Return to New Filings Page


For January 7, 2011 through January 13, 2011, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MARTINO v STOLZMAN (74 AD3d 1764):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 6/11/10; modification; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 12/30/10; Rule 500.11 review pending; MOTOR VEHICLES - COLLISION - DUTY OF SOCIAL HOSTS TO CONTROL AND SUPERVISE INTOXICATED GUESTS LEAVING THEIR PREMISES; NEGLIGENCE; DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS; Supreme Court, Niagara County denied the motion of defendants Oliver seeking, among other things, dismissal of the claim in Action No. 1 and the cause of action against them in Action No. 2 asserting a violation of General Obligations Law § 11-101; App. Div. modified by granting the motion of defendants Oliver in part and dismissing the claim against them in Action No. 1 and the cause of action against them in Action No. 2 asserting the violation of General Obligations Law § 11-101.

ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MATTER OF v MARVIN (78 AD3d 838):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 11/9/10; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; CONTEMPT - CIVIL CONTEMPT - WILLFUL VIOLATION OF SUPPORT ORDER UNDER FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 4 - FAMILY COURT ACT § 454(3)(a); Family Court, Orange County found that father willfully violated a prior support order and directed him to pay child support arrears in the sum of $22,807.44, among other things; App. Div. affirmed.

SMITH (KEVIN), PEOPLE v (75 AD3d 420):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 7/1/10; modification; leave to appeal granted by Pigott, J., 12/23/10; CRIMES - PROOF OF OTHER CRIMES - WHETHER TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SANDOVAL HEARING BY PERMITTING THE PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS SHOULD DEFENDANT CHOOSE TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF; ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW SUBSTITUTION OF NEW COUNSEL AFTER BREAKDOWN IN DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH COUNSEL; Supreme Court, New York County convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 5 years; App. Div. modified to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing.

WILLIAMS v NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (— AD3d —, 2010 NY Slip Op 08982):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 12/7/10; affirmance with dissents; sua sponte examination whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution and whether the two-justice dissent at the App. Div. is on a question of law; DAMAGES - INADEQUATE AND EXCESSIVE DAMAGES - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER AFFIRMING A SUPREME COURT ORDER THAT, AS RELEVANT HERE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS' POST-TRIAL MOTION INSOFAR AS IT SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE AS EXCESSIVE A JURY'S AWARD OF DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $6.5 MILLION AND DIRECTED A NEW TRIAL AS TO DAMAGES UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATED TO A REDUCED AWARD OF $1 MILLION; Supreme Court, Bronx County granted defendants' post-trial motion insofar as it sought to set aside the jury's damages award of $6.5 million as excessive, and directed a new trial as to damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduced award of $1 million; App. Div. affirmed.

For January 14, 2011 through January 20, 2011, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

BRONSON v HANSEL (79 AD3d 1603):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 12/30/10; affirmance with dissents; Rule 500.11 review pending; RELEASE - SCOPE OF RELEASE - MISTAKE - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER UPHOLDING DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT SEEKING DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES ARISING OUT OF A CAR ACCIDENT AS BARRED BY PLAINTIFF'S RELEASE ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF CLAIMED SHE BELIEVED THE RELEASE PERTAINED ONLY TO PROPERTY DAMAGES AND THE EXTENT OF HER INJURIES WERE UNKNOWN WHEN SHE SIGNED IT; Supreme Court, Orleans County granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and all cross claims against defendant; App. Div. affirmed.

DIGIULIO v GRAN, INC. (74 AD3d 450):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 6/3/10; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 1/11/11; Rule 500.11 review pending; NEGLIGENCE - DUTY - WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE UNDER A COMMON-LAW OR STATUTORY DUTY TO USE AN AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR (AED) ON A PATRON WHO HAD A SUDDEN HEART ATTACK AT THEIR HEALTH CLUB - ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY HEALTH CLUB PATRON - APPLICABILITY OF PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 3000- a(1) - DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED BREACH OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 627-a IN FAILING TO USE AN AED ON PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT; Supreme Court, New York County denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; App. Div. affirmed.

SUPPIAH v KALISH (76 AD3d 829):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 9/7/10; reversal; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 1/6/11; Rule 500.11 review pending; ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - MALPRACTICE - ATTORNEY'S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE FOR FAILING TO SEEK EXTENSION RATHER THAN RENEWAL OF WORK VISA - ATTORNEY'S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT - WHETHER ATTORNEY SATISFIED HIS PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF ENTITLEMENT TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; Supreme Court, New York County granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in this legal malpractice action; App. Div. reversed, denied the motion and reinstated the complaint.

For January 21, 2011 through January 27, 2011, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

ADLER v BAYER (77 AD3d 692):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/12/10; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 1/18/11; INSURANCE - NO-FAULT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE - SERIOUS INJURY - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DID NOT EXIST TO ALLOW A REASONABLE TRIER OF FACT TO FIND THAT PLAINTIFF SUSTAINED A SERIOUS INJURY UNDER THE "PERMANENT CONSEQUENTIAL LIMITATION CATEGORY" OF INSURANCE LAW § 5102(d) BECAUSE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO "SHOW THE DURATION OF THE ALLEGED INJURY AND THE EXTENT OR DEGREE OF THE LIMITATIONS ASSOCIATED THEREWITH"; Supreme Court, Rockland County judgment in a personal injury action that, upon a jury verdict and upon, in effect, the denial of defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of plaintiffs' case, is in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants in the principal sum of $30,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering; App. Div. reversed, granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law and dismissed the complaint.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF GREAT NECK PARK DISTRICT OF TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, MATTER OF v KINGS POINT HEIGHTS, LLC (74 AD3d 804):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/1/10; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; EMINENT DOMAIN - CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES - SEVERANCE DAMAGES TO REMAINDER PARCEL AFTER PARTIAL TAKING - OFFSET OF ONE CATEGORY OF INDIRECT DAMAGES AGAINST ANOTHER CATEGORY OF INDIRECT DAMAGES; UNDERWATER PROPERTY - VALUE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS; Supreme Court, Nassau County, among other things, awarded claimant $2,950,000 in compensation for the partial taking of underwater lands, but did not award claimant severance or consequential damages; App. Div. affirmed.

DAHAR v HOLLAND LADDER & MANUFACTURING CO. (— AD3d —, —, 2010 NY Slip Op 09646): ( 2010 NY Slip Op 09647):
4th Dept. App. Div. orders of 12/30/10 (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2); affirmance; sua sponte examination whether any claims by or against the Martin defendants and/or the Bechtel defendants/third-party plaintiff's remain pending in this action; LABOR - SAFE PLACE TO WORK - PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR INJURIES ALLEGEDLY SUSTAINED WHEN A PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER AT HIS EMPLOYER'S SHOP WHILE HE WAS READYING A FABRICATED COMPONENT PART FOR SHIPMENT - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PERFORMING AN ACTIVITY PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW § 240(1) BECAUSE HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE NORMAL MANUFACTURING PROCESS AT A FACTORY AND WAS NOT PERFORMING WORK ON THE BUILDING ITSELF - WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S WORK ON A FABRICATED COMPONENT PART CONSTITUTED THE PROTECTED ACTIVITY OF "CLEANING" A "STRUCTURE" - PLAINTIFF'S ENTITLEMENT TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW § 240(1) AGAINST OWNER OF PROPERTY AND OWNER OF FABRICATED COMPONENT PART; Supreme Court, Erie County, among other things, (1) granted defendants Warner and Shirley Martin's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, (2) granted the motion by defendants/third-party plaintiffs Bechtel Corporation and Bechtel National, Inc. only to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's causes of action against them under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and (3) denied plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1) as against the Martin defendants and the Bechtel defendants/third-party plaintiffs and for permission to amend his bill of particulars with regard to his Labor Law § 241(6) claim (Appeal No. 1); thereafter, the same court granted the Bechtel defendants' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, vacated so much of the order in Appeal No. 1 as denied the Bechtel defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissed plaintiff's causes of action as against those defendants under Labor Law § 200 and/or common law negligence, and dismissed all cross claims and counterclaims against those defendants (Appeal No. 2); in separate orders, the App. Div. affirmed both Supreme Court orders.

DONALD v STATE OF NEW YORK (73 AD3d 1465):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 5/7/10; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 1/11/11; STATE - CLAIM AGAINST STATE - UNLAWFUL INCARCERATION - CLAIM ALLEGING THAT THE STATE UNLAWFULLY IMPRISONED CLAIMANT FOR 676 DAYS FOR VIOLATING THE TERMS OF HIS THREE-YEAR PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (DOCS) IMPERMISSIBLY ADDED PRS TO HIS SENTENCE - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM UPON THE GROUND THAT DOCS' IMPOSITION OF PRS WAS PRIVILEGED BECAUSE IT "IMPOSED THE [THREE-YEAR] DEFAULT PERIOD OF [PRS] CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING AND THUS ACTED 'BEYOND [ITS] LIMITED JURISDICTION' RATHER THAN IN THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION"; Court of Claims granted claimant's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and denied defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim; App. Div. reversed, denied claimant's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the claim, and dismissed the claim.

HAZEN, MATTER OF v BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CITY OF NEW YORK (75 AD3d 471):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 7/20/10; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 1/18/11; Rule 500.11 review pending; SCHOOLS - TEACHERS - LETTER IN PERSONNEL FILE - HEARING PURSUANT TO EDUCATION LAW § 3020-a - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER HOLDING THAT, UNDER ARTICLE TWENTY ONE OF CURRENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, TEACHER HAD NO RIGHT TO HEARING WHERE LETTERS IN PERSONNEL FILE "WERE NOT DISCIPLINARY OR PENALTY MEASURES RELATED TO THE FILING OR DISPOSITION OF FORMAL CHARGES"; Supreme Court, New York County denied a CPLR article 78 petition seeking an order directing respondents to expunge certain letters from petitioner's personnel file; App. Div. affirmed.