Seaton v. Babad (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-24)
In Seaton v. Babad, the First Department held that plaintiffs could not immediately sue a court-appointed property manager over the clearing out of their former office space because the manager was acting within its court-approved role. The court did not dismiss the case, but paused it so plaintiffs can ask the appointing court for permission to proceed, confirming that this permission is generally required before suing a receiver or its agent.
Michael Lee v. Jeffrey Chin (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
In this commercial lease dispute, the tenant claimed he was misled into signing a lease that ended in April 2024 instead of the April 2025 date he says the parties had agreed to. The First Department dismissed the tenant’s fraud and declaratory judgment claims, finding that the draft emails and signed lease clearly showed the April 2024 end date and that the lease’s merger clause blocked reliance on earlier discussions. This matters because it shows courts will enforce the written lease terms when the parties reviewed and signed documents that plainly contain the disputed provision.
Philip Tower v. Structure Tone, LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-24)
The First Department ruled for a construction worker who broke his foot after tripping over a loose sprinkler pipe and debris while carrying a door through a work area. It held that the owner and general contractor were liable under Labor Law § 241(6) because the cluttered floor created an avoidable tripping hazard, and it left intact the lower court’s indemnity rulings involving the subcontractors.
The decision matters because it reinforces that loose materials and debris in required access or work areas can lead to liability, and that defendants cannot avoid responsibility by claiming the hazard was simply part of the job.
Sheryl R. Menkes v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-24)
The First Department dismissed a medical malpractice case after the plaintiff missed a virtual court conference and then failed to show both a valid excuse for the absence and a strong basis for the claim. The decision matters because it underscores that parties seeking to reopen a dismissed case must provide both solid proof of why they missed court and a detailed expert opinion supporting the malpractice allegations.
Danilo Veliz Escudero v. Belmont Ave 2321 LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
This case involved a construction worker who fell when an A-frame ladder shifted while he was doing overhead pipe work. The First Department reversed the lower court and granted the worker summary judgment on liability, finding that his account was unrebutted and that the defendants’ expert opinion was too speculative to create a real factual dispute. This matters because it confirms that owners and contractors can be held liable under New York’s Scaffold Law when a ladder moves during elevated work and there is no solid evidence that the worker alone caused the accident.
People v. Jones (Appellate Division, First Department, March 26, 2026)
The First Department reinstated Michael Jones’s original sentence as a second felony offender, finding that his prior federal drug conviction counts as a qualifying felony in New York. The court said New York law requires proof only that a person knew the substance was a narcotic, not that they knew the exact drug, which changes earlier First Department rulings and affects how prior drug convictions are used at sentencing.
Lilian Rodriguez v. Madison Security Group, Inc., Preservation Management, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
This case involved a tenant who was assaulted by another resident and sought to hold the property owner and manager responsible. The First Department dismissed the claims against those defendants, finding there was no evidence they had notice of the assailant’s violent behavior or a real chance to prevent the attack. This matters because it confirms that landlords are generally not liable for tenant-on-tenant assaults without clear warning signs and practical control over the situation.
Canara Bank, London Branch v. MVP Group International, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
In a cross-border loan restructuring fight, Canara Bank sued to collect debt, and MVP counterclaimed over the bank’s alleged refusal to use reserve-account funds and remit a $30 million equity infusion. The First Department allowed the bank to voluntarily end the New York case and dismissed most of MVP’s counterclaims, finding no clear contractual duty and ruling that some disputes belonged in India. This matters because it confirms that courts will usually permit a case to be withdrawn if there is no prejudice, and they will enforce contracts as written.
AAEB5 FUND 17, LLC, et al. v. Duval & Stachenfeld, LLP, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 26, 2026)
The First Department largely upheld the trial court in a legal malpractice case over missed bankruptcy claims, but sent the case back for limited discovery about communications with the plaintiffs’ replacement bankruptcy counsel. The court said those communications are not automatically open to discovery, but they may become discoverable if the plaintiffs plan to use that advice to show they reasonably tried to reduce their losses or if earlier email disclosures waived privilege.
Matter of Andrew C. B. v. Allegra B.J. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
This case arose from a fight between former domestic partners over a dog, during which one party made an angry remark about getting a gun and shooting the other. The First Department vacated the Family Court’s harassment finding and dismissed the petition, holding that the comment was a crude outburst rather than a real threat. The decision matters because it confirms Family Court can hear cases between former domestic partners, but harsh words alone do not automatically qualify as harassment.
Maynor Alvizurez v. North State Realty Associates LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
In this slip-and-fall case, a tenant said he was injured on wet stairs in a residential building lobby shortly after a major snowstorm. The First Department dismissed the claims against the owner and manager, finding they had less than two hours after the storm ended to address tracked-in water and there was no proof they created the condition or knew about it. This decision matters because it confirms that building owners are generally not liable for storm-related wet conditions inside a property until they have had a reasonable chance to inspect and clean them.
Ivoir DaSilva, et al. v. Super P57, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
The First Department upheld liability for an injured construction worker under the Scaffold Law after he fell from an unsecured plank while doing facade work. The court found the fall-protection setup was not properly designed, and it said the worker’s short fall still qualified as an elevation-related hazard. This matters because it confirms that even falls of only a few feet can trigger liability when proper safety devices are missing or ineffective.
The People of the State of New York v. Jawan Thomas (Appellate Division, First Department, March 26, 2026)
In a sentencing appeal, the First Department upheld Jawan Thomas’s prison sentence but removed the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing. The court found the sentence was not excessive, but it used its interest-of-justice authority to cancel the financial penalties, showing that some sentencing costs can be lifted even when the rest of the judgment stands.
Stile v. C-Air Customhouse Brokers-Forwards, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-24)
The First Department revived a widow’s claims that she owns at least one-third of two closely held shipping companies and was unfairly frozen out after her husband’s death. The court said the settlement agreement was unclear about whether his shares passed to her automatically at death, and it ruled that limits on shareholder inspection rights did not block her from getting ordinary litigation discovery needed to prove ownership, value, and damages.
Latoya Shuford v. City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
The First Department dismissed a woman’s lawsuit against New York City arising from her arrest and prosecution, including claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligence, and related constitutional and contract theories. The court held that she missed the required deadlines to file a notice of claim and to sue the City, measured from her release from custody rather than her later acquittal, and also failed to allege facts strong enough to overcome probable cause created by the arrest warrant and indictment.
People of the State of New York v. Edward Goldfaden (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
In People v. Goldfaden, the First Department ruled that the trial court wrongly denied the defendant’s bid to set aside his sentence based only on retroactivity, because his direct appeal was still pending and his conviction was not yet final. The First Department sent the case back for further review and paused the direct appeal. The decision matters because it clarifies that defendants with ongoing direct appeals may still benefit from new rulings, and appellate courts cannot uphold a decision on grounds the lower court never addressed.
The People of the State of New York v. Tayquan Wilson (Appellate Division, First Department, March 26, 2026)
The First Department largely upheld Tayquan Wilson’s convictions and concurrent 3½-year prison terms for attempted robbery and weapon possession, vacating only the sentencing surcharges and fees. The court said his appeal waiver blocked review of most issues, and it rejected his remaining challenge to New York’s gun licensing laws. This matters because it underscores how an appeal waiver can sharply limit criminal appeals and confirms that searches are judged under the law in effect at the time.
Richmond Global Compass Fund Management GP, LLC, et al. v. Decio Nascimento et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, March 26, 2026)
The First Department reversed orders that had blocked subpoenas to a nonparty lawyer and his firm in a dispute over whether a former investment executive used confidential information and solicited investors to start a competing fund. The court found the requested communications could be relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims and said nonparty attorneys who withhold documents as privileged must provide a privilege log, reinforcing New York’s broad discovery rules.
People of the State of New York v. Shaquille Dinkins (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-24)
The First Department reversed Shaquille Dinkins’s gun-possession conviction and vacated his guilty plea because the trial judge denied his request for a new assigned lawyer without letting him explain his concerns. The decision makes clear that, before rejecting a request for substitute counsel, courts must give defendants a fair chance to be heard, and a later guilty plea does not automatically erase that error.
Ravi S. A. et al. v. Thompson Gyebi et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
The First Department reinstated an infant plaintiff’s claim that PTSD from a car accident caused a significant limitation, but it agreed to dismiss her separate claim that the condition was permanent. The court said the defense did not do enough to knock out the significant-limitation claim because its own evidence showed ongoing symptoms, but the plaintiff also was not entitled to win outright because her proof did not conclusively show a severe enough injury. This matters because it confirms PTSD can qualify as a serious injury in no-fault cases, but the claim must be backed by solid medical proof.
People of the State of New York v. Crystal Hutson (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-26)
After Crystal Hutson pleaded guilty to second-degree assault, The First Department left her conviction and most of her probation sentence in place but removed two probation terms: making court fees a condition of probation and banning gang paraphernalia or gang association. The court found those terms were not reasonably connected to her rehabilitation or to helping her live a law-abiding life, confirming that even after a guilty plea and appeal waiver, New York courts can still strike unsupported probation conditions.
People of the State of New York v. Shaquille Dinkins (Appellate Division, First Department, 2026-03-24)
The First Department reversed a gun-possession conviction after the trial judge denied the defendant’s request for a new assigned lawyer without letting him explain his concerns. The court vacated the guilty plea and sent the case back, stressing that judges must give defendants a fair chance to state why they want new counsel before rejecting the request.
D. O. v. Economic Opportunity Council of Suffolk, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department reinstated a child’s negligent supervision claim after she fell from a slide at a day care center, finding that the defendants’ own evidence showed the caregiver had turned away and did not see the fall. But it let the dismissal of the premises defect claim stand because the slide was shown to be nondefective, underscoring that day care providers can still face trial when their proof raises questions about whether children were being properly watched.
Conklin v. Westchester County (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
In a Child Victims Act case, the Second Department reinstated negligence claims against Westchester County stemming from allegations that a foster child was sexually abused by a staff member at a residential facility where the County placed him. The court held that the County was not entitled to summary judgment because its own evidence raised factual questions about whether it should have known of the risk and whether it properly chose and supervised the placement.
Breslin Brookhaven, LLC v. Rose (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department reinstated a lawsuit between two real estate LLC co-owners over how project entities were set up and whether one owner used his control of the company in a way that caused tax harm and gave himself an unfair financial advantage. The court held that the defendant had not shown the contract claims were too late or otherwise failed as a matter of law, and it also ruled that the fiduciary duty and declaratory judgment claims could move forward because they were not simply repeats of the contract claim.
Berry v. Batash (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department reinstated Berry’s claims for abuse of process, injurious falsehood, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Judiciary Law § 487, holding that he did not have to bring those claims as counterclaims in the earlier fraud case. It left in place the dismissal of the defamation claim against Batash because the statements at issue were made by counsel during litigation and were protected. The decision matters because it confirms that related claims can often be brought later in a separate New York action, but defamation claims based on relevant statements made in court proceedings usually cannot.
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Allied Board Certified Physicians (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
In this no-fault insurance dispute, American Transit tried to overturn a master arbitration award in favor of a medical provider, but the trial court denied vacatur and then also refused to confirm the award. The Second Department held that once the insurer’s challenge was denied, the award had to be confirmed, and it sent the case back to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees for the provider.
Jin Gang Huang v. Long Hing Kitchen, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a restaurant worker who won a default wage case was also entitled to $21,259.19 in liquidated damages, because the employers offered no evidence that they acted in good faith. It also found that one individual defendant could be held personally liable and sent the case back for a new hearing on whether several other individual defendants also qualified as the worker’s employers. This decision matters because it confirms that employers who default in New York wage cases can face automatic extra damages and possible personal liability for owners or managers.
Breslin Brookhaven, LLC v. Rose (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
In a dispute over a real estate development LLC, the parties fought over who lawfully held membership interests and whether one side breached duties and contract terms tied to the venture. The Second Department dismissed the fiduciary-duty claim and one declaratory-judgment claim, but allowed the membership-status declaration claim and the breach-of-contract claim to go forward. The decision matters because it shows that claims must be timely, supported by specific facts, and based on a real present dispute.
Matter of John T. Mather Memorial Hospital v. American Transit Insurance Company (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a hospital that successfully confirmed a no-fault master arbitration award was also entitled to attorney’s fees for the court proceeding. It held that a CPLR article 75 petition to confirm the award counts as a “court appeal” under the no-fault regulations, and sent the case back to the trial court to set a reasonable fee.
Yong Hong Xie v. Lan Chen (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
In this business dispute, the trial court ordered the defendants to produce their tax returns and said they and their lawyers would automatically face contempt and sanctions if they did not comply. The Second Department kept the production order but struck the automatic penalty provisions, holding that courts must follow proper notice and legal authority requirements before imposing contempt or sanctions.
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department ruled that police violated J’von Johnson’s Miranda rights by continuing to question him after he clearly said he wanted to remain silent, so his statements should have been suppressed. But it upheld his attempted murder and weapon convictions because surveillance video and other evidence overwhelmingly proved guilt, and it ordered his sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively because the prosecution did not show a separate intent for the weapon offense.
Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. J Companies, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department dismissed a contractor’s third-party claims in a Brooklyn construction payment dispute over roofing and masonry work. The court found the contract claims were filed too late under a one-year deadline in the parties’ agreements, the contractor could not enforce a separate settlement it was not meant to benefit from, and it could not recast the dispute as unjust enrichment.
Weingarten v. Kopelowitz (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
In a dispute over real-estate ownership and management, the Second Department reversed a ruling that had thrown out claims for breach of contract and RICO violations. The court held that while a trial judge can reject overlength motion papers, it cannot accept them and then ignore the extra pages when deciding the case. This matters because it reinforces that courts must give full consideration to papers they choose to accept before granting case-ending relief.
Saeteros-Pacheco v. Dzhurayev (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
In Saeteros-Pacheco v. Dzhurayev, the Second Department ruled that the plaintiffs’ lawyer could stay on the case despite a claimed conflict from previously representing a party who later became a third-party defendant. The court found that the third-party defendant waited too long to object and had therefore waived the issue. This decision matters because it shows that courts will protect a party’s choice of counsel when disqualification requests are delayed and appear tactical.
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Patient Care Associates (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department held that once the insurer’s challenge to a no-fault master arbitration award was denied, the lower court was required to confirm the award in favor of Patient Care Associates. The court also ruled that the provider may seek court-set attorneys’ fees for defending the award in court, and sent the case back to determine the amount.
American Transit Insurance Company v. Barakat PT PC (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that a trial court could not award a medical provider just $1,300 in attorney’s fees after the provider defeated a no-fault insurer’s court challenge without explaining how it reached that number. The court sent the case back for a new fee determination, underscoring that fee awards must be based on the record and clearly justified.
McIntosh v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
The Second Department upheld the dismissal of employment discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and aiding-and-abetting claims against the City of New York and a coworker because the complaint did not allege facts showing gender-based mistreatment, actionable retaliation, or a sufficiently serious hostile workplace. But the Second Department reinstated the claims against another defendant and unnamed defendants because the trial court dismissed them on its own without the extraordinary circumstances required, underscoring that these claims still need concrete factual support even under New York City’s broader anti-discrimination law.
In the Matter of Vincent V.L. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
This case asked whether a court handling a guardianship proceeding could cancel an incapacitated person’s will while that person was still alive. The Second Department said no, and reversed the part of the order that declared Vincent V.L.’s 2023 will void. The decision matters because it confirms that will disputes must be raised in the proper proceeding, not in an Article 81 guardianship case.
American Transit Insurance Company v. Barakat PT PC (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department reinstated an order striking an insurer’s complaint after the insurer failed to follow a court-ordered discovery deadline in a no-fault insurance dispute. The court held that the insurer could not use a later motion to raise a new argument or to submit facts it should have presented earlier. This matters because it underscores that parties must comply with discovery orders and make their full case the first time.
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Ayoola (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
The Second Department reversed a foreclosure judgment in favor of Federal National Mortgage Association because the lender did not properly prove it held the mortgage note when the case began. The court said the servicer’s affidavit relied on unsupported records and lacked personal knowledge, so it could not establish standing. The decision matters because foreclosure plaintiffs must prove note ownership with admissible evidence, even when they are allowed to renew a motion after an earlier denial without prejudice.
Sukhachova v. King's Gourmet Food Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
In Sukhachova v. King’s Gourmet Food Corp., a woman who said she was hurt by an uneven sidewalk sued the commercial tenant in front of the property. The Second Department dismissed the claims against the tenant, finding that it was not the property owner and did not create the defect, negligently repair it, make special use of the sidewalk, or otherwise take on a legal duty. This matters because it confirms that in New York City, sidewalk liability usually rests with the owner, not a tenant, unless specific exceptions apply.
In the Matter of Saint B. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, March 25, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated ACS’s request to remove Saint B. from the mother’s custody while a neglect case is pending. The court found that the mother’s history of neglect findings, including excessive corporal punishment, and her failure to meaningfully benefit from services showed an ongoing risk to the child.
Cacace v. Grandell Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2026-03-25)
In a lawsuit over a nursing home resident’s COVID-19 infection and death in spring 2020, The Second Department ruled that the facility could not be sued for ordinary negligence based on care provided on or after March 7, 2020, and it also threw out the gross negligence claims. The court held that New York’s former COVID-era immunity law still applied to that period despite its later repeal, but the nursing home did not show it qualified for federal PREP Act immunity, which requires a direct link to a covered countermeasure.
Estate of Willie Middleton, by the Proposed Administrator, Barry J. Warren v. CLR Troy LLC, doing business as Troy Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 26, 2026)
This case involved claims that a nursing home was responsible for a resident’s COVID-19-related death. The Third Department dismissed the complaint, finding the facility showed it followed pandemic directives, its care was affected by its COVID-19 response, and it acted in good faith under New York’s former pandemic immunity law.
The decision matters because it shows nursing homes may defeat COVID-19-era suits early when they can document compliance with emergency rules, and plaintiffs must offer specific facts to support claims of gross negligence or pre-pandemic wrongdoing.
People v. Bryan (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 26, 2026)
The Third Department mostly upheld a defendant’s conviction and enhanced prison sentence after he tried to take back his guilty plea in a child-related sex offense case. The court found his later claims of innocence and duress were contradicted by his sworn plea statements, but it struck a $1,000 sex offender victim fee because that charge was not authorized for his offense.
Powers v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 26, 2026)
In Powers v. State of New York, the Third Department reversed a trial court ruling and found the State liable after a contractor slipped on ice in a parking area at Woodbourne Correctional Facility. The court said the State knew, or should have known, the area was icy and failed to treat it, and it also ruled that brief freezing rain did not count as an ongoing storm that would excuse cleanup, sending the case back for a trial on damages only.
Briggs v. Fresenius et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 26, 2026)
In a lawsuit alleging negligent and intentional denial of medical care, the Third Department reinstated the complaint after finding that the trial court wrongly dismissed the case on its own based on defective service made before the action was formally started. The ruling matters because it confirms that, under New York law, dismissal for improper service must be requested by a party, not ordered by the court sua sponte, and that courts may vacate prior orders when fairness requires it.
Powers v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 26, 2026)
The Third Department reversed the dismissal of a contractor’s slip-and-fall claim after he fell on ice in a parking area at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, ruling that the State was liable and sending the case back for a damages trial only. The court found that the State knew or should have known the area was icy and failed to salt or sand it, and it said the “storm in progress” defense did not apply because the weather involved only intermittent freezing rain that left a thin glaze of ice.
Briggs v. Fresenius (Appellate Division, Third Department, March 26, 2026)
In a medical-care injury case, the Third Department reinstated a pro se plaintiff’s complaint after finding that the trial court wrongly dismissed it on its own based on defective service. The court held that under New York procedure, that kind of dismissal must be requested by a party, not raised by the court itself. This matters because it limits courts’ ability to throw out cases for service problems without a motion and confirms that judges may undo such errors in the interest of justice.