Court Filings

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint against the New York City Transit Authority and bus driver Loraine C. Lord and dismissing the Cintron defendants' cross-claim against those defendants. The court reviewed a jury verdict that found the bus driver's admitted negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the collision and that the Cintron vehicle operator's negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court held the jury’s verdict was reasonably supported by testimonial, photographic, and video evidence and therefore was not against the weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in civil contempt, to obtain retroactive child support, and for counsel fees. The parties had a 2009 stipulation requiring annual child support increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but they later executed a 2011 amendment that modified the child support provision and did not include the CPI increase. The court held the CPI provision was no longer in effect and the plaintiff failed to prove prejudice from the defendant's alleged failure to produce tax returns, so a contempt hearing was not required.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders in a personal injury action arising from a 2015 construction-site accident. The court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add Skanska Civil Northeast, Inc., finding the plaintiff did not satisfy the relation-back test because Skanska USA and Skanska Northeast were not united in interest. The court also affirmed denial of the plaintiff's renewal motion. Finally, the court affirmed denial of Skanska USA's renewed cross-motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff showed discovery might uncover evidence to oppose the motion based on public materials Skanska USA had disseminated.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant Kathy McElroy's pre-answer motion to dismiss an amended mortgage foreclosure complaint or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff's counsel to produce proof of authority to commence the action. The plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its servicer's assistant vice president and a limited power of attorney showing the servicer was authorized to act and that the law firm had been retained to begin the foreclosure. The court held those submissions sufficiently established the law firm's authority, so dismissal and compelled production were properly denied.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and modified the dismissal order by treating the defendant's motion as a request for declaratory relief and granting it. The court held that the plaintiffs' one-day-old, prematurely filed default motion was properly denied, and that, even accepting the plaintiffs' allegations, there is no legal basis to declare them released from their mortgage because the defendant's failure to produce a chain of title does not itself free them from the loan. The case is remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the defendant's entitlement to that declaration.

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a Supreme Court order and granted defendant Aileen Betances' renewed summary judgment motion dismissing the amended complaint against her in a personal injury action. Plaintiffs alleged their vehicle was struck from the rear and that the defendant owned or operated the offending vehicle. The court held the defendant made a prima facie showing that she and her vehicle were not involved in the accident, and the plaintiffs' opposing papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact, so dismissal was appropriate.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of medical-malpractice and wrongful-death claims against two groups of individual and corporate defendants (the Sullivan defendants and the Ramapo defendants) as time-barred. The plaintiffs had added those providers to an existing action years after the decedent's death; the court held the statute of limitations had expired and the plaintiffs failed to show that relation back applied. Although the claims arose from the same event and the new defendants shared an interest with the hospital, the plaintiffs could not show the new defendants had timely notice that they should have been sued.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court (Bronx County) and granted plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society's motion to confirm a Referee's report and enter a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court found the Referee's report was substantially supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff's corporate counsel for its loan servicer, which detailed the borrower's full payment history, established default as of October 1, 2008, and set forth the unpaid principal balance and accrued interest. The court relied on precedent permitting business records and servicer-calculated amounts when properly supported.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium (388 West) in a slip-and-fall suit by Miguel Torres. The court held that 388 West did not meet its initial burden to show it bore no liability for a trip hazard formed where its sidewalk and an adjacent sidewalk met. Evidence showed 388 West or a prior owner had altered the sidewalk in 2002, creating a sloped ramp that encroached on the neighbor’s sidewalk, and the record did not eliminate the possibility that 388 West failed to keep the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition, making summary judgment inappropriate.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders: one denying plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' counsel, and the other granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the business judgment rule prevented judicial review of the board's actions because the complaint lacked sufficient allegations showing the board majority was not independent. The court also found plaintiffs failed to show a conflict of interest warranting counsel disqualification, noting a written waiver from the organization's executive director. Because dismissal rested on the business judgment rule, the court did not decide standing or pleading sufficiency.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Consolidated Edison and Verizon in a personal-injury suit after plaintiff's motorcycle encountered low-hanging wires. The court held that Con Ed could be liable because, under the Joint Use Agreement, it was responsible for maintaining the pole and had actual notice of the hazard from a morning complaint but did not inspect until hours after the crash. Verizon likewise failed to show it had no responsibility or lacked notice because ownership of the offending wires was disputed and its claimed defenses were unpreserved or unsupported.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed three Supreme Court orders in a dispute over property damage and toxic dust infiltration between owners of adjoining townhomes. The court upheld (1) defendants' leave to amend their answer to add a counterclaim for setoff based on plaintiffs' alleged delays and increased remediation costs, (2) denial of plaintiffs' motion to compel additional discovery related to that new counterclaim, and (3) denial of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment seeking payment under a license agreement. The court found the counterclaim not frivolous, the discovery requests unnecessary to the setoff theory, and that disputed factual terms in the license agreement precluded summary judgment.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant US Weatherseal Windows & Doors Operation Inc.'s motion to dismiss a negligence claim brought by condominium unit owners. The plaintiffs allege Weatherseal negligently designed, manufactured, installed, and attempted to repair windows, causing sash sealing failures and recurring water leaks that damaged interior property. The court held that, at this early stage, plaintiffs plausibly alleged an exception to the general rule barring third-party liability under contract because Weatherseal may have created or increased an unreasonable risk of harm, allowing the property-damage negligence claim to proceed.

The First Department affirmed a January 15, 2025 judgment granting Nationstar Mortgage LLC's motion to confirm a referee's report and for judgment of foreclosure and sale against Steve Vassi, and denying Vassi's cross-motion to toll interest. The court held that Vassi retained standing to challenge the foreclosure despite transferring the property because he remains liable on the note and potentially subject to a deficiency judgment. On the merits, the court found plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304's notice and mailing requirements and that the referee's report was supported by admissible business-record evidence, so confirmation and foreclosure were proper.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s orders granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants and granting conditional contractual indemnification to landlord Abeken against tenant Blended Family. The court held that the technician’s work — drilling two holes to run a cable between ceilings and rooms — did not constitute construction-related activity or an alteration that would trigger Labor Law § 240(1). The court also rejected the landlord’s argument that Public Service Law § 228 barred the claim, finding that the worker was a telecommunications, not cable television, installer. Questions of fact about the building ladder precluded summary judgment on common-law negligence, and the lease indemnity clause was enforceable but conditional.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order dismissing the remaining causes of action against several defendants in a fraud and contract dispute arising from a double sale of real property. The court held it lacked general jurisdiction over certain out-of-state defendants, applied New York's procedural law (including its six-year statute of limitations) to bar a statute-of-limitations defense based on Ohio law, but found the fraud, aiding-and-abetting, and certain contract-based claims were insufficiently pleaded or duplicative and thus properly dismissed. Because dismissal was proper on those grounds, other defenses were not reached.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Sompo America Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a fire-damage complaint brought by 120 Main Hotel LLC. The insurer argued an exclusion for damage to vacant or unoccupied premises barred coverage. The appellate court held Sompo failed to prove the exclusion applied because factual disputes remain about the property's condition, whether covered hotel property adequate for operation was present, and whether the plaintiff was conducting customary business operations shortly before the fire. The court also struck new arguments raised for the first time in reply.

The Appellate Division reversed part of Supreme Court’s dismissal of investors’ securities claims arising from inflated mutual-fund valuations. Plaintiffs alleged that Infinity Q’s CIO manipulated a Bloomberg pricing service, producing false NAVs in the mutual fund’s December 31, 2019 registration statement. The court held that defendant Potter cannot escape strict liability under Section 11 by a disclaimer and that plaintiffs adequately pleaded agency such that IQCM may be vicariously liable under Section 11. The court also found plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded Section 15 control-person claims against Bonderman LP and Potter as to IQCM, but not as to the Mutual Fund or the Trust.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's April 24, 2024 order denying Feifei Gu's motions to vacate a prior July 28, 2023 dismissal and for sanctions, while noting the court had effectively granted leave to reargue and then adhered to its prior dismissal. The court found the complaint was properly dismissed because Gu failed to file the mandatory notice of claim under General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i before suing the District Attorney's Office and two prosecutors, a defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction. The court also rejected Gu's fraud and misconduct claims as conclusory and unsupported.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff Lloyd's partial summary judgment that defendant Southwest Marine must defend Lloyd's insured, Arsenal Scaffold Inc., as an additional insured in an underlying personal-injury action and reimburse Lloyd's defense costs. The court held that facts known to defendant created a reasonable possibility of coverage, so the duty to defend was triggered even though defendant's named insured (JGR Services) was not a direct defendant in the underlying suit. The court rejected Southwest Marine's contrary arguments and affirmed the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment.

The First Department reversed Supreme Court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a fraudulent inducement complaint and granted the motion. Plaintiff claimed defendant lied about tenants and rents when selling Manhattan property, but documentary evidence in the closing binder (schedule 8.1(k)) and the purchase agreement terms (including a merger clause and an "as is" purchase) conclusively refuted reliance. The court also held that, even absent those documents, the complaint failed to plead all elements of fraudulent inducement with sufficient particularity, so dismissal was required.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of Ernestiaze Moore's claim against the State under the Adult Survivors Act. Moore alleged two sexual assaults by a correction officer and originally filed dates in 2022, but counsel later disclosed the correct dates were in 2023. The Court of Claims found the incorrect year was a jurisdictional defect under Court of Claims Act § 11(b) that could not be cured by amendment, and therefore denied Moore's motion to amend and dismissed the claim. The appellate court concluded the statutory filing requirements must be strictly construed and affirmed.

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court order that had awarded the mother $108,491.83 in counsel fees and expenses under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act after the court ordered the return of the parties' child to Italy. The panel held that Supreme Court made only conclusory findings and failed to apply the statutory and equitable factors required by ICARA and controlling federal caselaw (including the respondent's burden to show an award would be "clearly inappropriate" and use of the lodestar method to set fees). The matter is remitted for the lower court to consider the proper factors, decide whether an award would be clearly inappropriate, and, if not, calculate an appropriate fee amount.

The Appellate Division reviewed a dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's complaint against multiple insurers and Copart that alleged fraud, conversion, conspiracy and negligent hiring tied to sales of salvaged vehicles and parts. The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the insurer defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff served them by certified mail instead of through the strict methods required for corporations. The court reversed the dismissal as to Copart, finding Copart had answered and participated in discovery and therefore had not preserved lack-of-service defenses. The case against Copart is reinstated and returned for further proceedings.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Supreme Court's December 12, 2024 order dismissing the amended complaint against the Unified Court System (UCS). Plaintiffs — four individuals and Disability Rights New York (DRNY) — challenged SCPA article 17-a and UCS's role, alleging ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations and other claims. The court held DRNY lacked organizational standing because it did not show an injury-in-fact from its advocacy expenditures, and that the individual plaintiffs' ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were time-barred under New York's three-year personal-injury statute, with accrual at the dates they were placed under guardianship. The court rejected continuing-violation and unpreserved equitable-tolling arguments.

The Appellate Division dismissed plaintiff David Gennett's appeal challenging Supreme Court's refusal to fix his second attorney Ronald Benjamin's charging lien before the case concluded. The case had settled while the appeal was pending, making the request for an immediate fee determination moot. The appellate court also held that whether the second attorney's compensation should be measured by quantum meruit instead of the contingency agreement is not yet ripe because Supreme Court has not resolved the fee allocation and has placed a portion of settlement funds in escrow pending that determination. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed a Supreme Court judgment awarding Ellis Hospital $5,048.55 plus costs for unpaid medical bills after a summary judgment motion. The hospital showed it provided services, produced an itemized bill showing the outstanding deductible, and submitted a services agreement signed by the patient’s husband acknowledging financial responsibility. The court found the patient failed to raise a triable issue of fact — her claims about not receiving bills, lack of authorization, and challenge to the contract were not supported by evidence — so summary judgment was properly granted.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for Bassett Healthcare Network in a wrongful-death action by Harvey Brody, administrator of Barbara Brody's estate. The court held that issues of fact exist both on a common-law negligence claim that the facility failed to monitor its parking lot and on medical malpractice claims against the nurse practitioner who evaluated the decedent. The court found defendant met its initial burdens but that plaintiff submitted admissible evidence (job description, photos, and an expert affidavit) creating triable issues about assumed duty and whether the NP departed from the applicable standard of care.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision and ordered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with costs. The plaintiff, Mega Beverage Redemption Center, appealed from a lower-court ruling but failed to show that its appeal to the Appellate Division did not raise questions of fact or that the Appellate Division made the specific CPLR 5615 findings required when factual questions exist. Because those statutory prerequisites were absent, the Court concluded it was bound to affirm and enter judgment absolute dismissing the complaint.