The People of the State of New York v. Blanca Narvaez (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
In a drug possession case, the First Department struck four probation conditions imposed on Blanca Narvaez, including payment of fees, family-support requirements, order-of-protection compliance, and gang-related restrictions. The court found those terms were not supported by the record or reasonably necessary, underscoring that probation conditions in New York must be tailored to the individual defendant rather than imposed as standard boilerplate.
Jose Orlando Estela Santacruz v. 58 Gerry St. LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
This case arose from a construction worker’s claim that an 8-to-10-foot shoring post fell and struck him, and he sought judgment in his favor under New York’s worker-safety laws. The First Department ruled that conflicting evidence about how the accident happened prevents a quick win on the main falling-object claim, but it also narrowed the case by throwing out some safety-code and indemnity claims, including claims against the worker’s general employer because there was no legally recognized grave injury. The decision matters because it shows that inconsistent accident records can keep key construction-accident claims for trial, while insurance coverage and workers’ compensation rules can sharply limit related claims between contractors.
Backer v. Parsons (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
The First Department dismissed a medical malpractice suit over treatment for an arm injury as untimely because it was filed more than two and a half years after the patient’s last actual treatment. The court said a note in the medical chart recommending a future follow-up visit was not enough to extend the deadline, which matters because it confirms that the continuous treatment rule requires real ongoing care, not just a suggested return visit.
Fuentes v. The Parkchester South Condominium, Inc. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
In a sidewalk trip-and-fall case, the First Department dismissed the claims against Leroy Pharmacy, a commercial tenant, because the property owner—not the tenant—was responsible for sidewalk maintenance. The court said photos showing a crack next to the pharmacy’s cellar door were not enough to prove the pharmacy caused the defect or made a special use of the sidewalk, which matters because plaintiffs need actual evidence to keep a nonresponsible tenant in these cases.
Fuentes v. The Parkchester South Condominium, Inc. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
The First Department dismissed the claims against Leroy Pharmacy in a sidewalk trip-and-fall case involving a crack near the pharmacy’s cellar door. The court held that the pharmacy, as a commercial tenant, had no duty to maintain the sidewalk, and the plaintiff offered no actual evidence that the pharmacy caused the defect or used the sidewalk in a way that created it. This matters because it confirms that ordinary business deliveries and proximity to a sidewalk defect are not enough, by themselves, to make a tenant liable.
Mendon Ventures Fintech Fund I LP v. Equitus Corporation (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
The First Department held that sanctions should be imposed in this commercial finance dispute after finding Equitus used baseless claims and false factual statements to avoid paying notes and delay the case. It sent the matter back for the trial court to decide the proper penalty, underscoring that New York courts may punish parties for using knowingly false allegations and bad-faith tactics in litigation.
Jimmy Mejia Gomez v. Brookfield Properties One WFC Co., LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
In a construction injury case, a worker who fell while installing sheetrock claimed his A-frame ladder shifted from side to side and caused the fall. The First Department ruled for the worker on liability under New York’s Scaffold Law, finding that later reports saying he “lost his balance” did not meaningfully contradict his account and that the defendants could not delay the case based on vague claims that more discovery was needed.
Jarrett Allen v. The City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
This case challenges an alleged New York City practice of keeping arrestees handcuffed throughout arraignment without a judge’s approval or an individualized reason on the record. The First Department reinstated the lawsuit and the class certification motion, finding that the City had not shown the plaintiff lacked standing and that the complaint plausibly alleged a due process violation. The ruling matters because it allows the challenge to move forward and signals that blanket restraint policies at arraignment may face constitutional scrutiny.
People of the State of New York v. Kwesi Prophete (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
In People v. Prophete, the First Department largely upheld a New York County criminal judgment and found the sentence was not excessive. But it removed the surcharges and fees imposed at sentencing, exercising its discretion in the interest of justice and noting that prosecutors did not oppose that relief.
Shebshayevich v. The City of New York (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
The First Department dismissed a trip-and-fall case against New York City arising from allegedly broken pavement near the Columbus Circle entrance to Central Park. The court found the City had no prior written notice of the specific defect the plaintiff said caused her fall, and a Parks report about a different nearby pavement problem was not enough.
DTI-DSIC, LLC v. 930-DSIC, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
This case involved an investor’s challenge to a forced sale of its interest in a Delaware LLC, along with deductions from the sale proceeds and withheld payments. The First Department dismissed the contract claim against the managing member and the fiduciary duty claim, but let the contract claim against the company and the accounting claim continue.
The decision shows that when an LLC operating agreement gives a manager broad discretion, claims against that manager usually require specific facts showing bad faith. But a company may still face suit if it takes deductions or offsets that go beyond what the agreement actually permits.
Giovanni Di Giulio v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
The First Department ruled that a wheelchair user injured at a Union Square subway platform could not expand his case against the New York City Transit Authority beyond his original claim that the platform was dangerously narrow. It struck later-added claims about missing barriers, poor warnings and signage, and inadequate markings because those were new theories not included in the required notice of claim. This matters because it reinforces that plaintiffs suing public entities must clearly identify their negligence claims at the outset.
In the Matter of 144 Barrow Street LLC v. The Board of Managers of 130 Barrow Street Condominium (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2025)
The First Department reversed a lower court order in a dispute over a developer’s court-ordered access to a neighboring condominium during construction. It ruled that the $2,000 monthly license fee must be reconsidered based on the actual impact of the construction work, and it sent the attorneys’ fee award back because the lower court did not clearly explain its reductions.
The decision matters because it makes clear that access fees in these cases must reflect the real burden on the neighboring property, and courts must fully explain how they calculate fee awards.
Jaime Rodriguez v. D&D Building Company, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a building worker’s slip-and-fall lawsuit after he said he fell on a wet stairwell that smelled like cleaner and showed mop streaks and footprints. The court held that this detailed testimony created factual disputes about whether the building staff caused the hazard or knew about it, making summary judgment improper and underscoring that specific observations can be enough to send a premises liability case to trial.
Taslakian v. Taslakian (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
In Taslakian v. Taslakian, the First Department dismissed a wife’s remaining claims against her husband over an alleged intimate audio recording and alleged gender-motivated violence. The court held that New York’s intimate-image laws apply only to visual images, not audio recordings, and that allegations of jealousy and abuse, without specific facts showing gender-based hostility, are not enough to support a GMVA claim.
The People of the State of New York v. Dilena Delarosa (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
The First Department vacated a 3½-year prison sentence imposed after a guilty plea to second-degree assault and sent the case back to decide whether the defendant is entitled to seek alternative sentencing as a domestic violence survivor. The court held that a plea deal cannot require a defendant to give up the chance to request relief under New York’s Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, reinforcing that courts must consider that option when the law applies.
Roberson Sarmiento v. Method General Contractors LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 23, 2026)
In this construction accident case, the First Department reinstated the owner and general contractor’s third-party claims against the injured worker’s employer, a subcontractor, after a lower court had thrown them out. The court said the defendants’ default for missing court conferences did not prove they were solely at fault, so it did not automatically block their contractual or common-law indemnification claims.
Port Grove Associates, et al. v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a property owners’ claim for compensation after the State took part of their land, ruling that mailing the claim to the Attorney General by regular mail did not require dismissal. The court said that for State land-taking claims, this service mistake does not strip the Court of Claims of jurisdiction, which matters because it protects otherwise timely eminent domain claims from being thrown out on a technicality.
Matter of Smiley v. Whinnery (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department upheld a ruling requiring NYCERS to grant World Trade Center-related physical disability retirement benefits to an FDNY paramedic, finding that the denial was unsupported because the Medical Board did not properly address the medical evidence or the realities of his job duties. The court removed the award of attorneys’ fees, however, confirming that fees are generally not available in Article 78 cases unless a law or agreement specifically allows them.
Ikhilov v. Lakhter (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In this landlord-tenant dispute, the Second Department reinstated a landlord’s claims for unpaid post-lease charges against a lease-signing tenant and granted a default judgment against the tenant who stayed after the lease ended. The court held that an earlier housing case that was discontinued by agreement did not automatically block the new lawsuit, and the decision matters because it confirms that a tenant can still face lease-based liability even if she was not the one who remained in possession.
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Pena (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department ruled that the trial court could not grant a default judgment against Ana M. Molina on its own because Citimortgage’s motion never asked for that relief. The court vacated the default-related order and the foreclosure judgment, while leaving the rest of the ruling in place. This matters because foreclosure plaintiffs must clearly request default relief in their motion papers, and a generic catch-all request is not enough.
People v. Bryant (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In People v. Bryant, the Second Department ruled that police did not have enough reason to chase a man they suspected of “casing” driveways, because his behavior could have had an innocent explanation. The Second Department suppressed the gun he discarded during the chase and his later statements, reversed the conviction, and dismissed the indictment. The decision matters because it reinforces that in New York, flight and vague suspicious behavior alone do not justify a police pursuit.
People v. Thompson (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department vacated a Kings County defendant’s sentence after finding the trial court wrongly treated him as ineligible for youthful offender status following his guilty plea to manslaughter and conspiracy. The court said he was an eligible youth because his convictions were not armed felonies, and the ruling underscores that sentencing courts must make a proper on-the-record youthful offender determination in every eligible case.
Matter of Rocah v. McCarthy (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department held that a prosecutor could not use a writ of prohibition to undo a City Court order that barred key prosecution evidence as a sanction for late discovery. It ruled that the trial court had the power to decide whether the delay caused prejudice and what sanction to impose, so even if the ruling was wrong, it was a legal error within the court’s authority, not an act beyond its power.
Rutigliano v. Tri City Construction Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated the homeowner’s claims against Tri City Construction Corp., holding that a form allowing the contractor to deposit a joint insurance check did not automatically defeat claims that Tri City wrongfully kept the money after it had already been fully paid. The court left intact the dismissal of the claims against the individual officer, Andrea Gigliotti, because the complaint did not show personal wrongdoing.
Makhmudova v. Shohidulsajal (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a pedestrian’s personal injury lawsuit after a lower court had thrown it out under New York’s no-fault serious injury rule. It held that the defendants did not adequately show that the plaintiff lacked a qualifying injury or that her ankle injuries were unrelated to the accident, and it sent the case back for the trial court to decide whether the defendants’ opposition to the plaintiff’s liability motion was timely and to rule on that motion.
Matter of Winston R. Sanabia Alvarez v. Leiny M. Jaquez Rubiera (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated the mother’s effort to enforce a Dominican Republic divorce judgment requiring ongoing child support, holding that the father had not shown any valid legal basis to cancel its registration in New York. The court found that a later Dominican order covering only a short period of unpaid support did not replace the original support obligation, and it sent the case back for rulings on arrears and a possible increase in support.
Preston v. Creta (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a car-accident passenger’s injury claim after he alleged that, just days after the crash, he signed a $2,500 release because the insurer told him it was needed to pay his hospital bill. The court held that the case should not have been dismissed early because there are factual questions about whether the release was obtained fairly and whether he understood he was giving up all injury claims before learning the full extent of his injuries.
Crossbay Associates, LLC v. Singh (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department held that a property owner could add engineering consultants to a lawsuit over a neighboring excavation that allegedly caused part of its building to collapse, even though the filing deadline had passed, but only for negligence and gross negligence claims. The court would not allow a strict liability claim against those consultants because that rule applies only to certain parties involved in the excavation, and the decision shows when late-added defendants may still be brought into a construction damage case.
Yamauchi v. Yamauchi (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In this divorce case, the Second Department ruled that the trial court’s awards for child support and spousal maintenance must be reconsidered. It found the maintenance award may have been too high and said the lower court did not adequately explain why it departed from the usual child support formula, so the case was sent back for a new decision; in the meantime, the husband must continue paying $1,000 per month in child support.
People v. Jamal J. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a 17-year-old’s appeal waiver was invalid because it was not clearly explained before he entered his guilty plea to second-degree weapon possession. The court replaced his conviction with a youthful offender finding and sent the case back for resentencing, stressing that young defendants may still qualify for youthful offender treatment in serious cases when the record shows strong mitigating factors and clear potential for rehabilitation.
Cyngiel v. Krigsman (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In a dispute over rental income from shared real estate, the Second Department held that a defendant was entitled to recover costs, damages, and attorney’s fees after the plaintiff wrongfully froze more than $173,000 through a pretrial attachment. The court ruled that because it had already decided the plaintiff never met the legal standard for the attachment, liability for the harm caused was automatic, and the plaintiff could not delay payment by asking for unsupported discovery.
Agams v. Shore View Acquisition I, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department dismissed a gross negligence claim against a nursing home in a wrongful death case involving a resident who allegedly contracted COVID-19 at the facility. The court held that the complaint did not allege facts showing the kind of extreme or reckless misconduct needed to get around the nursing home’s immunity under New York’s COVID-era EDTPA, underscoring that general claims of poor care are not enough.
Yakobson v. IGAL Ocean, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In a dispute over Brooklyn property transfers made after a 2010 judgment, the Second Department left in place the dismissal of the plaintiff’s lien-based claim because her 10-year real estate judgment lien had expired before she sued. The Second Department reinstated her fraudulent conveyance and related attorneys’ fees claims, and it revived her request for an injunction, finding there was still a factual question about when she discovered the alleged fraud. This matters because an expired property lien can end one enforcement path, but fraud claims may still survive if the plaintiff may have discovered the transfers only recently.
Guercia v. Gao (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
This case arose after an intoxicated guest left Jake’s 58 Casino Hotel, ran onto Interstate 495, and was fatally struck by a car; his estate sued the casino operator under New York’s Dram Shop Act and for negligence. The Second Department reinstated the dismissal of the claims against Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corporation, finding that although the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the earlier default, the estate had no valid Dram Shop claim and the negligence allegations did not adequately show causation or control over where the death occurred. This matters because it confirms that undoing a default requires both a good excuse and a legally viable claim.
Williams v. New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In a case over funeral services and the handling of a decedent, the Second Department held that Unity Funeral Chapels could not undo its default because it failed to show improper service or a valid excuse for not responding. But the court threw out the $2.5 million damages judgment and ordered a new damages hearing before a different judge, finding the award excessive and not adequately explained.
Dianna Mantinaos v. City of New York, Xing D. Yao, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In this sidewalk injury case, the plaintiff said she was hurt after tripping on a defective sidewalk next to a Queens home, and the homeowners argued they were exempt from liability because the property was an owner-occupied one-family residence. The Second Department reinstated the claims against the homeowners, finding they did not clearly prove the home was actually owner occupied; the decision matters because owners seeking this residential exemption must provide solid evidence that they truly qualify for it.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. 685 Georgia, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department dismissed Wells Fargo’s 2017 foreclosure case as untimely because the loan had already been accelerated in a 2009 foreclosure action, which started the six-year deadline. The court also held that a 2015 loan modification did not extend that deadline because it was signed by a borrower who no longer owned the property. This matters because lenders cannot revive an expired foreclosure claim through a modification with a former owner, and current owners can challenge that tactic.
Alam v. Priority One Ambulance, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In this New York car accident case, the plaintiff claimed he suffered a legally serious injury, but the defendants argued the medical proof was not enough. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, finding the plaintiff did not reasonably explain a long gap in treatment and could not rely on an unsupported COVID-19 excuse. This matters because plaintiffs in no-fault cases must have solid medical evidence and a clear explanation for any major break in care.
Balgobin v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a patient’s claims against a hospital and nursing home over the alleged failure to prevent and properly treat a pressure ulcer. The court found there were factual disputes about whether the ulcer was avoidable and whether proper care was provided, making clear that healthcare defendants cannot win early dismissal when the record and expert opinions leave key questions unresolved.
Matter of Eliyahu W. (Anonymous) v. Sara C. W. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
In this custody dispute, the Second Department largely upheld a Family Court order giving the parents joint physical custody of three of their younger children, but changed the result for the youngest child, Devorah, and awarded the mother primary physical custody with parenting time for the father. The court also found no error in denying the mother’s mistrial request, and it dismissed the appeal as to one child because he had turned 18. The decision matters because it shows that even when siblings share one custody arrangement, courts will still look closely at each child’s individual best interests, including stability, parent-child bonds, and the child’s wishes.
In the Matter of Elijah L. (Anonymous), Jr. and Lanijah L. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, June 24, 2026)
This case involved a bid to terminate a father’s parental rights to two children based on alleged permanent neglect. The Second Department reversed the Family Court, denied the petitions against the father, and dismissed the proceedings because the agency did not prove it made enough real efforts to help reunify the family, such as arranging visits, offering services, or assisting with housing.
People v. Presley (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
The Third Department left in place, for now, a jury conviction for predatory sexual assault against a child and a 20-years-to-life sentence, finding the evidence was strong enough to support the verdict. But it sent the case back because the trial court never ruled on the defendant’s claim that the prosecution’s discovery certificate was invalid, an issue that could affect whether the People were actually ready for trial on time under New York’s speedy-trial law.
Connors v. ASM Global Parent, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
In this slip-and-fall case, the Third Department reinstated the plaintiff’s lawsuit after the trial court dismissed it over repeated failures to provide a medical authorization during discovery. The court agreed the noncompliance was serious, but found dismissal and fee-shifting too harsh because the plaintiff had mostly complied, the delay caused little harm, and New York courts prefer to decide cases on the merits; it instead imposed a $2,500 sanction on plaintiff’s counsel.
Matter of Carlene R. v. Heather A. (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
This case involved a grandmother’s request for visitation with her grandchild after Family Court granted her supervised visits every other week. The Third Department reversed that order because the mother was made to continue the case without a lawyer, even though she did not clearly give up that right and the record did not show misconduct serious enough to justify taking appointed counsel away.
The decision matters because it reinforces that parents in Family Court visitation cases must be given counsel unless they knowingly waive that right or engage in truly extreme behavior.
Matter of New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York State Police (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
The Third Department ruled that the New York State Police could not use a blanket privacy claim to withhold officer names from a spreadsheet of misconduct complaints sought by the NYCLU under FOIL. But it also said the lower court went too far by ordering full disclosure right away, sending the case back for a name-by-name review and a firm production schedule, while leaving in place the award of attorneys’ fees.
Grant v. The Golub Corporation (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
In this premises liability case, the estate of a shopper who fell in a Price Chopper argued that a water display sticking into the aisle created a tripping hazard. The Third Department reinstated the negligence claim, finding that the evidence raised factual questions about whether the display was dangerous and caused the fall. The decision matters because it shows that stores can still face trial over visible merchandise displays if their layout may mislead customers or create a hidden risk.
Matter of Alyssa P. v. Jeffrey P. (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
In this child custody dispute, the Third Department reversed Family Court’s dismissal of the mother’s request to change custody and threw out a $4,000 attorney-fee award to the father. The court kept shared physical custody and joint legal custody in place, but gave the mother final decision-making authority if the parents make a good-faith effort to agree and still cannot, emphasizing that a serious breakdown in communication affecting the children can justify changing a custody arrangement even when both parents remain involved and the children are doing well.
Matter of Alyssa P. v. Jeffrey P. (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
In this custody dispute, the Third Department ruled that Family Court should not have dismissed the mother’s request to change the parenting arrangement. It kept shared physical custody in place, but gave the mother final say when the parents cannot agree after making good-faith efforts, and it also vacated a $4,000 counsel fee award to the father. This matters because it shows that a serious breakdown in co-parenting communication can justify changing decision-making authority even when both parents are fit and the children are doing well.
Polisoto v. St. Gregory the Great Roman Catholic Church, Kaleida Health, and Groundhog Landscaping and Lawncare, Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In this slip-and-fall case over an icy hospital parking lot, the Fourth Department reinstated the claims against the snow-removal contractor, Groundhog Landscaping, finding there is a factual dispute about whether it had effectively taken over winter maintenance of the lot, including salting. The court otherwise upheld the denial of the plaintiffs’ request to disqualify the lawyer representing the church and hospital, and the decision matters because contractors may still face liability when their role goes beyond the written contract.
People v. Boatwright (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
The Fourth Department reversed Delvin Boatwright’s weapon conviction, suppressed the handguns found in a vehicle search, and dismissed the indictment. The court held that police could not rely on an inventory search because they had not shown the car was lawfully impounded; the tow decision was based only on an unverified assumption that the temporary Texas plate was invalid. This matters because it reinforces that police must have a lawful basis to tow a vehicle before using an inventory search to justify finding evidence.
The People of the State of New York v. Terry Wallace (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
The Fourth Department lowered Terry Wallace’s sex offender registration status from level two to level one after he challenged a trial court’s denial of his request. The court pointed to his years without another sex offense and the state board’s view that there was no strong public-safety reason to keep the higher designation, showing that long-term lawful behavior can support a lower risk classification even when other compliance issues exist.
Three Buds, LLC v. NCTBP Calabrese, LLC and Doug Calabrese (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In a dispute over a lease for a cannabis dispensary, Three Buds said its landlord failed to repair structural damage after a floor collapse, leaving the building condemned and preventing the tenant from getting a certificate of occupancy. The Fourth Department granted Three Buds partial summary judgment on liability for breach of contract against the landlord, finding the lease clearly required those repairs, but it left in place the dismissal of the tenant’s other theories, including claims against the owner personally.
The decision matters because it shows that when a lease squarely covers the problem, a tenant may win on a contract claim if the landlord’s own failure makes legal occupancy impossible.
The People of the State of New York v. Raymond E. Decker (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In People v. Decker, the Fourth Department threw out six second-degree criminal contempt convictions because those charges were legally part of the defendant’s aggravated family offense charges and could not stand on their own. The court otherwise left the remaining convictions in place, underscoring that New York prosecutors cannot obtain separate convictions for lesser counts that are fully covered by greater charges.
People v. Williams (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
The Fourth Department reversed Keith Williams’s convictions and ordered a new trial after finding that the trial court wrongly barred a psychiatrist from testifying in support of his insanity and mental-state defenses. The appellate court said the expert’s later bipolar disorder diagnosis, backed by medical records and similar earlier behavior, was still relevant to Williams’s condition at the time of the attack. This matters because it confirms that courts cannot exclude psychiatric evidence too narrowly when doing so prevents a defendant from presenting a full defense.
People of the State of New York v. Jamique Pierce (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
The Fourth Department did not decide whether Jamique Pierce’s level-two sex offender classification should stand. Instead, it sent the case back because the lower court failed to explain its findings on one disputed risk factor and on Pierce’s request for a lower classification, although it upheld the substance-abuse risk factor and found Pierce’s objection to certain materials was not properly preserved.
The ruling matters because it shows that in SORA cases, courts must clearly spell out the facts and reasons for their decisions so an appeal can be meaningfully reviewed.
County of Erie v. Selective Insurance Company of America and Zurich American Insurance Company (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In a dispute over whether insurers had to defend Erie County in an underlying lawsuit, the Fourth Department ruled that the County was not entitled to summary judgment against Selective Insurance Company. The court vacated the declaration that Selective had a duty to defend and sent that part of the case back for further proceedings, while leaving intact the ruling requiring Zurich to defend. The decision matters because it shows that a duty-to-defend ruling can be overturned on appeal when the record does not clearly support summary judgment.
People v. Burney (Appeal No. 2) (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In People v. Burney (Appeal No. 2), the Fourth Department upheld the defendant’s guilty plea for attempted weapon possession but vacated his sentence and sent the case back for resentencing. The court found a major mismatch between the sentence stated in court, 12 years in prison, and the written certificate of conviction, which said 2 years. This matters because criminal judgments must accurately reflect the sentence actually imposed.
County of Erie v. Selective Insurance Company of America (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
The Fourth Department ruled that Zurich must continue defending Erie County and reimburse its defense costs in a construction-related injury case because the policy exclusion did not clearly bar coverage. But it reversed summary judgment against Selective, finding the County’s contract with the contractor was unclear about whether the park work was covered and that Selective was still entitled to discovery.
The decision matters because it underscores how broadly New York treats an insurer’s duty to defend and shows that unclear contract language can prevent a court from deciding coverage without more evidence.
Matter of Marissa Fournier v. Juan Rodriguez Perez (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In a family offense case between an estranged married couple, the Fourth Department reinstated a petition that a Court Attorney Referee had dismissed after just one court appearance. The court said the referee lacked authority to throw out the case without both parties’ consent and a proper hearing, and it stressed that petitioners must also be told about their right to assigned counsel.
Sarah R., as parent and natural guardian of E.E.R., an infant v. Crouse Health Hospital, Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
The Fourth Department reinstated a medical malpractice claim against Crouse Health Hospital in a case over allegedly negligent neonatal care, ruling that the hospital was not entitled to dismissal just because the treating doctors were independent contractors. The court found there were factual questions about whether the doctors appeared to be acting for the hospital, especially because of hospital-issued clothing and identification and the mother’s lack of any real chance to choose the doctors in an emergency.
Dyena Rashada v. Sadia N. Ahmed, M.D., Ahmed & Ahmed Physicians, P.C., doing business as Suburban Rheumatology, and Eric L. Snitzer, M.D. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
This medical malpractice case stems from an alleged failure to timely diagnose a cancerous mass in the plaintiff’s hand after a 2018 MRI, which was later followed by an amputation. The Fourth Department left most of the claims against the treating doctor and the radiologist in place because competing expert opinions raised factual disputes, but dismissed the separate claim that the radiologist was negligent for not recommending a biopsy. This matters because it confirms that radiologists generally are not responsible for directing follow-up testing, while expert disagreements will usually keep malpractice claims from being thrown out early.
The People of the State of New York v. Rhodesia Anderson (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
The Fourth Department reinstated an indictment against Rhodesia Anderson in a shooting case after a trial court had thrown it out over claimed problems in the grand jury process. The court said prosecutors did not have to instruct the grand jury on self-defense because the evidence showed Anderson was already driving away when she fired, and it found that using her prior conviction to support a weapons charge did not make the proceeding unfair. This matters because it confirms that indictments in New York will not be dismissed for grand jury errors unless the problem likely affected the decision to charge the defendant.
Busch v. County of Erie (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In Busch v. County of Erie, an incarcerated man who contracted hepatitis A sued the County and jail medical staff, alleging unsafe jail conditions and seeking damages. The Fourth Department dismissed the premises liability and punitive damages claims, finding that a federal court had already determined there was no evidence of unsanitary conditions and that punitive damages cannot be awarded against a county. This decision matters because it shows that issues already decided in federal court generally cannot be reargued in state court.
People v. Jonathan Smith (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, June 26, 2026)
In People v. Jonathan Smith, the Fourth Department reinstated the indictment after a trial court had dismissed it over deleted text messages between the complainant and the defendant. The court held that sanctions were not proper because the deleted messages were never in the prosecution’s possession or control, and the ruling clarifies that prosecutors are not responsible for evidence they never had if they promptly tell the defense what they later learn.
Eric Rosenfeld v. Rosanna Galvanno Rosenfeld (Appellate Division, First Department, June 25, 2026)
The First Department affirmed an order denying a mother’s request to restore temporary child support after an earlier finding that she had alienated the child from the father and interfered with visitation. The court held that support can be suspended in rare cases like this, and the mother did not show that visitation had meaningfully resumed or that there was other good cause to reinstate payments, especially since the father was still covering major expenses for the child.
People v. Hoffler (Appellate Division, Third Department, June 25, 2026)
The Third Department upheld Michael Hoffler’s first-degree murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence after his 2016 retrial for arranging the killing of a confidential informant to stop him from testifying. The court said a new trial was allowed even though Hoffler’s first conviction had been thrown out over a jury-selection error, because the evidence in that first trial was strong enough to support the charge.