Judson Realty, LLC et al. v. Judson CRE LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 16, 2025)
Rival real estate firms are suing each other over alleged deceptive use of the Judson name and credit for deals. The First Department vacated a trial-court stay that paused the case for a separate guardianship proceeding. It held defendants waived any capacity challenge and that the guardianship issues don’t affect the false advertising and compensation claims, so the case should proceed.
Read more: Click here
Paul Davis, etc. v. Larry Port et al.; Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., et al.; CIP4 Mortgage Securities, Ltd., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
In a dispute over notes sold by a Cerberus affiliate, the plaintiff tried—13 years in—to add affiliates, new claims, and punitive damages. The First Department denied permission to add the second through fifth claims and otherwise affirmed, and it refused to add the CIP4 entities as necessary parties. The court found undue delay and prejudice, noting assignees inherit the assignor’s knowledge and affiliates aren’t necessary parties when complete relief is available against existing defendants.
Read more: Click here
Adam Plotch v. Citibank, N.A., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
A co-op auction buyer claimed Citibank withheld information needed for his board application and sought his deposit back. The First Department reinstated an earlier order dismissing the complaint and denied the buyer’s request for a default judgment. The court clarified that amending a complaint doesn’t erase a pending motion to dismiss, duplicative non-contract claims won’t stand, a breach claim must cite a specific contract term, and the buyer missed the 30-day closing without any board decision.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Rodney Sanders (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
In a firearm possession case, the First Department struck probation terms barring gang paraphernalia/association and requiring payment of surcharges and fees, finding no record support or rehabilitative link. It otherwise affirmed the three-year probation, with a valid appeal waiver blocking excessive-sentence and constitutional challenges. The decision confirms probation conditions must be tied to rehabilitation or public safety and supported by the record, and that fees cannot be enforced as probation conditions.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Christian Saunders (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
This case stems from a fatal parkway crash in which Saunders was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and leaving the scene but acquitted of drug‑impaired driving. The First Department dismissed the homicide conviction as against the weight of the evidence after the jury rejected the prosecution’s only theory—marijuana impairment—and remanded for resentencing on the leaving‑the‑scene count. The decision confirms prosecutors cannot save a conviction on appeal by switching to a new negligence theory the defendant never had a chance to contest.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of 320 West 87 LLC v. 320 West 87th Street, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
A buyer of a sponsor’s remaining co‑op units claimed “holder of unsold shares” (HUS) rights—exempt from flip taxes, sublet approvals/fees, and renovation approvals. The First Department confirmed HUS status, removed the lower court’s building‑systems carve‑out, and issued a permanent injunction barring the board from interfering; damages were left to a related case. It matters because a board can waive limits in its documents—even a no‑waiver clause—by consistently treating a buyer as a sponsor/HUS, binding the board to those exemptions.
Read more: Click here
SF Consultants, LLC v. 28 West Group Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
The First Department reversed and granted SF Consultants a 90-day extension to file the note of issue after discovery was delayed by locked bank records and other legitimate obstacles. The ruling underscores that courts will extend deadlines under CPLR 2004 when the movant acts diligently, there is no prejudice, and the request is unopposed, consistent with New York’s policy favoring full disclosure.
Read more: Click here
Shanta Green v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
A customer slipped on clear liquid in a Whole Foods restroom. The First Department reinstated the suit because the store failed to show it lacked notice: its witness couldn’t authenticate inspection logs, and the records showed a long inspection gap before closing. The decision reminds premises defendants that they need admissible, timely inspection proof close to the accident; a plaintiff’s not seeing the spill isn’t enough by itself.
Read more: Click here
Mara Yentis v. Adam Yentis (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
The First Department modified a divorce enforcement order. It directed statutory interest on the husband’s $193,911.27 distributive share from the 2019 decision through the 2021 judgment and until payment in 2024, and confined the referee to post‑judgment children’s add‑ons; it otherwise affirmed, including denying sanctions and interest on children’s expenses without a money judgment. The ruling clarifies when interest runs on distributive awards and limits relitigation of pre‑judgment add‑on claims.
Read more: Click here
Matter of State of New York – Unified Court System v. Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
This case asked whether a union can arbitrate a grievance over UCS redesignating a law clerk job and cutting pay under a CBA. The First Department dismissed UCS’s petition to stay arbitration and compelled the parties to arbitrate. It confirms these reclassification-and-pay disputes are arbitrable despite UCS’s classification authority, and the public policy bar to arbitration is narrow.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Brandon S. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
This case addressed whether mandatory surcharges and fees imposed on a youthful offender can be vacated on appeal. The First Department vacated the surcharges and fees in the interest of justice, citing People v. Chirinos, and otherwise affirmed the YO adjudication and concurrent 1–3 year sentences. The ruling confirms the court’s discretion to strike YO surcharges and fees on appeal, especially when unopposed.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Elliot Rodriguez (Appellate Division, First Department, December 16, 2025)
The case involved a sentencing mistake: the trial court imposed two concurrent one-year terms even though the defendant pleaded guilty to only one count. The First Department vacated the second sentence and otherwise affirmed, as there was no conviction on a second count and the People conceded the error. This underscores that courts may sentence only on actual convictions and sentences must match the plea record.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Jalil Khan (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
After Jalil Khan pled guilty to fourth-degree weapon possession, the trial court imposed a one-year conditional discharge plus surcharges and fees. The First Department removed the surcharges and fees on appeal under its interest-of-justice power and otherwise affirmed. The ruling confirms defendants can seek vacatur of these costs on direct appeal, particularly when the prosecution does not oppose.
Read more: Click here
Ebony Hinkson et al. v. New York-Presbyterian Queens et al.; The City of New York et al. (Defendants-Appellants) (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
Plaintiffs sued the City and FDNY EMS over an infant’s death after a 911 call. The First Department dismissed the claims for lack of a special duty; the 911 assurance was satisfied when a non‑FDNY ambulance arrived in five minutes, and no negligent City response time was alleged. The ruling underscores that municipal EMS liability requires specific special‑duty facts, improper late amendments won’t cure defects, and the related loss‑of‑services claim also falls.
Read more: Click here
Angel Crespo v. Thomas Francini, D.P.M., et al.; John DeBello, D.P.M., et al. v. Thomas Franchini, D.P.M. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
In a podiatry malpractice case, defendants brought third‑party claims against Dr. Franchini for indemnification and contribution. The First Department reversed and dismissed the third‑party complaint because the third‑party plaintiffs did not oppose his summary judgment motion or defend the claims on appeal, amounting to abandonment. The court also refused to dismiss the main complaint because it wasn’t properly appealed, underscoring that unopposed motions and undeveloped appeals can be case‑ending.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Angelika R. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
In a custody dispute between a mother and the child’s maternal grandmother, the First Department reversed the Family Court’s award of custody to the mother and ordered a full best‑interests hearing. It held the grandmother proved extraordinary circumstances because the child lived with her for more than two years under a prior consent order. The ruling underscores that courts must assess the child’s schooling, mental health, stability, and recent developments—not just parental improvements—before changing custody.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Mitchell Howell (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
The First Department affirmed Mitchell Howell’s conviction and a 1.5 to 3-year prison term for attempted second-degree assault but vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees. Invoking its interest-of-justice authority and People v. Crenshaw, and noting the People’s lack of opposition, the court reaffirmed its willingness to strike these financial penalties on appeal.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Brandon Smith (Appellate Division, First Department, December 16, 2025)
Brandon Smith pleaded guilty to attempted weapon possession and received two years in prison plus mandatory surcharges and fees. The First Department vacated the surcharges and fees in the interest of justice, leaving the conviction and sentence intact, signaling that these financial penalties may be struck on direct appeal—especially when the People do not oppose.
Read more: Click here
Edward Irizarry v. Ariana Zelaya et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
The case stems from a 2021 judicial primary where the plaintiff was accused of attacking and harassing a campaign volunteer and of abusing women; the trial court dismissed his suit under New York’s anti-SLAPP law and awarded fees. The First Department reinstated parts of the defamation claim based on those specific accusations and vacated the fee award. It let flyer-based claims proceed against the candidate and consultant but kept opinion and conspiracy claims dismissed, underscoring that anti-SLAPP protects sharp opinions, not specific, provably false allegations.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Sergio Quinones (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
The First Department reviewed probation terms after a guilty plea to endangering the welfare of a child and upheld the appeal waiver and a standard behavior condition, but struck a requirement to pay surcharges and fees as a condition of probation because the defendant relies on public assistance. The decision underscores that probation conditions must be tied to rehabilitation and that valid appeal waivers sharply limit challenges to sentences and constitutional claims.
Read more: Click here
Capil Joseph v. Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 18, 2025)
A worker slipped on water in a dim mechanical room of a nearly completed, turned over building; the trial court granted him partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6). The First Department dismissed that partial summary judgment, finding fact issues about whether the work was still construction and no concrete proof that lighting fell below required levels. The claim still proceeds; the court said the foreman’s presence gave notice and the safety rule requiring floors be kept free of water applies, highlighting limits on § 241(6) after turnover.
Read more: Click here
S. F., etc., et al. v. Eliezer Friedman, et al.; Jacob Indig (third-party defendant-respondent) (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
The case asked whether plaintiffs could add third-party defendant Jacob Indig as a direct defendant after the statute of limitations by using relation back. The Second Department reinstated the request, finding the claims relate back because Indig was impleaded before the deadline, had notice, and took part in discovery. The ruling confirms that leave to amend is liberally granted and that mere delay or increased exposure to liability is not legal prejudice.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Hughes v. New York City Fire Department (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
The case involved a firefighter’s request for a religious exemption from New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Second Department dismissed his challenge, finding the City’s appeals panel had a rational basis and satisfied the required interactive process. As a result, there was no reinstatement, back pay, or attorneys’ fees.
Read more: Click here
Pacheco v. 32-42 55th Street Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
A mason fell when loose scaffold planks shifted and sued under Labor Law § 240(1). The Second Department reversed and granted summary judgment, holding B Green was the owner’s agent and that unsecured planks caused the fall. The ruling confirms that authority to control or stop work can create agent liability, and worker negligence or unused safety devices are not defenses.
Read more: Click here
Matthew Landin v. William J. Clifford, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
A pedestrian was hit by a Siemens vehicle, and the trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment for the defense. The Second Department reinstated the case. Conflicting deposition testimony created factual and credibility disputes about how the crash happened and who was at fault, which must be decided by a jury.
Read more: Click here
Dusaj v. Waterbridge Court Square Holdings, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
This elevator-injury case turned on whether the building owner could undo a default judgment after not appearing. The Second Department reinstated the plaintiff’s default judgment, finding no reasonable excuse where the owner merely forwarded the papers to a lessee, ignored a default notice, and waited months to act. The ruling reinforces that courts will not consider any defense unless a concrete, timely excuse for the default is shown.
Read more: Click here
Fagan v. Gorbatko (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
In a matrimonial case, an “of counsel” lawyer sought fees directly from the spouse and was sanctioned after the motion was denied. The Second Department affirmed the denial for lack of standing but vacated the sanctions and $17,300 award, finding the fee request was not frivolous. The ruling clarifies that “of counsel” must seek payment from the attorney of record and cautions against sanctions for fee motions with an arguable basis.
Read more: Click here
Greenwood v. Maxtor Realty Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
Tenants said their landlord fraudulently deregulated a rent-stabilized apartment and overcharged rent while receiving J-51 benefits. The Second Department reversed a $5,058 damages cap and the denial of treble damages and a rent freeze, sending the case to trial under a 2024 law that applies retroactively. The decision lowers the proof standard to whether the landlord knowingly pursued a deregulation scheme and cautions against summarily capping damages when facts are disputed.
Read more: Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Wercberger (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
In a residential foreclosure case, Wells Fargo waited more than a year to seek a default judgment against David Kaplan. The Second Department dismissed the complaint as abandoned because the bank missed CPLR 3215(c)’s one-year deadline and offered only an unsupported excuse. The ruling underscores strict enforcement of the one-year rule for default judgments in foreclosure actions.
Read more: Click here
People ex rel. Sarina Larson, on behalf of Jared Moore-Searles v. Joseph K. Spano (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 16, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated the City Court’s original bail order and sent the case back for a new CPL 530.30 hearing. It held that on a CPL 530.30 bail‑reduction request, a superior court can lower or ease bail but cannot raise it above what the local court set. This clarifies the statute’s plain language and reinforces the “least restrictive conditions” rule in CPL 510.10.
Read more: Click here
State of New York ex rel. Steven Fruchtman v. Tire Rack, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
Relator alleges Tire Rack had to collect New York sales tax because its in‑state installer network, New York‑focused ads, and event sponsorships created a physical presence, supporting False Claims Act liability. The Second Department reinstated the complaint, finding the documents did not conclusively negate physical presence or knowledge and that the public‑disclosure bar did not apply. The ruling underscores that online sellers’ in‑state partners and promotions can trigger tax collection duties and allow False Claims Act tax claims to proceed.
Read more: Click here
People v. Parris (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
This case involved a weapons conviction and whether a Vermont robbery conviction could be used to impose persistent violent felony sentencing. The Second Department vacated Parris’s persistent violent felony status and enhanced sentences for lack of a strict element-by-element match, and sent the case back for resentencing. It affirmed the convictions and found the remaining evidentiary and expert challenges unpreserved or without merit.
Read more: Click here
People v. Aiken (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
The Second Department affirmed a 19-year prison term and 5 years of postrelease supervision for an 18-year-old who pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter. It vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees. The ruling underscores the court’s power under CPL 420.35(2-a) to waive mandatory financial penalties in the interest of justice while upholding an otherwise lawful sentence.
Read more: Click here
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Schwarz (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
In a home-loan foreclosure case, The Second Department reversed orders that had granted HSBC summary judgment and an order of reference. It held the bank’s third summary judgment motion was improper because it offered no newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause, reinforcing that lenders can’t fix prior defects with serial motions.
Read more: Click here
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Harrilall (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
This foreclosure case asked whether proceedings must pause to substitute an estate representative after the borrower dies, even though he was properly served and defaulted. The Second Department vacated the stay, holding that a post-default death does not require substitution, so the foreclosure can proceed without delay.
Read more: Click here
Guacho v. DLV Empire, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
A boxed elevator door fell on a worker’s leg at a home construction site, prompting claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Second Department reinstated the § 241(6) claim based on the safe storage rule, but dismissed the § 240(1) claim because the box was not being hoisted and no safety device was involved. It also left for trial whether Kader was the general contractor, signaling that unsafe material storage—even in open areas—can support § 241(6).
Read more: Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ciurleo (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
This residential foreclosure appeal addressed whether the bank complied with New York’s 90-day pre-foreclosure notice and had standing to foreclose. The Second Department dismissed the borrower’s RPAPL 1304 defense, finding strict compliance despite a minor address typo because USPS and servicer records showed mailing to the correct address. But it kept summary judgment off the table due to factual disputes over standing tied to a prior lost-note affidavit and inconsistent endorsement and possession records.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Saini v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
An NYPD officer injured in a patrol car crash sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the City. The Second Department reinstated the case and granted leave, finding the City had timely actual knowledge from police and line-of-duty reports, the delay was modest, and the City showed no prejudice. This underscores that internal reports can establish actual knowledge and support late notices even without a strong excuse.
Read more: Click here
Giampino v. A Royal Flush of New York II, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
After a trip-and-fall at Jones Beach, the restroom vendor sought indemnification and contribution from the State parks agency. The Second Department dismissed the third-party complaint, holding that money-damages claims against the State must be filed in the Court of Claims. Without alleging a breach of an individual state officer’s duty, Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over such claims.
Read more: Click here
Heinrichs v. Town of Brookhaven (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
A Brookhaven Highway Department worker says he was fired for reporting corruption and sued for whistleblower retaliation, breach of a prior settlement, and First Amendment retaliation. The Second Department reinstated those claims against the Town, the Highway Department, and officials Losquadro and Tricarico, but affirmed dismissal as to Gallino and left other claims dismissed. The decision signals that plausible whistleblower and First Amendment retaliation claims can survive a motion to dismiss when not conclusively refuted, and that qualified immunity typically can’t be resolved this early.
Read more: Click here
Landaverde v. Joseph (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
Plaintiff sued over a three-car crash; the trial court granted Akhtar and Ulhag summary judgment even though their motion was filed 18 months late, relying on an identical motion in a related case. The Second Department reinstated the claims, holding that untimely summary judgment motions must be denied absent good cause and a related case does not supply it. The decision reinforces New York’s strict Brill rule enforcing CPLR 3212(a) deadlines.
Read more: Click here
Diamond v. St. Anthony Community Hospital, Warwick, New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
This med-mal case challenged how an ER doctor closed a contaminated gluteal wound and whether post-discharge antibiotics were needed. The Second Department reinstated the malpractice claims, holding that the plaintiff’s qualified experts created factual disputes on wound closure/drainage and infection causation that a jury must decide. The decision underscores that conflicting, competent expert opinions—even from related specialties—preclude summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
Contona v. Godas (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
This premises-liability case stems from a trip-and-fall on an uneven sidewalk abutting the defendants’ property. The Second Department reinstated the complaint and ordered a new trial on liability after finding the jury’s no-negligence verdict conflicted with its findings that the sidewalk was unsafe and the defendants had notice. The decision underscores that inconsistent jury findings will be set aside and reinforces abutting owners’ duty to keep sidewalks safe.
Read more: Click here
Walker v. Jonis Holdings II, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated a slip-and-fall case over icy stairs, finding the property owners and their snow contractors did not show the ice was caused solely by an ongoing storm. Ongoing snowfall does not automatically shield defendants. If preexisting ice may be involved, summary judgment is improper, and Espinal is irrelevant unless the contractor is sued directly.
Read more: Click here
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mone (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 17, 2025)
A Garden City mortgage foreclosure turned on whether the bank proved it sent the required 90-day pre‑foreclosure notices. The Second Department affirmed the foreclosure judgment because the borrower raised those notice and related arguments for the first time on appeal. The ruling signals that borrowers must preserve RPAPL 1304 challenges in the trial court, and lenders should keep clear mailing proof (as a dissent emphasized).
Read more: Click here
Tompkins County Department of Social Services, on behalf of Kenyata Terry v. Xander Sawyer (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
The case asked whether a child support order modified to add a second child on public assistance should be retroactive to the child’s birth or only to the petition date. The Third Department reversed, holding the order is effective from the child’s public-assistance eligibility date (typically birth) and directing entry of a modified order, clarifying that Family Ct Act § 449(2) governs such modifications.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Kalam EE. v. Amber EE. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
A father sought more parenting time and enforcement of conditions barring physical discipline and excessive drinking; Family Court dismissed his case for lack of corroboration and canceled a planned Lincoln hearing. The Third Department reinstated the petitions, ordered a Lincoln hearing, and directed appointment of a new attorney for the children. It emphasized that on a dismissal motion the petitioner’s proof must be taken as true and that a Lincoln hearing can supply the limited corroboration required.
Read more: Click here
U.S. Bank Trust N.A., as Trustee v. Roberta Chambers (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
This mortgage foreclosure appeal turned on when the six-year clock began and whether a 2016 HAMP modification reset it. The Third Department reinstated the bank’s case, holding the 2014 lawsuit triggered acceleration and the 2016 modification and payments restarted the clock, making the 2023 filing timely. It confirms that default alone does not accelerate a loan and that a modification and subsequent payments can revive the statute of limitations.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Christine X. v. James Y. et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
A grandmother sought to lift restrictions that barred the maternal grandfather from living with or seeing the children and to modify an order of protection. The Third Department reversed Family Court’s dismissal of her second petition and sent the case back for a hearing. It held that allegations of two children reaching adulthood, the teens’ wishes, and the grandfather’s sustained sobriety could, if proven, justify a best-interests hearing.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Casey Q. v. Jeffrey O. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
This case involved cross family offense petitions between parents, where Family Court issued mutual orders of protection, saying they were by consent. The Third Department vacated the order against the father and sent the case back because he did not clearly consent and the court made no factual findings, as Family Ct Act § 154-c(3) requires. The Third Department dismissed other challenges as nonappealable or moot, underscoring that many interim or court-initiated orders cannot be appealed and that only a party harmed by an order may appeal.
Read more: Click here
Nusbaum v. 1455 Washington Avenue LLC et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
A sign installer fell when a stepladder unexpectedly tipped while he was taping and painting at a 7‑Eleven. The Third Department reversed and granted him summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding the unexplained tip‑over showed inadequate protection and defendants did not prove he was the sole cause. The ruling reaffirms that when a ladder topples for no clear reason, owners and tenants face liability, and claims of overreaching or standing too high do not defeat § 240(1).
Read more: Click here
Matter of the Claim of Grace Panday (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
After COVID downsizing, a bookkeeper declined a consolidated full-time position and sought unemployment benefits. The Third Department reversed the Board’s award of benefits and sent the case back because the Board failed to decide whether the offer was suitable and whether the refusal was for good cause under Labor Law § 592(2). The ruling stresses that agencies must make clear findings and explanations to permit meaningful judicial review.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Martin Baher v. Anthony Rodriguez (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
The Third Department upheld an inmate’s disciplinary conviction for a sexual act and visiting-rule violations. It annulled the 30-day segregated confinement penalty and sent the case back for a new sanction because the hearing officer did not make the HALT Act findings required to go beyond three days. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with HALT Act limits on solitary confinement, even if the penalty has already been served.
Read more: Click here
L.C. Whitford Co., Inc., et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Solar Energy, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
The Third Department affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking a general contractor from spending settlement money from solar projects without court approval. The court held the funds are trust money under New York’s Lien Law, so the contractor cannot reimburse itself for past costs before paying subcontractors and other beneficiaries.
Read more: Click here
L.C. Whitford Co., Inc., et al. v. Babcock & Wilcox Solar Energy, Inc., formerly known as Fosler Construction Company, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
The case asked whether a contractor could use settlement money from solar projects to pay itself back for earlier advances to subcontractors. The Third Department affirmed a preliminary injunction and held the settlement proceeds are trust funds under New York’s Lien Law that must first go to subcontractors and other beneficiaries. The decision reinforces fiduciary limits on contractors and permits courts to freeze funds to prevent diversion.
Read more: Click here
Nusbaum v. 1455 Washington Avenue LLC (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 18, 2025)
A sign installer fell when his ladder shifted while working on a 7‑Eleven and sued under Labor Law § 240(1). The Third Department reversed and granted him partial summary judgment because the unexplained ladder fall showed the ladder failed to protect him and defendants didn’t prove he was the sole cause. The ruling reinforces that alleged overreaching or straddling is comparative fault and does not defeat § 240(1) liability when only an inadequate device is provided.
Read more: Click here