Mezinev v. Donald Smith & Co. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
In Mezinev v Donald Smith & Co., a longtime employee claimed he was denied equity and later fired because of his custody dispute, caregiving responsibilities, and Bulgarian national origin. The First Department reinstated his familial status and caregiver discrimination claims, but left the national origin claims dismissed, finding enough evidence that family-related concerns may have influenced the employer’s decisions while the national origin proof was too weak.
The decision matters because it shows New York courts will let family- and caregiver-bias claims go to trial when workplace comments and internal records suggest those issues played a role in employment decisions.
The People of the State of New York v. David Sheard (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a jury’s guilty verdicts for attempted child sex trafficking and attempted promoting prostitution against a defendant who kept contacting a 16-year-old after police removed her from his prostitution operation. The court said his messages urging her to return, along with screenshots showing customer demand, were enough to show he was trying to restart the same exploitation scheme and had come close enough to completing the crimes.
Luis Amancha v. 720-730 Fort Washington Avenue Owners Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
In this renovation accident case, a worker who fell from an unsecured A-frame ladder won summary judgment on liability because the ladder shifted for no apparent reason. The First Department also threw out the contractor’s indemnity claims against the owner and manager, but let the owner and manager’s own contract-based claims remain unresolved because the agreement was unclear. The decision matters because it reinforces that unexplained ladder movement can establish liability, while indemnity claims depend on clear contract language.
Waddell v. The City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
In Waddell v. The City of New York, the First Department reversed a lower court order that had let the plaintiff file a late notice of claim for false arrest, detention, and assault-related claims tied to his arrest. The court said he had no valid excuse for waiting about 11 months and did not show that the City had timely notice of the key facts or was not harmed by the delay. The decision underscores that late notices against a municipality require real proof, although the plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim remained timely because it was filed within 90 days after the criminal case ended.
Richard Pina v. The City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
In this construction injury case, a worker claimed a mini dumpster full of concrete tipped over and struck him because a wheel was defective. The First Department dismissed the safe-workplace and negligence claims against NYCHA and Mill Brook, finding they did not control how the work was done, but let the worker’s Scaffold Law and construction-safety claims continue against the contractor because key facts about the dumpster’s weight, tipping risk, and condition are still disputed. This matters because the court confirmed that even an object on the same level as a worker can trigger elevation-related protections if its weight and force create a serious hazard.
The People of the State of New York v. George Jones (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
The First Department vacated George Jones’s third-degree weapon possession conviction and dismissed the indictment because the charge did not say which specific underlying fourth-degree weapon offense he allegedly committed. The court said that was a basic defect in the indictment, not something the trial court could fix later by amendment, making the decision an important reminder that prosecutors must clearly identify the exact legal theory they are charging.
In the Matter of N.G. and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a mother’s neglect finding after Family Court had let it be erased through a suspended judgment following her admitted excessive corporal punishment of one child. The court said that result was an abuse of discretion because the lower court did not properly weigh the seriousness of the abuse, the mother’s lack of remorse and insight, and the children’s best interests. This matters because it makes clear that completing services alone does not justify wiping out a neglect finding when child safety concerns remain.
The People of the State of New York v. Kaliq Robinson (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
The First Department largely upheld Kaliq Robinson’s weapon-possession conviction and three-year probation sentence, finding that his appeal waiver blocked most of his challenges and that his remaining Second Amendment arguments did not succeed. But it struck the part of his probation requiring him to pay mandatory surcharges and court fees, holding that financial penalties cannot be imposed as probation conditions unless they are tied to rehabilitation or helping someone live lawfully.
Ruben Lopez Vera v. Xolle Demo LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
This case involved a personal injury lawsuit in which the trial court struck Xolle Demo LLC’s answer because of delayed and incomplete discovery responses. The First Department reinstated Xolle’s answer, finding the record did not clearly show intentional noncompliance, identify what discovery was still missing, or show prejudice to the plaintiff; it sent the case back for the trial court to consider a lesser sanction instead.
Jover v. 1540 Second Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
In Jover v. 1540 Second Realty, LLC, a construction worker injured by falling demolition debris won partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The First Department held that even though witnesses described the accident differently, both versions showed the owner failed to provide proper safety protection against an elevation-related hazard. This matters because it confirms that conflicting testimony will not block judgment when every account points to the same basic safety violation.
ABJ 105 LLC v. Gladys Martinez (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
In a Manhattan real estate sale dispute, the First Department dismissed the buyer’s fraud claim against the seller, finding that the deal documents already disclosed rent information for the occupied apartments. The court held that the contract’s merger and “as is” terms blocked the buyer from claiming it relied on different statements, underscoring that fraud claims will likely fail when the transaction papers directly contradict them.
Rosario Lardiere v. Site 6 DSA Owner LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
This case involved an HVAC sales representative who was injured by a falling pipe while visiting a construction site. The First Department held that he was not covered by Labor Law § 240(1) because he was acting as a salesperson, not a construction worker, but The First Department reinstated his Labor Law § 200 claim against the construction manager and subcontractor and struck defenses blaming him for the accident. The ruling matters because it draws a clear line between protections for construction workers and broader claims based on unsafe site conditions.
Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Southwest Marine & General Insurance Company (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
In this insurance coverage dispute, the First Department held that Southwest Marine had to defend the insured because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit and the subcontract language were enough to trigger that duty. The First Department declined to decide whether Southwest’s coverage was primary because the record did not include all relevant policies, and it vacated the lower court’s ruling that coverage was capped at $1 million because the parties had not briefed that issue. The decision matters because it confirms that a duty to defend can arise from the complaint alone, while coverage priority and limits require a full record and proper briefing.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Broadcom Inc. as successor-in-interest to VMware, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
The First Department largely upheld an order requiring Broadcom, as VMware’s successor, to keep providing software support to T-Mobile while the parties arbitrate their contract dispute over T-Mobile’s claimed one-year renewal right. The court found T-Mobile had shown a strong enough case and real risk of harm if support stopped, but it sent the $500,000 bond amount back for recalculation because it was not tied to Broadcom’s likely damages.
Salas v. The New York-Presbyterian Hospital (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
The First Department largely allowed a medical malpractice case against New York-Presbyterian Hospital to move forward, finding the hospital’s expert did not clearly rule out negligent ICD implantation or causation. But it vacated the lower court’s ruling that the hospital was automatically liable for the surgeon’s conduct, because the record did not clearly show the surgeon’s employment status. The decision matters because hospitals need specific expert proof to win dismissal at an early stage, and courts cannot impose vicarious liability without evidence.
The Glenmede Trust Company, N.A. v. Infinity Q Capital Management LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
This case stems from the collapse of the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, where investors alleged the fund’s registration statement misled them about how hard-to-value assets were priced. The First Department reinstated key securities claims against Infinity Q Capital Management, Leonard Potter, and related control-person defendants, holding that a signer cannot avoid potential Section 11 liability with a disclaimer and that alleged ownership or executive power may be enough to support control-person claims at the pleading stage.
Reyes v. Hite Construction, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
In a construction accident dispute, the First Department ruled that Hite Construction could not enforce a later indemnity agreement against Everest Scaffolding. The court dismissed Hite’s contractual indemnification claim because the 2016 agreement was not supported by new consideration, and payments already required under the earlier contract were not enough. This matters because it confirms that in New York, a later risk-shifting agreement must be backed by valid new consideration or a writing that properly states the past consideration.
People of the State of New York v. Antoine Parker (Appellate Division, First Department, April 16, 2026)
In a weapons possession case, Antoine Parker challenged several probation terms after pleading guilty and receiving five years of probation. The First Department modified the judgment only to remove the requirement that he pay $375 in mandatory fees as a condition of probation, finding that because he was indigent, that condition did not help rehabilitation or lawful conduct; the rest of the sentence was upheld.
The decision matters because it confirms that even when a defendant waives appeal rights, courts can still review and strike probation conditions that are legally improper.
In the Matter of Z. T. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
The First Department dismissed three assault-related counts in a juvenile delinquency case because they were lesser versions of the same second-degree assault charge based on the same attack. It otherwise upheld the second-degree assault finding and the one-year conditional discharge, relying on evidence that the respondent slashed and beat the victim. The decision is a reminder that duplicate lesser charges cannot stand, but strong record evidence and unpreserved objections usually will not undo the main finding on appeal.
The People v. Joshua Bourdeau (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated the indictment against Joshua Bourdeau after finding that the trial court miscalculated the delay under New York’s felony speedy-trial rule. It said some of the time should not have been charged to prosecutors because they had already announced readiness and the defense had requested certain adjournments. The decision matters because courts must calculate delay carefully and hold a hearing when the facts about the delay are disputed.
People v. Cruz (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
In People v. Cruz, the Second Department ruled that a young, indigent defendant could be relieved of mandatory criminal surcharges and fees. The court kept Cruz’s weapons conviction and postrelease supervision in place, but vacated the financial penalties because he was under 21 at the time of the crime and the prosecution agreed. The decision highlights that these costs can be waived for qualifying young defendants in the interest of justice.
Curry v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
The Second Department held that Suffolk County was not entitled to dismissal of a personal injury suit arising from a roadway crash allegedly caused by a container left in the street during a sheriff-supervised eviction, finding factual questions about whether the County’s conduct helped cause the accident. The court also allowed Winters Bros. to amend its answer to clarify ownership of the container, underscoring that municipalities are not automatically shielded from liability for ordinary roadway hazards and that courts generally permit pleading amendments when no unfair prejudice is shown.
Brewer v. 71 Pilling Project, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
The Second Department held that a tenant without any ownership interest cannot challenge title to real property, so Anthony Brewer lacked standing to attack a 2021 deed to Brooklyn property. It upheld dismissal of his case and the cancellation of a later 2023 deed, while also clarifying that the 2021 deed is not void. This matters because it reinforces that only someone with a real legal interest in the property can bring this type of title dispute.
Delajon Realty Corp. v. I&D Glatt 2, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
The Second Department ruled for the landlord in a commercial lease dispute, holding that a tenant who stayed after the lease expired had to pay the lease’s agreed holdover rate of three times the last monthly rent. The court also held that the landlord did not give up that right by accepting lower payments during the holdover period, and it dismissed the tenant’s claim for attorneys’ fees.
Brener v. Queens Boulevard Extended Care Facility Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
In Brener v. Queens Boulevard Extended Care Facility Corp., the plaintiff claimed she was injured after slipping in a nursing facility hallway because the floor had been made dangerously slippery by wax. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, finding no proof of negligent waxing or any other dangerous condition, and ruling that the plaintiff could not defeat summary judgment with an affidavit that contradicted her earlier testimony.
Matter of Parco v. Parco (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
In this interstate custody dispute, the Second Department reinstated the mother’s petition to modify custody after Family Court dismissed it without a hearing. The court said Family Court first had to decide whether New York had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, including whether New York had become the children’s home state, whether emergency jurisdiction applied, and whether any case was pending in another state. The decision matters because courts must reassess custody jurisdiction when circumstances change, rather than rely on an earlier dismissal.
People v. Garcia (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
In People v. Garcia, the Second Department reversed a weapon-possession and resisting-arrest conviction because the trial court moved forward even though the defendant’s behavior raised serious doubts about whether he understood the case or could represent himself. The court sent the matter back for new competency proceedings and, if he is found competent, a new trial. This matters because trial judges must keep reassessing a defendant’s mental fitness, even after an earlier finding of competency.
The People v. Manuel Espinosa (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
In People v. Espinosa, the Second Department held that a sentencing court cannot include someone in a criminal order of protection unless that person was a victim or witness to the crime of conviction. The court vacated the portion protecting Angel Rivera, who was neither, but otherwise upheld Espinosa’s conviction and sentence.
Forgione v. Rivas (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiff claimed emergency room providers failed to diagnose and treat a severed nerve in his hand after a laceration. The Second Department reinstated the claims, finding the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because their expert did not address conflicting testimony that the plaintiff reported numbness and loss of feeling. This decision matters because defendants cannot win early dismissal if their expert ignores key evidence that could support the plaintiff’s case.
Militana v. DeMartino (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
In this divorce case, the Second Department upheld the trial court’s decision to treat the father’s income as $150,000 for child support purposes, but ruled that support for two children could not stay at the same level after the older child turned 21. The court changed the award so payments drop from $3,125 to $2,125 per month when the older child ages out, and it also erased the $80,000 attorney’s fee award for a new review because the record did not justify that amount.
Joseph v. Marmolejos (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated the claims against rental car company A-1 Cars in a rear-end collision case, finding that the company did not submit enough reliable evidence to show it was shielded from liability under the Graves Amendment. The court said an uncertified police report and a vague affidavit were not enough to rule out negligent vehicle maintenance. This matters because rental car companies must provide solid, admissible proof that they were not negligent before they can win dismissal at an early stage.
Lutheran Church of the Risen Christ, Missouri Synod v. Atlantic District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a local church’s lawsuit claiming it has ownership rights in Brooklyn property held by the Atlantic District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The court held that the case should not have been thrown out at the outset because church property disputes can be decided using ordinary legal rules, so long as a court does not have to resolve religious doctrine.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Francine A. Slade (Appellate Division, Second Department, April 15, 2026)
The Second Department largely upheld a mortgage foreclosure judgment against the borrower, finding that service was proper and that her default should not be vacated. But it ruled that the lender could not collect interest for nearly five years because it did not adequately explain its delay in moving the case forward. This matters because it shows courts may reduce a lender’s recovery when unnecessary delay causes interest to pile up.
Brody v. Bassett Healthcare Network (Appellate Division, Third Department, April 16, 2026)
The Third Department reinstated negligence and malpractice claims against Bassett Healthcare Network in a case involving a patient who died in her car in the facility parking lot after an outpatient visit and an earlier cardiology-related evaluation. The court found factual disputes over whether the provider’s security practices created a duty to monitor the lot and whether a nurse practitioner should have sent the patient for immediate hospital care, underscoring that healthcare cases can involve both premises negligence and medical malpractice theories.
Dmitry Kruglov v. Allstate Insurance Company et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, April 16, 2026)
In a dispute over a salvaged vehicle and related insurance claims, The Third Department upheld dismissal of the case against several corporate defendants because the plaintiff did not properly serve them. But The Third Department reinstated the claims against Copart, finding that Copart had waived key defenses by answering without raising them, a reminder that service rules are strict and procedural defenses must be asserted on time.
In the Matter of Luisa JJ. v. Joseph II. (Appellate Division, Third Department, April 16, 2026)
This case concerned whether a mother who won an order returning her child to Italy under the Hague Convention was also entitled to more than $108,000 in legal fees and expenses. The Third Department reversed that fee award and sent the matter back because the trial court did not fully address the father’s arguments about his ability to pay, his reasons for keeping the child in New York, and whether the billing records were reasonable.
The decision matters because it makes clear that fee awards in international child return cases are not automatic in amount and must be supported by a clear, detailed explanation.
In the Matter of State of New York v. D.M. (Appellate Division, First Department, April 14, 2026)
The First Department affirmed orders revoking D.M.’s supervised release and returning him to secure confinement under New York’s sex offender civil management law. The court found that his repeated rule violations, refusal to engage in treatment, contact with minors, and monitoring tampering showed he still posed a serious risk and could not be safely managed in the community.