From This Week’s “Latest Posts” Section (Below):
Pursuant to the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, Can a Defendant Renew a Summary Judgment Motion After the Time for Appeal Has Passed?
21st Mtge. Corp. v Jin Hua Lin, 2026 NY Slip Op 01116, First Dept 2-26-26
Under Labor Law 240(1), Must a Plaintiff Struck by a Falling Object Demonstrate How and From Where It Fell?
Valarezo v HP Jamsta Hous. Dev. Fund Co. Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01148, First Dept 2-26-26
What Is the “Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine” Which Allows a Court to Defer to an Agency for an Investigation and Ruling?
Frasier v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01110, Third Dept 2-26-26
May a Court Deem an Action Abandoned If a Defendant Proves a 90-Day Notice Has Been Properly Mailed to Plaintiff But the Mail Was Returned?
Kurbonov v Cohen, 2026 NY Slip Op 01044, Second Dept 2-25-26
- Searchable, Organized Database of Over 17,000 Decision-Summaries
- “Latest Posts” Updated Weekly
- Weekly Reversal Reports
- Monthly Personal Injury Reversal Reports
- Monthly Civil Procedure Reversal Reports
- Monthly Criminal Law Reversal Reports
- Civil Procedure Update CLE
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE INFORMED DEFENDANT HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ENHANCED SENTENCE IF HE DIDN’T APPEAR FOR THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW OR GOT INTO TROUBLE BEFORE SENTENCING, THE JUDGE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY INFORM DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ENHANCED SENTENCE IF HE DID NOT APPEAR FOR SENTENCING; SENTENCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined defendant was not specifically informed that his failure to show up for sentencing could result in an enhanced sentence. Therefore the enhanced sentence was vacated:
In satisfaction of the indictment and other pending charges, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of falsely reporting an incident in the second degree and waive his right to appeal. He entered that plea upon the understanding that he would be sentenced, as a second felony offender, to two years in prison, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. County Court provided an oral Parker admonishment at the conclusion of the plea proceeding and warned defendant that, if he failed to appear for a scheduled presentence investigation interview or got “into further trouble, some new legal difficulties” before sentencing, it would not be bound by its sentencing commitment and could sentence him to up to four years in prison. * * *
“A sentencing court may not impose an enhanced sentence unless it has informed the defendant of specific conditions that the defendant must abide by or risk such enhancement, or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his or her plea before the enhanced sentence is imposed” … . As the People concede, County Court failed to “specifically inform [defendant] as part of the Parker admonishment that a consequence of failing to appear for sentencing was the imposition of a greater sentence” … . County Court therefore erred in imposing an enhanced sentence on that ground without first giving defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . People v Gordon, 2026 NY Slip Op 01251, Third Dept 3-5-26
Practice Point: In order to impose a valid enhanced sentence if defendant fails to show up for sentencing, the judge must have specifically informed defendant of that possibility.. Here defendant was told he may receive an enhanced sentence if he didn’t attend the presentence investigation interview, which was not sufficient.
THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH MAKES A LANDLORD’S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT TENANTS WHO RECEIVE SECTION 8 VOUCHERS AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE, AS A RESULT OF ACCEPTING SECTION 8 FUNDS, LANDLORDS MUST SUBMIT TO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OF APARTMENTS AND RECORDS (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, determined Executive Law section 296(5)(a)(1) is unconstitutional. The statute makes a landlord’s refusal to rent to tenants who receive Section 8 housing vouchers an unlawful discriminatory practice. The landlords argued “the source-of-income discrimination law is unconstitutional on its face because it, in effect, requires landlords to take part in the Section 8 program, which in turn obligates them to consent to warrantless searches of their premises and records in violation of the Fourth Amendment:”
The particulars of respondents’ [landlords’] constitutional claim are as follows. By prohibiting discrimination based upon source of income, respondents argue, the Legislature has required landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers and, as a condition of participating in that program, agree to allow searches of their properties and records. More specifically, under the governing federal statutes and regulations, a potential Section 8 apartment must meet certain housing quality standards … , and in order to determine whether these standards are met, the local PHA [public housing agency] administering the program must perform an inspection of the apartment, the equipment that services the apartment and the common areas of the building before the apartment is occupied and again not less than biennially during the term of the tenancy … . Further, for purposes of assessing whether the rent charged by the landlord is reasonable, the landlord must make available to the PHA its records concerning the apartment in question as well as the amounts of rent it charges for other units, both in the building in question and in other buildings … . The landlord must sign a standard housing assistance payment (hereinafter HAP) contract, in which it agrees to provide “full and free access” to the apartment, the premises and all relevant accounts and records. Respondents contend that these inspection mandates force them to surrender the Fourth Amendment’s protections against governmental searches of private property in the absence of either voluntary consent or a warrant, neither of which are provided for here. * * *
An inspection scheme must assure that the discretion of the inspecting officers is “carefully limited in time, place, and scope” … , and we find that the Section 8 inspection regime lacks these safeguards. With respect to timing, although the regulations set benchmarks for when inspections should be performed at the outset of the tenancy and then at least once every two years thereafter there is no further guidance as to the frequency of the inspections and, indeed, they must be done whenever the PHA receives a complaint … . As for the place and scope of a search, while the regulations offer examples of interior spaces that may be searched and explain the purposes of the search, there are no limitations placed on what may be inspected. When combined with the HAP contract, which requires landlords to allow “full and free access to the contract unit and the premises, and to all accounts and other records of the owner that are relevant to the HAP contract,” the place and scope of a permissible search are exceedingly broad. Under these circumstances, the inspection scheme does not provide adequate safeguards … . Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Commons West, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 01253, Third Dept 3-5-26
THE REQUIREMENT IN THE LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) THAT A HEARING BE HELD WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF PLACING AN INMATE IN A SEGREGATED HOUSING UNIT (SHU) IS “DIRECTORY,” NOT MANDATORY; THEREFORE ANY ISSUE RELATED TO A DELAY IN HOLDING THE HEARING MUST BE PRESERVED FOR REVIEW AND THE INMATE MUST DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).
The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined the requirement that, under the Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT Act), a disciplinary hearing be held within five days of an inmate’s placement in a segregated housing (SHU) is directory, not mandatory. Therefore the issue must be preserved for review and the inmate must demonstrate prejudice resulting from any delay in holding the hearing:
… [W]hen examining the entirety of statutory provisions enacted by the HALT Act with respect to the use of segregated housing, numerous provisions expressly provide directives that limit respondent’s authority to utilize segregated housing or mandating that incarcerated individuals be released or diverted to RRU [residential rehabilitation unit] … . The exclusion of any such language from the time frame in which a hearing must be held after an incarcerated individual is placed in segregated housing suggests that it was not intended to deprive respondent of his authority to proceed with a hearing in the event of a violation. We therefore find that the language requiring that a hearing be completed no later than five days after an incarcerated individual is placed in prehearing segregated confinement remains directory under the HALT Act … . Matter of Guerrero v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 01263, Third Dept 3-5-26
THE GOVERNOR’S EMERGENCY COVID-19 TOLLS OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS EXTENDED THE TWO-YEAR WINDOW FOR FILING CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CAUSES OF ACTION BY 228 DAYS (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, determined the amendment of the Child Victims Act (CVA), which enlarged to window for filing otherwise time-barred actions, did not supersede the governor’s COVID-19 executive orders tolling statutes of limitations. Therefore two-year window for filing CVA actions was extended by the 228-day COVID-19 tolls and plaintiff’s action was timely:
… [T]his Court concludes that the executive orders issued by the Governor and the Legislature’s amendment of the CVA all functioned together to enlarge and enhance the period of time for survivors to commence CVA actions. This Court finds the contention of [defendants] that the CVA amendment supplanted the executive orders unpersuasive. The CVA amendment and the executive orders work in tandem to accommodate the peculiar difficulties precluding survivors of child sex abuse to come forward in pursuit of justice. The extended revival window provided survivors an opportunity to avail themselves of the CVA revival window despite restrictions by the pandemic or personal trauma. To hold otherwise would belie the very intent of the CVA, which was to permit victims additional time to bring their offenders to justice.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the executive orders issued prior to the enactment of the CVA amendment apply to toll the two-year revival window for the time the executive orders were in effect. In conjunction with the executive orders issued subsequent to the CVA amendment’s enactment, which this Court has recently held to be applicable, all of these executive orders impose an aggregate 228-day toll on the closing of the CVA revival window, making March 30, 2022, the latest date by which to commence a CVA action … . Finley v Diocese of Brooklyn, 2026 NY Slip Op 01183, Second Dept 3-4-26
PURSUANT TO THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EPIDURAL INJECTIONS WERE DONE NEGLIGENTLY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SIGNED A CONSENT FORM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this medical malpractice and lack of informed consent action should not have been granted. The plaintiff raised a question of fact re: medical malpractice under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. And the fact that plaintiff signed a consent form was not sufficient to warrant summary judgment on the lack of informed consent cause of action:
… [T]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants negligently administered the epidural injections. “To raise a triable issue of fact as to the applicability of that doctrine, a plaintiff must show that ‘(1) the event is of the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) the instrumentality that caused the injury is within the defendants’ exclusive control; and (3) the injury is not the result of any voluntary action by the plaintiff'” … . Here, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether his injury was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, as Weingarten opined that the plaintiff would not have developed an MSSA infection if the defendants had adhered to the proper performance of “sterile techniques” in accordance with the applicable standards of care … . * * *
“‘To establish a cause of action to recover damages based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury'” … . “The fact that a plaintiff signed a consent form, standing alone, does not establish a defendant’s prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … . Here, the defendants’ submissions failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was adequately informed of the reasonably foreseeable risks of the epidural injections … . Phillips v Varma, 2026 NY Slip Op 01238, Second Dept 3-4-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to medical malpractice.
Practice Point: Plaintiff’s signing a consent form alone does not warrant granting a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a “lack of informed consent” cause of action.
NONE OF DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS STOOD UP TO APPELLATE SCRUTINY; THE GRAND LARCENY AND CRIMINAL IMPERSONATION CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE COUNTS CHARGING SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND APPEARING AS AN ATTORNEY WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED WERE DISMISSED AS DUPLICITOUS (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department reversed the grand larceny and criminal impersonation counts, the the People’s consent, under a weight-of-the-evidence analysis. The proof demonstrated the grand larceny counts failed because the “victims” voluntarily gave defendant the money. The criminal impersonation counts failed because the defendant did not impersonate a “real person.” The scheme to defraud and “appearing as an attorney without being admitted” counts were dismissed as duplicitous:
… [T]he counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree and practicing or appearing as an attorney without being admitted and registered were duplicitous. “A count in an indictment is void as duplicitous when it charges more than one offense” … . “Even if a count is valid on its face, it is nonetheless duplicitous where the evidence presented to the grand jury or at trial makes plain that multiple criminal acts occurred during the relevant time period, rendering it nearly impossible to determine the particular act upon which the jury reached its verdict” … . Here, neither the verdict sheet nor the jury charge explained how the testimony and evidence adduced at trial applied to the three counts of scheme to defraud in the first degree or the three counts of practicing or appearing as an attorney without being admitted and registered, including which counts pertained to which of the complainants. Under the circumstances, the challenged counts were duplicitous because it is impossible to determine the particular acts upon which the jury reached its verdict with respect to each of the counts … . People v Rafikian, 2026 NY Slip Op 01232, Second Dept 3-4-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of dismissal of indictment counts as duplicitous. It was not possible to determine which allegation in the counts was the basis of the the jury’s decision to convict.
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS UNAVOIDABLY DELAYED IN GETTING TO COURT AND SO INFORMED THE JUDGE; IN DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ABSENCE A JUROR REQUESTED TO BE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THE SUDDEN DEATH OF HER FRIEND’S SON; THE DISCHARGE OF THE JUROR WITHOUT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CONSENT REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defense motion for a mistrial should have been granted. Defense counsel, because of a child-care issue, informed the court she could not be there at 9 am but would arrive at court later in the morning. While defense counsel was absent, a juror requested to be discharged because of the sudden death of a family friend’s son. The judge discharged the juror. When defense counsel arrived she objected to the discharge of the juror without her consent and moved for a mistrial:
It is undisputed that the Supreme Court failed to adhere to the requirements of CPL 270.35. As a matter of procedure, the court, at a minimum, should have informed all parties of the substance of the inquiry and provided each side with an opportunity to be heard before making its determination to discharge the sworn juror. The court both conducted the inquiry and discharged the juror in the presence of the People and in the absence of defense counsel.
Although defense counsel was apprised with the actual specific contents of the jury note upon her arrival … , the Supreme Court’s procedural errors here were inherently prejudicial, as they deprived the defendant of an opportunity to be heard before giving meaningful notice of the contents of the note, conducting the inquiry, and discharging the juror as incapacitated … . People v Dean, 2026 NY Slip Op 01218, Second Dept 3-4-26
Practice Point: Here the discharge of a juror in defense counsel’s absence warranted a mistrial.
PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE A SCAFFOLD WHILE STANDING ON IT AND IT FELL OVER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on a Baker scaffold, attempting to move it, when it toppled over. The scaffold did not have safety railings and plaintiff was not provided with any safety equipment.. Plaintiff’s comparative negligence is irrelevant for a Labor Law 240(1) action:
The plaintiff’s assigned work on the project required him to stand on top of a Baker scaffold. As the plaintiff was attempting to move the scaffold while standing on the platform of the scaffold, the scaffold toppled over and the plaintiff fell five to six feet to the floor below. * * *
… [T]he plaintiff met his prima facie burden of demonstrating a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries by submitting a transcript of his deposition testimony in which he testified that he fell from a scaffold that did not have any safety railings and that he was not provided with any safety devices to keep him from falling … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Since the plaintiff established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that the violation was a proximate cause of his fall, his comparative negligence, if any, is not a defense to the cause of action alleging a violation of that statute … . * * *
… [T]he court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) as was predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-5.18(b), as the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the manually propelled scaffold lacked safety railings … . Bustamante v BSD 370 Lexington, L.L.C., 2026 NY Slip Op 01180, Second Dept 3-4-26
Practice Point: This decision illustrates the irrelevance of comparative negligence for a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.
UNDER THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA), A DEFENDANT CAN RENEW A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION AFTER A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND AFTER THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAS EXPIRED AS LONG AS THE SALE HAS NOT YET BEEN CONDUCTED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s motion for renewal of its summary judgment motion in this foreclosure proceeding should have been granted. The motion was based upon the retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). Renewal should be granted after a judgment of foreclosure and after the time for appeal has expired if the sale has not yet been conducted:
Generally, “a motion for leave to renew based upon an alleged change in the law must be made prior to the entry of a final judgment, or before the time to appeal has fully expired” … . However, in Article 13 LLC v Ponce De Leon Fed Bank, the Court of Appeals clarified the application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA), finding that it applies retroactively and to all foreclosure actions in which “a final foreclosure sale had not been enforced prior to its effective date, including actions pending at the time of its effective date” … .
A judgment of foreclosure and sale is deemed enforced when the sale is concluded … . Therefore, the only way to effectuate the retroactive application of FAPA after a judgment has been entered and the time to appeal has expired, is by filing a motion to renew before the sale is conducted … . Based on a change in the law with the enactment of the FAPA, [defendant’s] motion for leave to renew pursuant to CPLR 2221(e)(2), was timely … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Jin Hua Lin, 2026 NY Slip Op 01116, First Dept 2-26-26
Practice Point: The Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) allows a defendant to renew a motion for summary judgment after a judgment of foreclosure and after the time for appeal has expired if the foreclosure sale has not yet been conducted.
ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS DEEMED LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, THE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO COMMIT ASSAULT SECOND, WHICH INVOLVED INJURY TO POLICE OFFICERS, DID NOT SURVIVE A WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE ANALYSIS; THE TWO JUVENILES WERE FIXATED SOLEY UPON FIGHTING EACH OTHER THROUGHOUT THE BRIEF INCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rodriguez, determined the assault second adjudications were not supported by the weight of the evidence. Two juveniles were fighting each other and police officers were injured trying to break-up the fight. The First Department found that, because the juveniles were fixated only on fighting each other throughout the incident there was insufficient evidence of an intent to interfere with the officers’ performance of their duty:
… Penal Law § 120.05 (3) provides: “A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when: . . . 3. With intent to prevent [an] officer . . . from performing a lawful duty, . . . he or she causes physical injury to such [] officer.” Accordingly, a person is guilty of the offense when their conscious objective or purpose is to prevent an officer from performing their lawful duty, the person acts in a manner consistent with that intent, and the officer is injured … . * * *
The record … lacks any indication that appellant directed his actions at the officers, whether by turning around, throwing an elbow backward, or in some other way … . …
Similarly, the evidence at the hearing did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had even a chance to recognize and consciously disregard the officers’ directives. Matter of Cynque T., 2026 NY Slip Op 01147, First Dept 2-26-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the factors considered under a weight-of-the-evidence analysis of criminal intent.
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A STEEL BAR WHICH FELL DURING AN ATTEMPT TO HOIST IT WITH EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXACT CAUSE FOR THE BAR’S FALLING, NOR DID HE NEED TO SPECIFY THE EQUIPMENT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a steel bar which apparently fell over as it was about to be hoisted by an excavation machine. Plaintiff did not need to demonstrate the exact circumstances under which the bar fell, nor did he need to specify the type of equipment which should have been used to hoist the bar:
Plaintiff was injured as he and his coworkers were making bases for cement columns by using a drilling/excavation machine to remove steel bars that had been drilled into the ground. Plaintiff testified that when removing the bars, a fabric sling was tied to the top of the bar, a hook was placed into the sling, and the drilling/excavation machine lifted the bar away. As the last bar was being removed, it fell and hit plaintiff. According to plaintiff’s testimony, the bar was standing vertically on the drilling machine and was not secured before the machine moved it.
Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability on their Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Plaintiffs demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on this claim by submitting evidence establishing that the steel bar was not secured while the excavation/drilling machine was hoisting it out of the ground … . Even though plaintiff testified that he did not see the precise moment that the bar began to fall and was unsure whether a sling was attached to the bar at the time of the accident, he was not obliged to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell … . Furthermore, because the equipment used to hoist the steel bar failed to prevent it from falling, plaintiffs were also not obliged to specify the type of safety device that defendants should have provided … . Valarezo v HP Jamsta Hous. Dev. Fund Co. Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 01148, First Dept 2-26-26
Practice Point: To be entitled to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) falling-object cause of action, plaintiff need not demonstrate the precise circumstances which caused the object to fall.
THE TRANSGENDER PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO SEAL THE RECORDS OF THE NAME-CHANGE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s request to seal the court records, determined petitioner’s transgender status justified the sealing of the records of the name-change proceedings:
… “[W]hether to grant or deny a sealing request under Civil Rights Law § 64-a depends solely upon the potential for harm to the applicant arising from public access to a court record of the applicant’s name change proceeding” and “a court abuses its discretion by relying upon real or theoretical ‘public interest concerns’ to deny a Civil Rights Law § 64-a sealing request” … . Said directly, “[t]o decline to seal the record despite the applicant’s showing of jeopardy is to place the applicant at risk of the very harms the statute is meant to guard against” … .
Petitioner in this case affirmed his transgender status and indicated that he was seeking to change his name to one that reflects his male gender identity in conformance with the name he uses in his personal and professional life. Petitioner also expressed fear that exposure to the records from this proceeding would effectively expose his transgender status and expose him to increased risk for hate crimes, harassment and other discrimination. Those circumstances warrant entitlement to have the record of his name change proceeding sealed pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 64-a … . Matter of Abigail X., 2026 NY Slip Op 01104, Third Dept 2-26-26
HERE THE “PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE” DID NOT APPLY TO REQUIRE A STAY TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) TO DETERMINE WHETHER “STRAY VOLTAGE” WAS CAUSING INJURY TO PLAINTIFF’S CATTLE AND, IF SO, HOW BEST TO MITIGATE OR REMEDIATE; THE PSC HAS NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF STRAY VOLTAGE ON CATTLE; THE ISSUES ARE BEST HANDLED BY A COURT, DESPITE THE COMPETING EXPERT OPINIONS (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the “primary jurisdiction doctrine” did not require that the civil action be stayed to allow the Public Service Commission (PSC) to determine whether “stray voltage” was harming plaintiff’s cattle and, if so, how the problem can be mitigated or remediated. Plaintiff, a cattle farmer, sued defendant electric company (which services the farm) alleging that “stray voltage” has caused “behavioral changes [in the cattle], decreased milk production, fertility issues and other health problems.” The Third Department held that the Public Service Commission was not better suited to deal with the issues presented by “stray voltage” than the court:
Assuming, without deciding, that the regulatory scheme is an appropriate means to address some of the issues underlying these tort claims … , compliance with regulatory standards is not dispositive as to due care … . Upon a stay and referral, the PSC [Public Service Commission] would have only the authority to determine whether defendant is presently operating in compliance with its administrative standards, which set forth minimum, generalized safety requirements. As PSC asserts and as evidenced by the opinions and reports of plaintiffs’ experts, the duty of care with respect to stray voltage on dairy farms may be quite different from this regulatory floor. The PSC also admittedly has no expertise in the impact of stray voltage on cattle and has advised that it would be necessary to seek out the opinion(s) of its own experts if tasked with evaluating whether any stray voltage here is “harmful” or merits mitigation beyond the aforementioned standards. * * *
As plaintiffs argue, the claims at issue, which do not arise from the PSC’s rules, regulations or policies, are common-law tort claims, requiring determinations as to familiar concepts such as duty and causation, and are inherently judicial … . As with other complicated areas of tort, the necessary expertise is initially supplied by the parties’ experts. To the extent that the divergence between those experts on scientific principles may necessitate additional guidance, Supreme Court possesses the authority to utilize a referee or court-appointed neutral expert to aid in the review of complex litigation where appropriate (see CPLR 4001, 4212 …). In sum, although the PSC’s opinion as to the existence, origin or degree of stray voltage may be informative, resolution of plaintiffs’ claims do not first require resolution of issues placed within the agency’s special competence. Frasier v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01110, Third Dept 2-26-26
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when the “primary jurisdiction doctrine” should be applied to stay a court proceeding to allow an agency to investigate and offer guidance on the underlying issues. Here the Third Department held that the Public Service Commission did not have expertise on the issues underlying the trial, so the “primary jurisdiction doctrine” did not require that the civil action be stayed pending a PSC investigation.
PETITIONER, A PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY AGENCY FOR DISABLED PERSONS, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNFETTERED ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ABUSE KEPT BY RESPONDENT JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THE DISABLED PERSONS REQUIRE THAT PERSONS FOR WHOM THE RECORDS ARE SOUGHT BE SPECFICALLY IDENTIFIED ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR RELEASE OF THE RECORDS DESCRIBED IN THE FEDERAL DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined that the petitioner, a protection and advocacy (P & A) agency representing persons with developmental disabilities, did not have the right to unfettered access to records of abuse investigations by the respondent Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. Before access to such records can be granted, the respondent must be provided with the name of the allegedly abused person. At that point the respondent can determine whether any of the grounds for release of the records is applicable:
Our inquiry here distills to whether petitioner is entitled — in executing its investigatory, oversight function as a P & A entity — to unqualified access to records pertaining to the abuse and/or neglect of persons with developmental disabilities within subject facilities, or whether respondents properly conditioned such access upon satisfaction of the disclosure requirements delineated under the DD Act [Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (see 42 USC § 15001 et seq.]. * * *
Satisfaction of the disclosure requirements under the DD Act thus necessitate the identification of the subject individual to either secure necessary consent or determine if circumstances otherwise permit disclosure. The result is “a carefully calibrated system that t[akes] into consideration both the privacy interests of developmentally disabled persons and the need for P & A organizations to examine records in order to pursue their statutory functions” … . Here, although petitioner’s request for records advised that it had received complaints regarding a particular facility subject to respondents’ oversight, it did not identify the subject(s) of the complaints or provide respondents any information that would allow respondents to determine whether one of the four circumstances enumerated in the DD Act applied. Nothing in the federal statutory language supports petitioner’s contention that it is permitted unqualified access to records in furtherance of its investigatory role. To the contrary, petitioner’s access is expressly conditioned upon satisfaction of one of the four above-detailed scenarios, which necessitate the identification of the individual(s) whose records are sought … . Matter of Disability Rights N.Y. v State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 2026 NY Slip Op 01111, Third Dept 2-26-26
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF THE 90-DAY NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS, THERE WAS ALSO PROOF THE MAIL WAS NOT DELIVERED AND WAS RETURNED; WITHOUT PROOF PLAINTIFFS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE 90-DAY NOTICES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution should not have been granted. Although there was proof defendants (the Cohens) mailed the 90-day notices to the pro se plaintiffs, there was no proof the notices were received (the mailings were returned):
In August 2023, more than a year after the expiration of the stay, the Cohens moved … pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. In support of the motion, the Cohens submitted evidence that in August 2022 they mailed 90-day demands pursuant to CPLR 3216(b)(3) to the plaintiffs, who were then pro se, by certified mail. The Cohens also submitted evidence, however, that the mailings were returned to them. The United States Postal Service tracking history submitted by the Cohens indicated that one delivery was attempted and that five days later a reminder was sent to schedule redelivery before the mailings were returned to the sender. * * *
CPLR 3216 permits a court to dismiss an action for want of prosecution only after the court or the defendant has served the plaintiff with a written demand requiring the plaintiff “to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within [90] days after receipt of such demand” … . “Notably, the time within which the plaintiff must act runs from the receipt, and not the service of the demand” … . Here, in support of their motion, the Cohens submitted proof that the 90-day demands were not received by the plaintiffs. Kurbonov v Cohen, 2026 NY Slip Op 01044, Second Dept 2-25-26
Practice Point: To support a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, the defendant must proof the 90-day notice was actually received by the pro se plaintiff. Proof of mailing is not enough.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS PROPERLY IMPOUNDED; THEREFORE THE ITEMS SEIZED DURING THE SUBSEQUENT INVENTORY SEARCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTIONS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion and vacating the convictions, determined the People did not demonstrate the proper procedure for impounding defendant’s vehicle (which was subjected to an inventory search) was followed:
The People failed to establish the lawfulness of the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle and subsequent inventory search … . At a suppression hearing, the arresting officer equivocated on whether or not the vehicle was parked legally on the street, and he did not testify as to the posted time limits pertaining to the parking space at which the defendant had pulled over. Although the officer testified that he had to impound the vehicle to safeguard it at the precinct station house and “for further investigation,” the People presented no evidence demonstrating any history of burglary or vandalism in the area where the defendant had pulled over the vehicle. Thus, the People failed to establish that the impoundment of the vehicle was in the interests of public safety or part of the police’s community caretaking function … . Moreover, the People failed to present any evidence as to whether the New York City Police Department had a policy regarding impoundment of vehicles, what that policy required, or whether the arresting officer complied with that policy when he impounded the defendant’s vehicle … .
Accordingly, the impoundment of the defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and the physical evidence that was recovered from the vehicle during the inventory search subsequent to that impoundment must be suppressed as fruits of the unlawful impoundment … . People v McClarin, 2026 NY Slip Op 01076, Second Dept 2-25-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the valid grounds and procedures for impounding a vehicle and the consequences of improperly impounding a vehicle. Here all the items seized in an inventory search after the improper impoundment were suppressed and the convictions were vacated.
HERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF EACH NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE INCIDENTS; WHERE A SCHOOL HAS TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING A CLAIM, THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM IS NOT A BAR TO GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against defendant school district should been granted. The petition alleged negligent supervision a student who was assaulted, harassed, and bullied on specific occasions. There were contemporaneous incident reports. The school district, therefore, had knowledge of the nature of the claims within 90 days of each incident:
… [T]he petitioner established that the School District had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of each incident included in the notice of claim. The petitioner submitted, among other things, incident reports and documentation of investigations conducted by the School District within days of the incidents … , police reports that documented communications and an investigation by school officials … , an electronic communication between the petitioner and a school official … , and an “[a]ction [p]lan” created pursuant to a meeting between the petitioner and school officials where the alleged wrongful conduct and the plans to monitor the students and address the conduct were discussed … .
As the petitioner demonstrated that the School District acquired timely knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, the petitioner met her initial burden of showing that the School District would not be prejudiced by the late notice of claim … . In opposition to the petitioner’s initial showing, the School District failed to come forward with particularized evidence showing that the late notice had substantially prejudiced its ability to defend the claim on the merits … .
Although the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to timely serve the notice of claim, “where, as here, there is actual knowledge and an absence of prejudice, the lack of a reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . Matter of Polito v North Babylon Sch. Dist., 2026 NY Slip Op 01067, Second Dept 2-25-26
Practice Point: In the context of a petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against a school district, the absence of a reasonable excuse for timely filing the claim may be overlooked where it is demonstrated the school had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claims.
A POLICE CAR RESPONDING AN EMERGENCY CALL SWERVED INTO A TURN LANE TO PASS A CAR AND STRUCK A SKATEBOARDER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS” (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the “reckless disregard” standard for liability applied to this accident involving a police car and a skateboarder, and (2) the county defendants did not eliminate all questions of fact about whether the “reckless disregard” standard was met. The officer was responding a call from a woman in labor with complications. The officer struck the skateboarder, who was in a turn lane, when the officer swerved into the turn lane to pass a car:
The “reckless disregard” standard demands more than a showing of a lack of “due care under the circumstances” … . “It requires evidence that the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” … . “This standard requires a showing of more than a momentary lapse in judgment” … .
Here, the defendants established that the reckless disregard standard of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 was applicable to Degere’s [the officer’s] conduct because he was responding to a radio call of a woman going into labor with complications … . However, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint because their moving papers failed to eliminate all issues of material fact regarding whether Degere acted recklessly by either traveling at a high speed in the center turn lane in a school zone with poor lighting conditions or abruptly merging into the center turn lane without first looking to his left or activating his turn signal … . Moccasin v Suffolk County, 2026 NY Slip Op 01049, Second Dept 2-25-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “reckless disregard for the safety of others” within the meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 in the context of a police officer responding to an emergency call.
THE FEDERAL CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED WAS BASED ON CONDUCT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CRIMINALIZED BY A NEW YORK STATUTE AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SEX OFFENDER UNDER SORA (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, vacating Supreme Court’s sex offender adjudication, over an extensive dissent, determined that the federal crime of which defendant was convicted was not encompassed by New York State criminal law at the time of defendant’s conviction. The defendant sent images of adult bodies engaged in sexual conduct with his 16-year-old cousin’s (the victim’s) face superimposed on the images:
Defendant was convicted under 18 USC § 1466A(a)(1)(A) which proscribes images created, adapted or modified to appear as though an identifiable minor is engaging in sexual conduct, otherwise known as “morphed” child pornography. We agree with our dissenting colleague that defendant’s actions were deplorable. Nevertheless, we are constrained to find that this conduct does not give rise to criminal liability under the analogous New York State statute, Penal Law § 263.15, as it existed at the time of [defendant’s] conviction. Therefore, the court erred in adjudicating defendant a sex offender. People v Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 01016, First Dept 2-24-26
Practice Point: Here defendant was convicted of a federal child-pornography offense for conduct which was not covered by a New York criminal statute. Therefore defendant could not be adjudicated a sex offender based on the federal conviction.
PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT (HSTPA) AND NEW YORK CITY’S RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL), THE TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO BUT WAS NEVER OFFERED A RENEWAL LEASE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE PRIOR LEASE SIGNED BY HIS GRANDMOTHER; THE LANDLORD’S HOLDOVER AND EVICTION PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Appellate Term, determined the landlord’s holdover and eviction petition should have been dismissed. The tenant was entitled to a renewal lease pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA). The landlord never provided a renewal lease:
The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) was enacted on June 14, 2019 and became effective immediately … . The HSTPA restricts a landlord’s right to withdraw a previously offered preferential rent, even if properly preserved in the lease. Specifically, Rent Stabilization Law § 26-511(c)(14) provides that for “any tenant who . . . is or was entitled to receive a renewal or vacancy lease” as of the date of the HSTPA’s enactment, “the amount of rent for such housing accommodation that may be charged and paid shall be no more than the rent charged to and paid by the tenant prior to that renewal, as adjusted by the most recent applicable guidelines increases and any other increases authorized by law.” … . * * *
Where a landlord fails to offer a renewal lease, the rights under the expiring lease continue to apply (Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2523.5[d] [“(T)he failure to offer a renewal lease pursuant to this section shall not deprive the tenant of any protections or rights provided by the RSL and this Code and the tenant shall continue to have the same rights as if the expiring lease were still in effect”]). Where a renewal lease is not made in a timely fashion, “courts have repeatedly upheld . . . allowing the renewal lease increase to take effect only prospectively” … .
… [T]he tenant’s succession rights under the prior lease signed by the tenant’s grandmother continued to apply until he was offered a renewal lease on November 7, 2019 after the passage of the HSTPA. As the HSTPA applies to tenant’s succession rights, his cross-motion dismissing the petition should have been granted on the basis that he was entitled to a lease at the amount of rent paid under the prior lease signed by his grandmother (Rent Stabilization Law § 26-511[c][14]). Matter of West Side Marquis LLC v Maldonado, 2026 NY Slip Op 01023, First Dept 2-24-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) and NYC’s Rent Stabilization Law (RBL).