Comments on Recent Cases: July 2026

Image credit: Bryan Berlin, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons, 2026 FIFA World Cup.

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 Permits Defendant to Withdraw Admission in Amended Answer

After a plaintiff files a complaint in litigation, the defendant may file an “answer.”  The answer often denies many, if not all, of the plaintiffs’ allegations.  And while a defendant may admit some allegations, they may be able to take those admissions back later.

In a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a counterclaim plaintiff asked to reverse the dismissal of its counterclaim for breach of contract.  A defendant had said in its original answer that it had delivered on the contract, and that was one of the reasons the trial court had granted defendants' dismissal of that counterclaim.  On appeal, however, the court held that the original admission had been superseded by an amended answer from all the defendants. Since that answer did not contain the same admission, the dismissal was declared inappropriate.

Cases like this illustrate the ability of litigants to amend their answers.

Court Finds No “Manifest Disregard” of the Law by Arbitrator

Courts grant great deference to the results of arbitration.  A major benefit of arbitration is the prospect of avoiding protracted litigation, even if it means a judge’s errors do not get corrected.  Still, more litigation may ensue. There is no guarantee that further litigation would change the outcome; courts may ultimately defer to the original arbitration result.

In a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, the respondent in an arbitration challenged an arbitrator’s award that allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class action.  The responded claimed the arbitrator had looked at a clearly applicable legal principle and ignored it. The appeals court affirmed the decision that deferred to the arbitrator, noting there was no evidence the arbitrator engaged in “manifest disregard” of the law.  Instead, the arbitrator addressed class action law and performed the necessary analysis of a complex contracts case.  The court said that “judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited in scope.” The arbitration ruling was affirmed without comment on the arbitrator’s ultimate conclusion.

Decisions like this illustrate the deference courts give to arbitration.

Court Permits Defendant to File Late Answer in High-Visibility Lawsuit

Courts will often, but not always, give a defendant extra time to respond to a complaint.  When a defendant seeks extra time, courts scrutinize whether the defendant deliberately defaulted or whether they lacked legal notice of the lawsuit.

In a recent case before the state appeals court in Manhattan, a defendant was four months late in responding to a complaint.  The defendant claims she did not receive the papers that were sent to two of her old addresses, but she knew about the case since it was in the news. Even TMZ had sought comment from her. Though she did not respond to the media site, the contact prompted her to get a lawyer in preparation for service.  But seeing your case on the news is not the same thing as legal notice. The court held that the plaintiff’s counsel’s attempts to serve the defendant were insufficient. The defendant did not need to establish her defense at the start of the lawsuit, therefore, to get extra time to respond.

Cases like this illustrate how courts consider late responses to complaints.