Comments on Recent Cases: December 2025

Tree in Parisian Store Galeries Lafayette, November 2025.

Image credit: José-Raphaël1980, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_grand_sapin_de_No%C3%ABl_des_Galeries_Lafayette_Haussmann_%C3%A0_Paris,_novembre_2025.jpg.

Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.

Court Reinstates Aiding and Abetting Claim

To prevail in litigation, it is not enough that someone did something wrong.  A plaintiff needs to sue the correct defendant, usually the one responsible for the wrongful action.  Sometimes, however, plaintiffs sue someone who did not do the wrong thing, and claim this defendant “aided and abetted” the wrongful actor.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a business was in a partnership with other businesses.  The other businesses abandoned the partnership, took the partnership’s assets, and formed a new partnership without the plaintiff, effectively cutting the plaintiff out.  The plaintiff sued the law firm that helped the businesses take these actions, claiming it aided and abetted their breach of fiduciary duties.  The trial court dismissed the claim, but the appeals court reinstated the claim since the plaintiff could show the necessary elements of aiding and abetting: actual knowledge of the wrongful conduct and particular allegations of substantial assistance.

Cases like this illustrate how plaintiffs can state aiding and abetting claims.

Court Holds Unjust Enrichment Claim Duplicative

Even when no contract applies, a plaintiff can bring litigation against a defendant, seeking damages because the defendant received money but did not deserve it.  These quasi-contract claims, such as unjust enrichment, are common in complaints even where a contract exists.  But courts often dismiss them when they duplicate a contract claim.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a real estate investor sued a bank, alleging it violated a loan agreement.  The investor sued for breach of contract and also unjust enrichment.  The bank sought dismissal of both claims, and the trial court denied the bank’s motion.  The appeals court reversed the denial of dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, since a contract existed and the claim arose from the same conduct as the contract claim.

Cases like this illustrate what can happen when a quasi contract claim duplicates a contract claim.

Court Affirms Defamation Claim Despite Qualified Privilege

Plaintiffs may pursue defamation litigation against defendants for making false statements.  But not every false statement is grounds for damages.  Some are subject to a privilege that makes defamation claims harder, but not impossible, to win.  When a “qualified” privilege applies, a plaintiff must not only establish that a statement was false, but that the sole purpose of the statement was to harm the plaintiff.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff alleged a defendant made a false statement in a police report.  Statements to police normally fall under qualified privilege. Here, the court affirmed a judgment for the plaintiff, who was able to show malice, that the sole purpose of this statement was to harm the plaintiff.  The court may have reached a different result if the defendant had raised some other reason for the false statement, such as a good-faith belief that their safety was in danger.

Cases like this illustrate how defamation claims can survive a qualified privilege.

Court Refuses to Vacate Default Judgment

Courts take deadlines in lawsuits seriously.  Many litigants bet that they can ignore a lawsuit and, if necessary, fight it later.  That bet may not pay off.

For example, in a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a plaintiff obtained a default judgment against a defendant.  The defendant came to court a year later and tried to assert defenses.  The appeals court affirmed a rejection of the late defense, both because the plaintiff established that it had properly served the defendant in the first place, and because the defendant provided only vague evidence of what their defense would have been.
Cases like this illustrate the need to meet litigation deadlines.