In reinstating a jury verdict which determined a special employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant did not exist, the Second Department wrote: “Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) provide that an employee who is entitled to receive compensation benefits may not sue his or her employer in an action at law for the injuries […]
Finding that the defendant company had not demonstrated as a matter of law that plaintiff was a “special employee” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law, the Second Department explained: The protection against lawsuits brought by injured workers which is afforded to employers by Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6) extends to special […]
In determining the affidavit of service of a complaint in a foreclosure action had been rebutted by the appellant’s sworn denial (requiring a hearing), the Second Department wrote: Where there is a sworn denial that a defendant was served with process, the affidavit of service is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction at a […]
In affirming Family Court’s determination that the child’s out-of-court statements were not sufficiently corroborated to support a finding of abuse by the father, the Second Department wrote: A child’s out-of-court statements may provide the basis for a finding of abuse if the statements are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence tending to support the reliability of […]
In finding that Family Court had jurisdiction to modify a Pennsylvania support order, the Second Department wrote: The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (hereinafter UIFSA), codified in article 5-B of the Family Court Act, provides, in pertinent part, that a party seeking to modify and/or enforce a child support order issued in another state “shall […]
The Second Department explained the hearing requirement of Criminal Procedure Law 440.46 (re: a motion for resentencing) as follows: CPL 440.46(3), provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he provisions of section twenty three of chapter seven hundred thirty eight of the laws of two thousand four shall govern the proceedings on and determination of a motion […]
In finding that the respondent (Pitt) was a “permanent tenant” of a hotel which rented rooms to homeless persons under an agreement with the NYC Human Resources Administration (thereby entitling the respondent to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Code), the First Department explained the “exception to mootness” doctrine:” As a threshold matter, we find […]
Where the plaintiff was injured when defendant’s dog collided with his bicycle, the First Department determined defendant’s (the dog owner’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted, despite allegations of negligence on the part of the defendant (there was a dissent): Plaintiff was injured when, while riding his bicycle, he collided with defendant’s dog. […]
Plaintiff was injured when, sitting on the ground, he leaned back against a fence-gate which swung open causing him to fall. The First Department determined the condition of the fence was “open and obvious” precluding recovery (there was a dissent). The court wrote: Although property owners have a duty to maintain their property in a […]
Plaintiff manufactured a freezer used by a nonparty bakery. According to the bakery, the freezer didn’t cool cakes to the proper temperature and the cakes were therefore ruined when cut, causing the bakery millions in damages. The bakery sued plaintiff and plaintiff sought defense and indemnity from its insurer. The insurer disclaimed coverage, arguing that […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy