The People of the State of New York v. Deshante Page (Appellate Division, First Department, July 30, 2026)
The First Department reinstated the indictment against Deshante Page, finding that the trial court wrongly dismissed the case on speedy-trial grounds because several delays should not have been counted against the prosecution. The decision matters because it confirms that time tied to a codefendant’s motions, defense-requested adjournments, reasonable post-motion preparation, and valid prosecution readiness filings can be excluded from New York’s speedy-trial clock.
Danielle W. v. Desheng Li et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 30, 2026)
The First Department dismissed a personal injury case arising from a nighttime crash in which a 12-year-old ran onto the Hutchinson River Parkway and was struck by a van. The court found the child’s unlawful entry into the parkway was the sole cause of the accident and that the driver acted reasonably in a sudden emergency. This matters because it shows courts may throw out pedestrian injury claims when the evidence shows the driver had little time to react and did not act negligently.
Onofrio Mazzurco et al. v. Broadway 52nd L.P. and Robert B. Samuels, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 30, 2026)
The First Department largely let a construction worker’s injury claims move forward after he said he fell in a dark stairwell and tripped on a cable, finding factual disputes about whether subcontractor Robert B. Samuels, Inc. controlled the area or created the unsafe condition. The court also granted the property owner contractual indemnification against the subcontractor, underscoring that subcontractors may face liability when their work is tied to the accident and that broad indemnity clauses can be enforced in that situation.
Onofrio Mazzurco et al. v. Broadway 52nd L.P. and Robert B. Samuels, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 30, 2026)
The First Department ruled that a construction worker’s injury claims can continue against a subcontractor after he said he fell in a dark stairwell and tripped on wire left on the stairs. The court also held that the property owner was entitled to contractual indemnification from the subcontractor because the accident arose from the subcontractor’s work and there was no showing that the owner was negligent.
People v. Muschett (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In People v. Muschett, the Second Department upheld a guilty-plea conviction and prison sentence for second-degree weapon possession, finding the sentence was not excessive. But it removed the mandatory surcharge and fees because the defendant was under 21 when the crime occurred, confirming that eligible younger defendants can have those financial penalties waived under CPL 420.35(2-a).
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Unknown Heirs to the Estate of Jacinto Ortiz, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure claims against an heir of a borrower who had died before the case was filed. The court held that because the borrower died without a will and the bank was not seeking a money judgment for any unpaid balance, the bank could sue the heirs directly, and naming the deceased borrower at the start did not invalidate the entire case.
Nichole Fabo, et al. v. 89 Hicks Street, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that tenants in a Brooklyn rent-overcharge class action may amend their complaint to seek use of the rent-stabilization “default formula” to calculate legal rent and overcharges. The court said the new claim was based on a different, supportable theory and did not unfairly prejudice the landlord, underscoring that amendments should usually be allowed in rent-stabilization cases when they raise a viable new argument.
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Rosenblatt (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that U.S. Bank’s foreclosure case had to be dismissed as abandoned because the bank waited more than a year after the borrowers’ default to take steps toward a default judgment. The court reversed the foreclosure judgment and held that later settlement conference activity did not save the case, underscoring that lenders must act promptly or risk losing their foreclosure claims.
Matter of 1086 OCR, LLC v. Town of Riverhead Zoning Board of Appeals (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department held that Riverhead could not enforce a 1,000-foot school setback for a cannabis dispensary because state law already sets a 500-foot rule, so the town’s denial of the project could not stand and no variance was needed for this site. But the court also ruled that other local cannabis zoning provisions were not invalid under the town’s zoning uniformity law, making clear that towns may regulate dispensaries in some ways, but not in ways that conflict with state cannabis siting rules.
C.B., etc., et al. v. Lisa M. Neal, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated products liability claims against Honda in a case alleging that a side curtain airbag deployed during a crash and shattered a window, injuring a child passenger. The court held that Honda had not done enough to prove the vehicle was not defective or that another cause alone led to the injuries. The ruling matters because it reminds manufacturers that, at the summary judgment stage, they must affirmatively disprove defect claims rather than simply argue that the plaintiff lacks proof.
Hamilton v. Hamilton (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In Hamilton v. Hamilton, the Second Department reversed an order directing the sale of Brooklyn property owned jointly by the parties in a partition dispute. The court said that even if a sale may ultimately be proper, the trial court must first determine each party’s rights and complete an accurate accounting, reinforcing that courts cannot skip those steps before ordering a partition sale.
Winchcombe v. Ridgeline Construction Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a personal injury case after the trial court threw it out on its own when the plaintiff missed deposition deadlines. It held that dismissal was too harsh because the plaintiff was not given proper notice or a chance to respond, there was no request for sanctions or prior warning, and the record did not clearly show intentional noncompliance. This decision underscores that New York courts must be careful before ending a case over discovery problems, especially without clear proof of willful misconduct.
Collins v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this apartment-building injury case, the plaintiff alleged that a self-closing entrance door shut too quickly, hit her, and caused her to fall. The Second Department reinstated the lawsuit, finding that the property owner did not clearly show the door was safe or that it lacked notice of the alleged problem.
Williams v. Biggs (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this dispute arising from a medical malpractice settlement, the plaintiff accused his former lawyers and hospital-related defendants of fraud, misconduct, and using false records to pressure him into settling. The Second Department dismissed nearly all of those claims for lack of specific supporting facts, but reinstated one claim seeking a ruling that the former attorneys are not entitled to legal fees. This decision matters because it shows that broad allegations of fraud and attorney wrongdoing will not survive without detailed facts, while fee-forfeiture claims may proceed when questions remain about whether counsel was properly discharged or withdrew.
HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Parris (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this Kings County mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department reversed a foreclosure judgment for HSBC and dismissed the complaint against Hugh Parris because the bank waited more than a year after the order of reference to seek a foreclosure sale. The court said the bank’s explanations for the delay were too vague, underscoring that lenders must follow the county’s filing deadline or provide a specific, credible reason for missing it.
D & A Grandview, LLC v. 60 Davidson, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In a dispute over damage to neighboring commercial property after a fire and oil spill, the Second Department ruled that the plaintiffs may continue their core negligence claim against 60 Davidson, LLC based on alleged poor property maintenance that led to the fire. But the Second Department dismissed the claims against the LLC’s managing member, Ari Farkas, and threw out the negligent hiring and oil-spill cleanup claims because the complaint did not include enough specific facts.
Matter of Tink & E. Co., Inc. v. Town of Riverhead (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a lower court ruling in a dispute over Riverhead’s cannabis dispensary zoning rules and upheld the town’s denial of a variance for a proposed dispensary near residential property. The court found that Riverhead’s commercial-corridor exception was reasonably based and did not violate the town zoning law’s uniformity requirement, and it agreed that the applicant’s hardship was self-created. This matters because it confirms that towns may make targeted zoning distinctions for cannabis businesses if they have a valid land-use reason.
Thomas v. Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that Little Flower could dismiss one foster child’s negligence claim because the agency showed it had no notice that the alleged abuser posed a risk to him. But the court let the other child’s negligence claim and both statutory failure-to-report claims go forward because the agency did not show, as a matter of law, that it lacked notice or that it properly handled suspected abuse.
The decision matters because it shows foster care agencies can avoid liability only if they clearly prove they had no reason to foresee the abuse and did not fail in their reporting duties.
Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that Union Mutual could void two commercial property policies after showing the insureds said the building had two apartment units when it actually had three. The court held that the misstatement was material because the insurer’s underwriting proof showed it would have issued different coverage and charged more, so the policies were void from the start and the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify in the related injury case.
Tsoi v. Stillwell Plumbing Supplies, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this personal injury case stemming from a bicycle accident outside a plumbing supply store, the Second Department dismissed the third-party claims against Auto Group Collision Corp. after finding no evidence that it owed a duty to the injured cyclist or played any role in causing the accident. The decision underscores that contribution and indemnification claims cannot survive without proof that the third-party defendant had a legal duty and was actually connected to the injury.
Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Walker (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a foreclosure judgment against Rudolph Walker because the lender did not provide the underlying business records needed to support the referee’s calculation of the amount owed. The court held that an affidavit summarizing those figures was not enough, making the proof inadmissible hearsay. The decision matters because it confirms that even in a default foreclosure, lenders must submit proper evidence before a court will allow the sale to go forward.
Bank of New York Mellon v. Prestia (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department ruled that Bank of New York Mellon proved it had the right to foreclose and that the borrowers defaulted, but it reversed the foreclosure sale judgment because the referee’s calculations for taxes and insurance were not supported by properly produced business records. The case matters because it shows that winning on liability is not enough in a foreclosure action. The lender must also prove the amount owed with admissible evidence.
Simoniette v. Sidhu (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging that providers failed to timely diagnose and treat acute limb ischemia, which the plaintiff says led to a partial leg amputation. The court found that the plaintiff’s experts raised factual disputes about whether the defendants performed an adequate vascular evaluation and whether the delay reduced the plaintiff’s chance of a better outcome. This matters because medical malpractice claims can move forward when qualified experts disagree about the care provided and the effect of a delayed diagnosis.
Maziejka v. Lieberman (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In a car accident case involving a lane-change collision, the Second Department reversed the trial court and granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability. The court found that the defendant caused the crash by moving into the plaintiff’s lane when it was unsafe, and rejected the defense claim that the plaintiff may have been speeding because it was based only on speculation.
Padilla v. Package Pavement Company, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this car crash case, the plaintiff won summary judgment on liability after claiming a tractor-trailer changed lanes and hit her vehicle. The Second Department reversed, finding that the truck driver’s affidavit raised factual disputes about how the crash happened and whether the plaintiff may have been partly at fault, which matters because even a strong lane-change claim can still go to trial if the defense presents credible conflicting evidence.
International Business Machines Corporation v. Mullen Technologies, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department partly ruled for Mullen in a contract fight with IBM over electric-vehicle battery development and a related trademark license. It threw out IBM’s summary judgment win on the $4 million development agreement because IBM had not shown in its opening papers that it performed its own duties, but it left in place IBM’s $500,000 award for Mullen’s failure to pay under the trademark license.
Hurst v. Shuker (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this car accident injury case, the Second Department ruled that the plaintiff’s complaint should not be thrown out for discovery problems because there was no clear proof she intentionally refused to cooperate. But it did require her to answer limited questions about a 2017 accident, provide certain additional injury details, and turn over therapy records, while rejecting the defendants’ broad social media requests.
The decision matters because it shows courts will allow focused discovery tied to prior injuries and treatment, but will not impose harsh penalties or approve overly broad demands without a strong basis.
Nancy Esposito, as Executrix of the Estate of Frank J. Esposito v. John LaMura (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure dispute, the issue was whether the estate could replace itself with a company that had been assigned the mortgage and note, even though the borrower had pending counterclaims against the original lender. The Second Department reversed the substitution order, holding that the assignee could not step in as plaintiff because the borrower had not agreed to transfer liability on those counterclaims and at least one claim stood on its own. This matters because assigning a loan does not automatically let a new party take over a case when doing so could prejudice the other side’s existing claims.
Matter of Card v. Haverstraw-Stony Point Central School District (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 29, 2026)
The Second Department affirmed the denial of a woman’s request to file a late notice of claim after she said she was injured by falling into a hole at a high school graduation. The court found that her early emails and photos did not give the school district enough notice of the negligence claim she later asserted, she had no valid excuse for missing the 90-day deadline, and she did not show the delay would not hurt the district’s defense.
People v. Barber (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 30, 2026)
The Third Department upheld a prison-contraband conviction after correction officers found an incarcerated person carrying a ceramic scalpel hidden in a pen-cap handle. The court said the item counted as dangerous contraband because it could seriously injure someone and avoid metal detectors, and although the defendant’s unwarned statements should have been suppressed, that mistake did not change the result because the other evidence was overwhelming.