People of the State of New York v. Roniel Dotel (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
The case focused on whether the appeal waiver signed at the plea was valid and whether mandatory surcharges and fees should stand after a guilty plea to second-degree weapon possession. The First Department upheld the appeal waiver, blocking review of the excessive-sentence claim, and affirmed the conviction and prison term. It nevertheless vacated the surcharges and fees in the interest of justice, confirming that a standard appeal waiver can bar sentence challenges while the court may still remove monetary assessments.
Read more:
Click here
Dorothy S. Carvello v. Warner Music Group Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
Dorothy Carvello sued co-worker Jason Flom over alleged workplace misconduct, claiming negligent and intentional emotional distress and civil conspiracy. The First Department dismissed the complaint, reversing the trial court. The court reaffirmed that workers’ comp bars negligence-based emotional distress, intentional infliction requires truly extreme conduct, and New York recognizes no standalone conspiracy claim.
Read more:
Click here
Dorothy S. Carvello v. Warner Music Group Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
A former music executive sued Warner Music and Atlantic to hold them liable for alleged workplace sexual assaults. The First Department dismissed the vicarious-liability and negligence claims, finding the assaults were outside the scope of employment and that Workers’ Compensation is the exclusive remedy, and it permanently dismissed civil conspiracy. It allowed the plaintiff to try again on most other claims and left a potential successor-liability path open.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Panstar Realty LLC v. New York Teachers Housing Corp. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
A developer sought a temporary license to use a neighbor’s property during construction. The First Department limited access to only installing overhead protection after the city Department of Buildings approved an alternative plan, kept the $1,375/month fee and $250,000 bond, and sent engineering and attorneys’ fees back for reconsideration. The decision underscores that access must be strictly necessary and that professional fees require a fact-specific equitable review.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Jianming Shen, an attorney and counselor-at-law (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
Attorney discipline case over escrow and recordkeeping failures, commingling, a misstatement in a real estate closing, and nonrefundable fee clauses. The First Department confirmed most charges, reinstated charges on false compliance certifications, nonrefundable fees, and fitness, dismissed one communication charge, and imposed public censure. The decision clarifies that lawyers must keep proper records for all practice-related accounts, nonrefundable fees are barred, and the communication duty requires actual knowledge.
Read more:
Click here
Nicholas Industries & Construction Services, Inc. v. NASDI, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
A subcontractor sought extra pay for excavation and filed a mechanic’s lien against NASDI. The First Department dismissed the breach-of-contract and lien-foreclosure claims because the subcontractor failed to follow strict notice-of-claim requirements, and it affirmed voiding the lien as willfully exaggerated. The ruling underscores that missing notice deadlines can forfeit extra-work claims and derail lien foreclosures, and estoppel requires proof the other side actually blocked compliance.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. J.W. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
This case asked whether courts can add mandatory surcharges and crime victim assistance fees to youthful offender sentences after the 2020 repeal. The First Department vacated those fees and otherwise affirmed, saying courts lack authority to impose them since August 24, 2020. It confirms such fees for youthful offenders must be removed on appeal.
Read more:
Click here
Haley Perrotte v. Bloomberg, L.P., et al., and "John Does" 1–10 (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
The First Department modified a discovery order in an employment case over lost wages. It upheld blocking access to the plaintiff’s J.P. Morgan Chase credit card records as irrelevant, but allowed a new subpoena to depose nonparty Catherine Vance Thompson based on bank deposits labeled “invoices.” The ruling limits broad financial subpoenas while permitting targeted third-party discovery tied to potential post-termination income and mitigation.
Read more:
Click here
Erica T. Itzhak v. Briarwood Insurance Services Inc. and Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
A co-op unit owner sought coverage from Atlantic Casualty as an additional insured for renovation damage based on a certificate of insurance. The First Department dismissed the complaint, reversing the lower court. The court held the certificate conferred no rights, CGL policies cover only third-party liability (not the insured’s own property), and the plaintiff failed to satisfy Insurance Law § 3420(b)(1) for a direct action.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. M.O. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
M.O. pleaded guilty in two Bronx cases; the judge sentenced him and imposed fees but did not decide on the record whether he qualified as a youthful offender in one case. The First Department vacated that sentence and sent it back for resentencing, and also vacated the mandatory surcharge, DNA fee, and victim assistance fee on the other case in the interest of justice. The decision underscores that judges must make on-the-record youthful-offender findings and that the First Department may eliminate mandatory fees in appropriate cases, especially when unopposed.
Read more:
Click here
Board of Managers of the 432 Park Condominium et al. v. 56th and Park (NY) Owner, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
The case involves alleged construction defects at 432 Park, where the condo board sought to add fraud claims against the sponsor, architect, and engineer based on new evidence. The First Department reinstated the amendment, finding no unfair prejudice from added pre‑note discovery and that the fraud claims are plausible. The ruling reinforces New York’s liberal standard for amendments and preserves potential relation‑back protection instead of forcing a new lawsuit.
Read more:
Click here
DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Meyer Adler et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
The case asked whether a 2018 foreclosure was time-barred after the loan was accelerated in 2009 and the prior case was discontinued in 2011. The First Department reversed and, on renewal, denied the lender’s motion and dismissed the foreclosure as untimely. It held FAPA applies retroactively and a voluntary discontinuance does not undo acceleration, so the six-year clock began in 2009.
Read more:
Click here
Roger J. Contreras v. The City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 10, 2026)
A construction worker was hit by a falling chisel while on a designated coffee break under a sidewalk bridge at a school restoration site. The First Department granted him summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding the scaffold protections were inadequate. The ruling confirms that break-time falling-object injuries are covered by the Scaffold Law and plaintiffs need not pinpoint exactly how the object fell when safety devices are lacking.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Thompson, Joel (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
Thompson claimed ineffective assistance because his lawyer deferred to him on whether to request a first-degree manslaughter lesser-included charge after his murder conviction. The Second Department reversed the summary denial of his CPL 440.10 motion and sent the case back for a hearing due to counsel’s affirmation and unresolved factual disputes. The ruling underscores that requesting a lesser-included offense is counsel’s decision, and supported claims on that point can’t be denied without a hearing.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Joseph A. Farco v. Lauren M. Farco (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
This case challenged a Family Court order that barred a father from filing more custody petitions and dismissed his request to modify custody without a hearing. The Second Department reinstated the father’s petition, lifted the filing ban, and sent the case back for a best-interests hearing. The ruling emphasizes that court access shouldn’t be restricted without clear abuse and that credible claims of changed circumstances require a hearing.
Read more:
Click here
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Duran (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a mortgage foreclosure action, finding factual disputes over whether the lender was exempt from FHA servicing rules, so the borrowers were not entitled to dismissal. It affirmed denial of the lender’s summary judgment because the lender didn’t prove standing and failed to strictly show compliance with RPAPL 1304’s 90-day notice mailings. The decision underscores that lenders need consistent note evidence and concrete mailing proof, while FHA-based defenses won’t support summary judgment when an exemption is genuinely in dispute.
Read more:
Click here
Worob v. Campbell (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
A former treasurer of a local chamber of commerce sued after being publicly accused of misusing funds. The Second Department reinstated her defamation claims against all defendants and allowed her to amend as to Williams, while affirming dismissal of her emotional distress claims. The court said she pled the specific statements with enough detail to proceed and is not a public figure, so she need not allege actual malice.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Vergara (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
The case involved a guilty plea to first-degree assault, an appeal waiver, and an overlong order of protection. The Second Department upheld the conviction and sentence based on a valid appeal waiver, but shortened the order of protection to expire June 22, 2040, the statutory maximum. It matters because valid appeal waivers block excessive-sentence challenges, and courts will correct orders of protection that exceed the law.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Whittingham (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
The Second Department modified the sentence, holding the 2–4 year terms for attempted second-degree assault and firearm possession must run at the same time because they stemmed from a single act, as the People conceded. All other judgments were affirmed, and the overall sentence was not excessive. The decision confirms that prosecutors must prove separate, distinct acts to impose back-to-back sentences for related offenses.
Read more:
Click here
Haji-Georgi v. Wishner (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
This case involved ASA revival claims over a 2005 sexual assault by a Huntington Medical Group doctor, with plaintiffs seeking to hold NYU Langone liable as a successor after its later deal with HMG. The Second Department dismissed the claims against NYU because the transaction documents showed no assumption of HMG’s liabilities, no merger, and that HMG continued to exist. The ruling confirms buyers of medical practices aren’t responsible for a seller’s past misconduct without a clear assumption or merger, and strong deal documents can secure early dismissal even in ASA cases.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of DeFonte v. New York City Fire Department (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
A firefighter challenged the City’s denial of a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Second Department reversed and dismissed the petition, finding the City showed undue hardship for FDNY and that its streamlined cooperative-dialogue process met NYCHRL requirements during the emergency. The ruling signals that, in safety‑sensitive public roles, standardized processes and operational safety needs can justify denying accommodations during a public health crisis.
Read more:
Click here
Nedd v. Nedd (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
In a divorce case, the trial court sanctioned the defendant’s former lawyer $1,375 after she withdrew shortly before a trial date. The Second Department reversed both the sanction and cost orders. The court emphasized that a lawyer may withdraw by consent, and sanctions require frivolous conduct and a fair chance to be heard.
Read more:
Click here
Purcell v. Archdiocese of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-02-11)
A plaintiff sued Iona Preparatory School under the Child Victims Act, alleging abuse in 1964 by a teacher who had left Iona and was then teaching at another school. The Second Department dismissed the negligence claims and reversed the lower court because Iona had no custody of the plaintiff or control over the teacher, and the conduct occurred off campus. The ruling clarifies that the CVA revives time to sue but does not change negligence duties; former schools without contemporaneous custody or control are not liable.
Read more:
Click here
People ex rel. Anna Boksenbaum, on behalf of Edwin Henao v. Lynelle Maginley-Liddie (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 9, 2026)
This habeas case challenged Edwin Henao’s pretrial detention after the trial court refused bail. The Second Department replaced the no-bail remand with bail and strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, home confinement, passport surrender, and an extradition waiver. The decision confirms courts can craft supervised bail packages under CPL 510.40(4)(c)-(d) to ensure defendants return to court.
Read more:
Click here
Parchment v. Crawford (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
A plaintiff sued the Town of North Hempstead over a sidewalk trip-and-fall, but the Town Code requires prior written notice of defects. The Second Department dismissed the claims because officials found no written notice and no exception, reinforcing strict compliance with municipal notice rules.
Read more:
Click here
Kairey v. Hirsch (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
The case challenged a Bet Din arbitration term setting child support to age 24 rather than 21. The Second Department reinstated the award, reversing the trial court’s reduction to age 21. Judicial review of arbitration is very limited and, with no conflict with the Child Support Standards Act or the child’s best interests, the decision confirms that arbitral child-support terms beyond age 21 will be enforced.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Yeung v. Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
The case asked whether homeowners in SCAR can challenge the Residential Assessment Ratio (RAR) with their own ratio study. The Second Department reinstated their petitions, holding that RPTL 1218 does not block such challenges and that hearing officers must consider the taxpayer’s best evidence. This clarifies that homeowners have a practical path to contest unequal assessments without full tax certiorari.
Read more:
Click here
Normile v. DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
A restaurant’s customer sued the restaurant’s insurer after being hit by an employee on a bicycle one block from the premises during a delivery return, arguing the GL policy’s designated-premises endorsement covered the accident. The Second Department dismissed the claim against DB Insurance, holding the endorsement applies only to injuries with a direct premises-based connection, not off-site business operations. The decision clarifies that deliveries and similar off-premises activities may require separate coverage.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Yeung v. Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 11, 2026)
The case asked whether homeowners in SCAR can challenge the State’s Residential Assessment Ratio using their own sales-ratio study. The Second Department reinstated the homeowners’ cases, holding that a separate statute (RPTL 1218) doesn’t limit SCAR and that hearing officers must consider reliable ratio evidence. This matters because SCAR petitioners can use ratio studies to press unequal-assessment claims, promoting fair and efficient review of tax assessments.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Rocco Merante v. Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 11, 2026)
A police officer sought disability retirement for on-duty injuries, but the Comptroller denied the claim. The Third Department dismissed the petition, finding substantial evidence he was not permanently disabled based on the Retirement System’s examiner and imaging. The court stressed that applicants must build the record; agencies may decide only on the evidence admitted, so failing to submit key surgical records can be fatal.
Read more:
Click here