People of the State of New York v. Bernardo Ramos (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
Ramos pled guilty after being told he faced up to 30 years, even though a statutory cap limited his real exposure to 20. The First Department reversed the conviction, vacated the pleas, and remanded, and it dismissed the appeal from the CPL 440.10 denial as academic. The decision underscores that guilty pleas are invalid if defendants are not accurately advised about sentencing caps.
Read more: Click here
Randy Fernandez v. Singh Sohal Sukhdeep et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
The case asked whether the plaintiff met New York Insurance Law § 5102(d)’s no-fault serious-injury threshold after a 2020 car crash. The First Department dismissed the complaint, finding the spine issues were degenerative and preexisting, the shoulder had no objective serious limitation, and the plaintiff failed to link his condition to the crash or explain a treatment gap. The decision underscores that proving causation is separate from showing limitations, and objective deficits or surgery alone won’t avoid summary judgment without a clear causal explanation.
Read more: Click here
Ismail Elmaz v. CNY Construction LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
An electrician’s helper was hit by a drill dropped from a ladder at a Bronx construction site. The First Department granted him summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because no tool tethering or overhead protection was provided, rejecting the defendants’ fault and prematurity defenses. The ruling underscores that owners and contractors face § 240(1) liability for falling-object risks during elevated work when basic safeguards are missing.
Read more: Click here
Rodney v. 840 Westchester Avenue NMA, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
A plaintiff alleged she slipped on a wet lobby floor during snowy weather at 840 Westchester Avenue. The First Department reversed summary judgment and reinstated the complaint because the owners failed to show an ongoing storm, specific safety steps taken that day, or lack of notice despite earlier slip reports. It signals that to win under the storm-in-progress rule, owners need real weather proof, day-of maintenance details, and inspection and complaint records.
Read more: Click here
Michael Harelick v. Jose F. De La Cruz Lora et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
During Grand Concourse renovations, a pedestrian struck by a car alleged a temporary pedestrian signal was negligently installed and positioned. The First Department reinstated the claims against the City, Deboe, and Hellman and denied summary judgment. It held the prior written notice statute doesn’t cover pedestrian signals and found factual disputes on visibility and placement, meaning the City and contractors could be liable.
Read more: Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Tieara Richards (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
After pleading guilty to attempted first-degree assault, Tieara Richards received 3.5 years in prison and five years of post-release supervision. The First Department reduced the supervision term to 3.5 years, finding it excessive and noting the record lacked a valid appeal waiver, which allowed review. The decision reinforces that invalid appeal waivers don’t block appellate review and that excessive supervision terms can be trimmed in the interest of justice.
Read more: Click here
Joseph Borini et al. v. Inform Studios, Inc. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
Homeowners tried to hold affiliated companies and a principal liable for a renovation contract they didn’t sign. The First Department dismissed the claims against those non-signatories, reversing the trial court. The court reaffirmed that plaintiffs must plead specific facts showing complete domination used to commit a fraud or wrong; shared ownership or addresses are not enough.
Read more: Click here
Daniel Hermina v. 2050 Valentine Avenue, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
A slip-and-fall suit was refiled after a discovery-default dismissal, which the trial court treated as preclusive. The First Department reinstated the complaint, holding the 2024 refiling was timely and the earlier dismissal was not on the merits. It clarifies that CPLR 205(a) cannot shorten an unexpired limitations period and courts cannot retroactively add “with prejudice” to such orders.
Read more: Click here
Robinson Alonzo v. RP1185 LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
A rebar installer working 10 feet up injured his shoulder while trying to stop a piece of rebar from falling, with no hoist and unstable footing. The First Department reinstated his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted summary judgment on liability. The decision confirms the Scaffold Law covers injuries from preventing a falling object even if the worker doesn’t fall or get struck, when proper safety devices are missing.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Anthony Tompson (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
This appeal challenged probation conditions imposed after a guilty plea to drug possession. The First Department struck the dependent-support and gang-paraphernalia/association conditions for lack of any factual basis, but left in place employment/education and drug testing/treatment; the surcharge issue was moot. The decision clarifies that non-constitutional challenges to illegal probation conditions are reviewable without preservation, while a valid appeal waiver bars as-applied constitutional challenges and facial ones must be preserved.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Celinet Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
NYCHA ended Celinet Cruz’s Section 8 subsidy in 2019; she challenged the decision after a 2024 denial of restoration. The First Department dismissed her Article 78 petition as untimely, reversing the lower court. The four-month deadline runs from the tenant’s notice or actual knowledge of termination, and later restoration requests don’t restart the clock.
Read more: Click here
721 Borrower LLC v. Premier Digital Equipment Services Inc. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 27, 2026)
A commercial landlord‑tenant dispute tested guaranty waivers, a lease clause excusing elevator breakdowns, and the scope of quiet enjoyment. The First Department dismissed all guarantors’ counterclaims under the waiver and dismissed the tenant’s elevator‑related counterclaims under the exculpatory clause. It let the tenant’s other counterclaims proceed because factual disputes remain, showing that such waivers are enforceable while quiet‑enjoyment claims can still proceed.
Read more: Click here
Anthony Lacruise v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (David H. Koch Center) et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
A construction worker fell into an uncovered roof drain hole at a Memorial Sloan Kettering jobsite and sued under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The First Department dismissed the § 241(6) claim because § 23-1.7(e)(1) applies only to interior passageways and the accident was outdoors, and the worker abandoned other code bases. It affirmed partial summary judgment for the worker on § 200 based on constructive notice of a visible, longstanding hazard, signaling that outdoor trip-and-falls may not support § 241(6) but can support § 200 liability.
Read more: Click here
Park West Executive Services, Inc., et al. v. Gallo Vitucci & Klar, LLP, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
Park West sued its former lawyers for malpractice after they conceded a driver was its employee and allegedly hid conflicts, which increased the company’s settlement exposure. The First Department reinstated the complaint, finding the allegations sufficient and noting that employee vs. independent contractor status is a fact question for later. The ruling underscores that waiving key defenses without client consent, especially amid potential conflicts, can support a malpractice claim at the pleading stage.
Read more: Click here
Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Michelle Kuo Corp., Argonaut Insurance Company (as subrogee of 160 Bleecker Street Owners, Inc.), et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
Case about whether a commercial general liability policy covered fire damage from welding done to prepare a bathroom for tiling under an exception for “interior tile” work. The First Department dismissed Mt. Hawley’s complaint and required it to defend and indemnify, finding the undefined “interior tile” exception made the exclusions ambiguous. The decision underscores that insurers must draft exclusions clearly, and preparatory work reasonably tied to listed tasks can trigger coverage.
Read more: Click here
Randy Fernandez v. Singh Sohal Sukhdeep et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, January 29, 2026)
This no-fault case asked whether the plaintiff’s shoulder and spine injuries were serious and caused by a 2020 crash. The First Department dismissed the complaint, finding the spine issues were degenerative from a 2013 accident, the shoulder showed no qualifying limitation, and an unexplained treatment gap broke causation. The decision shows defendants can prevail by disproving causation and that plaintiffs must address preexisting conditions and treatment gaps.
Read more: Click here
Hossain v. Rahman (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
This case involves a homeowner who says a forged power of attorney and deed were used to transfer his Woodside property; he sought a default judgment when the defendants didn’t respond. The Second Department changed the trial court’s denial to be without prejudice and sent the case back to first identify and join all affected parties before ruling on default. It reinforces that courts must ensure all potentially affected parties are included before voiding property documents on default.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Erlin J. Cruz v. Elsa Mancia Cruz (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
The case asked whether New York had authority to hear a custody petition based on the children’s home state at the time of filing. The Second Department reinstated the father’s petition and sent the case back for a hearing on when the children began living in New York. It confirms that courts must hold a hearing to resolve disputed home-state facts before dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
Read more: Click here
Chiriboga-Herrera v. Litt (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
A worker died at a home renovation, and the owner won early dismissal under the homeowner’s exemption. The Second Department reinstated one plaintiff’s claims, finding the owner didn’t prove the work was for residential use or that he lacked control. It also held he failed to address both premises and means‑and‑methods theories under Labor Law § 200, making early summary judgment improper.
Read more: Click here
Palisades Cleaning Services, Inc. v. Bagatelle Little West 12th, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
A cleaning company sued a restaurant over a 2017 cleaning contract and unpaid invoices. The trial court granted summary judgment to the restaurant, but the Second Department reinstated the case. The court found the restaurant didn’t show the contract was unsigned or invalid and didn’t refute agreement to the invoices, so factual disputes must be decided later.
Read more: Click here
Chapa Products, Corp. v. MVAIC (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
The dispute was over the timing for denying a no-fault claim when the provider never sent the requested verification. The Second Department reinstated the Civil Court’s dismissal, ruling there is no 150-day deadline and an insurer can deny after the 120-day verification period. This clarifies that timing alone does not preclude the verification defense.
Read more: Click here
Ficalora v. Almeida (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
A passenger injured in a four-way intersection crash challenged the dismissal of claims against the driver who had the right of way. The Second Department reinstated the claims, finding the driver and owner did not show the driver was free from fault, especially given testimony that the other car was already in the intersection. The decision confirms that right-of-way drivers must still use reasonable care and can share blame.
Read more: Click here
Simmons v. Bell (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
This quiet title case alleged a forged 1998 deed and fraud tied to a later sale of a Queens property. The Second Department dismissed the forged-deed claim because the deed was notarized and the grantor admitted the signature, but let the fraud claims proceed. It also ordered joinder of the 2007 buyer and her lender, underscoring that notarized deeds carry strong weight and necessary parties must be added rather than used to dismiss a case.
Read more: Click here
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. St. Hillaire (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
This case addressed when the six-month “savings” period to refile a foreclosure starts after a prior case is dismissed. The Second Department reinstated HSBC’s foreclosure and vacated the mortgage-cancellation ruling, holding the clock starts 30 days after the dismissal order is served with notice of entry and that HSBC completed service within six months. This clarifies for CPLR 205-a and 205(a) that the six-month window runs from that date and that service must be completed within it, standardizing timing in foreclosure and other cases.
Read more: Click here
Gibbs v. New Ram Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
A long-term hotel guest sued the owner and operator after slipping on a bathroom puddle he said came from a leak in another room. The Second Department dismissed the claims against both, finding the owner was an out-of-possession landlord with no repair duty and the operator had no notice of any hazard. The decision underscores that landlords without control aren’t liable, and slip-and-fall claims fail when the condition was transient, unreported, and supported only by hearsay.
Read more: Click here
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Katz (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
This case involved a Brooklyn title dispute over a deed that named an LLC that didn’t yet exist and the effect on a later mortgage. The Second Department reinstated the ruling that the LLC’s purported interest is void from the start and not time-barred. But it declined to declare Katz the sole owner or the mortgage valid on the entire property, because the voided share stays with the original grantor.
Read more: Click here
People v. D. (Anonymous), Shemar (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
The Second Department affirmed a youthful-offender adjudication for attempted gun possession, but vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees in the interest of justice with the People’s consent. It held the defendant’s appeal waiver blocked his challenge to how the pistol-license age rule applied to him and his excessive-sentence claim, and it rejected his Bruen-based facial attack on New York’s licensing scheme. The ruling underscores that appeal waivers curb most challenges, while courts can remove financial surcharges for youthful offenders when appropriate.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Emily M. (Anonymous) (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
ACS was held in civil contempt for failing to place a child in a traditional foster home as ordered. The Second Department reversed the Family Court’s $250-per-day, $48,750 fine and sent the case back to set a compensatory amount tied to the child’s actual injury. It clarifies that when actual harm is proven, contempt fines must indemnify the injury, not use the $250 statutory cap or serve as punishment.
Read more: Click here
Bank of New York Mellon v. Robustello (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
This mortgage foreclosure appeal turned on whether the bank followed New York’s 90-day pre-foreclosure notice rule. The Second Department dismissed the foreclosure against the homeowner because the bank proved only certified mailing, not first-class mailing, even though its business records were admitted. The ruling reinforces that lenders must strictly document both required mailings or reliable mailing procedures to move forward with foreclosure.
Read more: Click here
Rosenbaum v. Festinger (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
The case addressed whether divorced parties could send post-judgment disputes—including ones already litigated—to a Rabbinical Court. The Second Department limited a blanket stay, allowing arbitration on most issues but not child support, because the defendant waived arbitration on child support by appealing that ruling. The decision signals that litigating an issue in court can permanently waive arbitration on that topic, and participation in arbitration generally bars later challenges to the agreement.
Read more: Click here
U.S. Bank National Association v. Stuart (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
U.S. Bank asked to combine two related foreclosure cases over the same mortgage after the trial court denied consolidation. The Second Department reversed and ordered consolidation, finding shared issues, both cases still viable, and no prejudice to the borrowers. The ruling confirms consolidation under CPLR 602(a) is favored when cases overlap and there is no pending, apparently meritorious motion to dismiss, despite asserted defenses.
Read more: Click here
Board of Managers of Grandview Condominiums v. Medina (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
A condo board sued to foreclose a lien for years of unpaid common charges. The Second Department reinstated the statute-of-limitations defense for charges that accrued before July 18, 2013, but allowed foreclosure for later charges and rejected laches. The ruling confirms boards can recover only the six years of monthly assessments before suit because each month accrues separately.
Read more: Click here
Tarrant v. Martinez (Appellate Division, Second Department, January 28, 2026)
In a trip-and-fall case, a Nassau court vacated a 2019 default judgment against the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The Second Department reinstated the default judgment, finding the defendant lacked a reasonable excuse; vague claims of law office failure and neglect were not enough. The ruling underscores that vacating a default under CPLR 5015(a) requires a specific, credible excuse before any defense is considered.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Alex Y. v. Mindy X. (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 29, 2026)
The Third Department reinstated joint legal custody after Family Court gave the father sole legal custody. It kept the father as primary physical custodian and left the mother’s increased parenting time in place. The court said routine scheduling disputes and some communication friction are not enough to end joint decision-making.
Read more: Click here
Matter of James A. Hone v. Donita McIntosh, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility (Appellate Division, Third Department, January 29, 2026)
An incarcerated individual challenged prison discipline for creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order. The Third Department annulled the refusing-order charge for lack of substantial evidence and ordered it expunged, but upheld the disturbance finding. The court stressed that procedural objections must be raised at the hearing or on administrative appeal, and penalty-severity claims are moot when no good time is lost and the sanction is already served.
Read more: Click here