People of the State of New York v. Ronny Rocha (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
This case was about a judge’s failure to make an explicit youthful offender determination at sentencing for an eligible defendant who pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and prison contraband. The First Department vacated the sentence on the attempted robbery count and remanded for a youthful offender determination, and otherwise affirmed the judgment. It reinforces that courts must expressly decide YO status at sentencing or the sentence on that count must be set aside.
Read more:
Click here
Carreno v. Chelsea Leaf South Housing Development Fund Corporation (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
A laborer fell from a dumpster while tarping it and sued under New York’s Scaffold Law (§ 240(1)). The First Department denied the plaintiff’s partial summary judgment due to disputes over whether the work was meant to be done from the ground, leaving the § 240(1) claim for trial. It also granted the owners/contractors conditional contractual indemnification against the construction manager, signaling that broad indemnity clauses and safety oversight can shift costs.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Roberts (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
This case concerned mandatory court surcharges and fees added to a sentence after a guilty plea to gun possession. The First Department vacated the surcharges and fees but left the conviction and 3.5-year concurrent prison term intact. It reaffirms that the court will, in the interest of justice and when unopposed by the prosecution, remove these financial penalties on direct appeal.
Read more:
Click here
Michael Scanlon v. South Street Seaport Limited Partnership, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
A construction worker claimed he fell from a separated extension ladder and sought summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1). The First Department let the § 240(1) claim proceed to trial due to disputes over ladder misuse and safer alternatives. It also dismissed his negligence and § 200 claims against Plaza and awarded Plaza contractual indemnification from Kenvil, signaling that contractors without control can avoid § 200 liability and shift risk by contract.
Read more:
Click here
Kenrick Altidor v. Medical Knowledge Group LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
An African American IT help desk employee claimed he was fired after one mistake while white coworkers who made similar errors were not disciplined, and that a promotion he was already performing was filled without being posted. The First Department reinstated his State and City HRL claims. The decision confirms that specific comparator allegations and unposted-promotion claims can be enough at the pleading stage, even without a formal application.
Read more:
Click here
Mark Penske et al. v. National Holding Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
This case asked whether a jury-trial waiver in a stock purchase agreement applies when defendants allege fraudulent inducement and seek rescission. The First Department reversed and struck the jury demand, holding that because rescission is the primary relief, the equitable issues must be tried by the judge even if fraud could void the waiver. It clarifies that a jury is generally available only when money damages are the main remedy.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Shelby C.V. v. Joshua W.K. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 19, 2026)
The First Department reinstated the mother’s New York custody petition and remanded the case. It held Family Court violated the UCCJEA by failing to contact the Ohio court, make a record, or assess temporary emergency jurisdiction despite domestic violence claims. The decision underscores that these safeguards are mandatory and that noncompliance is reversible error in interstate custody cases.
Read more:
Click here
Quevarda Cummings v. The City of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
A City employee alleged sex discrimination and a hostile work environment after her supervisor implied her strong reviews were due to sexual relationships and acted hostilely toward her. The First Department reinstated her NYCHRL and NYSHRL claims, holding that fair notice at the pleading stage is enough and even a single, context-specific objectifying remark can be actionable, making early dismissal improper.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Zion Holley (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
After a guilty plea to attempted weapon possession, the First Department struck only the probation condition requiring payment of surcharges and fees and otherwise affirmed the sentence, including behavior-related conditions. It upheld the appeal waiver and declined to reach the Second Amendment challenge because the Attorney General was not notified. The decision underscores that financial surcharges cannot be probation conditions and that constitutional challenges must follow notice rules.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Richmond Capital Group LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
The case targeted merchant cash advances that operated as fixed-payment loans with illegally high interest and abusive practices. The First Department affirmed liability for illegal interest, fraud, unfair terms, and joint and personal responsibility. It vacated the $77.3 million award and sent the case back to recalculate restitution net of principal and settlements, rejecting disgorgement to avoid double recovery.
Read more:
Click here
Cindy J. O'Hagan v. Christopher C. Robertson (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
The case concerned whether the wife had to pay for the children’s tutoring and summer programs and the husband’s counsel fees under a settlement. The First Department affirmed a $25,000 reimbursement to the husband, but vacated his $35,000 fee award and sent it back to set reasonable fees under the settlement’s notice and reasonableness limits. It matters because clear add-on expense clauses control without a consent requirement, and fee-shifting is strictly limited and proportional.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Mazyck (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
After pleading guilty to attempted weapon possession, the defendant challenged his probation terms. The First Department struck a $375 surcharge-and-fee payment condition because, for an indigent caregiver, it was not tied to rehabilitation, and it otherwise upheld the conduct conditions and the appeal waiver. The ruling confirms that appeal waivers do not bar review of illegal probation conditions and that courts cannot make indigent defendants’ probation depend on paying mandatory charges.
Read more:
Click here
Rudy Rivera v. Khimson Masola (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
An e-scooter rider entered the roadway from the sidewalk and was hit by a car traveling lawfully in the right lane. The First Department dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment to the driver, finding the rider failed to yield and the driver had no time to avoid the crash. The ruling reinforces that e-scooter users must follow the same traffic rules as cars and that a driver with the right of way isn’t liable absent unreasonable conduct.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Derric McArn (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
The First Department modified a Bronx probation sentence after a guilty plea to attempted weapon possession, striking a gang-related condition but keeping general terms to avoid disreputable people and places. It held the appeal waiver barred an excessive-sentence challenge but did not prevent review of unlawful probation conditions. The ruling confirms that gang-related restrictions require evidence tying the defendant or the offense to gang activity.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Manuel Vega (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
The First Department said Vega’s appeal waiver blocked challenges to the search warrant and sentence, and it upheld standard behavioral probation conditions. It struck the requirement to pay $375 in surcharges and fees as a probation condition because it wasn’t tied to rehabilitation given his injury and unemployment, and otherwise affirmed. The decision clarifies that mandatory surcharges cannot be enforced as probation conditions even when an appeal waiver limits other claims.
Read more:
Click here
Anthony Markman, et al. v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Inc. d/b/a New York Presbyterian Hospital-Columbia University Medical Center, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
The case concerns alleged mishandling of a patient’s sacral pressure ulcer by a hospital, surgeon, PA, homecare agency, and a cardiologist. The First Department reinstated the claims against the hospital, surgeon, PA, and homecare agency after plaintiffs’ experts raised factual disputes about care and causation. The First Department dismissed the claims against the cardiologist, finding he had no independent duty because others managed the wound.
Read more:
Click here
Georgia Malone & Company, Inc. v. E&M Associates, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
This case involves a broker’s commission claim on the Baruch Singer real estate portfolio and whether multiple affiliated LLCs were obligated to pay. The First Department reversed the $6.7 million judgment and ordered a new trial before a different Justice because the court wrongly blocked the plaintiff’s statements from a related case and gave inadequate, entity-specific jury instructions. It also found the evidence could support the defendants’ fraud and fiduciary-duty counterclaims, highlighting that party admissions are usable and precise instructions on contract, damages, and authority are required.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jordan Hernandez (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
This case tests the limits on probation conditions. The First Department removed a gang-related restriction because there was no evidence of gang ties, but left intact the standard behavioral conditions, two years of probation, and a $1,000 fine. It confirms conditions must be tailored and supported by the record; appeal waivers curb sentence and constitutional challenges, and any fine relief requires proof of indigency.
Read more:
Click here
AG1 Doe v. George Morris (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
A former youth rider sued coach George Morris for sexual battery and negligence under New York’s Child Victims Act. The First Department dismissed the negligence claim but let the sexual battery claim proceed and upheld CPLR 214-g as constitutional. The decision confirms survivors can sue alleged abusers decades later for intentional sexual abuse, but cannot recast the same conduct as negligence.
Read more:
Click here
415 East 12th Street Housing Development Fund Corporation v. Duran (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
A co-op tried to terminate a shareholder for objectionable conduct, but the termination was invalid because the post-cure notice did not allege any new misconduct during the cure period. The First Department dismissed all of the shareholder’s counterclaims as time-barred, ruling that any challenge to the board’s decision had to be brought in an Article 78 proceeding within four months. The decision stresses strict timing for attacking co-op board actions and the need for specific post-cure facts in termination notices.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of J. W., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
A juvenile delinquency finding for sexual offenses was challenged due to a mistyped statutory subsection in the petition. The First Department affirmed the adjudication and 12‑month conditional discharge, but corrected the second count to charge sexual abuse by forcible compulsion (Penal Law § 130.65[1]) instead of § 130.65[3]. The decision confirms courts may fix harmless mis-citations when the facts and proof make the intended charge clear, and that corroborated victim testimony after a justified delay can sustain the finding.
Read more:
Click here
Jose Orlando Estela Santacruz v. 58 Gerry St LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
In a Bronx personal injury case, defendants sought to add a fraud defense based on a separate RICO complaint, vacate the note of issue, and get more discovery. The First Department mostly affirmed the denial, holding the unproven RICO allegations couldn’t support fraud and vacatur wasn’t warranted, but it allowed a limited deposition and narrowly tailored follow-up discovery about the RICO matter. The decision underscores that fraud claims need concrete facts including reliance and damages, and that courts may permit targeted post-note discovery without vacating the note.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Jimmy Wagner v. New York City Board of Education (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
Jimmy Wagner challenged NYC Board of Education action in an Article 78 proceeding. After the Court of Appeals ruled, the First Department reversed its 2023 order and sent the matter back to the BOE, confirming that lower courts must follow the high court’s mandate.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Anonymous (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
At issue was whether the defendant had effective counsel when his lawyer left a cooperation proffer and the defendant made self-incriminating statements later used at trial. The First Department vacated the conviction and remanded, and dismissed the remaining appeals as academic. The decision underscores that a proffer is a key stage and defense counsel must stay for the entire session unless the client expressly waives that right.
Read more:
Click here
Bren-El Realty LLC v. Planetarium Travels Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
A commercial lease dispute over unpaid rent turned on whether leaks, a February 2020 ceiling collapse, and mold impaired a travel agency’s space. The First Department reinstated the tenant’s repair-based defenses and a counterclaim, but otherwise affirmed liability for nonpayment and dismissed the harassment and COVID-19 guaranty-law defenses. The decision underscores that unresolved repair and casualty issues can affect damages and rent abatements, and that the NYC guaranty law applies only to closures under EOs 202.3, 202.6, or 202.7—not EO 202.8.
Read more:
Click here
Chih-Chen Ma et al. v. Wei Li Wang; Ming Tong a/k/a Ming Tung; and China Buddhist Association (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
A leadership fight at the China Buddhist Association arose when Wei Li Wang took the Grandmaster role without the member-and-trustee vote required by the bylaws. The First Department granted a preliminary injunction barring her from holding herself out as leader until a bylaw election occurs, and it affirmed a civil contempt finding for violating a clear interim order. The ruling applies neutral corporate principles to religious nonprofits, treats loss of control as irreparable harm, and underscores strict compliance with court orders.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Angel Nieves (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
This case involved child sex-abuse charges and whether prosecutors could use uncharged prior-acts evidence and expand the indictment’s time frame. The First Department vacated the two sexual-abuse convictions and ordered a new trial because the prior-acts evidence was too prejudicial even with limiting instructions. It affirmed the endangering-the-welfare conviction and upheld the time-frame amendment, confirming such changes are allowed when they don’t alter the prosecution’s theory.
Read more:
Click here
Wilson Minaya Torres v. 40 East End Ave. Associates LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
A construction worker was injured when a loaded pallet moved by a pallet jack fell onto his foot at a jobsite. The First Department reinstated his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, citing factual disputes over whether the pallet jack was an adequate safety device and whether the load was kept level. It still denied the worker’s own bid for summary judgment and accepted the defendants’ slightly late filings, so the case moves forward.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Elvin Pacha a/k/a Elvin Fernandez (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
The First Department struck probation conditions requiring payment of fees and restricting gang affiliation as unrelated to rehabilitation, but upheld a firearm ban and an order to avoid disreputable people and places. It also held the appeal waiver barred an excessive-sentence claim but did not prevent challenges to probation terms. The decision underscores that probation conditions must be tied to rehabilitation or public safety, and mandatory surcharges cannot be enforced through probation.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jamal Brown (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
The case involved a firearm conviction, a search‑warrant challenge, and a probation condition requiring $375 in surcharges and fees. The First Department struck the fee condition as unrelated to rehabilitation given the defendant’s indigency but otherwise affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding a valid appeal waiver and a sufficient warrant. It signals that financial probation conditions remain reviewable and must be tied to rehabilitation, even when an appeal waiver bars other challenges.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Brittany W. v. Suzanne Miles-Gustave, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-02-17)
A mother challenged an OCFS “indicated” maltreatment report after taking her 7‑month‑old from a safe home to meet the abusive father despite an order of protection. The First Department dismissed the petition and upheld OCFS’s finding, concluding there was enough reliable evidence—including hearsay—that she put the child in immediate danger. The decision confirms that foreseeable domestic‑violence exposure can support a maltreatment finding without proof of injury and is not barred by Nicholson v. Scoppetta.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. T.D. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 19, 2026)
The First Department affirmed T.D.’s second-degree arson conviction and appeal waiver, finding her plea knowing and voluntary after the judge addressed her statement about hearing voices. The First Department reduced the prison term from eight to five years in the interest of justice because of her severe mental illness and moderate intellectual disability. The decision underscores that when a possible defense is put on the record, courts must ask follow-up questions about the plea, and negotiated sentences may be cut when mental-health mitigation makes them unduly harsh.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Robert Moore (Appellate Division, First Department, February 17, 2026)
The case asked whether a jury must decide incarceration tolling to use an old conviction for enhanced sentencing, and whether prosecutors preserved that issue. The First Department affirmed Moore’s resentencing as a second violent felony offender based on a 2008 conviction within 10 years and found the People hadn’t preserved their argument that Erlinger doesn’t apply. The court also said it lacked authority to create a jury process for tolling, underscoring strict preservation and leaving Erlinger’s effect in New York unresolved.
Read more:
Click here
Pratt Paper (NY), Inc. v. Atlanta Gear Works, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
A paper mill sued a gearbox rebuilder for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence after the rebuilt gearbox failed years later. The Second Department dismissed the case, ruling the contract and warranty claims were time-barred from 2011 and the 2017 nozzle work did not restart the clock. The court also found the negligence claim duplicative because no separate legal duty was alleged.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Smith, Rodney (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
People v. Smith concerned a trial court’s failure to make a required youthful offender determination after a third-degree robbery plea. The Second Department vacated the sentence and mandatory surcharges (with the People’s consent) and sent the case back for resentencing after that determination, while otherwise affirming the conviction. The ruling underscores that courts must make on-the-record youthful offender findings in every eligible case and that surcharges and fees may be waived under CPL 420.35(2-a).
Read more:
Click here
Belfield v. Marte (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
A passenger injured in a crash sued after an ambulance entered an intersection on red while responding to an emergency. The Second Department dismissed the claims against the ambulance defendants, finding the lights and siren were on and the driver proceeded cautiously. The ruling reaffirms that emergency drivers are liable only for reckless disregard, and speculative speed estimates won’t defeat summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Sal Savasta, Inc., et al. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
Distributors of Boar’s Head products alleged the companies tightly controlled their routes, coerced approvals and releases, and treated them like employees without proper pay. The Second Department reinstated the implied covenant, economic duress, and New York Labor Law claims, but dismissed the Franchise Sales Act claims as time-barred and left the fraud, tortious interference, and punitive damages dismissals intact. The ruling signals that allegations of coercive approval leverage and operational control can proceed at the pleading stage despite releases, while franchise-law damages face a strict three-year limit.
Read more:
Click here
Reinhardt v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-02-18)
The case asked whether a mortgage stays enforceable when the borrowers’ original deed was void but they later obtained title. The Second Department reinstated MERS’s claim and declared the mortgage valid because the borrowers warranted ownership and, after later acquiring title, are estopped from denying it. This matters because it confirms in New York that borrower warranties plus later-acquired title can preserve a mortgage in quiet title actions.
Read more:
Click here
U.S. Bank National Association v. Nunez (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-02-18)
This mortgage foreclosure case turned on proper service and missed filing deadlines. The Second Department modified the order only to deem the bank’s discontinuance motion withdrawn, and otherwise affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction because the homeowners’ motion was unopposed and the bank’s papers were late. The ruling underscores that withdrawn motions cannot be decided and that courts strictly enforce service and motion deadlines.
Read more:
Click here
Shaw v. Town of Brookhaven (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
Richard Shaw hit a metal chain across a park walkway and sued the Town of Brookhaven for negligent maintenance and failure to warn. The Second Department reinstated the case because evidence showed the chain blended with its surroundings and visibility tabs were often missing. The ruling underscores that whether a hazard is open and obvious is fact-specific, and visibility and lighting evidence can defeat summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Grant (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
The case challenged a 27-year preindictment delay in a 1992 Brooklyn homicide as a due process violation. The Second Department reinstated the indictment, finding good cause because investigators exhausted leads, earlier compelled DNA was uncertain, and prosecutors moved promptly after a 2018 CODIS match. The ruling confirms long delays in cold-case murders can be acceptable when new forensic evidence drives the case and the defendant shows no special prejudice.
Read more:
Click here
LNV Corporation v. Almberg (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
The Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment and denied LNV’s motions because LNV failed to prove the 90‑day RPAPL 1304 notice was sent by an authorized servicer and the referee’s report lacked admissible record support. LNV established standing and the borrowers waived any contractual default‑notice defense, but those showings did not cure the defects. The ruling underscores that strict proof of RPAPL 1304 compliance and proper business‑records foundations are essential to sustain foreclosure relief.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Sosa (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case addressed whether an order of protection’s duration must be stated at sentencing and credit jail time served. The Second Department vacated only the expiration date and sent it back to recalculate the term with jail-time credit; the conviction stands and the order otherwise remains in place. It matters because a defendant can challenge the duration on appeal without a trial-court objection when the court never announced it.
Read more:
Click here
Troxler v. Hampton (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case involves an alleged rear-end crash with a Winters Bros. garbage truck. The Second Department denied summary judgment against the driver based on his sworn denial and refused to treat a key notice-to-admit request as admitted, but it upheld summary judgment against Winters Bros. on vicarious liability. This underscores that notices to admit cannot prove a core disputed fact and that a driver’s sworn denial can create a triable issue even in rear-end cases.
Read more:
Click here
Bharath v. Sitaram (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case concerns renewal of a 2011 money judgment and whether the defendant could later contest personal jurisdiction. The Second Department reinstated the renewal judgment and denied dismissal, holding the defendant waived jurisdiction by appearing for a post-judgment examination without objection and waiting 10 months to move. It underscores that participation in enforcement proceedings can forfeit service-based defenses.
Read more:
Click here
Sahadeo v. Gangaram (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
A student was struck by a car that illegally passed a stopped school bus as she crossed to board. The Second Department dismissed all claims against the bus company, driver, City, and DOE, finding they complied with VTL § 1174(b) and did not cause the crash. The ruling confirms that compliant bus operators are generally not liable for injuries caused by an overtaking motorist, and that bare “unsafe stop” opinions are not enough to avoid dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of A. (Anonymous), Destinee; Matter of A. (Anonymous), Kaylee; Matter of A. (Anonymous), Kholee (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
The case addressed whether the maternal grandfather and his wife should be appointed kinship guardians of three children and what parental access should be. The Second Department struck provisions that let two children decide if visits would occur and sent the case back to set access based on best interests, while otherwise affirming guardianship and the existing orders for the youngest child. It reaffirms that courts cannot delegate visitation decisions to parents or children and that kinship guardianship may be ordered on clear, convincing proof of extraordinary circumstances and best interests.
Read more:
Click here
Lercara Provisions, Inc., et al. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case concerns Boar’s Head distributors who say the company’s tight control made them employees and that they were coerced into selling routes despite a broad release. The Second Department reinstated the wage claims and let the contract and Franchise Sales Act claims proceed, but dismissed the fraud claim and otherwise largely affirmed. The ruling signals that tightly controlled distributors may be treated as employees and that a release may be voidable for duress at the pleading stage, with New York long-arm jurisdiction adequately pleaded.
Read more:
Click here
Lynch v. Wang (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
The case asked whether a general surgeon without robotic-surgery specialization could testify about the standard of care for a robotic adrenalectomy. The Second Department reinstated the malpractice case and ordered a new trial, holding that any lack of robotic-specific experience goes to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. This clarifies that qualified surgeons may testify on accepted practices even if not specialized in the exact surgical modality.
Read more:
Click here
Larson v. Shore View Rehabilitation and Nursing Center (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
A would‑be estate administrator sued nursing homes and a hospital over bedsores that allegedly led to a death. The Second Department dismissed the case without prejudice because she lacked letters of administration when she filed, and it denied her motion to amend as academic. The ruling reminds plaintiffs to secure letters before suing, though CPLR 205(a) may allow refiling after a non‑merits dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
Samuel v. Petainer (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
A kombucha keg explosion injured a brand ambassador, raising whether workers’ comp exclusivity barred his tort claims and third‑party contribution/indemnity despite an employer‑of‑record arrangement. The Second Department dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and all contribution and common‑law indemnification cross‑claims against GT’s Living Foods, finding it was his special employer and no grave injury was shown. The ruling underscores that host companies directing the work can be special employers despite EOR setups, and third‑party claims are barred absent a statutory grave injury.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Bassono (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case tested whether a guilty-plea appeal waiver was valid and whether a defendant under 21 could have surcharges waived. The Second Department held the waiver ineffective because it was raised only after the plea and not adequately explained, and it vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees under CPL 420.35(2-a) while affirming the conviction. It reinforces that appeal waivers must be discussed and understood before the plea and that courts may waive surcharges for under-21 defendants.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Sephardic Synagogue of Plainview v. Byrne (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
A synagogue sought area variances to use a single-family home as an accessory house of worship, but the town Zoning Board denied the request and the trial court dismissed the challenge. The Second Department reinstated the case, annulled the denial, and directed the Zoning Board to grant the area variances with reasonable conditions. The court said religious uses are presumed to benefit the community, so boards must try to accommodate them and cannot issue blanket denials without solid evidence of significant harm.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Sawwan v. Farhoud (Appellate Division, Second Department, Date not specified in text (submitted May 13, 2025))
This trust dispute asked who is the proper trustee of the Hiam Farhoud Trust. The Second Department reversed the Surrogate’s Court and denied the respondent’s bid to vacate his default and extend time, finding his miscalendaring of a fixed return date was not a credible excuse. The decision underscores that CPLR 2004 relief requires a specific, reasonable excuse; without one, courts need not reach the merits.
Read more:
Click here
Premium Productions, Inc. v. Michael O'Malley, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
Premium alleged a former employee took confidential customer and pricing data to a competitor and sought to enforce noncompete and nonsolicit terms. The Second Department granted a limited preliminary injunction to protect confidential information and reinstated the restrictive‑covenant, breach, unfair‑competition, and contractual fee claims against the employee. The Second Department affirmed dismissal of copyright‑based claims as preempted and the fee claim against the competitor, signaling courts will protect trade secrets and let early‑stage claims proceed even if covenants may later be narrowed.
Read more:
Click here
Steward v. Brooklyn Pier 1 Residential Owner, LP (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case asked whether an insurer that paid SUM benefits could intervene late in the insured’s ongoing injury suit to seek subrogation. The Second Department reinstated Utica Mutual’s intervention and allowed its subrogation claim, finding it relates back to the plaintiff’s claims and causes no prejudice. The decision affirms that insurers can intervene post-limitations via relation back and that courts may excuse technical filing defects like an initially missing proposed pleading.
Read more:
Click here
Guzzetta v. Messina (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case was about collecting on 14 promissory notes after a separate DCL § 276 fraudulent transfer case was discontinued with prejudice. The Second Department reinstated the note action, holding the prior case didn’t bar it because it concerned a different property transfer and facts. The decision confirms that ending a fraudulent transfer case doesn’t automatically block a separate suit to collect the underlying debt.
Read more:
Click here
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Toju Realty Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-02-18)
This foreclosure case asked whether the action should be paused while an estate representative is appointed and whether a co-defendant’s late answer should be accepted. The Second Department deemed Toju Realty’s answer served once a representative is appointed, reversed a 60-day cap on the stay, and sent the case back to decide if more time is needed, but it upheld denial of 1495-99 East 46th Street Corp.’s late answer. The ruling underscores flexible CPLR 2201 stays when Surrogate’s Court delays are beyond the parties’ control, while keeping strict standards for excusing late answers.
Read more:
Click here
Dairy King, Inc. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
A Boar’s Head distributor challenged the termination of its route, claiming bad faith, economic duress, and that the companies treated it like an employee. The Second Department reinstated the implied covenant, economic duress, and Labor Law misclassification claims, but dismissed the Franchise Sales Act claims as time-barred and left intact dismissals of tortious interference, fraudulent inducement, and punitive damages. The decision signals that alleged coercive threats can undermine a release and support duress, and that significant control may suggest employee status at the pleading stage, while franchise claims face a strict three-year limit.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Morales, Juan C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 18, 2026)
This case involved a taxi-theft prosecution where the trial judge repeatedly led and bolstered the prosecution during witness questioning, undermining trial fairness. The Second Department reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial before a different justice, even though the proof was otherwise sufficient. The ruling emphasizes that judges must not appear to advocate for either side, and the court may correct such errors in the interest of justice.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Belcher v. Dominican Village Inc. et al.; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
A workers’ comp claimant failed to tell his doctors he did some postretirement investigative work. The Third Department upheld a §114‑a violation and mandatory forfeiture, but reversed a permanent disqualification as too harsh given his early self‑disclosure and cooperation. The decision confirms permanent bars are reserved for egregious deception, not mitigated, self‑reported omissions.
Read more:
Click here
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Marshall (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
The Third Department reversed a foreclosure judgment and ordered the mortgage canceled as time‑barred. Relying on recent Court of Appeals cases, it held the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act applies retroactively and bars lenders from restarting the limitations clock by discontinuing earlier cases. The court also rejected Takings and Contract Clause challenges, reinforcing that borrowers can discharge time‑barred mortgages.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Bonnie C. Blake v. Niagara Wheatfield Central School District; FCS Administrators; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
The case asked whether a worker with a pre-2017 permanent partial disability must keep proving labor-market attachment after the 2017 change to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15(3)(w). The Third Department reversed the Board on the older claim, holding the amendment applies retroactively because the claimant was working at her 2011 classification, so no ongoing attachment proof is required. This clarifies that workers classified before 2017 who were working at the time of classification need not continue labor-market-attachment showings.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Alexander I. v. Allison I.; Matter of Allison I. v. Alexander I. (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
This case concerned initial custody and parenting time for a toddler. The Third Department kept joint custody with the mother having primary custody and final say, but reversed the weekend-only schedule and the rule that the father handle all transportation, sending it back for a plan with more frequent time and shared travel. It underscores that noncustodial parents should have regular, meaningful contact and that transportation should be fairly divided when both parents can help.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Kimberly Siddon v. Advance Energy Technologies et al., Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
A worker sought to reopen her claim and increase her knee schedule loss award, supported by a doctor’s goniometer range‑of‑motion findings. The Third Department reversed and sent the case back because the Board ignored whether the Special Fund waived its challenge under EC‑81.7 and wrongly rejected uncontradicted, guideline‑compliant measurements. The ruling confirms goniometer data are objective proof of a material change and that the Board must address waiver and give proper weight to such medical evidence.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of the Acquisition of Real Property by the City of Albany Industrial Development Agency (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
This case addressed how to value condemned land: speculative redevelopment versus continued surface parking. The Third Department reversed and cut the award to $2.66 million, finding redevelopment wasn’t reasonably likely and the City’s project couldn’t inflate value. It confirms compensation must reflect realistic near-term use at the taking, with income-producing parcels valued based on their income.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Natalie F. v. Nicholas G. (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
The Third Department modified a Family Court order in a high-conflict custody case. It removed a mutual-consent limit on out-of-state travel and sent the case back to set a comprehensive, specific holiday and milestone schedule. The court otherwise kept the expanded parenting time and denied the mother two uninterrupted weeks, emphasizing that detailed schedules are crucial in contentious cases and that travel-consent limits need evidence of risk.
Read more:
Click here
USL Marina, LLC v. Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
A marina developer sued an environmental group and a magazine for defamation over advocacy opposing its expansion. The Third Department reinstated one claim about a “four-fold increase” based on inconsistent measurements and reversed the fee award, but otherwise left the anti-SLAPP dismissal intact. The decision confirms New York’s anti-SLAPP protections extend to publishers, yet precise factual assertions in advocacy can still be litigated if misleading.
Read more:
Click here
Stephen Keller v. Cheryl Keller (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 19, 2026)
The case involved a wife seeking to hold her ex-husband in civil contempt for not paying a court-ordered amount from their divorce. The Third Department reinstated her contempt remedy and sent the case back to consider any proven inability to pay and to set penalties. It confirms that, after the 2016 amendment to Domestic Relations Law § 245, spouses need not exhaust other collection methods before seeking contempt, and any inability-to-pay defense must be backed by specific financial proof.
Read more:
Click here