Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Blasse (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
The case asked whether a bank could revive a foreclosure more than six years after accelerating the loan by invoking CPLR 205(a) despite FAPA. The Second Department reversed, denying summary judgment and an order of reference, holding the 2007 acceleration started the six-year clock and FAPA bars using 205(a)/205-a when the prior case was dismissed as abandoned. The ruling limits lenders’ ability to restart time-barred foreclosures and confirms FAPA applies retroactively and is constitutional.
Read more: Click here
People v. Madison, Jahrell (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
The Second Department vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed on Jahrell Madison and affirmed his weapon possession conviction. He was under 21 when the crime occurred, so CPL 420.35(2-a) allowed a waiver, with the People’s consent. The ruling confirms that under-21 defendants can have these costs removed on appeal.
Read more: Click here
Bryan Mori Servan v. ES Builders Group LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
This case involved a bid to strike defendants’ answer for repeatedly missing depositions in a personal injury suit. The First Department reversed and denied the sanctions motion without prejudice because plaintiff’s counsel didn’t conduct or document the required good‑faith meet‑and‑confer under 22 NYCRR 202.20‑f and 202.7. It underscores that severe discovery sanctions won’t stick unless counsel strictly follows and documents the meet‑and‑confer process.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of S.M.W. and Another, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Administration for Children's Services v. J.R.M. and C.W. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
This case addressed educational neglect and whether a parent’s depression alone can support a neglect finding. The First Department vacated the mental‑illness‑based portion for lack of proof it impaired parenting, but affirmed neglect based on the children’s chronic, harmful school absences. It confirms that agencies must tie a diagnosis to imminent risk, while excessive absenteeism can independently establish educational neglect.
Read more: Click here
Charles Baxter v. Babu Gosh (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
This case involves a lane-change crash where the defendant moved from the right to the left lane without signaling and struck the plaintiff. The First Department reversed, granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability, and dismissed comparative fault defenses, finding the defendant solely responsible under VTL § 1128(a) and failure to yield. It matters because an unrebutted affidavit can win liability in lane‑change cases, and attorney affirmations or prematurity claims without evidence are not enough.
Read more: Click here
M. C., etc., et al. v. B. H., etc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated assault and battery claims from a high school fight, reversing a dismissal that had relied on the defense that both students consented to fight. The court said evidence of bullying or coercion and an alleged intentional push creates jury questions about consent and offensive contact, making summary judgment improper.
Read more: Click here
Apollo Funding Co. v. Dave Reilly Construction, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
The case asked whether a merchant cash advance was a usurious loan or a true sale of receivables. The Second Department reversed and granted summary judgment to Apollo, finding repayment was contingent because payments adjusted to actual receipts, there was no fixed term, and bankruptcy was not a default, so the usury defense failed. The decision confirms that well-structured MCAs in New York are enforceable as receivables purchases when merchants default.
Read more: Click here
Globe Storage & Moving Co., Inc. v. Counsel Financial II, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
A storage company sought payment from a secured lender for holding a bankrupt debtor’s assets without a direct contract, relying on a Bankruptcy Court stipulation that gave the lender access. The First Department struck a mistaken reference to a breach-of-contract claim and clarified that only the account-stated claim was dismissed. It allowed the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, signaling that a bankruptcy stipulation and a lender’s silence or acknowledgments can support quasi-contract at the pleading stage.
Read more: Click here
People v. Reaves, Idrissa (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
Prosecutors used a jailhouse rap, interpreted by a law-enforcement “slang” investigator, to link the defendant to a Brooklyn shooting and secure a criminal facilitation conviction. The Second Department reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial because the witness lacked real expertise, the interpretations were speculative and suggested other crimes, and the court skipped the required review of uncharged-crimes evidence. The ruling tightens limits on admitting rap lyrics and “slang” testimony and demands safeguards before evidence implying other crimes goes to the jury.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company v. Sarmiento (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
The case asked whether a rental company’s policy or a passenger’s personal auto policy provides primary uninsured motorist benefits after a hit-and-run in a rental truck. The Second Department reversed and permanently stayed arbitration against GEICO, holding the rental truck’s policy is primary under VTL § 370 and the Graves Amendment does not bar UM claims. The ruling means New York occupants of rental vehicles must seek UM benefits first from the rental company’s insurer; personal policies are excess.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of the Claim of Rosa Romero v. Akorn Inc. et al.; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 25, 2025)
The case asked whether a worker with a prior nonschedule classification but no initial payments could still receive a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her knee. The Third Department reinstated the SLU request and sent the case back, holding that when no initial nonschedule award is payable, a claimant may seek an SLU and labor‑market attachment is irrelevant. The ruling instructs the Board to allow such claims and reopen affected cases under Taher.
Read more: Click here
Kistoo v. Spence (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
In a lead‑paint case, the plaintiff agreed in a signed settlement to vacate within 30 days after a $10,000 payment but stayed. The Second Department reversed and enforced the deal, ordering possession and an eviction warrant because payment was made and no fraud, duress, or mistake was shown. The ruling reaffirms that CPLR 2104 settlements are strictly enforced, including agreed eviction terms.
Read more: Click here
Konstantynovska v. Friendly Home Care, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
This case challenged pay practices for home health aides working 24-hour “live-in” shifts, overtime, and related wages. The Second Department reversed and denied class certification because the plaintiff did not show a uniform company policy violating the law, offering only a few pay-stub irregularities and no classwide proof of missed breaks. The ruling underscores that wage-and-hour classes need concrete, systemwide evidence, not generalized allegations.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Edward Gunderson v. New York City Employees' Retirement System, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
A sanitation worker slipped on a loose floor tile and sought accidental disability retirement; NYCERS said it was not an accident, and the trial court agreed. The Second Department reversed, set aside the denial, and sent the case back because there was no evidence he should have expected the tile to shift. The decision confirms that unexpected, specific hazards can qualify as accidents for sanitation workers, and agency denials must rest on a rational evidentiary basis.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Rohma Mirza v. College of Mount Saint Vincent, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
A PA program student was expelled after a CASPA recommendation letter accidentally listed her as a certified PA instead of a student, even though the rest of the record showed she was a student and the error was later corrected. The First Department reinstated her, finding the expulsion arbitrary and disproportionate to a harmless mistake and reminding private colleges to follow their policies and use proportionate discipline.
Read more: Click here
Kovalenko v. Bhatti General Contracting & Development, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
In a home renovation dispute alleging unlicensed work and misrepresentations, the Second Department dismissed the GBL § 349, negligence, implied covenant, and implied warranty claims, but allowed fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and veil‑piercing to proceed. The decision narrows add‑on consumer and tort claims in contractor cases while confirming that well‑pleaded fraud and alternative unjust enrichment can move forward, especially if licensing issues could make the contract unenforceable.
Read more: Click here
Krohn v. Schultz Ford Lincoln, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
A jury found a car dealership negligent but not a cause of a claimed steering‑failure crash; the trial court set that verdict aside and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The Second Department reinstated the jury’s no‑causation finding, holding jurors could doubt the accident occurred as described and could be instructed to consider whether it occurred. The ruling clarifies that under CPLR 4404(a), courts should not overturn a defense verdict when negligence and causation can be separated, and that instructions and verdict sheets need not assume the event happened if it’s disputed.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Jacqueline Bell v. Derricka A. Bell, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-09-24)
A maternal grandmother sought visitation, but the Family Court dismissed for lack of standing after using an “extraordinary circumstances” test. The Second Department reinstated the petitions and sent the case back for a best-interests hearing, holding that equitable circumstances—her prior relationship and reasonable efforts despite parental obstruction—gave her standing. The decision confirms that under DRL § 72(1), grandparents need only show equitable circumstances, not extraordinary ones, to seek visitation.
Read more: Click here
Dr. D'Andrea Joseph v. NYU Grossman School of Medicine, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
The case asked if a surgeon could sue for discrimination and retaliation in court while separate hospital privilege actions were handled administratively, and if an NPDB report could support defamation. The First Department reinstated her state Human Rights Law claims tied to demotion and firing, but kept privilege issues in the Public Health and Health Planning Council process and left the NPDB defamation claim dismissed. It signals that employment claims may proceed alongside privilege reviews, and that NPDB defamation needs well-pled knowing falsity.
Read more: Click here
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Barrett (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
The case asked whether a lender waited too long to foreclose after an earlier case made the full loan due. The Second Department dismissed the 2017 foreclosure as late because the 2011 filing started the six-year deadline. FAPA says dropping the earlier case does not restart the clock, and the court rejected the bank’s other challenges.
Read more: Click here
306 Wall Street Owners, LLC, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Kingston (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 25, 2025)
The case asked who owns the “Pike Plan” sidewalk canopies in Kingston’s historic district and whether the City can remove them. The Third Department modified the ruling to declare the City owns the canopies and they are not immovable fixtures, left the denial of an injunction in place, and found the preservation claim moot because the code was repealed. The decision shows that clear agreements and city charter provisions can decide ownership disputes early in a case.
Read more: Click here
Matter of the Claim of Charlene M. Caruso (Shenendehowa Central School District — Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 25, 2025)
A per diem substitute teacher sought summer unemployment benefits despite a district letter promising continued work at no less than 90% of prior earnings. The Third Department reversed the award, finding the letter and stable substitute needs provided reasonable assurance under Labor Law § 590(10). It confirms that reasonable assurance is a representation, not a guarantee; a credible letter plus stable conditions is enough to bar between-term benefits.
Read more: Click here
Blachowicz v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
A sheet metal worker fell while using a roof hatch and ladder at LaGuardia and sued under New York’s Scaffold Law. The Second Department denied his summary judgment and reinstated the defendants’ affirmative defenses, citing a factual dispute over whether safety gear was available and not used. The ruling signals that Scaffold Law plaintiffs must overcome evidence of available, unused protections and specifically show why each defense lacks merit.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Adam M. Robinson (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 25, 2025)
The case involved a guilty plea conditioned on CASAT enrollment, but the defendant was not legally eligible under Penal Law § 60.04(6). The Third Department reversed, vacated the plea, and sent the case back because the promise could not be kept. The decision signals that plea offers must not include programming or sentencing promises the court lacks authority to deliver.
Read more: Click here
Virgil Mitchell v. City of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
The case centered on an arrest for a shooting based largely on a single eyewitness ID that the witness later said was uncertain and may have been influenced by the detective. The First Department dismissed the federal claims against the City for lack of an official policy or custom, but allowed the state false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims to proceed due to factual disputes about the ID and what was disclosed to the prosecutor. The ruling underscores that shaky or reinforced identifications and withheld witness uncertainty can block summary judgment.
Read more: Click here
Erika Distel v. Edward Distel (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
The First Department agreed that a nonparty attorney’s ex parte IDV contacts and baseless “emergency” filing were frivolous, but it modified the sanctions. Financial sanctions must be paid to the Lawyers’ Fund, and the adversary may recover only fees directly caused by the misconduct—here, $2,025. “Fees on fees” for making the sanctions motion were disallowed.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Village of Walden v. Teamsters Local Union No. 445 (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
This case asked whether Teamsters Local 445, an affiliate of the police union, could demand arbitration over officer injury benefits under the police union’s contract. The Second Department reversed and permanently stayed arbitration, finding Local 445 lacked authority because it wasn’t a party to the contract and didn’t act in the PBA’s name. The ruling confirms that only signatories—or authorized agents acting for them—can compel arbitration; affiliation alone doesn’t confer that power.
Read more: Click here
Matter of the Claim of Lee Trickey v. Black River Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., et al.; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, September 25, 2025)
This case asked whether an injured truss installer was an employee or an independent contractor under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act. The Third Department reversed and sent the case back because the Board did not make clear findings on the ABC test, especially who controlled the work. This matters because those findings decide whether workers’ comp is the only remedy or a tort suit can continue.
Read more: Click here
C.R. v. Episcopal Diocese of New York and The Cathedral School of St. John the Divine (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
The First Department let CVA negligence claims against The Cathedral School proceed and allowed punitive damages against the School to remain at the pleading stage. It dismissed punitive damages against the Episcopal Diocese but left the underlying claims for discovery, finding summary judgment premature. The ruling signals that schools may face liability for off-campus abuse when on-campus conduct and reports suggest notice, while punitive damages require specific allegations of actual knowledge.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Vicente v. Diaz (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
This case addressed changes to a father’s visitation—whether it must be supervised, how often, and who decides the supervisor and schedule. The Second Department reinstated weekly supervised visits and ruled the Family Court must choose the mental health supervisor and set the schedule. It clarifies that supervision can be ordered on a proper record, but cutting visit frequency needs support and courts cannot delegate these decisions.
Read more: Click here
166-20 Union Turnpike, LLC v. Tavak, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated the landlord’s claims that Roman and Solomon Davydov are personally liable under a lease guaranty, reversing the trial court’s dismissal. A clear guaranty in a lease rider, signed by the individuals without corporate titles, was enough to keep the claims alive, and the case was sent back to decide personal-jurisdiction issues.
Read more: Click here
People v. Evans, Laquinn (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
A 15-year-old pled guilty to second-degree weapon possession, but the indictment never alleged he had the gun on school grounds. The Second Department reversed, vacated the plea, and dismissed that count, sending the case back on the remaining charges. The ruling confirms that for 15-year-olds, the indictment must expressly allege school-grounds possession; a statute cite or plea admissions cannot cure the omission.
Read more: Click here
Pizzarotti, LLC v. MDB Development Corp. (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
The case addressed whether a general contractor properly terminated a concrete subcontract for cause. The First Department dismissed the contractor’s complaint and granted the subcontractor summary judgment on liability. It found no valid default notice or cure period, that continued performance waived earlier issues, and that punch-list items and resolved liens cannot justify termination—reinforcing strict notice-and-cure compliance.
Read more: Click here
Blank v. Acker (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
A former family advisor said he was promised a house and sued for contract, equitable, and defamation relief. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, holding that any promise to transfer or bequeath real estate must be in a signed writing, and the emails and will terms did not suffice. It also rejected reliance and unjust enrichment claims under the lease and deemed the statements nonactionable opinion, underscoring that informal property promises will not be enforced.
Read more: Click here
Gutama v. Central Transport, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
This case asked whether two personal-injury suits from separate motor-vehicle accidents with overlapping injuries should be tried together and where the trial should be held. The Second Department ordered a joint trial and set the trial in Queens County, where the first case was filed. The ruling emphasizes that overlapping-injury cases are usually tried together unless it would unfairly harm a party, and that the trial location generally follows the first-filed case.
Read more: Click here
Caccioppoli v. Mayfair Housing, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
This premises liability case asked whether a metal gate at an apartment complex could have swung back and hit the plaintiff. The Second Department reinstated the case, finding defendants did not meet their initial burden because their engineer’s inspection two years later merely disputed the plaintiff’s account and created credibility issues for a jury. The decision underscores that a conflicting expert opinion alone cannot win summary judgment without showing the incident was impossible or the testimony inherently unbelievable.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Jeremiah Rivera (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
The First Department vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed on Jeremiah Rivera after his guilty plea to third-degree grand larceny, but otherwise affirmed his conviction and three years’ probation. The court used its discretion in the interest of justice, consistent with People v. Chirinos, and noted the prosecution did not oppose. The ruling signals that in the First Department, mandatory surcharges can be removed on appeal even when the sentence is otherwise upheld.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Village of Walden v. Teamsters Local Union No. 445 (Appellate Division, Second Department, September 24, 2025)
This case asked whether an affiliated union that didn’t sign the CBA could demand arbitration over police injury benefits. The Second Department reversed and permanently stayed arbitration, holding that only the Village and the Police Benevolent Association—named parties to the CBA—could invoke arbitration, so Local 445 lacked authority. It underscores that affiliates cannot compel arbitration in their own names without clear, explicit authorization.
Read more: Click here
C.R. v. Episcopal Diocese of New York and The Cathedral School of St. John the Divine (Appellate Division, First Department, September 25, 2025)
A former Cathedral School student alleges a teacher abused her and sues the School and the Episcopal Diocese under the Child Victims Act. The First Department dismissed punitive damages against the Diocese for lack of alleged actual knowledge but otherwise let negligence claims proceed. It said the complaint plausibly shows the School knew of on‑campus misconduct and failed to act, making off‑campus abuse foreseeable and keeping punitive damages against the School.
Read more: Click here