The People of the State of New York v. Timothy Nesmith (Appellate Division, First Department, November 25, 2025)
This case involved a resisting arrest conviction. The First Department dismissed the indictment because the proof showed Nesmith cooperated during the arrest and only struggled after he was already handcuffed and restrained. It clarifies that Penal Law § 205.30 covers interference with effecting an arrest, not conduct after the arrest is complete.
Read more:
Click here
242 Tenth Investors LP v. GVC 242 Tenth Sponsor, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 25, 2025)
An investor in a real estate partnership sought to remove the general partner after it unilaterally expanded renovations far beyond the agreed budget. The First Department reinstated the investor’s request for a declaration and its breach-of-contract claim (limited to nominal damages and possible attorneys’ fees) and vacated the ruling that the removal was invalid. The court held that minor notice defects can be excused without prejudice, a required condition may be excused if the other side blocks performance, and cure periods don’t apply to completed, unauthorized work.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Felix (Appellate Division, First Department, November 25, 2025)
A defendant who pled guilty to attempted weapon possession challenged his Bronx case on speedy-trial and excessive-sentence grounds. The First Department affirmed the conviction and five years’ probation, finding a valid appeal waiver and that an 84-day delay caused by a court-provided wrong email didn’t count against the prosecution, but it vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees in the interest of justice. The decision reinforces that valid appeal waivers bar these appeals and that courts can remove financial assessments while leaving the conviction intact.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of New York Taxi Workers Alliance, et al. v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 25, 2025)
A driver group challenged a TLC pilot allowing up to 2,500 SHL licenses to do prearranged-only trips without street-hail equipment, saying it would oversaturate service and cut driver earnings. The First Department reinstated the petition, finding a concrete risk of income loss that aligns with Local Law 147’s protections for driver income and well-being. The ruling confirms competitors can contest TLC licensing pilots before rollout when the claimed harms tie to Local Law 147.
Read more:
Click here
5113 27th Street Property Owner LLC v. Arthur Karpati et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 25, 2025)
Landlord sought to enforce a commercial lease guaranty; the guarantors argued there was a surrender and claimed fraudulent inducement tied to a rent amendment. The First Department reinstated the dispute over guarantor liability, vacating summary judgment so discovery can determine whether a surrender cut off the guaranty, and it affirmed dismissal of the inducement defenses based on clear waiver language and lack of justifiable reliance. The ruling highlights that contested surrender issues can block early judgment, while robust guaranty waivers foreclose inducement claims.
Read more:
Click here
David Molner v. Naomi Molner (Appellate Division, First Department, November 25, 2025)
This case challenged interim orders shifting college, private‑school, and therapy costs between divorced parents. The First Department reversed the non‑consensual orders and denied the husband’s interim request without prejudice, while leaving the consent order for the sons’ 2024–2025 tuition in place. The ruling confirms that courts won’t change financial arrangements before a hearing without required financial disclosures (including a current sworn net worth statement) and a solid record.
Read more:
Click here
Adriene Larue v. 1201-31 Lafayette Ground Gowner LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, November 25, 2025)
In a personal-injury premises case, defendants denied having accident surveillance video until after depositions. The First Department reversed and, under CPLR 3126(c), precluded defendants from using the video because the nondisclosure was willful and prejudicial. The decision underscores that withholding or delaying surveillance footage—even for a short period—can lead to preclusion as a proportionate discovery sanction.
Read more:
Click here
Sheik Hossain v. Ruth Teresa Hossain (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
This post-divorce case involved an ex-husband suing his ex-wife for fraud and unjust enrichment over maintenance arrears. The Second Department dismissed those claims as barred by collateral estoppel based on prior Family Court and divorce rulings, and it affirmed the denial of sanctions. The ruling confirms that parties cannot repackage maintenance enforcement issues as tort claims, and sanctions require a clear showing of frivolous conduct.
Read more:
Click here
People ex rel. Cassar, on behalf of Loeb v. Toulon (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 24, 2025)
This case challenged Suffolk County’s decision to revoke Loeb’s bail after he was charged with a new felony while already out on bail. The Second Department sent the case back because the court didn’t make required on-the-record findings—such as flight risk and reasons for the bail decision—and otherwise dismissed the writ, so detention remains. It reinforces that new charges alone don’t justify revoking bail; judges must explain their reasons based on statutory factors.
Read more:
Click here
People ex rel. Kon, on behalf of Guerra v. Maginley-Liddie (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 24, 2025)
A habeas petition challenged Diego Guerra’s pretrial detention for not complying with CPL 510.10(1)’s least‑restrictive bail standard. The Second Department dismissed the petition in January, but the Court of Appeals reversed. On remand, the Second Department ordered a prompt bail hearing in Supreme Court, Queens County, to apply the least‑restrictive standard, while denying broader habeas relief—signaling that habeas can force on‑the‑record compliance.
Read more:
Click here
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Fimbel (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
The case addressed whether a foreclosure must pause after a borrower dies when the home is owned by spouses as tenants by the entirety and the lender waives any deficiency claim. The Second Department reinstated the lender’s unopposed motion, holding no automatic stay was required because the surviving spouse kept full title and the estate faced no deficiency claim. This clarifies that courts may proceed without substituting the decedent in similar circumstances.
Read more:
Click here
Cuji v. 225 Fourth, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated a construction worker’s Labor Law case and ordered a new trial. The jury had found the owner and contractor failed required demolition safety measures that caused the accident but still assigned them 0% fault. That inconsistency made the verdict against the weight of the evidence, which the court could review even without a trial objection.
Read more:
Click here
Burke v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
This case tested whether a Queens nursing home could claim COVID-19 immunity under New York’s EDTPA against negligence and gross negligence claims. The Second Department reinstated the suit because defendants did not conclusively satisfy EDTPA’s requirements and the complaint plausibly alleged gross negligence. It confirms the repeal is not retroactive and that immunity will not support early dismissal without a conclusive showing.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Jia Xi Liu (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
The Second Department upheld a nonjury conviction for criminally negligent homicide and related fraud offenses. It vacated an illegal 1.5-to-3-year sentence on a class A misdemeanor forged-instrument count and sent the case back for proper resentencing. The ruling matters because class A misdemeanors can carry no more than a one-year definite term, and the evidence supported the homicide conviction.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of A&J 917 56th Street, LLC v. Raikakos (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
A developer sought a license under RPAPL 881 to enter neighbors’ property for construction; the trial court granted access and awarded the developer attorneys’ fees. The Second Department affirmed the access but deleted the fee award, and did not consider the neighbors’ fee request because they hadn’t asked for it in the trial court. The decision clarifies that petitioners can obtain reasonable access, but cannot shift their legal fees to the adjoining owner, and respondents must request fees in Supreme Court to preserve the issue.
Read more:
Click here
Berna Lee v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
The case involves COVID-19 era nursing home care and whether the EDTPA shields the facility from liability. The Second Department reinstated the suit, finding the defendants did not conclusively meet all EDTPA requirements and the complaint plausibly alleged gross negligence. It matters because EDTPA may still cover pre-repeal conduct, but immunity is not automatic at the pleading stage.
Read more:
Click here
Navarrete v. First Steps Trans., Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
The case centers on discovery in a suit alleging a child with an IEP was left on a school bus for 3.5 hours. The Second Department reversed, denied a protective order, and ordered additional depositions and post‑deposition discovery. It underscores New York’s liberal disclosure rules: courts allow new requests based on fresh testimony and can require depositions of specific witnesses when a designee lacks knowledge.
Read more:
Click here
Rothman v. Rothman (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
This divorce appeal centered on how long maintenance should last and whether the wife was entitled to various credits. The Second Department extended maintenance by seven more years at $8,000 per month and otherwise affirmed, including denial of unproven credits and a $125,000 counsel-fee award. It found five years was too short given the long marriage, the wife’s age, nearly two decades out of the workforce, and health issues tied in part to domestic violence.
Read more:
Click here
Wenny Ho, etc., et al. v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated a suit by the family of a nursing home resident who died of COVID-19, challenging the facility’s claimed immunity under New York’s EDTPA and alleging gross negligence. The court said the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive, but the defendants failed to conclusively show they met the statute’s conditions for immunity. Because the complaint adequately alleged gross negligence, the case should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage.
Read more:
Click here
Ramsay v. Garland (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
A homeowner deeded her Queens home to a friend to get a loan, claiming an oral promise to return the title later. The Second Department dismissed the breach of contract and fraud claims as based on an unenforceable oral promise and duplicative of the contract claim, but allowed constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and RPAPL article 15 quiet-title claims to proceed. The ruling confirms oral reconveyance agreements are barred, yet courts may still use equitable remedies or treat a deed intended as security as a mortgage.
Read more:
Click here
Citibank, N.A. v. Vernikov, doing business as Interpage Co (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
Citibank canceled a $100,000 business credit line after a periodic review and, after default, sued to enforce the contract, a personal guaranty, and recover collateral. The Second Department reversed, granted summary judgment to Citibank, allowed recovery of the collateral, and dismissed Vernikov’s defenses and counterclaims. It confirms lenders may cancel upon notice under clear credit terms even after a renewal fee, and that unsupported defenses will not block judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Gaviria v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, 2025-11-26)
The Second Department reinstated the amended complaint in a suit against a Queens nursing home over a COVID-19 death, reversing the trial court’s dismissal. The court said EDTPA’s repeal is not retroactive, but the defendants did not conclusively show all conditions for that immunity, and the complaint plausibly alleged gross negligence. It signals that at the pleading stage, EDTPA immunity cannot support dismissal unless every requirement is definitively established and gross negligence is negated.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Pearl v. New York State Unified Court System (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
A longtime New York court officer challenged his firing over three Facebook comments, arguing one post was too old under the union contract’s 18-month deadline. The Second Department annulled UCS’s decision and sent the case back, holding the older post was time‑barred and its continued online availability did not restart the clock. The ruling underscores that agencies must follow contractual disciplinary limits, and timeliness for social media runs from the original posting.
Read more:
Click here
Dos Anjos v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
A construction worker slipped on rainwater pooled on a plastic vapor barrier at a jobsite, was cut by his saw, and sued under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 and negligence. The Second Department granted plaintiffs summary judgment on § 241(6) because the condition violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d), rejected the “integral to the work” and sole-proximate-cause defenses, and left the § 200 and negligence claims intact. The decision confirms water on plastic sheeting is a covered slipping hazard and that owners and contractors can face liability when such violations cause injury.
Read more:
Click here
Brown v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
A passenger injured on the Queensboro Bridge sued the State for negligent roadway design and maintenance. The State moved to dismiss, arguing it did not own or maintain that stretch. The Second Department reinstated the claim, holding the complaint was sufficient and that bare assertions of non-ownership cannot support early dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
Batista v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
Plaintiffs alleged Yonkers officers used false testimony during their prosecutions and sued under § 1983 and the New York Constitution. The Second Department reinstated their Fourteenth Amendment due process § 1983 claim against the individual officers and affirmed dismissal of the Fifth Amendment and state constitutional claims. The ruling confirms such claims proceed under Fourteenth Amendment due process, and that state constitutional damages are unavailable when adequate common-law remedies exist.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Dave Pearl v. New York State Unified Court System (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
A longtime court officer was fired for three biased Facebook comments. The Second Department annulled the termination and sent the case back, holding one charge was time‑barred by the CBA’s 18‑month limit because the clock starts at the original post under the single‑publication rule. It also rejected the officer’s First Amendment claim, underscoring that agencies must follow contractual deadlines even when discipline may be justified.
Read more:
Click here
Bartley v. Morgan (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 26, 2025)
This case asked whether a co-owner could bring a separate adverse possession claim after a partial summary judgment in an ongoing partition case. The Second Department affirmed the dismissal, holding that res judicata bars the later suit because the claim should have been raised in the partition action and the earlier order is preclusive. The decision signals that parties in partition disputes must assert all defenses and counterclaims early or risk being barred later.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Raivyn BB., Alleged to be a Neglected Child (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 26, 2025)
This case involved neglect allegations after a newborn tested positive for drugs and the father was confrontational at the hospital. The Third Department dismissed the petitions and vacated the neglect findings. It held that a positive drug test without proof of harm or imminent risk, and non-caretaking conduct like hostility or refusing paternity paperwork, do not establish neglect.
Read more:
Click here
Marc Anthony v. Jeffrey Haas, as Supervisor of the Town of Highland, et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 26, 2025)
A defamation plaintiff subpoenaed a local newspaper editor to identify the Town source who leaked an unredacted report. The Third Department reversed and quashed the subpoena under New York’s Shield Law, finding the plaintiff hadn’t shown the information couldn’t be obtained from nonpress sources and the trial court made no required findings. The decision reinforces strong reporter protections and requires litigants to exhaust alternative sources before seeking a journalist’s sources.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Richard CC. v. Lacey DD.; and Attorney for the Children v. Richard CC. and Lacey DD. (Proceeding No. 6) (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 26, 2025)
The case concerned a Family Court order suspending a father’s parenting time and letting a therapist decide if visits would occur. The Third Department reversed, finding no compelling evidence of harm and holding that visitation decisions cannot be delegated to a therapist. It sent the matter back for updated fact-finding and a clear schedule if therapeutic contact is required, reinforcing the strong presumption favoring parent‑child visitation.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Denise D. v. Alissa E., et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 26, 2025)
A grandmother sought expanded visitation with her grandchild. Family Court set a visitation schedule but, on its own, removed her joint legal custody and gave joint legal custody to the parents. The Third Department reversed the custody change for lack of notice and required findings but kept the visitation schedule, clarifying that courts cannot turn a visitation case into a custody modification without proper process.
Read more:
Click here
Monica Hulett et al. v. Terri Korb (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 26, 2025)
This case addressed the width and scope of a prescriptive roadway easement across private land. The Third Department set the width at 10 feet by stipulation, limited the easement to the roadbed, and allowed necessary maintenance up to five feet on both sides; it also confirmed the easement serves both parcels and upheld denial of compensatory damages. The ruling clarifies that prescriptive rights do not include the shoulders, while incidental upkeep is permitted, and reinforces that prior rulings and stipulations control.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Tyler R. Benton (Appellate Division, Third Department, November 26, 2025)
The case involved convictions for sexual abuse and child endangerment from a YMCA incident, where the defendant was excluded from a private conference about evidence. The Third Department reversed and ordered a new trial because he was kept out of a material stage without a valid, on-the-record Antommarchi waiver. The court also warned that Sandoval impeachment should be limited when its prejudice outweighs its value.
Read more:
Click here