The People of the State of New York v. Orlando Correa (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
This case clarifies limits on post‑conviction orders of protection under CPL 530.13. The First Department vacated the order for a non‑victim and ruled the remaining order could last no more than five years and has expired, while otherwise affirming the conviction. It confirms these orders are only for victims or witnesses and must follow statutory time caps.
Read more: Click here
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company as subrogee of Alex Kogan v. Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC, and Arista Air Conditioning Corp. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
Products liability case over a Pentair water filter used in a humidification system that allegedly caused major water damage. The First Department struck a late failure-to-warn theory but otherwise affirmed denial of summary judgment, allowing manufacturing and design defect claims to proceed. It matters because non-typical use and feasible safer alternatives can raise trial issues, while new theories cannot be added at summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
Juan Simon v. 4 World Trade Center LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
A construction worker was hurt when compacted glass burst during a 4 World Trade Center renovation. The First Department dismissed the § 241(6) and § 200 claims against the owner/tenant for lack of supervision and dismissed all Labor Law claims against the waste hauler, but let the § 240(1) claim against the owner/tenant and a negligence claim against the hauler proceed to trial. The decision clarifies that vendors who don’t control the work aren’t liable under the Labor Law and that § 200 liability requires supervision, while the § 240(1) claim hinges on factual disputes about protective devices.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. David Young (Appellate Division, First Department, October 16, 2025)
The First Department held the appeal waiver in David Young’s guilty plea invalid because the court didn’t clearly explain it and the written waiver conflicted with the oral discussion. It vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees in the interest of justice, while affirming the assault conviction and four-year sentence. The decision underscores that appeal waivers must be clear and consistent, and a written form cannot fix a faulty on-the-record explanation.
Read more: Click here
Jose Gonzalez v. City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
This case concerns a trip-and-fall at a Bronx bus stop and whether the City had prior written notice of a street defect under the Pothole Law. The First Department reinstated the complaint, finding the City’s DOT work order too vague and noting plaintiff’s photos and DOT records showed recent nearby repairs. It underscores that the City needs specific, defect-focused proof to win summary judgment on prior notice.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Carlos Guzman (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
This case asked whether a valid appeal waiver blocks relief from mandatory surcharges and fees after a guilty plea. The First Department upheld Carlos Guzman’s conviction and three-year sentence but, in the interest of justice, vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees, noting the People did not oppose. It confirms that even with a valid appeal waiver, the court can remove mandatory financial penalties.
Read more: Click here
Rafael Sanchez v. 1562 Thieriot Ave, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
A tenant claimed he slipped in his bathtub on paint chips from a prior reglazing. The First Department dismissed the case, reversing the denial of summary judgment, because a contractor had reglazed the tub years earlier and the owner had no complaints or notice. The ruling underscores that premises claims fail without proof the owner created the condition or had actual or constructive notice, and inconsistent complaint testimony is not enough.
Read more: Click here
Best Work Holdings (New York) LLC v. Jia Ivy Ma (and Yun Tommy Li) (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
This employment case challenged unpaid overtime and wage notice/statement violations. The First Department dismissed the overtime claims after accepting authenticated L‑1A visa filings as documentary evidence that the employee was administratively exempt. The First Department reinstated the wage notice and statement claims because she plausibly alleged missing, language‑compliant pay information, signaling these claims can proceed even when overtime claims are dismissed.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jaytiwon Braxton (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
The First Department affirmed the convictions and prison terms. It vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees in the interest of justice, noting the People did not oppose. The ruling underscores the court’s discretion to remove monetary assessments even when leaving incarceration unchanged.
Read more: Click here
600 Associates LLC et al. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
The case asked whether the project owner and general contractor qualified as additional insureds under a subcontractor’s liability policy without a direct written agreement with that subcontractor. The First Department reversed and granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding the owner and contractor are not additional insureds and owed no defense or indemnity. The decision underscores that additional insured coverage requires a direct written contract with the named insured, so upstream contracts alone are not enough.
Read more: Click here
Jose Moises-Ortiz et al. v. FDB Acquisition LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 16, 2025)
A worker was injured when concrete fell from a deteriorated neighboring façade exposed during excavation and underpinning. The First Department reinstated the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted plaintiffs summary judgment, finding the falling concrete was a foreseeable elevation hazard and that defendants failed to secure the adjacent foundation. The decision confirms strict liability for not bracing neighboring structures during underpinning and makes § 241(6) issues academic while allowing the lost‑earnings claim to proceed.
Read more: Click here
Orlando Rivera v. ShopRite of Bruckner Boulevard et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 16, 2025)
A shopper claimed a defective shopping cart tipped and injured him. The First Department dismissed the case, finding the store showed no knowledge of any defect through regular inspections and no prior incidents, and the cart was not in its exclusive control. The decision signals that documented inspections and a clean incident history can defeat sudden equipment-failure claims.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Duntrell Calderon (Appellate Division, First Department, October 16, 2025)
While jailed, Duntrell Calderon swung at an inmate but hit a correction officer; a jury convicted him of second-degree assault. The First Department reversed and ordered a new trial because defense counsel wrongly argued the law required intent to hit the officer. The decision confirms §120.05(7) needs only intent to injure someone, and that such legal errors can amount to ineffective assistance.
Read more: Click here
Dorilton Capital Management LLC et al. v. Stilus LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 16, 2025)
F1 team owners suing their PR firm for overbilling faced a dispute over accessing a foreign investor’s electronic devices. The First Department reversed the lower court’s directive, holding that any discovery from the Jersey-based nonparty must proceed under the Hague Convention and that defendants failed to show control or heightened materiality. The ruling confirms New York courts cannot directly compel discovery from foreign nonparties and raises the bar for cross-border requests.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Elijah Santiago (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
This case tested whether a guilty-plea appeal waiver blocked a sentencing challenge and whether the court could remove surcharges and fees. The First Department held the waiver valid and dismissed the excessive-sentence claim, affirming the prison term and post-release supervision. It vacated the surcharge and fees in the interest of justice, confirming that waivers can stand even without an explicit advisement about appellate counsel while financial penalties may still be lifted.
Read more: Click here
Sarah Cohn v. RTW Retail Winds Acquisition LLC; Saadia Group LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
The case involved attempts to enforce a commercial judgment and hold two Saadia Group executives in contempt while their service of process was disputed. The First Department vacated the judgment against Yakoub and Joseph Saadia and reversed the contempt order, but affirmed a $50,000 attorneys’ fee award. It ruled that disputed service must be decided at a hearing before asserting power over individuals, and a limited appearance to oppose default does not confer jurisdiction.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of 670 River Realty Corp. et al. v. New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (Appellate Division, First Department, October 16, 2025)
Landlords challenged DHCR penalties for not correcting rent registrations and rolling back rents after a rent overcharge order. The First Department confirmed DHCR’s decision, finding substantial evidence of 16 violations and upholding $36,000 in penalties. The court also approved reliance on documentary hearsay and held managing agents liable as owners, reinforcing DHCR’s authority to impose per‑violation fines.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Brian Guitierez (Appellate Division, First Department, October 14, 2025)
After pleading guilty to attempted weapon possession and receiving a two-year sentence, the defendant appealed the mandatory surcharges and fees. The First Department vacated those financial charges in the interest of justice, citing People v. Chirinos and noting the People did not oppose, and otherwise affirmed. This underscores the court’s willingness to remove surcharges and fees without affecting the conviction or prison term, especially when unopposed.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. David Rivera (Appellate Division, First Department, October 16, 2025)
Rivera pled guilty to two burglaries and challenged only the mandatory surcharges and fees added to his 3.5-year sentence. The First Department vacated those financial penalties in the interest of justice, citing People v. Chirinos and noting the prosecution did not oppose. It otherwise affirmed the convictions and prison term, reaffirming the court’s discretion to strike surcharges on appeal.
Read more: Click here
Kamtchi v. Sarmiento (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
This case arises from a three-vehicle rear-end collision. The Second Department reinstated the claims against Kimberly Grace Spagnuolo, reversing the grant of summary judgment. A certified police report reflecting Spagnuolo’s conflicting account created a factual dispute, showing such reports can block summary judgment even after a prima facie showing.
Read more: Click here
People v. Bezabeh (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
The case asked if two petit larceny counts from the same incident could be punished with back‑to‑back 364‑day terms, and whether the appeal still mattered after release. The Second Department modified the judgment to make the sentences run at the same time, finding no proof of separate acts. It matters because consecutive time requires distinct conduct, and possible immigration consequences keep the case from becoming moot.
Read more: Click here
Onewest Bank FSB v. Thomas (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
In a Yonkers mortgage foreclosure, The Second Department dismissed Onewest Bank’s case and vacated the foreclosure judgment. The bank failed to prove standing because the note endorsements weren’t shown to be firmly affixed and its witness didn’t know when they were added. It also failed to show strict RPAPL 1304 and default notice mailings, underscoring that lenders must offer concrete, competent proof of standing and required notices.
Read more: Click here
People v. Pelencho Contrera (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
A defendant convicted of first-degree rape and related offenses appealed, challenging the evidence and several trial rulings. The Second Department affirmed the convictions and rulings but reduced the first-degree rape sentence from 20 to 15 years, leaving 15 years of postrelease supervision. The decision underscores strict preservation rules, broad trial-court discretion on voir dire and evidence, that physical injury or immediate reporting is not required, and the court’s ability to reduce excessive sentences.
Read more: Click here
Reilly v. Grieco (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
In a Child Victims Act suit, the defendant defaulted on liability, but the trial court let him deny the abuse at a damages-only trial, and the jury awarded $0. The Second Department reversed and ordered a new trial on damages, affirmed the denial of the defendant’s bid to vacate his default, and dismissed other appeals as superseded or abandoned. The court emphasized that a defaulting defendant cannot contest liability at a damages trial.
Read more: Click here
PC-15 Doe v. Lawrence Union Free School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated the student’s negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision claims against the Lawrence Union Free School District in a Child Victims Act suit over repeated abuse by a custodian. The Second Department dismissed claims against Lawrence Primary School as a non-suable entity and left the emotional-distress and premises claims dismissed as duplicative. The decision matters because testimony of repeated on-campus abuse and coworker awareness can show constructive notice and block summary judgment for a school district.
Read more: Click here
Christiana Trust v. Larmond (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department found the lender had standing but failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 because its pre-foreclosure notice omitted the required cure date. The court reversed and ordered dismissal of the complaint against the borrower. The decision confirms that strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 is required; missing the cure date is fatal even when standing is established.
Read more: Click here
U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Braun (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
The Second Department dismissed U.S. Bank Trust’s 2021 suit on the note as time-barred because a 2007 foreclosure accelerated the debt and started the six-year limitations period. It also affirmed denying a default judgment and allowing Braun extra time to answer. The decision confirms that once a mortgage is accelerated, any later action on the debt must be filed within six years, even if an earlier foreclosure was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Read more: Click here
PC-14 Doe v. Lawrence Union Free School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
In a Child Victims Act suit over repeated abuse by a school custodian, the Second Department reinstated the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims against the District, citing testimony of years of abuse and staff observations suggesting the District should have known. It affirmed dismissal of claims against Lawrence Primary School as not a suable entity and of the emotional distress and premises claims as duplicative. The decision highlights that such evidence can defeat summary judgment in school-abuse cases.
Read more: Click here
Watson v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
A personal-injury case against the NYC Transit Authority stalled after the plaintiff died, and his administrator sought substitution nearly six years later. The Second Department reversed and dismissed the action under CPLR 1021 due to the unexplained delay, prejudice from the passage of time and an unavailable bus driver, and no showing of potential merit. The ruling underscores that estates must act promptly after a party’s death and be ready to show diligence, lack of prejudice, and merit.
Read more: Click here
M&T Bank v. Givens (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
This foreclosure case asked whether a lender could extend the sale deadline and still collect interest after missing the 90-day window. The Second Department affirmed a short extension but held that interest stopped accruing after February 17, 2020 because the lender offered no good reason for its pre‑COVID delay. It underscores that courts may extend sale deadlines, but lenders cannot profit from unexplained postponements.
Read more: Click here
Sterlacci v. Clove Lakes Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
This case involves a COVID-19 death at a nursing home and whether EDTPA immunity blocks the suit. The Second Department reinstated the gross negligence claim and otherwise left the dismissal in place. It confirms EDTPA immunity does not bar well‑pled gross negligence claims, which can proceed past a motion to dismiss.
Read more: Click here
Sherman v. Edwards (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
This appeal arose from a three-car rear-end crash on the BQE involving a middle vehicle. The Second Department reversed and granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims against the middle driver, Cheung-Wor Ha. The court reaffirmed that a middle driver can avoid liability by showing the car was stopped or safely slowing when rear-ended and pushed forward, absent a nonnegligent explanation.
Read more: Click here
People v. A. (Anonymous), Keisy (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
The Second Department modified a youthful offender probation sentence, striking a requirement to support dependents because it wasn’t tied to rehabilitation or a law-abiding life. The court upheld a condition restricting association with disreputable people and held the appeal waiver valid, foreclosing any challenge to sentence length. The decision confirms that probation terms must relate to rehabilitation or public safety, while appeal waivers block excessiveness claims and unpreserved constitutional challenges.
Read more: Click here
Matter of McDowell v. Blue Point Fire Department (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
A volunteer firefighter was fired for misconduct after a hearing, but the trial court annulled the decision because the department’s bylaws didn’t list removal as a penalty. The Second Department reinstated the termination, holding that General Municipal Law § 209-1 permits removal after a hearing regardless of bylaws, and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and the penalty was not excessive.
Read more: Click here
Abrego v. Tile World Import Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
A worker injured while unloading a delivery truck sued and later tried to swap in Werner Global Logistics for a “John Doe” trucking company after the three-year deadline. The Second Department reversed and dismissed the claims against Werner as time-barred because the plaintiff didn’t exercise due diligence and the “John Doe” description didn’t fairly apprise Werner it was the intended defendant. The ruling underscores that late substitutions won’t stick unless plaintiffs promptly investigate and clearly describe unknown defendants.
Read more: Click here
Petrosian v. B & A Warehousing, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 15, 2025)
This construction-injury case involved a $10 million punitive damages award. The Second Department reversed the punitive award because punitive damages cannot be imposed without an underlying finding of liability, and the jury was wrongly told Aaron Berger’s liability had already been decided. The ruling confirms that in damages-only trials, a liability finding must be established or submitted to the jury before punitive damages are considered.
Read more: Click here
People v. Faqir Rasul (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 16, 2025)
This case involves a postconviction challenge claiming an undisclosed conflict between the defendant’s lawyer and his codefendant’s lawyer. The Third Department reinstated the CPL 440.10 motion and sent the case back for an evidentiary hearing. The court held that sworn, nonrecord facts about a shared business relationship and coordinated strategy could show ineffective assistance, and the CPL 440.10(3)(c) bar is discretionary.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Cody X., Alleged to be an Abandoned Child (St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services v. Eugene X.) (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 16, 2025)
This case challenged the termination of a father’s parental rights for abandonment. The Third Department dismissed the petition, despite proof of abandonment, because the child turned 18, refused adoption or continued foster care, and wants the father to remain his legal parent. The ruling shows courts may consider new developments after the trial and will not terminate rights when it serves no useful purpose.
Read more: Click here
Libby Corcoran Reiser v. Henry Reiser Jr. (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 16, 2025)
Divorce case over maintenance and division of assets from a 38-year marriage. The Third Department reinstated the wife’s full $122,782.50 maintenance arrears because the husband violated automatic orders by moving subdivision assets to an LLC and adding a new mortgage after the case began. The Court otherwise mostly affirmed and signaled that when property is hard to sell and heavily mortgaged, judges may use monetary adjustments to reach a fair split.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Mark L. Siciliano (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 16, 2025)
In an unlawful surveillance case, the jury heard an unredacted custodial interview that included an officer’s claim of a prior “pattern” of similar conduct, and the court gave no timely limiting instruction. The Third Department reversed and ordered a new trial, finding the prejudice from those statements—compounded by a mishandled jury question—was not harmless. The ruling underscores that prior-bad-acts material in interviews must be redacted and paired with prompt limiting instructions.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Frederick Babcock v. Village of Walton et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 16, 2025)
The Third Department reversed Supreme Court, overturned the Village’s denial of § 207‑c benefits to a police officer with PTSD, and sent the case back. It held the 10‑business‑day clock starts at diagnosis; the officer gave timely notice and substantially complied, and a two‑day delay caused by the Village’s mailing was excusable and caused no prejudice. The decision clarifies timing for PTSD‑related § 207‑c claims and underscores that agencies should excuse minor, non‑prejudicial delays.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Shamal Grandoit (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 16, 2025)
The Third Department held prosecutors were timely ready for trial despite one initially missing body‑camera video that was promptly fixed, so no speedy‑trial dismissal. But it suppressed the handgun and reversed the conviction, finding the car search was not a valid inventory search because the vehicle wasn’t lawfully impounded and deputies didn’t follow standardized procedures. The ruling underscores that minor, cured discovery gaps don’t undo readiness, while inventory searches fail without clear limits and adherence to policy.
Read more: Click here