https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/ New appellate decisions on New York injury law, reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen. en-us https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/kopitova-v-nycta-email-notice-of-claim/ https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/kopitova-v-nycta-email-notice-of-claim/ Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT Unless email is an authorized method of service for a Notice of Claim, claimants must ensure that papers are served in a manner that the law allows. Here, the Second Department upheld the dismissal of an injured woman’s case, ruling that even though an NYCTA lawyer received the emailed Claim, NYCTA’s prompt rejection required the Claimant to serve by authorized means. https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/tkebuchava-v-nycta-late-notice-of-claim/ https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/tkebuchava-v-nycta-late-notice-of-claim/ Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT A missed 90-day deadline does not always end a case. Here, the driver of a car hit by a New York City Transit Authority bus missed the deadline, but a passenger on the bus had served her own timely Notice of Claim, which gave the authority actual knowledge of the essential facts, and the authority made no showing that the delay hurt its defense. https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/fernandez-v-port-authority-video-spoliation/ https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/fernandez-v-port-authority-video-spoliation/ Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT Where there is a question of fact as to the time a preservation letter is received and the time when the video is destroyed, the jury is to determine whether “spoliation of evidence” occurred. Here, in a slip-and-fall case against an airline, the Second Department held that “[t]he appropriate sanction” for any spoliation “would be an adverse inference charge” against the airline. https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/interasian-v-park-cplr-2106-affirmation/ https://nypifirm.com/decision-day/2026/interasian-v-park-cplr-2106-affirmation/ Mon, 05 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT Every affirmation must explicitly state that it is made “under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment” as CPLR 2106 requires. Here, the First Department reversed a $9.2 million judgment, in part because all of the plaintiff’s evidence came in through an attorney affirmation that failed to substantially conform to that language.