Ronny Carvajal Perez v. Kew Gardens Dev. Corp. and NYC Elegant Improvements, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In a construction accident case involving a worker injured in a ladder-related incident, The First Department dismissed all claims against NYC Elegant Improvements, finding it was not actually the general contractor and had no authority over or involvement in the plaintiff’s work. The decision matters because it makes clear that a permit listing a company as general contractor is not enough by itself to impose Labor Law liability; there must be proof of real supervisory control or legal responsibility for the work.
HSBC Bank USA v. Cheryl Keeling (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the First Department reinstated HSBC’s complaint after a lower court had thrown it out for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that the bank’s process server affidavits were enough to show proper service, and the borrower’s unsworn, non-specific denial was not enough to challenge service, underscoring that defendants must provide a sworn, fact-based objection to contest jurisdiction.
CSN Realty Corp. v. Roy Moussaieff et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a real estate seller’s claims that the individuals behind a buyer entity falsely said it had enough money to close and used the entity as a shell to avoid liability. The court said the contract’s merger clause did not automatically bar those fraud claims, and that the allegations of undercapitalization and commingled funds were enough to pursue personal liability at this stage. This matters because sellers may be able to sue company insiders when a buyer’s present financial condition is allegedly misrepresented.
Michael C. Chiappa et al. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a construction worker’s claims after he was injured trying to move a 400-pound crate over a plywood ramp at LaGuardia Airport. The court found there were factual questions about whether the ramp was unsafe, whether Delta controlled the work, and whether the worker’s actions were only comparative fault rather than the sole cause of the accident.
The People of the State of New York v. Christian G. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In a criminal appeal over sentencing and court-imposed costs, the First Department ruled that Christian G. did not validly waive his right to appeal. The First Department still upheld his convictions and prison sentences, but it removed the surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing in the interest of justice.
People of the State of New York v. William Lee (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
The First Department reinstated an indictment after a trial court had dismissed it over the prosecution’s late disclosure of a small number of messages during criminal discovery. The court said the prosecutors had otherwise acted diligently, turned over extensive material, and showed no bad faith, making the late disclosure insufficient to invalidate their compliance.
S.M. etc. et al. v. City of New York et al., New York City Health + Hospitals/Lincoln Medical Center (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
This case asked whether a woman’s filing of a notice to use a psychiatric defense in her criminal case made her hospital and mental health records discoverable in a related civil negligence suit against Lincoln Medical Center. The First Department said yes, ruling that the notice put her mental condition at issue, waived confidentiality protections, and required disclosure of the records. The decision matters because it makes clear that, in related civil cases, filing that criminal notice alone can open otherwise private mental health records to discovery.
Blue River Gems Inc. v. Michael Gross et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this jewelry dispute, the First Department held that Blue River Gems can recover the full prior judgment against Michael Gross personally, not just the $50,946 awarded by the lower court. The court found that Gross treated his company as his personal account, diverted corporate funds, and left the business unable to pay its debt, underscoring that owners can be personally liable when they misuse a corporation to avoid paying creditors.
Leffler v. Kotick (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In a defamation dispute between attorneys, the First Department increased the plaintiff’s damages award from $72,000 to $100,000 after finding that false accusations of perjury and suborning perjury harmed his professional reputation. The decision matters because it confirms that these kinds of accusations are considered inherently defamatory, so harm can be presumed, but legal fees and litigation conduct do not count toward compensatory damages and punitive damages still require separate proof.
Diaz v. Rotavele Elevator, Inc. and Mayore Estates LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
The First Department ruled that a building owner was entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from its elevator maintenance contractor after a tenant claimed she was hurt by a misleveled elevator. The court found that the claim arose from the contractor’s maintenance work, but limited the relief to conditional indemnification because the owner had not yet shown it was free from its own negligence.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Chait (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the First Department held that the lender could not use a court-ordered extension to serve the borrower after the six-month deadline for restarting a dismissed foreclosure action had already expired. The court found the lender’s 2024 service was too late, but sent the case back for a hearing on whether the borrower had already been properly served in 2022.
The decision matters because it makes clear that the six-month service deadline in a recommenced foreclosure case is strict and cannot be extended later by the court.
Altieri v. Hyl (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this passenger injury case arising from a taxi and Con Ed. truck collision, The First Department dismissed the claims against Con Ed. and its driver after finding that the taxi driver’s improper left turn from a straight-only lane was the only cause of the crash. The decision matters because it confirms that a driver who is suddenly cut off will not be held liable just because the impact was to the rear of the other vehicle, and clear traffic-rule violations can justify ending the case without a trial.
The People of the State of New York v. Alexis Sanchez (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this criminal appeal, Alexis Sanchez challenged parts of his probation sentence after pleading guilty to attempted second-degree robbery. The First Department left his conviction and five-year probation term in place, but removed conditions requiring him to pay certain surcharges and fees and submit to warrantless searches, finding those terms were not legally justified or tied to his rehabilitation. The decision matters because it shows that a valid appeal waiver can block many challenges, but courts will still strike probation conditions that are not reasonably connected to the offense or the defendant’s rehabilitation.
Ward v. Northeast Truck Rental and Leasing LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
In this car crash case, the First Department vacated the default judgment against driver Abraham Perez, finding that he acted promptly, had a reasonable excuse, and raised a potentially valid defense that his vehicle was stopped at the time of the collision. The court otherwise left the lower court’s rulings in place, rejecting the insurer’s attempt to deposit policy limits into court and refusing to dismiss the claims against the rental company under the Graves Amendment. This matters because it shows New York courts prefer cases to be decided on the merits, but parties seeking early dismissal must support their motions with proper documentary proof.
OCFBROOK HOLDINGS, LLC v. TKS BROOKLYN CENTER HOLDING, LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a lender’s lawsuit seeking to enforce loan guaranties after a prior Minnesota foreclosure-related case, finding that the earlier case did not automatically bar the New York action. It also struck several defenses raised by the guarantors and sent the case back for further review of the remaining issues, including whether the guaranty had actually been triggered.
The People of the State of New York v. Tyler Alvarez (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
The First Department left Tyler Alvarez’s conviction and prison sentence in place, but removed the mandatory surcharge and fees that were added at sentencing. The decision matters because it shows the court can use its interest-of-justice power to cancel financial penalties even when the rest of the judgment stands.
Wilmington Savings Fund Society etc. v. Precila Okoronkwo et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the First Department reversed a lower court order that had required the lender’s predecessor, a foreign LLC, to prove it was authorized to do business in New York or face dismissal. The court held that simply buying mortgages, bringing foreclosure cases, and enforcing those loans in New York does not amount to doing business here, which matters because it limits when defendants can challenge a foreign LLC’s ability to sue.
Taylor v. The City of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a Black NYPD officer’s race discrimination and hostile work environment claims against the City and a sergeant, finding the case should not have been thrown out. The court said an alleged explicit racist remark, repeated race-related messages, and a dangerous assignment could support a jury finding of bias, and it stressed that ongoing discriminatory conduct can keep a claim timely under the New York City Human Rights Law.
The People of the State of New York v. Demetrius Harvard (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In People v. Harvard, the First Department left the defendant’s guilty-plea convictions in place but reduced his sentence by ordering his prison terms to run at the same time instead of back-to-back. The court found the consecutive sentence was too harsh, showing that it can uphold a conviction while still cutting a sentence it views as excessive.
S & M Bronx Inc. et al. v. Diversified Planning Brokerage LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
The First Department dismissed the policyholders’ fiduciary duty and detrimental reliance claims against their insurance brokers, but allowed the negligence claim to go forward in a suit over an alleged lapse in liability coverage. The court found factual disputes about whether the parties’ long-standing relationship gave the brokers added responsibilities for renewals and advice, making the decision important for showing when a broker’s duties may extend beyond a standard client relationship.
Paro Management Co., Inc. et al. v. Allied World National Assurance Company (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
The First Department dismissed the insureds’ coverage suit against Allied World over a lead-paint injury claim under a pollution liability policy. The court held that the policy did not cover the claim because the insureds had notice of the underlying lawsuit before the policy began, triggering the policy’s known-pollution exclusion. The decision matters because it shows that affidavits of service and certified mail records can be enough to prove prior notice, while broad denials of receipt are not.
SERHANT LLC v. Santa Federico, Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
This case involved a fight over a real estate commission and whether SERHANT could sue a rival brokerage and agent for interfering with its exclusive listing agreement. The First Department ruled for Douglas Elliman and Josh Rubin, finding that the listing’s automatic renewal clause was invalid and that SERHANT sent its required post-expiration notice too late, so there was no enforceable contract to support the claim. This matters because it shows New York brokers must follow listing rules and notice deadlines strictly if they want to preserve commission-related rights.
Mohamed Alshami et al. v. The State of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a wage-and-hour lawsuit by CUNY security officers who say the State failed to pay them required overtime under federal law, finding that their claim included enough detail and timesheet records to move forward. But the court also upheld the denial of permission to file any late claims, underscoring that even strong overtime allegations can be barred if filing deadlines are missed.
Diaz v. Boston Properties, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
In Diaz v. Boston Properties, Inc., a construction worker who fell from a shaking ladder won a major appeal after the lower court had denied his claim and thrown out his case. The First Department reinstated the complaint and granted him partial summary judgment under New York’s Scaffold Law, holding that an unsteady ladder can establish liability as a matter of law and that defendants could not rely on inadmissible medical records to avoid that result.
Seth Adler v. Kevin Troy, M.D., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this medical malpractice case over a patient’s treatment and death, the First Department reinstated the complaint after finding the defendants had not shown they were entitled to immunity under New York’s COVID-era Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act. The decision matters because healthcare providers cannot win dismissal based on that immunity unless they first clearly prove the law applies to the care at issue.
Freeland v. Chemtob (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this landlord-tenant dispute over a lease nonrenewal, holdover charges, utility bills, a security deposit, and harassment claims, the First Department largely sided with the landlord. It ruled that the email nonrenewal notice was valid, the tenant owed holdover and electricity charges, and the landlord could keep the security deposit, but it vacated the ruling that the landlord was entitled to attorneys’ fees because one claim in the case is still unresolved. The decision matters because it confirms that email notice can be enough when the lease allows it, while attorneys’ fees cannot be decided until the entire case is finished.
The People of the State of New York v. Darren Cassanova (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In People v. Cassanova, the First Department upheld the defendant’s conviction and sentence but vacated the mandatory surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing. The court acted in the interest of justice, following prior precedent and noting that the prosecution did not oppose the request. This matters because it confirms the First Department may remove these financial penalties in appropriate criminal cases.
Ayuso v. State of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, May 19, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a wage-and-hour claim by CUNY security officers who say they were denied overtime pay under federal law, finding that their filing was detailed enough to move forward. The court said these overtime claims can accrue with each paycheck, so one single accrual date was not required, but it also upheld the denial of late-claim relief because the claimants did not follow the required filing procedure.
Casella v. Casella (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In this divorce dispute, the First Department reversed an order that required $100,000 from a marital escrow account to pay the husband’s legal fees and the attorney for the children’s trial retainer. The court found that the trial judge granted relief the husband had not actually asked for and that the fee request was missing required financial and billing documents. The decision matters because it reinforces that courts must follow proper motion practice before awarding legal fees in matrimonial cases.
People v. Bashight (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department let Jamar Bashight’s assault conviction stand but removed the mandatory surcharges and fees from his sentence. The court found that because he was under 21 when the crime happened and was indigent, New York law allowed those costs to be waived. The decision matters because it confirms that young defendants with limited means may be entitled to relief from mandatory court fees.
Hallie S. Maggi, et al. v. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that homeowners could cancel a mortgage because the lender accelerated the debt in 2010 by filing a foreclosure case demanding the full balance, and the six-year foreclosure deadline expired before the homeowners sued in 2019. The court held that later dropping the first foreclosure case and sending “de-acceleration” letters did not restart the clock under New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, reinforcing limits on lenders trying to revive old foreclosure claims.
Moreno v. Hossain (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
In Moreno v. Hossain, a worker injured while removing a mirror in a second-floor rental apartment sued the property owners under New York’s construction safety laws. The Second Department reinstated those claims, finding there were unresolved factual questions about whether the owners could rely on the homeowner exemption because the property and the work may have served a commercial purpose. This matters because owners of one- and two-family homes cannot automatically avoid liability when the project is tied to rental or other business use.
Andrew Rosenberg, et al. v. Tool Time Construction Corp., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a construction contract case that had been thrown out as abandoned after the plaintiffs submitted a proposed judgment months after a damages inquest. The court held that the 60-day deadline rule did not apply because the lower court never expressly directed the judgment to be settled or submitted on notice. This matters because a late filing alone will not justify dismissal unless the court clearly triggers that rule.
City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement v. Winters (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department held that a pension fund shareholder of Standard Chartered had standing to bring derivative claims tied to the bank’s alleged sanctions-related dollar-clearing activity, which led to more than $1 billion in penalties. But it still sent the case to the United Kingdom on forum non conveniens grounds, because the company, key decisions, and governing law were centered there. The decision matters because it shows that New York courts may recognize standing under foreign corporate law, yet still require the case to be heard where the dispute is most closely connected.
The People v. Jaleel Hewitt (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
In The People v. Hewitt, the Second Department reversed Jaleel Hewitt’s convictions for conspiracy and criminal facilitation tied to a retaliatory gang shooting that killed a bystander. The Second Department dismissed the charges because prosecutors did not prove that Hewitt knew the shooters planned a murder or that he agreed to help carry one out. This decision matters because it confirms that being involved in retaliation or following others is not enough, by itself, to support murder-related conspiracy or facilitation charges.
GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Patrick Dibre (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
This case involved a failed deal for automotive dealership assets and whether the seller could market the dealerships to third parties after the original sale to the buyers did not close on time. The Second Department held that the contracts allowed a third-party sale after the April 30, 2017 deadline and directed entry of a declaration in the plaintiffs’ favor, but it let the defendant’s bad-faith claim go forward. The decision matters because it confirms that clear contract deadlines will be enforced as written, while claims that a party deliberately undermined the deal can still survive.
Matter of Glaser v. Dougherty; Matter of Dougherty v. Glaser (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a Family Court order in an initial custody dispute after the father moved to Indiana, denied his request for joint residential custody there, and granted the mother primary residential custody in New York. The court said the lower court did not properly account for an undisputed domestic violence incident and that the evidence did not show moving the child to Indiana was in the child’s best interests. This decision matters because it reinforces that custody rulings must focus on the child’s best interests, especially when domestic violence and out-of-state relocation are involved.
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Suh (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a master arbitration award in a no-fault insurance dispute, ruling that the insurer improperly denied a medical provider’s claim based on additional verification requests. The court said judges have only limited power to disturb no-fault arbitration awards, so because the arbitrator’s decision was rational and supported by the record, it had to be confirmed, with the fee issues sent back for further review.
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Palmore (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department ruled that HSBC could not foreclose because it sent one 90-day pre-foreclosure notice jointly addressed to both borrowers, instead of sending each borrower a separate notice. The court vacated the foreclosure rulings and dismissed the complaint against the borrowers. The decision matters because it reinforces that New York lenders must strictly follow the separate-notice requirement before starting a residential foreclosure case.
Matter of Malitz Family Trust (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that the Malitz Family Trust was validly revoked and that Allison Angarola owns the disputed property, reversing the Surrogate’s Court’s refusal to grant her summary judgment. The decision matters because it confirms that a trust creator’s power to change beneficiaries’ shares can reduce some shares to zero, and that a trustee who acted on a revocation cannot later challenge it after waiting until the grantor’s death.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Poyer (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a mortgage foreclosure case after finding that the trial court had improperly treated it as dismissed for failure to prosecute. The court said the required steps under CPLR 3216 were never properly followed, which matters because it confirms that courts must strictly comply with those notice rules before a case can be thrown out.
Rabito v. Hicksville Union Free School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a lawsuit by a fifth-grade student who was injured after allegedly slipping during a school field-day game. It held that the school district was not entitled to dismissal because factual questions remain about supervision, the safety of the field, and whether the student was required to take part rather than voluntarily accepting the risk.
Finley v. Turner (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
In this divorce appeal, the Second Department overturned major parts of the trial court’s rulings on income, spousal support, child support, property division, and legal custody. The court said the income findings were not properly supported, some retirement funds were the husband’s separate property, and the record supported joint legal custody with final decision-making authority to the wife rather than sole legal custody. The case matters because it shows that support awards, asset division, and custody rulings must closely match the evidence.
The People v. L.F. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a Suffolk County order that denied a defendant’s motion to undo her guilty plea for conspiracy tied to a prostitution business. The court held that her sworn claims that she was a trafficking victim, along with a state confirmation letter, and her claim that her lawyer did not clearly warn her that the plea would lead to mandatory deportation were enough to require a hearing.
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Grant (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, Rodney Washington asked the court to undo the foreclosure judgment and dismiss the case, arguing in part that HSBC had improperly used a “John Doe” designation. The Second Department ruled that this naming issue alone did not justify vacating the judgment, but it reversed the lower court’s denial of his motion because most of his other arguments had not actually been decided before, and sent the case back for a fresh review.
Collins v. Denaro (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
This case involved a fight over whether a son improperly influenced his 97-year-old father to make him the sole beneficiary of brokerage accounts and other assets. The Second Department reversed the trial court’s ruling for the daughter, found the evidence was too speculative to prove undue influence, and dismissed the case. The decision matters because it shows that helping an elderly parent with finances is not enough on its own; there must be proof of actual control or coercion.
J.N. v. Christine R. Vyskocil (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a birth-injury medical malpractice case against a doctor and Westmed Medical Group after the trial court had dismissed it. The court found that, although the defense offered expert proof, the plaintiffs’ expert raised factual disputes about whether the doctor mishandled delivery complications and caused the infant’s injuries. This matters because competing expert opinions usually mean the case must be decided at trial, not thrown out early.
Correa v. NY Developers & Management, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department ruled for a construction worker who fell from a scaffold while assisting a plumber, finding the property-related defendants liable under New York’s scaffold safety law. The court held that the worker’s testimony showed the scaffold had no safety rails or other proper protection and collapsed after his drill kicked back, and the defendants offered no evidence creating a real factual dispute.
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Sovereign Medical Services, P.C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a no-fault arbitration award for a medical provider, holding that American Transit failed to show any basis to overturn the master arbitrator’s ruling that a prior decision barred the insurer from denying the claim over verification issues. The decision matters because it emphasizes how limited court review is in no-fault arbitration: if the award is rational and supported by the record, it must be confirmed.
The People of the State of New York v. Daniel Mikalonis (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 21, 2026)
The Third Department ruled that although Daniel Mikalonis was properly given points for a history of marijuana abuse under New York’s sex offender registration law, his unusually strong progress in treatment justified lowering his classification from risk level two to risk level one. The decision matters because it shows that regular marijuana abuse can still affect a SORA risk score, but exceptional treatment results can support a lower final classification.
Matter of Gabriel Rich v. Daniel F. Martuscello III (Appellate Division, Third Department, May 21, 2026)
The Third Department dismissed an incarcerated petitioner’s challenge to a prison disciplinary ruling because the Department of Corrections had already reversed the ruling, erased it from his record, and refunded the $5 disciplinary surcharge. The court also directed reimbursement of his $15 reduced filing fee, underscoring that once full relief is given administratively, an Article 78 case is moot except for any remaining costs.
S.M. et al. v. City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, May 21, 2026)
In a negligence suit over a mother's fatal stabbing of one child and injury to another, the First Department ruled that the plaintiffs can obtain her medical and psychiatric records from Lincoln Medical Center. The court held that by filing a CPL 250.10 notice in her criminal case to pursue a psychiatric defense, she put her mental condition at issue and waived confidentiality protections. This matters because it confirms that a criminal defendant's psychiatric-defense notice can open otherwise protected mental health records to discovery in related civil cases.
U.S. Bank National Association v. White (Appellate Division, Second Department, May 20, 2026)
The Second Department affirmed an order refusing to let U.S. Bank add a property owner to a foreclosure case more than 11 years after the case began and after the foreclosure time limit had run. The court said the owner’s deed had been on record before the case was filed, the bank had no good reason for the delay, and the related notice against the property could therefore be canceled.