Return to New Filings Page


For October 30, 2015 through November 5, 2015, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

AL RUSHAID v PICTET & CIE (127 AD3d 610):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 4/23/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 10/22/15; COURTS - JURISDICTION - LONG-ARM JURISDICTION - FOREIGN BANK'S ALLEGED TRANSFER OF KICKBACKS AND BRIBES TO NEW YORK ACCOUNTS - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED CONDUCT (USING NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNTS TO EFFECT WIRE TRANSFERS ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS) WAS INSUFFICIENT TO CONFER PERSONAL JURISDICTION; Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under CPLR 3211, denied plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery, and dismissed the complaint; App. Div. affirmed.

COOK (WILLIAM), PEOPLE v (128 AD3d 928):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 5/20/15; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 10/20/15; CRIMES - SEX OFFENDERS - SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION CORRECTLY HELD THAT ONLY ONE SORA DISPOSITION MAY BE MADE FOR ALL "CURRENT OFFENSES" EVALUATED IN A GIVEN RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) AND THAT SORA PROCEEDING IN QUEENS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HAD TO BE DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON AND AS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA, WHERE RICHMOND COUNTY SUPREME COURT ALREADY DESIGNATED DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BASED UPON AN RAI THAT ENCOMPASSED DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS ON CRIMES COMMITTED IN BOTH COUNTIES; Supreme Court, Queens County, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the proceeding (4/22/13 order), and, after a hearing, designated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C (5/8/13 order); App. Div. reversed, granted defendant's motion to dismiss this proceeding, vacated the 5/8/13 Supreme Court order, and dismissed as academic the appeal from the 5/8/13 Supreme Court order.

GESSIN v THRONE-HOLST (— AD3d —, 2015 NY Slip Op 06885):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/23/15; reversal; sua sponte examination whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - TAXPAYER'S ACTION - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TOWN LAW § 64(1) DOES NOT REQUIRE THE TRUSTEE DEFENDANTS TO TURN OVER CONTROL OF THEIR REVENUES TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON AND THAT THE EXPENDITURES OF SUCH REVENUES NEED NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTES THAT GOVERN TOWN FINANCES AND EXPENDITURES - ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 8, SECTIONS 1 AND 2, OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION; Supreme Court, Suffolk County, among other things, denied the motion by defendants Havemeyer, Pell, Semlear, Shultz and Warner, Jr., individually and in their official capacities as members of the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Southampton, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), and, in effect, for a declaration in their favor in connection with the second cause of action regarding the legal status of Trustee accounts, the alleged gifts of public funds, Trustee-initiated litigation, and municipal purchasing and bidding by the Trustees (1/22/14 order); and thereafter, granted so much of plaintiffs' motion as sought to preliminary enjoin defendants Havemeyer, Pell, Semlear, Shultz and Warner, Jr., individually and in their official capacities as members of the Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonality of the Town of Southampton, from disbursing funds except under stated conditions (1/31/14 order); App. Div. reversed (1) the 1/22/14 order and granted the Trustee defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and in effect, for a declaration in their favor in connection with the second cause of action; (2) reversed the 1/31/14 order and denied that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for a preliminary injunction; and (3) remitted the matter to Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment, among other things, declaring that Town Law § 64(1) does not require the Trustees to turn over control of their revenues to defendant Town Board of the Town of Southampton.

MATTER OF GOLUB (APPEAL NO. 2015-00278):
Surrogate's Court, Richmond County, letters of 8/5/15 and 9/11/15; nonacceptance of papers; sua sponte examination whether the appeal is taken from an order or judgment of Surrogate's Court from which an appeal to the Court of Appeals lies; MOTIONS AND ORDERS - DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO FILE PAPERS; Surrogate's Court, in two letters, advised appellant that his papers were not accepted for filing.

MATTER OF GOLUB (APPEAL NO. 2015-00279):
2nd Dept. App. Div. letter 8/27/15; denial of application; sua sponte examination whether the appeal is taken from an order or judgment of the Appellate Division from which an appeal to the Court of Appeals lies; MOTIONS AND ORDERS - DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO FILE MOTION; App. Div. letter advised appellant that the court denied a letter application for permission to make a motion to vacate a Surrogate's Court injunction.

HAIN v JAMISON (130 AD3d 1562):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 7/10/15; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 10/27/15; ANIMALS - ROAMING ON HIGHWAY - PERSON STRUCK BY VEHICLE WHILE ALLEGEDLY HELPING BABY CALF - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT IN ALLOWING A CALF TO ESCAPE ITS FARM WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT; Supreme Court, Steuben County, denied the motion of defendant Drumm Family Farm, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it; App. Div. reversed, granted the motion of Drumm Family Farm, Inc. for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint and all cross claims against it.

EXECUTOR OF NEW YORK ESTATE OF KATES v PRESSLY (132 AD3d 723):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/14/15; dismissal; sua sponte examination whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; APPEAL - MATTERS APPEALABLE - DISMISSAL - APPELLATE DIVISION DISMISSED APPEAL TO THAT COURT ON THE GROUND THAT NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER DENYING REARGUMENT; Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied plaintiffs' motion, in effect, for leave to reargue their motion for the entry of a default judgment, which was denied by an order of the same court dated 8/23/10; App. Div. granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal and dismissed the appeal.

For November 6, 2015 through November 12, 2015, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

CITY OF NEW YORK, MATTER OF v NEW YORK STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION (130 AD3d 28):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 5/26/15; reversal; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 10/20/15; LABOR UNIONS - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEE - EMPLOYER'S DUTY TO FURNISH DATA NORMALLY MAINTAINED IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS - WHETHER THE BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (BCB) PROPERLY GRANTED PETITIONER UNION'S IMPROPER PRACTICE CHARGE TO THE EXTENT OF DIRECTING THE CITY TO PROVIDE PRE- HEARING DISCOVERY IN AN EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF CITY OF NEW YORK § 12-306(a)(1) AND (4); Supreme Court, New York County, granted a CPLR article 78 petition and annulled the BCB's determination; App. Div. reversed, reinstated the BCB's determination and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

S.L. v J.R. (126 AD3d 682):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 3/4/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 10/27/15; PARENT, CHILD AND FAMILY - CUSTODY - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE BASIS THAT THE RECORD CONTAINS ADEQUATE RELEVANT INFORMATION; CLAIMED DUE PROCESS VIOLATION; Supreme Court, Westchester County, without a hearing, granted defendant's motion for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two children; App. Div. affirmed.

SUN v YEUNG (132 AD3d 756):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/14/15; dismissal of appeal; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved or whether any other basis exists to support an appeal as of right; APPEAL - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER THAT DISMISSED PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL FROM A SUPREME COURT ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, UPON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY THE SUPREME COURT ORDER BECAUSE HE DID NOT OPPOSE DEFENDANTS' MOTION - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PLEADING REQUIREMENTS - FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; Supreme Court, Queens County, as relevant here, granted so much of defendants' motion as sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3013, 3014, 3024 and 3211(a)(7) and (8); App. Div. dismissed plaintiff's appeal upon the ground that plaintiff is not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from as he did not submit opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY v AMERICAN RE- INSURANCE COMPANY (132 AD3d 604):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 10/29/15; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether the terms of the Court's remittitur were violated; APPEALS - ALLEGED VIOLATION OF COURT OF APPEALS REMITTITUR; Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendants' motion for a ruling that the reasonableness of plaintiff United State Fidelity and Guaranty Company's (USF&G) allocation of all settlement dollars to asbestos-insurance claims is properly the subject of evidence at trial; App. Div. affirmed.

For November 13, 2015 through November 19, 2015, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

FOR THE PEOPLE THEATERS v CITY OF NEW YORK (131 AD3d 279):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 7/21/15; affirmance with a two-Justice dissent; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right and whether the two-Justice dissent at the App. Div. is on a question of law; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FREEDOM OF SPEECH - ZONING AMENDMENTS RESTRICTING ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS - CHALLENGE TO 2001 AMENDMENTS TO NEW YORK CITY ZONING RESOLUTION § 12-10 - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED AN IMPROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW IN DETERMINING WHETHER CITY MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF - ALLEGED IMPROPER RECONSIDERATION OF NEGATIVE SECONDARY EFFECTS; Supreme Court, New York County, declared the 2001 amendments to New York City's adult use zoning regulation as to adult eating and drinking establishments and adult video and book stores an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment and permanently enjoined the City from enforcing the amendments; App. Div. affirmed.

JAMES (KENYATTA), PEOPLE v (128 AD3d 723):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 5/6/15; reversal; sua sponte examination whether the App. Div. order of reversal "was on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal"; CRIMES - IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT - SHOWUP - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; County Court, Orange County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and imposed sentence; App. Div. reversed, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony, and ordered a new trial.

JORDAN (RONNELL), PEOPLE v (125 AD3d 787):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/11/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Abdus-Salaam, J., 10/23/15; Rule 500.11 review pending; CRIMES - JURORS - SELECTION OF JURY - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT DISCHARGED POTENTIAL JURORS BASED UPON HARDSHIP WITHOUT CONDUCTING A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY - ALLEGED MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; Supreme Court, Kings County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted assault in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and imposed sentence; App. Div. affirmed.

JUAN P., MATTER OF (131 AD3d 1249):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/30/15; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; INFANTS - JUVENILE DELINQUENTS - ALLEGED DUE PROCESS VIOLATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - WHETHER FAMILY COURT ERRED IN USING A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING; EVIDENCE - HEARSAY EVIDENCE - WHETHER FAMILY COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING HEARSAY EVIDENCE; Family Court, Kings County, adjudicated Juan P. a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of three years; App. Div. affirmed.

WATSON v STATE OF NEW YORK (TWO APPEALS):
Court of Claims orders of 10/22/15 and 10/14/15; dismissals of claims; sua sponte examination whether there is any basis for the appeals as of right from the Court of Claims orders entered 10/14/15 and 10/22/15; STATE - CLAIM AGAINST STATE - DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS BY COURT OF CLAIMS; Court of Claims dismissed claim numbers 125779 and 126184.

WRIGHT (GARY), PEOPLE v (129 AD3d 1217):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/11/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Fahey, J., 11/4/15; CRIMES - RIGHT TO COUNSEL - EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION - ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT (1) DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THAT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTED BETWEEN HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE ALBANY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHOSE OFFICE WAS PROSECUTING DEFENDANT, (2) EVEN ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THAT ANY SUCH CONFLICT OPERATED ON HIS DEFENSE, AND (3) COUNTY COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DISQUALIFY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THAT MAY OCCUR IN THIS CASE; EFFECT OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S CPL 440 MOTION; County Court, Albany County, among other things, denied, without a hearing, defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree; App. Div. affirmed.