The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“Board”), determined claimant was not an employee of Rover, a website which connects pet owners to pet sitters, walkers, boarders, etc.: Rover only exercises control over the platform that a provider uses to find client pet owners and not any part of the job itself … […]
The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the public nuisance and negligence causes of action stemming from odors from a landfill should have been dismissed. The public nuisance cause of action alleged only injury to the public at large, not the required special injury unique […]
The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner (Department of Social Services) did not meet its burden of proof on whether respondent had abandoned the child in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding: “A finding of abandonment is warranted when it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to visit or communicate with […]
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint seeking to quiet title should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion. The complaint stated a cause of action to quiet title pursuant to RPAPL article 15: … [T]he court should not have converted defendant’s motion to dismiss into a […]
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter to a different judge, determined this breach-of-contract/preliminary-injunction/declaratory-judgment/Article-78 proceeding should not have been decided on the merits without discovery, the filing of a note of issue and a trial. The court should have decided only whether petitioner was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Petitioner is a […]
The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge did not give counsel meaningful notice of a substantive jury note: Pursuant to CPL 310.30, when a trial court receives a substantive jury inquiry, the court has two separate duties: “the duty to notify counsel and the duty to respond”… . With regard to […]
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the oil spill damage was covered by a policy exclusion. The policy endorsement relied on by defendant did not meet the strict criteria for an exclusion from coverage: In order “to ‘negate coverage by virtue of an […]
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that because respondents had made a pre-answer motion to dismiss petitioner’s cause of action, the motion court should not have granted the relief sought by petitioner. Rather the respondents should have been allowed to answer the petition: … [T]he Supreme Court improperly awarded [petitioner] the ultimate relief […]
The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not make the required inquiries before finding New York did not have jurisdiction over this neglect proceeding. Mother and child lived in Connecticut and father resided in Westchester County: The Family Court’s jurisdiction in this child protective proceeding is governed by the Uniform Child Custody […]
The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a board which fell off a forklift. The boards were part of a fence which was being dismantled. Dismantling the fence constituted “demolition” and “altering” within the meaning of the statute. And the […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy