HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Indenture Trustee for the Registered Noteholders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-2 v. Nicola Nicholas, as Administrator of the Estate of Cecilia V. McDowell a/k/a Cecilia McDowell (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
This case asked whether a foreclosure was time-barred under FAPA and if a 2011 attorney-signed stipulation filed in the prior action validly paused the statute of limitations. The First Department reinstated the complaint, holding the stipulation enforceable and the 2018 filing timely, and it rejected constitutional challenges to FAPA. The ruling clarifies that FAPA bars unilateral resets, but clear, bilateral attorney-signed stipulations made in an action can still extend the limitations period.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Jackson Cheng v. Edward A. Caban, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
An NYPD officer sought accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits after a car crash, claiming he was on duty rather than commuting. The First Department dismissed his Article 78 petition and reversed the lower court, finding a rational basis for the Board’s denial because contemporaneous records showed he was commuting. The ruling confirms that commuting injuries generally don’t qualify for ADR and that a deadlocked Board’s denial will be upheld if rationally supported.
Read more: Click here
Nadine Khan v. Darryl Khan (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
This divorce case involved a jointly owned timeshare with an outstanding loan and fees that the trial court failed to divide. The First Department modified the order and remanded, requiring allocation of the timeshare’s ownership, any equity, and its debt, plus instructions for surrender or other disposition. It matters because courts must expressly divide marital assets and debts—not just label them—even when contracts restrict transfers.
Read more: Click here
Stanley Talbert v. Brendane A. Tynes (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
A defamation suit between former Columbia PhD students arose from tweets alleging abuse. The First Department dismissed the complaint under New York’s anti-SLAPP law, finding the posts were hyperbolic opinion and the plaintiff failed to show falsity or actual malice. The ruling strengthens protections for social-media speech on matters of public interest and permits fee-shifting for successful defendants.
Read more: Click here
Steven Gurney-Goldman et al. v. Jane Goldman et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
A shareholder discovery fight centered on whether sharing an attorney’s call transcript waived privilege and whether the parties had to turn over their late father’s diaries. The First Department modified the order: the transcript was not privileged and its disclosure did not waive privilege, and the diaries must go to the judge for private review before any disclosure. The ruling underscores that producing a non-privileged document doesn’t create a broad waiver and that courts will balance relevance with privacy for personal diaries.
Read more: Click here
SL 4000 Connecticut LLC, et al. v. CBRE, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
Case centered on whether CBRE, serving as the owner’s property manager, could collect a commission on a D.C. sublease while also representing the subtenant without written dual-agency consents. The First Department vacated the $19.9 million award to CBRE, held the brokerage agreement void under D.C. law, and declared the owners owe no further commission. The decision underscores that in D.C. commercial leasing, dual agents must obtain written consent from both sides or risk losing commissions, though prior payments may stand when sophisticated parties knew of the conflict.
Read more: Click here
O'Flaherty v. Columbo (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
O'Flaherty v. Columbo stems from an alleged off-site assault linked to a construction project. The First Department dismissed all claims against New Land Contracting because the incident happened away from the jobsite, the assailants were not its employees, and New Land did not control the premises. The decision confirms that contractors without control or an employment relationship are not liable for off-site assaults, and negligent hiring/supervision requires an employment tie and notice of violent tendencies.
Read more: Click here
Luis Romero Calix v. The Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, et al.; The Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, et al. v. Rosemount Interiors, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
A worker who fell on a permanent staircase at Union Theological Seminary sued under Labor Law 240(1). The First Department dismissed the defendants’ indemnity claim and the Seminary’s insurance‑procurement claim against subcontractor Rosemount, but left the 240(1) claim for trial because it is disputed whether the stairs were the only access route. The ruling clarifies that permanent stairs can support a Scaffold Law claim when they are the sole access route, and that subcontractor indemnity and insurance duties are not triggered without a nexus to the subcontractor’s work and where an additional‑insured endorsement was provided.
Read more: Click here
Antoinette Henriquez v. City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
A former NYPD sergeant claims the City withdrew her disability accommodation and pushed her to retire, creating a hostile work environment. The First Department reinstated her complaint, finding it was filed within the City HRL’s three-year limit and adequately pleaded discrimination. The decision confirms public employees can sue in court within three years and that claims based on removing accommodations and pressure to retire can survive early dismissal.
Read more: Click here
Beverly Schutzman v. 19 East 72nd Street Corporation et al.; The City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
The case involves a trip-and-fall over a sidewalk tree well next to 19 East 72nd Street. The First Department dismissed the claims against the City for lack of prior written notice and no evidence it immediately created the defect, but allowed the claims against the property owner to continue. The ruling underscores that the City is not liable without prior written notice, while owners must negate their role in creating or maintaining the hazard and cannot rely on an “open and obvious” defense beyond warnings.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. A.Y. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
This appeal challenged a gun suppression ruling, a late Bruen-based adjournment request, and mandatory surcharges tied to a youthful-offender case. The First Department affirmed the convictions and five-year sentence and upheld denial of suppression and the adjournment, but vacated all surcharges and fees. It underscores that appeal waivers limit review, reasonable suspicion plus flight can justify a stop, and youthful offenders cannot be charged mandatory surcharges.
Read more: Click here
Eric Lackenbauer v. 162 Fifth Avenue Associates LLC et al.; Inscape (New York) Inc. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
A construction worker who tripped over a messy pile while reaching for materials sued under Labor Law § 241(6). The First Department upheld liability under the work-area clutter rule but reversed summary judgment on the passageway-obstruction rule because it is unclear if the spot was a passageway and if the pile was debris or stored materials. The First Department reinstated comparative negligence, so any damages may be reduced.
Read more: Click here
Amber Serrano v. Athena Properties LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
A ductwork installer fell when her ladder shifted and sued under New York Labor Law 240(1). The First Department ruled for her on liability after video showed the ladder moved and no other safety devices were provided. It rejected defendants’ claim that she alone caused the fall and reiterated that comparative fault is not a defense under 240(1).
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of J.A.W., and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
ACS claimed a mother neglected her three children due to her anxiety and depression, an accidental burn, and her request for respite care. The First Department reversed, finding no proof of actual or imminent harm and emphasizing that a diagnosis, a properly treated accident, or seeking help alone does not establish neglect.
Read more: Click here
Owen May v. Gerson Gibbs (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
This case was about recovering a brass sign from the 9/11 World Trade Center site, even though an earlier order sent the dispute to FINRA arbitration. The First Department dismissed the court action, set aside the default, and vacated the seizure order. It confirms that once arbitration is compelled, courts cannot decide the merits or keep related remedies, and brief, non-willful delays with a valid defense should not lead to default.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Christopher Harrison (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
After a firearm-possession plea, the First Department reviewed several probation terms and related constitutional claims. It struck the surcharge/fee and gang‑association conditions as not tied to rehabilitation, but kept the requirement to avoid disreputable people and places. The court said an appeal waiver barred an excessive‑sentence claim, the facial Second Amendment challenge wasn’t properly raised and failed, and any ineffective‑assistance claim must be brought in a CPL 440.10 motion.
Read more: Click here
Lenicio Robles v. 53-63 Walton LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
A construction worker fell when the only available ladder was unsecured and shifted during use. The First Department granted him summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability and deemed the § 241(6) issues academic. The decision confirms that a shifting, unsecured ladder establishes § 240(1) liability, site-driven work methods do not make the worker solely at fault, and comparative negligence is not a defense.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Angelo Torres (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
After a guilty plea to a sex offense, the defendant challenged several probation terms despite an appeal waiver. The First Department struck a gang-paraphernalia and association condition for lack of any factual link, but otherwise upheld the sentence and conditions, including a search provision. The ruling confirms that appeal waivers bar excessive-sentence claims, but illegal probation terms remain reviewable and must be tied to rehabilitation with evidentiary support.
Read more: Click here
Ricardo Estrella v. 20 Bruckner, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
This case involved discovery sanctions after plaintiff moved to strike defendants’ answer for noncompliance. The First Department vacated the default order, denied the strike motion, and ordered an expedited compliance conference. It found a reasonable law‑office error and that plaintiff failed the meet‑and‑confer requirement by not conferring in person or by phone, underscoring strict adherence to those rules.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Adelmir Oliva (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
The case involved a guilty-plea defendant who challenged the gun seized after a cab stop and the added surcharges and fees. The First Department modified only to vacate the surcharges and fees, finding his valid appeal waiver barred review of his suppression claim and, alternatively, that the stop and pat-down were lawful based on suspected traffic violations. The ruling underscores that appeal waivers generally block suppression challenges after a plea, and that courts may vacate surcharges and fees in the interest of justice.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Jessica Walker v. City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
Case about whether a NYC Department of Correction employee in a non-competitive title was entitled to a pretermination hearing and reinstatement after being fired within a year. The First Department dismissed the Article 78 petition, holding that Civil Service Law § 75(1)(c) gives hearing rights to non-competitive employees only after five years of continuous service, regardless of probation. Without that tenure right, no hearing, reinstatement, or backpay was required.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. H.A. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
H.A. appealed the trial court’s addition of mandatory surcharges and fees at sentencing. The First Department removed those financial penalties in the interest of justice (relying on People v. Chirinos) and left the rest of the judgments intact. The ruling confirms that even “mandatory” surcharges can be eliminated on appeal, especially when the prosecution does not oppose.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Erica U. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
The appeal challenged only the mandatory sentencing surcharges and fees. The First Department vacated those charges in the interest of justice, citing People v. Chirinos and noting the prosecution did not oppose, while otherwise affirming the judgment. The decision confirms these fees can be waived on direct appeal in the First Department, especially when unopposed.
Read more: Click here
Lesly M. Villar Payano v. Abdulla Al Nahshal et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
The First Department reversed a Bronx court’s grant of summary judgment for the pedestrian’s estate in a fatal box-truck collision. The court found the plaintiff relied on an unauthenticated, non-eyewitness police report and that disputes remain over whether the decedent was in the crosswalk or had a walk signal. The ruling underscores that plaintiffs need admissible proof of right-of-way and a driver’s lack of due care to win summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
William Grey v. LIC Development Owner, L.P. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
The First Department held that in a 421-a rent-stabilized building, month-specific rent concessions before HSTPA did not create overcharges, but similar concessions after HSTPA can count as preferential rents that do. It also voided the landlord’s early-occupancy license agreements, reset renewals to proper one- or two-year terms, vacated related increases, and froze rents until registrations are corrected. This matters because landlords cannot use early-occupancy licenses to bypass rent-stabilization protections, and concession treatment differs before and after HSTPA.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jeremy Scott-Manson (Appellate Division, First Department, March 17, 2026)
This DV case centered on assault convictions where a sneaker, used to kick the victim, counted as a dangerous instrument. The First Department affirmed the convictions and trial rulings but vacated the sentence and remanded because the court failed to arraign the defendant on the predicate felony as CPL 400.21 requires. The decision underscores strict compliance with second-felony-offender procedures and clarifies that noncooperating DV complainants aren’t necessarily under the People’s control.
Read more: Click here
Molina v. Appula Management Corp.; Matias v. Picdale Realty LLC; Pizarro v. Appula Management Corp.; Genyard v. Picdale Realty LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
Tenants sued their building owners after another tenant set a gasoline-fueled fire, claiming the owners should have investigated warnings and prevented the arson. The First Department reversed three orders and granted summary judgment to the owners on that theory, finding they lacked legal authority or practical ability to control the tenant; a fourth appeal was dismissed as academic. The ruling clarifies that in New York a landlord’s duty for a tenant’s crimes turns on its power to control that tenant, not negligent-security rules, while separate fire-safety maintenance claims were left intact.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Kahreem Perry (Appellate Division, First Department, March 19, 2026)
This case asked whether police had probable cause to arrest based on a single-photo showup after a reported robbery. The First Department reversed the conviction, suppressed the drugs as the product of an unlawful arrest, and dismissed the indictment. It holds that an equivocal “looks like him” ID and repeated prompting cannot establish probable cause.
Read more: Click here
U.S. Bank Trust National Association v. Valle (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
The Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment and dismissed the complaint as abandoned because the lender missed CPLR 3215(c)’s one-year deadline to seek a default judgment. It also affirmed denial of the borrower’s late-answer request, since CPLR 3408 settlement procedures apply only to resident occupants. The decision underscores the strict one-year rule and that rejecting a late answer or opposing a motion does not count as steps toward judgment.
Read more: Click here
People of State of New York v. Differson Legrand (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
This case challenged a SORA risk-level after the trial court designated Differson Legrand a level three sex offender. The Second Department removed points for a continuing course of conduct and for failure to accept responsibility, reduced the score to a presumptive level two, and sent the case back only to consider an upward departure. It clarifies that a single incident without clear accessory intent cannot support the continuing-course factor, that courts should not add acceptance-of-responsibility points while a direct appeal is pending, and that the People’s notice was adequate.
Read more: Click here
Lyndor v. Cezario (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
In this no-fault auto case, the issue was whether the plaintiff met New York’s serious-injury threshold after shoulder, knee, and spine injuries. The Second Department reinstated the complaint, finding the plaintiff’s medical proof created fact issues on permanent and significant limitations, causation, and the 90/180-day category. The decision signals that defendants must negate every claimed category to win summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Garvey v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2024)
Sanitation workers challenged their terminations for not complying with New York City’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Second Department dismissed the case as untimely because they filed more than four months after final termination letters, and the retiree’s claim accrued earlier. The ruling confirms that Article 78 challenges must be brought within four months of clear, final notice, and labeling the suit as a declaratory action does not extend the deadline.
Read more: Click here
Emmanuel Hiraldo v. Ira M. Sturman and Baligh H. Moustafa (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
A passenger won summary judgment on liability against his own driver after a crash at a stop-sign intersection. The Second Department reversed and denied summary judgment, holding the driver had the right of way and only seconds to react, so the passenger failed to make a basic showing of negligence. The ruling underscores that even an innocent passenger must show clear negligence to win on summary judgment, and right-of-way principles can defeat such motions.
Read more: Click here
Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc.; Hanover Insurance Company (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
This case asked whether a businessowners policy covered inventory stored in on-site portable containers for more than 90 days. The Second Department dismissed the claim and declared no coverage, holding the containers were portable storage units subject to the policy’s 90-day limit. It matters because courts will enforce clear portable-storage restrictions and paying other parts of a claim does not waive coverage defenses.
Read more: Click here
People v. Kevin Carroll (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
In a Nassau County burglary case, the enhancements turned on whether the victim suffered “physical injury.” The Second Department dismissed the first-degree burglary count and the § 140.25(1)(b) second-degree count as against the weight of the evidence, and affirmed the others. The decision signals that bare, inconsistent pain testimony—without medical care or photos—may be legally sufficient yet still fail when the court weighs the evidence.
Read more: Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. 16th Street Regency, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
In a Brooklyn mortgage foreclosure, defendants won dismissal and cancellation of the notices of pendency after Wells Fargo did not oppose their cross‑motion. The Second Department reinstated the case, holding the cross‑motion was never effectively served because NYSCEF email notice never reached Wells Fargo, so the court lacked jurisdiction. The ruling underscores that in e‑filed cases, motions count as served only when NYSCEF notice is actually received, requiring re‑service and a new determination here.
Read more: Click here
Chelnitsky v. Amalgamated Warbasse Houses, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
A tenant claimed she tripped on a crack in a speed bump in a residential parking lot. The Second Department dismissed the case, granting summary judgment to the owner. Video showed she had already crossed the bump and fell from a misstep, confirming that clear surveillance can disprove the claimed cause of a fall.
Read more: Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. YSB Assets, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-18)
This foreclosure case asked whether Wells Fargo timely moved for a default judgment against YSB Assets after accounting for CPLR 3211(f) and pandemic tolls. The Second Department dismissed the amended complaint as abandoned and reversed the default judgment because the lender missed CPLR 3215(c)’s one-year deadline and had no reasonable excuse. The ruling reinforces strict enforcement of the one-year rule in foreclosure cases, requiring prompt action or risking dismissal.
Read more: Click here
Light-Sanicola v. Sanicola (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
The defendant sought to cut his $5,200 monthly child support and shift add-on expenses after claiming reduced income, despite a stipulation waiving statutory modification triggers. The Second Department reversed the reduction and denied his request, finding no substantial change in circumstances because his overall finances showed he could still pay. The ruling confirms that a drop in earnings alone is not enough; courts look to total resources when considering child support modifications.
Read more: Click here
Kazeem v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Queens Hospital Center) (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
A medical malpractice/wrongful death suit against Queens Hospital Center turned on whether a late notice of claim satisfied GML § 50‑e. The Second Department reinstated the case, deeming the late notice timely retroactively and denying the hospital’s motion to dismiss. It held the notice allowed investigation, the hospital had actual knowledge from its records and an expert affidavit, and there was no particularized prejudice—so a late notice can be validated even if some delay is unexplained.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of William Parks Baird, Deceased; In the Matter of the William P. Baird Revocable Trust (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
This case challenged the decedent’s 2019 will and revocable trust, focusing on undue influence, execution, and capacity. The Second Department reversed the probate decree and reinstated undue‑influence claims for both instruments, while upholding due execution and capacity (including contractual capacity for the trust). It underscores that signs of a confidential relationship, isolation, and a sharp break from prior plans can require a trial on undue influence.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Jonathan Ford v. New York City Department of Corrections (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
This case asked whether a NYC correction officer remained on probation under a 2014 plea agreement, allowing termination without a pre-termination hearing. The Second Department reversed and dismissed the proceeding, finding he signed the 2014 agreement adding a consecutive two-year probation; his forgery claim was unsupported, and he had a duty to read what he signed. The ruling reaffirms that probationary employees may be terminated without a hearing absent bad faith or illegality, and bare forgery allegations won’t undo clear, signed agreements.
Read more: Click here
Matter of St. Sume v. Herrera; Matter of Herrera v. St. Sume (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
This case involved custody and parenting time for two children. The Second Department upheld sole custody to the father and rejected the mother’s challenges to the lack of child interviews and a forensic evaluation, but modified the order to give her defined time during summers, school breaks, and certain legal holidays, and sent the case back to set a schedule. The decision emphasizes deference to a stable primary caregiver and the need for clear, regular parenting-time plans, especially for holidays and vacations.
Read more: Click here
Reeshemah R. Ford v. Alphanso Luckain, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
A personal injury suit from a 2010 car crash became complicated after a defendant died, triggering disputes over substitution and dismissal. The Second Department vacated as a nullity a motion filed by the deceased defendant’s former lawyer and reinstated claims against the Frito-Lay co-defendants for failing to give required notice to the estate. It affirmed denial of the plaintiff’s request to appoint a temporary administrator, underscoring strict notice, diligence in Surrogate’s Court, timeliness, and an affidavit of merit.
Read more: Click here
People v. Savoy (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
The Second Department removed the mandatory court surcharge and fees in People v. Savoy, a firearm-possession case, with the People’s consent. It otherwise affirmed the conviction and sentence. The ruling confirms that, under CPL 420.35(2-a)(c), courts may waive mandatory surcharges in the interest of justice when prosecutors agree.
Read more: Click here
Simpson v. Power Authority of the State of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
A fatal helicopter incident during utility work led the pilot’s estate to sue the Power Authority and contractors for negligence and workplace-safety violations. The Second Department reinstated the negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, and Labor Law § 200 claims, but left in place the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The decision, following Fabia, signals that negligence-based claims from helicopter operations can proceed at the early stage, while the scaffold/industrial safety statutes do not fit these facts.
Read more: Click here
Avelo Mortgage, LLC v. Stewart (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
A foreclosure case challenged a 2006 Brooklyn mortgage as fraudulent and claimed the lender was not a good‑faith lender. The Second Department dismissed the defendant’s fraud-based defenses and counterclaims because they were conclusory and lacked specific facts showing the lender knew of any straw‑buyer scheme. The ruling confirms that, in foreclosure cases, fraud allegations must be backed by concrete, specific facts to survive summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
Miguel A. Ramirez Diaz, et al., Respondents v. Edward R. Gomez, et al., Appellants (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
In a rear-end crash case, the driver and passengers used the same lawyer. After defendants counterclaimed against the driver, the Second Department reversed and disqualified plaintiffs’ counsel, citing a conflict and no written informed-consent waiver under Rule 1.7(b). The decision underscores that once a driver is targeted by a counterclaim, joint representation with passengers requires written informed consent or the firm can be removed.
Read more: Click here
Scutari v. Drapala (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-18)
Neighbor dispute over a modular home build: claims of trespass during construction, private nuisance, and failure to follow the approved site plan. The Second Department dismissed the private nuisance claim and the access-license claim as moot, but otherwise affirmed, including trespass liability for unpermitted entry and allowing the negligence, injunction, and site-plan/declaratory claims to proceed. It matters because brief construction impacts usually aren’t a nuisance, unconsented entry is trespass, current owners must be joined, and there’s no need to exhaust administrative remedies when alleging noncompliance with approved plans.
Read more: Click here
Fabia v. Power Authority of the State of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 18, 2026)
The case asked whether the FAA preempts New York negligence and workplace safety claims after a helicopter used for powerline maintenance crashed. The Second Department reinstated the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims under the FAA’s federal standard of care and dismissed the strict-liability Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims as preempted. This narrows state Labor Law remedies in aviation-related work and creates a split with the Third Department, suggesting further review.
Read more: Click here
Matter of the Claim of Arturo Martinez Cortez v. Royal Stone Cabinet & Tile Inc. (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 19, 2026)
This case concerns whether the claimant was an employee and penalties for not carrying workers’ comp insurance. The Third Department mostly affirmed the Board, but sent the case back for a limited rehearing on the penalty amount because it was set after the hearing without employer input and there are two statutory ways to calculate it. It reinforces strict preservation rules and ensures employers get a fair chance to contest penalty calculations.
Read more: Click here
People v. Faubert (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 19, 2026)
The case asked whether a defendant held on first-degree kidnapping (a class A-1 felony) could waive indictment and be prosecuted by an SCI. The Third Department dismissed the SCI, vacated the guilty plea, and reversed the conviction because CPL 195.10 bars waiving indictment when a class A-1 felony punishable by life is charged. The ruling confirms this is a jurisdictional defect that a plea or appeal waiver cannot cure.
Read more: Click here
People v. Devon Y. (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 19, 2026)
The Third Department affirmed the denial of resentencing under New York’s DVSJA for a defendant who relied on childhood abuse. The court found no temporal nexus because the abuse ended years before the crimes, so he was not a victim at the time of the offenses. The ruling confirms that DVSJA relief requires ongoing abuse or an abusive relationship at the time of the crime; past abuse alone does not qualify.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Alexia KK., alleged to be a Neglected Child (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 19, 2026)
A father appealed findings that he neglected his child by exposing her to drug trafficking and that he willfully violated a court-ordered services plan. The Third Department affirmed the neglect finding and left in place the six-month jail commitment, noting the father abandoned any challenge to the violation by not briefing it. The court held that strong circumstantial signs of trafficking in a child’s presence can establish an imminent risk of harm without direct proof of a sale.
Read more: Click here