Bobbi Piscitelli v. Deloitte Services, LLP, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
A former Deloitte employee alleged pregnancy-related discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws and also brought paid family leave claims. The First Department dismissed only the disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate components because the plaintiff disclaimed any disability theory and otherwise affirmed. It also noted the paid family leave claims had already been discontinued with prejudice, underscoring that withdrawn theories and stipulated dismissals narrow what remains.
Read more:
Click here
Petronilo Pena Cerda v. Cydonia W71, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
A worker was hit by an unsecured plank jutting from a scaffold; the First Department affirmed partial summary judgment for him under Labor Law § 240(1) against the owner and general contractor. The court also conditionally granted those defendants contractual indemnification from subcontractor Standard, but kept Standard’s indemnity claim against Xuntos denied because Standard didn’t show it was free of fault. This underscores that unsecured scaffold components trigger § 240(1) and that owners/GCs may obtain conditional indemnity when their liability is purely vicarious.
Read more:
Click here
Myrna Rouse v. Abdurhman Ahmed, M.D., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
This med-mal/wrongful-death case alleges the providers failed to regularly turn and position a patient, causing multiple pressure ulcers that contributed to her death. The First Department dismissed the unopposed lack of informed consent claim but otherwise affirmed denial of summary judgment because the defense expert was conclusory, failed to address multiple ulcers and causation, and could not fix those gaps in reply. The decision underscores that defendants must submit detailed, case-specific expert opinions to meet their initial summary-judgment burden.
Read more:
Click here
Guaman Guaman v. 240 West 44th Street Two LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
A construction worker was cut when a power saw allegedly kicked back and its guard failed, implicating Labor Law § 241(6). The First Department affirmed summary judgment for the worker against the owner and general contractor, upheld denial of a late bid to add Lough Allen, and reinstated the owner/GCs’ contractual indemnity claim against subcontractor Ground Force. The decision underscores that broad subcontract indemnity clauses can keep indemnity in play, but parties must present admissible proof of the contract to obtain judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Ruben Ortiz v. The City of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
A construction worker was injured when an unsecured A-frame ladder shifted and collapsed. The First Department affirmed summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) and rejected defendants’ arguments about comparative fault and speculative causes. The First Department dismissed the § 241(6) claim based on the leaning-ladder regulation, clarifying that rule does not apply to open A-frame ladders.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. William Rivera (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
People v. Rivera centered on whether the trial court properly accepted the defendant’s waiver of a lawyer and jury. The First Department reversed the conviction and resentence and sent the case back for new hearings and a new trial. It found the court failed to do a thorough, individualized inquiry or warn about the risks and possible aggregate sentence, making the waivers—and the pretrial and jury waivers—invalid.
Read more:
Click here
Helena Rosenblatt v. Marvin Rosenblatt (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
After a divorce, the parties fought over payment of 108,682.02 Swiss francs and the sale of their New York City apartment under their settlement agreement. The First Department reversed the trial court, vacated the receiver and fee award, and stayed the case, holding the agreement’s mandatory mediation clause must be honored first. The decision underscores that courts will enforce clear mediation provisions in matrimonial settlements, making enforcement measures premature until mediation occurs.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. John Rondon-Tavares (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
This case asked whether an appeals court can remove “mandatory” surcharges and fees from a criminal sentence. The First Department removed those charges in the interest of justice and left the conviction and prison term intact. The prosecution did not oppose, and the ruling confirms the court’s discretion to waive these costs.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of L.P.G., and Others (Children Under Eighteen Years of Age), L.B., Respondent-Appellant v. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent-Respondent (Appellate Division, First Department, December 23, 2025)
ACS alleged a parent sexually abused one child, derivatively neglected the others, and neglected the children due to alcohol use. The First Department upheld sexual abuse of L.P.G. and derivative neglect of the siblings, but vacated the alcohol-based neglect and corrected a clerical error regarding V.B.G. The court held that a child’s statements to a treating psychologist are admissible without corroboration and that alcohol-based neglect requires proof of repeated misuse causing loss of self-control.
Read more:
Click here
Kelly v. RBSL Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
A construction worker was hit when a crane-lowered concrete light‑pole base allegedly jerked while being set in a trench. The Second Department dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common‑law negligence claims against the owner, lessee, and manager for lack of control, confirming that general oversight is not § 200 supervision. But it let the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims proceed and kept Potente’s control and indemnification issues alive, since a suddenly moving hoisted object can present a § 240(1) risk.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Singh v. Singh (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
This case asked whether Deewan Singh’s lawyer had to be removed from family-offense cases because he previously did real estate work for a relative and might be a witness. The Second Department reinstated the lawyer, finding no close link to the prior representation, no risk of misusing confidential information, and no showing that his testimony was necessary or would prejudice Deewan. The ruling confirms that counsel won’t be disqualified without a clear tie to prior work or a truly necessary, harmful witness role.
Read more:
Click here
Carroccio v. Camia (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
This case involved claims over the disputed sale of an ATM business against Saveria Camia, E‑Z Money/Frank Ercole, and Payment Alliance International. The Second Department dismissed all claims. The court found no enrichment at the plaintiffs’ expense, no unauthorized control of their property, no specific misstatements the plaintiffs reasonably relied on, and that PAI followed its contract and owed no separate duty.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Kallop v. Poserina; Matter of Poserina v. Kallop (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-24)
In a custody dispute involving relocation, the Second Department upheld giving the father sole legal and residential custody but struck the provision that left the mother’s parenting time to mutual agreement. It remitted for a prompt, specific access schedule, leaving the interim mutual-agreement arrangement in place until then. The ruling reinforces that courts must set clear visitation schedules and that relocation is just one factor in the child’s best interests.
Read more:
Click here
Macru v. Shorefront Operating, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
This case involves COVID-era nursing home liability and claimed immunity under the EDTPA, the PREP Act, and Executive Order 202.10. The Second Department dismissed the wrongful death claim as untimely but otherwise let the negligence and resident-rights claims proceed because Shorefront did not conclusively show statutory immunity and the executive order is not a shield. The decision underscores that immunity defenses need concrete proof at the pleading stage, and wrongful death claims must meet the two-year deadline after pandemic tolling.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Atlantic Medical Care, P.C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
This case involved a no-fault arbitration win for a medical provider that an insurer tried to overturn based on the passenger patient’s slightly late accident notice. The Second Department dismissed the insurer’s petition and confirmed the master arbitrator’s award, sending the case back only to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees. The ruling underscores that master arbitrator awards can be set aside only if irrational, and that a minor notice delay by a passenger can be reasonably justified.
Read more:
Click here
Annarumma v. Tola (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
A rear-end crash on icy Staten Island roads led the defendants to claim a sudden emergency excused their conduct. The Second Department reinstated the claims against them, finding they did not conclusively show a nonnegligent explanation and that factual disputes remain about speed, following distance, and control. The decision highlights that in icy rear-end cases, the emergency doctrine rarely warrants summary judgment because whether the hazard was sudden and the response reasonable is usually for a jury.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of DeStefano v. Dutchess County Sheriff's Office (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
The Second Department held that the sheriff’s later FOIL disclosure mooted only the request to compel records. The Second Department reinstated the requester’s claim for attorneys’ fees because the agency did not conclusively show it responded on time, and unverified email printouts were not enough. This matters because disclosure can end the production fight, but agencies may still face fees for missing FOIL deadlines.
Read more:
Click here
Jesan Construction Group, LLC v. Medford Ber, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-12-24)
Jesan Construction Group’s construction-contract suit against Medford Ber was initially dismissed. After the trial court let Jesan renew its opposition using a document it already possessed, The Second Department reinstated the dismissal. The decision emphasizes that renewal requires truly new facts and a reasonable excuse for not presenting them earlier.
Read more:
Click here
Yellin v. Revival Property Group, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
Homebuyers said their brokers secretly acted as dual agents and misled them about a flipped home’s condition; the trial court dismissed their fraud, negligent misrepresentation, gross negligence, and fiduciary duty claims. The Second Department reinstated those claims, denied the brokers’ bid to dismiss, and granted leave to amend. It held that early dismissal is improper where the documents don’t definitively disprove the allegations, a one‑buyer agency disclosure form isn’t enough, and judges can’t turn a dismissal motion into summary judgment without notice.
Read more:
Click here
Abdiev v. Struett (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
A car-accident negligence case over a turn/passing collision was initially dismissed on summary judgment after the trial court found the plaintiff solely at fault. The Second Department reinstated the case because conflicting testimony and an unclear dashcam video left factual disputes about fault. The decision underscores that a defendant cannot win early dismissal without clearly showing freedom from fault, and there may be more than one cause of the crash.
Read more:
Click here
M.F. v. Putnam County, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
A foster child alleged a St. Anne Institute teacher abused her almost daily for months and sued Putnam County and SAI under the Child Victims Act. The Second Department reinstated the negligence claims, finding the alleged months-long classroom abuse could have been noticed and anticipated. The ruling signals that agencies caring for foster children can’t win early dismissal by claiming no actual notice when the circumstances suggest they should have known.
Read more:
Click here
Elias Etimos v. Casa Bella Property Management, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
A pedestrian who tripped on a sidewalk sued a homeowners association and its property managers for negligent maintenance. The Second Department dismissed the complaint and reversed the trial court because deeds showed the defendants did not own the property abutting the sidewalk. The decision confirms that under NYC Administrative Code § 7-210, only the abutting owner owes the sidewalk duty, and deed records can support early dismissal at the pleading stage.
Read more:
Click here
Negron v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
Negron sued the State for unjust conviction after his convictions were vacated and the charges were dismissed, but the Court of Claims dismissed his case because the vacatur order did not specify the CPL 440.10 ground. The Second Department reinstated the claim, holding the pleadings were sufficient at this stage and that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the basis for vacatur when the order is silent. This matters because § 8-b claims should not be dismissed early solely due to a vacatur order lacking a specific citation.
Read more:
Click here
Island Trees Union Free School District v. A 1 Construction Service, Inc., et al.; One Beacon Insurance Group (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
This case asks whether the School District qualified as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s liability policy based on an agreement that could be oral. The Second Department reinstated the School District’s coverage claim by reversing One Beacon’s summary judgment, while still denying the District’s own motion. It matters because the endorsement required no writing or notice, so a possible oral agreement creates a fact issue; insurers can’t win summary judgment just by pointing to no writing, and a certificate alone won’t prove coverage.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Patrick C. Minkeson (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
The case asked whether the defendant should be elevated from a presumptive level two to level three under New York’s sex‑offender risk classification. The Second Department reversed the upward departure and designated him a level two offender. It clarifies that aggravating facts alone don’t justify a higher level and that a non‑principal role can mitigate when weighing the totality.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Saul E. M. L. (Anonymous), appellant; Edmundo M. M. (Anonymous), et al., respondents. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
A child won guardianship for his uncle but was denied the findings needed for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). The Second Department reversed and granted those findings, citing parental abandonment and that returning to Guatemala was not in the child’s best interests. The ruling confirms that abandonment can satisfy SIJS’s reunification non-viability requirement and that the appellate court may make these findings on its own.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Rozof v. Rozof (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
This case asked whether a Brooklyn real estate partnership at will ended when a partner sent a withdrawal letter. The Second Department reinstated the case, ruling the letter dissolved the partnership and that later efforts to get court supervision were part of winding up, not a new partnership. It confirms that a clear written withdrawal ends an at-will partnership, a key point for real estate ventures without written agreements.
Read more:
Click here
Morales v. 88th Avenue Owner, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
The Second Department dismissed the worker’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim and his § 241(6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a). It held that sparks from ironwork above were not an elevation hazard and that the eye-protection rule did not apply because the worker was not performing an eye-endangering task. The court also left in place the dismissal of a delayed second third-party action but made it without prejudice, signaling that late third-party filings risk dismissal under CPLR 1010.
Read more:
Click here
DePasquale v. Staten Island University Hospital (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
The case alleged negligent post-operative monitoring and an improper discharge after a gallbladder surgery. The Second Department dismissed the claims against the surgeon, finding he showed compliance with accepted care and the plaintiffs’ expert was speculative and lacked record support. The decision underscores that med-mal plaintiffs must offer specific, well-supported expert opinions to get past summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Brownyard v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
Suffolk County was accused of improperly keeping tax revenue, leading to a fight over electronic discovery. The Second Department struck the trial court’s on-its-own order forcing the County to build an ESI system and make biweekly productions. It otherwise affirmed denying a referee and refusing to shift ESI costs to plaintiffs, underscoring limits on unrequested discovery mandates and that producing parties usually bear their own ESI costs.
Read more:
Click here
Brownyard v. County of Suffolk (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
In a taxpayer suit contesting Suffolk County’s retention of property tax revenue, the trial court had limited discovery to the three original plaintiffs and struck many requests. The Second Department reversed, denied the protective order in full, and dismissed as academic the appeal from the reargument order. It held that defendants may obtain discovery from every plaintiff to test standing and monetary injury, even if some documents are available in public records.
Read more:
Click here
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Emanuel F. Saris, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 24, 2025)
In a residential foreclosure case, the Second Department affirmed the denial of the homeowners’ motion to vacate a default judgment and foreclosure sale. The court held that simply attending a mandatory CPLR 3408 settlement conference is not an appearance that triggers the CPLR 3215(g) five-day notice requirement, and the defendants lacked a reasonable excuse for default. This clarifies that borrowers must answer, file a notice of appearance, or otherwise litigate to preserve notice rights.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Brandon D. v. Taylor E. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 24, 2025)
This case asked whether a criminal order of protection barred a father from seeking to modify custody and visitation. The Third Department reinstated his petition and sent it back for a best‑interests review and tailored contact, because the order allowed Family Court–authorized contact and circumstances had changed. It confirms that when an order of protection has a carve‑out, Family Court must reach the best‑interests analysis rather than dismiss for lack of standing.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Youlanda V. v. John W. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 24, 2025)
A mother sought an upward modification of child support based on the father’s alleged higher earnings. The Third Department affirmed Family Court’s dismissal for lack of comparative income proof, but modified it to be without prejudice because Family Court can revisit support. It underscores that petitioners must provide the prior order and concrete income evidence at both points in time; without it, the petition fails but can be refiled upon showing a substantial change or a 15% income change.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Kapsch TrafficCom USA, Inc. v. Marie Therese Dominguez, as Commissioner of Transportation, et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 24, 2025)
DOT deemed Kapsch nonresponsible for undisclosed ties to a subcontractor and compliance gaps, and awarded the work to WSP and Gannett Fleming. The Third Department affirmed, finding DOT had a rational basis and provided adequate process. The decision reinforces broad deference to agency responsibility determinations under State Finance Law, though a dissent warned DOT relied on a significant factual error.
Read more:
Click here
Amie Cota v. Adirondack Medical Center et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 24, 2025)
A postpartum patient alleged the hospital failed to prevent/respond to her fall and a radiologist missed a tailbone fracture. The Third Department affirmed denial of summary judgment for both, citing factual disputes about nursing assistance and post-fall imaging and a causation showing based on a conclusory expert that ignored records. The ruling underscores that med-mal defendants need detailed, record-based expert opinions to win on summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Christopher D. Hoffman (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 24, 2025)
The Third Department affirmed the convictions and six-year sentence, finding the verdict supported by the child’s testimony and corroborating DNA from anal swabs. The court clarified that penile–anal contact alone satisfies the statute for a second-degree criminal sexual act and upheld limits on sexual-history evidence, character witnesses, and late-disclosed expert opinions. The decision underscores deference to trial evidentiary rulings and the need to preserve confrontation objections.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Heather L. Reader v. Jeffrey S. Reader (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
The Fourth Department dismissed petitions claiming harassment and a temporary order of protection violation based on the respondent’s public Facebook posts, reversing Family Court and vacating attorneys’ fees. The court found the petitioner did not prove the posts amounted to second-degree harassment under Penal Law § 240.26(3). The ruling signals that public social media posts, without proof of intent, a seriously annoying course of conduct, and no legitimate purpose, won’t sustain a family offense finding or related fee awards.
Read more:
Click here
Michael Lamica, II v. Patricia A. Siskar and Bakk Ventures, LLC (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
A roofer fell while repairing Siskar’s building, and the parties dispute whether roof tie-off brackets were properly placed and whether he failed to use them. The Fourth Department dismissed Bakk Ventures’ appeal, dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims as abandoned, and vacated his summary judgment on § 241(6), leaving §§ 240(1) and 241(6) for trial. The decision highlights that factual disputes over safety devices and sole proximate cause bar summary judgment, unopposed claims can be forfeited, and only aggrieved parties may appeal.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Robert M. Collins (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
A jury convicted a janitor of first-degree attempted kidnapping, first-degree attempted murder (based on kidnapping), and first-degree assault after he attacked and tried to abduct a woman. The Fourth Department reduced the kidnapping and murder counts to second-degree, vacated those sentences and sent the case back for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed the assault conviction and admission of injury photos. It matters because prosecutors must prove an intent to restrain the victim for more than 12 hours to sustain first-degree kidnapping; without that, a first-degree murder attempt premised on kidnapping cannot stand.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Randall A. Scott (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This case tested whether a getaway driver could be convicted of intentional murder as an accomplice based only on driving and flight. The Fourth Department dismissed the indictment and reversed the conviction because the evidence did not show the driver shared the shooter’s intent or knew of a plan to kill. The decision reaffirms that prosecutors must prove a shared homicidal intent; mere presence, transport, or post-crime help is not enough.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Drequan A. Thomas (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This case challenged the expiration date of an order of protection imposed after a guilty plea to first-degree criminal contempt. The Fourth Department modified the judgment and sent it back to set a lawful expiration date under CPL 530.12(5)(a), while otherwise affirming. It highlights that orders of protection must stay within statutory time limits, and overlong orders will be corrected even if the issue was not preserved.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Tyrone Morris v. Domonique Smith and Evette Buntley (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
Family Court gave the father primary custody and limited the grandmother’s visitation, effectively dismissing the mother’s and grandmother’s petitions. The Fourth Department reinstated those petitions and sent the case back for a best‑interests hearing, finding the grandmother has standing based on other extraordinary circumstances despite no statutory extended disruption. The ruling clarifies that grandparents can gain standing through long-term caregiving, a parent’s incapacity, minimal parental involvement, and strong child bonds, and that post‑order facts may be considered on remand.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Anthony Jacobs (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This case tested whether an adolescent offender could be kept in the Youth Part for allegedly causing significant physical injury, and whether a guilty plea and appeal waiver block review of that ruling. The Fourth Department reversed and vacated the plea, finding the appeal waiver invalid and that the plea did not bar review. It also held prosecutors did not prove the defendant personally caused the fatal injury—accomplice liability alone is not enough—and sent the case back for further proceedings, including a possible extraordinary-circumstances motion.
Read more:
Click here
Tracy A. English, III v. Brandon M. Brady, Brandon M. Brady Farms, Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
In a dispute over a 2012 deed reservation, the plaintiff sought to add a rescission claim to a 2023 lawsuit. The Fourth Department dismissed the plaintiff’s bid to add that claim as time-barred, holding the six-year deadline runs from the deed’s execution and no continuing fraud or duress was alleged. The ruling confirms rescission claims tied to deeds or contracts must be brought within six years, and late amendments will be denied despite liberal amendment rules.
Read more:
Click here
Eternal Beverages, Inc. v. Mayer Bros. Apple Products, Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This case involves a private‑label bottled water dispute over a 2020 price increase and unpaid invoices, plus a separate fight about stopping a 2.5‑liter product. The Fourth Department granted Mayer Bros. summary judgment on liability for unpaid invoices on the other sizes, finding Eternal accepted the higher prices by ordering and paying without objection and rejecting economic duress; damages remain disputed. It underscores that acceptance by conduct can bind price changes under the UCC, while the 2.5‑liter breach claim continues due to factual disputes.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Demetris Coleman (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
After a bench trial conviction for gun and drug possession, the defendant sought post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, including poor suppression work and pressure to waive a jury trial due to counsel’s lack of preparation. The Fourth Department reversed the summary denial and sent the case back for a hearing on those claims, while declining to review unpreserved issues on direct appeal. The decision underscores that detailed, fact-based ineffective-assistance allegations—especially involving a pressured jury waiver—must be tested at a hearing.
Read more:
Click here
Hoi Trinh v. Father Joseph Thien Nguyen (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
A defamation suit over online posts accusing a refugee-aid leader of fraud was dismissed under New York’s anti-SLAPP law, with fees awarded. The Fourth Department reinstated several claims and vacated the fee award because the trial court exceeded the limits of the earlier remand. The ruling underscores that courts must follow appellate instructions and that plausibly defamatory statements can survive early dismissal if they are not clearly opinion or mere insults.
Read more:
Click here
Kathleen Gumkowski, as Administrator of the Estate of Gregory Gumkowski, deceased, and Kathleen Gumkowski, individually v. Thomas Schwaab, M.D., et al. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This med-mal case stems from a post-op patient who twice called 911 and later died after ICU care. The Fourth Department dismissed all claims against the Town/EMS based on governmental immunity and threw out the narrow failure-to-transfer claim against Dr. Diringer, but let the remaining claims—including against Roswell Park—proceed. The court stressed that EMS discretionary assessments are immune and that med-mal summary judgment demands expert proof addressing each alleged lapse, with unrebutted theories subject to partial dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Eric Williams (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
The Fourth Department reversed Eric Williams’s conviction, vacated his plea, and suppressed his statements after he clearly invoked his right to remain silent. The handgun remains admissible because officers had probable cause to search after seeing marijuana in the car during a pre-MRTA stop, and his MRTA challenge was unpreserved. The decision underscores that a clear refusal to talk requires police to stop questioning, while pre-MRTA marijuana observations can still justify searches.
Read more:
Click here
Keshia Gwathney v. City of Buffalo (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This case asks whether the City of Buffalo can avoid liability for a police crash during an emergency run under the “reckless disregard” standard. The Fourth Department reinstated the complaint because disputes over the officer’s speed and siren use made summary judgment improper. It matters because emergency-vehicle exemptions don’t automatically shield municipalities when key facts about speed and warnings are contested.
Read more:
Click here
White Management Corp., North Country Chicken Corp., M & W Foods, Inc., and M & W Foods II, LLC v. Mountain Mart 105, LLC, and Mountain Mart 106, LLC (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This case concerns who must pay for Dunkin’ remodels and KFC build-outs under an alleged 2020 oral deal and later leases. The Fourth Department reinstated the claim that a separate oral agreement covered the Dunkin’ remodel/common-area work and revived unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, but left dismissed the KFC build-out claims based on merger clauses and the account-stated claim due to a genuine billing dispute. The decision underscores that no-oral-modification clauses don’t bar separate oral agreements, while merger clauses in later leases can, and that quasi-contract theories may proceed when contract coverage is contested.
Read more:
Click here
R.L. v. Holland Central School District (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
A former student sued under the Child Victims Act, alleging a teacher abused him and the district negligently supervised him and retained the teacher. The Fourth Department reinstated those claims because the district’s own evidence showed factual disputes about foreseeability and notice, including staff awareness and the teacher’s one-on-one access to students. The ruling signals that schools can face liability where harm was reasonably foreseeable and staff knowledge is imputed to the district, making summary judgment harder to obtain.
Read more:
Click here
Ryan Dacko v. Irakli Kiladze (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
A seller sued to eject a friend-turned-buyer after an oral home sale agreement, arguing the statute of frauds. The Fourth Department reversed, denied summary judgment, and reinstated the buyer’s counterclaims because possession, $33,200 paid toward a $40,000 price, and tender of the balance raise factual issues of part performance. The ruling underscores that substantial payments and possession can take an oral real estate deal outside the statute of frauds and block summary ejectment.
Read more:
Click here
Tapp Partners, LLC v. Wall Sections Inc.; Sage Livestock LLC; and Donald K. Garrett (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
The case involved a merchant cash advance–style revenue purchase agreement with fixed daily payments and a personal guaranty. The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for the plaintiff and denied the motion because defendants raised a factual dispute over how much was owed, which also stalled the guaranty claim. The decision signals that in MCA disputes, contested damages can block summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Eric Williams (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
A traffic stop led to recovery of a handgun from a passenger and later station-house questioning after he said he didn’t want to talk. The Fourth Department reversed the conviction, vacated the plea, and suppressed all statements made after he clearly invoked his right to remain silent, but it upheld the denial of suppression of the gun. The decision reinforces that police must stop questioning once a suspect plainly refuses to speak.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Jacobs (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
This case asked whether a 16-year-old’s case could stay in the Youth Part based only on accomplice liability. The Fourth Department reversed, vacated the plea, and sent the case back, holding the DA must show the teen personally caused the injury or personally displayed a weapon to block removal to Family Court. The court also found the appeal waiver invalid and confirmed that removal challenges survive a guilty plea.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Javyon J. Ogden (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
The case centered on whether an appeal waiver allowed challenges to keeping an adolescent‑offender case out of Family Court and to plea and sentencing issues. The Fourth Department affirmed, holding the valid waiver barred review of the removal ruling, youthful‑offender status, sentence severity, and surcharges, and that the plea‑voluntariness claim was unpreserved. It matters because, in the Fourth Department, a proper appeal waiver forecloses appeals of Family Court removal decisions in adolescent‑offender cases and related issues.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Christopher Freeman (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, December 23, 2025)
The case centered on whether the defendant’s guilty plea to first-degree assault was voluntary and whether his lawyer was ineffective. The Fourth Department affirmed, finding the voluntariness claim unpreserved and, after follow-up questioning, the record showed a knowing, voluntary plea. It also clarified that routine comments about sentencing exposure and trial risks are not coercion, and that most ineffective-assistance claims do not survive a guilty plea or are not reviewable on direct appeal.
Read more:
Click here