Randi Fishman et al. v. Susan Romano (Appellate Division, First Department, December 30, 2025)
A first-time guest grabbed a coat rack above an unlit basement stairwell and fell, raising questions about whether the hazard was open and obvious and whether poor lighting caused the accident. The First Department reinstated the case, finding the owner did not show the condition was safe and relied on photos and an inspection taken years later that did not reflect the accident-day conditions. The ruling emphasizes that lighting and a visitor’s unfamiliarity are fact issues, and defendants need reliable proof of the conditions at the time to get early dismissal.
Read more: Click here
Daniel Szalkiewicz & Associates, P.C., et al. v. Vivian Liu (also known as Vivian Xuanfei Liu, also known as Xuanfei Liu) (Appellate Division, First Department, December 30, 2025)
A law firm sued a former client over negative online reviews and a website using the attorney’s name. The First Department dismissed the tortious interference claims under anti-SLAPP, but allowed the federal cybersquatting/personal-name cyberpiracy and other claims to proceed and upheld a waiver of attorney-client privilege. The ruling underscores strict pleading for tortious interference based on online speech and confirms anti-SLAPP applies to reviews and domains.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Souleymane Diaby (Appellate Division, First Department, December 30, 2025)
This case asks whether a guilty plea bars review of a denied suppression motion and whether a hearing was required on the police stop and chase. The First Department invalidated the appeal waiver, treated the “leave to renew” denial as final, and sent the case back for a suppression hearing. It matters because disputed facts about police conduct require a hearing, and preserved suppression claims survive a plea.
Read more: Click here
Best Work Holdings (New York), LLC v. Ma and Li (Appellate Division, First Department, December 30, 2025)
The First Department reinstated counterclaims for promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment over an alleged promise to reimburse pre-renovation setup work. The court found the pleadings plausibly alleged a promise, reliance, and benefit, allowing the claims to proceed without a written contract. It underscores that the reasonableness of reliance is a fact question not resolved on a motion to dismiss.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Neil Perdomo (Appellate Division, First Department, December 30, 2025)
The First Department struck a probation condition that required paying mandatory surcharges and fees, finding it wasn’t related to rehabilitation. It otherwise upheld the sentence and behavior-related probation terms, and the defendant’s appeal waiver barred an excessive-sentence challenge. The ruling clarifies that courts can set behavior rules to support rehabilitation but cannot condition probation on paying fees.
Read more: Click here
Delburt Alfred v. Sargine Brutus (Appellate Division, First Department, December 30, 2025)
In a custody and relocation dispute, The First Department vacated sanctions against the mother’s attorney but otherwise affirmed, leaving in place the denial of recusal and the refusal to order the child’s return to New York. The sanctions fell because the appellate record lacked key transcripts. The court found no proof of judicial bias, and the child’s established life and preference in the U.K., along with the mother’s unperfected appeal, made an abrupt return inappropriate.
Read more: Click here
Acevedo v. 439 Realty Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This slip-and-fall case involved adding the building owner as a defendant; the owner defaulted and later tried to set aside the default and dismiss the claim as time-barred. The Second Department reinstated the amendment, the default order, and the $150,000 judgment. It held the owner didn’t need to be served with the amendment motion and lacked a reasonable excuse for default, warning corporate defendants to monitor Secretary of State service.
Read more: Click here
Costiera v. MMR Care Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
A resident’s estate sued a nursing facility over a COVID-19 infection and death, challenging whether EDTPA immunity applied. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, finding the facility followed state pandemic directives and the estate did not plead specific facts showing gross negligence; any pre-pandemic claims were unsupported. The ruling signals that EDTPA immunity can be decided at the pleading stage and requires detailed allegations to overcome, even after the law’s repeal.
Read more: Click here
Byington v. North Sea Associates, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This case tested whether New York’s COVID-19 immunity law (EDTPA) shields a nursing home from claims over a resident’s COVID-19 death. The Second Department dismissed the complaint, ruling the repeal is not retroactive and the home met EDTPA’s requirements; the gross-negligence allegations lacked specific facts. The decision confirms EDTPA still protects pre-repeal pandemic care unless plaintiffs plead concrete facts showing willful or grossly negligent misconduct.
Read more: Click here
LaBoy v. Diven (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
A buyer-occupant claimed he was wrongfully locked out of a Westchester home and sought restoration to the property, contempt, sanctions, and return of his belongings. The Second Department allowed him to amend to add a claim to recover personal property (replevin) but otherwise affirmed the denials of wrongful eviction, restoration, contempt, and sanctions. The ruling highlights that disputed abandonment can block quick restoration, TROs must be clear to support contempt, and amendments to add replevin are generally allowed.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Shannon Gregory (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This SORA appeal challenged the points used to classify Shannon Gregory as a level three offender. The Second Department removed 15 points for substance abuse because prosecutors lacked clear and convincing proof of excessive or offense-linked use, lowering him to level two. It kept 15 points for refusing treatment and denied his request to lower the risk level, underscoring that refusal supports that factor while substance-abuse points require strong, specific proof.
Read more: Click here
People v. Reid, Kemaul (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
A defendant who pleaded guilty to second-degree assault sought review of a harsh sentence and asked to waive mandatory surcharges because he was under 21. The Second Department held his appeal waiver barred review of whether the sentence was too harsh. But, with the People’s consent, it waived the surcharges and fees under CPL § 420.35(2-a), confirming that young defendants can get surcharge relief even when an appeal waiver blocks a sentence challenge.
Read more: Click here
People v. Mead (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
The case centered on a fatal stabbing where video could support self-defense. The Second Department dismissed the indictment and reversed the conviction because the prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury on that defense. The ruling confirms prosecutors must tell grand juries about complete defenses supported by the evidence, or the case must be dismissed, even after conviction.
Read more: Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Doran (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This appeal involved a reverse mortgage foreclosure filed in 2016. The Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment, rejected the referee’s report, and tolled one year of interest because the bank’s records did not prove the amount due and it delayed the case. It also held that HUD approval is not a precondition to suit and that the 2016 settlement-conference and notice rules do not apply to pre-2016 reverse mortgage cases.
Read more: Click here
Dender v. North Shore Manhasset Hospital (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
A patient sued hospital entities for false imprisonment after security escorted her from her home and drove her to a hospital. The Second Department reversed the jury’s $3.5 million verdict and dismissed the case, finding no proof she was actually restrained or told she could not leave. Threats to call police, a blocked driveway, and a cooperative escort were not enough, clarifying that false imprisonment requires objective restraint, not just a patient’s subjective belief.
Read more: Click here
People v. Bruno (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This case addresses how far probation conditions can go after a guilty plea to attempted promoting prostitution. The Second Department removed the ban on being in places mainly frequented by minors because the record showed the judge intended to strike it. It otherwise upheld tailored limits on pornography, sexually explicit phone services, computer/internet use, and consent-to-search as tied to rehabilitation under Penal Law § 65.10, and noted constitutional challenges must be preserved.
Read more: Click here
Matter of Samake v. Sy; Matter of Sy v. Samake (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This case asked where to exchange the children for the father’s temporary parenting time amid domestic-violence allegations—at the daycare or at a police station. The Second Department reinstated police-station exchanges and denied the father’s request to move them to the daycare. The court emphasized that, pending final orders, children’s safety and best interests can require secure, neutral exchange locations when conflict and safety concerns exist.
Read more: Click here
Yongxi Li v. Pei Xing Huang (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
A tenant claimed he slipped on ice caused by a depressed walkway at his two-family rental, and The Second Department reinstated the case after the trial court had thrown it out. The court found there were factual disputes about whether the landlord still controlled the area and knew about a recurring icy condition, even though the lease put snow removal on the tenant. This matters because landlords in owner-occupied two-family homes may still be liable when they use and maintain the area and have notice of repeated hazards.
Read more: Click here
People v. Grigoroff (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
The case centered on whether the trial court improperly limited a defense expert on false confessions, forced the defense expert to testify by video while the prosecution’s expert appeared live, and refused a “promise by the police” jury instruction when the confession was the only incriminating evidence. The Second Department reversed and ordered a new trial, finding these cumulative errors denied a fair trial. The decision signals that courts must allow research‑based false‑confession testimony, avoid unequal expert presentation, and give the promise‑by‑police instruction when supported by the record.
Read more: Click here
Ventus Properties, LLC v. Mo Chae (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
In a foreclosure case, the trial court ruled for the lender on standing and the required 90-day pre-foreclosure notice after allowing the borrower’s nonlawyer husband to represent her and barring her testimony. The Second Department reversed and ordered a new trial on those issues. It held that a power of attorney does not let a nonlawyer represent someone in court, and a party must be allowed to appear pro se.
Read more: Click here
People v. Hernan Herrera (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This case asked whether a boilerplate probation rule requiring Herrera to support dependents could stand despite his appeal waiver. The Second Department deleted that condition as not tailored to his offense or rehabilitation and otherwise affirmed the judgment. It held the waiver blocked an excessive-sentence challenge but did not prevent review of an improper probation term.
Read more: Click here
Dudley v. API Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
Residents near a plastic manufacturing plant alleged recurring noxious odors interfered with their use of their homes and sought classwide relief. The Second Department dismissed the negligence claim but affirmed the private nuisance claim and class certification. The ruling permits large groups of homeowners to pursue classwide private nuisance claims over odor intrusions in the Second Department, while confirming negligence fails without physical injury or tangible property damage.
Read more: Click here
Katherine Cruceta v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
This case concerned whether a notice of claim in a subway fatality suit against the NYCTA was timely. The Second Department reversed: the wrongful death notice was timely by statute, but nunc pro tunc relief for conscious pain and suffering was denied due to no timely actual knowledge, no reasonable excuse, and unaddressed prejudice. The decision underscores that a late notice served without leave is a nullity and that movants must promptly show actual knowledge, a reasonable excuse, and lack of substantial prejudice.
Read more: Click here
People v. Williams (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
At sentencing for a third-degree robbery plea, the court set an order of protection that exceeded CPL 530.13(4)’s cap. The Second Department set aside only the expiration date and sent the case back to recalculate the duration, leaving the conviction and sentence intact. The ruling underscores that courts must follow the statutory cap and that overlong orders can be corrected on appeal even if no objection was made and the appeal was waived.
Read more: Click here
Dudley v. API Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
Homeowners claimed noxious odors from API’s plastic plant interfered with their property and sought class relief. The Second Department dismissed negligence because the plaintiffs alleged no physical injury or tangible property damage. It affirmed class certification and the private nuisance claim, holding that many homeowners can pursue private nuisance together and that numbers alone do not make it a public nuisance.
Read more: Click here
Dudley v. API Industries, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, December 31, 2025)
Homeowners near a plastic factory sued over noxious odors, seeking class relief for private nuisance and negligence. The Second Department dismissed the negligence claim but allowed the private nuisance claim and class certification to proceed. The ruling confirms many homeowners can jointly pursue private nuisance, while negligence requires physical injury or property damage—odor and reduced property value alone are not enough.
Read more: Click here
Lucas Smith et al. v. Nche Zama et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 31, 2025)
The Third Department reinstated a medical malpractice suit over postoperative care following aortic aneurysm surgery. Plaintiffs’ expert created factual disputes about failing to prescribe beta blockers and true anticoagulation at discharge and whether an INR of 1.6 was adequate, and the physician assistant’s “no independent judgment” defense was not established. The decision confirms that detailed, record-based expert opinions can defeat summary judgment and send these issues to a jury.
Read more: Click here
In the Matter of Peru McCarra v. John A. Chiaramonte (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 31, 2025)
The case asked whether Family Court could hear a family offense petition based on a lifelong, uncle-like relationship. The Third Department reinstated the petition and sent it back for a hearing, finding the allegations could meet Family Court Act § 812’s “intimate relationship” standard. It emphasizes that courts must conduct a fact-based inquiry and cannot dismiss solely for lack of blood ties or based only on contact frequency.
Read more: Click here
People of the State of New York v. Joseph Fowler (Appellate Division, Third Department, December 31, 2025)
The case asked whether a challenge to a superior court information can be blocked by CPL 440.10 because it was not raised earlier. The Third Department reversed and sent the case back since the trial court never ruled on that issue, and said CPL 440.10’s bars can apply even to jurisdictional claims. It signals that defendants must raise all post-judgment grounds at the first opportunity and that appellate review is limited to issues the trial court decided.
Read more: Click here