Note: Before Relying On Any Decision Summarized on this Site, Make Sure It Remains Good Law Using the Method You Trust for that Purpose. See the Discussion Under “Shepardize” Below.
Note: The Easiest Way to Save a Search Result Is to Highlight It and then Copy and Paste into a Word Document. All the Links Remain Functional in the Word Document.
The search function can be used to get caught up on what all the courts have ruled on so far this year, or what any specific court has ruled on so far this year, or what any court has ruled on during any time period, going back weeks, months or years. Just add the “start” and “end” dates to your searches (the third and fourth lines in the search panel on the right side of the page).
In the posts “Just Released,” “Streamlined Research” and “Update Service,” how to do (1) searches in all legal categories, (2) searches in specific categories, (3) searches using keywords and phrases, and (4) searches confined to specific courts, is explained in some detail. Use the “start” and “end” date criteria to confine any of those types of searches to a specific time period.
If, for example, you want to see what the Fourth Department has addressed in the category “Criminal Law” in 2024, click on “Criminal Law” in the drop-down menu in the Search Panel (revealed when you click on “All Categories”), choose January 1, 2024, as the start date, choose today as the end date, click on “Fourth Department” in the Search Panel menu and click on “Search.”
If you want to see what the Court of Appeals ruled on this year in all categories, leave “All Categories” in the top line of the search panel, choose January 1, 2024, for the start date and today for the end date, click on “Court of Appeals” in the search panel menu and click on “Search.”
Any type of search can be confined to any specific time period between January 1, 2013, and today.
For more on this “personalized update service” capability, click on “Update Service.”
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 RENDERS UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE OR ABUSIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES UNLAWFUL; THE STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO CONSUMER ORIENTED CONDUCT; HERE THE DISPUTE OVER A PRIVATE INSURANCE CONTRACT FOR A RACING YACHT WAS NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the dispute about insurance coverage for a racing yacht was not the type of consumer-related activity to which General Business Law 349 applies:
General Business Law § 349(a) declares unlawful all “[u]nfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state” … . “To successfully assert a claim under General Business Law § 349(h), ‘a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice'” … . “‘[P]arties claiming the benefit of [General Business Law § 349(h)] must, at the threshold, charge conduct that is consumer oriented'” … . “The conduct need not be repetitive or recurring but defendant’s acts or practices must have a broad impact on consumers at large” … . “Private contract disputes, unique to the parties, . . . [do] not fall within the ambit of the statute” … .
The plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant’s acts or practices had a broad impact on consumers at large, and the plaintiff did not assert any facts that would support such an allegation. The allegations in the complaint merely refer to a private contract dispute over the procurement of insurance coverage and the processing of a claim that is unique to these parties … . USMMA Sailing Found., Inc. v Hilb Group of N.Y., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05824, Second Dept 10-7-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of “consumer oriented conduct” which is within the ambit of General Business Law 349.
THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS FOR THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, TRIAL COURT REVERSED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this divorce proceeding, over a comprehensive dissent, determined the assets transferred to irrevocable trusts were not subject to equitable distribution:
While a trial court has broad discretion in fashioning an equitable distribution award, that discretion is not unlimited. Courts must respect the parties’ economic decisions made during the marriage, and may not disregard the legal character of property based solely on equitable concerns. As the Court of Appeals has emphasized, courts should not second-guess how parties chose to structure and allocate their assets during the marriage (see Mahoney-Buntzman v Buntzman, 12 NY3d 415, 420-421 [2009]). Consistent with this principle, assets transferred to valid, irrevocable trusts for third-party beneficiaries are not subject to equitable distribution absent evidence that the trust is a sham or that a spouse retains revocation power or a beneficial interest … . C.S. v R.H., 2026 NY Slip Op 05849, First Dept 10-8-26
Practice Point: Assets transferred to Irrevocable trusts for third-party beneficiaries are not subject to equitable distribution.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED HER AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS TO ONE OF THE CHILDREN IN THIS ABUSE/NEGLECT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court in this abuse and neglect proceeding, held Family Court should not have delegated its authority to determine father’s parental access to one of the children:
… Family Court … found that the father sexually abused and neglected Alexander and derivatively abused and neglected Maximillian, and conditioned the father’s parental access with Alexander and Maximillian upon the consent of Alexander. * * *
… [A] court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child … . … [W]e remit the matter … for a new determination as to the father’s parental access with Alexander and Maximillian in accordance with the best interests of those children … . Matter of Alexander M.R. (Manuel D. J. R.), 2026 NY Slip Op 05790, Second Dept 10-7-26
Practice Point: A judge cannot delegate the authority to determine parental access.