The First Department held that a scaffold can violate Labor Law § 240(1) by tipping during operation even without a physical defect, and rejected sole-proximate-cause and recalcitrant-worker defenses.
The Third Department held that New York’s narrower lawyer-client sexual-relations rule requires proof of coercion, intimidation, or undue influence, while imposing reciprocal discipline for conflict and withdrawal violations.
The Second Department held that Allstate owed no defense or indemnity to a driver who was neither the deceased insured’s estate representative nor an authorized temporary custodian.
The Second Department held that an arbitration clause covering ‘legal claims’ did not reach quantum-meruit and constructive-fraud claims.
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, in a case of first impression, that land wholly owned by a trust and an LLC is not heirs property under RPAPL 993.
The First Department remitted a rent-overcharge case so the trial court can apply the revised common-law and statutory fraudulent-deregulation standards together.
The First Department upheld DHCR’s use of Operational Bulletin 95-2 and its rejection of conclusory proof for a claimed 1980s substantial-rehabilitation exemption.
The First Department publicly censured a high-volume trademark lawyer who failed to verify client signatures and allowed unauthorized third parties to file using his email identity.
The First Department held that calculating incarceration tolling for predicate-felony status is ministerial and does not require a jury under Erlinger.
The First Department reinstated unfair-competition and idea-misappropriation claims alleging that a cofounder diverted a premium coworking concept, branding, designs, and hotel opportunities.
The Third Department confirmed denial of correction-officer disability retirement because the petitioner had already retired under a different public job and was no longer a qualifying member when he applied.
The Third Department upheld removal of a coded gate because it materially interfered with the dominant owners’ accustomed use of a deeded access easement.
The First Department held that conflicting expert opinions over the governing Building Code prevented an out-of-possession owner and manager from defeating a worker’s concealed-hole claim.
The First Department affirmed dismissal of a ureter-injury malpractice claim because the plaintiff’s expert did not answer the defense explanation that delayed tissue damage would not have been visible during surgery.
The First Department reinstated a Labor Law § 241(6) claim over a cracked exterior step while preserving negligence issues and dismissing contribution claims barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.
The First Department ordered a second resentencing because the judge denying youthful-offender treatment appeared unfamiliar with the defendant’s actual offense and personal circumstances.
The First Department kept a delayed pulmonary-embolism claim against a hospital alive but dismissed the treating emergency physician because the opposition relied on facts contradicted by the medical record.
The Second Department reinstated Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims because the construction manager failed to negate supervisory control or constructive notice of a defective delivery gate.
The Second Department held that FAPA made a 2013 foreclosure untimely based on a 2002 acceleration and allowed reconsideration despite an earlier appeal because the statute changed governing law.
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 enforced an 85% retiree health contribution after the employee left for another district because the contract imposed no direct-retirement or durational condition.
The Second Department reinstated rent-stabilization fraud and rent-freeze claims because the landlord’s conclusory affidavit did not eliminate factual disputes over deregulation and registration practices.