Nercida Clares et al. v. 600 West 183rd Street Realty Corp. et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 28, 2025)
Tenants alleging rent overcharges missed the CPLR 3215(c) deadline after defendants defaulted. The First Department reinstated the complaint on renewal and dismissed an earlier appeal as academic, citing the short delay, ongoing settlement talks, counsel’s office error, and lack of prejudice.
Read more:
Click here
Peralta v. Hunter Roberts Construction Group LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, October 28, 2025)
A carpenter was hurt when a temporary wood scaffold he helped build collapsed at a residential project. The First Department granted him summary judgment under Labor Law §240(1) and dismissed his §200 and negligence claims against the owner and general contractor. It also awarded the owner and GC contractual indemnification from Golden Eagle for failing to procure primary, noncontributory excess insurance, permitting recovery above primary limits despite the anti-subrogation rule.
Read more:
Click here
Christian Medina v. Nelson Medina (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
The case asked whether a court can ignore an English-language affirmation from a litigant with limited English skills for lacking a translator affidavit under CPLR 2101(b). The First Department reversed and remanded, holding the affirmation should not be disregarded absent evidence the affiant didn’t understand it. This matters because translator affidavits are required only for foreign-language affidavits, and attorney claims without personal knowledge are not enough.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Ortiz (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
After pleading guilty to attempted weapon possession, Luis Ortiz challenged his two-year sentence and the mandatory surcharges. The First Department vacated the surcharges and fees in the interest of justice, but otherwise affirmed because a valid appeal waiver barred his excessive-sentence claim. The ruling shows that even with an appeal waiver, the court may remove financial penalties, especially when the People do not oppose.
Read more:
Click here
D.R. v. City of New York et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 28, 2025)
This case involves a Child Victims Act suit alleging abuse at a residential foster home in the 1950s. The First Department dismissed the premises liability claim as duplicative of the negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and direction claim. The ruling signals that in CVA cases against foster care providers, overlapping premises claims that mirror supervision theories cannot proceed.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of T. M.S. v. K.R.G. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
This case concerned a family offense order of protection based on texts, a child‑services report, and a video threatening to shoot the petitioner’s husband. The First Department vacated the findings tied to the texts and report for lack of proof, but held the single online video established aggravated harassment and affirmed the two-year order. The decision clarifies that one credible online threat can suffice for aggravated harassment, while harassment requires repeated conduct and proof of what was communicated.
Read more:
Click here
Elidis Reyes v. 45 & 47 Wadsworth Avenue Company, LLC, Verizon New York Inc., and Nico Asphalt Paving, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
In a trip-and-fall over a crosswalk defect allegedly caused by utility and paving work, the First Department reinstated claims against Nico Asphalt and Empire City Subway and left Verizon in the case. The court held that minor differences in the plaintiff’s deposition photos create jury questions, and Verizon offered no evidence of its control over ECS to rule out potential vicarious liability.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Kenyatta Elvin (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
After a guilty plea to attempted robbery, the court imposed probation with warrantless searches and took a written appeal waiver. The First Department invalidated the waiver and struck the search condition, but otherwise affirmed the conviction and probation term. The ruling confirms waivers need an on-the-record explanation and search conditions must be tied to rehabilitation.
Read more:
Click here
Pacheco v. Georgetown Eleventh Avenue Owners LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, October 28, 2025)
The First Department dismissed Georgetown’s attorneys’ fees claim as duplicative and its failure‑to‑procure‑insurance claim as time‑barred, but otherwise let its indemnification claims against Cauldwell‑Wingate proceed. Anti‑subrogation could not be decided while coverage is contested, and common‑law indemnification remains pending discovery on a potential Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 “grave injury.” The ruling underscores that fees require a contract or statute, and insurance‑procurement duties accrue at contract execution, which can time‑bar late claims.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. E. R. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 28, 2025)
People v. E.R. involved a probation-violation resentencing after a guilty plea, where the trial court imposed 1–3 years. The First Department reduced the sentence to a one-year determinate term, finding the original excessive and noting the record did not show a valid appeal waiver. The decision highlights the court’s authority to trim excessive resentences and the need for a clear, valid waiver to limit appellate review.
Read more:
Click here
Jose Pilapanta v. Hudson 888 Owner, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
A construction worker fell when a locked A‑frame ladder suddenly shifted while he was drilling overhead, and he sued under Labor Law § 240(1). The First Department reversed and granted him summary judgment, finding his testimony created a presumption of a violation that defendants did not rebut. The ruling confirms that a worker’s account of an unexpected ladder shift can be enough for summary judgment absent contrary evidence.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Antoine Gee (Appellate Division, First Department, October 28, 2025)
This case questioned guilty pleas where the defendant denied intending to commit a crime inside the home and admitted only intending to violate an order of protection. The First Department reversed, vacated both pleas, and remanded because the court failed to inquire further and the concurrent-sentence deal could not be honored. It clarifies that an order-of-protection violation alone does not establish burglary intent, and judges must probe when a plea undercuts an element.
Read more:
Click here
Anandaraja v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
This case addressed how far deposition questioning can go after certain discrimination claims were tossed in a dispute between physicians and Mount Sinai. The First Department modified the ruling to bar questions solely about age and gender discrimination (topics 4–8, 10, 13–18), but allowed questioning on the remaining NYCHRL race, religion, and national origin claims and a contract claim. It confirms that once a theory is dismissed, questions about it can be excluded under CPLR 3103(a), and the party seeking a protective order must show irrelevance or specific burdens to limit discovery on live claims.
Read more:
Click here
Leslie Digital Imaging LLC d/b/a LDI v. Empower Information Systems, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 30, 2025)
In LDI v. Empower, a commercial case over discovery, the trial court imposed $20,000 in sanctions for alleged discovery lapses. The First Department reversed, denying sanctions and vacating both orders. The court said there was no justification for the sanction amounts and no showing of frivolous or willful noncompliance, so late or incomplete discovery alone wasn’t enough.
Read more:
Click here
People v. McDonald (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
After a burglary guilty plea, the trial court issued an order of protection lasting until 2035 for the complainant and a witness. The Second Department vacated the expiration date as longer than CPL 530.13(4)(a) allows, affirmed the conviction, and sent the case back to set a lawful duration while leaving the order in effect. The ruling underscores that orders of protection must follow statutory time limits and that excessive terms can be corrected on direct appeal.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of American Transit Insurance Company v. Big Apple Pain Management, PLLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
This case challenged a no-fault master arbitrator’s award to a medical provider. The Second Department reinstated the award and denied the insurer’s bid to set it aside, finding no showing that it was irrational, violated public policy, or exceeded the arbitrator’s powers under CPLR 7511. It reaffirms the narrow review of no-fault arbitration and that claimed legal error alone won’t undo an award.
Read more:
Click here
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Williams (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
In a Brooklyn foreclosure case, the bank failed to show it strictly followed RPAPL 1304’s 90-day notice mailing rules or that it held the note when it sued. The Second Department reinstated the borrower’s standing defense and allowed the caption to drop the John Doe defendants, while otherwise leaving in place the denial of the bank’s summary judgment. The decision underscores that lenders must attach and authenticate business records proving the mailings and note possession; affidavits alone are not enough.
Read more:
Click here
Zimmerman v. Vazquez (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
A motorist sued Yonkers and a garbage truck driver after a crash but failed to attend the required pre-suit GML § 50-h exam. The Second Department affirmed dismissal for noncompliance but modified it to be without prejudice. The decision reinforces that the 50-h exam is a strict prerequisite, yet plaintiffs can refile after complying if still timely.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Matthew Blount (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
The Second Department reversed a level two SORA designation entered after a hearing held without the defendant. The record showed no notice, no advisement of his right to attend, and no deliberate waiver, so the case was sent back for a new hearing. The ruling confirms courts may proceed without a defendant only if they make clear, on-the-record findings of a knowing, voluntary waiver.
Read more:
Click here
Scolpini v. Town of Greenburgh (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
The case asked whether a police officer responding to a call could be liable after entering a red-light intersection and colliding with another car. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, citing dashcam and testimony showing he slowed to 5–10 mph and used lights and siren, so his conduct did not meet the reckless-disregard threshold under VTL § 1104. The decision underscores that emergency drivers are generally protected absent reckless disregard, and clear video can win summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of Sgaramella v. Summers (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
The case asks whether a mother’s objections to a child support order were late. The Second Department reversed and sent the case back because there was no proof of when the order was mailed, so the 35-day clock could not start from the order date. It matters because the deadline runs from the mailing date, and courts need mailing proof before calling objections untimely.
Read more:
Click here
Bank of New York Mellon v. DeFilippo (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the bank used affix-and-mail service without first exercising due diligence, including failing to follow a workplace lead. The Second Department dismissed the complaint and vacated the order of reference and foreclosure judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. The ruling underscores strict compliance with CPLR 308(4) and warns that defective service can void judgments years later.
Read more:
Click here
Restrepo v. Bushwick Realty Holdings, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
A worker fell from an A‑frame ladder and sued under Labor Law § 240(1). The Second Department reinstated the § 240(1) claim but left the plaintiff’s request for summary judgment denied, finding disputes over whether the ladder was secured and whether any violation caused the fall. The decision underscores that ladder‑fall claims often turn on factual issues, so summary judgment is unlikely without clear proof.
Read more:
Click here
Oliveira v. Rockaway Village Housing Development Fund Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
This case involves a construction worker who tripped over a shovel at a jobsite and alleged unsafe conditions under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The Second Department reinstated his negligence and Labor Law claims, finding factual disputes about debris under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), whether the shovel was integral to the work, and whether defendants had notice. It signals that owners and contractors may be liable for tripping hazards, and that these issues often cannot be decided on summary judgment.
Read more:
Click here
Anderson v. ML Real Estate Holdings, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
In a home-construction dispute, plaintiffs tried to amend their complaint to add the company’s principals personally under a veil‑piercing theory. The Second Department reversed and denied leave to amend, finding the allegations were conclusory and lacked facts showing misuse of the corporate form or that control was used to cause the harm. The ruling underscores that even under CPLR 3025(b)’s liberal standard, veil‑piercing requires specific, nonconclusory facts; principals’ participation in settlement talks is not enough.
Read more:
Click here
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company v. Kyung Lee, also known as Kyung Soon Lee, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
The case asked whether a lender could refile a 2022 foreclosure years after accelerating the debt in 2013 by using the six-month savings statute. The Second Department dismissed the action as time-barred, holding the six-year clock started in 2013 and FAPA retroactively blocks the savings statute after an abandonment dismissal. This matters because lenders cannot use CPLR 205(a) to revive foreclosures; CPLR 205-a now governs and bars refiling after a 3215(c) dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Hassanin (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
In a mortgage foreclosure, the lender tried to confirm a referee’s amount due using a servicer affidavit without producing the underlying business records, and the borrower raised an RPAPL 1301(3) duplicative-action defense. The Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment, denied confirmation, rejected the referee’s report, and sent the case back for a new computation. The ruling underscores that amounts due must be proven with produced business records—especially when a later servicer relies on prior records—and that RPAPL 1301(3) requires a showing of prejudice.
Read more:
Click here
Grala v. Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 29, 2025)
This construction-injury case involved third-party claims over indemnification, a general release, and whether Apex failed to procure insurance. The Second Department dismissed only the failure-to-procure claim because Apex obtained the required additional insured coverage, but otherwise left the indemnification and release issues for trial and upheld dismissal of Apex’s counterclaims. It matters because procuring the agreed insurance satisfies that duty even if a carrier denies coverage, and employer indemnity exposure turns on contract terms and New York’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 grave-injury threshold.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Christopher C. (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 30, 2025)
A transgender petitioner sought a name change and to seal the court record for safety. The Third Department reversed the trial court and ordered sealing under Civil Rights Law § 64-a, finding the safety risks outweigh generalized public-record concerns. The ruling confirms that demonstrated safety threats justify sealing, strengthening protections for transgender petitioners and others at risk.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Kieran B. (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 30, 2025)
A transgender woman sought to seal her name-change records for safety, but the trial court refused. The Third Department reversed and ordered the records sealed under Civil Rights Law § 64-a. The ruling confirms that courts must prioritize safety over speculative public access concerns and need not require proof of prior threats.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Timothy C. (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 30, 2025)
A transgender petitioner asked to seal her name-change court record. The trial court denied it, citing broad public-interest concerns and her unrelated lawsuits. The Third Department reversed and ordered sealing, holding that § 64-a looks only to the applicant’s risk of harm from public access, so generalized interests and unrelated litigation cannot defeat sealing.
Read more:
Click here
Matter of the Claim of Michael Angelo v. Southwestern Central School et al.; Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 30, 2025)
A school custodian sought workers’ comp, claiming he caught COVID-19 at work. The Third Department reversed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s award, finding insufficient proof—no high infection rates at the school, only brief student contact, and other possible non-work exposures. The ruling confirms claimants must show a specific exposure or clear workplace prevalence; incidental contact is not enough.
Read more:
Click here
Neptune Issue Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Mary Ellen Eliopoulos, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Thomas Eliopoulos, Deceased, et al.; Glenburnie Estates LLC (Appellant) (Appellate Division, Third Department, October 30, 2025)
In Neptune Issue Inc. Profit Sharing Plan v. Eliopoulos, the case involves an alleged insider transfer of properties to avoid deficiency judgments under New York’s UVTA. The Third Department dismissed two abandoned claims but otherwise affirmed the denial of Glenburnie Estates LLC’s motion to dismiss. It clarifies that plaintiffs may plead on information and belief using badges of fraud and a later higher resale price, and that affidavits are not documentary evidence for early dismissal.
Read more:
Click here