Return to New Filings Page


For October 15, 2021 through October 21, 2021, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

HOWELL v CITY OF NY (191 AD3d 771):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/10/21; reversal; Municipal Corporations--Tort Liability--Special Relationship--Whether the Appellate Division properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing the lack of a special relationship between them and plaintiff and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue in opposition; whether the Appellate Division properly held that plaintiff's alternative contention that defendants violated a statutory duty owed to plaintiff was without merit; Supreme Court, Kings County, in effect, denied that branch of the motion of defendants City of New York, P.O. Mosely-Lawrence, and P.O. Meran, which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them and denied, as premature, that branch of those defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them; App. Div. reversed, granted that branch of the motion of defendants City of New York, P.O. Mosely-Lawrence, and P.O. Meran, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied as academic that branch of those defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

STATE OF NEW YORK v VAYU (195 AD3d 1337):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/24/21; affirmance with two Justices dissenting; Courts--Jurisdiction--Long-Arm-Jurisdiction--Whether the courts below erred in holding plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over defendant under CPLR 302(a)(1); Supreme Court, Albany County, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint; App Div. affirmed.

For October 22, 2021 through October 28, 2021, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MATTER OF BORELLI v CITY OF YONKERS (187 AD3d 897):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/14/20; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 4/29/21; Civil Service--Firefighters--Whether petitioners, retired disabled firefighters and fire officers, are entitled to compensation for night differential, check-in pay, and holiday pay under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2); Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied that branch of the CPLR article 78 petition to annul so much of the respondent's determination as excluded from the supplemental benefits paid to the petitioners pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) certain compensation paid to active firefighters for night differential, check-in pay, and holiday pay; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF CITY OF YONKERS v YONKERS FIRE FIGHTERS (187 AD3d 900):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/14/20; reversal; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals 10/7/21; Arbitration--Matters Arbitrable--Whether dispute between City of Yonkers and Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, IAFF, AFL-CIO was arbitrable under the parties' collective bargaining agreement; Supreme Court, Westchester County, upon reargument, (1) in effect, vacated a 6/29/16 order of the same court denying the petition of the City of Yonkers to permanently stay arbitration and (2) granted the petition; App. Div. reversed the 10/17/16 order insofar as appealed from, and adhered to the 6/29/16 determination of Supreme Court denying the petition and, in effect, dismissing the proceeding.

MALDOVAN v COUNTY OF ERIE (188 AD3d 1597):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 11/13/20; affirmance; 4th Dept. App. Div. order of 11/13/20; reversal; 4th Dept. App. order of 5/2/14; modification; 4th Dept. App. Div. order of 5/2/14; modification; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 10/12/21; Municipal Corporations--Tort Liability--Whether defendant County was properly granted summary judgment on the ground that no special duty existed; whether defendants County and Sheriff were properly granted summary judgment on grounds of governmental function immunity; whether defendants County and Sheriff could be held vicariously liable for the acts of deputy sheriffs; Supreme Court, Erie County, denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; App. Div. affirmed; Supreme Court, Erie County, denied motion of defendants for summary judgment; App. Div. reversed order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, granted defendant's motion, and dismissed the complaints; Supreme Court, Erie County, denied the motion of plaintiff to strike defendant County's answer, granted the motion of defendant County to dismiss the complaint, and dismissed the complaint; App. Div. modified 7/10/21 order by denying defendant County's motion in part and reinstating the first, second, fifth and sixth causes of action and, as so modified affirmed; Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the motion of defendant Sheriff to dismiss the complaint and dismissed the complaint; App. Div. modified 7/10/12 order by denying defendant Sheriff's motion in part and reinstating the third cause of action and the fourth cause of action to the extent that it is based on the third cause of action and, as so modified, affirmed.

SAGE SYSTEMS v LISS (193 AD3d 624):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 4/27/21; affirmance; leave granted by the Court of Appeals, 10/14/21; Partnership--Partnership Agreement--Whether the indemnification clause in the parties' partnership agreement allows for the recovery of attorneys' fees in direct actions between the partners; whether the finding of the court in the dissolution action that decedent had unclear hands in bringing that action is the equivalent of a determination that decedent acted in bad faith; Supreme Court, New York County, judgment in favor of plaintiff; Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and substitution, denied the estate's cross motion for summary judgment, and directed entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff in a sum certain; App. Div. affirmed judgment and dismissed appeal from 5/20/20 order as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

SINGH v CITY OF NY (189 AD3d 1697):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 12/30/20; affirmance and reversal; leave granted by the Court of Appeals on 10/12/21; Municipal Corporations--Notice of Claim--Where plaintiffs asserted a General Business Law § 349 claim against the City of New York, whether plaintiffs were required to serve a notice of claim in accordance with General Municipal Law § 50-e; Covenants--Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealing--Whether plaintiffs stated a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; Supreme Court, Queens County, inter alia, (1) granted that branch of defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the first cause of action on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e and failed to state a cause of action, and (2) denied those branches of defendant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the third cause of action and so much of the fifth cause of action as sought rescission of the subject contracts based upon breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; App. Div. (1) affirmed the 9/21/17 order insofar as appealed from and (2) reversed the 9/21/17 order insofar as cross-appealed from, and granted those branches of defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the third cause of action and so much as the fifth cause of action as sought rescission of the subject contracts based upon breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

MATTER OF STATE OF NY v PERB (183 AD3d 1061):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 5/14/20; confirmed determinations; leave granted by Court of Appeals on 10/14/21; Civil Service--Public Employment Relations Board-- Whether PERB's determination that the imposition of an application fee for promotional examinations was a mandatory subject of negotiation was rational and supported by substantial evidence; whether the Appellate Division applied the appropriate standard of review in resolving a purported question of statutory interpretation; whether PERB lacked authority or jurisdiction over the Department of Civil Service; App. Div. confirmed determinations, dismissed petition, and provided that respondent PERB was entitled to a judgment of enforcement of its remedial order.