Henriquez v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department ruled that a police sergeant injured by smoke while responding to a NYCHA apartment fire could not add new claims that the building lacked fire alarms and sprinklers because those theories were not included in her original notice of claim. It struck those added allegations and left in place the denial of her request to amend the notice and complaint after the deadline had passed. The decision underscores that claims against public entities must clearly spell out the main theories of liability at the start, because later filings cannot be used to add new ones.
The People of the State of New York v. Avis Ruiz (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department upheld Avis Ruiz’s conviction for attempted second-degree rape after finding that his challenge to his guilty plea was not properly preserved for appeal. It did, however, correct his sentence so that his 6-month jail term and 10 years of probation run at the same time, not one after the other. This decision matters because it underscores that plea objections usually must be raised in the trial court, while sentencing errors can still be fixed on appeal.
AIG Property Casualty Company as subrogee of Adam Schwartz v. High Line Construction Group LLC, The Night LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 7, 2026)
The First Department largely upheld rulings arising from property damage caused when a sprinkler discharged during renovation work, finding there was enough evidence for claims that the painting subcontractor, Sammy’s Interior Painting, may have caused the loss. It also ruled that the general contractor, High Line, is entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from Sammy’s because there was no evidence High Line was negligent.
Kathy Breiding v. High Hopes Films, LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
An actress sued a film company and producer, claiming she was mistreated and later fired from another project after refusing a scripted on-screen kiss. The First Department dismissed her hostile work environment and retaliation claims under New York State law, but allowed her New York City law claims and discrimination claims to continue. The decision matters because it shows that city law can protect workers even when similar state-law claims fail, especially in cases involving ongoing gender-based mistreatment.
Luis Flores v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Appellate Division, First Department, May 7, 2026)
This medical malpractice case involved claims that NYC Health + Hospitals failed to timely diagnose a dangerous atrial-esophageal fistula after a cardiac ablation, causing Luis Flores to endure months of severe, conscious suffering before his death. The First Department upheld the jury’s liability finding and reinstated the full $6.1 million award for past pain and suffering, underscoring that courts will defer to supported expert proof and will sustain substantial damages awards when the evidence shows extraordinary suffering.
Cortlandt Street Recovery Corp. v. TPG Capital Management, L.P. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
This case arose from a telecom financing deal in which a noteholder said the offering materials misled investors about how note proceeds would be used and what assets would back the notes. The First Department dismissed the entire complaint, finding the documents did not actually make the alleged false promises and did not prohibit the redemptions at issue. The decision shows that fraud claims based on offering materials must rest on statements that are truly misleading, and contract claims must identify a specific term that was violated.
The People of the State of New York v. Mamadou Diallo (Appellate Division, First Department, May 7, 2026)
The First Department upheld Mamadou Diallo’s conviction and one-year prison sentence for attempted second-degree weapon possession, but removed the surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing. The decision matters because it shows the court can leave a criminal judgment in place while still eliminating financial penalties in the interest of justice.
Pablo A. Garcia v. 267 Development LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
In Garcia v. 267 Development LLC, the First Department dismissed the building owner’s claims against the company that installed a trash compactor after a porter was injured by flying glass near the machine. The court found that the installer had finished its limited work about a year before the accident and had no ongoing maintenance duty, so it had no obligation to indemnify the owner or warn about the missing safety cover. The decision makes clear that a contractor’s past work alone does not make it responsible for later accidents.
Matter of Bifulco v. City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department reinstated an Article 78 challenge brought by NYPD sergeants whose promotional exams were not scored after DCAS said they violated a cell-phone rule. The court vacated DCAS’s determinations, finding the rule was too unclear to support that penalty and noting DCAS had treated its own decision as final. This decision matters because agencies cannot impose serious consequences based on vague or inconsistently applied rules.
Ellise Park v. Stephen Butkow (Appellate Division, First Department, May 7, 2026)
In this divorce dispute, the First Department threw out a $70,000 interim attorney-fee award that had been granted to the husband over a fight about the wife’s handling of one of his emails with counsel. The court said some fee award might be justified, but the husband did not provide the required financial disclosures, retainer agreement, or clear billing support, so the request can be renewed only with proper paperwork.
Rosenblum v. City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department held that a concrete delivery worker who fell into an excavation after a makeshift platform collapsed was entitled to judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. But the court also ruled that the City was not liable for negligence because it did not control the work, and it granted the City contractual indemnification against the contractor.
Dodaj v. Total Concrete Flatwork, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
This case asked whether Total Concrete Flatwork, LLC could be held responsible for a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle owned by a related company. The First Department dismissed the claims against Total Concrete Flatwork, finding that it did not own, operate, or control the vehicle and did not employ the driver, which matters because related companies are not automatically liable just because they are affiliated.
Allen v. Thompson (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026 (corrected May 7, 2026))
This case involves a former client’s malpractice and contract claims against her attorney over changes to a separation agreement and the handling of related federal discrimination litigation. The First Department let the malpractice claim and most of the contract claim go forward, but dismissed the part based on the attorney’s alleged promise to keep the federal case sealed because a third party’s motion and a federal court order caused the records to be unsealed. The decision matters because it reminds lawyers that to win summary judgment, they must show they were not negligent or did not cause the client’s harm, not simply argue that the client lacks enough proof.
Rubin v. EFP Rotenberg, LLP (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department dismissed an investor’s negligence and misrepresentation claims against an accounting firm, holding that he could not show he reasonably relied on the firm’s work before making his $300,000 investment. The court found the final audit came after the investment, the quarterly filings were marked unaudited, and the investor could not rely on oral statements or a later affidavit that contradicted his prior testimony.
Smartmatic USA Corp. et al. v. Fox Corporation et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 7, 2026)
The First Department refused to pause Smartmatic’s defamation suit against Fox over 2020 election-fraud reporting, but it did allow Fox to seek limited additional discovery about how a new federal criminal indictment and related allegations may have affected Smartmatic’s business and claimed damages. The ruling matters because it shows that a parallel criminal case does not automatically stop a civil case, but new developments in that criminal case can justify targeted discovery on damages.
The People of the State of New York v. Dominique Parrott (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department ruled that Dominique Parrott’s appeal waiver was invalid because the record did not show he fully understood what rights he was giving up. It vacated his second-degree criminal trespass conviction because he never pleaded guilty to that charge, but otherwise left his burglary conviction and five-year postrelease supervision term in place, underscoring that plea waivers must be knowing and courts cannot uphold convictions for charges not actually admitted.
Matter of Monet O. v. Leroy L.B. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department modified a Family Court order in a family-law dispute over a child’s therapy, the father’s contact with the child, and whether the mother’s address had to be disclosed. It ruled that the mother’s address cannot be disclosed without a specific safety hearing, barred the father from communicating with or participating in the child’s therapy, and required the attorney for the child to review any letters, cards, or gifts before they are sent. This matters because it makes clear that courts must make their own child-safety and best-interests decisions, rather than leaving them to a therapist.
Calle v. JRR Contracting Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 7, 2026)
In this construction injury case, the First Department ruled that JRR Contracting could obtain a default judgment against its subcontractor, Regalado Contracting, on claims for indemnification and failure to obtain required insurance after Regalado failed to appear. The court found that JRR properly served Regalado, gave adequate notice, and provided enough evidence to support its claims. The decision matters because it shows that contractors can still win default relief if they follow the required steps and can explain any delay.
Forrester v. 640 Park Avenue Corporation (Appellate Division, First Department, May 5, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a Black nurse practitioner’s discrimination claims against a co-op owner and managing agent after she alleged she was prevented from buying a co-op unit for medical-office use and that it was instead sold to a white male board member. The court said her allegations were enough at this early stage, and the defendants’ documents did not conclusively disprove their involvement, underscoring that plausible housing discrimination claims should proceed to discovery rather than be dismissed too soon.
Matter of Bronxville Field Club, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that Bronxville Field Club could not rely on a 2017 building permit to add a second tennis bubble because the bubble counted as a new structure and required architectural approval first. Since that approval was never obtained, the permit was invalid and gave the club no vested rights. This matters because it confirms that property owners cannot keep the benefit of a permit issued by mistake when local zoning rules were not followed.
Matter of Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this family offense case, the Second Department ruled that the evidence showed the father harassed the parties’ child, but did not prove stalking. The court removed the stalking finding, but left the two-year order of protection in place, showing that a protection order can still stand even when only some of the claimed misconduct is proven.
Talasazan v. 4Matic Construction Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this construction-accident case, a driver alleged that a falling brick from a building project shattered his windshield and caused injuries. The Second Department upheld dismissal of the claims against the owner and general contractor because they did not control the subcontractor’s work, but it reversed the ruling that would have made the subcontractor pay their defense costs because the source of the brick and any negligence by the subcontractor were still unresolved. This matters because it confirms that owners and general contractors are often not liable for an independent subcontractor’s work, but they still need solid proof before shifting legal costs to that subcontractor.
Citibank, N.A. v. Cabello (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In a mortgage foreclosure dispute, Citibank argued that a 2008 mortgage satisfaction was recorded by mistake and sought to enforce an equitable lien against the property. The Second Department reversed the lower court, denied Citibank’s renewal motion, and reinstated dismissal of the claim against the homeowners because the equitable lien claim was filed too late under New York’s six-year statute of limitations. This matters because it confirms that lenders cannot revive an otherwise stale equitable lien claim based on a later change in foreclosure law.
Westchester Fitness, LLC v. Retrofitness, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this fitness franchise dispute, the parties fought over whether a franchise agreement required the New York claims to be brought only in New Jersey. The Second Department reinstated the claims based on alleged later settlement agreements, but left dismissed the claims tied directly to the franchise agreement because those claims fell within the New Jersey forum clause.
The decision matters because it confirms that forum selection clauses are generally enforceable, but only for disputes that actually arise from the contract containing the clause.
Zhivov v. Kings Bay Housing Co., Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this construction-injury case, a worker said he was hurt when he fell from an unsecured ladder during demolition work in a cooperative apartment. The Second Department ruled that he was not entitled to automatic judgment against the building owner because the defense offered evidence that raised a real question about whether the accident happened as claimed, while also keeping the landowner out of the case and allowing the negligence-related claims against the building owner to continue. The decision matters because ladder-fall claims still require clear proof of the accident, and owning the land alone is not enough to make a party liable.
146H, LLC v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
146H, LLC, which held a partial interest in the property, sued to cancel a mortgage on the ground that the time to foreclose had already expired after a 2006 foreclosure action accelerated the debt. The Second Department reinstated the case, finding that the earlier foreclosure no longer barred the claim once appeals as of right were over and that 146H had adequately alleged acceleration. The ruling matters because it shows that possible missing property owners should usually be addressed through joinder, not automatic dismissal.
Citizens Bank, N.A. v. Abrams (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
This case involved a bank’s foreclosure suit after the borrower died, and whether the case had to be thrown out because the borrower was deceased and the bank allegedly let the case sit too long. The Second Department ruled the foreclosure could go forward because the bank sued the borrower’s heir, not the deceased borrower or an unrepresented estate, and it had taken timely steps to pursue a default judgment. But the court also stopped mortgage interest from running for part of the delay period, showing that even when a foreclosure is valid, lenders can face consequences for unexplained delay.
Chavez v. 127 Eckford Bay, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this construction injury case, a demolition worker claimed he fell on a wet, debris-covered stairway while carrying debris in a broken trash can. The Second Department reinstated his claims for unsafe worksite conditions, negligence, and a Labor Law § 241(6) claim tied to how debris was being removed, but left in place the dismissal of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and his slip-hazard theory. The decision matters because it confirms that an ordinary staircase is not a covered safety device, while factual disputes about debris-removal methods and site safety can still keep key worker-injury claims alive.
Federal National Mortgage Association v. McDonald (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
This foreclosure case turned on two issues: whether the lender properly proved the amount owed and whether the borrower could still rely on a pre-foreclosure notice defense. The Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment because the referee’s calculation was based on hearsay and unsupported records, but it also held that the borrower could not dismiss the case on notice grounds after defaulting on an earlier motion. This matters because lenders must still provide reliable proof of the debt amount, even after winning on liability, and borrowers cannot revive defenses without first undoing their default.
Board of Managers of the 51 Jay Street Condominium v. 201 Water Street, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In a dispute over alleged construction defects and misuse of condominium sale proceeds, the Board of Managers of 51 Jay Street sued the project sponsor, its affiliates, and sponsor-controlled board members. The Second Department dismissed the fraudulent inducement claim as duplicative of the contract claims, but reinstated the breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyance claims based on allegations of self-dealing and insider transfers that left the sponsor unable to pay creditors. The decision matters because it confirms that sponsor-appointed board members may face liability for conflicted conduct, and that condo boards can challenge asset-stripping transfers.
Surya Capital 11 N. Elliot Place Holdings, LLC v. Royal Gardens 641, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that this mortgage foreclosure case was filed too late because an earlier 2011 foreclosure action had already made the full loan amount due and started the six-year limitations period. It reversed the foreclosure judgment, allowed the borrower to raise the time-bar defense, and dismissed the 2018 case because New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act does not let lenders rely on the six-month restart rule when the prior foreclosure was dismissed as abandoned.
Wellington Reynoso Rosario v. Wyckoff Supermarket Assoc., Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
This case involved a man who claimed he was injured after tripping on a misleveled sidewalk next to the defendants’ Brooklyn property. The Second Department reinstated the claims, finding the defendants did not provide enough proof that the sidewalk defect was too minor to be legally actionable.
The decision matters because it underscores that defendants cannot win dismissal of a sidewalk trip-and-fall case on a “trivial defect” theory without clear measurements or other reliable evidence showing the condition was insignificant.
Hichak v. Grand Plumbing, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this car-accident injury case, the Second Department held that once the jury found the plaintiff met one of New York’s serious-injury categories, the trial court should not have ordered a new trial on other injury categories the jury had rejected. But it let stand a new trial on damages because the jury’s $15,000 pain-and-suffering award and zero award for medical expenses did not fit the evidence, which included cervical spine surgery and extensive treatment.
Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. v. Henry (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment because the lender waited until 2022 to seek summary judgment, even though the filing deadline had passed in 2018. The court held that the lender never got permission to file late and did not show good cause for the delay, making clear that New York courts will strictly enforce summary judgment deadlines in foreclosure cases.
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Bazigos (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that HSBC could not win summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosure case because it did not show that each borrower received a separate pre-foreclosure notice, as New York law requires. The court also held that the borrower could not get the property back after the foreclosure judgment was reversed because it had already been sold to a good-faith purchaser, although any claim for the property’s value was not yet ready to be decided. This decision underscores that lenders must strictly follow notice rules before foreclosing, and that a later reversal will not undo a completed sale to an innocent buyer.
Matter of Houlihan/Lawrence, Inc. v. Katsoris (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department vacated an arbitration award in a real estate commission dispute because the arbitration was conducted under AAA Consumer Rules instead of the Real Estate Industry Arbitration Rules required by the parties’ contract. The court held that, without a written agreement to change the rules, the award could not stand. This decision is a reminder that arbitration must follow the exact process the contract requires.
Rolle v. JCDecaux Street Furniture New York, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In this workplace injury case, a worker said he was struck in the head by a falling panel while power-washing a public bus shelter. The Second Department kept the dismissal of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the accident was not the type of elevation-related hazard that statute covers, but reinstated his Labor Law § 241(6) and § 200 claims because the defendants’ motion to dismiss them was filed too late. The decision highlights both the limited reach of § 240(1) and the importance of meeting court deadlines.
People v. Persaud (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In People v. Persaud, the Second Department reduced part of a negotiated sentence in a sex trafficking and sex offense case, cutting the defendant’s postrelease supervision from 20 years to 10 years on two convictions while leaving the 12-year prison terms in place. The court said the appeal waiver was invalid because the trial judge required it without explanation, and the ruling shows that even agreed-upon sentences can still be reviewed and reduced if they are deemed too harsh.
People v. Persaud (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a defendant convicted after pleading guilty to sex trafficking and related sex offenses could challenge his sentence because the trial court’s appeal waiver was invalid. It kept his 12-year prison term in place but reduced postrelease supervision on two counts from 20 years to 10 years, showing that even a negotiated plea sentence can be cut if the supervision term is too harsh.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Carl (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department largely upheld JPMorgan Chase’s foreclosure on a $12 million home equity line of credit secured by Southampton property, finding the bank properly proved the loan, the default, and the amount due. The court rejected the borrowers’ counterclaims and arguments for more discovery, but increased the bank’s attorneys’ fee award from $5,000 to $40,000 because the loan documents allowed fee recovery and the bank showed the charges were reasonable.
Melissa Harbord, et al. v. A.J. Richard & Sons, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that consumers may continue pursuing claims that P.C. Richard misled them by advertising gas appliance installations as being done by “certified” installers when the work allegedly did not comply with New York City law. But it dismissed the unjust enrichment and express warranty claims because written sales contracts covered the dispute and the complaint did not say the buyers gave the notice required for a warranty claim. This matters because it confirms that alleged misstatements about installer qualifications can support consumer fraud and contract claims, while also reinforcing key limits on overlapping and warranty-based claims.
Abruzzo Docg, Inc. v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
Restaurants and other hospitality businesses sought insurance coverage for COVID-19 shutdown losses and the cost of changing their spaces to comply with government restrictions. The Second Department largely upheld dismissal of their claims and directed entry of a declaration that the insurers owed no coverage, holding that takeout reconfigurations, barriers, and altered floor plans were not “direct physical loss or damage” to property.
This matters because it reinforces that, under New York law, pandemic-related operating limits and compliance changes do not trigger property-policy coverage without actual physical alteration or a complete loss of the premises.
The People ex rel. Anna Boksenbaum, on behalf of Mabel Naira v. Stanley Richards (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 4, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a lower court wrongly refused to approve Mabel Naira’s $25,000 partially secured bail bond just because the person backing it did not have enough income. The court ordered her release once the bond was posted, making clear that in New York, judges cannot reject this type of bail bond based only on the surety’s income.
People v. Breland (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
In People v. Breland, the case focused on whether convictions from one 1995 robbery should be thrown out because other counts from a separate 1995 incident were later vacated. The Second Department reinstated the remaining convictions, finding no real chance that evidence tied to the vacated counts affected the jury’s decision because the proof on the surviving counts was strong and the incidents were treated separately at trial.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Speller (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a trial court order in a mortgage foreclosure case, holding that U.S. Bank did have standing because its witness and business records showed the bank’s authorized custodian had the original note when the case was filed. The court dismissed the borrowers’ standing defense, reinstated the foreclosure claims, and vacated the award of borrower expenses, underscoring that proper records and testimony can be enough to prove standing.
Perez v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
This case arose from a collision after an Access-A-Ride driver opened his door into traffic and hit a passing vehicle, injuring a passenger. The Second Department dismissed the claims against the passing driver, Steven Cymbalsky, finding the evidence showed he was driving below the speed limit and was not at fault because the door was opened unsafely into traffic. This matters because it confirms that a driver can win dismissal in a negligence case when the undisputed facts show another person’s unsafe conduct was the sole cause of the accident.
Dimas Tower, Inc. v. North Shore Towers Apartments Incorporated (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 6, 2026)
The Second Department largely pared down a commercial lease dispute between a restaurant tenant and its landlord over rights to use an additional space called the VIP Room. It dismissed claims based on an alleged oral promise to give the tenant that space, along with the unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, fraud, and specific performance claims, but allowed a contract claim to continue based on allegations that the landlord handled the written VIP Room bidding process in bad faith.
The decision matters because it reinforces that long-term real estate rights generally must be in writing, while also confirming that a party can still sue if the other side unfairly uses a written bidding process to deny the benefit of the deal.
The People of the State of New York v. Nathan Shaver (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 7, 2026)
The Third Department reversed Nathan Shaver’s convictions for first-degree sexual abuse and ordered a new trial. The court said the evidence was strong enough to support the verdict, but the trial judge made a reversible error by letting prosecutors use a late-disclosed witness to challenge the defense alibi without giving the defense the short delay required by law to investigate. This matters because it underscores that even in serious criminal cases, convictions can be overturned when basic trial-fairness rules are not followed.
The People of the State of New York v. Monique Dibble (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 7, 2026)
The Third Department ruled that Monique Dibble should not have received a longer prison sentence after her probation interview in a drug-sale and criminally negligent homicide case. It found that the plea conditions were not explained clearly enough and that her statements to probation were not plainly inconsistent with her guilty plea, so it reduced her sentence on the drug conviction from nine years back to the promised five years plus postrelease supervision. This matters because courts cannot increase a negotiated sentence unless the plea rules are specific, clear, and clearly broken.
Matter of Jillian PP. v. Christopher C. (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 7, 2026)
In this custody case, the mother challenged an order that gave her sole custody but still allowed the father unsupervised and overnight visits, even though he had already been found to have sexually abused the child’s half brother. The Third Department reversed that visitation ruling and sent the case back for a new hearing before a different judge, while temporarily restoring the father’s more limited daytime visits. The decision matters because it confirms that proven abuse of one child can strongly support tighter visitation limits for another, and that a later consent order does not automatically end an appeal.
Matter of Jillian PP. v. Christopher C. (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 7, 2026)
In this custody and visitation dispute, the mother challenged an order that gave the father unsupervised and overnight visits even though he had already been found to have sexually abused the child’s half brother. The Third Department reversed that visitation ruling, sent the case back for a new hearing before a different judge, and reinstated the earlier temporary order allowing only limited daytime visits. This matters because the court said a parent’s proven abuse of another child can be strong evidence of risk, and courts cannot rely on assumptions that a young child can recognize and report abuse.
Maloney v. Night Castle Management (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 7, 2026)
This case stems from a concert worker’s leg injury when stage equipment fell during unloading, and the dispute focused on which companies had to cover the loss. The Third Department let most claims continue because key facts about loading, supervision, and fault are still disputed, but it dismissed the common-law indemnification and insurance-procurement claims against the worker’s employer, SMG. The decision matters because it shows that liability-shifting provisions depend on both the contract language and the facts, and that an employer is generally protected from these extra claims unless the worker suffered a legally defined grave injury.
Matter of Pletcher v. New York State Gaming Commission (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 7, 2026)
Trainer Todd Pletcher challenged racing penalties after his horse, Forte, tested positive after a race for Meloxicam, a drug not allowed under New York’s thoroughbred medication rules. The Third Department upheld the 10-day suspension and $1,000 fine, ruling that the positive postrace test itself was enough to show a violation and that Pletcher did not overcome the rule holding trainers responsible. The decision matters because it confirms that regulators do not have to prove exactly when the drug was given if a prohibited anti-inflammatory is found after a race.