The People of the State of New York v. Malachi Williams (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
The First Department reviewed a defendant’s Second Amendment challenges to New York’s under-21 gun-license rule and a large-capacity magazine ban arising from two Bronx cases. It affirmed all convictions and concurrent jail terms, but vacated the surcharges and fees in one case. The court said he could challenge the under-21 rule without first applying for a license, but that claim failed; his other licensing and magazine arguments were not properly raised or were irrelevant because there was no conviction on that charge.
Read more:
Click here
Hal Rubin v. Harleen Kahlon (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
The First Department affirmed dismissal of a doorman’s defamation suit over an anonymous, nonspecific Facebook post in a private UES group, finding the post didn’t let an ordinary reader identify him and addressed a matter of public interest. It modified the order to grant the defendant mandatory attorneys’ fees and costs under New York’s anti-SLAPP law and sent the case back to set the amount. The decision underscores that vague, anonymous community posts aren’t actionable defamation and that prevailing defendants in anti-SLAPP cases are entitled to fee-shifting even on a motion to dismiss.
Read more:
Click here
1946TREMONT1B, LLC v. Nawal Realty, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
A buyer acquired a Bronx property during a gap in the foreclosure case’s public notice, and the later foreclosure purchaser, Nawal, claimed title. The First Department reversed the title ruling for Nawal, holding that a deed’s reference to a mortgage is not notice of a foreclosure action and Nawal didn’t prove the buyer knew of the case. The court still allowed Nawal to amend to seek reforeclosure under RPAPL 1503, signaling that omitted owners aren’t bound absent knowledge but can be cut off through reforeclosure.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Bryan Thompson (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
Bryan Thompson pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery and got nine years, which he challenged as too harsh. The First Department cut the sentence to eight years and otherwise affirmed the judgment. The decision shows the court can reduce excessive sentences in the interest of justice, even after a guilty plea.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Leonard Lewis (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
This case asked whether New York’s pre‑2025 child‑pornography law covered “morphed” images and whether a related federal conviction could require SORA registration. The First Department vacated the SORA adjudication, finding the law then applied only to performances by actual children and the 2025 amendment adding digitized images cannot apply retroactively. The decision means pre‑July 8, 2025 conduct involving morphed images cannot be used to require SORA registration in New York.
Read more:
Click here
21st Mortgage Corporation v. Jin Hua Lin, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
This mortgage foreclosure case asked whether parties can invoke the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) after a judgment but before the auction. The First Department reversed, granted leave to renew, and remanded, holding that a renewal motion filed before the sale is timely because FAPA applies retroactively until the sale is completed. This clarifies that borrowers and junior lienholders can seek FAPA relief pre-sale even after judgment.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Johnny Marin (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
After a guilty plea to attempted burglary, the defendant challenged his appeal waiver, denial of youthful offender status, and mandatory surcharges. The First Department invalidated the appeal waiver and vacated the surcharges and fees, but otherwise affirmed the conviction, three-year sentence, and YO denial. The ruling underscores that judges must clearly explain what rights survive an appeal waiver and that surcharges and fees can be removed in the interest of justice.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Chad Gardner (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
The First Department held the plea court’s appeal waiver invalid because it was not clearly explained on the record. It upheld a probation search condition tied to the case’s firearm involvement, but vacated the surcharge and fees in the interest of justice and otherwise affirmed. The decision reinforces that appeal waivers need a clear, on-the-record explanation and that tailored probation searches are permissible.
Read more:
Click here
West Side Marquis LLC v. Carlos Maldonado (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
This rent-stabilization case addressed whether a landlord could drop a long‑standing preferential rent after delaying a renewal until after the HSTPA took effect. The First Department dismissed the landlord’s holdover, holding the HSTPA’s rent cap applies because the renewal was offered after June 14, 2019, so the rent could not exceed what was previously charged. The court also said prior lease protections, including the preferential rent, remained in place until a proper renewal, and a DHCR order was not an “increase authorized by law.”
Read more:
Click here
Juan Fernandez v. Sub 412 Associates, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
A worker was hurt when an unfinished drop ceiling collapsed, and the First Department affirmed summary judgment for him under Labor Law § 240(1) as a classic falling-object hazard. The First Department dismissed Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against general contractor Nucor. It awarded Nucor full contractual and common-law indemnification from subcontractor Anfield and struck Aramis from the indemnity ruling, confirming a fault-free GC may shift liability to the subcontractor that caused the hazard.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Cynque T., A Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
A youth was found delinquent after a brief fight at a Bronx probation office that injured two probation officers. The First Department dismissed the second-degree assault counts because the evidence did not show he meant to stop officers from doing their jobs, and it upheld the third-degree assault counts. The decision clarifies that in fast, chaotic scuffles, a stray punch or mere noncompliance does not prove the required purpose to obstruct an officer under § 120.05(3).
Read more:
Click here
Alessandro Sebastiano v. Bamundo, Zwal & Schermerhorn LLP (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
This malpractice case stemmed from a failed police-officer injury claim under GML § 205‑e, alleging a station staircase should have had non-slip treads. The First Department dismissed the malpractice action, finding the 1914 Building Code applied because the plans were approved in 1915, and that code did not require non-slip treads. The ruling clarifies that the plan-approval date controls which code applies and that without a specific code provision, a § 205‑e claim—and any malpractice claim tied to it—cannot proceed.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Luisanny A. v. Jonathan C. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
A mother sought to modify a 2015 custody order, but the Family Court dismissed her petition for not showing a significant change. The First Department affirmed the dismissal and dismissed an earlier appeal as superseded, but removed the “with prejudice” label. This matters because custody orders can be revisited if circumstances change, while courts require concrete proof and defer to Family Court credibility findings.
Read more:
Click here
Valarezo v. HP Jamsta Housing Development Fund Company Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
A construction worker was hit by a steel bar that fell while being hoisted, raising a Labor Law § 240(1) “falling object” claim. The First Department granted plaintiffs summary judgment on § 240(1) liability and otherwise affirmed, making the § 200 and negligence claims academic. The court held that an unsecured load that falls during hoisting triggers § 240(1) even if the worker can’t pinpoint the exact mechanics, and unrebutted testimony can suffice.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Brian Brown (Appellate Division, First Department, February 26, 2026)
After a drug-possession plea, the defendant challenged probation terms despite an appeal waiver. The First Department struck a gang‑association/paraphernalia ban and a surcharges-and-fees requirement, citing no gang ties and the defendant’s inability to pay, and otherwise affirmed. The decision underscores that probation terms must be supported by the record and tied to rehabilitation, and courts should not condition probation on payments from someone who cannot afford them.
Read more:
Click here
Larone Butler v. Marco Realty Associates, L.P., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
A demolition worker was struck by a partially cut pipe, raising Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims and indemnity issues. The First Department upheld § 240(1) falling-object liability and dismissed § 200/common-law negligence claims against the owner and tenants for lack of supervisory control, but allowed those claims to proceed against the general contractor due to fact disputes. Contractual indemnification was left unresolved, and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 bars common-law indemnity and contribution against the employer.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Clinton Benjamin (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
Clinton Benjamin pled guilty to attempted murder and bail jumping; the appeal concerned sentencing surcharges and fees. The First Department vacated the surcharges and fees for the attempted murder indictment only, relying on People v Chirinos and with the prosecution’s consent, and otherwise affirmed. This highlights the court’s power to remove financial penalties in the interest of justice while leaving the conviction and prison term intact.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Leonard Lewis (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
This case asked whether a federal conviction for creating and sharing “morphed” sexual images of a minor could trigger New York sex‑offender registration under pre‑2025 Penal Law § 263.15. The First Department reversed and vacated the registration, holding the statute then covered only performances by actual children, not digitized or morphed images. The ruling means SORA status cannot rest on a broader federal offense unless the conduct was a New York crime at the time; a 2025 amendment now prospectively covers digitized depictions.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Leonard Lewis (Appellate Division, First Department, February 24, 2026)
The case asked if a federal conviction for creating and sharing “morphed” sexual images of a minor could trigger SORA registration in New York. The First Department reversed the level-one classification and vacated the adjudication, holding that before July 8, 2025, Penal Law § 263.15 did not cover morphed images. The ruling clarifies that courts must match the underlying conduct to New York law, and notes the 2025 amendment now reaches digitized images.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Polito v. North Babylon School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A parent alleged the North Babylon School District negligently supervised repeated bullying and sought permission to file a late notice of claim. The Second Department reversed the trial court and allowed the late notice. The court said the district already had timely, detailed knowledge from its own reports, police involvement, and parent communications, and without a specific showing of prejudice, a weak excuse for delay did not bar relief.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Robert Marzen v. New York City Department of Correction (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A NYC Department of Correction employee sought to force the agency to send his discipline to the city’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) under Civil Service Law § 75. The Second Department dismissed his Article 78 petition as time-barred, finding the agency’s decision was final by August 4, 2021 after he had waived a § 75 hearing. The ruling makes clear that Article 78 challenges must be filed within four months of final agency action, and late filings cannot compel an OATH referral.
Read more:
Click here
Guzman v. Howe (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
Case about who must maintain the sidewalk outside a Brooklyn restaurant—the owners or the tenant—under the lease and NYC Administrative Code § 7-210. The Second Department reinstated the negligence and indemnification claims against the tenant and denied its summary judgment because the lease’s sidewalk-repair clauses were broad and ambiguous, creating issues for trial. It matters because commercial tenants may face liability to pedestrians if their lease shifts sidewalk repair duties, even though owners are generally responsible under § 7-210.
Read more:
Click here
Lubarsky v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A cyclist was injured after swerving to avoid a security SUV that was blocking a park path. The Second Department affirmed negligence and the $600,000 damages finding, but reallocated fault to 60% for the security contractors and 40% for the cyclist and sent the case back to recalculate the award. The decision underscores that patrol vehicles must not obstruct shared paths and cyclists must watch for visible hazards.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of 1876 Bleecker St, Inc. v. New York City Department of Finance (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A property owner tried to challenge NYC’s tax classification in an Article 78 case without a final Department of Finance (DOF) decision on that issue. The Second Department reversed the lower court’s remittal and dismissed the proceeding for lack of a final, binding agency decision and failure to exhaust remedies. Takeaway: get and include DOF’s final written decision on the specific tax-class question before filing.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Fleischer v. Friedman (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
This case involved confirming a Beth Din of America arbitration award of $356,277.75 to Jeffrey Fleischer for a fiduciary breach. The Second Department affirmed the award and denied vacatur and sealing, changing only the prejudgment interest start date to September 14, 2019. It reinforces the high bar to overturn arbitration awards and that interest runs from the end of any payment period set in the award.
Read more:
Click here
Mendes v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A worker was hurt while in the back of a box truck that started moving, raising whether Industrial Code § 23-9.7(e) applies to riding in trucks. The Second Department reinstated the Labor Law § 241(6) claim because the State relied on a conclusory, secondhand affidavit and two witnesses said the truck was moving. The decision signals that defendants need firsthand proof to win summary judgment and that disputes over vehicle movement cannot be decided at that stage.
Read more:
Click here
Trim v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a motor-vehicle injury case under Insurance Law § 5102(d) after the lower court had dismissed it on the serious-injury threshold. The court found the defendants did not meet their initial burden because they failed to address the plaintiff’s claimed right-wrist injury under the permanent or significant limitation categories. The ruling reminds defendants that they must address every alleged injury and category, or their summary judgment motion will be denied.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Portillo v. Arevalo-Narvaez (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
In a custody dispute, the Second Department reversed a Family Court order that transferred physical custody to the father and sent the case back for a reopened hearing. New developments—the father’s move to Florida and the child living with the mother—made the record too limited to decide the child’s best interests. The February 2024 order stays in place while the Family Court takes new evidence and issues a fresh determination.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Manuel G. (Anonymous), Jr.; Matter of Marianna G. (Anonymous); Matter of Cleopatra G. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
This case asked whether one domestic-violence incident in the children’s presence can support a neglect finding. The Second Department reinstated ACS’s petitions and found neglect, relying on the 911 call, medical records, the children’s statements, and a negative inference from the father’s failure to testify. The ruling confirms that a single incident can suffice and that risk of harm may be inferred from a child’s proximity to such violence.
Read more:
Click here
Young v. Kamath (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
The case involves alleged malpractice and wrongful death from management of blood thinners around a pacemaker procedure, and whether the hospital can be liable for an ER cardiologist. The Second Department dismissed the informed consent claim against the electrophysiologist but otherwise left the malpractice, wrongful death, and apparent agency claims for trial. It matters because competing expert opinions can block summary judgment and ER patients may support hospital liability under apparent agency.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Lopez v. Rodriguez (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
The case asked whether Family Court could dismiss a custody petition because the mother did not file an acknowledgment of paternity. The Second Department reinstated the petition and sent it back for a best-interests hearing. It held that missing the form is not a bar; the court can establish paternity within the case when it is undisputed and supported by the birth certificate.
Read more:
Click here
Palacios v. McEvoy (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A construction worker was hurt after backing his car into an unguarded trench at a home building site and sued the general contractor under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Second Department reinstated the § 241(6) claim because the large trench was a hazardous opening that should have been guarded, and factual issues remain. It affirmed dismissal of the § 240(1) claim, underscoring that statute’s narrow focus on elevation-device risks.
Read more:
Click here
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Rampersad (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
In a mortgage foreclosure case, Nationstar asked to voluntarily end its lawsuit and the defendant Windward Bora’s counterclaims. The Second Department reinstated the counterclaims and said they must be severed and proceed, while allowing Nationstar to discontinue its foreclosure action. The ruling confirms a plaintiff can drop its own claims but cannot use discontinuance to erase a defendant’s counterclaims.
Read more:
Click here
Kurbonov v. Cohen (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A motor-vehicle injury suit was dismissed in Supreme Court, Kings County for failure to prosecute under CPLR 3216. The Second Department reinstated the case because defendants failed to show the plaintiffs actually received the 90-day demand; returned mail and attorney assertions did not suffice. The decision underscores that the 90-day period runs from receipt, so proof of actual delivery is required before seeking a CPLR 3216 dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Porter (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action, vacating a 2012 sua sponte abandonment dismissal. Filing a motion for an order of reference within one year satisfied CPLR 3215(c) and defeated abandonment, even though that motion was denied. The court also clarified that a motion to vacate a sua sponte 3215(c) dismissal under CPLR 2221(a) has no set deadline and needs no excuse when no abandonment occurred.
Read more:
Click here
Peterson v. Credit Agricole America Services, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
An employee sued Credit Agricole for harassment and a hostile work environment. The Second Department reinstated the order dismissing her case and imposing sanctions, finding there was no default and her discovery violations were willful. The ruling clarifies that non-default orders cannot be vacated under CPLR 5015(a)(1) and that persistent discovery abuse can warrant dismissal under CPLR 3126.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Lenox Hill Hospital (NSUH) (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
After Lenox Hill won a no-fault arbitration, American Transit failed to pay $192 in postjudgment interest, prompting a dispute over collection and attorney’s fees. The Second Department awarded Lenox Hill additional attorney’s fees for necessary work to secure that overdue interest, but upheld the quashing of its information subpoena as irrelevant and harassing. The decision confirms that even small unpaid interest can justify fee awards for legitimate collection efforts, while overbroad subpoenas won’t.
Read more:
Click here
People v. McClarin (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
This case questioned an NYPD impound and inventory search after a traffic stop that uncovered drugs and guns. The Second Department suppressed the vehicle evidence and dismissed the drug and weapon counts, leaving only the traffic-related convictions. It confirms prosecutors must prove a genuine public-safety basis for impoundment and compliance with a standardized policy, or inventory-search evidence will be suppressed.
Read more:
Click here
Burke v. Xiufei Chen (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
A tenant was injured when a ceramic soap dish in his bathtub broke. The Second Department dismissed the case, finding the defect was hidden and the landlord neither created it nor had actual or constructive notice; the tenant’s mold and cracked-tile complaints were too general to provide notice. The ruling confirms landlords aren’t liable for latent fixture defects without notice, because constructive notice requires a visible, apparent condition discoverable on reasonable inspection.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. MTS Acupuncture, P.C. (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
This case involved a no-fault arbitration award that American Transit paid after it was confirmed, but MTS still sought an information subpoena and extra attorneys’ fees. The Second Department upheld entry of a satisfaction of judgment, ruled no further enforcement discovery was allowed, and denied extra fees on the merits because no benefits were overdue. It matters because once a confirmed no-fault judgment is paid, collection subpoenas and add-on fee claims generally end.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Brianna J. (Anonymous); Matter of Kevin J. (Anonymous); Matter of Ricardo J. (Anonymous); Matter of Richard J. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
The case asked whether a parent neglects children by allowing repeated domestic violence in their presence, including in violation of an order of protection. The Second Department reinstated ACS’s petitions, found the mother neglected the children, and sent the case back for a dispositional hearing. The ruling confirms that exposing children to domestic violence, coupled with a failure to exercise basic care, can establish neglect.
Read more:
Click here
Moccasin v. Suffolk County (Appellate Division, Second Department, February 25, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a suit over a police cruiser that struck a skateboarder while responding to a maternity emergency. The court applied the emergency-vehicle rule but found triable issues of recklessness, including possible high speed and an abrupt, unsignaled merge in a poorly lit school zone. It underscores that, under VTL § 1104, agencies can’t win summary judgment unless they eliminate factual disputes about reckless driving.
Read more:
Click here
Michael C. Lueck v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 26, 2026)
A State Police blotter error led a newspaper to falsely report that Michael Lueck was arrested for a felony, and he sued the State for defamation. The Third Department reinstated the claim, finding it gave enough detail about when and where it arose, what was said, and how and to whom it was shared. The decision confirms plaintiffs can meet pleading rules without pinpointing every detail and may rely on a newspaper retraction to identify the false words.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Abigail X. (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 26, 2026)
A transgender petitioner sought to seal the court record of a name change, warning that public access would expose him to harassment, discrimination, and violence. The Third Department reversed and ordered the record sealed, holding that Civil Rights Law § 64-a looks only to potential harm to the applicant, not broad public-interest concerns. The ruling reinforces protection for transgender litigants and confirms sealing is warranted when a petitioner shows a risk of harm.
Read more:
Click here
Places in Saratoga, LLC v. Frank J. Izzo et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 26, 2026)
A neighbor dispute over stormwater runoff and construction access arose from a preconstruction agreement tied to a new building. The Third Department reinstated the plaintiff’s good‑faith‑and‑fair‑dealing claim because there are factual disputes about whether defendants conditioned a rainwater fix on extra roof work outside the agreement. The rest of the order was affirmed, leaving negligence and a prescriptive‑easement defense for trial, and signaling that courts expect good‑faith negotiations and won’t grant summary judgment when credibility is in play.
Read more:
Click here
Wissert v. Medline Industries Inc. (Appellate Division, Third Department, February 26, 2026)
A Pengate technician was fatally crushed when an elevated order-picker platform fell at Medline’s facility; the estate sued under Labor Law § 240(1). The Third Department reinstated the § 240(1) and wrongful death claims and revived Medline’s third‑party claim against Pengate, citing factual disputes about whether the work was a repair and whether proper elevation safety devices were provided. The ruling matters because falling platforms can trigger § 240(1), and questions about repair versus maintenance and device adequacy typically go to a jury.
Read more:
Click here