Matter of Kendall Granville Chen (deceased); Fromm et al. v. Chen et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 13, 2025)
The case involved claims that a co‑trustee hid a family trust and diverted beneficiary distributions while collecting trustee commissions. The First Department reinstated the petition, finding the pleadings adequately allege disloyalty and allow the trust to seek return of commissions even without proving separate damages. The court also said a later family settlement doesn’t bind the trust and that any approval of commissions doesn’t establish ratification at this stage.
Read more:
Click here
Yvette Georges Deeton v. Ruckus 85 Corp., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 13, 2025)
A co-op shareholder challenged the termination of her proprietary lease and the Article 9 sale of her apartment shares. The First Department reinstated limited declaratory, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims against the co-op, but left the injunction and all claims against Rabin Walker, LLC dismissed. It held that a good-faith Article 9 sale cannot be undone, though damages may be sought for any violations, and earlier non-service and provisional-remedy rulings do not bar the claims.
Read more:
Click here
Ana Mercedes Felipe, etc. v. Volunteers of America-Greater New York, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 13, 2025)
A mother sued New York City and a shelter for negligence after her son died of an overdose at the facility. The First Department dismissed the case for failure to prosecute because her affidavit lacked personal knowledge, relied on unnamed hearsay, and did not show defendants’ conduct substantially caused the death. The decision emphasizes that a delay excuse is not enough; plaintiffs must provide competent, admissible proof of a meritorious claim to avoid dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
Tri-Rail Designers & Builders, Inc. v. Concrete Superstructures, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
Tri‑Rail got a default judgment against its subcontractor; defendants argued it was invalid because the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) non‑military affidavit was missing and the damages weren’t fixed. The Second Department left the default on liability in place but vacated damages and ordered a hearing, because the award wasn’t a sum certain and exceeded the complaint’s demand. The court clarified that a missing SCRA affidavit doesn’t let non‑servicemember defendants undo an otherwise valid default.
Read more:
Click here
Holliday v. City of New Rochelle (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
This case asked whether a car crash plaintiff met New York’s No-Fault “serious injury” threshold. The Second Department reinstated the suit, reversing summary judgment for the City. It found fact disputes on spinal injuries and causation, including possible exacerbation of preexisting conditions, so the case goes forward.
Read more:
Click here
Egelandsdal v. Massaro (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
A bar patron sued over an assault and later sought to add MAS Security as a direct defendant after the limitations period. The Second Department reversed and allowed the amendment under the relation-back doctrine because MAS had timely notice and was already participating, clarifying that no unity of interest is required if there is no prejudice.
Read more:
Click here
Jonathan Dorman v. Luva of NY, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
In a home renovation dispute, the parties fought over missing emails and a subpoena for bank records. The Second Department ordered an adverse inference at trial for the destroyed emails but refused to strike the contractor’s answer. It also affirmed quashing the bank subpoena as irrelevant, underscoring that negligent ESI loss merits an inference and that nonparty subpoenas require a clear showing of need.
Read more:
Click here
Bamonte v. Charatan (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
Relatives of Kathleen McCormack Durst sued over interference with her remains and emotional distress. The Second Department reinstated the claims against Robert Durst’s estate as not time-barred, ruling the clock starts when the family learns of the interference and suffers anguish. It affirmed dismissal of claims against Debrah Charatan (individually), Douglas Durst, Wendy Durst Kreeger, and Eric A. Seiff for lack of concrete facts, and against NYPD Detective Michael Struk for not receiving a timely municipal notice of claim.
Read more:
Click here
Lorusso v. M & S Levy Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
A worker alleged a slip-and-fall at M & S Levy Realty’s property, and M&S tried to shift liability to All American Transit Mix. The Second Department dismissed all third-party claims against All American. The court found All American had no duty (no ownership, control, or creation of the hazard) and no enforceable contract, because the lease was unsigned and began after the accident.
Read more:
Click here
Carlos Mora Ramirez v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
This case involved a personal injury claim against NYCHA. The Second Department dismissed the case, reversing the trial court, because the plaintiff did not attend the mandatory pre-suit oral exam required by GML § 50-h and PHL § 157(2). The ruling makes clear that completing this exam is a strict prerequisite to suing NYCHA.
Read more:
Click here
People of State of New York v. Prince (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
This case concerned New York’s SORA risk-level scoring. The Second Department reduced the defendant from level three to level two after removing unproven jail-misconduct points, while upholding points for a prior violent felony and the denial of a downward departure. The ruling clarifies that risk factor 13 requires clear proof of recent or Tier III discipline, and that youthful offender adjudications can count for risk factor 9.
Read more:
Click here
Saracino v. Rosenberg, Calica & Birney, LLP (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
Clients sued their former law firm for malpractice over strategy choices, including filing mechanic’s liens instead of arbitration. The Second Department dismissed the case and denied leave to add new claims. It held the firm showed no malpractice or causation, the unopposed claims were abandoned, and the proposed amendments were duplicative or barred by written retainer agreements.
Read more:
Click here
Schmidt v. Capone (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
This case involves a Queens property where the plaintiff says his mother was fraudulently added to the deed and mortgage. The Second Department reversed the disqualification of the plaintiff’s lawyer and gave the lenders more time for a summary judgment motion due to COVID-era filing issues, but it denied that motion on the merits. The ruling underscores that counsel is not disqualified absent necessary, prejudicial testimony and that movants still must make a prima facie case.
Read more:
Click here
Cochran v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
A man slipped on black ice on a sidewalk around the corner from a Brooklyn subway entrance and sued the NYCTA for negligent maintenance. The Second Department dismissed the case, finding NYCTA didn’t own or control the sidewalk, didn’t create or specially use the icy patch, and the spot wasn’t primarily used for subway access. The ruling confirms that under NYC Admin Code § 7-210 the adjacent property owner—not the transit authority—bears sidewalk responsibility absent ownership, creation, or special use, and it reminds parties to preserve lease-based arguments.
Read more:
Click here
Elgerabli v. Allen (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
This defamation case turns on the timing and priority of pre-answer dismissal and anti-SLAPP motions. The Second Department dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and reinstated the defendant’s pre-answer CPLR 3211 motion, sending it back for a merits ruling. It confirms that courts must decide CPLR 3211(a)(1) motions before any answer and give anti-SLAPP motions priority, and that appeals from default orders do not lie.
Read more:
Click here
Village of Briarcliff Manor v. Village of Ossining (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
The case asks whether Ossining and one of its officers must reimburse Briarcliff Manor for costs paid to an officer injured during a high-speed police chase. The Second Department reinstated the claim, finding testimony about a dangerous pursuit through populated areas creates fact questions about reckless disregard and whether the chase caused the injuries. It signals that such pursuit cases often go to a jury, making summary judgment difficult for defendants.
Read more:
Click here
Sabo v. Eisenberg (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
The case concerned whether defendants could undo a default judgment under CPLR 5015. The Second Department reinstated the default against the individual defendants and kept it in place for the companies, finding they had no credible, documented reason for missing the case. It confirms that confusion with a prior lawsuit or bare claims about moving abroad or limited involvement are not a reasonable excuse, and that alleging nondisclosure of a related case does not change that.
Read more:
Click here
US Bank National Association v. Livoti (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
The Second Department dismissed a 2016 foreclosure as time-barred and vacated the prior orders, including the judgment of foreclosure and sale. It held that New York’s FAPA applies to pending cases with unenforced judgments and that the six-year clock began with the 2009 acceleration and could not be reset by a 2015 letter. The decision confirms lenders cannot revive expired foreclosure claims by unilateral de-acceleration.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Sebastian Garcia-Restrepo (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
The case asked whether 15 points could be added for substance abuse under SORA risk factor 11. The Second Department reduced the defendant from level two to level one because the People did not clearly prove excessive drug or alcohol use. The decision confirms that risk factor 11 points require solid proof, not ambiguous statements or denials.
Read more:
Click here
Wen Wen Sun v. Ti Zhou (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
A divorce appeal over property division, support, a hedge fund interest, and a 529 college account. The Second Department mostly affirmed, but removed the college-expense order as premature for a five-year-old and ordered the 529 account split equally. It confirms separate-property credits for traced gifts, discretion to value active businesses at commencement and impute income, and that college costs for very young children shouldn’t be ordered yet.
Read more:
Click here
Fontana v. LaRosa (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
A patient alleged a vein-stripping surgery deviated from accepted practice and caused a peroneal nerve injury and foot drop. The Second Department reinstated the case and ordered a new trial before a different Justice, finding the plaintiff’s expert and medical records gave the jury something to decide. The decision underscores that mid-trial dismissals are improper when reasonable jurors could find negligence and causation.
Read more:
Click here
Van Houten v. Van Houten (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
The case centers on a family dispute over a promised 50% stake in a farm business and rights to the farm property. The Second Department reinstated the business-related constructive trust claims based on an alleged oral promise and decades of work, but affirmed dismissal of the land and adverse possession claims. The ruling underscores that labor in reliance on a promise can support a constructive trust over a business interest, while contingent promises to convey land are not enforceable until the conditions occur.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Browne v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
The case concerned a late notice of claim against NYCHA over alleged pesticide exposure that caused a child’s leukemia. The Second Department dismissed the petition and reversed the lower court, finding NYCHA had no timely actual knowledge, the multi-year delay wasn’t reasonably excused or tied to infancy, and the petitioner didn’t show lack of prejudice. The ruling underscores that late-notice relief against municipal entities is rare and requires prompt action and proof the agency isn’t prejudiced.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Kevin Krein v. Green Haven Correctional Facility et al.; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 13, 2025)
This workers’ compensation case asked whether a later schedule loss of use (SLU) award to the same leg must be automatically reduced by a prior SLU. The Third Department reversed the Board’s offset and remitted, holding the Board must review medical proof to determine whether the later injury independently increased loss of use. The decision confirms there is no automatic SLU offset after Johnson.
Read more:
Click here
Tri-Rail Designers & Builders, Inc. v. Concrete Superstructures, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 12, 2025)
This case asked whether a default judgment entered without an SCRA affidavit must be set aside and whether damages can be awarded without proof when the amount isn’t fixed. The Second Department held there is no automatic set-aside for civilian defendants, but it vacated the damages and sent the case back for a damages hearing because the award wasn’t fixed and exceeded the demand. The ruling confirms that SCRA affidavit errors don’t void judgments and that plaintiffs must prove non-fixed damages and cannot recover more than they asked for.
Read more:
Click here