Kitt v. Incorporated Village of Babylon (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
A homeowner alleged the Village of Babylon negligently assured his home’s foundation was safe and issued permits, leading to damage. The Second Department reinstated the negligence claim, finding the trial court improperly converted the motion without CPLR 3211(c) notice and that specific assurances and reliance plausibly created a special duty. It affirmed dismissal of gross negligence and harassment and denied leave to amend, underscoring that common-law harassment is not recognized and gross negligence requires more than ordinary carelessness.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Ridley (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
The Fourth Department reversed and vacated a Level 3 SORA classification and sent the case back for a new determination. It held that while points for risk factor 2 were supported by shared intent, the court violated due process by adding risk factor 14 points on its own and by failing to make the required findings to justify an upward departure.
Read more:
Click here
Kane v. Mount Pleasant Central School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
This CVA case asked whether a plaintiff who missed the 120-day service deadline could get more time to serve the school district. The Second Department reinstated the case, finding the trial court ruled too early and granting an interest-of-justice extension to serve. The decision signals that late service can be excused when the suit was timely filed, defendants had early notice, and no prejudice is shown, even after years of delay.
Read more:
Click here
Michelle Withers v. Kathryn Roblee (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
A homeowner slip-and-fall case centered on a claimed mis-leveled concrete slab at a garage entrance. The Fourth Department reinstated the complaint, finding the defendant failed to meet her summary-judgment burden because the plaintiff’s testimony and bill of particulars supported a reasonable inference of causation that the defendant did not address. It confirms that circumstantial evidence can defeat summary judgment and that defendants must confront the specific hazards alleged.
Read more:
Click here
DelGrosso v. Ljutich (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
A pedestrian hit by a car claimed a serious injury under New York’s no-fault law, including an aggravated knee condition and 90/180-day limitations. The Second Department reinstated the case because the defendant’s motion did not address causation for the knee aggravation or the 90/180-day category. It underscores that defendants must specifically negate causation and the 90/180-day claim to obtain summary judgment on the serious-injury threshold.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Malik Clea (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
The case challenged the police stop and extra five-year firearm add-ons under Penal Law § 265.09(2). The Fourth Department affirmed the stop and convictions but vacated the add-ons. It held the enhancement applies only to the predicate class B felony, cannot be layered onto counts that already require firearm use, and requires a jury finding that a loaded operable gun was displayed in furtherance.
Read more:
Click here
Dylan M. Duncan v. Town of Greece and County of Monroe (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
A crash allegedly caused by a rotated signal head showing green in multiple directions led the plaintiff to sue Monroe County and the Town of Greece. The Fourth Department reinstated negligence and res ipsa claims against the County and reversed the pleading-stage dismissal, but affirmed that the County lacked actual or constructive notice. The decision signals that municipalities may still face trial on creation/maintenance theories without prior notice, and that a bill of particulars can flesh out negligent installation allegations.
Read more:
Click here
Babad v. Oratz (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated fraud and Judiciary Law § 487 claims that the trial court had dismissed as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. It held preclusion did not apply because the plaintiff’s supporting evidence emerged only after the prior judgment, so the issues could not have been raised earlier. This clarifies that newly discovered, post-judgment evidence can defeat a preclusion-based CPLR 3211(a)(5) motion at the pleading stage.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Jackson, Samuel (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
After a felony assault plea, the trial court set a criminal order of protection to run nearly nine years. The Second Department shortened it to expire on February 7, 2031, the 8-year maximum from sentencing, and otherwise affirmed. The decision reaffirms that orders of protection cannot exceed the limit in CPL 530.13(4)(a) and that appellate courts will correct overlong orders.
Read more:
Click here
Francis J. Marrano v. Karen Dusza and Joseph Dusza, Jr. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
Neighbor sued neighbors over a long-used path and alleged nuisance from a backyard floodlight. The Fourth Department reinstated the light‑trespass nuisance claim but dismissed the rest, underscoring that neighborly permission defeats a prescriptive easement and that defendants need specific facts about a light’s placement and impact to win early dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Robert Surles (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
The case turned on whether police honored a suspect’s Miranda right to remain silent during interrogation. The Fourth Department reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that Surles clearly invoked his right and officers improperly resumed questioning 90 minutes later without fresh warnings, so his statements should have been suppressed. The ruling reinforces that once a suspect invokes the right to remain silent, police must stop and re-administer warnings before any later questioning or risk reversal.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Aron Law, PLLC v. Town of Hempstead (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
A law firm sought the Town of Hempstead’s FOIL appeals and determinations; the Town produced redacted records, withheld 51 determinations, and ignored the administrative appeal. The Second Department reinstated the FOIL claims and the request for attorneys’ fees, holding the Town must either produce the records or certify after a diligent search, and left the declaratory claim dismissed. The decision underscores that agencies must timely state specific FOIL exemptions during the administrative process and cannot raise new justifications in court.
Read more:
Click here
Long Island Roller Rebels v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
The case challenged Nassau County’s law that barred women’s teams including transgender women from using county park facilities. The Second Department reversed the lower court and granted a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the law while the lawsuit continues. The court said the league is likely to succeed under New York’s anti-discrimination laws and that the local law may conflict with state law, signaling limits on county restrictions.
Read more:
Click here
Thaddeus Harper v. Buffalo City School District and Buffalo Board of Education (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
In a CVA suit over alleged 1970s abuse by a music teacher, The Fourth Department reinstated negligent supervision, hiring, training, and retention claims against the Buffalo City School District and Board of Education. Evidence of staff awareness—locker-room removals, rumors about interest in male students, and the teacher hosting students—plus hiring red flags created issues for a jury. The ruling signals that revived CVA cases with notice or hiring red flags should not be decided on summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Joseph Ruise (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
The case asked whether police can search an unconscious person’s pockets for ID without a warrant under MHL § 22.09 or as a search incident to arrest. The Fourth Department suppressed the drugs, vacated the plea, and dismissed the indictment because there was no probable cause and no specific facts showing a likelihood of harm. The ruling limits use of MHL § 22.09 for ID searches and underscores that evidence from unconstitutional searches must be suppressed.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of O'Neill v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
A tenured teacher challenged her termination under Education Law § 3020-a after violating a last chance agreement tied to documenting student speech services. The Second Department dismissed her petition and reinstated the hearing officer’s termination decision, finding the charges were supported by evidence and the cure period and agreement were properly enforced. The ruling confirms courts defer to § 3020-a decisions, allows consideration of uncharged misconduct in setting penalties, and upholds last chance agreements when later misconduct is similar.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Cynthia M., et al. (Chautauqua County Department of Mental Hygiene and Social Services v. Emily W. and James L.M.) (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
The Fourth Department reinstated and expanded neglect findings, holding both parents neglected all eight children based on missed medical and dental care and excessive school absences, and sent the case back for a dispositional hearing. It also upheld the trial judge’s refusal to recuse. The decision underscores that failing to secure needed health care or ensure school attendance—despite having the means—can establish neglect and support derivative neglect for other children in the home.
Read more:
Click here
Cortez v. Kapoor (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
This case asked whether a car-crash plaintiff met New York’s serious injury threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The Second Department reinstated the case, finding her medical reports raised triable issues about permanent or significant limits to her spine, shoulder, and knee. The decision confirms that objective medical evidence can defeat summary judgment even when the defendant makes a prima facie showing.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Guy Spada v. Keeler Construction Company et al.; Workers' Compensation Board, Respondent (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 9, 2025)
This case involved a workers’ compensation claim for gradual hearing loss allegedly caused by workplace noise. The Third Department reversed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding of a work-related hearing loss and remitted for further proceedings. The court found no substantial evidence because the opinions were only “likely” and the audiograms and claimant’s histories pointed to non-occupational causes.
Read more:
Click here
Elie Tahari v. 860 Fifth Avenue Corporation, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 9, 2025)
A co-op shareholder sued over apartment renovation disputes and tried to hold the co-op’s board liable for breach of fiduciary duty. The First Department dismissed the claim against the board and denied adding the board president, ruling a corporate/co-op board cannot be sued as a separate entity. This means plaintiffs must sue the corporation or individual directors, and General Associations Law § 13 does not provide a workaround.
Read more:
Click here
Richard Ntiru et al. v. WV Preservation Partners, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 9, 2025)
This case centers on a Mitchell-Lama conversion and whether a tenant or his daughter qualified for the insider purchase price. The First Department reinstated the suit, reversing summary judgment for the sponsor, because the sponsor didn’t prove the daughter was ineligible and its own papers conflicted on whether the tenant had permanently left. The court also clarified that no formal DHCR succession filing was required where the plan asked only whether she “would qualify,” and that factual disputes bar summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
People v. McCullough (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
The Fourth Department dismissed a third-degree drug possession conviction for lack of proof of intent to sell, while leaving in place the fourth-degree possession conviction. The court also refused to downgrade the dismissed count to seventh-degree possession because that lesser offense is included in the affirmed fourth-degree count. The ruling underscores that prosecutors need actual evidence of intent to sell, not just drug quantity.
Read more:
Click here
Jobble, Inc. v. CF Alerts Corp (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
This commercial contract case tested whether Jobble could pursue alternative non-contract claims and hold Flyrim’s principal personally liable. The Second Department reinstated Jobble’s unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, promissory estoppel, and account stated claims against Flyrim, and left in place the dismissal of the implied covenant claim and all claims against David Brensilber. The ruling confirms plaintiffs may plead alternative theories when a contract’s reach is disputed, but veil piercing requires concrete facts of domination and wrongdoing.
Read more:
Click here
GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Randolph F. Leidl (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
This foreclosure case turned on whether the lender strictly complied with RPAPL 1304’s 90-day notice mailing rules. The Second Department dismissed the complaint without prejudice because GMAC lacked admissible proof that the notices were mailed. The ruling underscores that lenders must keep solid proof of RPAPL 1304 mailings, and that noncompliance results in dismissal but allows refiling.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Abigail Anderson v. Jon C. Cintron (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
A mother sought to modify a New York custody order after the father and child relocated to Texas; Family Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without a hearing or record. The Fourth Department reinstated the petition and sent it back, requiring a proper record and compliance with the UCCJEA, including communication with the Texas court and a ruling on New York’s continuing jurisdiction. The decision underscores that courts must make specific, on-the-record findings before declining jurisdiction in interstate custody matters.
Read more:
Click here
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Heimiller (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
In a Suffolk County foreclosure, U.S. Bank sued a deceased defendant; the trial court denied substitution and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Second Department reinstated the action and allowed the caption to be amended to name the decedent’s unknown heirs. The court clarified that the suit is a nullity only as to the deceased person and, when no deficiency is sought, lenders may proceed directly against distributees without joining the estate.
Read more:
Click here
Gomez-Jimenez v. 50 West Development, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
This case involves a worker struck by falling plywood during ceiling removal and whether the overhead-protection rule (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[a][1]) supports a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The Second Department reinstated the § 241(6) claim due to factual disputes about whether the area was normally exposed to falling objects, and it affirmed the denial of the plaintiff’s own summary judgment. It matters because active overhead work can create triable issues that block defendants’ early dismissal, but plaintiffs still must prove exposure to win on liability.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Beason (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
The case concerned New York’s statutory speedy-trial rule (CPL 30.30) and a 33-day adjournment to obtain a police witness. The Fourth Department dismissed the indictment and vacated the conviction, finding the delay was chargeable to the People and, with 168 conceded days, pushed the total past six months. It confirms that a readiness announcement does not excuse later delays and that prosecutors must show diligent efforts to secure witnesses or risk dismissal, even after a plea.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Corey W. Kuhn (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
This appeal challenged probation terms and the lack of notice about sex‑offender registration after a plea to third‑degree rape. The Fourth Department struck the alcohol ban and blanket alcohol/drug testing as unrelated to rehabilitation, upheld the association restriction, and otherwise affirmed. It confirms probation terms must be tied to rehabilitation and may be challenged on appeal, while sex‑offender registration notice issues require preservation or a postconviction motion.
Read more:
Click here
Manuella v. Manuella (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
This case addressed division of marital home sale proceeds and whether the selling spouse could recover fees and a receiver commission. The Second Department affirmed denial of 100% of the proceeds and a receiver’s commission, but awarded $7,500 in documented sale-related legal fees authorized by a prior order. It confirms equitable distribution can’t be changed due to later-discovered liens and that receiver commissions are discretionary.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Van Dam Specialty & Promotion, Inc. v. Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
This case asked whether two Long Island City rooftop billboards were lawful nonconforming uses under NYC zoning. The Second Department reinstated termination of the east-facing sign, but annulled the denial for the west-facing sign and held it remains a lawful nonconforming use. The ruling clarifies that agencies must show structural enlargement to end nonconforming status; changing ad panel size on an unchanged structure is not enough.
Read more:
Click here
Lopiccolo v. Holtsville Fire District (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
A Holtsville Fire District employee claimed he was fired for whistleblowing about financial irregularities. The Second Department dismissed his Labor Law, federal civil-rights, defamation, and punitive claims, allowing only a Civil Service Law § 75-b whistleblower claim against the District tied to the March 13, 2020 termination. The decision signals that municipal employees cannot use Labor Law §§ 193 and 215 and that only a timely § 75-b claim against the employer may proceed.
Read more:
Click here
Artzy v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
A co-op auction buyer claimed the seller breached by canceling the closing and moving to re-auction the unit. The Second Department reinstated the buyers’ complaint but refused to order the sale or stay a re-auction because key facts are disputed. The decision underscores that a seller invoking a time‑of‑the‑essence closing must show it was ready to deliver the co-op stock and lease, and that early dismissal is improper unless documents clearly refute the claims.
Read more:
Click here
Rhonda Gordon v. SEB Development, LLC and Cozzwill, Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 10, 2025)
This case involves a workplace slip-and-fall on ice where a contractor handled snow removal under a verbal agreement. The Fourth Department reinstated the complaint against the contractor, finding disputes over whether it fully took over the owner’s duty and about exclusive control and overlapping ownership. It matters because contractors may face liability and cannot get summary judgment when facts suggest they assumed the owner’s maintenance role.
Read more:
Click here
M. W. v. Nassau County (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
A former foster child sued Nassau County under the Child Victims Act, alleging negligent placement and supervision led to her sexual abuse. The Second Department reinstated the case, reversing summary judgment because the County failed to show it actually exercised discretion, and Social Services Law § 419 does not shield negligent foster-care supervision. The decision signals counties must prove real discretionary decision-making to claim governmental or qualified immunity at summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Quicksilver Capital, LLC v. Dixon Financial Services, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 8, 2025)
Quicksilver claimed Dixon Financial Services and its principal misled it in a vendor referral tied to a merchant cash advance. The Second Department vacated a $216,462 fraud damages award as potentially excessive and sent the case back for a damages hearing, but otherwise affirmed and rejected the defendants’ improper-service challenge. The decision signals that damages must be proven even after a default, while a process server’s affidavit generally establishes proper service.
Read more:
Click here