​​… [T]he court properly denied [defendant’s] request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense. “When a defense declared by statute to be an ‘affirmative defense’ is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence” (Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). The court must charge the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is “sufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of the defense are satisfied, i.e., that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon [readily] capable of producing death or other serious physical injury” … . BB guns are capable of producing injury, including but not limited to protracted impairment of vision … . Whether a particular BB gun is “readily capable” of doing so is not a question that we can decide as a matter of law … .

Here, although defendant made a prima facie showing that the object he displayed during the robbery was a BB gun that the police recovered from his home, he presented no evidence concerning the capabilities of that particular gun. Given the absence of such evidence, “the members of the jury could do no more than speculate that defendant’s gun was not [readily] capable of causing death or other serious physical injury, and thus the court properly denied defendant’s request to submit the issue to them” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 07082, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: When a defendant seeks a jury instruction on an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Here the defendant argued the BB gun he displayed during the robbery could not cause death or serious injury and he was therefore entitled to a jury instruction on the “displayed weapon could not cause death or serious injury” affirmative-defense to first degree robbery. But because defendant presented no evidence on the capabilities of the BB gun, the Court of Appeals held the defendant did not meet his burden of proof and the trial judge properly denied the request for the affirmative-defense jury instruction.​

This Court has repeatedly made clear that “[i]f ‘the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a “jural act” binding on the parties’ ” … . “As with contracts generally, the courts must look to the language of a release—the words used by the parties—to determine their intent, resorting to extrinsic evidence only when the court concludes as a matter of law that the contract is ambiguous” … , or where such evidence establishes one of the ” ‘traditional bases for setting aside written agreements, namely, duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake’ ” … . With respect to mutual mistake, a “high order of evidence is required” to overcome the ” ‘heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument [manifests] the true intention of the parties’ ” … .

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the clear language of the release, and plaintiff failed to raise any triable question of fact in opposition. The City’s intent to secure a release from plaintiff of “any and all” claims is evidenced by the plain text of the document it transmitted for plaintiff’s signature. As the Appellate Division correctly held, there was nothing “surreptitious” about the way the release was drafted or transmitted … . Although plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, could have excluded this action from the release by the simple act of listing it in the space provided for that purpose, he signed the release without doing so, an objective manifestation of assent that is binding upon him notwithstanding any unilateral mistake or subsequent regret on his part … . Smith v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 07081, CtApp 12-18-24

Practice Point: A release is strictly enforced according to its plain language. If a release includes a section where any exclusions from its reach must be listed, and that section is left blank, the release will preclude any other pending action, even where the failure to list a pending action was unintentional.

“The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so” … . It recognizes that “[e]lected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors” … . The doctrine thus instructs “that where a contract ‘involves a matter of discretion to be exercised by the [municipal body,] unless the statute conferring power to contract clearly authorizes th[at body] to make a contract extending beyond its own term, no power . . . so to do exists’ ” … . The term limits doctrine reaches only “matters relating to governmental or legislative functions” … and does not apply where the municipality is “acting in its proprietary capacity” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that by entering into the MOU, the Town Board violated the term limits doctrine by purporting to “limit” a “discretionary right of [its] successors,” rendering the MOU invalid and unenforceable … . Absent an enforceable agreement, plaintiff’s contractual claims fail as a matter of law. Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill, 2025 NY Slip Op 07080, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Here an attempt to bind current and future municipal officials to a rezoning request for a real estate development project was deemed unenforceable because it violated the “term limits doctrine.” Consult this opinion for insight into how the “term limits doctrine” is applied.​

The administrative hearing officer found that petitioner failed to establish co-residency during the relevant one-year period. Initially, the hearing officer found petitioner’s claim that the subject apartment had been his primary residence since August 2018 was contradicted by documents addressed to him at a North Miami, Florida address during that timeframe—specifically, a February 2019 letter from the Social Security Administration and bank statements from petitioner’s Wells Fargo account for the period from October 2018 through January 2019. In addition, the hearing officer considered undated documents, documents dated outside of the one-year period and documents that did not include an address but determined such documents did not prove the requisite co-residency. The hearing officer likewise concluded that the statements from 2018 through 2020 for tenant’s bank account, listing petitioner as power of attorney, were not “credible, sufficient and reliable proof” that petitioner resided in the apartment as his primary residence. The hearing officer observed that the only documents that reflected petitioner’s address as the subject apartment during the required co-residency period were the April and May 2019 letters regarding SNAP benefits. Further, the hearing officer noted that petitioner had maintained his connection to Florida, as he had kept his Florida driver’s license throughout the co-residency period [FN2]. Based on these findings, the hearing officer denied the appeal, concluding that petitioner failed to meet the eligibility requirements. The opinion made no mention of petitioner’s failure to submit tax returns. Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 2025 NY Slip Op 07079, CtApp 12-18-25

From the concurrence:

A court will disregard the corporate form and pierce the corporate veil when there is a showing by plaintiffs that: “(1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . Because the use of the corporate form to limit liability of owners is a legal and beneficial principle of corporations, those who seek to pierce the corporate veil bear a heavy burden … .

Here, [the] attempts to pierce the corporate veil fail to raise a triable issue on prong two. The … defendants met their initial burden on summary judgment to demonstrate that they did not abuse the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice, and [plaintiff] failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition. [Plaintiff] points to no evidence in the record that supports its claim that the 2006 recapitalization at issue was fraudulent. Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 2025 NY Slip Op 07078, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the two prongs of proof required to pierce the corporate veil: the owners must completely dominate the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and the transaction at issue must be fraudulent or wrongful with respect to the plaintiff.

Mr. Dibrino’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder (which he knew was not furnished by his employer and knew he was not supposed to use) instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by Jacobson that he had used earlier that day in that same spot, to perform work squarely outside the scope of the agreement between DAL and JRM, is not reasonably construed as arising from performance DAL’s work. JRM and Rockefeller’s reading would mean DAL’s contractual duty to indemnify would be triggered by any event that could be traced to DAL through any path—even, for example, had DAL disposed of the defective ladder in a dumpster and Mr. Dibrino retrieved it. Such an expansive reading of these indemnity provisions is implausibly broad, … an indemnification provision “must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … . Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07077, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how indemnification clauses in contracts among a subcontractor, the general contractor and the owner should be interpreted under the Labor Law. Here the clauses did not apply to injuries suffered by a worker who (1) did not work for the subcontractor and (2) used the subcontractor’s ladder without the subcontractor’s permission, knowing that the ladder was defective.

Prior written notice is not required “where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence” which “immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . The exception is meant to “address[] situations where a hazard was foreseeable, insofar as the municipality created it” as opposed to situations where there is “difficulty in determining, after the passage of time,” whether the municipality was initially negligent … .

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the City caused or created an immediately dangerous condition through an act of affirmative negligence … . Nor did the affidavit from plaintiffs’ expert create a triable issue of fact as to the City’s affirmative negligence because, among other things, it did not tend to establish that the City left behind an unsafe condition at the time it installed the bollard 14 years prior to the accident. Although the expert opined that the bollard was unsafe from “the moment” it was installed, they failed to explain this conclusory opinion through reliance on industry standards or empirical data, nor did they explain how their “professional experience in construction” supported their conclusion … . Rather, the summary judgment record suggests that, to the extent the installation method created a defect, any such defect resulted from the effects of environmental conditions over time. Gurbanova v City of Ithaca, 2025 NY Slip Op 07076, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: A parking lot is a “highway” for purposes of the General Municipal Law 50-e “written notice” requirement.

Practice Point: A bollard (a post which serves as a vehicle-barrier in a parking lot) is subject to the “highway” “written-notice” requirement in the General Municipal Law.

… [W]e reject the contention that Mr. Monaghan’s was deprived of his due process right to cross-examine the Troopers. His private interest in retaining his driver’s license and the government’s interest in public safety are both significant. The due process analysis, here, turns on the benefit and burden of requiring a motorist to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena. Mr. Monaghan chose not to avail himself of the process set forth in CPLR 2308 (b). The process of applying to enforce a nonjudicial subpoena is not so unduly burdensome as to constitute a deprivation of due process of law. Our holding is consistent with appellate courts’ decisions rejecting due process challenges in other types of administrative proceedings where the petitioner has not attempted to enforce a subpoena … . It is undisputed that Mr. Monaghan did not seek enforcement, nor did he request an adjournment to do so. Matter of Monaghan v Schroeder, 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: Here the officers who arrested the driver for DWI did not appear at the license revocation hearing. The driver argued his inability to cross-examine the officers deprived him of due process of law. However, the driver had subpoenaed the officers. He could have used the CPLR 2308 (b) procedure for enforcing the subpoenas but chose not to. The availability of the enforcement procedure was deemed sufficient process.

We need not resolve today questions such as whether the [Labor Law 201-d (2)] covers blogging specifically or public expression generated during any protected activity, because the ministerial exception dispositively bars Plaintiff’s claim. That exception “precludes application of [employment discrimination] legislation to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers” … . Requiring a religious institution “to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing [them] for failing to do so” both “infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments” and “violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions” … . * * *

Defendants invoked the ministerial exception here as grounds for dismissal on a CPLR 3211 (a) (1) motion. Such a motion “may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes plaintiff’s factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . Defendants rely on Plaintiff’s offer letter, which is appended as an exhibit to the motion to dismiss. It states that Plaintiff was responsible for guiding the development of programs such as “Shabbat, Havdalah, and other teen led events and initiatives”; planning, supporting, and attending “Confirmation” experiences; and supporting the “Rabbi’s Table initiative.” In her fifteen weekly hours of teaching, she was responsible for “Chevruta (1:1 tutoring for our learners),” “Pre-bimah tutoring,” and “Parsha of the week.” And she was responsible for furthering the Temple’s “mission,” including by “support[ing] the development of a strong Jewish identity” and “bringing Torah to life and inspiring Jewish dreams.” Sander v Westchester Reform Temple, 2025 NY Slip Op 06958, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: The “ministerial exception” precludes the application of employment discrimination laws to the relationship between a religious institution and its ministers. Here the ministerial exception precluded a suit alleging plaintiff was fired from her teaching job at the defendant temple for a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism.

“SEQRA is designed to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and enhance human and community resources . . . by injecting environmental considerations directly into governmental decision making; thus the statute mandates that social, economic and environmental factors shall be considered together in reaching decisions on proposed activities” … . Standing to sue under SEQRA, as with other statutory causes of action, requires that the plaintiff establish an injury-in-fact and that the in-fact injury fall within the zone of interest that the statute protects … . Thus, to sue under SEQRA, a plaintiff must ordinarily show that their injury falls within the statute’s environmental zone of interest by “demonstrat[ing] that it will suffer an injury that is environmental and not solely economic in nature” … .

However, [Matter of Har Enters. v Town of Brookhaven (74 NY2d 524 [1989])] established that “no such specific allegation [of environmental harm] is necessary” when the petitioner’s property is “the very subject” of the government’s action … . That case involved a rezoning of the petitioner’s property from commercial to residential use … . As the Court explained, “[i]t seems evident that if any party should be held to have a sufficient interest to object—without having to allege some specific harm—it is an owner of property which is the subject of a contemplated rezoning” … . Following that ruling, a few years later, the Court held in [Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v Town of Sardinia (87 NY2d 668 [1996])] that a landowner whose potential mining operations would be eliminated by rezoning was directly impacted by the governmental land use regulation and thus had standing under Har to challenge the government’s lack of compliance with SEQRA … . Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2025 NY Slip Op 06961, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: When the petitioner’s property is the subject of the government’s action, the petitioner need not demonstrate “environmental harm” to have standing to challenge the government’s SEQRA declaration. Here the town passed a local law requiring closure of petitioner’s landfill. Petitioner need not demonstrate “environmental harm” to have standing to challenge the town’s SEQRA negative declaration on the ground the town did not take the required “hard look” at the evidence before finding that the landfill closure would not have a significant adverse environmental impact.