Century First Credit Solutions, Inc. v. Priority Capital, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 20, 2026)
The case involves alleged trade secret theft in the business credit services sector and whether two company officers can be personally liable. The First Department reinstated the misappropriation and conspiracy-to-misappropriate claims against the officers, but left in place the dismissal of the conspiracy-to-tortiously-interfere claim. It underscores that officers may face personal liability for participating and benefiting, and that conspiracy claims can proceed when a viable underlying tort exists, while conclusory allegations fail.
Read more: Click here
Graziella Maria Villarreal Garza v. Raul Ramirez (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
The First Department increased the wife’s interim counsel fees to $75,000 and otherwise affirmed the trial court. It left in place rulings refusing to expand discovery into the husband’s dating life or his mother’s finances, denied improper renewal/reargument motions, and upheld case‑management orders. The decision underscores that CPLR 3103 limits discovery and that the less‑monied spouse is presumptively entitled to meaningful interim fees.
Read more: Click here
Holly Ellison v. Sandra Schulte (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
Dispute over a co-op apartment and promised replacement housing under a prenuptial agreement after the owner’s death. The First Department affirmed a default judgment ejecting the defendant and declaring the plaintiff’s right to possession. The First Department reinstated the defendant’s prenup-based counterclaims as not barred or late because they weren’t ready to bring until her occupancy was finally denied, and left in place dismissal of claims to force a co-op transfer and recover expenses, clarifying that later, individual claims aren’t blocked by earlier Surrogate’s Court cases.
Read more: Click here
Marlon Garcia v. CityMeals-On-Wheels Property, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
The First Department affirmed summary judgment for the worker under Labor Law § 240(1), finding the wind-toppled rooftop barrier and its hardware were elevation-related hazards that needed securing. The First Department reinstated the owner and contractor’s third-party claim that the subcontractor failed to procure additional insured coverage, because a federal coverage case is pending and policy equivalency issues remain. The decision underscores that temporary rooftop barriers must be properly secured and that insurance procurement claims should not be dismissed while coverage is unresolved.
Read more: Click here
National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Inc. v. Midtown Coalition Space LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
A commercial sublease dispute asked whether a 2019 settlement modified or ended the lease and if overlandlord consent was required. The First Department granted the plaintiff summary judgment, dismissed the tenant’s defenses, and sent the case back to calculate damages. It held the tenant was barred by a prior guarantor ruling and, by staying and paying rent, had accepted the settlement, making consent and other bare defenses ineffective.
Read more: Click here
John Doe 42, et al. v. Yeshiva University, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 20, 2026)
This case involves CVA claims over historic abuse at Yeshiva University and whether a “safe environment” negligence claim duplicates negligent supervision or retention. The First Department dismissed the safe‑environment claim as duplicative but allowed claims against Rabbi Robert Hirt and punitive damages to proceed at this early stage. It matters because the ruling limits duplicative negligence theories in CVA cases, while allegations of institutional knowledge and concealment can keep administrators and punitive damages in the case.
Read more: Click here
Allison Prete et al. v. JJ Hoyt LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
This case involves a trip-and-fall on a sidewalk section used as a driveway by the abutting owner of a residential building. The First Department reinstated the complaint, finding that even with the § 7-210 owner-occupied exemption, there are triable issues whether the owner’s driveway use caused the defect under the special-use doctrine. The decision confirms the exemption does not foreclose common-law liability and that conclusory expert opinions cannot support summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
BH 336 Partners LLC, et al. v. Sentinel Real Estate Corporation, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
Investors said they were misled into buying Manhattan buildings by false claims that rent-stabilized units were legally deregulated. The First Department dismissed most claims as time-barred, except those by EZ Wadsworth Partners LLC and BH 336 Partners LLC, and ruled those buyers alleged standing and were not blocked by generic disclaimers. The court emphasized that a 2019 NYAG complaint put buyers on notice to investigate, starting the two-year window, and that broad assignments can transfer fraud claims.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Mata Balogh (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
A defendant who pled guilty to attempted gun possession challenged broad probation conditions and New York’s firearm licensing scheme. The First Department struck nine boilerplate probation conditions and the surcharge/fees, but otherwise affirmed the conviction and probation. It also allowed the Second Amendment claim despite an appeal waiver and no license application, but found the indictment constitutional under Bruen, emphasizing that probation terms must be individualized.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Akim Massie (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
After pleading guilty to firearm possession and menacing, the defendant challenged his probation terms and sentence. The First Department struck a gang-association condition for lack of any record tie to gangs, upheld another condition, and said a valid appeal waiver barred the excessive-sentence claim. It confirms that statutory challenges to probation conditions can be reviewed despite an appeal waiver, and that gang-related limits need record support.
Read more: Click here
Meagan McGough v. Phillips & Associates, PLLC (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
A plaintiff claimed a law firm knowingly filed a false harassment suit and circulated a draft complaint to her students, harming her reputation and business. The First Department reinstated tortious-interference and defamation claims tied to the out-of-court sharing, holding the “sham” exception may apply and that litigation privilege does not extend to nonparticipants. The First Department affirmed dismissal of abuse of process and intentional infliction claims and confirmed that statements in pleadings and to the court remain absolutely privileged.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Kingsley A. Subonteng (Appellate Division, First Department, January 22, 2026)
The First Department modified the judgment to remove a probation condition requiring payment of mandatory surcharges and fees, and otherwise affirmed the plea-based conviction and probation terms. It enforced the defendant’s appeal waiver and declined an unpreserved Second Amendment challenge to New York’s “good moral character” licensing rule. The ruling confirms that rehabilitation-related probation conditions are permissible but fees cannot be probation conditions, and any related ineffective-assistance claim must be brought via a CPL 440.10 motion.
Read more: Click here
Peterkin v. Westchester Parks Foundation, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
A county parks employee was injured while cutting a tree near preparations for a holiday light show and sued under Labor Law § 240(1). The Second Department dismissed the claim, holding the work was routine tree maintenance and not erection or alteration of a building or structure. The decision confirms § 240(1) does not cover tree-pruning from a bucket truck unless it is directly tied to construction or renovation of a qualifying structure.
Read more: Click here
Ramirez v. Issa (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
Restaurant co-owners clashed after the executive chef was fired, leading to claims for unpaid wages, conversion of equipment, and defamation. The Second Department dismissed the conversion, defamation, and Labor Law §195 claims, but allowed the Labor Law §193 wage claim to proceed. The ruling confirms §193 can reach wage nonpayment and underscores strict pleading for conversion (specific property) and defamation (how and to whom it was published).
Read more: Click here
Estate of Joyce Moore v. Nassau Operating Company, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
The case alleges a Nassau County nursing home failed to protect residents from COVID-19. The Second Department dismissed the complaint without prejudice against Nassau Operating Company, LLC and Bent Philipson because the plaintiff had not yet been appointed administrator, but allowed refiling within six months under CPLR 205(a). The ruling confirms that only a duly appointed estate representative may bring survival and wrongful-death claims.
Read more: Click here
Monica Chamale-Eustace v. State University of New York at Stony Brook, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
A surgical technologist alleged a surgeon struck her and targeted female staff in the operating room, suing under federal civil rights law, the NY Human Rights Law, and negligence. The Second Department dismissed all claims against the surgeon, finding no alleged adverse job action, that an individual cannot aid and abet his own conduct under the NYSHRL, and that negligence was abandoned. The ruling underscores that abusive incidents without concrete job harm do not support a § 1983 disparate-treatment claim and narrows individual liability under the NYSHRL.
Read more: Click here
Rymer v. Bernstein (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-01-21)
A patient alleges her surgeon performed an unnecessary bunionectomy during foot and ankle surgery without informed consent. The Second Department reinstated her informed-consent claim because the doctor relied on a signed form and did not show adequate disclosure or rule out causation. It confirms that in New York, a consent form alone will not support summary judgment on informed-consent claims.
Read more: Click here
Bank of America, N.A. v. Keefer (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
The Second Department affirmed dismissal of the foreclosure claims against James E. Keefer, Jr. because the bank did not strictly follow RPAPL 1304; each borrower must get a separate 90-day notice. The Second Department reinstated the bank’s bid for a default judgment against Lynn Marie Keefer, holding that the CPLR 3215(c) one-year deadline was paused during CPLR 3408 settlement conferences and the bank moved on time.
Read more: Click here
224 Lefferts Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation v. Haile (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
After a 2017 default judgment in a slip-and-fall case, the defendant fund filed a new declaratory suit claiming it was a different entity, and the plaintiff moved to amend the old case and judgment. The Second Department dismissed the declaratory action as an improper collateral attack and reversed the orders that retroactively substituted the fund and deemed service effective. The court held that any jurisdiction challenge must be made by a CPLR 5015(a)(4) motion in the original case and that CPLR 5019(a) cannot be used to make substantive changes to pleadings or judgments.
Read more: Click here
Yi-Ching Liu v. Philip J. Chu, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
A delivery worker claimed he was knocked down by the defendants’ dog and sued under strict liability. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, reversing the lower court’s denial of summary judgment. The court found no proof the owners knew of vicious propensities; normal dog behavior and an affidavit contradicting deposition testimony were not enough.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v. Melanie L. Rios (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
The case involved Allstate’s attempt to permanently stay a supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) arbitration, arguing the claimant wasn’t a covered resident relative. The Second Department reinstated the arbitration because Allstate failed to submit the actual policy and relied on a sample document, so it did not make a prima facie showing. The ruling signals that insurers must attach the operative policy and admissible proof to obtain a stay; otherwise, there will be no stay and no framed-issue hearing.
Read more: Click here
Ramirez v. Issa (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
This case stems from a 50-50 restaurant ownership dispute after the executive chef was terminated. The Second Department struck several defenses and dismissed fiduciary duty and trespass to chattels counterclaims, but reinstated unfair competition and allowed faithless-servant contract and trade secret claims to proceed. It clarifies that tort claims duplicating a contract theory will be dismissed, while well-pleaded loyalty, employee-raiding, and confidential customer list allegations can go forward.
Read more: Click here
Liying Qian v. Henry Eggens, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-01-21)
A pedestrian was hit while crossing when a police officer made a prohibited left turn. The Second Department granted the pedestrian summary judgment on liability because the illegal turn and failure to use due care established the driver’s negligence. However, it left comparative negligence for trial due to disputes about whether the pedestrian was in the crosswalk.
Read more: Click here
Jackson v. A M E Zion-Trinity Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
After the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s constructive notice claim and later the entire case in a snow-and-ice slip-and-fall at an apartment parking lot, The Second Department reinstated the constructive notice claim. The court found defendants offered only general snow-removal practices and no proof of when the area was last inspected or treated. The decision signals that property owners need time-specific inspection or treatment evidence to win summary judgment in snow/ice cases.
Read more: Click here
Hello Beautiful Salons, Inc. v. Dimoplon (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
A salon alleged that former employees used its Clover login to reroute online bookings to their new competing salon. The Second Department reinstated trespass to chattels, tortious interference, and breach of contract claims and allowed amendment, but left fraud and General Business Law § 349 dismissed. The decision confirms that unauthorized access to a company’s booking system and diversion of client requests can support business tort and contract claims, while fraud and § 349 require specific, consumer‑oriented allegations.
Read more: Click here
Cannon v. H&L Contracting, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
A bridge-repair worker sued his employer, which also owned the barge, for two injuries under the LHWCA. The Second Department dismissed the case, finding the first incident arose from employer worksite conditions and the second occurred on a pile cap—an extension of land—so there was no vessel-owner liability. It confirms that when an employer also owns the vessel, it is only liable for negligence in its role as vessel owner.
Read more: Click here
I.R., et al. v. Santos, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
This case asked whether to hold a unified trial in a child’s foot-injury suit, where the sides dispute whether a van ran over her foot or she fell from a bicycle. The Second Department reversed and ordered a unified trial. It held that the injury evidence will directly help decide how the accident happened and liability, signaling that unification is proper when medical proof bears on causation.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Wyandanch Union Free School District v. Town of Babylon Industrial Development Agency (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 21, 2026)
A school district challenged the Babylon IDA’s tax breaks for an affordable senior housing project, claiming the IDA Act does not cover residential projects. The Second Department affirmed, holding the statute’s broad language permits such projects and that the IDA had a rational basis tied to jobs and economic revitalization. The ruling confirms IDAs may support affordable housing when backed by findings that it advances employment and combats economic decline.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of the Trusts Created by the Will of Jennifer Damiano, Deceased (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 22, 2026)
A domestic partner sought to remove the trustee of her children’s trusts and shift legal fees, alleging mismanagement. The Third Department affirmed the denial of removal and found the trustee’s actions reasonable, but reversed the fee-sanction award because the petitioner was not given a meaningful chance to be heard. The ruling underscores the high bar for removing a trustee and that sanctions require notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Shannon JJ. v. George JJ. (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 22, 2026)
The Third Department reversed Family Court and found the father willfully failed to pay child support based on undisputed nonpayment. He offered no credible, documented proof of inability to pay or meaningful efforts to comply. The ruling underscores that nonpayment presumes willfulness and that satisfying arrears or ending basic support does not moot sanctions or obligations for add-on expenses.
Read more: Click here
Congregation Yeshiva Yoreh Deah Inc. v. Ozomek (Assessor of the Town of Liberty), et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 22, 2026)
This case concerns a not-for-profit’s bid for a property-tax exemption under RPTL 420-a and the Town’s claim that a zoning violation blocks it. The Third Department reversed the Town’s summary-judgment win because it offered no admissible proof of a zoning violation, and it left in place the denial of the not-for-profit’s motion for lack of evidence of exclusive exempt use. The ruling underscores that petitioners need concrete records beyond a 501(c)(3) letter, and municipalities must submit admissible zoning proof to defeat an exemption.
Read more: Click here