From This Week’s “Latest Posts” Section (Below):
A Town Entered a Contract Which Purports to Bind Current and Future Town Officials to a Development Project, Is the Contract Enforceable?
Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill, 2025 NY Slip Op 07080, CtApp 12-18-25
To Survive Summary Judgment, Must a Plaintiff Demonstrate Defendant Used the Corporate Structure to Perpetrate a Fraud to “Pierce the Corporate Veil?”
Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 2025 NY Slip Op 07078, CtApp 12-18-25
A Worker Employed by a Nonparty Used a Subcontractor’s Defective Ladder Without Permission and Was Injured, Is the Subcontractor Liable?
Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07077, CtApp 12-18-25
In this DWI, the Arresting Officers Did Not Show for the License-Revocation Hearing; the License Was Revoked; Was Due Process Denied?
Matter of Monaghan v Schroeder, 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, CtApp 12-16-25
- 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’s
- Personal Injury Update CLE’s
- Criminal Law Update CLE’s
HERE DEFENDANT’S NON-LAWYER HUSBAND REPRESENTED HER AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL; THE FACT THAT THE HUSBAND HAD A POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING HIM TO ACT ON HIS WIFE’S BEHALF DID NOT AUTHORIZE HIM TO PRACTICE LAW; ALTHOUGH REPRESENTATION BY A NON-LAWYER DOES NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS A “NULLITY,” HERE THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY HER HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION AND THE JUDGE ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE HUSBAND TO TESTIFY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was prejudiced by her non-attorney husband’s representation of her in the trial. Although the husband, John Chae, had a power of attorney authorizing him to act on his wife’s behalf, the power of attorney did not authorize him to practice law. In addition, Supreme Court erred by not allowing the husband to testify:
“‘New York law prohibits the practice of law in this State on behalf of anyone other than himself or herself by a person who is not an admitted member of the Bar, regardless of the authority purportedly conferred by execution of a power of attorney'” … . “The designation as an attorney-in-fact under General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N does not confer upon a designated agent the right to provide representation as an attorney-at-law, and ‘cannot be read to displace the provisions of Judiciary Law § 478′” … .
In this case, none of the exceptions to Judiciary Law § 478 apply. Moreover, John Chae’s marriage to the defendant did not permit him to appear pro se on her behalf … . “As a general rule, the fact that a party has been represented by a person who was not authorized or admitted to practice law under the Judiciary Law—whether a disbarred attorney or a person practicing law without a license—does not create a ‘nullity’ or render all prior proceedings void per se” … . Here, however, the record demonstrates that the defendant was prejudiced as a result of being represented by an unauthorized attorney at the trial … . Further, the Supreme Court erred in precluding the defendant from testifying at the trial (see CPLR 321[a]). Ventus Props., LLC v Mo Chae, 2025 NY Slip Op 07429, Second Dept 12-31-25
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED DRUGS TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR IN THE PAST; THE 15 POINT ASSESSMENT UNDER RISK FACTOR 11 WAS THEREFORE ELIMINATED, REDUCING THE RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reducing the SORA risk assessment from level three to level two, determined the evidence did not support assessing 15 points for using drugs to excess:
“In order to support the assessment of points under risk factor 11, . . . the People must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offender used drugs or alcohol in excess either at the time of the crime or repeatedly in the past” … . Here, the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s marijuana use on the date of the offense was excessive or “causally linked to the sexual assault” … . The People’s evidence was also insufficient to establish that the defendant used marijuana or other substances in excess repeatedly in the past … . Without the assessment of points under risk factor 11, the defendant’s point total was 100, which is within the range for a presumptive level two designation. People v Gregory, 2025 NY Slip Op 07420, Second Dept 12-31-25
THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED REVERSAL AFTER TRIAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment (without prejudice), determined the prosecutor erroneously failed to explain the justification defense to the grand jury. Although defendant had a knife, there was evidence the victim had a gun and was the initial aggressor:
If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment (see id. § 210.35[5] …). “‘[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . “Where the evidence before the grand jury supports it, the charge on justification must be given” … .
“In determining whether the evidence supports a justification defense, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant” … . Here, a surveillance video shown to the grand jury indicated that the defendant approached Graves inside a store while holding a knife. Nevertheless, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant was not the initial aggressor, Graves pointed a gun at the defendant, the defendant stabbed Graves to defend himself from the imminent use of deadly physical force against him, and the defendant could not safely retreat (see Penal Law § 35.15[2][a] …). People v Mead, 2025 NY Slip Op 07412, Second Dept 12-31-25
Practice Point: Where the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant satisfies the criteria for a defense to the offense, the prosecutor must so instruct the grand jury. Failure to do so renders the grand jury proceeding defective and the indictment must be dismissed, even after a conviction at trial.
THE JUDGE’S RESTRICTIONS ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENSE “FALSE CONFESSION” EXPERT, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “PROMISE BY POLICE” JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge erroneously restricted the defense false-confession-expert’s testimony and erroneously denied defendant’s request for a “Promise by Police” jury instruction (defendant testified the police made promises to him during the 12-hour interrogation):
… [T]he court limited the scope of the defendant’s expert’s testimony by precluding the mention of a study by the Innocence Project, which found that of the more than 300 people who had been, at the time, exonerated by DNA, approximately 25% of those people had confessed, and a study conducted at the University of Michigan Law School, where researchers found that of the 1,405 exonerations that took place between 1989 and 2012, 10% of the people had falsely confessed, and people with mental illness or intellectual disability were overrepresented in those who had done so. Here, the court improperly concluded that those studies were not relevant … .
…[T]he studies were relevant to illustrate the risk of false confessions, and specifically, a study related to mental disability is proper in this case where the defendant was found to have an IQ lower then 93% of individuals in his age group. … [T]he court limited the scope of the expert’s testimony as to existing research on false confessions … . The court further compounded this error by denying admission of a portion of the defendant’s expert’s curriculum vitae, ruling, without basis, that the titles of certain articles listed therein would be inappropriate for a jury to see, thereby depriving the jury of information relevant to the credibility and weight of the expert’s testimony … . Moreover, these errors allowed the People’s expert to testify that research in the area of false confessions is scant and that the study of false confessions and the evaluation of psychological vulnerabilities was a “primitive subdiscipline.” … [T]he court also scheduled the trial on a date that the defendant’s expert was not available. Although the use of video recorded testimony is not error, “[l]ive televised testimony is certainly not the equivalent of in-person testimony” … . As such, the jury was able to observe the in-court testimony of the People’s expert, but was only able to observe the defendant’s expert on a television screen, and even that testimony was edited to exclude the aforementioned studies. People v Grigoroff, 2025 NY Slip Op 07400, Second Dept 12-31-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how restrictions placed on an expert’s testimony can create the impression there is little or no support for the expert’s conclusions in the relevant literature. Here, because the defense expert was not allowed to discuss the studies upon which his “false confession” conclusions were based, the People’s expert was able to tell the jury “false confession” research is “scant” and is a “primitive subdiscipline.” In addition, the trial was scheduled when the People’s expert could attend, but the defense expert could not, forcing the defense expert to submit videotaped testimony.
NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A PLASTIC-MANUFACTURING FACILITY CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ODORS HAVE NOT CAUSED PHYSICAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE (ECONOMIC LOSS IS NOT SUFFICIENT); THE NOXIOUS ODORS DO SUPPORT A PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION EVEN THOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF PRIVATE CITIZENS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARE AFFECTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this class action lawsuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, over a concurrence and partial dissent, determined (1) noxious odors emanating from defendant’s plastic-manufacturing facility are properly the subject of a private nuisance cause of action on behalf of a collective of individuals, and (2) the noxious odors are not a proper subject for a negligence cause of action because no tangible physical harm or property damage was alleged (diminution in property value is not enough):
“‘To recover in negligence [or gross negligence], a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct . . . This limitation serves a number of important purposes: it defines the class of persons who actually possess a cause of action, provides a basis for the factfinder to determine whether a litigant actually possesses a claim, and protects court dockets from being clogged with frivolous and unfounded claims'” … .
“Although [the] defendant undoubtedly owes surrounding property owners a duty of care to avoid injuring them . . . , the question is whether [the] plaintiff[s] sustained the required injury” … . “‘[T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of [the] plaintiff[s’] property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law'” … . * * *
“‘The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: (1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failing to act'” … . …
A private nuisance cause of action is one where “[t]he rights invaded . . . are not suffered by the [plaintiffs] in their status as citizens or part of the public” … . Rather, the harm is suffered by the plaintiffs “in their private capacity in respect of an interference with the comfortable enjoyment of their homes,” which does not become a public nuisance “merely because a considerable number are injured” … . Dudley v API Indus., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07379, Second Dept 12-31-25
Practice Point: Noxious odors do not support a negligence cause of action because there is no physical injury of property damage (diminished property value is not enough).
Practice Point: Noxious odors support a private nuisance cause of action, even where a large number of private citizens are affected.
WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDED ON WHETHER THERE WAS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT; THE EXISTENCE OF AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS A FACT-INTENSIVE INQUIRY WHICH, WHEN IN DISPUTE, REQUIRES A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should have ordered a hearing to determine whether the respondent had an “intimate relationship” with the petitioner such that a family offense proceeding alleging identify theft could be brought by the petitioner against the respondent. Whether an “intimate relationship” exist is a fact-intensive inquiry and when it is in dispute a hearing should be held:
Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings, as defined by Family Ct Act § 812 (1), extends to enumerated offenses occurring between members of the same family or household, including those “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . While the statute does not define “intimate relationship,” it expressly excludes casual acquaintances and ordinary social or business associations … . In determining whether an intimate relationship exists, courts consider, among other things, “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … . Additionally, “the relationship should be direct [and] not one based upon a connection with a third party” … . Whether an intimate relationship exists is a fact-intensive inquiry to be resolved on a case-by-case basis … . When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction … . Matter of McCarra v Chiaramonte, 2025 NY Slip Op 07352, Third Dept 12-31-25
Practice Point: Family Court has jurisdiction over family offense proceedings involving unrelated parties if there exists an “intimate relationship” between the parties. Determining whether there is an “intimate relationship” is a fact-intensive inquiry usually requires a hearing.
DEFENDANT REHABILITATION FACILITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-RELATED INFECTION AND DEATH (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suit against defendant rehabilitation facility alleging plaintiff’s decedent was infected with COVID at the facility, causing her death, should have been dismissed. The defendant facility was immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):
… [T]he EDTPA initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services as long as three conditions were met: [1] the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; [2] the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives; and [3] the services were arranged or provided in good faith” … . * * *
The defendant’s submissions, including, inter alia, its various COVID-19 pandemic-related policies and protocols, the directives issued by the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Health and Human Services, and the decedent’s medical records, conclusively established that the defendant was entitled to immunity as the three requirements for immunity under the EDTPA were satisfied (see Public Health Law former § 3082[1] …). Costiera v MMR Care Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 07373, Second Dept 12-31-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for the COVID-related immunity afforded health care facilities pursuant to the EDTPA.
Similar issues and result in Byington v North Sea Assoc., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07372, Second Dept 12-31-25
HOSPITAL SECURITY PERSONNEL WENT TO PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT AND ESCORTED HER TO DEFENDANT HOSPITAL (THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT DESCRIBED); PLAINTIFF WON A “FALSE IMPRISONMENT” SUIT AND WAS AWARDED $3.5 MILLION; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S SUBJECTIVE BELIEF SHE COULD NOT LEAVE THE APARTMENT OR THE VEHICLE TRANSPORTING HER TO THE HOSPITAL WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, setting aside the $3.5 million verdict, determined the evidence did not support the “false imprisonment” theory of liability. Plaintiff was escorted from her apartment to defendant hospital by hospital security personnel (the underlying circumstances are not explained in the decision). Plaintiff alleged she was confined in her apartment and in the vehicle in which she was taken to the hospital:
“‘A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict and for judgment as a matter of law will be granted where there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial'” … . “[T]he question of whether a verdict was utterly irrational, entitling a movant to a directed verdict, involves a pure question of law” … . “‘In considering such a motion, the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … .
“To prevail on a cause of action to recover damages for false arrest or false imprisonment, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, that the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and that the confinement was not privileged” … . * * *
The decedent’s subjective belief that she was confined in her apartment and that the security officers would not leave if asked is insufficient, without more, to establish an intent to confine … . Moreover, a threat to call the police does not constitute “detaining force necessary to establish the tort of false imprisonment” … . In addition, the fact that the decedent testified that the security officers parked their vehicle so as to block the decedent’s driveway is insufficient to establish confinement, absent other evidence that the decedent was incapable of departing by foot … .
… The decedent’s testimony as to her own subjective belief that, once she was in the vehicle, she felt that she “no longer had any rights and that [she] was in custody and . . . imagined what would happen if [she] tried to get out of the car,” is insufficient, without more, to establish an intent to confine … . Dender v North Shore Manhasset Hosp., 2025 NY Slip Op 07378, Second Dept 12-31-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for setting aside a verdict awarding damages.
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the proof required to support an allegation of “false imprisonment.”
DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THE AREA OF THE FALL TO PLAINTIFF TENANT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECURRING COLLECTION OF WATER AND ICE IN THE AREA OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence submitted by defendant landlord in this icy-sidewalk slip and fall case failed to eliminate questions of fact about whether defendant had completely relinquished to the plaintiff responsibility for snow and ice removal in the area of the fall and whether defendant had actual knowledge of the depression in the sidewalk and the formation of ice in the area of the fall:
Here, the evidence submitted by the defendant demonstrated that the defendant lived at the property where the plaintiff’s accident occurred. Additionally, at his deposition, the defendant testified that the garbage cans for both sides of the property, which he maintained, were located on the plaintiff’s side of the property and that he approached the garbage cans several times per week both to place trash in the garbage cans and to bring the garbage cans to the street for collection. Moreover, photographs submitted by the defendant depicting the area where the plaintiff fell demonstrated that the garbage cans were stored within a few feet of that area. Although the lease stated that the plaintiff was responsible for cleaning any accumulated snow from the entryway outside his private entrance, the lease also stated that the defendant was required to provide the plaintiff with a shovel and salt to complete this task. Finally, although the plaintiff testified at his deposition that he took care of snow removal for the area where he fell, his son testified at his deposition that in December 2018, approximately one month before the plaintiff’s accident, the defendant had, on a few occasions, placed salt on ice in that area.
… Although the defendant denied knowing about the condition or having any conversations with the plaintiff about this condition, at his deposition, the plaintiff testified that prior to the accident, he had told the defendant “[f]our to five times” about the allegedly defective section of the side yard walkway, including that ice and snow would accumulate there in the winter. Moreover, several of the photographs submitted by the defendant depicted an accumulation of ice and snow in the allegedly defective area where the plaintiff fell. Yongxi Li v Pei Xing Huang, 2025 NY Slip Op 07432, Second Dept 12-31-25
Practice Point: Consult this slip-and-fall decision for succinct explanations of the law concerning the responsibility for snow and ice removal as between a resident landlord and a tenant, as well as a landlord’s actual knowledge of a recurring dangerous condition.
THE PEOPLE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING BUT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE THE ORDER DENYING A SUPPRESSION HEARING INCLUDED THE PHRASE “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW UPON A SHOWING OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” RENDERING THE ORDER NONFINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT NO OTHER EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPORTED A RENEWAL MOTION; THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE DEEMED FINAL AND APPEALABLE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, holding defendant’s plea and sentencing in abeyance, remitted the matter for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing to determine whether the seizure of a gun dropped by the defendant was facilitated by unlawful police conduct. In the omnibus motions defendant argued that he dropped the gun as a spontaneous response to the police officers’ approaching and then chasing him without reasonable suspicion. On appeal, the People agreed defendant was entitled to a hearing. The contested issue on appeal was whether the order denying the suppression motion “with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations” rendered the order nonfinal and therefore unappealable. The First Department determined the order was final:
The issue in contention on this appeal is whether the court’s summary denial of defendant’s suppression motion — which ended with the statement that the motion “is denied, with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations” — qualifies as an “order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence” which would preserve the suppression issue for appeal under CPL 710.70(2). While phrases like “leave to renew” or “leave to submit” may be some indicia of a lack of finality under CPL 710.70(2), they do not, standing alone, render a court’s ruling nonfinal. * * *
… [T]he court incorrectly rejected the defendant’s detailed recitation of his suppression theory and there was no further evidence produced by the People that could bolster defendant’s theory on renewal.
Accordingly, we remit to Supreme Court to hold a Mapp/Dunaway hearing. People v Diaby, 2025 NY Slip Op 07343, First Dept 12-30-25
Practice Point: Here the People argued that the order denying a suppression hearing was nonfinal and therefore unappealable because it included the phrase “with leave to renew upon a showing of sufficient factual allegations.” The First Department noted that this was not a case where additional evidence came to light which would have supported renewal and the defendant failed to make a renewal motion. Here no new evidence came to light. The denial of the suppression motion was therefore deemed a final, appealable order.
HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, dismissing the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action against the owner and general contractor, noted that the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work for a safety violation or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the level of supervision and control of the work for liability under Labor Law 200. Plaintiff worked for a subcontractor and was injured while attempting to guide a heavy concrete object as it was lowered into a hole by a crane:
“The right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the supervision and control of the work necessary to impose liability on an owner or a general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200” … . Here, … defendants established … that the alleged incident arose from work performed over which they did not exercise supervision or control … . Kelly v RBSL Realty, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07291, Second Dept 12-24-25
Practice Point: In the context of the requirements for Labor Law 200 and common law negligence liability for construction accidents, the owner’s and/or general contractor’s right to generally supervise the work and/or to stop the work for safety violations does not amount to “supervision and control” of the work.
A CERTIFICATE OF INURANCE NAMING A PARTY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A CONTRACT TO THAT EFFECT, BUT IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department noted that identifying a party as an additional insured on a certificate of insurance is evidence of a contract naming that party as an additional insured, but only the contract itself constitutes definitive proof of additional-insured status:
“A certificate of insurance is evidence of a contract for insurance, but is not conclusive proof that the contract exists and not, in and of itself, a contract to insure” … . [There was no proof of] a specific agreement … to name [plaintiff] School District as an additional insured. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the School District’s motion which was for summary judgment declaring that One Beacon is obligated to defend and indemnify it as an additional insured in the underlying action … . Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. v A 1 Constr. Serv., Inc, 2025 NY Slip Op 07289, Second Dept 12-24-25
Practice Point: A certificate of insurance naming a party as an additional insured is evidence there is a contract to that effect, but, without the contract, the certificate will not support summary judgment on the issue.
DEFENDANTS’ ATTENDANCE AT A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (CPLR 3408) IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN “APPEARANCE” IN THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO FIVE DAYS NOTICE (PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (G)) RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, in a matter of first impression, determined defendants’ attendance at a mandatory settlement conference in this foreclosure action did not constitute an “appearance” such that defendants were entitled to five-days notice of an application for leave to enter a default judgment:
The issue on appeal, an issue of first impression for this Court, is whether a party’s attendance at a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 constitutes an appearance by a party for the purpose of CPLR 3215(g), which provides, among other things, that a party who has appeared in an action is entitled to at least five days’ notice of an application for leave to enter a default judgment. * * * Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants had not appeared in the action and, thus, the five-day notice provision set forth in CPLR 3215(g) was not applicable with respect to the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Saris, 2025 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 12-24-25
Practice Point: A defendant’s attendance at a mandatory settlement conference (CPLR 3408) is not an “appearance” in the action and does not entitle defendant to five days notice (pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g)) re: plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment.
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, DEFENDANT COUNTY, WHICH HAD ASSUMED CUSTODY OF PLAINTIFF FOSTER CHILD, PLACED PLAINTIFF IN DEFENDANT SCHOOL WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A TEACHER DAILY FOR SIX MONTHS; THE ALLEGED FREQUENCY OF THE ABUSE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF IT (SECOND DEPT).
he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g) action against the county and a school should not have been dismissed. The county had assumed custody over plaintiff, a foster child, and placed her in defendant school. Plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused by a teacher daily for six months. The alleged frequency of the abuse raised a question of fact whether defendants should have known of the abuse (constructive notice):
“By assuming legal custody over [a] foster child, the applicable government official steps in as the sole legal authority responsible for determining who has daily control over the child’s life” … . Therefore, “a municipality owes a duty to a foster child over whom it has assumed legal custody to guard the child from foreseeable risks of harm arising from the child’s placement with the municipality’s choice of foster [home]” … . “In order to find that a child care agency breached its duty to adequately supervise the children entrusted to its care, a plaintiff must establish that the agency had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . “Where the complaint alleges negligent supervision due to injuries related to an individual’s [*2]intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must allege that the entity knew or should have known of the individual’s propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual’s acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable” … . M.F. v Putnam County, 2025 NY Slip Op 07283, Second Dept 12-24-25
Practice Point: In Child Victims Act cases alleging sexual abuse by a teacher, courts are finding that allegations of frequent abuse raise a question of fact about whether defendants should have been aware of it.
A LAWSUIT ALLEGING NONCONSENSUAL SEXUAL TOUCHING PURSUANT TO THE ADULT SURVIVORS ACT (CPLR 214-J) NEED NOT ALLEGE PLAINTIFF’S INTIMATE PARTS WERE TOUCHED BY THE DEFENDANT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGE PLAINTIFF WAS TOUCHED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFORDED THE DEFENDANT SEXUAL GRATIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wilson, in a matter of first impression, determined that a complaint under the Adult Survivors Act (CPLR 214-j) need not allege the defendant touched plaintiff’s intimate parts to state a cause of action for nonconsensual sexual touching. Here defendant, a doctor, allegedly touched plaintiff’s lower back while she was undressed and standing on a step stool facing away from the defendant to determine whether her kidneys were causing lower back pain. Although defendant did not touch plaintiff’s intimate parts, it was alleged the examination was motivated by sexual gratification:
The Adult Survivors Act (ASA) (CPLR 214-j) is a statute that permits adult survivors of sexual abuse to revive otherwise time-barred civil actions against alleged abusers arising from, among other things, conduct that would constitute a sexual offense under Penal Law article 130. The offense of forcible touching under Penal Law § 130.52(1) requires that there be a nonconsensual touching of “sexual or other intimate parts” of another person for the purpose of degradation or abuse of such person or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire. The offense of sexual abuse in the third degree under Penal Law § 130.55 requires nonconsensual “sexual contact.” This appeal provides our Court with an opportunity to address an issue of first impression in this judicial department regarding how narrow, or broad, we should construe the elemental concepts of sexual touching and sexual contact under the ASA. We hold that where, as here, the alleged nonconsensual touching or sexual contact was to a part of the body other than an anatomically sexual part, in the classic sense, these Penal Law offenses may still qualify as a predicate for an action pursuant to the ASA if the broader facts, manner, and circumstances of the touching or sexual contact involve intimacy or the alleged sexual gratification of the abuser. Aguilar v Wishner, 2025 NY Slip Op 07265, Second Dept 12-24-25
Practice Point: Here the complaint alleged defendant, a doctor, touched plaintiff’s lower back during a physical examination under circumstances which afforded defendant sexual gratification. That was sufficient to state a cause of action under the Adult Survivor’s Act. Under the Act, a plaintiff need not allege defendant touched plaintiff’s intimate parts.
THE FACT THAT THE ARBITRATOR MADE ERRORS OF LAW DID NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARD BECAUSE THERE WAS A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE RULING; ARBITRATION AWARDS ARE LARGELY UNREVIEWABLE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fact that the arbitrator in this no-fault insurance dispute made errors of law does not negate the validity of the arbitrator’s ruling. As long as the arbitrator’s award has a rational basis it is largely unreviewable:
“[A]n arbitrator’s rulings, unlike a trial court’s, are largely unreviewable” … . “A court reviewing the award [*2]of a master arbitrator is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR article 75” … . Significantly, a master arbitrator’s determination is not subject to vacatur by the courts on the basis of an error of law, including, “‘the incorrect application of a rule of substantive law,'” unless the master arbitrator’s determination is irrational … .
Here, regardless of any errors of law the arbitrator and master arbitrator made regarding burdens of proof, the master arbitrator’s determination to affirm the … award to the provider was rationally based on the conclusion that [the] minor delay in providing the insurer with notice of the accident was reasonably justified because [the injured party] was a passenger in the vehicle involved in the accident and, thus, was not making a claim to her own insurance company (see 11 NYCRR 65-3.5[l]). Because the master arbitrator’s affirmance of the … award had a rational basis, and “‘[i]t is not for the court to decide whether the master arbitrator erred in applying the applicable law,'” the petition to vacate the master arbitrator’s award should have been denied and the master arbitrator’s award confirmed … . Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Atlantic Med. Care, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 07297, Second Dept 12-24-25
Practice Point: Arbitration awards are largely unreviewable by the courts. Errors of law are ignored if there is a rational basis for the ruling.
ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS STRUCK, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE OFFICER ACTED WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; SPECIFICALLY QUESTIONS WERE RAISED ABOUT THE EXCESSIVE SPEED OF THE POLICE VEHICLE AND WHETHER THE SIREN WAS ON AS REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT POLICY (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant city was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing this action stemming from plaintiff’s vehicle being struck by a police vehicle responding to an emergency. Plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the police officer’s conduct rose to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others. The officer drove in the oncoming lane of traffic where plaintiff was attempting a left turn:
The “reckless disregard standard demands more than a showing of a lack of due care under the circumstances—the showing typically associated with ordinary negligence claims . . . Rather, for liability to be predicated upon a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, there must be 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” … . Although the reckless disregard standard is a heightened standard compared to ordinary negligence, it “retains and recognizes the potential for liability as a protection for the general public against disproportionate, overreactive conduct” … . * * *
… [P]laintiff’s submissions raise questions of fact as to the speed at which the officer’s vehicle was traveling at the time of the accident and whether the officer was operating the siren in his vehicle, which would have been required by department policy … . Gwathney v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 07175, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Here in this police-emergency-traffic-accident case, questions of fact about the speed of the police vehicle (in the oncoming lane where plaintiff was attempting a left turn) and whether the siren was on as required by department policy precluded summary judgment.
THE DEFENDANT DROVE THE SHOOTER TO AND AWAY FROM THE MURDER SCENE; BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL; DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION AS AN ACCOMPLICE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the evidence that defendant drove to shooter to various locations, including the scend of the murder, there was no evidence defendant shared the shooter’s intent. Therefore the evidence was legally insufficient and the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:
… [A] “… defendant’s presence at the scene of the crime, alone, is insufficient for a finding of criminal liability” … . Indeed, evidence that a defendant was at the crime scene and even assisted the perpetrator in removing evidence of that crime is insufficient to support a defendant’s conviction where the People fail to offer evidence from which the jury could rationally exclude the possibility that the defendant was without knowledge of the perpetrator’s intent … . … Here, we have no difficulty concluding, based on the video evidence showing defendant picking up the codefendant immediately after the shots were fired and speeding away from the scene, that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences by which the jury could have found that defendant intentionally aided the codefendant after the murder, but we cannot conclude that there is legally sufficient evidence to support the inference that defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim … . … [T]here was no evidence at trial establishing that defendant and the codefendant had any conversations pertaining to the shooting of the victim; indeed, there is hardly any evidence establishing that defendant and the codefendant had much, if any interaction with each other before the day of the murder. Consequently, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of, and shared, the codefendant’s intent to kill the victim … . People v Scott, 2025 NY Slip Op 07167, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: To be guilty of murder as an accomplice, there must be proof defendant shared the killer’s intent. Here there was proof the defendant drove the shooter to the murder scene and drove the shooter away from the murder scene. But there was no evidence defendant was aware of the shooter’s plan to kill, or even that the shooter was armed. Indictment dismissed.
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ORAL AGREEMENT THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BUY PLAINTIFF’S HOUSE FOR $40,000, OTHERWISE VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, WAS ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE IT WAS PARTIALLY PERFORMED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether part performance took the oral contract to purchase property out of the statute of frauds. Plaintiff allowed defendant to move in to plaintiff’s vacant house. At some point, plaintiff and defendant entered an oral agreement that defendant would buy the house for $40,000:
… [P]laintiff submitted, inter alia, defendant’s deposition testimony. Defendant testified that he and plaintiff were friends and that plaintiff allowed him to move into plaintiff’s then-vacant home in 2019 with no agreement to pay rent. Sometime thereafter, the parties orally agreed that, over a period of three years, defendant would pay plaintiff $40,000 for the purchase of the home. Defendant was to pay $600 per month during the first year, and there was no specified payment schedule for the remainder of the term. Defendant made 12 monthly payments of $600 in the first year and thereafter made various lump-sum payments to plaintiff, for a total of $33,200. Defendant also tendered the funds to pay the outstanding balance, but plaintiff rejected that payment and commenced court proceedings. * * *
Although such an oral agreement would generally be unenforceable under the statute of frauds, which provides, inter alia, that a “contract for . . . the sale[ ] of any real property . . . is void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing” … , an exception exists “in cases of part performance” … , i.e., where a party to an otherwise unenforceable oral agreement has partially performed under it. The exception is an equitable one, which recognizes that a party may “waive [the] protection [of the statute of frauds] . . . by inducing or permitting without remonstrance another party to the agreement to do acts, pursuant to and in reliance upon the agreement, to such an extent and so substantial in quality as to irremediably alter [the] situation and make the interposition of the statute against performance a fraud” … . Importantly, “[t]he [part] performance must be unequivocally referable to the agreement” … . Dacko v Kiladze, 2025 NY Slip Op 07165, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Part performance of an oral contract to buy real estate may render the otherwise void contract enforceable.
EVERY STATEMENT DEFENDANT MADE AFTER HE TOLD THE OFFICERS “I AIN’T GOT NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT” SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant had unequivocally asserted his right to remain silent and all statements defendant made thereafter should have been suppressed:
After defendant indicated that he understood [the Miranda] rights, the officer asked whether defendant would agree to waive them and speak to the officer. Defendant did not respond in the affirmative. Instead, he said, “I ain’t got nothing to talk about. I just want to go to jail. I want to go to sleep.” * * *
… [D]efendant said in no uncertain terms that he did not want to talk to the officer and instead wanted to be taken to jail … , and “[n]o reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police” … . The officer nevertheless continued to ask defendant questions that were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” … . Under the circumstances, we conclude that the court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent is “unsupported by the record” … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 07158, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: If a defendant tells the police “I ain’t got nothing to talk about” and the police continue questioning him, that is a Miranda violation requiring suppression.
THE TOWN AMBULANCE PARAMEDICS DECIDED NOT TO TAKE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO THE HOSPITAL; THAT DECISION WAS DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE ENTITLING THE TOWN TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY IN THIS MED MAL ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the town defendants were entitled to immunity for the actions of the two ambulance paramedics who decided against taking the decedent to the hospital:
“A municipality is immune from liability where the actions of its employees in performing governmental functions involve[ ] the exercise of discretion” … . “[A]mbulance assistance rendered by first responders . . . should be viewed as a classic governmental, rather than proprietary, function” … .
“[D]iscretionary . . . acts involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result” … . As the First Department recently made clear, “a generally uniform approach in assessment and care does not change the discretionary nature” of a first responder’s actions or the governmental function they provide … . Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the Town defendants established that Rutenkroger’s and Rice’s actions were discretionary and, thus, the Town defendants are entitled to governmental function immunity. Indeed, plaintiff’s contentions pertain “to the quality of the care rendered by [Rutenkroger and Rice and,] even if such decisions prove to be erroneous, they do not cast the [Town] in damages” … . We further note that, “[b]ecause the actions of the [Town’s employees] were discretionary, this Court need not address the issue of whether a special duty was owed to [decedent]” … . Gumkowski v Schwaab, 2025 NY Slip Op 07139, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the difference between discretionary and ministerial actions by government personnel. Here the town was immune from liability in this med mal case because the town ambulance paramedics’ determination that plaintiff’s decedent did not need to be taken to the hospital was a discretionary action (governmental function immunity).
SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PARAMETERS OF THE REMITTAL BY ACCEPTING SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS ON NEW CASE LAW AND BY RENDERING A DECISION ON GROUNDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REMITTAL; DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT REVERSED, DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION REINSTATED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court went beyond the parameters of the remittal. Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint. The Fourth Department reinstated several defamation causes of action:
We agree with plaintiff that the court impermissibly expanded the scope of the remittal. “[A] trial court, upon a remand or remittitur, is without power to do anything except to obey the mandate of the higher court, and render judgment in conformity therewith” … . This Court expressed our remittal directive in our order, and Supreme Court impermissibly expanded the scope of that remittal by accepting supplemental arguments on, inter alia, the effect of new case law relating to the retroactivity of the amended anti-SLAPP statute, and by basing its decision on grounds that were not included within the remittal .. . Trinh v Nguyen, 2025 NY Slip Op 07136, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Here Supreme Court did not follow the mandate of the remittal by accepting new legal arguments and deciding the case on grounds not included in the remittal. Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint was reversed.
THE FACT THAT THE CHILD LIVED WITH THE GRANDMOTHER FOR FOUR YEARS WAS AN “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE” WHICH AFFORDED GRANDMOTHER STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined grandmother had demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” such that she had standing to seek custody:
… [T]he grandmother met her burden of demonstrating other extraordinary circumstances with respect to both the mother and the father. The Court of Appeals has explained that “[i]n the absence of ‘surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness or other like extraordinary circumstances’, a parent may not be denied custody” … . Consistent with that principle of law, we have determined that “an extended disruption of custody as defined in [the statute] is merely ‘a specific example of extraordinary circumstances’ . . . and the statute was ‘not intended to overrule existing case law relating to third parties obtaining standing in custody cases’ ” … .
In determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist, “[n]o one factor should be viewed in isolation . . . , but rather the ‘analysis must consider the cumulative effect of all issues present in a given case . . . , including, among others, the length of time the child has lived with the nonparent, the quality of that relationship and the length of time the . . . parent allowed such custody to continue without trying to assume the primary parental role’ ” … .
Here, we conclude that there are ” ‘other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” that give the grandmother standing to seek custody of the child … . Extraordinary circumstances arise from the fact that the now-six-year-old child has resided exclusively with the grandmother since she was two years old, the mother was incapable of caring for the child due to mental illness, and the father has not been significantly involved in the child’s life since birth. The father has had limited and sporadic visitation with the child and has never had the child with him overnight. He has not attended school events or medical appointments. Nor has he paid child support to either the mother or the grandmother. Finally, the child is emotionally attached to the grandmother and her half-brother, who has also been raised by the grandmother … . Matter of Morris v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 07133, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the “extraordinary circumstances” which will afford a nonparent standing to seek custody. Here the fact that the child had resided with grandmother for four years was deemed such an “extraordinary circumstance.”
DEFENDANT WAS NOT COERCED INTO PLEADING GUILTY; THE JUDGE’S DESCRIBING THE POSSIBLE RANGE OF SENTENCING, PLEADING GUILTY TO AVOID A HARSHER SENTENCE, THE JUDGE’S COMMENTING ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE, AND COUNSEL’S TELLING DEFENDANT THE SENTENCE WOULD LIKELY BE HARSHER AFTER TRIAL, DID NOT AMOUNT TO “COERCION” (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, the dissent disagreed:
[D]espite the court’s initial inclination to end the plea proceeding and allow the matter to proceed to trial and its indication that it could not accept a plea that was not voluntary, the court continued with the plea proceeding after defendant emphatically insisted that the plea “is voluntary . . . is voluntary . . . is voluntary” and that the court was not pressuring him. Defendant was given another opportunity to consult with defense counsel and then indicated that he wanted to proceed with the plea, and the court thereafter asked again whether defendant, with intent to cause serious physical injury, did in fact cause such injury to the victim by repeatedly stabbing her, to which defendant answered in the affirmative. The court then followed up one more time by asking defendant whether he was telling the truth when he answered that prior question, to which defendant again responded in the affirmative. Therefore, contrary to the dissent’s suggestion that the law required more of the court, the record reflects that the court “properly conducted such [a further] inquiry and that defendant’s responses to the court’s subsequent questions removed [any] doubt about [his] guilt” with respect to the previously negated elements of assault in the first degree … . …
n any event, we conclude that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of the plea lacks merit. Indeed, defendant’s contention that the court coerced him into accepting the plea is belied by the record because, during the plea colloquy, defendant denied that he had been threatened or otherwise pressured into pleading guilty and, moreover, defendant specifically denied that the court had pressured him into taking a plea … . Further, contrary to defendant’s assertion, “[a]lthough it is well settled that ‘[a] defendant may not be induced to plead guilty by the threat of a heavier sentence if [the defendant] decides to proceed to trial,’ ” we conclude that the statements made by the court ” ‘amount to a description of the range of the potential sentences’ rather than impermissible coercion” … . The fact that defendant ” ‘may have pleaded guilty to avoid receiving a harsher sentence does not render his plea coerced’ ” … . Likewise, contrary to defendant’s assertion, we conclude on this record that the court “did not coerce defendant into pleading guilty merely . . . by commenting on the strength of the People’s evidence against him” … . Contrary to defendant’s related assertion, we conclude that “defense counsel’s advice that [defendant] was unlikely to prevail at trial and that he would likely receive a harsher sentence if convicted after trial . . . does not constitute coercion” … . People v Freeman, 2025 NY Slip Op 07125, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what does and does not amount to “coercion” in the context of a guilty plea.
ALTHOUGH THE 16-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS LIABLE AS AN ACCOMPLICE, ACCOMPLICE-LIABILITY STANDING ALONE DOES NOT PRECLUDE REMOVAL TO FAMILY COURT; A GUILTY PLEA DOES NOT FORFEIT AN APPELLATE CHALLENGE TO THE DENIAL OF REMOVAL; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT PURPORTED TO FORECLOSE ALL APPELLATE CHALLENGES (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, over a two-justice dissent, determined (1) defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because it purported to foreclose all appellate challenges; and (2) the statutory procedure for removing the 16-year-old defendant’s prosecution to Family Court was violated. The fact that defendant was charged as an accomplice in this carjacking/murder case did not disqualify the defendant from the removal procedure. Once the removal procedure is started, the People have 30 days to demonstrate removal is not appropriate. The majority disagreed with the dissent’s argument that the “removal-to-Family-Court-issue” was forfeited by defendant’s guilty plea:
Defendant orally waived his right to appeal and executed a written waiver thereof. The language in the written waiver, however, is “inaccurate and misleading insofar as it purports to impose ‘an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal’ and to deprive defendant of his ‘attendant rights to counsel and poor person relief, [as well as] all postconviction relief separate from the direct appeal’ ” … . * * *
Defendant contends that the court erred in concluding that the People established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant “caused significant physical injury to a person other than a participant in the offense” (CPL 722.23 [2] [c] [i]) and that defendant was therefore disqualified from having the matter transferred to Family Court. Initially, we respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that defendant’s contention is forfeited by his guilty plea. It is undisputed that a guilty plea does not “extinguish every claim on appeal” and that the issues that are not forfeited by the plea generally “relate either to jurisdictional matters . . . or to rights of a constitutional dimension that go to the very heart of the process” … . * * *
The plain language of CPL 722.23 (2) (c) supports the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend for the circumstances disqualifying an adolescent offender from removal to Family Court to be coextensive with criminal liability, including principles of accessorial liability, for a statutorily designated violent crime. Indeed, such a result could have been achieved by disqualifying adolescent offenders based solely on the crime charged without reference to any further factors. People v Jacobs, 2025 NY Slip Op 07124, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Here the 16-year-old defendant should not have been denied removal to Family Court solely based on accomplice liability for murder. The right to challenge the denial of removal was not forfeited by defendant’s guilty plea. The waiver of appeal was invalid because it purported to foreclose all appellate challenges.
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; NEW HEARINGS AND TRIAL ORDERED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, ordering new hearings and a new trial, determined defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent:
Defendant’s criminal history, which included drug possession and sale convictions dating back to 1992, and his in-court remarks regarding his history of substance abuse issues and present drug use constituted a “red flag” which should have triggered at least a brief inquiry into defendant’s mental capacity and comprehension of the proceedings … . The record also does not “affirmatively disclose” that the court “delved into [] defendant’s age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver” … . As the trial judge was only assigned to defendant’s case about a month before trial, this was not a case where the judge “had numerous opportunities to see and hear defendant firsthand” to evaluate his knowledge and familiarity with the criminal justice system … .
Moreover, the court’s colloquy did not “accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . Although defendant correctly recited the charges against him, he also suggested that he could get convicted of additional charges, and the record does not reflect that he was ever informed of the potential aggregate sentence he faced after trial … . The court reminded defendant that he was “not trained as a lawyer” and did not “understand about cross-examination,” so it was “dangerous” and not in his best interests to proceed pro se; these “brief, generalized warnings do not satisfy the requirement for a searching inquiry” … . “The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant” … . People v Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 07231, First Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what a judge must explain to a defendant seeking to waive the right to counsel.
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THIS TOXIC TORT CASE; NO FRYE HEARING WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE EXPERTS DID NOT USE NOVEL OR EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; NO PARKER HEARING WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CAUSATION WERE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERTS’ SUBMISSIONS AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODS WERE USED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresa, determined there was no need for a Frye hearing in this toxic tort case because none of the three experts used methods that were novel or experimental. In addition, there was no need for a Parker hearing because the expert’s used generally accepted methods to determine general and specific causation. Therefore ordering the evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion:
“The singular purpose of a Frye hearing is to ascertain the reliability of novel scientific evidence by determining whether the methods used to generate such evidence will, when properly performed, produce results accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally” … . ” ‘A court need not hold a Frye hearing where it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedings as an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony’ ” … . “Absent a novel or experimental scientific theory, a Frye hearing is generally unwarranted” … . * * *
… [U]nder Parker, ” ‘[t]he focus moves from the general reliability concerns of Frye to the specific reliability of the procedures followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they establish a foundation for the reception of the evidence at trial.’ . . . [In toxic tort cases,] [i]t is well-established that an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)” (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d at 447-448 …). … [A] s plaintiffs’ [experts’] written submissions … offered the requisite causal links, there was no need for a hearing to determine whether these foundational standards were met. Marpe v Tonoga, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07053, Third Dept 12-18-25
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a Frye/Parker hearing is necessary to determine the admissibility of expert evidence in a toxic tort case. The evidentiary hearing had been ordered by the trial judge, but the Third Department held ordering the hearing was an abuse of discretion.
PURSUANT TO THE “HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT),” AN INMATE WHO IS FACING SEGREGATED CONFINEMENT HAS A RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL AT THE DISPOSITIONAL PHASE OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, determined that the incarcerated petitioner had a right to have his attorney present during the dispositional phase of the disciplinary hearing after he was found guilty of possession of a weapon. The Hearing Officer had determined counsel’s presence was “no longer necessary” in violation of the “Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act” (the HALT Act—Correction Law 137):
… [F]ollowing the passage of the HALT Act, Correction Law § 137 provides that an incarcerated individual “shall be permitted to be represented” during a disciplinary hearing that may result in placement in segregated confinement “by any attorney or law student, or” with certain limitations, “any paralegal or incarcerated person” (Correction Law § 137 [6] [l]). The pertinent regulations have since also been amended to specify that “[w]here an incarcerated individual is placed in, or pending possible placement in, segregated confinement pending a disciplinary hearing or superintendent’s hearing, such incarcerated individual shall be permitted to be represented by,” as is relevant here, “an attorney, having good standing, admitted to practice in any state” (7 NYCRR 251-5.2 [a] [1]).
Therefore, pursuant to both statute and regulation, if an incarcerated individual so chooses, he or she is entitled to have representation present during a disciplinary hearing when the permissible sanctions include the imposition of segregated confinement. Contrary to the Hearing Officer’s determination, the dispositional phase is an integral aspect of the disciplinary hearing and the statutory and regulatory right to representation at issue here extends to that phase of the hearing. Matter of Wingate v Martuscello, 2025 NY Slip Op 07048, Third Dept 12-18-25
FAMILY COURT DID NOT PROVIDE FATHER WITH EVERY REASONABLE INFERENCE AND RESOLVE ALL CREDIBILITY ISSUES IN HIS FAVOR WHEN CONSIDERING MOTHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE CUSTODY MODIFICATION PETITION AFTER FATHER’S TESTIMONY; ALTHOUGH FATHER DESCRIBED WHAT THE CHILDREN TOLD HIM, SUCH HEARSAY CAN BE ADMISSIBLE IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; IN ADDITION, THE LINCOLN HEARING, WHICH WAS CANCELLED BY THE JUDGE, COULD HAVE SERVED TO CORROBORATE FATHER’S TESTIMONY; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motion to dismiss at the close of father’s testimony in this modification of custody proceeding should not have been granted. The judge granted the motion to dismiss because there was no corroboration of father’s testimony which described what the children told him. However the children’s hearsay is admissible when it concerns abuse or neglect. After dismissing the petition, the court cancelled the scheduled Lincoln hearing The cancellation compounded the judge’s error because the children’s testimony at a Lincoln hearing can serve to corroborate a parent’s testimony:
The father testified that the children made numerous statements to him describing the mother’s physical discipline of them and detailing the mother’s excessive alcohol consumption. The father also stated that he had observed changes in the children’s behavior, pointing specifically to the older child exhibiting signs of excessive nervousness and both children’s reluctance to return to their mother’s home at the conclusion of his parenting time. “A child’s out-of-court statements are admissible in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding when they pertain to abuse or neglect and are sufficiently corroborated” … , and “the hearing court is accorded considerable discretion in determining whether there is sufficient corroboration” … . Notably, “[a] relatively low degree of corroboration is sufficient, and the requirement may be satisfied by any other evidence tending to support the reliability of the child’s statements” … .
We find that Family Court improperly granted the mother’s motion to dismiss as it failed to provide the father with the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolve all credibility issues in his favor … . Of greater concern, given the court’s reason for granting the motion — lack of corroboration of the father’s accusations — it abused its discretion in canceling the Lincoln hearing as “information shared by [the children] during a Lincoln hearing may serve to corroborate other evidence adduced at a fact-finding hearing” … . At the time of the hearing, the children were nine and six years of age and the record is bereft of any indication that the children were unwilling or incapable of participating in the Lincoln hearing. Thus, we remit the matter to Family Court to conduct a Lincoln hearing and any appropriate hearing following same … . Matter of Kalam EE. v Amber EE., 2025 NY Slip Op 07050, Third Dept 12-18-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the evidence presented by the petitioner in a custody modification proceeding should be analyzed in the face of a motion to dismiss, including the admissibility of hearsay presented by the petitioner describing what the children told the petitioner.
Practice Point: Children’s testimony at a Lincoln hearing can serve to corroborate a parent’s testimony. Here it was deemed reversible error for the judge to dismiss the petition after petitioner’s testimony on the ground there was no corroboration of the statements petitioner ascribed to the children while cancelling the Lincoln hearing which could have provided corroboration.
THE MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION WAS SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND THE MOTION TO DISMISS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the maternal grandmother, who has custody of the children, sufficiently alleged a change of circumstances which may warrant an modification of custody such that the children could choose to spend time with the maternal grandfather and the maternal grandmother and grandmother could live together. The petition for modification was based upon the ages of the children (late teens to age of majority) and the grandfather’s extended period of sobriety. The petition was deemed sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss:
“In any modification proceeding, the threshold issue is whether there has been a change in circumstances since the prior custody order significant enough to warrant a review of the issue of custody to ensure the continued best interests of the children” … . “In assessing whether the petitioner has alleged the requisite change in circumstances, so as to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Family Court must liberally construe the petition, accept the facts alleged in the petition as true, afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference and resolve all credibility questions in favor of the petitioner” … .
The grandmother sustained this threshold burden. Matter of Christine X. v James Y., 2025 NY Slip Op 07060, Third Dept 12-18-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for the analytical criteria for assessing whether a petition for a modification of custody is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY, PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THE BB GUN DISPLAYED DURING THE ROBBERY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY; THEREFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE “DISPLAYED-WEAPON-COULD-NOT-CAUSE-DEATH-OR-SERIOUS-INJURY” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT DEFENDANT DISPLAYED A BB GUN, SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHARGE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division on different grounds, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense that the weapon displayed by defendant during the robbery was not capable of causing death or serious injury. Defendant had displayed BB gun during the robbery and was charged with first degree robbery. The dissent argued that, because it was uncontroverted that defendant displayed a BB gun, second degree robbery is the only available charge. Penal Law 160.15(4) provides “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:* * * [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that such pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, robbery in the second degree … .”:
… [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.
UNDER THE LIEN LAW, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IN A FAILED SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS, WAS PROPERLY PRECLUDED FROM USING THE FUNDS TO PAY ITSELF FIRST; THE SUBCONTRACTORS MUST BE PAID FIRST; THERE WAS A TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, in a matter of first impression, determined the subcontractors’ motion to enjoin the general contractor from using settlement funds to pay itself for expenditures in a failed solar-energy project was properly granted. The Lien Law created a trust for the settlement funds and required the general contractor, as trustee, to pay the subcontractors before paying itself:
“Article 3-A of the Lien Law impresses with a trust any funds paid or payable to a contractor ‘under or in connection with a contract for an improvement of real property’ ” ( … Lien Law § 70 [1]). Given this statutory definition, we readily conclude that the settlement funds at issue constitute trust funds under Lien Law article 3-A … . The Court of Appeals has “repeatedly recognized that the primary purpose of [Lien Law] article 3-A . . . is to ensure that those who have directly expended labor and materials to improve real property . . . at the direction of the owner or a general contractor receive payment for the work actually performed” … . With respect to a contractor’s trust, the parties entitled to a beneficial status are expressly enumerated in Lien Law § 71 (2) (a)-(f) … Pursuant to Lien Law § 71 (2) (a), “[t]he trust assets of which a contractor . . . is trustee shall be held and applied for [enumerated] expenditures arising out of the improvement of real property,” including “payment of claims of subcontractors, architects, engineers, surveyors, laborers and materialmen” (Lien Law § 71 [2] [a] … ). The language is mandatory and does not include the “cost[s] of improvement,” which is a term specifically defined to address an owner’s costs (Lien Law § 2 [5]; see Lien §§ 70 [5]; 71 [1] …). L.C. Whitford Co., Inc. v Babcock & Wilcox Solar Energy, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07063, Third Dept 12-18-25
Practice Point: Under the Lien Law the general contractor here is the trustee of the settlement funds and must use the funds to pay the subcontractors before paying itself.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED THE RELEASE TO APPLY TO A PENDING FALSE ARREST ACTION, THE PENDING ACTION WAS NOT LISTED IN THE RELEASE AS AN EXCLUSION AND IS THEREFORE PRECLUDED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals determined that, even if plaintiff did not intend to release the city from the second false arrest action when he signed a release for the first false arrest action, the release must be enforced according to its plain language. The release had a section where any actions not intended to be encompassed by the release must be specifically identified and listed. Plaintiff, with counsel present, signed the release without listing the second false arrest action as an exclusion, so the release precluded the second action:
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 MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION BY EMPLOYEES OF A PRIVATE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL; THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION PRECLUDES ACTIONS AGAINST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WHICH INTERFERE WITH RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE; THE ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the-hostile work-environment causes of action by employees of a private Catholic high school should not have been dismissed pursuant to the “ministerial exception” which, in certain circumstances, will preclude employment discrimination actions against a religious institution:
Plaintiffs … were all employed by … a private Catholic school . The case stems from plaintiffs’ allegations that the school’s Principal … regularly subjected them to vulgar, sexist, ageist, racist and homophobic remarks and epithets. Plaintiffs further allege that … the school’s Vice Principal … and … the school’s Dean of Men, regularly repeated [the Principal’s] vile language and assisted in his efforts to discriminate against staff. In addition, plaintiffs allege that … the head of defendant Archdiocese of New York … and the defendant Archdiocese knew about [the Principal’s] conduct but did nothing to stop it.
Plaintiffs’ claims for hostile work environment were improperly dismissed under the ministerial exception, which precludes some employment claims against religious institutions on First Amendment grounds … . Although the ministerial exception was created to protect churches from state interference in their decisions to employ and supervise ministerial employees, it was not intended as a shield from all types of workplace conduct … . * * *
Here, plaintiffs are correct that there is no religious justification for [the Principal’s] appalling conduct, and analyzing their hostile work environment claims would not require the Court to improperly interfere with religious doctrine or defendants’ personnel decisions. Boliak v Reilly, 2025 NY Slip Op 07088, First Dept 12-18-25
Practice Point: Some employment discrimination actions against religious institutions are barred by the ministerial exception. Here the allegations plaintiffs, employees of a private Catholic School, were harassed by school officials did not require a court’s interference with religious doctrine and therefore were not precluded by the ministerial exception.
A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a three-judge concurrence, determined that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which purported to bind current and future municipal officials to plaintiff’s rezoning request for a real estate development project violated the term limits doctrine and was unenforceable:
“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.
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON THE SECOND RUNG FROM THE TOP, STRADDLING THE LADDER, WHEN IT WOBBLED AND FELL; THE NEED TO STAND NEAR THE TOP OF THE LADDER TO DO THE WORK DEMONSTRATES THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THERE WAS A TWO JUSTICE DISSENT WHICH ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MISUSE OF THE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff in this ladder-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on the second rung from the top of an extendable step ladder, straddling the ladder, when the ladder fell away from the building. The majority concluded the fact that plaintiff had to stand on the second rung from the top and straddle the ladder to do the work, he was not provided with an adequate safety device. The dissent argued there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s misuse of the ladder was the sole proximate cause of the accident:
Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden, as “[w]e have repeatedly held that when a worker injured in a fall was provided with an elevation-related safety device, [here the ladder,] the question of whether that device provided proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) is ordinarily a question of fact, except in those instances where the unrefuted evidence establishes that the device collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to perform its function of supporting the worker and his or her materials” … . Accordingly, … an unexplained fall of the ladder while plaintiff was using it to reach an elevated work area, he is entitled to the presumption that the ladder was not good enough to afford proper protection … . Nusbaum v 1455 Wash. Ave. LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07066, Third Dept 12-18-25
Practice Point: Here the fact that plaintiff had to stand on the second rung from the top, straddling the ladder, to do the work demonstrated the ladder was not an adequate safety device, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development had a rational basis for finding that petitioner did not use his brother’s apartment as his primary residence for one year prior to his brother’s death and therefore was not entitled to succession rights to the Mitchell-Lama apartment:
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
TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL THE PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE (1) THE OWNERS EXERCISED COMPLETE DOMINATION OF THE CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE AND (2) THE DOMINATION WAS USED TO COMMIT A FRAUD OR WRONG AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF; HERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE WAS FRAUDULENT (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the complaint in this “pierce the corporate veil” action was properly dismissed because there was no evidence the recapitalization at issue was done to commit a fraud:
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.
SUBCONTRACTOR DAL HAD ENTERED CONTRACTS FOR THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, JRM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROCKEFELLER; PLAINTIFF, WHO DID NOT WORK FOR DAL, WITHOUT DAL’S PERMISSION, KNOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, USED A DEFECTIVE LADDER OWNED BY DAL; THE LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES IN DAL’S CONTRACTS WITH JRM AND ROCKEFELLER DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined that DAL, a subcontractor, was not contractually required to indemnify the general contractor, JRM, and the property owner, Rockefeller, for plaintiff’s injuries from a ladder-fall. The plaintiff, Dibrino, a carpenter working for a nonparty subcontractor, Jacobsen, had already completed his measurements using his employer’s A-frame ladder and a scaffold, which he had moved to his next work-area, when he was asked to redo the measurements. Plaintiff, knowing it was defective, used an A-frame ladder owned by DAL when he remeasured. The ladder wobbled, plaintiff fell; a tool on his belt impaled his abdomen. The ruling that DAL was not obligated to indemnify the general contractor (JAM) and the owner (Rockefeller) for plaintiff’s injuries is based on the contractual language:
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.
AN ARCH-SHAPED BOLLARD (A BARRIER TO PROTECT A TREE FROM VEHICLES USING A PARKING LOT) IS SUBJECT TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; HERE THE BOLLARD, WHICH FELL OVER WHEN A CHILD TRIED TO SWING ON IT, WAS INSTALLED 14 YEARS AGO; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN-NOTICE AND BECAUSE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT WHEN THE BOLLARD WAS INSTALLED, THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined an arch-shaped bollard (a barrier to protect a tree from damage by vehicles using a parking lot), which fell over when a child attempted to swing on it, was subject to the written-notice requirement in the General Municipal Law. Because the city did not have written notice of the dangerous condition it cannot be held not liable. The Court of Appeals noted that a parking lot is a “highway” within the meaning of the General Municipal Law section 50-e “written notice” requirement:
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.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE A VERMONT OFFENSE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONY OFFENSE; THEREFORE THE PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY ADJUDICATION WAS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, vacating defendant’s persistent violent felony offender adjudication, determined the People did not prove that a Vermont assault and robbery offense was the equivalent to a New York violent felony offense:
While the defendant admitted at sentencing that he was the person convicted of two prior felonies … , the People failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that the defendant was convicted of an offense in a foreign jurisdiction that is equivalent to a violent felony in New York … . The People failed to demonstrate that the Vermont offense of assault and robbery with a dangerous weapon … is equivalent to a New York criminal offense designated as a violent felony … . Accordingly, we modify the judgment by vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender and the sentences imposed thereon, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for resentencing … . People v Parris, 2025 NY Slip Op 07028, Second Dept 12-17-25
Practice Point: If a foreign conviction is the basis of a persistent violent felony offender adjudication, the People must prove the foreign offense is the equivalent of a New York violent felony. If the People fail to prove the equivalence the adjudication will be vacated on appeal.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THE DRIVER FOR DWI; THE DRIVER’S ARGUMENT HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OFFICERS WAS REJECTED; THE DRIVER HAD SUBPOENAED THE OFFICERS BUT CHOSE NOT TO USE THE CPLR 2308 PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS; THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE WAS DEEMED “SUFFICIENT PROCESS” (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined a driver, Monaghan, whose license was automatically suspended when he refused to submit to a chemical test at the time he was arrested for DWI, was not denied due process rights when the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) revoked his license despite the arresting officers’ failure to appear at the revocation hearing. Monaghan had subpoenaed the officers and argued he was denied his right to cross-examine them. The Court of Appeal noted that Monaghan could have sought to enforce the subpoenas but chose not to. The Court found that the procedure for enforcement of subpoenas is not unduly burdensome. Therefore requiring Monaghan to use that procedure to exercise his right to cross-examine the officers does not amount to a denial of due process:
… [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.
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS HIRED BY DEFENDANT TEMPLE AS A “FULL TIME JEWISH EDUCATOR,” WAS FIRED AFTER WRITING A BLOG POST CRITICIZING ISRAEL AND ZIONISM; PLAINTIFF SUED ALLEGING HER FIRING WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW; THE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS THE LABOR-LAW-VIOLATION THEORY FINDING THAT THE “MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION” PRECLUDED THE APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND ITS MINISTERS (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two concurrences, determined the ministerial exception precluded this employment discrimination action brought by plaintiff, a “full time Jewish educator” employed by the Westchester Reform Temple. Plaintiff was fired after writing a blog post criticizing Israel and Zionism. She alleged her firing was a violation of Labor Law 201-d (2) which prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee based on legal “recreational activities.” The court did not address the viability of the Labor-Law theory. The court held that plaintiff’s lawsuit was precluded by the ministerial exception, which precludes application of employment discrimination laws to relationships between a religious institution and its ministers:
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.
HERE THE TOWN PASSED A LOCAL LAW REQUIRING THE CLOSURE OF A LANDFILL OWNED AND OPERATED BY SMI; BECAUSE SMI’S PROPERTY IS THE VERY SUBJECT OF THE LOCAL LAW, SMI NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE “ENVIRONMENTAL HARM” AS AN ELEMENT OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DECLARATION THAT THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; SMI HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOWN DID NOT TAKE THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ISSUING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the petitioner-plaintiff Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), the owner and operator of a landfill, had standing to challenge the town’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) finding that the closure of the landfill pursuant to a Local Law would not have a significant adverse environmental impact. SMI argued the town did not take the required “hard look” at the evidence before issuing its negative SEQRA declaration:
“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.
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) WERE NOT ENTITLED TO “PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE” DURING THE SUMMER OF 2020 PURSUANT TO THE “CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF AND ECONOMIC SECURITY (CARES) ACT;” THE COURT’S ANALYSIS IS TOO DETAILED TO FAIRLY SUMMARIZE HERE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined certain employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) who were not offered employment during the summer of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic were not entitled to “pandemic unemployment assistance” under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The opinion has a detailed analysis of the federal and state unemployment insurance systems and how they interact with the COVID-related legislation. Matter of Klosterman v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 06960, CtApp 12-16-25