Corbex, Inc. v. New York City School Construction Authority (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
The case concerns an SCA construction contract dispute over whether terra cotta replacement was within scope and whether Corbex sued on time under Public Authorities Law § 1744(2). The First Department reinstated the complaint, holding the filing was within one year of the notice of claim and that the claim’s accrual or denial date is a fact question. It matters because, in SCA cases, filing within a year of the notice of claim preserves timeliness, and disputes over when the clock started typically block dismissal at the pleading stage.
Read more:
Click here
ZEPSA Industries, Inc. v. 401 West Property Owners, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
A subcontractor sought payment and delay costs from the project owner and moved to add another owner, alleging the owners negotiated the subcontract, directed the work, and agreed to pay. The First Department reinstated the proposed quasi‑contract and quantum meruit claims and allowed adding Wainbridge as a defendant, but kept the dismissal of the standalone “equitable adjustment” claim. The decision underscores that subs can pursue owners on quasi‑contract without privity when owners consent to pay or direct the work, and that “equitable adjustment” is a remedy, not its own claim.
Read more:
Click here
Tabitha Hanslick v. UG2 (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
A librarian claimed UG2 negligently stored heavy slatwall panels that fell on her at FIT. The First Department reinstated UG2’s notice and comparative negligence defenses and denied the plaintiff’s partial summary judgment, finding her expert’s opinions speculative and not grounded in the record. The ruling signals that expert affidavits must rest on record facts, so disputes over negligence, causation, and notice go to trial.
Read more:
Click here
Rohan Biswas et al. v. Aramis Distributors New York, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
A cosmetic talc case tested whether New York courts have personal jurisdiction over IMI Fabi entities based on alleged asbestos exposure tied to products reaching New York. The First Department denied dismissal without prejudice and allowed jurisdictional discovery, finding plaintiffs made a sufficient start with evidence of New York exposure and potential distribution ties. The decision signals that a plausible New York nexus can justify jurisdictional discovery, and conclusory affidavits from out-of-state manufacturers are not enough to foreclose it.
Read more:
Click here
Steven Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
A CBI foreman was injured while unloading a 1,000-pound cabinet with a pallet jack onto a truck’s liftgate at a Bath & Body Works buildout. The First Department kept the Labor Law §240(1) claim against the contractor over whether the pallet jack was an inadequate safety device, but dismissed all §241(6) claims and §200/negligence claims against the owner-side entities for lack of control or a dangerous condition. The First Department also granted contractual indemnification in favor of several defendants against CBI and barred common-law indemnity/contribution under Workers’ Compensation, underscoring that §240(1) exposure can persist when heavy loads are moved at elevation without proper equipment.
Read more:
Click here
AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Insurance Specialty Group LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
AmTrust sued its managing producer for mishandling an insurance program and hiding problems, and the dispute centered on whether older breach claims were time-barred. The First Department reinstated most pre–May 19, 2017 contract claims tied to underwriting failures, poor administration, servicing problems, and conflicts, finding that separate concealment allegedly delayed discovery. It dismissed claims based on nondisclosure itself and reaffirmed that the continuing-wrong doctrine allows recovery only within six years, accounting for COVID tolling.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York ex rel. Margaret Darocha, on behalf of Otto Friedman v. Lynelle Maginley-Liddie, etc. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
This case challenged continued monetary bail after the underlying charges were dismissed. The First Department reversed, granted habeas relief, and sent the case back because the bail court gave no reasons on the record, did not do an individualized flight-risk assessment, and wrongly relied on the harm-on-harm rule. The ruling confirms courts cannot use harm-on-harm without a qualifying underlying offense and must state reasons and apply the least restrictive alternative when setting or continuing bail.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Eligio Orellano (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
The First Department held that the defendant’s valid appeal waiver barred review of his excessive-sentence claim and left intact his 1-to-3-year sentence for promoting prison contraband. The court nonetheless modified the judgment to vacate any surcharge and fees because the record was unclear and the People did not oppose. The ruling underscores that while appeal waivers block sentence-length challenges, courts may still remove financial assessments in the interest of justice.
Read more:
Click here
Olshan Frome Wolosky, LLP v. Louis Kestenbaum, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
A law firm sought unpaid fees for a condo project after a later email agreement revised payment terms and obligations. The First Department reinstated the breach-of-contract claim against Fortis Property Group based on those emails, but affirmed dismissal of the fraud claim and found veil-piercing allegations insufficient. The decision confirms that email modifications can bind a nonsignatory, while payment promises within the contract don’t support separate fraud claims or personal liability.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Rafael Jimenez (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
This case challenged whether the expiration date of a criminal order of protection must reflect the defendant’s jail-time credit. The First Department vacated only the order’s expiration date and sent the case back to recalculate it, leaving the convictions, sentences, and the order otherwise intact. The decision confirms that courts must factor jail-time credit into an order of protection and may correct such errors in the interest of justice even if not properly preserved.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Jeffrey Tartt (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
The case challenged surcharges and fees added to a sentence of five years’ probation after a guilty plea to attempted weapon possession. The First Department vacated the monetary charges in the interest of justice, citing People v. Chirinos, and otherwise affirmed the conviction and probation. It signals the court’s willingness to remove financial penalties on appeal, especially when the People do not oppose.
Read more:
Click here
URP Maiden Lane LLC v. Valley National Bank, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
This case involves a loan sale for the 161 Maiden Lane mortgages, where the buyer said the seller undermined its position during borrower mediation. The First Department dismissed unjust enrichment because the loan sale agreement controls and required the preliminary injunction to be backed by an undertaking, but it let the contract and implied covenant claims and the injunction proceed. It matters because mediation conduct can support contract-based claims, unjust enrichment can’t bypass a negotiated deal, and injunctions must be secured.
Read more:
Click here
Kashauna Jones v. River Park Residences, L.P., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
In a bathtub slip-and-fall case tied to a persistently leaking faucet, the First Department reinstated the tenant’s complaint and denied the landlord’s summary judgment motion. The court held that, despite the tenant’s unconsciousness and limited memory, circumstantial evidence—ongoing leaks, water in the tub, and a recent repair—can allow a jury to infer causation and notice. It also rejected the open-and-obvious defense, noting it does not erase a landlord’s duty to keep premises reasonably safe.
Read more:
Click here
Marian Lee, as Administratrix of the Estate of Mary Tsong Lee v. Montefiore Medical Center, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
A malpractice suit claimed Montefiore failed to ensure a rotablator worked. The treating doctor then independently chose to perform multiple angioplasties on a stable patient, and the last one caused a dissection. The First Department dismissed the direct claims against the hospital, finding any maintenance lapse was not a proximate cause and emphasizing that a physician’s independent treatment choice can break causation.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Dillon D. Johnson-Watson (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
The case concerned mandatory surcharges and fees imposed after a guilty plea to second-degree assault. The First Department vacated those financial assessments but left the conviction and three-year prison term in place. The decision signals the court’s willingness to remove surcharges in the interest of justice—especially when the People do not oppose—consistent with its Crenshaw precedent.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Quaran Rich (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
The First Department affirmed Quaran Rich’s convictions for first-degree burglary and second-degree assault from a group attack inside another inmate’s cell. It cut the sentence to an aggregate eight years and vacated surcharges and fees. The court said a jail cell is a dwelling and that facility rules barring entry can prove unlawful entry, and it rejected challenges to the evidence and severance as unpreserved.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Nelson Rivera (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
Rivera, who was under 21 at the time of the crime, was sentenced with mandatory surcharges and fees that the trial court failed to consider waiving under CPL 420.35(2-a). The First Department vacated the surcharges and fees but otherwise affirmed the conviction and sentence. The ruling underscores that courts must consider waivers for eligible youth and that appellate courts may grant this relief even with an appeal waiver.
Read more:
Click here
Lisa Thomas, as Administratrix of the Estate of Francis Spigner, Deceased v. Concourse Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
A nursing home sought to dismiss a negligence suit by invoking New York’s COVID-19 immunity law (EDTPA). The First Department reinstated the case, finding the facility failed to conclusively link the alleged negligence—especially after May 2020—to COVID-related decisions and that factual disputes and incomplete records require discovery. The decision underscores that EDTPA immunity is narrowly applied and rarely resolved at the pleading stage.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. George McTaggart (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
After pleading guilty to first-degree robbery, the defendant appealed the mandatory surcharges/fees and his five-year postrelease supervision. The First Department vacated the financial penalties in the interest of justice, noting the People did not oppose. It left the five-year PRS in place, showing that while fees may be removed on appeal, standard PRS for violent felonies typically remains absent special circumstances.
Read more:
Click here
Etage Real Estate LLC v. Michael Stern (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
The First Department denied plaintiffs’ attempt to add new claims (veil piercing, fraudulent conveyance, and a Penal Law claim) in a post-judgment real estate dispute. It largely upheld subpoenas to the debtor’s bank and accountant, including tax returns, but limited them to 2012–2019 and rejected defendants’ request to pre‑review productions. The ruling stresses strict pleading for veil piercing and that only creditors of the transferor can sue for fraudulent conveyance, while allowing targeted third‑party financial discovery with confidentiality handled by agreement.
Read more:
Click here
David Molina, as Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Pedro Molina, Deceased, and Individually v. Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
The First Department reinstated the malpractice, wrongful death, and survival claims after the trial court dismissed them as time-barred and tossed an emotional distress claim. It held the court could not convert a motion to dismiss into summary judgment without notice, and that timeliness turns on factual issues like continuous treatment and Lavern’s Law. The emotional distress claim stays dismissed.
Read more:
Click here
Jane Doe One v. KIPP Foundation, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
This case involves alleged child abuse and whether KIPP Foundation can be held liable for not having protective policies. The First Department dismissed all claims against Michael Feinberg and any claims against KIPP before April 20, 2000, but let the remaining negligence claims against KIPP move forward. The ruling signals that institutional claims can proceed at this early stage when custody and lack of safeguards are alleged, while individual liability needs specific facts of personal involvement and entities cannot be liable before they existed.
Read more:
Click here
Melinda Rockwell v. Elmer H. Bobst (deceased), et al., and John Doe as Executor of the Estate of Mamdouha S. Bobst, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
This case asked whether a 2012 settlement release blocked later Child Victims Act claims against the estate of Elmer H. Bobst and a related 1978 trust. The First Department dismissed the suit, holding the release was clear, covered all claims related to the estate and trust (including unknown ones), and was not undone by the CVA revival window. The ruling underscores that a broad release tied to an estate or trust can bar later CVA claims and attempts to reach their distributions.
Read more:
Click here
Parque Solar Don Jose S.A. de C.V., et al. v. Enel S.p.A. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
This case concerns enforcement of Enel’s parent guaranties for three Mexican solar projects after an arbitration award against its contractor went unpaid. The First Department reinstated the breach-of-guaranty claim, finding the guaranties ambiguous on whether demand was allowed during ongoing dispute resolution, so dismissal at the pleading stage was premature. It affirmed dismissal of the implied covenant claim and signals that beneficiaries and agents under powers of attorney may sue, while claims against a parent need concrete abuse facts.
Read more:
Click here
Geremias J. Berganza Garcia v. 100 Church Fee Owner, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
A construction worker was hit by a welding clamp that fell through adjacent shafts; The First Department upheld Labor Law § 240(1) liability because the unsecured tool required safety devices. The First Department dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim against owner 100 Church but let § 200 claims proceed against R & S and SL Green based on potential control over scheduling and site safety. Indemnification and excess-insurance issues hinge on unresolved negligence; Mellifont’s indemnity clause is enforceable and the insurance-procurement claim failed.
Read more:
Click here
Daniela Di Francesco v. Conor McEnroy (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
An ex-spouse sought to undo a 2018 separation agreement and to collect on a confession of judgment because a planned trust was not created. The First Department dismissed the confession-of-judgment claim and affirmed dismissal of the rescission and fiduciary claims. Accepting years of payments ratified the agreement, and a confession of judgment cannot be accelerated without a payment default or clear contract terms.
Read more:
Click here
Marta E. Jiminez v. Julio A. Rosi et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
This motor-vehicle negligence case stems from an intersection crash; the trial court dismissed the suit after the plaintiff failed to oppose defendants’ summary judgment motion. The First Department reinstated the case, finding the default should be set aside due to reasonable law office error and deposition testimony showing disputes over the stop sign and whether the defendant saw the plaintiff’s car. The decision confirms that with a good excuse and evidence of a potentially meritorious claim, courts should decide summary judgment on the merits.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of John F. B. v. Maria U. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
A father sought to modify custody in New York while the mother and child lived in Chile, and he obtained a default order giving him sole custody. The First Department dismissed the case and vacated all orders because the mother was not properly served under Domestic Relations Law § 75-g. The ruling underscores that in cross-border custody cases, courts must strictly follow statutory service requirements; email or actual notice alone does not confer jurisdiction.
Read more:
Click here
Jose Ceja, et al. v. Posillico Civil, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
A laborer at a gas line repair site allegedly tripped on a chunk of asphalt left in a narrow work path, raising Labor Law § 241(6) issues about tripping hazards in work areas and passageways. The First Department reinstated the § 241(6) claim against Con Ed, finding fact questions on whether the debris could have been removed and whether the path functioned as a passageway. It affirmed dismissal of all other claims, finding Posillico was a special employer barred by Workers’ Compensation and that Con Ed neither controlled the work nor had notice, underscoring that even work-generated debris can support § 241(6) in a confined route.
Read more:
Click here
Alexander S. Panos v. Christina Panos (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
This divorce appeal addressed interim legal fees, who pays ongoing expenses, division of personal property under a prenup, and the scope of the automatic appellate stay. The First Department upheld the wife's $1,000,000 interim fee award, enforced the prenup’s property process, and reinstated the CPLR 5519 automatic stay. It also struck the broad order making the husband pay all family expenses and vacated a related $40,000 fee award, confirming that courts must honor clear prenups and statutory maintenance and child support rules while enabling the less‑monied spouse to litigate.
Read more:
Click here
Jonathan Llerena v. 975 Park Avenue Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
A facade repair worker was hurt when a suspended scaffold shifted about a foot away from the building. The First Department reinstated and granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), and dismissed the common-law negligence and § 200 claims against Nova for lack of supervision. The ruling confirms that unexpected scaffold movement is a classic elevation risk that triggers § 240(1) liability, and the § 241(6) claim was academic.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Joseph Medina-Hidalgo (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
This case concerned mandatory surcharges and fees imposed after a guilty plea to second-degree drug possession. The First Department vacated those financial obligations in the interest of justice, citing People v. Chirinos and noting the prosecution did not oppose, while leaving the conviction and three-year prison term intact. The ruling confirms that on appeal, courts may remove mandatory surcharges without changing the conviction or sentence, especially when unopposed.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of J.D., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
The First Department dismissed ACS’s request and reversed the order transferring J.D. to a secure facility. The court found that two brief absences without consent did not show a qualifying pattern of serious behavior, and ACS failed to document consideration of viable non-secure or limited secure alternatives. The ruling confirms that AWOCs alone won’t justify secure confinement; agencies must show a substantial change in circumstances and exhaust less restrictive options.
Read more:
Click here
Greenway Mews Realty, L.L.C. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
Two insurers, Federal and Seneca, disputed settlement proceeds. The First Department reinstated Federal’s unjust enrichment claim against Seneca but affirmed dismissal of constructive trust. It held that waiver of subrogation requires clear, conclusive proof and that not joining an earlier recovery action is not enough.
Read more:
Click here
E*TRADE Bank, formerly known as TeleBank v. Adam Plotch, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
In a mortgage foreclosure, E*TRADE sought a default judgment against borrower Adam Plotch. The First Department dismissed the complaint and vacated the foreclosure judgment. It held the bank served its motion on the wrong party after Plotch began representing himself and missed the one-year deadline for a default judgment; filing an RJI for a settlement conference doesn’t count when the borrower doesn’t live at the property.
Read more:
Click here
Wilmadro D. Arias, as Administrator of the Estate of Oneido Arias v. The City of New York et al.; Binberk Realty Corp. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 11, 2025)
This case involves a public sidewalk trip-and-fall and a bid to undo a default. The First Department reversed an order that had vacated the default and denied Binberk Realty’s CPLR 317 motion. A timely motion isn’t enough; the defendant needed concrete facts showing a meritorious defense, not just general denials.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of J. D., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent-Appellant; Administration for Children's Services, et al., Petitioners-Respondents (Appellate Division, First Department, December 9, 2025)
The case involved ACS’s bid to move J.D. to a secure facility based on two absent-without-consent incidents. The First Department dismissed the modification petition, holding that two episodes did not show the needed pattern of serious behavior and ACS failed to show it considered less restrictive placements. The decision signals that secure transfers require documented serious misconduct and proof that alternatives were tried.
Read more:
Click here
Fleurantin v. Fleurantin (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
This case addressed maintenance, child support, and property division after a void marriage. The Second Department upheld the $250,000 imputed income, the maintenance award, and the property and business distributions, finding no double counting. It deleted the child support and add-on orders and remanded because the court failed to apply mandatory CSSA deductions, including subtracting the maintenance the defendant pays, confirming those must be taken before applying the statutory percentages.
Read more:
Click here
Ruppert v. Ruppert (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-10)
In a conversion lawsuit over family bank accounts, defendants subpoenaed a nonparty brother for testimony and documents. The Second Department reversed and granted his motion to quash because the subpoenas did not state the circumstances or reasons for the disclosure as CPLR 3101(a)(4) requires. The ruling underscores that nonparty subpoenas lacking this notice will be quashed regardless of potential relevance.
Read more:
Click here
Mavruk v. Melendez (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
This personal injury case stemmed from a rear-end crash where the plaintiff sued the wrong corporate name and sought to substitute All State Fuel Oil Corp., d/b/a Jennings & Hartwell Fuel Oil. The Second Department reinstated the CPLR 305(c) amendment and allowed the substitution because All State was timely served, used that trade name, and would not be prejudiced. The ruling confirms courts will fix a corporate misnomer when the right entity had notice and service.
Read more:
Click here
Fernandez v. Paris Limousine Services (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A pedestrian was hit by a reversing limousine; video evidence secured summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff. The Second Department reinstated the defendant’s comparative negligence defense because the plaintiff told the driver to back up and then walked behind the moving vehicle. The ruling underscores that plaintiffs can win liability without proving they were blameless, but cannot dismiss comparative negligence unless the defendant’s conduct was the sole cause.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Christian J. C. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
An agency sought to terminate a father’s parental rights for permanent neglect. The Second Department dismissed the petition and reversed the Family Court because, after an early three-month lapse, the father then visited consistently, completed services, and built a strong relationship with the child. The ruling underscores that agencies must prove a sustained failure to contact or plan during the relevant period, not just an initial lapse.
Read more:
Click here
Levine v. Pee Wee & Tyson, Ltd. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A Café Gitane waitress brought NYCHRL discrimination and retaliation claims; after the employer defaulted, the trial court still dismissed her case for lack of damages. The Second Department reinstated the case and awarded $7,500 for emotional distress, $7,500 in attorney’s fees, and $726.55 in costs, but denied lost wages and punitive damages due to insufficient proof. The decision confirms that testimony alone can support modest emotional distress damages after a default, but specific evidence is required for wages and punitive awards.
Read more:
Click here
Lowenhaupt v. North Shore University Hospital (Northwell Health) (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A patient sued North Shore for malpractice after ER staff discarded his severed fingertip, but his complaint was filed late due to his lawyer’s NYSCEF email being entered incorrectly. The Second Department reinstated the case and extended the time to serve, finding the e-filing mistake a reasonable excuse, with prompt correction, no prejudice to the hospital, and a potentially meritorious claim. It signals that promptly fixed NYSCEF notification errors can excuse late service.
Read more:
Click here
People ex rel. Tyasia Chance, on behalf of Tyler Smith v. Lynelle Maginley-Liddie (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A habeas petition challenged Tyler Smith’s pretrial detention in Kings County. The Second Department granted the petition and ordered release pending trial with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, home confinement, program participation, and passport surrender. The ruling shows courts can use CPL 510.40 to replace detention with tailored nonmonetary safeguards to manage risk and ensure court appearances.
Read more:
Click here
Meisels v. Bernstein (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
The Second Department dismissed fraud and aiding-and-abetting claims against attorney Michael Bernstein for lack of standing. Wire records and Meisels’s sworn statement in a London case showed the money came from Rightmatch Ltd., not Meisels, so he had no personal claim; assigning it to Premier Estates did not cure that. The court also declined to impose sanctions, underscoring that plaintiffs must show their own loss and can be held to positions taken in other courts.
Read more:
Click here
Matthew Fox v. Michael P. Nocella, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
This case concerns a five-mile noncompete after the sale of an insurance agency and a dispute over how to measure the distance. The Second Department reinstated the case, holding that the earlier preliminary-injunction denial did not decide the merits. It also found defendants failed to prove compliance because they offered no reliable distance evidence, underscoring that concrete measurements are required to win summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Quality Aggregates, Inc. v. Prime Mix Corp., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A construction materials supplier sought to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and recover alleged trust funds from work at an FMC-owned property. The Second Department dismissed the unjust enrichment claim against FMC because the supplier didn’t allege FMC assumed a duty to pay. It otherwise kept the lien foreclosure and trust-fund diversion claims alive, finding defendants’ proof was inadequate and underscoring the need for competent evidence to defeat such claims.
Read more:
Click here
Maynard v. Mount Sinai Doctors Brooklyn Heights (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
– Case: Whether an internist should have ordered an immediate CT to rule out appendicitis and whether any delay worsened the patient’s condition.
– Outcome: The Second Department reinstated the medical malpractice claim and denied summary judgment because competing expert opinions created triable issues of fact.
– Why it matters: A UTI diagnosis does not, by itself, remove the need to rule out appendicitis when symptoms and lab results reasonably suggest it.
Read more:
Click here
Sanchez v. 12E63, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A construction worker and his spouse sued a residential property owner under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 after a job-site injury. The Second Department reinstated the case, finding the owner’s papers didn’t conclusively show no supervisory control or a valid one‑ or two‑family homeowner exemption at this early stage. The ruling emphasizes the strict standard for CPLR 3211(a)(1) dismissals and that § 200 has no homeowner exemption, making these issues fact‑intensive.
Read more:
Click here
US Bank Trust National Association v. Meyer (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
This case concerns a residential mortgage foreclosure and whether the bank timely sought a default judgment. The Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment and dismissed the complaint as abandoned under CPLR 3215(c) because the bank waited more than a year and offered only conclusory excuses; administrative filings and the borrower’s failure to vacate did not cure the delay. It reinforces that lenders must move for a default judgment within one year or face mandatory dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
Saporito-Elliott v. United Skates of America, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A skater’s negligence suit against a roller rink led to a defense verdict, but deliberations were tainted when a court clerk discussed negligence and case facts with jurors. The Second Department reinstated the complaint and ordered a new trial, finding the clerk’s comments impermissibly intruded on deliberations. The ruling underscores that any off-the-record, substantive communication by court staff with a jury about law or facts can require reversal.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of N. (Anonymous), Daisy; Matter of M. (Anonymous), Jacob (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
The case asked whether a father’s sexual abuse of his stepdaughter could support a finding that he also abused/neglected his son, even though the son was unborn and unaware at the time. The Second Department reinstated the petition and found derivative abuse and neglect as to the son, sending the case back for a dispositional hearing. The court said severe abuse of one child shows a fundamental failure of parental judgment that poses a substantial risk to any child in the home, and the father did not show that risk had ended.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Michael Williams (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
Williams pleaded guilty to attempted weapon possession and waived his right to appeal; the court also imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees. The Second Department vacated the surcharge and fees under CPL 420.35(2-a) because he was under 21, with the People’s consent, and otherwise affirmed. The ruling confirms that a valid, clearly explained appeal waiver blocks excessive-sentence challenges, while surcharges and fees can still be removed for under‑21 defendants.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Giustra v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A daughter sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation over alleged malpractice and wrongful death. The Second Department dismissed the petition, finding no proof the hospital knew the key facts within 90 days. The ruling underscores that filing late requires concrete evidence of actual knowledge; medical records or request letters and excuses like law office error or a death not tied to the delay are not enough.
Read more:
Click here
Albano v. Roehrig (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
A delivery worker sued for injuries after stepping into a sinkhole, and the defendant defaulted; a $385,000 award followed after an inquest. The Second Department kept the default but vacated the damages award and ordered a new inquest, finding the testimony too vague to link the injuries to the accident. The decision reminds plaintiffs that even on default, damages must be supported by clear, specific proof.
Read more:
Click here
Prado v. Town/Village of Harrison (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 10, 2025)
The case asked whether the plaintiff met New York’s no-fault serious injury threshold and could add another driver as a defendant. The Second Department reinstated the complaint, denied summary judgment, and allowed the addition of Frederick J. Gioffre. It found the defense proof did not rule out neck and head injuries or causation, and the amendment was timely because the motion was filed within the three-year limit.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Joanne Fuller-Astarita v. ABA Transportation Holding Co.; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 11, 2025)
This case asked whether the Workers’ Compensation Board must address a request to reopen a case “in the interest of justice.” The Third Department reversed the Board’s denial and sent it back because the Board ignored that argument and gave no explanation. It confirms the Board must explicitly analyze and explain the interest‑of‑justice basis so appellate review is possible.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Bryan A. Pribble (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 11, 2025)
The Third Department reversed a ruling that classified Bryan Pribble as a level‑two sex offender and sent the case back for a new SORA hearing with new counsel. The court said the County Court failed to make the required findings to explain its decision, and defense counsel was ineffective for not seeking a reduction under risk factor 9 because the prior endangering-the-welfare-of-a-child conviction involved nonsexual conduct.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Devante Spencer v. Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 11, 2025)
An incarcerated individual challenged prison discipline for unauthorized phone use and a tool found in his cell, alleging due process and representation violations. The Third Department upheld the guilty findings based on substantial evidence but vacated the 270-day segregated confinement as unlawful under the HALT Act, ordered records corrected, and remitted for a lawful sanction. The decision underscores that HALT caps on segregation are mandatory and that declining an offered new hearing waives bias claims from an inadvertent attorney-client recording.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Dequan Greene (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 11, 2025)
A foster father’s convictions for depraved indifference murder, first-degree manslaughter, and child endangerment were upheld after his four-year-old foster son died from severe blunt-force abdominal trauma. The Third Department affirmed, pointing to medical and eyewitness proof inconsistent with an accident, evidence of prior abuse and deceptive conduct, and foster-parent rules banning corporal punishment that supported findings of recklessness and depraved indifference. It also held the legal-sufficiency challenge was unpreserved and rejected claims of sentencing bias.
Read more:
Click here