Court Filings

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's negligence claims against defendant driver Christopher McCabe and his employer Brown's of Bellport, Inc. The plaintiff was in a left non-HOV lane and rear-ended a stopped tractor-trailer after McCabe swerved left into the HOV lane to avoid being struck from behind. The court held that McCabe’s evasive maneuver merely furnished the occasion for the collision and was not a proximate cause, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact about McCabe’s negligence, so Brown's cannot be vicariously liable.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a trial court order denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer, preclude their defenses, or resolve liability in the plaintiff’s favor for failure to produce court-ordered discovery in a personal injury action. The Supreme Court had found no clear showing that the defendants’ discovery lapses were willful and contumacious and instead extended a deadline for production. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under disclosure and sanction rules and therefore affirmed the denial of the extreme sanctions sought by the plaintiff.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's June 9, 2021 order denying both the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a tenant's home health aide plaintiff's negligence complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff was scalded by unexpectedly hot water while showering and alleged the landlord negligently maintained the building's hot-water/boiler system. The court held that competing evidence about prior hot-water incidents and the building's system created triable issues of fact about whether the defendant created or had notice of the dangerous condition, so neither side was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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 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 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 defendant Anzar Thompson's conviction and two-year sentence for attempted second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Thompson challenged the stop-and-frisk as unsupported by reasonable suspicion based on a 911 caller's information; the court held the claim was unpreserved and declined review in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the 911 tip reliable because it included identifying details (partial name and callback number), a detailed description and location, and accurate vehicle information corroborated by the officer's observations, which together supplied reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment of the New York County Supreme Court in People v. Imbert. The appeals challenged a criminal conviction and sentence imposed on March 28, 2023. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate panel reviewed the record, considered counsel's arguments, and concluded the sentence was not excessive. The court therefore upheld the trial court's judgment and denied relief to the defendant, issuing a short unanimous order affirming the judgment on April 21, 2026.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Victor Jimenez Cespedes's conviction and eight-year sentence for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. The court reviewed the jury verdict and found it was not against the weight of the evidence, crediting the jury's credibility determinations. Key facts supporting conviction were that defendant entered an undercover officer's car carrying a box containing over 6,000 fentanyl pills, acted as the courier in a negotiated $25,000 transaction, and admitted he would receive $2,000. The court held these facts supported an inference that he knew the box's contents and rejected his testimonial denial.

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, First Department affirmed a Family Court order finding that appellant Carlos M.-J. committed a family offense amounting to second-degree harassment by intentionally bumping into the petitioner, Pascal W. The court upheld the Family Court's credibility findings and sustained the six-month suspended judgment and corresponding six-month order of protection. The appeal was not moot despite the protection order's expiration because the underlying finding can have future legal consequences. The court concluded the evidence met the fair preponderance standard and the protection order was a proper exercise of discretion.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Surrogate's Court order denying objectant Michael Marino’s motion for summary judgment challenging executor Janet Marino Gerlach’s accountings for two accounting periods. The court held objectants failed to prove, as a matter of law, that Gerlach’s decisions caused financial loss, that she overpaid herself fees, or that she failed to withhold estate tax to certain beneficiaries. The court found triable issues of fact based on Gerlach’s investment strategy, will provisions granting broad discretion, competing expert opinions on fees, and an attorney affidavit about tax withholding, so summary judgment was inappropriate.

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 Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of Supreme Court's judgment in a CPLR article 78 challenge. Petitioner Bi-Coastal Properties had sought review of respondents' denial of a clerical error review application and claimed entitlement to J-51 tax exemption benefits beginning July 1, 2020. The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge—asserting an overassessment caused by failure to apply a change in physical value and an exemption after window replacement—was reviewable only under the Real Property Tax Law's article 7 procedures, not by CPLR article 78. The certified question was left unanswered as unnecessary.

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 Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Robert F. Whitbeck Jr.'s convictions for multiple sexual and related offenses after a jury trial. Whitbeck was convicted of third-degree rape, first-degree criminal sexual act, first-degree attempted rape, criminal obstruction of breathing, second-degree unlawful imprisonment, and criminal contempt, and sentenced to aggregate prison terms and postrelease supervision. The court held the guilty verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, deferring to the jury's credibility findings given the victim's testimony, corroborating observations by the victim's daughter, and defendant's text messages that included apparent admissions. Claims of trial error and ineffective assistance were rejected as either unpreserved or unsupported by the record.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Nsikak K. Okure’s conviction and sentence after he pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting. Okure entered a plea agreement specifying concurrent prison terms (no less than 7–21 to no more than 8–24 years for the homicide count and 2⅓–7 years concurrent for leaving the scene) and waived his right to appeal. The court rejected his sole claim—that the within-agreement sentence was harsh—holding that his valid, unchallenged appeal waiver bars review of that challenge.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant David Host’s conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for a break-in that resulted in two deaths. Host had waived appeal rights, but the court considered his preserved claim that the plea was involuntary. The court found his claim unpreserved because he did not make a postallocution motion and that no statements during the plea proceeding raised significant doubt about voluntariness. Even on the record, the court concluded mental-health history did not undermine the plea, and the appellate waiver bars a challenge to sentence severity.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jonathan Guerin’s 2019 convictions and prison sentence following his guilty plea to multiple driving-related offenses arising from an April 2018 incident. The court held that challenges to the voluntariness of the plea and to counsel’s effectiveness were unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea after allocution, and no statements during the plea colloquy triggered the narrow exception to preservation. The court also found the excessiveness claim moot because defendant has reached his sentence's maximum expiration and is incarcerated on a separate conviction.