In the Matter of UBS Securities LLC, et al. v. James Dondero, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 24, 2026)
In this judgment-enforcement fight stemming from the failed Knox securitization, The First Department ruled that UBS can keep pursuing most claims that James Dondero used affiliated entities to move assets and avoid paying more than $1 billion in New York judgments. The court threw out the alter ego claim against Scott Ellington and narrowed part of the claim against Dondero, but the decision is significant because it confirms that later asset transfers meant to block collection can support veil-piercing and fraudulent transfer claims under New York law.
I.M., an Infant by his Parent and Natural Guardian, Denise Bryant, et al. v. The City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 22, 2026)
This case stems from emergency responders’ handling of the delivery of a second twin, where the family claims delays and failures to follow childbirth protocols caused serious injuries. The First Department let most of the malpractice and negligence claims proceed against the City and the ambulance company, finding factual disputes about whether responders followed required protocols and whether those actions caused harm, but it dismissed the separate negligent hiring, training, and retention claim against the City.
I.M., an Infant by his Parent and Natural Guardian, Denise Bryant, et al. v. The City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 22, 2026)
This case stems from an emergency twin delivery in which the family claims New York City EMTs and ambulance personnel delayed the second baby’s birth and caused serious injuries. The First Department let most of the negligence and malpractice claims move forward, finding factual disputes over whether responders followed childbirth protocols, whether the City owed a special duty, and whether immunity applies, but it dismissed the negligent hiring, training, and retention claim against the City.
The decision matters because it shows that when emergency-response protocols and expert opinions conflict, courts are likely to leave those issues for a jury rather than ending the case early.
The People of the State of New York v. Robert Fulladosa (Appellate Division, First Department, September 24, 2026)
In People v. Fulladosa, the First Department ruled that police unlawfully searched the defendant after deciding to take him into custody for disorderly conduct instead of giving him an appearance ticket. The First Department suppressed the gun and other evidence, reversed the conviction, and dismissed the indictment, holding that officers could not justify the search by pointing to suspected drug activity they had already chosen not to arrest him for.
Martinez v. 56th Realty LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, September 22, 2026)
The First Department reversed summary judgment that had required Puca Construction to indemnify 56th Realty for a worker’s construction-site injury. The court found factual disputes over whether the owner’s management-related agents may have helped cause the accident, which matters because an owner cannot enforce a construction indemnity clause for injuries caused by its own negligence or that of its agents.
Bent v. Cirone (Appellate Division, First Department, September 24, 2026)
The First Department reinstated several direct claims against individual condominium board members in a dispute alleging a retaliatory campaign against a unit occupant, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged the members personally took part in or approved the misconduct. It left dismissed the claims brought on behalf of other unit owners and the records-inspection claim, holding that an assignment of claims from the owner’s wife did not give the plaintiff the ownership interest needed to sue for the condominium.
The People of the State of New York v. Miguel Sabater (Appellate Division, First Department, September 24, 2026)
The First Department upheld Miguel Sabater’s second-degree assault conviction and reversed a lower court order that had reduced his sentence from persistent violent felony offender status. The court said judges, not juries, may decide whether prior prison time extends the lookback period for repeat-offender sentencing when that decision is based on official records, and it also stressed that failing to challenge the prosecution’s prior-felony allegations can count as admitting them.
Gilbert v. Powers (Appellate Division, First Department, September 24, 2026)
The First Department ruled that an earlier sanctions decision against a condominium board did not automatically prove that all current and former board members breached their duties in this later case. It held that only Bradford Winston’s bad-faith conduct in the prior litigation was conclusively established, while the remaining claims must be litigated, and it also reinstated subpoenas to nonparties.
Imberson Veliu v. Verizon New York Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 22, 2026)
In a construction-site injury case, a worker claimed he was entitled to judgment under New York’s scaffold law after concrete struck him in a trench during Verizon-related work. The First Department reversed the lower court’s ruling and denied summary judgment, finding factual disputes about how the accident happened and whether the worker failed to use available trench bracing.
Imberson Veliu v. Verizon New York Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 22, 2026)
A worker injured by concrete in a trench on a Verizon project was not entitled to an automatic win on his Labor Law claim. The First Department reversed the lower court’s ruling because there were key factual disputes about how the accident happened and whether available trench bracing could have prevented it, which may make the worker partly or fully responsible.
Matter of Rizzotto v. Romano (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a Nassau County judge should not have denied a minority shareholder’s request to dissolve an auto collision repair business without first holding a hearing. The court found that the shareholder’s filings were enough to raise claims of oppression and mishandling of company assets, and the decision matters because it confirms that disputed facts in closely held business breakups must be tested at a hearing before a dissolution request is rejected.
C. N. v. Sigma Delta Tau Society (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a former sorority member could keep her negligence lawsuit in court instead of being forced into arbitration after she alleged the sorority required her to attend an event where she was later sexually assaulted by a third party. The court held that the federal law banning mandatory arbitration in sexual assault disputes can also cover related negligence claims, even when the defendant is not the alleged assailant.
C. N. v. Sigma Delta Tau Society (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
The Second Department reversed an order that required a SUNY Cortland student to arbitrate her negligence claims against Sigma Delta Tau in Indiana after she alleged the sorority failed to protect her from a sexual assault at a required event. The court held that the federal law barring forced arbitration in sexual assault disputes can also apply to negligence claims against a third party when those claims are closely connected to the alleged assault. This matters because it gives plaintiffs a stronger path to stay in court even when they signed a pre-dispute arbitration agreement.
Prospect Auto Sales and Repairs, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated an auto repair shop’s lawsuit against State Farm over unpaid collision-repair charges, holding that the shop’s claim was really for breach of the insurance policy, not an improper standalone claim under insurance statutes or regulations. The court also found that State Farm had not backed up its payment decision with reliable evidence, which matters because it confirms insurers must support reduced repair payments with competent proof.
SMG Automotive Holdings, LLC v. Brooklyn Store, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In this commercial real estate dispute over a car dealership property, the key issue was whether SMG, as a subtenant and assignee, had the right to use a lease option to buy the property. The Second Department threw out several of the landlord’s defenses, but it refused to grant SMG summary judgment because more discovery is needed on whether the assignment giving SMG that right was valid.
The decision matters because it shows that a written assignment may support standing, but courts may still wait for more fact-finding before deciding who can enforce a purchase option.
DBW TL Holdco 2014, LLC v. Kirk (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In this tax lien foreclosure case, the plaintiff settled with one defendant and asked to remove her from the case and update the foreclosure judgment to match that settlement. The Second Department reversed the lower court and granted that request, finding no proof that doing so would unfairly harm another party. This matters because it confirms that New York courts will usually allow a case to be discontinued against a settling party unless someone can show real prejudice or another improper result.
Weber v. Barnett (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In Weber v. Barnett, the dispute centered on whether Gary Barnett had a one-third ownership interest in entities connected to Rockland County property sales and whether part of the sale proceeds should be frozen while the case proceeds. The Second Department reversed the lower court’s injunction, finding that Barnett had not clearly shown he was likely to win on that claim and that any harm could be addressed with money damages. This matters because it reinforces that New York courts will not freeze assets before trial unless the claim is strong and the harm cannot be fixed later with a financial award.
Matter of Landa v. Rockland County (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
This case involves a FOIL request for records about the denial of a pistol permit application. The Second Department reinstated the case, holding that Rockland County’s failure to respond to the FOIL appeal on time counted as a denial, and that the dispute was still active because the parties continued to disagree over redactions and withheld records.
The ruling matters because it confirms that agencies cannot avoid court review by responding late or producing only some records after a lawsuit is filed, and that a lower court may need to privately review documents to decide whether claimed exemptions are proper.
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Cassis (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department ruled that the borrower gave up her challenge to personal jurisdiction by filing a general notice of appearance and then waiting about 3½ years to raise that issue. The court also found her later effort to strike the note of issue was too late, reinforcing that defendants must raise service objections promptly and cannot undo a case’s trial status without unusual circumstances.
Matter of Zachary P. Nash v. New York City Transit Authority, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In a subway accident case, the Second Department ruled that a severely injured claimant may continue his case against the New York City Transit Authority and MTA even though his notice of claim was filed late. The court found that the agencies already knew the key facts because they quickly investigated the incident, were not meaningfully harmed by the delay, and the claimant’s catastrophic injuries and recovery provided a reasonable excuse.
Pierre v. Sunrise Medical Laboratories (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In this medical malpractice and wrongful death case over allegedly misread Pap smear results, the Second Department reinstated the case to the trial calendar after finding that some claims against the lab and its employees were still alive and had been marked disposed by administrative mistake. The court refused to formally correct the earlier order because the error appeared only in a footnote and did not affect the ruling, but the decision matters because it confirms that surviving claims should not be lost due to clerical error.
Segura v. Smith (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In this rear-end car accident case, the Second Department left in place summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability and dismissed the defendants’ seatbelt and assumption of risk defenses. But it allowed the comparative negligence defense to remain because the plaintiff’s own evidence suggested he may have stopped suddenly, showing that even when liability is clear, a plaintiff must still rule out possible fault on his own part.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v. Gezlev (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
The Second Department reversed an order that had set aside a foreclosure sale, holding that a later payoff attempt and private closing could not undo the auction once it had ended. The court reinstated the foreclosure judgment and sale, and ruled that the winning bidder was entitled to complete the purchase. This matters because it confirms that redemption rights end when the foreclosure auction closes, and a low bid alone will not overturn a sale without fraud or similar misconduct.
Stanley Supply & Tool, Inc. v. Robert Edward Smallwood (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
This case involved a creditor trying to collect a judgment by forcing the debtor’s attorney, a nonparty, to turn over money allegedly belonging to the debtor. The Second Department ruled that the creditor used the wrong procedure and could not get that relief by motion in the existing case, so it denied the turnover request. The decision matters because it confirms that funds held by a nonparty must be pursued in a separate special proceeding, and that a restraining notice against a garnishee expires after one year.
Hoefler v. Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In a school injury case, a woman claimed she was hurt after hitting her head on a window air conditioner that stuck out into a school courtyard. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, finding the unit was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, which matters because property owners generally do not have to warn about or protect against clearly visible, nonhazardous conditions.
In the Matter of Carmela II. v. Juan II. et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 24, 2026)
The Third Department ruled that the children’s paternal grandmother could still seek visitation because the evidence showed she had a close, caring relationship with the children and that contact was in their best interests. But it overturned the specific schedule of unsupervised weekly dinners and monthly overnight visits, sending the case back for a new plan because the grandmother had not seen the children for nearly two years during the appeal, and it also ordered a new attorney for the children to ensure their views are properly presented.
Matter of Barletta v. Martuscello III (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 24, 2026)
The Third Department held that although an incarcerated person’s FOIL claims for two prison misbehavior reports became moot after the agency turned over the records, his request for litigation costs could still go forward. The court sent the case back for the trial court to decide whether to award costs, emphasizing that a requester may substantially prevail when records are produced only after suit is filed and the agency failed to respond on time.
The People of the State of New York v. Najahliek Edmunds (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 24, 2026)
The Third Department reversed a Columbia County man’s convictions for menacing a police officer and resisting arrest and ordered a new trial. The court said the evidence against him was strong enough and his waiver of indictment was valid, but the trial judge made a reversible error by keeping a prospective juror who showed possible bias in favor of law enforcement without getting a clear promise that the juror could be fair.
Castracane v. Kasmier et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 24, 2026)
The Third Department dismissed property owners’ common-law indemnification claims against Amazon after an Amazon delivery driver was allegedly attacked by dogs at a residence. The court held that because the owners were accused of their own negligence in failing to control the dogs, they could not shift liability to Amazon after Amazon settled the case. This decision matters because it confirms that a defendant sued for its own conduct cannot repackage a dispute over relative fault into an indemnification claim.
The People of the State of New York v. Terell R. Wilson (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 24, 2026)
The Third Department ruled that the trial court should not have rejected the defendant’s speedy-trial challenge as too late after undisclosed oral statements came to light in discovery. It sent the case back for a closer look at whether prosecutors properly certified that discovery was complete before declaring they were ready for trial, a decision that underscores that missing discovery can affect speedy-trial deadlines and the validity of a conviction.
Matter of Goldstein v. Town of Niskayuna (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 24, 2026)
The Third Department overturned the Town of Niskayuna’s decision to fire a municipal IT employee over the unauthorized recording of nonpolice phone calls. The court said the hearing officer did not clearly explain what facts proved each charge and appeared to rely on disputed hearsay while putting too much weight on the employee’s failure to disprove the allegations. This matters because public employers must clearly prove misconduct with specific findings before terminating a civil service employee.
Matter of New York State Police v. Owen WW. (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 24, 2026)
The Third Department reversed a lower court’s denial of an extreme risk protection order sought against a high school student who allegedly made violent threats and showed alarming behavior. The court said an ERPO does not require proof that the person had a gun, could access one, or threatened to use one, and it sent the case back for a full hearing.
Aurelius Capital Master Ltd. v. Hertz International Ltd. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 22, 2026)
The First Department upheld a judgment requiring Hertz to pay noteholders a 5% premium, worth about $15.9 million, under a COVID-era restructuring deal. The court found Hertz had committed to replacement financing before the agreement expired, even though the final financing documents were signed later. The decision matters because it shows New York courts will look at the deal’s practical terms and will not award attorneys’ fees unless the contract clearly says they are available in disputes between the parties.
Juarez v. Avacon Management LLC doing business as Avacon Builders Developers (Appellate Division, First Department, September 22, 2026)
In this construction injury case, The First Department upheld dismissal of the general contractor’s claims against the subcontractor after a worker fell from a scaffold. The court said the subcontract could not shift liability because the parties never clearly agreed on the subcontractor’s scope of work, and it also found the subcontractor obtained the required insurance.
Murphy v. Gallegos (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 23, 2026)
In a personal injury suit arising from a crash between a driver and a police car responding to a fight call, the Second Department affirmed dismissal of the case. The court held that because the officer was making an emergency-response U-turn, the plaintiff had to show reckless disregard for safety, not just ordinary negligence, and the evidence showed only a slow-speed misjudgment at most. This matters because it confirms that claims involving emergency police driving face a much higher bar, even where there are disputes about sirens or lights.