B.B. v. William Cosby, Jr., et al., and The Carsey-Werner Company, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
A woman sued under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, claiming Bill Cosby assaulted her in the 1980s and that producer Carsey-Werner was negligent in hiring and supervision. The First Department dismissed the negligent hiring claim for lack of a specific link between the company’s actions or resources and the off‑premises assaults, but affirmed extra time for service of process. The ruling confirms the ASA doesn’t change service rules and that employer liability requires concrete facts tying the employer to the harm.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Anthony Rosavong (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
A defendant who pled guilty to weapon possession challenged his probation terms and New York’s firearm licensing rules. The First Department affirmed the conviction and most probation conditions, rejected the Second Amendment challenge, and struck the requirement to pay mandatory surcharges and fees as a probation condition. It matters because defendants can challenge the licensing scheme without applying, but rehab-focused conditions stand and probation cannot hinge on paying fees.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jason Washington (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
The case challenged a judge’s decision to raise a sex offender’s risk level above what the Board and prosecutors recommended. The First Department reversed and set the defendant at level one because there was no clear, convincing proof of any aggravating factor beyond what the SORA Guidelines already cover. It confirms that judges may increase risk levels only with strong proof of extra aggravating facts, and may raise the issue on their own only if the defendant gets a meaningful chance to respond.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Everett Gausney (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
This case challenged probation terms after a guilty plea to third-degree drug sale. The First Department reduced probation from five to three years and removed a gang-related condition and the requirement to pay surcharges and fees as probation terms, but kept standard “avoid injurious habits” rules. The ruling underscores that probation conditions must be tied to rehabilitation and supported by facts.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Jose Perez (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
This case asked whether Jose Perez validly waived indictment to be prosecuted by a superior court information. The First Department reversed the conviction, vacated his guilty plea, and remanded because the record did not show he signed the waiver in open court with counsel present. The ruling underscores that strict, on-the-record compliance with this requirement is jurisdictional and can undo a conviction despite a guilty plea.
Read more:
Click here
Sandra Brown, etc. v. Afzal Hossain et al., and NYC Medical Practice LLC d/b/a Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
Case centered on whether an electronically signed cosmetic surgery agreement forced malpractice claims into arbitration. The First Department affirmed arbitration against the clinic, finding the e-signature valid and the clause not unconscionable, but reinstated the court claims against the non‑signatory doctor and his practice. The First Department dismissed the appeal from the denial of reargument as nonappealable.
Read more:
Click here
Victor G. Thompson v. Claudine T. Thompson (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
In a child support case, the parties disputed a referral to a referee and subpoenas for bank and business records. The First Department dismissed the appeal from the referral order, reinstated bank subpoenas, allowed targeted post-2018 discovery from the plaintiff’s company, and limited CT Corporation System to one request about the plaintiff. The decision confirms that account holders can’t quash bank subpoenas, business records relevant to income are discoverable, and orders of reference aren’t appealable as of right.
Read more:
Click here
Nacirra Brown, as Administrator of the Estate of Jamel Brown v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
This case involves a discovery fight in a wrongful-death suit over a NYCHA elevator accident. The First Department granted a protective order only for four duplicative requests and otherwise required NYCHA to produce targeted elevator-violation records and DOI-investigation materials. It confirms that duplicative demands can be vacated, but specific, relevant requests will be compelled, and public-records availability and a cursory search affidavit do not excuse production.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. J. P. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
An 18-year-old who pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter appealed the suppression ruling and his sentence. The First Department vacated the sentence and sent the case back for the required youthful offender determination, but otherwise affirmed. It held the appeal waiver barred suppression review and, alternatively, that the brief precinct detention was justified.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of P. K., Petitioner-Respondent, v. D.K., Respondent-Appellant (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
This case concerns a dispute over a father’s alleged private school tuition arrears under a mediation agreement. The First Department reversed and vacated the arrears order. It remanded for a new hearing because the agreement had conflicting, time-inconsistent terms about what was owed and whether arrears were already satisfied.
Read more:
Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. UBS AG (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
Wells Fargo, as CMBS trustee, claimed UBS breached representations by selling a 2018 loan despite the borrower’s undisclosed debt. The First Department dismissed the case as time-barred under New York’s borrowing statute, which applied Kansas’s or Pennsylvania’s shorter deadlines. The ruling underscores that out-of-state trustees and servicers suing in New York must satisfy the shortest applicable statute of limitations where the claim accrued.
Read more:
Click here
SilverLining Interiors, Inc. v. Arencibia et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
SilverLining’s case sought to enforce a noncompete against a former employee after a termination without cause. The First Department reversed and vacated a preliminary injunction because the same noncompete had already been deemed overly broad and unenforceable. The decision confirms New York courts won’t enjoin competition under invalid noncompetes, especially where restrictions are sweeping and pay doesn’t cover the full restraint period.
Read more:
Click here
Christopher Jones v. Marshalls, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
A shopper slipped in a Marshalls store after cleaning was outsourced through USM to a subcontractor. The First Department reinstated the claims against Marshalls, holding the store cannot delegate its duty to keep public areas safe and may be liable for the subcontractor’s negligence. The First Department affirmed dismissal for USM because it did not control the cleaner’s work or create the hazard.
Read more:
Click here
Nefertiti Earl v. The City of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
A mother claimed her infant caught a fatal virus from an early intervention therapist during a home visit and sought to hold the City liable. The First Department dismissed the claims after expert evidence showed the virus’s 5–7 day incubation made infection from that session impossible and the plaintiff had no expert to dispute it. The ruling underscores that timing and expert proof can defeat infectious disease claims and related claims against program administrators.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Horaceo Gayle (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
This case addressed how to set an order of protection’s end date when a sentence runs nunc pro tunc to the arrest date. The First Department vacated the expiration date and sent the case back to recalculate it using the correct start date, leaving the order in effect meanwhile. The decision clarifies that protection-order duration must reflect the true sentence start, and that appellate review may reach such issues in the interest of justice.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Kashaun Jones (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
This case asked whether the defendant’s appeal waiver was valid and whether mandatory surcharges should stand. The First Department enforced the waiver, blocking a challenge to the prison term, but vacated the surcharges and fees in the interest of justice. The ruling confirms that clear written waivers will be enforced, and that courts may remove financial penalties when appropriate, especially if the prosecution does not oppose.
Read more:
Click here
Jeri Cohen v. Jeffrey Cohen, Cred Partners d/b/a Corporate Bailout Partners LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
A judgment creditor alleged Jeffrey Cohen shifted assets among related finance companies to avoid paying a debt and sought to pierce the corporate veil. The First Department reinstated the alter-ego claim and parts of the fraudulent transfer claims based on OSF’s $776,500 loan release to Cred Partners and using company funds to settle Cohen’s personal fraud case, while leaving the rest dismissed. The ruling clarifies that a related-party loan release can be a conveyance and that insider payments for a principal’s personal liability may lack good faith under New York’s former Debtor and Creditor Law.
Read more:
Click here
Izquierdo v. Amsterdam Avenue Redevelopment Associates, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
A worker fell from a ladder used as access on a construction project and sued under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The First Department dismissed § 241(6) theories tied to floor and passageway rules, let the ladder-specific provisions proceed, and granted the owner and general contractor unconditional indemnification under the subcontract. The ruling clarifies which Industrial Code rules apply to ladder-as-access accidents and confirms owners and general contractors can obtain indemnity when they are not actively negligent.
Read more:
Click here
James Russell v. Lenox Hill Hospital; Lenox Hill Hospital v. Rad Source Technologies, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
A delivery driver was injured while unloading a heavy medical device at Lenox Hill Hospital. The First Department dismissed his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims against Lenox Hill and dismissed Lenox Hill’s third-party claims against Rad Source. The court held that delivery work is not covered by §240(1), Lenox Hill did not control the unloading for §200, and a company that hires an independent contractor is not liable when the task is not inherently dangerous.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jorge L. Andujar (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
After pleading guilty to weapon possession, the defendant challenged a standard probation condition, claimed his sentence was excessive, and sought a certificate to keep his job. The First Department affirmed the conviction, sentence, and condition based on a valid appeal waiver and a reasonable condition, but granted a certificate of relief from disabilities to support employment. The decision highlights that appeal waivers limit sentence appeals, standard probation conditions are enforceable, and appellate courts can grant certificates to reduce collateral consequences.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Terrence Meggett (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
In a drug possession case, the First Department struck a probation rule banning gang paraphernalia and associations because there was no evidence of gang ties. It upheld standard conditions to avoid injurious habits and disreputable places and enforced the appellate waiver, which barred excessive-sentence and facial constitutional challenges. The decision underscores that probation terms must be tailored to the defendant’s history and offense, and valid waivers limit appellate review.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Kyhree Page (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
The First Department vacated mandatory surcharges and fees on one robbery conviction because the offense occurred when the defendant was under 21. It kept the fees on a separate robbery committed after the defendant turned 21 and otherwise affirmed the judgments. The ruling signals the court will, consistent with People v. Chirinos, use its interest-of-justice power to waive fees for under‑21 offenses.
Read more:
Click here
Pander v. GuildNet, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 15, 2026)
The case asked whether a managed long‑term care plan, GuildNet, and its parent, Lighthouse, could be liable for a home health aide’s alleged assault and negligence that led to a member’s death. The First Department dismissed all claims, finding the aide worked for an independent contractor, GuildNet exercised only incidental oversight, and there was no evidence of knowledge or causation. As a result, the wrongful death claim and the complaint against the parent were also dismissed, reinforcing that plans are generally not liable for contractor aides absent control or notice.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Brandon Vilella (Appellate Division, First Department, January 13, 2026)
A defendant convicted of attempted murder claimed the judge mishandled jury notes, made improper evidence rulings, and that the transcript was wrong. The First Department affirmed the conviction and the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion. It held that near-verbatim jury-note disclosure with notice satisfies CPL 310.30 and must be preserved, and that the evidentiary issues were harmless while the transcript claims lacked proof.
Read more:
Click here
Krakovski v. Stavros Associates, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
A neighbor dispute over ventilation pipes allegedly protruding over the property line and blowing boiler exhaust into the plaintiff’s yard. The Second Department reinstated the plaintiff’s private nuisance and trespass claims and rejected dismissal of the amended complaint. It also affirmed denial of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, emphasizing that leave to amend can’t be undone for delay without prejudice and that success requires proof of substantial interference and actual physical entry.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Mohmed v. Elkhauly (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
In a family offense case between spouses, the Second Department dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. It vacated the assault finding for lack of physical injury but upheld harassment and affirmed a two-year stay-away order of protection. The ruling underscores that harassment alone can support an order of protection and that Family Court credibility determinations receive deference on appeal.
Read more:
Click here
Dispensa v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
A bicyclist sued after crashing into a chain-link fence that blocked a park promenade after Hurricane Sandy. The Second Department reinstated the case against the City, holding that whether the fence was open and obvious is a fact question and that the City’s lack of prior written notice doesn’t end the case because evidence suggests the City may have created the hazard; it also left intact the denial of the plaintiff’s own summary judgment motion.
Read more:
Click here
Hersko v. Hersko (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
This intra-family Brooklyn real estate fight centers on an alleged forged deed and mortgage-related promises across several properties. The Second Department dismissed several claims as untimely, duplicative, or barred by the statute of frauds, but let deed-cancellation, fiduciary duty, and constructive trust claims proceed and kept the notices of pendency. The ruling highlights that most fraud-based equitable claims have a six-year limit, forged deed challenges can be brought within ten years, and oral mortgage promises are unenforceable.
Read more:
Click here
Delco Development Company of Hicksville, L.P. v. Shoes Etc., Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
The case asked whether a company president who signed a commercial lease also agreed to be personally liable. The Second Department dismissed the claim against him and reversed summary judgment, finding the landlord’s lease was ambiguous and his “PRES.” signatures showed he signed only for the company. It reinforces that officers aren’t personally liable unless the lease clearly and explicitly says so, with proper signature blocks.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Jennifer Rodriguez v. Michael Serrano (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
A mother challenged a child support modification that used the father's 2022 income and eliminated a $40 biweekly educational add-on without any request. The Second Department reinstated the educational expense and sent the case back to recalculate support and arrears using the parties’ 2023 federal returns. The decision confirms courts must use the most recent tax return and cannot remove add-ons on their own.
Read more:
Click here
Palermo v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
This slip-and-fall case at the Ronkonkoma train station focused on discovery disputes over extra depositions and document requests. The Second Department dismissed the appeal as to the MTA, ordered the LIRR to produce another knowledgeable witness, and otherwise upheld denials against Suffolk County and the Town of Islip. It underscores that a party gets another corporate deposition only if the first witness lacked knowledge and others likely have key information, and courts won’t compel documents when defendants credibly deny having them.
Read more:
Click here
Victory Blvd Associate, LLC v. Pillars Funding, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, Not specified in excerpt)
In a commercial lease case where defendants twice failed to appear, the trial court vacated a second default judgment. The Second Department reinstated that judgment, holding the defendants’ “law office failure” claims were too vague to be a reasonable excuse. It confirms that vacating a default under CPLR 5015(a)(1) requires specific, credible details, or courts won’t reach the merits.
Read more:
Click here
Silverman v. Petykowski (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
An East Hampton boundary-line dispute centered on a narrow strip of land, with the owner seeking title by deed or by adverse possession. The Second Department reinstated all claims and denied defendants’ cross-motion, but it left plaintiff without summary judgment because neither side submitted competent, affidavit-supported survey proof. The court emphasized that deeds alone don’t fix boundaries and that adverse possession issues, such as de minimis encroachments and open, notorious use, are fact questions.
Read more:
Click here
Battle v. Fulton Park Site 4 Houses, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
A plaintiff was cut by shattered door glass, and the building failed to preserve surveillance video after being notified of the incident. The Second Department agreed a sanction was warranted but changed the trial court’s total preclusion to an adverse inference because the loss was negligent, not intentional. The decision underscores a duty to preserve video once on notice and favors proportional sanctions under CPLR 3126.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Moselem (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
After a guilty plea to attempted burglary, the trial court issued a final order of protection set to expire December 31, 2032. The Second Department modified only the expiration date to December 1, 2031 because the original exceeded the maximum allowed by CPL 530.13(4)(A), and otherwise affirmed. The ruling reinforces that final criminal orders of protection must stay within statutory limits measured from the sentencing date.
Read more:
Click here
Palermo v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
This case involves a trip-and-fall on a sidewalk near the Ronkonkoma LIRR station. The Second Department reinstated the claims against the LIRR because it failed to show it didn’t own or maintain the sidewalk. The Second Department dismissed the claims against the MTA, Suffolk County, and the Town of Islip because the MTA isn’t liable for its subsidiaries by statute and the municipalities had no prior written notice.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company v. Lai (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
An insured sought SUM benefits after a car crash but had already settled with the at‑fault drivers without Progressive’s written consent. The Second Department reversed and permanently stayed arbitration, holding the settlement violated the policy and impaired the insurer’s ability to recover; the arbitration clause covers only fault and damages, not coverage. The decision confirms that settling without your insurer’s consent can forfeit SUM coverage and that coverage disputes go to court.
Read more:
Click here
James Brennan v. Jorge A. Vasquez, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
A client alleged his former lawyer breached fiduciary duty in a $300,000 loan tied to the lawyer’s brokerage involvement. The trial court entered judgment as a matter of law for the client, but the Second Department reinstated the claim for a new trial because disputed facts and credibility issues must go to the jury under CPLR 4401.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of DG 1096 Broadway, LLC v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
The case addressed whether pre–certificate-of-occupancy (CO) occupancy, later cured by a final CO, blocks J-51 tax benefits. The Second Department reinstated the owner’s J-51 application and sent it back to HPD. The court said agencies must judge eligibility based on compliance at the time of application and cannot deem past violations categorically disqualifying without statutory authority.
Read more:
Click here
Kela Tennis, Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
Kela Tennis sued Mount Vernon over a revoked license to run a fee-based tennis facility in a city park, and a jury found the City breached the contract. The Second Department upheld liability but reversed the damages award and ordered a new damages trial because the court wrongly excluded the City’s damages expert. It also confirmed that a fee-based tennis facility is a valid park use when properly authorized, rejecting the City’s public-trust challenge.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Asani J. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
This case asked whether a mother’s domestic violence near her child amounted to neglect. The Second Department reinstated the petition and found neglect. It held that a single violent act near a child lets courts infer imminent risk without proof the child witnessed or was affected, and a later 911 note that the child was outside did not change that.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Coleman, Fred Q. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
This case involved a Queens County jury conviction for assault and weapon possession after an altercation. The Second Department reversed and ordered a new trial because the judge’s leading questions and coaching of witnesses showed favoritism to the prosecution, denying a fair trial. The decision underscores that judges must stay neutral, and a new trial can be granted even without a timely objection at trial.
Read more:
Click here
Battle v. Fulton Park Site 4 Houses, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 14, 2026)
In a premises-injury case, a tenant alleged a door’s glass shattered and the building erased the surveillance video after notice; the trial court barred defendants from testifying about what the video showed. The Second Department modified the sanction, ordering an adverse-inference charge at trial because the loss was negligent, not intentional. The ruling underscores proportional remedies for negligent destruction of evidence, favoring adverse inferences over full preclusion absent egregious conduct.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Salina Brown-Shook (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 15, 2026)
After pleading guilty, the defendant testified at a Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act hearing that she acted in self-defense and lacked intent. The Third Department reversed the conviction and sentence and sent the case back because those statements required the trial court to ask more questions or allow withdrawal of the plea. The ruling makes clear that postplea statements, including at DVSJA hearings, can trigger a duty to confirm the plea was knowing and voluntary.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Cargill v. Howard (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 15, 2026)
An incarcerated person challenged a Tier II disciplinary finding for giving false information and possessing unauthorized literature. The Third Department annulled the decision and ordered a new hearing because the hearing officer did not make reasonable efforts to obtain a requested parolee witness. The ruling reinforces that officials must actively try to secure material witnesses, and when penalties are not unusually harsh, the remedy is a new hearing rather than expungement.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Brown-Shook (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 15, 2026)
After pleading guilty to assault and weapon possession, the defendant testified at a DVSJA hearing that she acted in self-defense and lacked intent. The Third Department reversed the conviction and sentence because this testimony required the trial court to question the plea or allow withdrawal. The decision confirms that post-plea DVSJA statements casting doubt on guilt or voluntariness must be addressed even without a formal motion.
Read more:
Click here