In the Matter of Anthony Servall Chilliest, a Suspended Attorney (Appellate Division, First Department, June 16, 2026)
The First Department suspended an attorney for four years after finding he mishandled estate and escrow funds, mixed client money with business funds, kept poor records, and failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. The court also held that this same conduct separately showed unfitness to practice law under Rule 8.4(h), making clear that charge can be added on top of other ethics violations.
Laspina v. 340 E. 198th Street LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, June 16, 2026)
The First Department ruled that a Bronx apartment remained rent stabilized because the vacancy lease began on June 14, 2019, the day the HSTPA ended high-rent deregulation, even though the lease was signed earlier. The court granted the tenants summary judgment on that issue and sent the case back to determine the legal rent and any overcharges, underscoring that the lease start date, not the signing date, controls.
Gordon Salyes v. Urban American Management Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
The First Department held that a tenant injured when an elevator suddenly dropped four floors was entitled to summary judgment on liability against both the building owners and the elevator maintenance company. It also ruled that the owners are conditionally entitled to contractual indemnification from Schindler because the accident involved an elevator Schindler was hired to maintain, and disputes over the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries go to damages, not fault.
Vision Biobanc Holdings LLC v. Derek R. Taller et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
In a dispute over alleged misstatements in a private placement memorandum, the First Department ruled that claims against a company cofounder for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting fraud could go forward, based on allegations that investors were misled about the company’s board, audit committee, and outside auditor. The First Department dismissed only the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim, holding that a fiduciary cannot be accused of aiding and abetting his own alleged misconduct when acting solely in his corporate roles, and it said statute-of-limitations issues must await further fact-finding.
Bradley Leinhardt v. Socure, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
In a dispute over a stock buyback and settlement, a former Socure shareholder and attorney sued for fraud, claiming he sold his shares without getting information he had requested. The First Department dismissed the case, holding that the releases he signed and the agreement’s non-reliance terms barred his claims, and sent the matter back to calculate the defendants’ attorneys’ fees. This matters because it reinforces that sophisticated parties who sign broad releases and say they are not relying on outside statements will have a hard time later bringing fraud claims over the same deal.
Rudzikewycz v. 164 West 79th Street Corp. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
The First Department held that a worker who fell while installing ductwork was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the building owner and property manager because the A-frame ladder shifted and collapsed, showing the safety device was inadequate. The decision matters because it reinforces that in New York ladder-fall cases, claims that the worker may have set up the ladder carelessly usually are not enough to avoid liability unless defendants can show an available alternative safety device was specifically offered and refused.
People v. McVay (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
In People v. McVay, the First Department largely upheld a defendant’s assault convictions and ruled that he validly chose to represent himself at trial. But the First Department vacated one second-degree assault count because prosecutors did not prove his age with admissible evidence, which was required for that age-based charge.
Tiffany Marva Williams v. Gary Williams (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
In a dispute between siblings over an inherited Manhattan co-op, the First Department ruled that the trial court could not order a sale without first applying New York’s Heirs Property Act. The court left intact the findings that the plaintiff owns a 50% interest and was excluded from the apartment, but sent the case back so the trial court can follow the Act’s required steps.
Nochi Blue LLC v. Board of Managers of Franklin Place Condominium (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
This case involved a condo-owning LLC seeking damages after alleged construction defects made the unit uninhabitable, including both its owner’s personal living expenses and costs to investigate the problem. The First Department reinstated the LLC’s claims for investigation-related costs, such as monitoring devices and wall-opening work, but left in place the dismissal of personal expenses like relocation and parking. The decision matters because it draws a clear line between damages the LLC can claim for its property case and personal losses suffered by its sole member.
Bruce R. Bent v. Anthony Cirone, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
The First Department reinstated Bruce Bent’s direct claims against individual condominium board members, finding that his complaint sufficiently alleged they personally took part in a retaliatory campaign and that those bad-faith allegations were enough to survive early dismissal. It otherwise left in place the dismissal of his derivative claims, holding that an assignment of litigation claims alone did not give him the ownership interest needed to sue on behalf of other unit owners.
The People of the State of New York v. Kasey Urena (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
In a drug possession case resolved by a guilty plea, The First Department left most of the defendant’s three-year probation sentence in place but removed two probation terms—supporting dependents and avoiding gang paraphernalia or associations—and also vacated the surcharge and fees. The court said those terms were not supported by the record, which matters because it shows that even after an appeal waiver, courts can still review and strike unsupported probation conditions.
1992 Third Realty LLC v. Third Ave NY Realty LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
In this construction dispute, a developer tried to recover about $16 million in delay costs from a neighboring building owner after a stop-work order halted excavation work. The First Department dismissed the developer’s negligence claim, holding that the excavator, not the adjoining owner, is responsible for protecting nearby structures under the Building Code and that delay-related economic losses alone are not enough for negligence damages.
1992 Third Realty LLC v. Third Ave NY Realty LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
The First Department dismissed a developer’s negligence counterclaim against a neighboring property owner after a stop-work order halted an excavation project. The court held that under New York City’s Building Code, the party doing the excavation—not the neighbor—must protect adjacent buildings, and the developer could not recover delay-related economic losses through negligence alone.
The People of the State of New York v. Ismael Mezon (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
The First Department ruled that Ismael Mezon’s appeal waiver was invalid because the trial court did not clearly explain the rights he was giving up when he pleaded guilty to attempted assault. The court otherwise upheld his conviction and most of his probation terms, but struck the requirement that he pay $375 in surcharges and fees as a condition of probation. This matters because it reinforces that appeal waivers must be explained carefully and that probation conditions must be tied to rehabilitation or lawful conduct.
Citizens Bank, N.A. v. O'Neal (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a lower court ruling that had voided a HELOC and mortgage and dismissed Citizens Bank’s foreclosure case based on claims that the borrower lacked legal capacity when he signed the documents. The court held that evidence of five automatic loan payments made after a temporary guardianship ended created a factual dispute over whether the loan was later ratified, so neither side was entitled to summary judgment. This matters because even if a borrower lacked capacity at signing, later conduct may keep a mortgage dispute alive.
Hernandez v. NYU Langone Hospital Brooklyn (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a trial court order that had refused to enforce a nursing home admission agreement’s arbitration and Nassau County venue clauses in a wrongful death case. It found the nursing home showed the agreements were signed, but medical records raised a real question about whether the resident had the mental capacity to understand them, so the trial court must hold a hearing before deciding whether arbitration or a venue transfer should be ordered.
American Transit Insurance Company v. Beach Medical Rehabilitation, P.C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department ruled for a medical provider in a no-fault insurance dispute, holding that American Transit must pay the claimed benefits, honor the arbitration award, and cover attorneys’ fees. The insurer could not prove it timely mailed its denial forms, and its medical proof did not persuasively show the treatment was unrelated to the car accident. This matters because it underscores that insurers need solid mailing and medical evidence to avoid paying no-fault claims.
Forest Hills Gardens Corporation v. West Side Tennis Club (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a trespass claim in a dispute over concerts at Forest Hills Stadium, while leaving in place the lower court’s decision to let nuisance claims proceed and to dismiss the restrictive-covenant and zoning claims. The court said the tennis club may have gone beyond its easement rights by closing streets and using the residential community’s property for security and VIP operations, which matters because having access rights does not protect a party from trespass liability if it exceeds those rights.
Rosenzweig v. Singer (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
This dental malpractice case stems from claims that several dentists failed to detect or properly respond to a patient’s jaw tumor. The Second Department reinstated the claims against Alan B. Singer and the Hirsch defendants, finding that the trial court should not have granted relief the Hirsch defendants had withdrawn and that Singer’s expert proof was too conclusory and relied on guidelines not submitted to the court.
The decision matters because it reinforces that courts cannot award withdrawn relief and that malpractice defendants seeking early dismissal must support their motions with specific, well-documented expert opinions.
People v. Williams (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
In People v. Williams, the Second Department upheld a defendant’s two convictions for tampering with physical evidence but changed his sentence. The court ruled that the two prison terms had to run at the same time, not back to back, because the prosecution did not prove the charges came from separate acts. This matters because it reinforces that consecutive sentences are not allowed when multiple charges arise from one single act.
The People v. Merciful Johnson (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department upheld Merciful Johnson’s convictions for second-degree murder and attempted first-degree assault arising from a fatal shooting, rejecting his challenges to the evidence, identification procedures, and several trial rulings. The court did, however, reduce the practical punishment by ordering the sentences to run at the same time instead of back-to-back, showing that a conviction may stand even when an appellate court finds the sentence should be softened.
Deloach v. McNeil (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated the claims against Con Edison in a personal injury case arising from a Brooklyn crash where a parked Con Ed truck allegedly blocked a driver’s view at an intersection. It held that Con Ed did not show its truck was actually engaged in a traffic-impeding hazardous operation, so it was not entitled to special protection from ordinary negligence claims at the summary judgment stage.
Matter of Woodward v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department upheld DHCR’s ruling on the tenant’s initial rent-stabilized lease, finding the agency acted lawfully and had a rational basis for requiring the landlord to offer a proper lease at the lawful rent. But it vacated the lower court’s separate order requiring the tenant to pay more than $115,000, ongoing occupancy charges, and surrender possession, holding that those landlord remedies were not properly requested in this Article 78 case.
D.K. v. Powell 512, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a personal injury lawsuit against a building owner and an alleged property manager after a child was reportedly hurt when a staircase step gave way in a residential building. The court found the defendants did not show that the manager lacked control of the property, that the step defect was too minor to be actionable, or that they had no notice of the condition. This matters because property owners and managers seeking early dismissal must present specific proof about control, inspections, and the exact hazard at issue.
Neto v. Buddies Bro, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a lower court ruling that had granted a construction worker summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after he was injured while climbing down a building under construction. The court found there are factual questions about whether a ladder and other safety devices were available and whether the worker chose not to use them. This matters because it shows workers do not automatically win these elevation-related claims if the evidence suggests proper safety equipment may have been provided.
J.T.M., etc., et al. v. Salvatore Parrinello, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
In this medical malpractice case, the plaintiffs alleged pediatric providers failed to timely diagnose an infant’s arachnoid cyst and refer the child to specialists, leading to brain damage. The Second Department upheld the verdict for two doctors, but ordered a new trial on whether one provider’s failure to make a referral caused the injury, because the trial judge improperly denied the jury’s request to review admitted MRI images during deliberations. This matters because even when a verdict is supported by the evidence, a new trial may still be required if the jury is not given meaningful access to key evidence.
Matter of Preller v. Collesano (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The case asked whether a one-year extreme risk protection order could be based only on a police officer’s retelling of someone else’s accusations. The Second Department reversed the order, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding because the evidence was only uncorroborated hearsay and did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard. The ruling matters because it confirms that even in urgent gun-removal cases, courts still need reliable proof, not just secondhand allegations.
Abel Rosario, Jr. v. Robert Scudieri (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department held that a bicyclist injured in a collision with a turning car was entitled to summary judgment on liability. The court found the driver failed to signal, failed to keep a proper lookout, and turned when it was not reasonably safe. The decision matters because it confirms that a driver can be found liable as a matter of law even if the bicyclist’s own potential fault may still be argued later.
Archie v. Cunningham Associates, L.P. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
In this slip-and-fall case, a tenant claimed she was injured on an icy walkway at a residential building during winter weather. The Second Department dismissed the case, finding the storm was still in progress when she fell and there was no evidence that the owners’ salting efforts created or worsened the hazard.
The ruling matters because it reinforces that property owners generally do not have to remove snow or ice while a storm is ongoing unless their actions make conditions more dangerous.
Matter of Figaro v. White (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that the trial court should not have treated the father as in default and then awarded the mother sole custody, suspended the father’s parenting time, and issued a final order of protection without a full hearing. It vacated those orders and sent the case back for a new hearing, emphasizing that in custody and family offense cases, courts must fully examine disputed facts and decide issues affecting a child on the merits whenever possible.
Dominguez v. New York City Housing Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
In a trip-and-fall case against the New York City Housing Authority, the Second Department reversed a lower court order that barred NYCHA from offering key liability evidence because of discovery delays. The court found no clear proof that NYCHA acted willfully, especially since it had largely complied, the plaintiff also caused delays, and the plaintiff’s late testimony introduced a new construction-related theory of the accident.
Matter of Dossantos v. Rinck; Matter of Rinck v. Dossantos (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a Family Court order that had denied a mother’s request to move with her child from Florida to New York and would have given the father primary residential custody in Florida if she stayed in New York. It sent the case back for an expedited new hearing because later developments made the existing record too outdated to decide what arrangement is in the child’s best interests.
Aretakis v. Sheehan (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
In Aretakis v. Sheehan, the Second Department dismissed a landlord’s personal injury suit against former tenants, finding that he had already signed a broad release in an earlier dispute over property damage and debris left at the premises. The court held that the injury claims arose from the same underlying conditions covered by that release, and the landlord showed no valid reason to undo it. This decision underscores that a broadly worded settlement release can block later claims tied to the same facts.
Mohamed H. Abdelhamed, et al. v. XYZ Limousine, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated most of black car and limousine drivers’ wage claims against XYZ Limousine, holding that the company had not shown the drivers fell within New York’s narrow taxicab exception. The court also ruled that reporting income as self-employed did not automatically bar the drivers from claiming they were misclassified, which matters because transportation companies cannot defeat wage claims based only on labels or tax filings.
In the Matter of Elliott Bolsinger, Deceased (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated objections to a November 2022 will in a dispute over whether Elliott Bolsinger had the mental capacity to sign it, whether it was properly executed, and whether it was the product of undue influence. The court found that evidence of his terminal illness, hospice care, medication use, and the fact that a family member drafted the will without a lawyer created factual questions that must be resolved at a hearing or trial. This matters because it shows courts will not fast-track probate when there are real concerns about a will’s validity.
Jackson v. 965 Greene Holding Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
In a dispute over who owns a Brooklyn property, the Second Department ruled that the trial court should not have denied 965 Greene Holding Corp.’s request to amend its answer based only on a technical filing issue. The court sent that issue back for a full merits review, emphasizing that amendment requests should usually be decided based on prejudice, surprise, and legal merit rather than pleading-format mistakes.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Barasch (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department ruled that Wells Fargo could not get extra time to serve Mark Barasch after its earlier service was found defective. The court said the bank waited far too long to fix the problem, so it showed neither reasonable diligence nor a persuasive “interest of justice” basis for an extension. This decision matters because it warns lenders and other plaintiffs that service mistakes must be addressed promptly, even if the case is still technically pending.
Voltaire v. Northwell Health, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 17, 2026)
The Second Department dismissed a hospital concierge’s disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit after he was fired when Northwell denied his request for a medical exemption from its COVID-19 vaccine rule. The court found that his complaint did not allege enough facts to show he could still perform his in-person job with a reasonable accommodation, and it also held that simply asking for an accommodation is not protected activity for a retaliation claim.
The People of the State of New York v. Houston Ketter III (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 18, 2026)
The Third Department threw out Houston Ketter III’s conviction for attempted first-degree murder based on a burning attack, finding the evidence did not show the kind of repeated, torture-like conduct required by that statute. It left his other convictions in place, including attempted second-degree murder and assault, and also upheld the use of a witness’s grand jury testimony after finding he helped cause that witness’s unavailability.
Matter of Agata Boxe v. State University of New York et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 18, 2026)
The Third Department reinstated part of a FOIL challenge after SUNY denied two requests for emails between specific employees over a set time period, holding that those requests were specific enough under New York’s open-records law. The court said SUNY could not defeat the requests by simply calling them broad or burdensome and must instead provide evidence that the emails cannot be retrieved with reasonable effort; it also found the request for counsel fees was denied too early.
Carpenter v. City of Norwich et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 18, 2026)
The Third Department dismissed a former Norwich police officer’s claims that the City breached a settlement, defamed him, and caused emotional distress after reporting his resignation to the state police registry. The court held that even if the report was inaccurate, it was protected because the City made it under a legal reporting duty and there was no proof of bad faith, and it also found no contract violation or extreme misconduct. This matters because it shows that required government reports can be shielded from defamation claims and that settlement confidentiality terms will be enforced as written.
Charles Drummond v. Associated Test & Balance, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 18, 2026)
The First Department affirmed a Bronx jury verdict for a worker who said he was seriously injured after tripping over an unsecured Masonite board on the floor. The court found the evidence supported both liability and damages, and it said the defense could not rely on claims about the plaintiff’s smoking and drinking to reduce future damages without expert proof linking those habits to life expectancy.