Ingrid Pacheco v. Catholic Guardian Services (Appellate Division, First Department, November 6, 2025)
An employee sued Catholic Guardian Services for unpaid wages under Labor Law § 191. The First Department dismissed the complaint for lacking any pay-frequency violation and for not plausibly alleging she was a covered clerical worker. With no § 191 claim, the § 198 remedies claim failed, confirming § 191 governs pay intervals, not unpaid wages.
Read more:
Click here
Maria A. Diaz De-Rivas v. Esplanade 99 LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, November 6, 2025)
Plaintiff defaulted on a summary judgment motion when her lawyer didn’t properly submit a second adjournment stipulation. The First Department reinstated the case, finding the mistake was reasonable law office error and that plaintiff showed a plausible opposition. It confirms that a single, non-prejudicial error tied to 22 NYCRR 202.8(e) can justify vacating a default so the motion is decided on the merits.
Read more:
Click here
Partners for Payment Relief DE III, LLC v. Crooks (Appellate Division, First Department, November 6, 2025)
In this foreclosure case, the borrower challenged service at his three-story building because the process server’s affidavit didn’t specify the floor or unit. The First Department reversed the trial court’s summary vacatur and dismissal and sent the case back for a hearing on whether CPLR 308(2) service was proper. It underscores that disputed service in a multifamily residence requires a traverse hearing before a judgment or deed is undone.
Read more:
Click here
Luis J. Tigsilema Ichapanta v. East Side Home Stead LLC; Taconic Builders, Inc.; and JVA Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 6, 2025)
A JVA employee was injured while hoisting plywood on a renovation, and general contractor Taconic sought contractual indemnification from JVA under their subcontract. The First Department modified the lower court’s order and granted Taconic conditional contractual indemnification and reimbursement of fees. The court found the injury arose from JVA’s work, the clause’s savings language complied with New York’s anti-indemnity law, and there was no showing Taconic was solely at fault—underscoring that well-drafted clauses can secure summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Julie Mejias v. Linda Basch (Appellate Division, First Department, November 6, 2025)
The First Department dismissed a trip-and-fall suit over a raised kitchen door saddle, finding the 7/8-inch height difference was a trivial, obvious condition without trap-like features. It also held a defense expert was unnecessary and that NYC Building Code § 1010.1.7 did not apply to this existing home absent substantial renovation or a change in use.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Pointdexter (Appellate Division, First Department, November 6, 2025)
The First Department struck a probation condition requiring an indigent defendant to pay $1,425 in fees in an attempted sexual abuse case, but otherwise affirmed his sentence and standard restrictions. It found the payment condition wasn’t tied to rehabilitation under Penal Law § 65.10, and his appeal waiver barred excessive‑sentence and as‑applied constitutional claims. The ruling confirms courts cannot make fees a condition of probation for indigent people.
Read more:
Click here
Marinel Lotrean et al. v. 3M Company et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 6, 2025)
Plaintiffs alleged that benzene-contaminated automotive solvents caused cancer. The First Department dismissed the case, reversing the lower court and granting summary judgment to EIDP, Rust-Oleum, and Zep. The court found no product-specific proof of benzene or quantified exposure, reinforcing New York’s strict causation standards under Parker and Nemeth.
Read more:
Click here
Leslie v. Marinello (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
A pedestrian alleges she was hit in a crosswalk by an FDNY ambulance. The Second Department reinstated her negligence claims against the City and the driver, reversing the lower court’s dismissal. The court held that disputed facts about the signal, speed, visibility, due care, and whether an emergency justified the driver’s actions must be decided by a jury.
Read more:
Click here
Schollmeier v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
A rider fell on a visibly corroded LIRR station staircase; a jury found LIRR negligent. The Second Department affirmed liability, citing prior corrosion reports and the obvious defect as constructive notice. It set aside the $200,000 pain-and-suffering award as excessive and ordered a new trial unless the plaintiff accepts $100,000, signaling that damages for minor, healed injuries may be reduced on appeal.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of P.-T. (Anonymous) v. R. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-11-05)
A maternal aunt sought custody of her niece after the mother’s death, citing the child’s mental health crisis, strong ties to New York relatives, and a limited bond with the father. The Second Department reinstated the petition and ordered forensic evaluations and a hearing, keeping the child with the aunt for now. The decision underscores that specific, credible allegations can show possible extraordinary circumstances and preclude summary judgment against a nonparent.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Bonfante (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
This case challenged an appeal waiver and a boilerplate probation condition requiring support of dependents after a guilty plea to possessing a sexual performance by a child. The Second Department held the appeal waiver invalid because it was raised only after the plea and struck the untailored family-support condition, but otherwise affirmed the sentence. The ruling reinforces that waivers must be part of the negotiated plea and probation terms must be individualized and tied to rehabilitation.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Scarlett (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
The case asked whether post-conviction orders of protection must subtract time the defendant already served in jail. The Second Department enforced the sentence appeal waiver but vacated the April 2040 expiration dates and sent the case back to recalculate the orders with jail-time credit. The decision confirms that challenges to the length of these orders survive an appeal waiver and that courts will correct overlong durations.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Gaffar (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
This case clarifies limits on criminal orders of protection at sentencing. The Second Department affirmed the sentence but struck the order as to a person who was not a victim or witness and set aside the expiration date as too long, sending the matter back to set a lawful term. It confirms such orders may cover only victims or witnesses and must comply with statutory time limits, and that unpreserved errors can be corrected in the interest of justice.
Read more:
Click here
Bajana v. Alvarado (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
This case asked whether a parent enforcing a child support stipulation can recover arrears that build up while the enforcement motion is pending. The Second Department reversed the $1,200 cap and sent the case back to calculate all arrears, including post-filing amounts, because the mother gave written notice under Domestic Relations Law § 244-a and the father admitted nonpayment. It confirms that § 244-a notice allows recovery of post-filing arrears and that an admission of nonpayment is sufficient prima facie proof.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Rosa (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
This appeal challenged New York’s gun-possession laws after Bruen and sought waiver of mandatory surcharges for a defendant under 21. The Second Department modified the judgment to vacate the surcharges and fees under CPL 420.35(2-a) with the People’s consent, and otherwise affirmed. It found the Bruen challenge was not raised in the trial court and, regardless, the statutes remain valid, confirming Bruen does not undercut New York possession crimes and that young defendants may obtain surcharge waivers.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of 154-156 Long Beach Road, LLC v. Jefferson (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
This case challenged a Nassau County tax deed based on claimed inadequate notice to redeem a tax lien, including missing certified‑mail “green cards.” The Second Department reinstated the deed, finding the certified mailings to the property and a Brooklyn address were likely to reach the owner and that return receipts or extra notice to an unrecorded principal were not required. The court emphasized that Nassau County’s savings clause means technical notice defects alone do not void a tax deed without proof the notice failed.
Read more:
Click here
Kataeva v. Kataev (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
This case concerned a parent’s plan to move within a 15-mile radius and change the children’s school, plus a tax reimbursement claim under the divorce stipulation. The Second Department sent the relocation and custody issues back for a best-interests hearing, but it upheld the $4,565 tax reimbursement award. It confirms that a mileage clause does not automatically allow a move; when facts are disputed, a hearing is required.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Proffitt (Actions Nos. 1 & 2) (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
This case asked whether the trial court had to explicitly consider youthful offender status when sentencing an eligible youth who pleaded guilty. The Second Department vacated the sentences and sent the case back for a youthful offender determination and resentencing; the convictions stand. It reinforces that judges must make an on-the-record youthful offender decision in every eligible case, or the sentence will be set aside.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Larkin (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
The Second Department affirmed a third-degree assault conviction and probation but struck a boilerplate condition requiring the defendant to support dependents because it wasn’t tailored to the offense or rehabilitation. It also held the appeal waiver valid, blocking any challenge to sentence length, and found the five-year order-of-protection challenge unpreserved and meritless. The decision signals that generic probation terms must be individualized and remain reviewable despite an appeal waiver.
Read more:
Click here
Shzu v. Marrelli (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
The Second Department reversed in part and sent back a child support case between former spouses. It held that because the plaintiff’s income rose by 15% or more, the court must recalculate basic child support and make any change to add‑on expenses retroactive to the November 23, 2021 filing date. The court also vacated the $12,000 counsel-fee award for reconsideration.
Read more:
Click here
Diversified Building Co., LLC v. Nader Enterprises, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 5, 2025)
A parking‑lot lease dispute where the landlord rented some of the tenant’s spaces and sought eviction and rent. The Second Department reinstated defenses for waiver, constructive eviction/quiet enjoyment, and improper notice, and revived trespass and contract counterclaims, while leaving in place dismissals of impossibility, frustration, implied covenant, and unjust enrichment. The ruling underscores that factual disputes at the pleading stage preserve key defenses, strict lease‑notice rules apply, and nonwaiver clauses do not eliminate waiver.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of William F. Hogencamp, as a State Police Investigator v. Matthew KK. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 6, 2025)
A State Police investigator sought an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) after a Vermont traveler allegedly threatened harm, but the trial court canceled the hearing on its own and dismissed the petition as redundant. The Third Department reinstated the case and ordered a prompt hearing. It held that a hearing is required after a temporary ERPO is denied and that efficiency concerns or out-of-state residency are not reasons to skip it.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Tammy Bigelow et al. v. Town of Willsboro Planning Board et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 6, 2025)
This case challenged a planning board’s approval of a revised self-storage project without new environmental review. The Third Department reinstated the SEQRA claims, annulled the site plan approval, and remanded because the board neither conducted a fresh review nor issued a written waiver with reasons. It matters because boards cannot rely on prior reviews for new applications, and an Open Meetings Law notice lapse alone does not void an approval.
Read more:
Click here