JSC Management Group, LLC v. West General Contractors, LLC (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 3, 2025)
This case involves a construction/franchise dispute where the contractor asserted a broader rollout agreement beyond a single restaurant and brought tort and indemnity counterclaims. The Fourth Department dismissed the implied indemnity counterclaim but otherwise affirmed, allowing negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement to proceed. The court found collateral estoppel inapplicable and confirmed parties may plead quasi-contract and tort claims in the alternative when the existence or scope of an agreement is genuinely disputed.
Read more:
Click here
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. La Franca (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
The Second Department dismissed Wells Fargo’s 2019 foreclosure as time-barred. The court found the loan was accelerated in 2011 and, after the parties agreed to dismiss the earlier case in October 2018, Wells Fargo had six months to recommence and serve—but service in May 2019 was late. The ruling underscores that after a consensual dismissal, lenders must strictly meet CPLR 205’s six-month refiling and service requirements or risk dismissal.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Christopher Maldonado (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
After pleading guilty to attempted gun possession, the defendant appealed, challenging New York’s under-21 handgun ban and his sentence. The First Department dismissed those challenges because he validly waived his right to appeal and did not properly raise the constitutional claim before trial. The court nonetheless vacated the mandatory surcharge and fees in the interest of justice, underscoring that a proper appeal waiver bars review while financial obligations may still be removed.
Read more:
Click here
APEX FUNDING SOURCE, LLC v. BLUE EARTH RESOURCES, INC., et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
Apex sued Blue Earth and its guarantor for not repaying a loan. The First Department reversed the trial court and granted summary judgment to Apex, sending the case back only to determine attorneys’ fees. The court held that Blue Earth’s unrelated, post-default tortious interference counterclaims and pending discovery do not block judgment on clear contract breaches.
Read more:
Click here
Eborn v. Long Island Care Center, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case concerns alleged medical malpractice at a rehab facility and whether the jury verdict sheet improperly limited the negligence theories. The Second Department reinstated the claims against Dr. Wang and ordered a new trial because evidence supported additional departures—X-ray follow-up, antibiotics, and hospital transfer—that required separate interrogatories. It confirms that supported negligence theories must appear on the verdict sheet and that causation can rest on a diminished chance of a better outcome.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Alice R. Lange, Deceased; Gregory J. Lange (Petitioner-Appellant) v. Marsha A. Dixson (Respondent-Respondent) (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 3, 2025)
Can a child force a parent’s former power-of-attorney agent to account after the parent dies? The Fourth Department reinstated the petition, holding that GOL § 5-1510(3) lets a child seek an accounting even after death. The decision confirms this right isn’t limited to the estate’s personal representative.
Read more:
Click here
K.K. Machine Co., Inc. v. Grillo (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
A Queens factory owner sued over damage from City sewer excavation next door, raising strict liability under NYC Building Code § 3309.4. The Second Department reinstated the strict liability claims, citing factual disputes about whether the owners actually refused access and whether project consultants helped cause the excavation. The ruling emphasizes that the duty shifts to the neighbor only after an actual refusal and that consultants must prove they did not cause the work to avoid liability.
Read more:
Click here
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Howell (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
The Second Department reinstated a mortgage foreclosure case that had been dismissed after the bank missed a status‑conference directive. It also allowed substitution of new counsel despite the prior firm’s dissolution and said a new notice of pendency can be filed even if a prior one was canceled. The decision limits trial courts’ use of dismissals for routine noncompliance and clarifies key foreclosure procedures.
Read more:
Click here
Faison v. Salumed Pharmacy, Inc. (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case involves a customer who slipped on rain-tracked water inside a pharmacy. The Second Department reinstated the claims against the pharmacy defendants because they failed to show when the exact area was last cleaned or inspected. It underscores that general cleaning routines are not enough for summary judgment; businesses need specific, time-stamped inspection proof.
Read more:
Click here
Miguel Ramos v. The Ford Foundation, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
A worker was hit by a falling scaffold piece during dismantling at the Ford Foundation project, raising Labor Law § 240(1) and indemnity issues. The First Department affirmed the worker’s § 240(1) summary judgment and reinstated Ford and Henegan’s contractual indemnification claim, granting them conditional indemnification against Harbour. The court held the subcontract’s broad clause covers injuries arising from the subcontractor’s work, including those involving a sub-subcontractor’s employee, unless Ford or Henegan were the sole cause.
Read more:
Click here
Leak v. Mungioli (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case involved a dispute over how to split legal fees in a third-party settlement with a workers’ compensation lien. The Second Department reversed the lower court and denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the carrier’s consent letter, finding her formula would make legal fees paid twice. The ruling confirms carriers pay only their proportional share of litigation costs under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, and consent letters cannot create a double recovery.
Read more:
Click here
Lengyel-Fushimi v. Bellis (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case asked whether a majority of Class A members in a member-managed brewery LLC could remove another founder from managerial authority without a unanimous amendment to the operating agreement. The Second Department reinstated a preliminary injunction preventing the plaintiff’s removal and dismissed a related appeal as academic, holding that majority voting on operations doesn’t authorize stripping a member-manager’s rights absent clear contract language—any change requires a unanimous written amendment.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Gerson Luna Perez (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case involved a DWI treated as a felony because of an earlier DWI conviction that was later reversed. The Second Department reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor, vacated the felony sentence, and sent the case back for resentencing, confirming that a felony DWI cannot stand if the prior conviction used to enhance it is overturned.
Read more:
Click here
Simms v. Liberty Insurance Corporation (Appellate Division, Second Department, Not specified)
This case asked whether a homeowners policy limited to one- to four-family dwellings covered a building set up as five or six units. The Second Department dismissed the complaint and ruled for the insurer, finding the policy unambiguous and no coverage. It confirms courts will enforce clear unit-count limits, so owners must ensure the property’s configuration matches the policy.
Read more:
Click here
John v. New York City Transit Authority (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
In a bus-injury case, the plaintiff sought NYCTA training manuals and another unspecified deposition. The Second Department reversed, denying those requests and allowing only limited further questioning of the driver on a single document. The decision confirms that once an employer admits vicarious liability, training materials are generally irrelevant and discovery must be narrowly tailored.
Read more:
Click here
In the Matter of Austin Johnson v. Sherry Pritchard (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 3, 2025)
A father appealed a Family Court order that kept the mother’s sole custody and made his visitation depend on counseling and a counselor’s approval. The Fourth Department vacated those conditions and sent the case back to set a specific visitation schedule, if warranted. It confirms courts may order counseling, but cannot make it a prerequisite to visitation or let a counselor decide if and when visits occur absent proof of harm.
Read more:
Click here
Franklyn v. Lamalfa (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case involves a rear-end, chain-reaction crash. The Second Department reinstated the claims against Lamalfa and State Farm Mutual because their own evidence conflicted about a sudden stop and slippery roads, leaving factual disputes for trial. It confirms that in chain-reaction cases, defendants cannot win summary judgment without clear, consistent proof of a non-negligent explanation.
Read more:
Click here
WarnerMedia Direct, LLC v. Paramount Global et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
WarnerMedia said Paramount diverted new South Park content that should have been exclusive to HBO Max, and sued for tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The First Department reversed the lower court and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the tortious interference claim. The ruling confirms that in New York, unjust enrichment can’t be used when it mirrors another claim based on the same facts.
Read more:
Click here
Arden Besunder, P.C. v. Harwood (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
In an attorney‑client fee dispute, the Second Department affirmed a $95,698.99 fee award but vacated the $40,335.29 prejudgment interest and sent the case back to set the accrual date and recalculate. The ruling underscores that prejudgment interest is mandatory, but courts must specify when it starts to run.
Read more:
Click here
Antonio Rodriguez v. FGI Corporation et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
A construction worker was injured by a demolition saw that lacked a self-adjusting guard and kept spinning after he released the trigger. The First Department reversed and granted him partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6), finding the motion was not premature and his testimony, photo, and expert proof showed safety-code violations. The ruling warns owners and contractors that missing guards and poor maintenance can lead to summary judgment, and arguments raised for the first time on appeal will not be heard.
Read more:
Click here
2261 Realty, LLC v. Cai Ping Wang (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
A commercial lease dispute over unpaid COVID-19 rent turned on tenants’ claims that the landlord agreed to reduced rent and split monthly payments. The Second Department reversed, denying the landlord summary judgment and reinstating defenses because the landlord’s own records showed years of accepting reduced, twice‑monthly payments and it failed to submit the lease or address pandemic discussions. Bottom line: sustained acceptance of reduced or installment rent can create factual issues about oral agreements and reliance, blocking summary judgment despite a no‑oral‑modification clause.
Read more:
Click here
The People of the State of New York v. Gustin Jeanbaptiste (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
This case asked whether a defense lawyer created a conflict by privately and unnecessarily telling the judge about the client’s confidential admissions. The First Department reversed the weapon-possession conviction and ordered a new trial. The ruling makes clear that premature disclosures of client confidences can create an actual conflict and require reversal without needing to prove additional harm.
Read more:
Click here
Halgene Watch Ltd., et al. v. Alex Capital Fund, LLC, et al. (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
Plaintiffs sought CPLR 3213 enforcement of a $600,000 note and guaranty, claiming nearly $1.2 million in default interest. The First Department reversed, vacated the money and fee judgments, and sent the case back for a full lawsuit. It held the lender didn’t prove a specific amount due, used calculations that conflicted with the contract and Maryland law, and deprived defendants of a chance to respond.
Read more:
Click here
People of the State of New York v. Isaiah Rivera (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
This case challenged a standard probation condition and court fees after a guilty plea to third-degree assault. The First Department vacated the surcharge and fees but otherwise affirmed, upholding the condition as tied to rehabilitation and finding a valid appeal waiver barred the sentence and constitutional challenges. It underscores that appeal waivers sharply limit appeals, while common probation terms remain enforceable when linked to rehabilitation.
Read more:
Click here
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Rooney (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case addressed whether CitiMortgage proved the amount due in a foreclosure with admissible business records. The Second Department reversed the foreclosure judgment and denied confirmation of the referee’s report, sending the case back because the payment history wasn’t properly authenticated and came only through an attorney without personal knowledge. It underscores that lenders must provide a clear, monthly payment history authenticated by a knowledgeable witness under the business records rule.
Read more:
Click here
People v. Lloyd (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
The Second Department struck a probation term requiring Dayvon Lloyd to support dependents as not authorized by Penal Law § 65.10. It otherwise affirmed his firearm conviction and sentence. The court rejected post-Bruen constitutional challenges as unpreserved and meritless, confirming New York’s firearm possession laws remain intact and that such challenges must be raised in the trial court.
Read more:
Click here
Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. King (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case involves a reverse mortgage foreclosure where the lender tried to revive a denied summary judgment by filing a new servicer affidavit on reargument and renewal. The Second Department reinstated the prior denial because the lender showed no overlooked facts or law and offered no reasonable justification for the new proof. The decision reinforces strict CPLR 2221 standards and that plaintiffs cannot cure business records defects or raise new summary judgment theories for the first time on appeal.
Read more:
Click here
Hyun S. Yang v. Patrick Griffin (Appellate Division, First Department, October 2, 2025)
The First Department reinstated Hyun S. Yang’s negligence claim against Patrick Griffin and ordered consolidation with the earlier action. It held the late claim relates back to the timely suit over the same 2021 slip-and-fall because Griffin was closely aligned with the business and had notice from discovery. The decision confirms that relation-back can rescue otherwise time-barred claims when unity of interest and notice are shown.
Read more:
Click here
Charles v. City of New York (Appellate Division, Second Department, October 1, 2025)
This case stems from a trip-and-fall on a Brooklyn sidewalk next to an owner-occupied one-family home. The Second Department reversed, dismissing the complaint against homeowner Kathleen Dugan under New York City’s sidewalk law homeowner exemption and finding no evidence she caused the defect. The City’s cross-claims were denied without prejudice as premature, signaling that qualifying homeowners can win early dismissal with a sworn affidavit while apportionment may await discovery.
Read more:
Click here
Simon Szlapak v. The L.C. Whitford, Co., Inc. (Appellate Division, Fourth Department, October 3, 2025)
A construction worker injured during micropile drilling sued the general contractor under Labor Law § 200, claiming it controlled how the work was done. The Fourth Department dismissed the case, finding the GC did not direct or control the work and that general safety oversight or stop‑work authority is not enough. The ruling reinforces that method-and-manner claims require proof of actual control.
Read more:
Click here