s knowledge of the RICO allegations—while keeping the case on the trial calendar. The ruling confirms that parallel RICO allegations alone don’t support fraud defenses, though they can justify narrow, targeted discovery.
Read more: Click here
JDS Construction Group LLC et al. v. Copper Services, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2026)
A construction payment dispute on a large project involved mechanic’s liens, alleged Article 3‑A trust‑fund diversion, and a “concurrent delay” defense. The First Department reinstated Copper’s trust‑diversion and accounting counterclaims and allowed amendments to add fiduciary‑duty claims, but held lien‑foreclosure claims time‑barred under Lien Law § 17 and enforced a prior bar on the delay defense. The ruling underscores strict lien‑deadline enforcement, the need for competent proof on statute‑of‑limitations motions, and liberal allowance of amendments to trust‑diversion claims.
Read more: Click here
A.L. v. A.M. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 5, 2026)
A.L. v. A.M. concerns a mother’s bid to change joint custody after the parents’ communication collapsed over schooling, medical care, and therapy. The First Department reinstated the motion and sent the case back for a hearing on the children’s best interests, finding a material change in circumstances. The ruling confirms that persistent breakdowns in joint decision-making require a hearing, and an older child’s preference, while weighty, is not decisive on its own.
Read more: Click here
Joseph Schiff v. Intersystem S&S Corp., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 5, 2026)
A pedestrian sued after tripping on scaffolding materials left on a sidewalk outside the Apple Bank Building. The First Department held contractor Intersystem liable on summary judgment based on a supervisor’s admission and other evidence, and granted Apple Bank summary judgment on its cross‑claim that Intersystem failed to obtain required additional‑insured coverage. The ruling underscores that employee admissions and circumstantial proof can establish contractor liability, and that owners must show inspection practices to win dismissal.
Read more: Click here
Lam Pearl Street Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Anthony T. Rinaldi, LLC, et al., and Main Electrical Services, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2026)
Dispute over who must cover property damage from sprinkler work on a hotel project, with the general contractor seeking contractual indemnity from its electrical subcontractor. The First Department modified the order and held that indemnity is triggered by showing the subcontractor’s acts or omissions contributed to the loss, not by proving negligence. The grant remains conditional while the contractor’s own fault is unresolved, underscoring that courts enforce indemnity language as written even if the contractor may share fault.
Read more: Click here
Nereida Colon v. The City of New York, et al.; Rita Marsicano (Appellate Division, First Department, March 3, 2026)
A pedestrian slipped on ice on the sidewalk next to a homeowner’s driveway. The owner invoked the § 7-210(b) homeowner exemption, but The First Department reinstated the complaint because she did not show her driveway use did not create or worsen the ice; lack of recollection was insufficient. The ruling confirms exempt homeowners must still negate liability from “special use” of a sidewalk to win summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Debra Graham (Appellate Division, First Department, March 5, 2026)
The case challenged an appeal waiver and probation terms, including making $375 in mandatory fees a condition of probation. The First Department invalidated the appeal waiver and struck the fee condition, but otherwise affirmed the sentence, upholding standard conduct terms and declining to reach the employment/education claim. The decision confirms courts must clearly explain appeal rights separate from a plea and that probation cannot hinge on paying mandatory fees, while ordinary conduct conditions may stand when tied to rehabilitation.
Read more: Click here
Hart v. Theatre Three Productions, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
This case involved a theatre owner’s third‑party bid to shift liability to the injured worker’s employer after a jobsite accident. The Second Department dismissed the third‑party complaint because no “grave injury” was alleged and documents showed no pre‑accident written indemnity agreement. The decision confirms that, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, such employer claims are barred absent a grave injury or express indemnity and can be resolved at the pleading stage.
Read more: Click here
John Harrington v. Theresa Ortolani (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
A condo dispute arose after leaks were blamed on a unit owner’s rooftop garden, and he sued the HOA president for defamation and other claims. The Second Department dismissed the entire complaint. The ruling underscores strict pleading requirements for defamation and fiduciary duty claims in HOA disputes and that individual board members generally are not personally liable for alleged bylaw breaches.
Read more: Click here
Wong v. 75 Baxter Owner, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
In a slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff sought a default judgment after 75 Baxter Owner, LLC failed to answer. The Second Department reversed and granted leave to enter a default judgment because the plaintiff showed proper service and claim facts, and 75 Baxter did not oppose. The ruling underscores that unopposed default motions with proper proof must be granted and that serving an LLC via the Secretary of State is effective.
Read more: Click here
People v. Alexander (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
This drug case raised issues about police-disciplinary discovery, whether possession is a lesser-included of sale, and sentencing. The Second Department affirmed the convictions and held that exonerated or unfounded disciplinary records are not automatically discoverable, and that possession is not a lesser-included of sale. It reduced the sentence by running all terms concurrently, cutting the total from 16 to 8 years.
Read more: Click here
People v. Rafikian (also known as Mo Kian) (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
The Second Department dismissed the indictments and vacated all convictions in a case charging grand larceny, scheme to defraud, criminal impersonation, and unauthorized practice of law. It found the money was voluntarily paid, the State didn’t prove he impersonated a real person, and some counts improperly lumped multiple acts. The decision underscores that proof must match the jury charge and that separate acts must be charged separately.
Read more: Click here
People v. Lameek Dean (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
Two unrelated theft cases were tried together, raising issues about severance, a police officer’s lay identification from surveillance stills, and removal of a sworn juror. The Second Department reversed and ordered a new trial because the judge discharged a sworn juror without giving defense counsel notice or a chance to be heard, violating CPL 270.35. It otherwise upheld the severance ruling and found the identification error harmless.
Read more: Click here
People v. Harris (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
Wayne Harris pleaded guilty to third-degree weapon possession, and the trial court imposed mandatory surcharges and fees even though he was under 21 at the time of the crime. The Second Department vacated those surcharges and fees under CPL 420.35(2-a) with the People’s consent and otherwise affirmed. The ruling confirms that such financial obligations should be waived for defendants under 21 and that appellate courts may grant this relief in the interest of justice.
Read more: Click here
McFarlane v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
Plaintiff claimed knee, shoulder, and spine injuries from a crash with the New York City Transit Authority under New York’s no-fault serious-injury rule. The Second Department dismissed the case after defendants showed the conditions were preexisting and degenerative, and the plaintiff’s experts failed to offer objective evidence to rebut causation. This decision underscores that plaintiffs must present concrete medical proof addressing degeneration to meet the serious-injury threshold.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Mary Ann Bates, deceased (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
This trust fight asked whether a family septic business and its equipment were “contents” of 36 Starr Ridge Road or passed under the residuary clause, and whether a no‑contest clause applied. The Second Department dismissed Stuart Bates’s cross‑appeal, vacated the Surrogate’s Court’s on‑its‑own summary judgment on that distribution issue, and otherwise affirmed. It held the trust language is ambiguous and the no‑contest clause was not triggered, signaling that ambiguous “contents” provisions can’t be decided on summary judgment and that in terrorem clauses are strictly construed.
Read more: Click here
Phillips v. Varma (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
After a patient developed a spinal epidural abscess six days after his third lumbar steroid injection, he sued for malpractice and lack of informed consent. The Second Department reinstated the claims, finding the defendants did not rule out that their conduct caused the infection and that the plaintiff’s expert and the circumstances could support an inference of negligence. It also held that a signed consent form was not enough to show adequate risk disclosure, underscoring that compliance testimony alone won’t secure summary judgment in post-procedure infection cases.
Read more: Click here
Opteum Financial Services, LLC v. Einersen (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
A mortgage foreclosure case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Second Department reinstated the case because there was no proof the required CPLR 3216 90-day demand was properly served. The ruling underscores that courts need strict proof of service before dismissing for delay.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Any Vanessa M. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
This case asked whether a juvenile must get credit toward placement for all time spent in detention beforehand. The Second Department modified the order to credit all time from 2019 to 2024, found the three-year term already satisfied, and ordered her release. It confirms that full credit is automatic unless the court makes specific findings that denying credit serves the child’s needs or public safety.
Read more: Click here
Stepanov v. Five Borough Home Care, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
The Second Department narrowed class certification in a wage-and-hour suit by home health aides against Five Borough Home Care. Overtime, timely-pay, and wage-parity claims may proceed on a class or issue basis, but 24-hour live-in, spread-of-hours, and uniform-cost claims may not. The court also excluded later hires and certain union members who signed arbitration and class waivers, which do not bind employees already working when the case began.
Read more: Click here
Bustamante v. BSD 370 Lexington, L.L.C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
A renovation worker fell when a Baker scaffold without guardrails toppled. The Second Department granted him summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and on § 241(6) based on 12 NYCRR 23-5.18(b), but affirmed denial of the other Industrial Code claims. The ruling confirms that missing guardrails or fall protection on a manually propelled scaffold establishes liability for owners and general contractors, while other code claims require proof they apply.
Read more: Click here
Grauer v. Westhampton Beach School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
In Grauer v. Westhampton Beach School District, a consulting behavior specialist said the District retaliated after she advocated for a disabled student and testified. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, finding her speech was part of her job and the other claims lacked required elements. The decision underscores that contractors cannot base First Amendment retaliation on job-duty speech and that whistleblower, Human Rights Law, and interference claims need specific, well-pled facts.
Read more: Click here
BR Madison, LLC v. McCord (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
BR Madison sought to quiet title to a Hempstead property bought at a tax lien sale, but the owner allegedly had dementia when notice was sent. The Second Department reversed the judgment for BR Madison, denied summary judgment, and dismissed as academic the renewal appeal. It held that evidence of the owner’s incompetence can raise a due process issue, making mailed and published notice inadequate even if the lienholder didn’t know of the incapacity.
Read more: Click here
Roland Finley v. Diocese of Brooklyn (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
The case asked whether New York’s COVID-19 executive orders paused the Child Victims Act filing window. The Second Department affirmed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding the orders paused the window for 228 days and made Finley’s March 24, 2022 filing timely. The ruling confirms March 30, 2022 as the last day to file revived CVA claims and that the 2020 amendment did not undo the pause.
Read more: Click here
Gates v. Gates (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 4, 2026)
Family dispute over whether a daughter had to reconvey two properties under a 1994 agreement after loans were repaid. The Second Department dismissed the direct appeal as subsumed and affirmed, finding the estate never paid required closing costs, so no reconveyance; it canceled the notices of pendency and dismissed the accounting, conversion, waste, and constructive trust claims. The decision underscores that express conditions precedent must be strictly met and that equitable or tort theories cannot sidestep a controlling written contract.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Brad Gordon (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 5, 2026)
This case asked whether a judge could increase a negotiated sentence after a guilty plea because the defendant missed sentencing. The Third Department vacated the enhanced sentence and sent the case back to either impose the promised term or let the defendant withdraw his plea. It confirms that a court cannot raise a plea sentence without a clear, specific warning that missing court will lead to a higher sentence or, alternatively, an opportunity to withdraw the plea.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Joseph Nemeth et al. v. K-Tooling et al., and Village of Hancock Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 5, 2026)
The case challenged a use variance allowing a long‑standing nonconforming manufacturing site in a residential zone to keep using a 2001 addition in the Village of Hancock. The Third Department dismissed the neighbors’ challenge and reinstated the ZBA’s 2016 approval. It matters because the court credited solid dollars‑and‑cents proof, no neighborhood impact, a unique hardship, and good‑faith reliance on a building permit, reinforcing deference to local zoning boards.
Read more: Click here