Gleinin Martinez v. The Bronx County Historical Society (Appellate Division, First Department, July 2, 2026)
The First Department ruled that the Bronx County Historical Society can be treated as an employer under New York labor law, so its live-in caretaker may recover unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages. The court cut off claims older than six years and said free housing and utilities can reduce the wage amount owed, but not the extra damages, which matters because nonprofits and public-facing groups are not automatically excused from wage laws.
The People of the State of New York v. Pedro Falcon (Appellate Division, First Department, July 2, 2026)
In People v. Falcon, the First Department upheld Pedro Falcon’s conviction for third-degree rape but removed two probation conditions after his guilty plea. The court struck requirements that he consent to searches of his person, car, and home and that he pay surcharges and fees as a condition of probation, finding those terms were not reasonably tied to rehabilitation. This matters because it shows that some probation conditions can still be challenged on appeal even after an appeal waiver.
Almer v. Summit Glory Property LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
The First Department left in place a construction worker’s Labor Law and negligence claims after he allegedly tripped over a drag line and coiled cable during a tenant build-out, finding factual disputes about who created the hazard and who had notice or supervisory responsibility. It also ruled on the contract claims, giving Linear conditional indemnity from Momentum and giving Summit and Fosun conditional indemnity from Linear, while denying Benchmark indemnity. This decision matters because worker safety claims can survive when the facts are still unclear, but indemnity rights will be enforced strictly according to the contract language.
In the Matter of Veronica Bulgari v. Ilaria Bulgari (Appellate Division, First Department, July 2, 2026)
The First Department reversed an order requiring Ilaria Bulgari’s trust to repay $1.05 million to a family trust for legal fees incurred by trustee Veronica Bulgari. The court said that refund order came too soon because a pending federal case may find Veronica breached her fiduciary duties, which could bar those fees from being charged to the trust. The ruling matters because it confirms that courts should wait to shift trust-related legal fees until misconduct claims are resolved and beneficiaries have a chance to challenge the amount of those fees.
In the Matter of Larry Miller v. 22 Ericsson Owner LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
This case involved a business dissolution proceeding that the petitioner later asked to withdraw. The First Department ruled that he could be required to pay only the other side’s fees and costs tied to the motion to discontinue, not most of their litigation expenses, and sent the case back for a hearing on the amount.
The decision matters because it shows that courts can attach cost conditions when a party drops a case, but those conditions must be reasonable and proportionate to how far the case has actually progressed.
John Rubino et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
The First Department dismissed borrowers’ claims seeking statutory penalties for banks’ alleged failure to timely record mortgage satisfactions, holding that the claims were filed too late under New York’s three-year limitations period for statutory penalties. The ruling matters because it confirms these claims cannot be revived by refiling after voluntarily dismissing an earlier class action or by repackaging the same allegations as breach of contract claims.
Lifeng Jin v. Delta Realty Group LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
The First Department reinstated a tenant’s case against Delta Realty Group after the trial court had dismissed it as barred by an earlier Bronx Civil Court judgment. Because that earlier judgment was later reversed, the dismissal could not stand, and the trial court must now consider the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment since the defendant never appeared.
Kosovsky v. Kosovsky (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
The First Department modified a ruling in a dispute between co-owners of an apartment over who should be reimbursed for post-sale expenses. It threw out the defendant’s $37,002.72 award for construction costs because it was not properly proven, and it awarded the plaintiff $5,087 for moving costs and $10,285 for insurance premiums, while leaving the denial of the parties’ other claims in place.
The decision is a reminder that courts require solid proof for reimbursement claims and will not allow someone to recover twice for losses already paid by insurance.
Arthur Rozof v. D. Karnofsky, Inc. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
This case involved a shareholder’s effort to recover on promissory notes issued by a closely held corporation, along with a dispute over whether he gave proper disclosure about the transaction. The First Department reinstated the lawsuit, finding that disclosure to the corporation through its vice president was enough under these facts and that there is still a factual dispute over whether the claims are too old to pursue.
Junior Carty Acosta v. 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
A construction worker who was hit by sheetrock sliding off a forklift won key rulings in this site-accident case. The First Department held that the lumber supplier, Feldman, was negligent as a matter of law, kept in place Labor Law liability against the owner, contractor, and Vector, and ruled that the owner and contractor could seek indemnification from the parties whose work caused the accident.
Aponte v. 298 East Village Owner LLC (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
The First Department ruled for a construction worker injured when a tall stack of unsecured metal sheets tipped off an A-frame dolly and hit him, finding the accident was covered by New York’s Scaffold Law. The court held that the elevated, heavy load should have been secured, that the worker was still protected even though he was moving another trade’s equipment, and that any carelessness by him did not bar liability.
The People of the State of New York, by Letitia James v. TikTok Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
In New York’s lawsuit against TikTok over platform safety and related financial gains, the First Department largely upheld an order requiring the company to turn over financial records, board materials, and sworn statements about its document searches. But it removed the part requiring detailed affidavits explaining database sources and calculations, holding that kind of substantive explanation belongs in depositions.
7012 Avail Holding LLC v. ICM Funding LLC et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, July 2, 2026)
In a dispute over a mortgage loan assignment deal, The First Department reinstated the defendants’ breach of contract counterclaim after finding they had adequately alleged that they performed their obligations. It otherwise upheld dismissal of the unjust enrichment and veil-piercing counterclaims, along with the lower court’s discovery rulings. The decision shows that a contract claim can move forward if it is plausibly pleaded and not clearly disproved by the record, while duplicative quasi-contract claims still will not survive.
6985 Trinity Centre LLC v. City National Bank (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
The First Department held that a bank may still face liability and contempt for taking a judgment debtor’s payments for its own loan after receiving a restraining notice, because those funds were still considered the debtor’s property. It dismissed only the creditor’s compensatory damages claim as moot because the underlying judgment had already been fully paid, but left possible contempt sanctions and attorneys’ fees in place.
Judson v. Elliott Management Corporation, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, June 30, 2026)
An employee sued a financial management firm after he was fired, claiming age discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for reporting another worker’s discrimination complaint. The First Department reinstated only his retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law and left the other claims dismissed, finding there was enough evidence on timing and possible pretext to require a trial on whether the firing was retaliatory.
Partners for Payment Relief DE IV, LLC v. Aucapina (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department held that this mortgage foreclosure action was filed too late because an earlier 2009 foreclosure case accelerated the debt and started the six-year deadline. It dismissed the new case and granted the borrowers’ request to cancel the mortgage from the public record, confirming that under FAPA a lender cannot revive a stale foreclosure claim through the six-month savings rule after an earlier case was dismissed as abandoned.
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In People v. Johnson, the Second Department ruled that the trial court went too far by including M. L. in a post-sentencing order of protection after Johnson’s guilty plea to attempted robbery. The Second Department vacated that part of the order, but otherwise left the conviction and sentence in place, holding that orders of protection at sentencing can cover only people who were victims or witnesses.
Hidalgo v. Darakchiev (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department partly reinstated a medical malpractice case against Good Samaritan Hospital and let the claims tied to a May 16, 2014 MRI go forward, while leaving older claims dismissed as untimely. It also kept the malpractice claims against the surgeon, Dr. Darakchiev, because both sides’ experts disagreed about whether surgical errors caused the patient’s injuries. The decision matters because it says separate outpatient MRIs do not extend the filing deadline under the continuous treatment rule, and a defendant cannot win summary judgment with only a conclusory expert opinion.
Boyer v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In this personal injury case, a bicyclist claimed she was hit by an ambulance that left the scene, and the City and FDNY argued there was not enough proof that the ambulance was theirs. The Second Department reinstated the jury’s liability verdict, finding that GPS data and witness testimony gave the jury a reasonable basis to conclude the ambulance was operated by FDNY. This matters because it confirms that courts should not overturn a jury’s decision when the evidence reasonably supports it, even if that proof is largely circumstantial.
Apex Bank v. Fasulo-Brancaleone (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure dispute, the Second Department reversed a $2,000 award of additional attorneys’ fees to the borrower-defendants and denied their request for more fees. The court held that they did not qualify for fee-shifting under Real Property Law § 282(1), which matters because borrowers can recover legal fees in foreclosure cases only when they meet the statute’s standard for a truly successful defense.
Apex Bank v. Fasulo-Brancaleone (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department reversed a $57,357.70 attorneys’ fee award to borrowers in a mortgage foreclosure case, holding they were not entitled to fees because they had not ultimately won the case. The decision matters because it confirms that under New York law, borrowers can recover legal fees only if they achieve and keep a successful defense after appeal.
Apex Bank v. Fasulo-Brancaleone (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated Apex Bank’s mortgage foreclosure case, ruling that the bank was entitled to summary judgment because it showed it held the note when the case began and properly sent the required default notice. The borrowers did not raise a real factual dispute, and the decision matters because it confirms that attaching a note endorsed in blank to the filing papers can be enough to prove standing in a New York foreclosure action.
Nimkoff v. Waldbaum (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department largely upheld the trial court’s order in a lawsuit brought by an attorney against his former wife and daughter, striking his complaint because he repeatedly failed to follow discovery orders. It also agreed that the defendants’ counterclaims accusing him of attorney deceit and seeking child-support-related legal fees were not legally viable, but ruled that confidential materials from earlier matrimonial proceedings must be removed from the record and cannot be used again without court approval. This decision highlights both the serious risk of ignoring discovery obligations and the strong protection given to sealed family-law materials.
Matter of Carrington v. Pepitone; Matter of Pepitone v. Carrington (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department upheld an order giving the father sole custody and allowing the child to move to Massachusetts, finding that decision was supported by the record. But it changed the parenting-time portion of the order, holding that the mother should receive a more practical and clearly defined schedule, including birthday time and a fair allocation of travel duties and costs. This matters because it shows that even when one parent gets custody and permission to relocate, the other parent’s access must still be meaningful and workable.
Richard Ulysse v. State of New York, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department dismissed a former corrections employee’s disability discrimination, accommodation, and retaliation lawsuit against the State. The court found the State had a valid reason for ending his employment because his medical records showed he exceeded the agency’s limit for light-duty work, and he did not show that reason was a cover for discrimination or retaliation. The decision matters because it shows employers can defeat these claims when they rely on clear workplace policies and documented medical evidence.
CK Real Estate, LLC v. 2018 Li Lin Realty, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department largely let a property owner’s lawsuit move forward against engineers accused of helping cause damage to a neighboring building during demolition and construction work. It held that the claims for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and related relief were sufficiently pleaded, but it dismissed the punitive damages claim because the complaint did not allege the kind of extreme misconduct needed for that remedy.
Accesslex Institute v. O-Sun Lee (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In a student loan collection case, the Second Department reinstated Accesslex Institute’s lawsuit against O-Sun Lee after the trial court dismissed it for lack of proper service. The court found the process server’s affidavit was enough to show Lee was served, and Lee’s bare claim that he was never served was not enough to challenge the case. This matters because, in New York, a defendant needs specific facts—not just a denial—to contest service and force a jurisdictional hearing.
Gonnella v. State of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
Gonnella v. State of New York involved a woman injured in a roadway trip-and-fall who asked to file a late negligence claim against the State after first suing local municipalities. The Second Department reversed the lower court and allowed the late claim, finding that although the delay was not reasonably excused, the claim appeared potentially valid and the State had notice with no substantial prejudice. The ruling matters because it shows that a weak excuse alone does not bar a late claim when the other factors favor allowing it.
Perkins v. Small (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In this family estate dispute, the issue was whether shares in a closely held real estate company were still part of the father’s estate when he died or had already been given to his son. The Second Department reversed the ruling that gave the daughter a 25% ownership interest through the trust, but it also refused to grant judgment to the son because key facts about any lifetime transfer of the shares are still unresolved. This matters because courts will not decide ownership of estate-related corporate shares without clear proof, including the written records needed to show a valid stock transfer.
Deborah Rennie-Walker v. Alan L. Weiss, et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department largely upheld an injunction barring Brooklyn homeowners from having contractors enter and alter a neighbor’s wall during renovations without permission, finding that the neighbor had viable trespass and nuisance claims. It ruled, however, that the trial court should not have converted the case on its own into a property-access license proceeding, and sent the matter back to set the required bond for the injunction. This matters because code-required weatherproofing does not give owners the right to enter adjoining property without consent or a court-ordered license.
Wellpath Holdings, Inc. v. XL Insurance America, Inc., et al. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that Wellpath’s insurers did not have to cover its COVID-19-related business losses under commercial property policies requiring “direct physical loss” or “direct physical damage.” The court said allegations that the virus was present in the air or on surfaces, made facilities unsafe, and required operational changes described loss of use, not the kind of physical change or complete loss of possession needed for coverage.
People of the State of New York v. Gabriel Kantrow (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department ruled that Gabriel Kantrow remains a level two sex offender under New York’s registration law, but it removed the separate “sexually violent offender” label. The court found that the risk score and denial of a lower classification were supported by the evidence, but his Colorado conviction did not legally qualify for the more serious designation.
JPMorgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. v. Shopland Corp. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In this mortgage foreclosure case, the Second Department reversed an order that had let Shopland Corp. undo its default and file a late answer. The court held that service through the Secretary of State was valid, and Shopland could not avoid the default by saying it never received the papers after failing to update its address, reinforcing that corporations must keep their state filing address current.
Williams v. Ruta (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In this car-accident injury case, the Second Department reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint because the defendants’ late motions arguing she did not meet New York’s “serious injury” standard were filed after the court deadline and were not excused. The court sent the case back to decide the separate liability issues, underscoring that late summary judgment motions will be rejected unless they raise the same issues as a timely motion.
Rosenblatt v. Mora (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
In this wrongful death and personal injury case arising from a delivery worker’s fatal scooter accident, Mora and Anheuser-Busch sought contribution from the worker’s employer, Lots O Bagels, claiming negligent supervision and training. The Second Department dismissed that claim, holding that the pleading offered only bare conclusions and did not allege specific facts showing the employer knew of any dangerous conduct or that its actions caused the accident.
Gruber v. Donaldsons, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
This case grew out of a car accident that left the vehicle’s owner personally exposed beyond the insurance limits, leading him to sue the dealership, insurer, and defense lawyers. The Second Department reinstated only the legal malpractice claim against Russo & Tambasco and left the fraud and insurance bad-faith claims dismissed. The ruling matters because it reinforces New York’s ban on repeated dismissal motions and shows that fraud and bad-faith claims are weak when the owner’s liability was readily discoverable and the dispute centers on policy issuance, not claim handling.
The People v. Peter Galantino (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department reinstated a defendant’s jury conviction for aggravated cruelty to animals after a Nassau County trial court had set it aside on legal sufficiency grounds. The court held that the defendant did not properly preserve that argument because he failed to renew his dismissal motion after all the evidence, and it said a post-verdict motion cannot be used to fix that mistake.
Nicola Ramnath, et al. v. Jorge Yanez (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department ruled for the buyers in a commercial real estate contract dispute, holding that the seller had to remove New York City Environmental Control Board judgment liens before closing because the contract required title free of any unlisted encumbrances. The decision matters because it confirms that ECB penalty judgments are treated as property liens, not just ordinary violations, and a seller who does not clear them can be ordered to complete the sale under the contract.
MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Walker (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department held that this mortgage foreclosure case was filed too late because the lender had already accelerated the full debt in a 2010 foreclosure action, which started the six-year statute of limitations. It reversed the lower court, dismissed the 2017 foreclosure action, and granted the borrower relief to cancel the mortgage. This matters because it confirms that, under New York’s foreclosure rules, a lender cannot restart the limitations period simply by voluntarily discontinuing an earlier foreclosure case.
People v. Harrell (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 2, 2026)
In People v. Harrell, the Third Department reviewed convictions stemming from the abduction and abuse of a victim in a Schenectady apartment and largely upheld the defendant’s guilt for one kidnapping count and second-degree weapon possession. The Third Department threw out one duplicate kidnapping count and a lesser firearm-possession count because those charges overlapped with the remaining convictions, but otherwise upheld the evidence, discovery ruling, denial of youthful offender treatment, and sentence.
In the Matter of Ethan H., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 2, 2026)
The Third Department dismissed a juvenile delinquency case against a developmentally disabled child who broke two windows at a treatment facility, reversing an order that placed him in state custody for nine months. The court said the case involved a minor, nonviolent offense, the child was not properly advised about the possible consequences of admitting the charge, and continuing the case would be unjust given his trauma, disabilities, and the failures of the service system. The decision matters because it makes clear that juvenile delinquency cases cannot be used to solve placement problems for vulnerable children.
Matter of Jane Doe v. State University of New York et al. (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 2, 2026)
The Third Department reinstated a SUNY New Paltz graduate student who was removed from her clinical training program after problems arose during the first days of her final practicum. The court found that the university did not follow its own probation and remediation procedures and did not have a sound basis for treating the brief incident as serious enough to justify dismissal.
In the Matter of El Shamar B. (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 2, 2026)
This case involved whether a defendant found not responsible by reason of mental illness should be placed in a more restrictive secure-treatment track or a less restrictive civil commitment track. The Third Department reversed the lower court and found that the evidence showed he currently posed a physical danger to himself or others, so he must be treated as having a dangerous mental disorder and kept in secure confinement. The ruling matters because it shows that strong, fact-based expert testimony about violence risk, substance abuse, and likely treatment noncompliance can support tighter supervision after an insanity acquittal.
Trombetta v. Eklecco Newco, LLC (Appellate Division, Second Department, July 1, 2026)
The Second Department affirmed that ShelterPoint could not enforce a lien against Michele Trombetta’s personal injury settlement to recover the short-term disability benefits it had paid after his slip-and-fall accident. The court found the settlement was for pain and suffering, not lost wages, and New York law bars this kind of reimbursement claim for short-term disability benefits. This matters because it confirms that, in New York, short-term disability insurers generally cannot take money from a personal injury settlement unless the recovery specifically includes lost wages and fits a narrow statutory exception.
People v. Hollman (Appellate Division, Third Department, July 2, 2026)
The Third Department affirmed a grandmother’s convictions for kidnapping and child endangerment after she and the child’s mother took a toddler from New York and hid the child for months in Washington State without the father’s consent. The court said the evidence showed deliberate concealment and supported the jury’s rejection of her claim that she was acting only to protect or take control of the child, underscoring that this family-member defense is very limited.