The Second Department publicly censured a lawyer who secretly told bankruptcy counsel not to answer a judge’s call and rejected his challenge to stipulated reciprocal discipline.
The Second Department held that documented reasonable diligence establishes mandatory good cause for a CPLR 306-b extension and that reservice may precede a traverse hearing.
A divided Second Department restored a criminally negligent homicide count based on an 81-mph fatal crash in a 30-mph residential zone.
The Second Department held that a court may reopen a SORA hearing before final disposition to correct its risk calculation, provided the offender had notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
A divided Second Department upheld sole custody and termination of scheduled parental access, while the dissent would have ordered therapeutic visits for two younger children and held the mother in contempt.
The Second Department held that CPLR 3220’s post-offer “expenses” include attorney fees and affirmed an $11,473 award after the plaintiff recovered less than the defendant’s contract-damages offer.
Second Department affirms grant of reargument in OB malpractice case: trial court properly vacated its prior grant of summary judgment after recognizing it had overlooked defendants’ introduction — for the first time in reply — of a new ‘in-house obstetrician’ theory that plaintiff had no chance to rebut.
The Appellate Division, Second Department sustained a habeas writ for a defendant held more than 90 days without a valid certificate of compliance, finding the People’s supplemental CoC deficient because 60-plus automatic discovery items—including mandatory impeachment materials—remained outstanding at the time of filing.
The Appellate Division, Second Department holds that CPLR Article 78 prohibition does not lie to challenge a criminal court’s evidence preclusion order under CPL 245.80(1)(a), even when the order would effectively prevent the prosecution from presenting its case.
The Appellate Division, Second Department imposed $8,000 in sanctions on an attorney and $2,500 on his firm after he submitted a brief containing three fictitious AI-generated case citations, fabricated Court of Appeals quotations that directly contradicted actual law, and misrepresentations of real cases — then denied using AI at oral argument.