Tommy Quach v. C&A Jerome Realty, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
The First Department dismissed the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall case against C&A Jerome Realty and Cutie Beauty. It held he is bound by the sworn statements he used to obtain a default judgment in a separate suit, which placed the accident next to a different business. The court also confirmed the defense motion was timely and properly served under CPLR 3212(a) and 2214(b).
Read more:
Click here
Patricia Patterson v. 786 East 182 LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 20, 2025)
A tenant claimed she slipped on ice outside her building during wintry weather. The First Department dismissed the case under the storm-in-progress rule, relying on weather data and the superintendent’s account that a storm was ongoing. The decision confirms owners aren’t liable during an active storm unless there’s concrete evidence they created or worsened the hazard.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Coast Marine Company Limited v. Holland & Knight LLP et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
Coast Marine sought to disqualify Holland & Knight from representing Integr8 in a maritime fuel arbitration. The First Department dismissed the bid, finding no attorney‑client relationship with the petitioner, a two‑year delay that waived any conflict, and likely prejudice to Integr8 from costs and delay. The ruling underscores that clear engagement letters and prompt action are crucial, and management overlap does not make an affiliate a client.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Elizabeth Christian v. The Department of Education of the City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
A NYC teacher challenged her firing, arguing that her approved leave paused her probation and she gained tenure by estoppel. The First Department reversed and declared she had tenure by estoppel because the leave tolled her probation and she served past the new end date. The ruling confirms that approved leave pauses probation, and if the district doesn’t act before the recalculated end, a § 3020-a hearing is required to terminate.
Read more:
Click here
Brian S. Lash et al. v. TDR Capital LLP et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
Investors sued UK-based TDR affiliates in New York over transactions centered on Luxembourg companies. The First Department dismissed, finding New York an inconvenient forum, the forum clause didn’t bind the nonsignatory defendants, and there was no specific personal jurisdiction. The ruling shows that minor New York ties won’t keep a largely foreign dispute here or extend forum clauses to nonsignatories.
Read more:
Click here
IVOIR DASILVA, et al. v. SUPER P57, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
The First Department affirmed summary judgment for a façade worker under Labor Law § 240(1) after a 3–4.5 foot fall from an unsecured plank. It found the elevation risk was not trivial and fall protection was inadequate, rejecting claims that the worker disobeyed instructions or was solely to blame. The court treated related § 241(6) and § 200 claims as academic, underscoring that even short falls can trigger Scaffold Law liability when proper safety devices are lacking.
Read more:
Click here
Adam Sherman v. Aniello Zampella, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 20, 2025)
– In an LLC dispute over Bitcoin transactions, the plaintiff sought the defendants’ personal crypto wallet addresses.
– The First Department reversed the order compelling those addresses and vacated an adverse presumption, citing substantial compliance, no willful delay, and confusion from mismatched discovery demands.
– The decision underscores that CPLR 3126 sanctions are a last resort for willful, sustained noncompliance and that crypto discovery orders must precisely match the requests.
Read more:
Click here
239 East 18th Owners Corp. v. Kathleen Wade, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 20, 2025)
A co-op superintendent says the building accepted his work but underpaid him. He seeks the unpaid balance in quantum meruit, despite a UIAB finding that he was an independent contractor. The First Department reinstated his counterclaim and confirmed that UIAB unemployment decisions do not bar civil claims for unpaid compensation.
Read more:
Click here
Rafael C. Rondon v. 328 W. 44 Street LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
This premises-liability case involves a fall from a sixth-floor fire escape where the plaintiff alleges an open hatch lacked required guardrails. The First Department reinstated the claims against the owner/manager and allowed amendment because an expert and a witness created fact issues, the video was unauthenticated, and defendants didn’t show the code was inapplicable or that they inspected. The ruling confirms that code compliance alone doesn’t defeat negligence and that circumstantial evidence can establish causation even if the plaintiff can’t recall the accident.
Read more:
Click here
Shabrina Solano v. American United Transportation Inc. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
This case asked whether an injured passenger met New York’s No‑Fault serious‑injury threshold and who was liable. The First Department reinstated the plaintiff’s significant‑limitation claims for the neck, back, right knee, and right shoulder and granted her partial summary judgment on liability, but left her permanent‑consequential and 90/180‑day claims dismissed. It matters because defendants must address each claimed injury with objective proof (like MRIs), and unexplained treatment gaps can defeat permanent‑injury claims.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Kevin Hawse (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
A sworn juror said he felt moral unease about judging but could be fair, and the court later questioned his English before removing him. The First Department reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because the record did not show the juror was grossly unqualified. The ruling emphasizes that a sworn juror cannot be discharged without a clear, on-the-record basis, and that moral discomfort or speculative language concerns are not enough.
Read more:
Click here
Pablo E. Molina v. Chatham Towers, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
A worker fell when an unsecured A-frame ladder shifted while he was removing insulation from ceiling pipes. The First Department reversed and granted him summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), finding the owner failed to provide proper safety devices and his account was unchallenged. The decision confirms that an unwitnessed ladder fall can establish liability without proof of a specific defect or an eyewitness.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Law Office of Cyrus Joubin, etc. v. Manhattan District Attorney's Office (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
A law office sought the Manhattan DA’s intake datasheet under FOIL. The First Department dismissed the petition and reversed the lower court, holding the datasheet is attorney work product exempt from FOIL and not disclosable, and it vacated attorneys’ fees. The ruling confirms DA intake materials reflecting legal analysis are categorically protected, and fees require the requester to substantially prevail and show the agency lacked a reasonable basis.
Read more:
Click here
Lisa Ellerbee v. 61 West 62 Owners Corp., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 20, 2025)
The First Department dismissed the claims against the owner, manager, and elevator company in an elevator-door injury case. Authenticated video showed the plaintiff put her hand into a closing door, and defendants proved the elevator was code-compliant and properly maintained. The decision highlights that such proof can secure summary judgment and that experts must cite specific industry standards, not general safety principles.
Read more:
Click here
Shanghai Yongrun Investment Management Co. Ltd. v. Kashi Galaxy Venture Capital Co., Ltd. and Maodong Xu (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2025)
This case addresses whether New York should recognize a Chinese breach of contract judgment where the defendant says he signed the agreement under government coercion. The First Department reinstated the extrinsic fraud defense and granted discovery, and left the public policy defense dismissed. The decision shows that coercion allegations can support resisting recognition at the pleading stage, while the public policy exception remains narrow for routine contract claims.
Read more:
Click here
Michael Healy v. Trinity Hudson Holdings, LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 18, 2024)
A worker sued under Labor Law § 240(1) after safely climbing down a ladder and then missing a step on a two-step staircase at a construction site. The First Department dismissed the § 240(1) claim against Trinity and Google because the ladder did not fail and the fall arose from a separate, non-elevation hazard. The decision clarifies that owners and contractors aren’t strictly liable under § 240(1) when injuries follow safe ladder use and stem from an ordinary stair misstep.
Read more:
Click here
Tzirel Terkeltaub v. Credit Control Services, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
The plaintiff sued a debt collector under the FDCPA over collection letters about a Quest Diagnostics bill, seeking statutory damages. The Second Department dismissed the case for lack of standing because she alleged no concrete harm. The decision confirms that in New York state court, FDCPA plaintiffs must plead real injury; statutory damages alone aren’t enough.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of McCook v. Delbrune; Matter of Delbrune v. McCook (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
In a custody and visitation dispute, the Family Court denied the father’s contempt and custody-change requests, ordered therapeutic supervised visits, and let a provider decide when unsupervised time would resume. The Second Department removed that delegation, holding courts—not therapists—must decide when supervision ends or access expands, but otherwise affirmed supervised access and the denial of the father’s requests. The ruling underscores judicial control over visitation transitions and that contempt is unavailable where the custodial parent shows inability to comply.
Read more:
Click here
Berman v. Sosman (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
An accounting firm partner claimed a continuing profit share based on an alleged oral joint venture after transferring his ownership stake. The Second Department dismissed the misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment, defamation, and request for an injunction, but allowed the breach of contract claim to proceed. The ruling confirms that an oral joint venture can survive a statute-of-frauds challenge at the pleading stage with records showing shared profits and losses, while duplicative claims and vague defamation allegations will be dismissed.
Read more:
Click here
Marin v. City of Newburgh (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
This case arose from a trip-and-fall on a sunken water valve cap in a City of Newburgh roadway. The Second Department dismissed the claims against the City because it had no prior written notice and plaintiffs failed to show an exception (immediate affirmative creation or special use). The decision reinforces the strict limits on municipal liability for street defects under prior written notice laws.
Read more:
Click here
Custom Crafted Management Solutions, Inc. v. Elmont Fire District (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
Custom Crafted sued the Elmont Fire District for unpaid contract amounts, raising when the six‑month notice‑of‑claim clock starts. The Second Department dismissed the case, holding the claims accrued on January 31, 2023 when payment was due and not made, so an October 2023 notice was too late under Town Law § 180. For fire district contracts, serving a verified claim within six months of nonpayment is mandatory or the case will be dismissed early.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Hereford Insurance Company v. Joyner (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
The case addressed how an insurer can prove service when seeking to stay uninsured-motorist arbitration. The Second Department reinstated the petition, holding that an affidavit listing the certified-mail tracking number with USPS delivery confirmation satisfies CPLR 7503(c) and that service on the attorney named in the demand is proper. This clarifies that tracking proof can replace the signed green card, allowing courts to reach the merits.
Read more:
Click here
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Smith (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
– This foreclosure case asked whether a CPLR 3215(c) abandonment dismissal could include permission to start a new case.
– The Second Department deleted the directive allowing a new action and otherwise affirmed dismissal without prejudice.
– The decision confirms that CPLR 3215(c) dismissals are not on the merits and that trial courts must strictly follow the appellate court’s prior decision.
Read more:
Click here
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Veronica Sanchez (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
This case asked whether a lender’s foreclosure referee report was backed by admissible business records. The Second Department reversed the confirmation of the report and the foreclosure judgment and sent the case back for a new computation because the referee relied on unidentified, unproduced records and hearsay. It clarifies that lenders must file the actual underlying records, and that the lack of a noticed hearing alone is not reversible if the borrower could submit evidence.
Read more:
Click here
Reyes v. Rahman (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
A worker fell from a ladder, and the issue was whether the homeowner’s exemption to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) applied. The Second Department reinstated the worker’s claims and left the plaintiff’s own motion denied, because factual questions remain about commercial use and whether the home was intended as a three-family dwelling. Owners seeking the exemption must eliminate all factual disputes; signs of resale or rental plans block summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Williams, Nakim (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
The case asked whether sentences for third-degree robbery and fourth-degree possession of stolen property could be stacked when both charges came from the same taking. The Second Department modified the judgment to make the sentences run at the same time (concurrently). It underscores that, under Penal Law § 70.25(2), prosecutors must prove separate acts to justify consecutive time.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Michael Khader v. City of Yonkers, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
The case asked whether Yonkers had to pay Michael Khader’s legal fees for a City-initiated Inspector General investigation. The Second Department dismissed his petition, holding Public Officers Law § 18 does not require a defense when the proceeding is brought at the City’s behest. It also found no valid fee contract, underscoring that municipalities must follow charter approval procedures and need not fund defenses for their own investigations.
Read more:
Click here
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Calhoun (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-11-19)
– Issue: whether the lender strictly complied with RPAPL 1304’s 90-day pre-foreclosure notice and mailing rules.
– Outcome: The Second Department reversed the judgment of foreclosure and sale and denied the lender’s motions because it showed neither proof of actual mailings nor a detailed, sworn office mailing procedure.
– Why it matters: Lenders need concrete mailing evidence—not boilerplate affidavits—to obtain summary judgment or a foreclosure judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Cameron v. Plaisir (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
In this auto-collision case, the trial court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability and dismissed defendants’ comparative negligence defense and contribution counterclaim. The Second Department reinstated the case, granting renewal based on a reasonable law office mistake and new photo-supported evidence, vacating the prior order and denying summary judgment. It matters because a supported alternate account of a rear-end crash can create factual disputes that block summary judgment and keep comparative negligence and contribution issues alive.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Ramirez v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
A passenger injured in a hit-and-run sought permission to sue MVAIC. The Second Department reversed the grant and sent the case back for a hearing because facts were disputed about timely police reporting and whether the cab was uninsured. The ruling underscores that these prerequisites must be proven before leave to sue MVAIC can be granted.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Khalil H. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
This case asked whether courts can assess mandatory surcharges, a DNA fee, and victim assistance fees against a youthful offender and a defendant who was under 21. The Second Department vacated all assessments, citing the 2020 repeal for youthful offenders and CPL 420.35(2-a) for under-21 defendants, signaling that such charges should not be imposed and will be removed on appeal.
Read more:
Click here
Khoshayev v. Edelstein (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
In a medical malpractice case, the defendant sought dismissal after the plaintiffs failed to provide court-ordered record authorizations. The Second Department reversed and ordered conditional preclusion: plaintiffs have 60 days to produce the authorizations or they cannot use those records at trial or on motions, while dismissal was denied. The decision underscores that dismissal is reserved for clear, willful noncompliance and that 22 NYCRR 202.27 did not apply.
Read more:
Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hershey (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 19, 2025)
Wells Fargo sought to confirm its mortgage lien after discovering the mortgage had an incorrect legal description, even though the street address and tax lot were correct. The Second Department reversed and granted Wells Fargo summary judgment, declaring the mortgage a valid lien. The ruling clarifies that a single description error does not void a mortgage when other documents identify the property and show the parties’ intent.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Frank McGann v. Suffolk County Water Authority et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 20, 2025)
A 32-year meter reader sought workers’ comp for bilateral carpal tunnel; the Board denied it after discounting both doctors’ causation opinions and pointing to his recreational pickleball. The Third Department reinstated the claim and remitted, finding the Board ignored or misread uncontroverted updated medical reports and substituted its own medical view. The decision confirms the Board cannot reject unanimous medical causation without substantial evidence.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Susan Gonzalez v. New York State & Local Retirement System et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 20, 2025)
This case asked whether a full-time city appointee paid $1 by the City but mostly funded by a nonprofit could receive retirement service credit. The Third Department overturned the Comptroller’s denial and sent the case back, holding that the part-time, minimum-wage formula does not apply when the City certifies full-time hours and the employee is on the City payroll. It clarifies that certified payroll status controls eligibility, so nominal pay or outside funding doesn’t defeat credit.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Robert Shaw v. Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 20, 2025)
Robert Shaw challenged a prison disciplinary ruling that found him guilty of making threats and damaging state property and imposed 120 days in segregated confinement. The Third Department upheld the guilt findings but annulled the segregation penalty and sent it back because the hearing officer did not make the specific written findings required by Correction Law § 137(6)(k)(ii) to go beyond three days. The decision underscores that extended segregation is invalid without those findings, even when the misconduct finding stands.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Gary Troiano v. New York City Housing Authority; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 20, 2025)
The case asked whether a worker’s permanency report could be excluded for § 137 noncompliance when the employer didn’t object on time. The Third Department reversed the Board’s exclusion and sent the case back because the employer’s objection was untimely under 12 NYCRR 300.2(d)(12). It confirms that § 137/IME objections are waived if not raised within the response window or at the next hearing, even though the Board may consider new arguments on review.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Sally Rorapaugh v. New Penn Motor Express LLC et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 20, 2025)
This case asked whether a workers’ comp carrier had to consent to a $9 million third‑party settlement and who decides how to split legal costs. The Third Department said no consent was needed because the recovery exceeded projected benefits, but reversed the Board’s cost allocation and fresh‑money award. It held only the federal court that heard the third‑party case may apportion litigation expenses.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Lynn Pandolfi v. Plainedge Union Free School District et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 20, 2025)
The Third Department reversed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s denial of fees to a former attorney. It held that § 24(3) applies only when a new lawyer is substituted and does not bar fees when counsel is relieved and the claimant continues without a lawyer. The Board must instead evaluate any fee under § 24(2) based on the services performed, the compensation awarded, and the claimant’s finances.
Read more:
Click here
Donnell T. Richardson v. Tops Markets, LLC, Estate of Keith Palmieri, and Bruce Watson (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The Fourth Department reinstated the plaintiff’s public‑accommodation discrimination claims against Tops Markets under the Human Rights Law and allowed amendment at the pleading stage. It otherwise affirmed dismissal: the Civil Rights Law claims failed for lack of Attorney General notice, some claims were time‑barred, and filing a police report was not discriminatory conduct. The ruling underscores a three‑year limit for Human Rights Law claims and a strict notice requirement for Civil Rights Law claims.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Harold E. Brown (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
Case focused on overbroad cell phone search warrants and a video sentencing held over the defendant’s objection after drug and fleeing convictions. The Fourth Department vacated the sentence and sent the case back for in-person sentencing, but otherwise affirmed, finding any warrant errors harmless given overwhelming non‑phone evidence. The ruling underscores that digital search warrants must be specific and time‑limited, and that virtual sentencing requires the defendant’s consent.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Kevin V. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
Family Court terminated both parents’ rights for severe abuse based only on a prior Article 10 record, without a motion and without holding the required dispositional hearing. The Fourth Department reversed and remitted, emphasizing that a severe-abuse finding must be expressly made on clear and convincing evidence and that termination cannot be ordered without proper motion practice and a dispositional hearing.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Park Avenue Estates, LLC and Darryl Carr v. City of Buffalo and City of Buffalo Permit & Inspection Services (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
Owners sought an emergency demolition of a fire-damaged property under Buffalo City Code §113-15, and the City refused. The Fourth Department reinstated their Article 78 petition, holding that Preservation Board approval is not required and that, if the code’s criteria are met, the Commissioner has a ministerial duty to act. The decision clarifies that owners may pursue mandamus for emergency demolition without exhausting other administrative approvals.
Read more:
Click here
O. Gregory Zazulak v. Shirley Sarna, as Executor of the Estate of Elaine Sarna, deceased (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The Fourth Department dismissed the plaintiff’s 90/180‑day serious‑injury claim but otherwise left his motor‑vehicle no‑fault case for trial. The defendant showed the plaintiff’s activities were not greatly curtailed during the first 180 days. But the defendant’s own medical proof reflected range‑of‑motion limits and raised fact issues on causation and economic loss, blocking summary judgment on the other categories.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Waterfront Operations Associates LLC v. New York State Department of Health (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
This case concerned Medicaid eligibility for a nursing home resident where the community spouse refused to provide financial information; the facility argued undue hardship. The Fourth Department vacated Supreme Court’s judgment for not transferring the substantial-evidence issue, then confirmed DOH’s denial and dismissed the petition. It underscores that Article 78 cases raising substantial-evidence issues must be transferred and that DOH may deny eligibility when a spouse withholds information unless the applicant proves true undue hardship.
Read more:
Click here
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-R5 v. Peter F. Testa (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case asked whether a lender’s voluntary discontinuance could restart the six-year clock after a 2007 foreclosure filing accelerated the mortgage. The Fourth Department held it could not, applied FAPA retroactively, rejected constitutional challenges, and affirmed the action was time-barred. It ordered the mortgage canceled and discharged, confirming lenders cannot reset the clock and that time-barred borrowers may obtain RPAPL 1501(4) relief.
Read more:
Click here
Mawunyo Atatsi v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
A University at Buffalo student alleges she slipped on water from melted snow on an interior dorm stairwell. The Fourth Department dismissed only the actual-notice portion, but let the rest proceed because the State provided no inspection or cleaning records for that day and testimony supported water as the cause. The ruling underscores that owners seeking summary judgment must show specific, recent inspections or cleaning, not just general policies.
Read more:
Click here
Thomas Horning v. Thomas Millar, Eastern Market Development LLC, and Vina Bonner (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case asked whether two LLC members were valid members when they voted to sell the company’s property. The Fourth Department upheld that they were and the sale was not void, but modified the judgment to declare the parties’ rights rather than dismiss the declaratory claims. This confirms courts must issue declarations in declaratory actions and reflects the deferential review of bench-trial findings.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. James Young (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
James Young appealed his conviction for predatory sexual assault of a child, challenging related-acts testimony and the prosecution’s trial readiness under New York’s automatic discovery rules. The Fourth Department upheld admission of the girlfriend’s testimony and found the proof sufficient, but reserved decision and sent the case back to decide whether prosecutors used due diligence before certifying discovery and declaring readiness. The ruling emphasizes that readiness depends on prosecutorial due diligence, not just good faith or lack of prejudice, and highlights debate over proving the statute’s three-month duration element.
Read more:
Click here
Armbruster Capital Management, Inc. v. Elizabeth Barrett and Apex Wealth Advisers, LLC (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case centers on client emails that allegedly portrayed a departing advisor as resisting compliance and lacking professional integrity after an asset sale. The Fourth Department reinstated the defamation counterclaim and allowed defendants to amend and add the CEO and president, finding the emails were pled with sufficient detail and that “substantial truth” was not conclusively shown. The decision underscores liberal leave to amend and warns that client-facing compliance insinuations can support defamation claims against both firms and individual authors.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Sir Charles Mosley IV (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case tests whether prosecutors were truly ready for trial under CPL 30.30 when their initial discovery certificate was missing materials. The Fourth Department ruled that good faith is not enough and sent the case back to decide whether the People used due diligence and made reasonable inquiries before filing. If not, their readiness was illusory, the speedy-trial clock keeps running, and the case could be dismissed.
Read more:
Click here
Patricia M. Caruso, individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Philip P. Caruso, deceased v. St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Shwe Win, M.D., Lev Goldiner, M.D., Slocum-Dickson Medical Group, P.C., et al. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case involves alleged delays in detecting and treating a stroke at St. Elizabeth Medical Center. The Fourth Department reinstated malpractice, wrongful-death, pain-and-suffering, and derivative claims against Dr. Win, Dr. Goldiner, Slocum-Dickson Medical Group, and St. Elizabeth (vicarious and direct). The ruling confirms that competing expert opinions can defeat summary judgment and highlights hospital duties to secure timely neurology consults and proper communication.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Mariah W. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
This case asked whether a court can find neglect based on a theory that wasn’t in the petition. The Fourth Department dismissed the petition because Family Court relied on the mother’s post-disclosure reaction without amending the petition or giving notice. It reaffirms that in article 10 cases, courts must amend and give fair notice before changing theories.
Read more:
Click here
Jerry Murphy v. Kaleida Health, doing business as Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
In a malpractice suit over ICU care, the Fourth Department ordered Kaleida Health to produce ICU staffing plans, schedules, and attendance records for November 2017 and denied a protective order, finding the records material and necessary once negligent staffing is alleged. The court also required the plaintiff to rescind a letter to treating doctors that discouraged Arons interviews and could confuse the HIPAA authorization. The ruling confirms staffing records are discoverable when staffing is at issue and cautions parties not to condition or chill treating-physician interviews authorized by Arons.
Read more:
Click here
M.H., an infant, by his mother and natural guardian, Shanique B., and Shanique B., individually v. Magdi E. Sayegh, M.D., Adel E. Chouchani, M.D., and Chouchani, Sayegh & Bagnarello, M.D., LLP, et al. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case involves alleged malpractice in OB/GYN care. The Fourth Department dismissed the complaint and granted full summary judgment to the doctors, reversing the trial court’s partial denial. Relying on a companion appeal, it found the doctors’ evidence went unrebutted and the plaintiffs did not show a factual dispute for trial.
Read more:
Click here
Thomas Horning v. J.B. Wise Professional Building LLC, Vina Bonner, James M. Bonner, Mark J. Bonner, and William Bonner (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case challenged an allegedly fraudulent property transfer that harmed an LLC and its members. The Fourth Department reinstated the complaint against all defendants, denied Mark J. Bonner’s motion, and restored the hold on the sale proceeds. It confirms that a defendant seeking summary judgment must first make the required showing and can’t win by pointing to gaps, and courts can’t dismiss nonmoving parties or undo escrow based on a deficient motion.
Read more:
Click here
M.H., an infant, by his mother and natural guardian, Shanique B., and Shanique B., individually v. Magdi E. Sayegh, M.D., Adel E. Chouchani, M.D., and Chouchani, Sayegh & Bagnarello, M.D., LLP, et al. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
This medical malpractice case alleged negligent outpatient management of a high‑risk pregnancy that ended in a placental abruption and emergency C‑section. The Fourth Department dismissed the complaint, concluding the doctors followed accepted care by relying on a maternal‑fetal medicine specialist’s plan and fetal testing, which plaintiffs’ expert did not directly rebut. It also upheld the trial judge’s control of deadlines and signaled that vague, non‑responsive expert opinions will not defeat summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Joshua Bouck v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
A tow-truck driver challenged a DMV suspension after a fatal crash, where his truck partially blocked a lane and its hazard lights were obscured. The Fourth Department reinstated the suspension and dismissed the petition. The court held that §1212 reckless driving can include stationary vehicle use that endangers others, and it deferred to the ALJ’s substantial-evidence finding while declining to consider unpreserved statutory defenses.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Harvey Alexander, Jr. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
This case tested whether a university‑affiliated teaching hospital counts as “school grounds” and what proof is needed of a defendant’s knowledge. The Fourth Department held that teaching hospitals qualify, but dismissed the school‑grounds count because prosecutors didn’t prove the defendant knew the hospital was used for education; signage alone wasn’t enough. The separate second‑degree weapon possession conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Masure Evans (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
A seatbelt stop led to a gun recovery, but the only support for the stop was one officer’s inconsistent testimony and nearby city surveillance videos were not preserved. The Fourth Department sent the case back after finding defense counsel ineffective for not seeking an adverse inference from the missing videos. The court may reopen suppression, and if the gun is suppressed, the plea will be vacated and the indictment dismissed, underscoring the stakes of missing-evidence issues.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Dustin A. Loveland (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case asked whether a criminal order of protection’s expiration must account for jail‑time credit. The Fourth Department modified the judgment and sent the case back to calculate credit and set a proper end date, while otherwise affirming the conviction and sentence. The ruling confirms expiration dates must reflect jail‑time credit and that the court can fix the error even if the defendant didn’t object earlier.
Read more:
Click here
Suzanne K. Cianci, Limited Administrator of the Estate of Donald J. Tuohey, Sr., Deceased v. The University of Rochester (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The estate claimed the hospital gave chest compressions despite the patient’s MOLST declining resuscitation, causing pain and suffering. The Fourth Department dismissed the complaint and directed a verdict for the hospital because the estate did not present expert testimony to show the accepted standard of care and how it was violated. The court noted that MOLST-based malpractice claims can proceed and emergencies don’t automatically excuse compliance, but plaintiffs must offer precise expert proof.
Read more:
Click here
Diamond Gonzalez v. City of Buffalo, et al., and Poize, Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case concerns dram shop liability after a bar allegedly served a visibly intoxicated driver who later hit the plaintiff. The Fourth Department reinstated the claim against Poize, Inc., finding its summary-judgment proof insufficient because it offered only policies and vague employee recollections, not first-hand evidence of the driver’s condition. The ruling signals that bars need specific, personal-knowledge proof of no visible intoxication to win summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Jazmine D.S. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The Fourth Department mostly upheld Jazmine D.S.’s second-degree murder conviction and sentence. It vacated only the restitution order and sent it back for a hearing because the amount wasn’t proven. The court deemed any police video narration error harmless and deferred to credibility findings in denying Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act relief, with one justice seeking a lower sentence.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jessie Engles (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The case stems from a hospitalized inmate who struck a correction officer with a hospital monitor. The Fourth Department dismissed the second-degree assault count as a lesser included of assault on a peace officer, otherwise affirmed the conviction, and ordered the commitment sheet corrected. The ruling clarifies that both assault counts cannot stand for the same conduct and upholds findings on intent, serious injury, and the court’s handling of subpoena, counsel-substitution, and pro se motion issues.
Read more:
Click here
People v. McKyle Hall (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 20, 2025)
The Third Department affirmed a conviction for attempted first-degree assault from a SUNY Albany stabbing. It found the repugnancy and victim‑impact objections unpreserved, circumstantial evidence supported intent, and denying youthful‑offender treatment was within the court’s discretion. The ruling highlights strict preservation requirements and broad sentencing discretion.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Harold E. Brown (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The Fourth Department vacated the sentence and sent the case back for in-person resentencing because the defendant did not knowingly consent to a virtual sentencing during COVID-19. It otherwise affirmed the convictions. The court emphasized the right to be physically present at sentencing and found any flaws in the cell phone warrants harmless given strong non-phone evidence, though a dissent urged stricter limits on digital searches.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Tasheonia M. Hills (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The defendant, who fatally stabbed her mother, raised an insanity defense. The Fourth Department affirmed the murder conviction and sentence, finding the jury could credit the prosecution’s expert that she knew her actions were wrong. The decision highlights that appellate courts defer to the jury on conflicting expert testimony and generally uphold sentences supported by the record, though one judge would have reduced the term.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Young (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The Fourth Department held that the trial court used the wrong standard to accept the prosecution’s trial readiness and sent the case back to decide whether the People exercised due diligence in meeting discovery duties under People v. Bay. It otherwise rejected the defendant’s remaining claims, including challenges to the girlfriend’s testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence, over a two‑judge dissent on the three‑month element. The ruling matters because prosecutors must show due diligence—not just good faith—before declaring readiness under New York’s discovery and speedy‑trial rules.
Read more:
Click here
Jerry Murphy v. Kaleida Health, doing business as Millard Fillmore Suburban Hospital (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 2025-11-21)
A patient who developed a pressure ulcer alleged negligent ICU care and staffing and sought the hospital’s ICU staffing plan, schedules, and attendance records. The Fourth Department reinstated that discovery and denied a protective order, but affirmed requiring the plaintiff to rescind letters that discouraged or conditioned informal interviews of treating doctors. The ruling confirms that once negligent staffing is alleged, ICU staffing records are discoverable under CPLR 3101(a), and parties cannot undermine Arons-authorized interviews.
Read more:
Click here
Diamond Gonzalez v. City of Buffalo, et al., and Poize, Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
This case involves dram shop liability for serving a visibly intoxicated driver who later injured the plaintiff. The Fourth Department reinstated the claim against Poize because it failed to offer firsthand eyewitness proof that the driver was not visibly intoxicated when served. Bars need concrete, time-of-service testimony—not just policies or training—to win summary judgment on such claims.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Jazmine D.S. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, November 21, 2025)
The Fourth Department mostly upheld a second-degree murder conviction, finding that any mistake in allowing police to narrate surveillance video did not affect the verdict and that the jury instruction was adequate. It deferred to the trial judge’s denial of Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act relief. The court vacated only the restitution order and sent it back for a hearing because the amount was not supported by evidence.
Read more:
Click here