Matter of SLG 810 Seventh Lessee LLC v. Tydel Holding Corp. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
This case involved a commercial sublease dispute over unpaid rent, property taxes, and whether the tenant still owed money after giving up the space. The First Department sent the case back to the arbitration panel because the award did not clearly resolve key questions or state the exact amount due. The decision matters because courts can do simple math on a clear arbitration award, but they cannot fill in missing factual or legal issues that arbitrators still need to decide.
Williams v. RXR Construction & Development LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
The First Department held that a construction worker injured by a heavy stack of unsecured windows was entitled to judgment under New York’s Scaffold Law, even though the windows were only a few inches off the ground. The court also revived some claims against a window installer and cut back several indemnity claims, underscoring that even low-height falling-object hazards can trigger liability and that indemnity rights depend on the exact contract language and unresolved fault issues.
Adam D. White, et al. v. Stephen Vaccaro, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
The First Department largely left in place a preliminary injunction in a dispute between former law partners over contingency fees from personal injury cases that began at their old firm. It ruled that defendants still had to escrow money while the case proceeds, but reduced their obligation from $1.8 million to $1.05 million to account for $750,000 already escrowed by plaintiffs. This matters because it shows courts may keep protections in place during a business breakup while adjusting them to be fair to both sides.
Vargas v. 250 West 43 Owner, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
A construction worker who fell about 25 feet when a floor collapsed and his safety rope broke kept his win on liability under New York’s Scaffold Law against contractor I&G. The First Department also left in place the negligence and workplace-safety claims because there are factual disputes about who supervised the work and knew about the hazards. It dismissed the parties’ contract-based indemnity and insurance claims, underscoring that those claims cannot survive without an actual contract.
Matter of Hafizur Rahman v. The City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
The First Department reversed a lower court ruling and upheld the New York City Department of Correction’s decision to move an employee from assistant deputy warden back to his permanent rank of captain without a hearing. The court found the higher role was only a provisional appointment, so it did not give him tenure or hearing rights, and it also found no support for his discrimination claims. This matters because it confirms that public employees serving in provisional promotions can be returned to their permanent titles without the protections given to permanent appointees.
7031 West Side Marquis LLC v. Troy Sheppard (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
In a dispute over a rent-stabilized apartment, the First Department reversed the lower court, dismissed the landlord’s case, and ruled that a successor tenant is entitled to a renewal lease at the lower preferential rent, not the higher legal regulated rent. The court held that the 2019 rent law bars landlords from taking away a preferential rent on a renewal lease, even if older settlements or agency orders had said otherwise, making this an important ruling for rent-stabilized succession cases.
People of the State of New York v. Timothy Brooks (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
The First Department largely upheld Timothy Brooks’s guilty plea for attempted weapon possession, finding that his appeal waiver blocked most of his challenges and that his Second Amendment attack on New York’s gun licensing law was both unpreserved and meritless. But it struck two probation conditions—making court fees a condition of probation and requiring him to support dependents—because they were not tied to rehabilitation and he had no dependents.
Homapour v. 3M Properties, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
In a dispute over family-owned real estate LLCs, the First Department reinstated a fraud claim against managing member Mark Harounian based on allegations that he had family members sign signature pages for amended operating agreements after telling them nothing had changed. The court otherwise left the lower court’s dismissals in place. The decision matters because signing a document does not automatically defeat a fraud claim when the signer says a fiduciary misled them.
Edward Roberts, LLC v. Shipman & Goodwin LLP (Appellate Division, First Department, July 9, 2026)
The First Department reinstated the full scope of a legal malpractice claim against Shipman & Goodwin arising from advice about selling disinfectant wipes during the COVID-19 pandemic, ruling that the law firm was not entitled to summary judgment limiting damages. The court found factual disputes over whether the client’s statements to Walmart were driven by the firm’s advice and held that losses from the EPA embargo and claimed future profits were not too speculative to dismiss, signaling that causation and damages in malpractice cases often must be decided at trial.
Marin v. Reyes (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In this Child Victims Act case, the Second Department vacated a default order and a $20 million default judgment against the defendant in a personal injury action. The court found that the defendant had a reasonable excuse because his former lawyer misled him about the case, and he also showed a possible defense through witness affidavits that challenged the plaintiff’s allegations. This decision matters because it shows New York courts may reopen a default when a party stayed involved, was not intentionally ignoring the case, and can present evidence supporting a defense.
The People v. Jaheim Bennett (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In a robbery case, the Second Department upheld Jaheim Bennett’s conviction and the trial court’s decision to deny him youthful offender treatment, finding that the seriousness of the crime and his history of violence supported that result. But it threw out two post-sentencing orders of protection because the people named in them were not victims or witnesses in the crime, underscoring that courts cannot extend those orders beyond the limits set by law.
People v. Grant (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In People v. Grant, the Second Department ruled that a sentencing court set a criminal order of protection to last too long after failing to credit the defendant for time already spent in jail. The court left Grant’s burglary conviction in place, but vacated the order’s expiration date and sent the case back for a new calculation. This matters because courts must include jail-time credit when setting these orders, and defendants can still challenge the length on appeal if it was never announced in court.
Matter of 563 Grand Medical, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In this no-fault insurance dispute, the Second Department reversed a $1,950 attorneys’ fee award to a medical provider that had succeeded in sending its case back for further arbitration. The court held that extra fees are available only after there is a finding that the provider’s claim was valid and overdue or was wrongly denied. This matters because winning a remand alone is not enough to recover attorneys’ fees in no-fault cases.
Matter of 563 Grand Medical, P.C. v. Country-Wide Ins. Co. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a medical provider could recover $4,999 in no-fault benefits, but not the massive compound-interest award for the years when it failed to properly move its arbitration claim forward. The court held that interest must be paused during unreasonable delays by the claimant, making the decision an important reminder that even a successful no-fault claim can lose years of interest if the case is not diligently pursued.
Shenzhen Qianhai Shengshi Shengjin Investment Enterprise (Limited Partnership) v. Maodong Xu (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
This case involved a Chinese investor’s effort to have a Beijing money judgment recognized in New York and to freeze assets it said were moved to avoid payment. The Second Department let the claim to enforce the judgment against Maodong Xu and a conversion claim go forward, but it denied recognition of the Chinese judgment for now, threw out most of the other claims, and vacated the asset freeze and expedited discovery. The decision matters because it shows that a foreign judgment may survive early dismissal, but a party still needs proper timing and solid proof before a New York court will recognize it or freeze assets.
Smith v. Genting New York, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a slip-and-fall case against Genting New York, LLC, ruling that the property owner was not entitled to summary judgment after the plaintiff allegedly slipped on a liquid substance at its property. The court held that general cleaning practices were not enough and that the owner needed specific proof of when the exact area was last inspected or cleaned, underscoring the strict evidence required to defeat notice claims in New York premises cases.
Sawas v. Elzanaty (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In this divorce appeal over property division, support, and fees, the Second Department mostly upheld the trial court’s financial rulings but removed the requirement that the plaintiff pay 83% of the child’s extracurricular costs and gave him a credit for half of the insurance proceeds from a totaled marital vehicle. The decision matters because it confirms that extracurricular expenses are not automatic add-ons to child support without a clear explanation, and money paid to replace marital property must be shared as marital property.
DeSilvo v. Cun Gui Zheng (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In this personal injury case, the Second Department reinstated the plaintiff’s claim against Splen Construction after the trial court struck the complaint based on repeated discovery motions, finding there was no proof that the plaintiff disobeyed a discovery order or willfully withheld information. The Second Department also dismissed the plaintiff’s challenge to sanctions because those penalties were imposed on her attorneys, not on her, underscoring that dismissal is not a proper punishment without clear discovery misconduct.
The People v. Quadir Stricklin (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
The Second Department left Quadir Stricklin’s guilty plea for attempted second-degree murder in place, but vacated his sentence and related surcharges and fees. The court found that the sentencing judge failed to make the required youthful offender determination before sentencing an eligible defendant, and sent the case back for that decision and resentencing.
Jane 07 Doe v. Thomas L. Clark, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In this workplace sexual-abuse case, an employee alleged that her supervisor assaulted her for years at Goodyear, including after she turned 18. The Second Department dismissed her post-18 emotional-distress and negligence claims against Goodyear, along with her request for punitive damages, but allowed her hostile work environment claim to go forward. This matters because it shows that an employer may avoid certain tort claims for an employee’s misconduct, yet still face liability if it knew or should have known about the abuse and failed to act.
Shenzhen Qianhai Shengshi Lijin Investment Enterprise (Limited Partnership) v. Maodong Xu (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
This case involved a Chinese investor’s effort to have a Chinese money judgment recognized in New York and to freeze assets it said the debtor had moved to family members. The Second Department reversed the lower court’s orders granting recognition, attachment, and fast-tracked discovery, and dismissed most of the lawsuit, leaving only the claim to enforce the judgment against Xu and a conversion claim. The decision matters because it shows that parties seeking to enforce foreign judgments in New York must follow normal procedure and back up asset-hiding allegations with real evidence.
The People v. Vicete Gerardray (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
The Second Department largely upheld a three-year probation sentence for a defendant who pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal trespass, but struck two probation conditions. It ruled that requiring him to support dependents and follow gang-related restrictions was improper because he had no dependents and there was no evidence of gang ties, while drug testing, treatment, and search conditions were allowed based on his substance abuse history. This decision matters because it underscores that probation terms must be tailored to the individual defendant, not imposed as boilerplate conditions.
The People v. Lashajuan Glasgow (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In The People v. Glasgow, the Second Department ruled that a trial court improperly sentenced a young defendant who pleaded guilty to weapon possession without first deciding on the record whether he qualified for youthful offender treatment. The Second Department vacated the sentence and the mandatory surcharges and fees, and sent the case back for that determination and resentencing, underscoring that courts must make this review for eligible young defendants even if no one asks for it.
Matter of Commissioner of Social Services, on behalf of Marc King v. Desiree Mwalimu (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
The Second Department reversed an order requiring a mother to pay nearly $27,000 in retroactive child support in an equal shared-custody case, holding that the father’s income should have been imputed from his work history even though he was receiving public assistance. The ruling makes clear that public assistance alone does not prevent a court from considering a parent’s earning capacity, which can change who is treated as the payor in shared-custody support cases.
Frontario v. White Plains Public School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In an Adult Survivors Act case, a former White Plains school district employee alleged he was sexually abused by the superintendent and sued the district and board for negligence-based claims. The Second Department ruled that the defendants could not dismiss the case based on workers’ compensation at this stage, but it did dismiss negligence claims tied to conduct before the plaintiff reported the abuse because there was no proof the district had earlier notice; claims based on what happened after that disclosure may continue.
Ponce v. Ortiz (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In a personal injury case arising from a pedestrian accident, the Second Department reversed the trial court and allowed the plaintiff to seek a default judgment against the defendant after finding the defendant’s answer was late. The court held that the defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for missing the deadline or for waiting more than a year to ask the court to accept the late filing, underscoring that late answers will not be excused without a prompt and credible explanation.
One West Bank FSB v. Salochini Persaud (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a Queens foreclosure ruling that had granted the lender summary judgment against the borrower, struck her answer, and moved the case toward foreclosure. It held that the borrower should have been allowed to add defenses that the lender lacked standing and failed to meet a required pre-foreclosure condition, and because those issues remained disputed, summary judgment was improper. This matters because it confirms that in New York home-loan foreclosure cases, borrowers may still raise standing and related procedural defenses later in the case.
Maria Clementina Gualan Suqilanda v. Fresh Meadow Mechanical Corp. and Sean George (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In this Queens car accident case, the Second Department ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability after her stopped vehicle was hit from behind in traffic. The court also threw out the defendants’ claim that she may have been partly at fault, finding that a claimed sudden stop and speculation about future depositions were not enough to avoid judgment.
Matter of Olang v. Keels (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In Matter of Olang v. Keels, the Second Department vacated a Family Court finding that a father willfully violated a child support order and sent the case back for a new hearing. The court said he was not given a meaningful chance to be heard before the willfulness finding and possible jail time, and the record was unclear on whether he validly gave up his right to counsel. The Second Department dismissed the challenge to the six-month jail term as academic because that term had already expired.
Halloren v. Halloren (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
The Second Department ruled in this divorce case that the trial court must reconsider its spousal maintenance and child support awards because the record did not clearly show how income was calculated or how the support amounts were determined. It left in place the denial of the husband’s request for credit for expenses on the couple’s Texas home because he did not prove he made those payments. This matters because support awards must be backed by clear financial proof and explained in a way the record supports.
Rolka v. Neelam Construction Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 8, 2026)
In this construction injury case, a worker claimed he was hit by a falling object while cleaning debris beneath another scaffold and won summary judgment under New York’s Scaffold Law in the trial court. The Second Department reversed and denied that relief, holding that the worker did not show what struck him, where it came from, or that the accident was caused by a missing or inadequate safety device, underscoring that falling-object claims need specific proof of an elevation-related risk.
The People of the State of New York v. David A. Coffey (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 9, 2026)
The Third Department reversed David Coffey’s weapon conviction and directed dismissal of the indictment after finding that prosecutors did not properly meet New York’s discovery rules before claiming they were ready for trial. The ruling matters because it reinforces that incomplete or misleading discovery compliance can keep the speedy-trial clock running and lead to dismissal of criminal charges.