Law Watch
Recent New York decisions, read closely.
Short commentary on decisions worth a practitioner’s attention, each followed by the court’s full text.
- Appellate Division, First Department · Sep 24, 2026A veil-piercing claim may attack the later transfers that drained the judgment debtor, not only the deal that created the debt.The “Transaction Attacked” Is the One That Emptied the TillWhen a pair of judgments exceeding $1 billion goes unsatisfied, and the judgment debtors turn out to have been stripped to the walls, must the creditor’s veil-piercing claim be tethered to the underlying transaction that created the debt?Matter of UBS Sec. LLC v Dondero, 2026 NY Slip Op 05460
- Appellate Division, Second Department · Sep 23, 2026The EFAA reaches a negligence claim by its nexus to a sexual assault, not by who committed it; the sorority’s arbitration clause fails.Nexus, Not Name: Second Department Holds the EFAA Follows the Harm, Not the Hand That Caused ItThe sorority never disputed that its member was sexually assaulted.C.N. v Sigma Delta Tau Socy., 2026 NY Slip Op 05405
- Appellate Division, First Department · Sep 22, 2026“Commits to raise” did not require a signed financing agreement; the $15.9 million alternative financing premium stands.“Commits to Raise” Means What It Says: The First Department Affirms a $15.9 Million Alternative Financing PremiumDefendants did not dispute the fact that decided this appeal: before the Backstop Agreement expired on March 31, 2021, they had taken significant affirmative steps toward securing a €250 million alternative financing facility in lieu of the New HIL Notes.Aurelius Capital Master Ltd. v Hertz Intl. Ltd., 2026 NY Slip Op 05369
- Appellate Division, First Department · Sep 17, 2026With no comparable verdicts, the trial record itself sets the damages: awards reduced, not discarded.Beauchamp v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.: When There Is No Comparator, the Record Sets the NumberThe Transit Authority conceded liability and, in doing so, conceded away its whole appeal but the arithmetic.Beauchamp v New York City Tr. Auth., 2026 NY Slip Op 05364
- Appellate Division, First Department · Sep 17, 2026Penal Law § 450.10 does not let a criminal court adjudicate disputed title; the turnover orders are vacated.When a Turnover Order Becomes a Title Trial: The First Department Draws the Line at Penal Law § 450.10The Art Institute of Chicago conceded the critical point and, in doing so, framed the entire dispute: it never argued the Heirs lacked a moral claim – it argued that a criminal court lacked power to decide it.Matter of Application for a Search Warrant to Search the Premises Located at the Art Inst. of Chicago, 2026 NY Slip Op 05363
- Appellate Division, First Department · Sep 10, 2026A missed court-ordered transfer deadline supports contempt against OMH; blaming the patient’s illness is no defense.OMH Blames the Patient: First Department Affirms Contempt and Rejects the “Refusal of Treatment” DefenseThe Office of Mental Health did not dispute that the court-ordered transfer deadline of March 24, 2025, passed without action, or that defendant remained at Rikers until July 25, 2025.People v G.O., 2026 NY Slip Op 05242
- Appellate Division, First Department · Sep 3, 2026An umpire who bargained with one side’s counsel over paid work created disqualifying partiality; the award is vacated under CPLR 7511.The Umpire Who Bargained: First Department Vacates Award for Arbitrator PartialityThe umpire created an appearance of impropriety when he directly communicated with the landlord’s counsel about a paid offer to serve as a neutral umpire in the Durst matter.Matter of 57th & 6th Ground LLC v Carnegie House Tenants Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 05230
- Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2026A town may withhold its e-news subscriber list under FOIL where the privacy interest is weighty and disclosure serves no public interest.When “No” Means No: The Court of Appeals Shuts the Door on Forced Disclosure of Government Email Lists in Russell v Town of Mount PleasantThe decisive fact was undisputed: 218 of 220 E-news subscribers told the Town they did not consent to disclosure of their email addresses.Matter of Russell v Town of Mount Pleasant, 45 NY3d 677
- Supreme Court, Albany County · Feb 10, 2026Possessing a cell phone is not a “heinous or destructive” act under the HALT Act; the segregated-confinement penalty is annulled and expunged.“Not Remotely” Heinous: Albany County Annuls Cell-Phone Solitary and Expunges the RecordDOCCS does not argue that possessing cellular telephones is, in itself, a “heinous or destructive” act under the HALT Act; it argues instead that a hearing officer may say so anyway.Matter of D.G. v Rodriguez, 89 Misc 3d 988
- Appellate Division, First Department · Feb 10, 2026Public censure follows a federal Rule 11 finding: an unreviewed, AI-drafted brief filed under a senior attorney’s name.AI Is Indispensable – and That Is Exactly Why Verification Is Non-Negotiable: The First Department Censures in Matter of ZarehThe brief that brought respondent before the First Department was AI-drafted and went to a federal court unreviewed, and respondent admitted he had failed to supervise the attorney who drafted it.Matter of Zareh, 251 AD3d 73
- Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County · Jan 21, 2026A landlord claiming the cooperative exemption from rent stabilization must show a real cooperative, not just the paperwork.The Sham Cooperative Defense Gets Real Teeth: Edelstein LLC v RodriguezCivil Court, New York County (Meyers, J.), January 21, 2026 – 89 Misc 3d 953…Edelstein LLC v Rodriguez, 89 Misc 3d 953
- Appellate Division, First Department · Jan 15, 2026A federal dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds is not a vested property right; the Child Victims Act revival claims proceed.A Judgment Is Not a Property Right: The First Department Narrows the Federal Vested Rights DoctrineThe Yeshiva defendants conceded the points that decided the appeal.M.T. v Yeshiva Univ., 251 AD3d 150
- Appellate Division, Third Department · Jan 8, 2026Twenty-three fabricated citations across five filings: $7,500 in sanctions and New York’s first appellate word on generative AI.23 Ghost Cases and a $7,500 Lesson: The Third Department Draws the Line on AI FilingsDefense counsel conceded the critical fact at oral argument, reluctantly: he “used AI in the preparation of his papers and, although he told the Court that he checked his papers, the filings themselves demonstrate otherw…Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v LeTennier, 251 AD3d 97
- Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 2025The Court of Appeals left the blogging question unanswered; the offer letter conclusively defeated the Labor Law § 201-d claim on the pleadings.A Letter, a Blog, and a Door the Court Declined to OpenThe most decisive document in Sander v Westchester Reform Temple was not the complaint, the motion papers, or the blog post that started it all – it was the offer letter Jessie Sander signed when she accepted a position …Sander v Westchester Reform Temple, 45 NY3d 628
- Justice Court of the Town of Somers, Westchester County · Jul 9, 2025The possible loss of DACA status did not justify dismissing a DWI charge in the interests of justice under CPL 170.40.When DACA Fear Meets a DWI: Somers Justice Court Says “Not a Certainty at All”Defendant’s own motion papers narrowed the question: she admits that “any allegation of drunk driving is serious and should be treated seriously,” and she concedes that there was no misconduct by law enforcement.People v Sibri-Arevalo, 89 Misc 3d 908