In the Matter of Laura Ann Sachs et al., Petitioners, against Hon. Denise M. Dominguez et al., Respondents; In re H.M. a.k.a. H.A.M. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
Former co-guardians challenged a guardianship court order that removed them and installed a new guardian for H.M. The First Department reinstated the prior co-guardians, removed the successor guardian, rescinded her commission, and ordered immediate turnover of all records and funds. The ruling shows that Article 78 can be used to unwind guardianship orders and secure fast, targeted relief in ongoing guardianships.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Bruce Lezama (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
This case concerns Bruce Lezama’s SORA risk-level classification. The First Department reversed his level-three designation because the “prior” sex conviction used to add 30 points and trigger the automatic level-three rule was entered after the offense. Without those points he is presumptive level two, and the case is remanded to consider any upward departure, clarifying that only convictions entered before the offense can count as “prior” convictions for SORA scoring or the automatic override.
Read more: Click here
Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP v. Robins Kaplan LLP (Appellate Division, First Department, March 12, 2026)
Co-counsel disputed fee-sharing under a 2015 agreement that used the undefined phrase “the final settlement.” The First Department reinstated the complaint, finding the contract ambiguous and not suitable for dismissal on the documents alone. The ruling signals that unclear fee-sharing terms will require discovery to determine the parties’ intent.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Eric Josey v. New York City Department of Finance et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 12, 2026)
The First Department dismissed a rental car driver’s Article 78 challenge to two NYC speed-camera tickets, after first treating the case as a transferred substantial-evidence review. It held that a sworn technician’s certificate alone proves a violation and the City need not show “photo enforced” signs. The court also confirmed that liability and hearing rights run to the vehicle’s owner (here, Hertz), so the renter has no due process claim when the rental company pays.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Leuris Morales (Appellate Division, First Department, March 12, 2026)
After pleading guilty, Leuris Morales received jail terms and probation with a condition to pay mandatory surcharges and court fees, which he appealed despite an appeal waiver. The First Department struck that condition as unrelated to rehabilitation or public safety and otherwise affirmed, finding the excessive-sentence claim barred by the valid waiver. The decision confirms that surcharge/fee conditions cannot be imposed as probation terms unless tied to rehabilitation, and that such challenges survive an appeal waiver.
Read more: Click here
Lexington Insurance Company et al. v. New York Marine and General Insurance Company (Appellate Division, First Department, March 12, 2026)
This case asked whether Lexington’s insureds were covered as vicarious insureds under NYM’s liability policy for tour-bus crash suits governed by California law. The First Department reinstated Lexington’s complaint, finding the allegations showed potential vicarious liability under the policy’s omnibus clause and NYM offered no admissible facts to eliminate coverage. It confirms that in California, potential coverage triggers the duty to defend, and insurers cannot rely on unsworn, conclusory materials to avoid that duty.
Read more: Click here
Alexandre Veloso v. Scaturro Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Alpine Painting & Sandblasting Contractors, et al.; Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
A lead‑abatement worker sued construction manager Hunter Roberts Construction Group after a containment‑area injury, alleging Labor Law and negligence claims. The First Department dismissed the § 200 and common‑law negligence claims because Hunter Roberts did not control the work or have access to the area. However, it let the §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims proceed due to Hunter Roberts’ contractual safety and stop‑work powers, underscoring potential statutory‑agent liability for construction managers.
Read more: Click here
Max Stewart v. JMDH Real Estate Offices, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 12, 2026)
The First Department reinstated and granted partial summary judgment on a worker’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim after he tripped on a raised Masonite board in a doorway, finding a hazardous passageway obstruction and rejecting the “integral-to-the-work” defense. It also reinstated the owners and construction manager’s contractual indemnification claim against the sprinkler subcontractor, awarding conditional indemnity, but upheld denial of indemnity against a labor supplier with no control. The ruling signals that loose floor protection in access routes can trigger § 241(6) liability and that owners may obtain conditional indemnity from involved subcontractors, not from labor suppliers.
Read more: Click here
William Etkin v. Sherwood Residential Management LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
A condo owner claimed balcony defects above his unit caused water damage and also alleged smoke infiltration. The First Department reinstated his derivative contract claims for balcony repairs against the manager and board, allowed renewal based on new Department of Buildings violations, and vacated sanctions, but it kept the smoke-related and nuisance claims dismissed. The decision confirms owners can sue on the condominium’s behalf to enforce repairs to limited common elements like balconies, while smoke claims need concrete proof and nuisance theories duplicating contract duties won’t stand.
Read more: Click here
Island Consolidated, et al. v. Grassi & Co., Certified Public Accountants PC (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
This case concerns alleged accounting malpractice arising from sales tax advice. The First Department reinstated defenses based on conditions precedent and limitation of liability because a course of dealing could have incorporated terms from other engagement letters. It dismissed the statute of limitations defense under the continuous representation doctrine due to the accountant’s 2020 audit defense, confirming that ongoing audit work can toll limitations.
Read more: Click here
Charmaine Cooke v. Urline Jean-Baptiste et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
This case asked whether the plaintiff met New York’s no-fault serious-injury threshold and could link her injuries to a 2018 crash despite degenerative findings and a 2017 accident. The First Department dismissed the complaint, holding defendants showed normal exam results and MRIs of degeneration, and the plaintiff offered no admissible proof of causation. The decision underscores that without medical evidence addressing degeneration and prior accidents, serious-injury and 90/180-day claims will not survive.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Lilian M. Reich, Deceased (Appellate Division, First Department, March 12, 2026)
The First Department dismissed the undue influence objection and affirmed dismissal of constructive fraud in a probate dispute over Lilian M. Reich’s will. The challenger offered no evidence of a confidential relationship or that the son dominated the decedent, who was lucid and made her own decisions. The ruling highlights that limited involvement in arranging a will and attorney-supervised execution can defeat probate challenges.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Shawndelle Jones (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
The First Department struck a probation condition that barred cannabis use for a defendant who pleaded guilty to attempted gun possession, but otherwise affirmed the sentence. The court found no link between cannabis abstention and rehabilitation or the offense, noting the presentence report said he had stopped using and was sober at the time. It upheld the general condition to avoid harmful habits and associations and declined to review an unpreserved constitutional claim.
Read more: Click here
ATTA, INC. v. 450 West 31st Owners Corp. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
A co-op tenant sought a Yellowstone injunction to pause a new cure period in a dispute over use of a parking area and loading dock. The First Department granted the injunction, reinstated the first two claims, and vacated sanctions, while leaving a third claim dismissed as duplicative. The court confirmed that sworn readiness and ability to cure is enough for Yellowstone relief and that a new notice to cure is a separate event not automatically barred by prior litigation.
Read more: Click here
G.K. v. S.T. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
The First Department largely affirmed the trial court’s divorce orders. The mother keeps sole custody, the father’s visits remain supervised with therapy requirements, and the court treated him as earning $1 million with a $500,000 cap for support and 38 months of maintenance. The First Department dismissed as moot the receiver-appointment appeal after the property was sold and reduced counsel fees by $267,454.84 to exclude bankruptcy work, underscoring broad trial-court discretion and limits on fee shifting.
Read more: Click here
Julian Figueroa v. Empire Sewer & Water Inc.; 28-41 Steinway, LLC v. Corona Ready Mix Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 10, 2026)
A concrete delivery worker injured by a reversing excavator can pursue Labor Law § 241(6) because the Industrial Code forbids non-crew from being within an excavator’s swing or travel range even when it isn’t actively digging. The First Department affirmed partial summary judgment against the owner and dismissed its common-law indemnification and contribution claims against the concrete supplier for lack of negligence. The ruling reinforces that delivery workers are protected on active sites and that owners—not suppliers—must keep people out of an operating excavator’s range.
Read more: Click here
Schreiber v. Nissan Lift of New York, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
A former CFO sought repayment of money he personally advanced to Nissan Lift; after a default, the trial court refused damages. The Second Department reinstated $125,000 for the plaintiff based on his testimony and bank records, holding that a default admits liability and the damages hearing addresses only how much. Claims tied to payments from business accounts were rejected for lack of proof of his personal obligation.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Barksdale v. Gilmore (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
The case involved a Family Court giving the father sole custody by default after the mother missed court, without taking any testimony. The Second Department dismissed the appeal except to review the refusal to hold a hearing, reversed that ruling, and sent the case back for an expedited hearing while keeping the December 27, 2024 order in place. It confirms that custody changes must rest on evidence after a hearing, even when one party defaults.
Read more: Click here
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. SCOB, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This no-fault case addressed how to set attorney’s fees for work done in a post-arbitration court proceeding (CPLR article 75). The Second Department reversed a $1,000 fee award and sent the case back because the trial court did not explain its basis. It held that fees are governed by 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4), not capped by 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(d), and must be supported by evidence and standard reasonableness factors.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Zakaria v. Zakaria (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This case concerned a father’s request to expand and clarify parenting time due to changed circumstances. The Second Department expanded his access by ordering alternating weekends and a weekly Wednesday dinner and by specifying certain holidays, and it sent the matter back to set detailed schedules for school breaks, the child’s birthday, and special events. The decision underscores that, absent extraordinary circumstances, noncustodial parents are entitled to reasonable, clearly defined access and that courts should use specific schedules when cooperation is lacking.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Halpern v. White (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
A creditor sought to force the sale of a debtor’s interest in a home co-owned with his spouse to satisfy a $530,000 judgment, despite the homestead exemption. The Second Department reinstated the petition and ordered a hearing on the property’s value, mortgage debt, the debtor’s share, and whether his equity exceeds the exemption. The decision confirms creditors may seek sale of a debtor spouse’s interest in a co-owned homestead if equity exceeds the exemption.
Read more: Click here
Whelan v. Whelan (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
A father sought to cut his $6,250 monthly child support during COVID-19, despite a settlement waiving modification based on a 15% income drop. The Second Department reinstated the original support and denied his request, finding he still had the means to pay and the waiver controlled. The ruling confirms that reduced income alone is not enough; payors must show inability to pay, and contractual waivers will be enforced.
Read more: Click here
Bisogno v. Libertella (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
After a courthouse dispute, a jury found the defendants liable for defamation per se, false arrest, and malicious prosecution based on a false claim that the plaintiff punched one of them. The Second Department upheld liability and the availability of punitive damages but found the $10 million compensatory and $250,000 punitive awards excessive, ordering a new damages trial unless the plaintiff accepts $400,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive. The ruling confirms civilians can be liable when they trigger arrests with false reports and that outsized reputational awards will be cut under CPLR 5501(c).
Read more: Click here
Matter of W. (Anonymous) v. Department of Social Services; Matter of W. (Anonymous) v. J. (Anonymous); Matter of Harmony J. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
After a child was removed from her mother, the maternal grandmother sought guardianship and custody, but the Family Court dismissed her petitions without a hearing. The Second Department reinstated the petitions and sent the case back for a full best‑interests hearing. The decision confirms courts cannot rely on “adequate relevant information” to bypass a plenary hearing in custody or guardianship matters.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Stewart Hill, LLC v. Town of New Windsor (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
Developers challenged New Windsor’s 2021 rezoning from industrial to residential, its SEQRA negative declaration, and a new definition of “incidental.” The Second Department dismissed those claims, finding the rezoning served legitimate goals, the Town took the required environmental “hard look,” and “incidental” was clear enough. But it let the “special facts” vested-rights claim proceed due to factual disputes over entitlement and alleged bad-faith delay.
Read more: Click here
Greehy v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This case stems from a fatal motorcycle crash allegedly caused by an obstructed stop sign, with claims for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering against the Town. The Second Department reinstated the conscious pain and suffering claim. It held the Town failed to meet its initial summary-judgment burden because a witness finding the decedent unresponsive within a minute did not rule out pre-impact terror or brief post-impact consciousness.
Read more: Click here
Kedex Properties, LLC v. Trisura Specialty Insurance Company (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This case concerns whether a CGL insurer had to defend and indemnify a property owner after a worker fell from a scaffold. The Second Department held Trisura must defend because the allegations could be covered and the policy exclusions were not clearly a match. Indemnity remains unresolved due to factual disputes about possible demolition work and whether the worker was Kedex’s employee.
Read more: Click here
Kurtanidze v. Fasino (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
At issue was whether a car‑accident plaintiff met New York’s no‑fault serious‑injury threshold for cervical spine injuries. The Second Department reinstated the case, holding the court should have considered the opposition despite a missing word‑count certification and that the plaintiff’s medical evidence created a triable issue. The ruling confirms courts should overlook minor filing defects and that objective medical proof can defeat summary judgment on the no‑fault threshold.
Read more: Click here
Flores v. 1298 Grand, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a premises-liability suit by a worker who fell on stairs that lacked a handrail, reversing summary judgment for the landlord. The landlord raised its out-of-possession defense for the first time in reply, so it could not support dismissal. The court also held the landlord failed to make the initial showing needed for summary judgment on causation and notice because the missing handrail presents fact questions for a jury.
Read more: Click here
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. YSC Trinity Acupuncture, P.C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This case asked whether a no-fault provider can recover attorney’s fees for work in a CPLR article 75 court proceeding after winning at master arbitration. The Second Department reversed the denial of fees and sent the case back to set a reasonable amount under Insurance Law § 5106(a) and 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). It also held that the fee is not capped by 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(d).
Read more: Click here
People v. Archibald (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
A 19-year-old who pleaded guilty to firearm possession appealed his sentence and challenged New York’s gun licensing scheme. The Second Department vacated only the mandatory surcharges and fees under CPL 420.35(2‑a)(c) because of his age and the People’s non-opposition, and otherwise affirmed. The court reiterated that a valid appeal waiver blocks excessive-sentence review and that unpreserved Bruen challenges to New York’s licensing law will be rejected.
Read more: Click here
People v. Mendoza (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
In People v Mendoza, the Second Department removed the mandatory surcharges and fees from two sentences because the defendant was under 21 at the time of the crimes, and it otherwise affirmed the convictions. The court applied CPL 420.35(2-a) and noted the prosecution’s consent, signaling that young adult defendants can have these financial penalties waived on appeal.
Read more: Click here
US Bank Trust, N.A. v. Donohue (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
In a foreclosure case, the trial court denied the bank’s unopposed motion and, on its own, dismissed the action as abandoned for delay. The Second Department reinstated the case and granted leave to enter a default judgment and an order of reference. It held that timely steps within one year satisfy CPLR 3215(c), so later delay cannot support abandonment, and courts cannot dismiss for delay without statutory authority.
Read more: Click here
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hart (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This case asked whether a bank in a residential foreclosure could proceed after missing New York’s one-year deadline to seek a default against a non-appearing owner. The Second Department dismissed the bank’s claim against Koznitz as abandoned and reversed the foreclosure judgment because the bank waited more than a year to move for a default without a valid excuse. Paying a tax lien and informal settlement talks did not pause the clock, underscoring that plaintiffs must timely seek default judgment or face dismissal.
Read more: Click here
Brown v. Register (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
A customer alleged the defendants posted her intimate images on Facebook and did not deliver paid-for services. The Second Department dismissed the defamation claim as protected opinion and denied leave to add more defamation allegations, but let the NYC and New Jersey intimate‑image claims and a breach of contract claim proceed. It also upheld the discovery rulings for lack of a good‑faith affirmation, underscoring that social‑media insults are not defamation while intimate‑image and contract claims can advance at the pleading stage.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Emmons Realty, LLC v. Soliman (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This case challenged NYC’s classification of a vacant, R5-zoned Brooklyn lot and whether a wrong building class could be corrected. The Second Department reversed, annulled the Department of Finance’s denial, and ordered reclassification to tax class one (building class V0). It matters because residentially zoned vacant land outside Manhattan must be class one despite commercial overlays, and a misclassified building class is a correctable clerical error.
Read more: Click here
Goodluck v. Azeez (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
In a left-turn crash case, the Second Department reversed the trial court, denied the plaintiff’s liability motion, and dismissed all claims against oncoming driver Lateez Azeez. The court found the left-turning driver violated VTL § 1141 by failing to yield, and Azeez—who had the right-of-way and only seconds to react—was not comparatively negligent. The decision underscores that a left-turning driver’s failure to yield can be the sole cause of a collision, supporting summary judgment for the non-turning driver.
Read more: Click here
Nationstar v. Public Administrator of Kings County, et al.; Antoine Ray, as heir to the estate of Gloria Scrubbs (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This appeal concerned a reverse mortgage foreclosure and whether a former owner who had conveyed away all interest could dismiss the case as abandoned. The Second Department reinstated Nationstar’s foreclosure, holding the former owner—having deeded away all interest and with a nonrecourse reverse mortgage—was not a necessary party and lacked standing to seek CPLR 3215(c) relief. It also affirmed denial of substituting the current titleholder because Nationstar failed to explain why it wasn’t named at the outset, underscoring that plaintiffs must sue the record owner.
Read more: Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. DeFoe (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This residential foreclosure appeal asked whether borrowers could undo a default and file a late answer years after a CPLR 3408 settlement conference. The Second Department reinstated the 2018 default judgment and order of reference and kept in place the earlier denial of their bid to vacate the default and serve a late answer. The court held that ignorance of the duty to answer and years-late reliance on CPLR 3408 are not valid excuses.
Read more: Click here
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Community Medical Imaging, P.C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
This case concerns attorney’s fees for no-fault providers in court proceedings following a master arbitration award. The Second Department reversed a $750 fee award and sent the case back, holding that fees are set under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4) and must be supported by evidence and reasonableness factors. It clarifies that trial courts must explain their fee calculations; unexplained, flat awards risk reversal.
Read more: Click here
People v. Sims (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
The Second Department reversed the denial of Anthony Sims’s CPL 440.10 motion, vacated his 1999 convictions, and ordered a new trial. Newly discovered evidence—an eyewitness saying another man fled with a long gun and a key witness’s recantation—undermined the prosecution’s identification case and created a reasonable probability of a different verdict. The ruling reinforces that courts must assess new evidence cumulatively and that corroborated recantations can justify vacatur when the trial proof of identity was limited.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Rachel Flatley, et al. v. Town of Southold, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 11, 2026)
Residents challenged Southold’s rezoning of town land purchased for recreation to an affordable housing district, arguing the vote needed a supermajority and the property was effectively parkland. The Second Department reinstated those claims and sent the case back for further proceedings. The decision underscores that adjacent owners’ protests can require a three-fourths vote and that official statements about recreational use can support a parkland claim at an early stage.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Enrique Josue Jimenez-Rivera (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 12, 2026)
This case involved a robbery plea with an appeal waiver and a later $2,660 restitution order entered without a hearing. The Third Department invalidated the appeal waiver, affirmed the negotiated seven-year sentence, and vacated the restitution order, sending the case back for a proper restitution hearing. It underscores that appeal waivers must be clear about surviving rights and that restitution requires proof of actual out-of-pocket losses on the record, often via a hearing.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Todd A. Pletcher v. New York State Gaming Commission (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 12, 2026)
Trainer Todd Pletcher challenged a phenylbutazone over-the-limit finding that the Gaming Commission proved only with lab letters. The Third Department annulled the ruling, set aside the penalties, and sent the case back for a new hearing because the Commission offered no proof that the testing methods were reliable. The decision makes clear that agencies must present competent, foundational evidence of reliable testing—not just result letters—to prove a medication violation.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Linear Research Associates, Inc., et al. v. Roberta Reardon, as Commissioner of Labor, et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 12, 2026)
The case challenged the Department of Labor’s denial of an explosives O&P license renewal based solely on a policy requiring every applicant to hold a Pyrotechnician Certificate of Competence (PCC). The Third Department annulled the denial, holding the blanket PCC mandate is an unpromulgated SAPA rule and unenforceable, and sent the matter back for individualized review under proper rules. The ruling confirms agencies cannot impose across-the-board licensing conditions by policy or forms; they must use formal rulemaking.
Read more: Click here