Return to New Filings Page


For December 16, 2011 through December 22, 2011, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

GORELIK v GORELIK (71 AD3d 729): ( 71 AD3d 730):
2nd Dept. App. Div. orders of 3/9/10, 6/14/11 and 10/3/11; sua sponte examination whether (1) a bankruptcy stay is in effect and, if so, whether it applies to the appeal; (2) the orders appealed from finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; and (3) whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; HUSBAND AND WIFE - SUPPORT OF CHILDREN - PRECLUSIVE EFFECT OF BANKRUPTCY ACTION - ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS; Supreme Court, Kings County, among other things, (1) denied the part of plaintiff's motion that sought to vacate a prior order denying his motion for a determination that certain Bankruptcy Court findings were binding as to his motion for downward modification of child support and, sua sponte, enjoined him from bringing further motions regarding the preclusive effect of the bankruptcy action (3/3/08 order); (2) denied so much of plaintiff's motion as sought leave to renew his motion to vacate (4/7/08 order); (3) reduced plaintiff's basic child support obligation only to a certain extent and awarded defendant child support arrears (7/14/08 order); App. Div. dismissed plaintiff's appeal from a portion of the March 3, 2008 order and the April 7, 2008 order (3/9/10 order No. 1) and, upon granting plaintiff leave to appeal from so much of the March 3, 2008 order as enjoined him from bringing further motions regarding the preclusive effect of the bankruptcy action, affirmed the March 3, 2008 order to that extent (3/9/10 App. Div. order No. 2); thereafter, Supreme Court, among other things, (1) denied so much of plaintiff's prior motion that was to reject the imputation of income to him in a certain amount and, upon reargument, granted so much of defendant's prior cross motion as sought to compel plaintiff to make certain payments to defendant (3/10/09 order); (2) denied plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue his opposition to defendant's prior cross motion and so much of his prior motion that was to reject the imputation of income to him in a certain amount (9/17/09 order); and (3) entered a money judgment against plaintiff (2/22/10 judgment); App. Div. affirmed a portion of the March 10, 2009 order and otherwise (1) dismissed plaintiff's appeals from the March 10, 2009 and September 17, 2009 orders (6/14/11 App. Div. order No. 1); and (2) affirmed the February 22, 2010 judgment insofar as it brought up for review that portion of the March 10, 2009 order that ordered plaintiff to make certain payments, and otherwise dismissed the appeal from the February 22, 2010 judgment (6/14/11 App. Div. order No. 2); thereafter the App. Div. denied plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue and motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (two 10/3/11 App. Div. orders).

MACNAUGHTON v WARREN COUNTY (89 AD3d 1269):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 11/10/11; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; TAXATION - TAX LIENS, TAX SALES AND TAX TITLES - NOTICE TO OWNER OF DELINQUENT PROPERTY - DUE PROCESS - WHETHER COUNTY SATISFIED DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN ITS EFFORT TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS THAT AN IN REM TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY AFTER DOCUMENTS SENT TO HOMEOWNERS' ADDRESS LISTED ON TAX ROLL WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL SERVICE AS UNDELIVERABLE; Supreme Court, Warren County, among other things, granted a cross motion by defendant Warren County for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it; App. Div. affirmed.

For December 23, 2011 through December 29, 2011, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

AIR STREAM CORP. v 3300 LAWSON CORP. (84 AD3d 987):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 5/17/11; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 12/20/11; Rule 500.11 review pending; ADVERSE POSSESSION - ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING TITLE TO A LOADING DOCK BISECTING THE PARTIES' COMMON BOUNDARY LINE - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETAILED NEW FINDINGS OF FACT WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY (CPLR 5712) - WHETHER PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHED THE "EXCLUSIVITY" AND "HOSTILITY" ELEMENTS OF AN ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIM; Supreme Court, Nassau County declared that plaintiff had acquired title to a 7- foot strip of land located on defendant's property by adverse possession, that defendant does not have an easement by grant over a 7-foot strip of land on plaintiff's property, and that defendant is permanently enjoined from interfering with plaintiff's use of the 7-foot strip of land on defendant's property; and, in effect, denied defendant's counterclaims; App. Div. reversed and declared that plaintiff did not acquire the 7-foot strip of land located on defendant's property by adverse possession, that defendant has an easement by grant over a 7-foot strip of land on plaintiff's property, and that defendant is not enjoined from interfering with plaintiff's use of the 7-foot strip of land on defendant's property, and directed plaintiff to remove that portion of its cement platform that encroaches on defendant's property.

BRADLEY (DALE), PEOPLE v (83 AD3d 1444):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 4/1/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Smith, J., 12/15/11; CRIMES - EVIDENCE - PRIOR BAD ACTS - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE TESTIMONY REGARDING A PRIOR UNRELATED STABBING OF AN UNKNOWN PERSON BY DEFENDANT ON TRIAL FOR FATALLY STABBING HER BOYFRIEND; JURY INSTRUCTION - WHETHER JURY COULD CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; Monroe County Court convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree; App. Div. affirmed.

DUPREE v GIUGLIANO (87 AD3d 975):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/13/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 12/13/11; PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT; EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT JURY VERDICT ON ISSUE OF LIABILITY; CONTRIBUTORY FAULT; CIVIL RIGHTS LAW § 80-a; DAMAGES; MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT; Supreme Court, Suffolk County, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability finding defendant 75% at fault and plaintiff 25% at fault in the causation of plaintiff's injuries, and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages finding that plaintiff sustained damages in the sums of $150,000 for past mental distress, $50,000 for future mental distress, and $134,000 for loss of past financial support, and awarding plaintiff the sum of $166,000 in punitive damages, and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict, awarded plaintiff judgment in the principal sum of $416,000; App. Div. affirmed.

JAMES SQUARE ASSOCIATES, LP v MULLEN (89 AD3d 1533):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 11/18/11; affirmance; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - TAKING OF PROPERTY - ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN EMPIRE ZONE PROGRAM - WHETHER THE APRIL 2009 AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW § 959, PROVIDING FOR THE REVOCATION OF ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EMPIRE ZONE PROGRAM FOR COMPANIES THAT FAILED TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA AS OF 1/1/08, VIOLATED DUE PROCESS; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; Supreme Court, Onondaga County granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, declared that Section 3 of the 2009 Amendments to the Empire Zone Program, set forth in General Municipal Law § 959(a)(v)(5) and (6), is prospective only and not retroactive to 1/1/08, and declared that the 6/29/09 decertification of plaintiffs, to the extent that it was applied by defendants retroactively to 1/1/08, was without legal authority and thereby declared null and void; Supreme Court then, upon renewal, adhered to its judgment entered 6/22/10, and further declared that the 8/11/10 "clarification" of the 2009 amendments to the Empire Zones Program is, as applied to plaintiffs, an unconstitutional taking of plaintiffs' property; App. Div. affirmed.

KNAPP v HUGHES (32 Misc 3d 1216[A]; 25 AD3d 886):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/12/06; modification; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 12/13/11; WATERS AND WATER COURSES - OWNERSHIP RIGHTS - WHETHER THE COMMON DEED UNDERLYING THE FUTURE CONVEYANCES OF REAL PROPERTY TO DEFENDANTS CONTAINED AN UNAMBIGUOUS PROVISION RESERVING TO PLAINTIFFS' PREDECESSOR THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THE POND ADJACENT TO DEFENDANTS' PROPERTIES; Supreme Court, Broome County, among other things, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; App. Div. modified by (1) reversing so much of the 6/16/04 Supreme Court order as granted the motions of defendants Hughes, et al., (2) reversing so much of the order as granted the motions of defendants Guokas with respect to their claimed ownership of littoral rights with respect to lot Nos. 13 and 14, and (3) reversing so much of the order as denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Hughes, et al. with respect to lot Nos. 13 and 14, denied defendants' motions, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings; Supreme Court, among other things, declared that the Hauptmanns have established title to that portion of the improved shoreline lying underneath the waters of Perch Pond which is adjacent to their original parcel, and established the boundaries of the parties' parcels.

KOCH v ACKER, MERRALL & CONDIT COMPANY (73 AD3d 661):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 5/27/10; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 12/15/11; Rule 500.11 review pending; CONSUMER PROTECTION - DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES - ACTION BY COLLECTOR OF FINE AND RARE WINES AGAINST AUCTION COMPANY THAT SOLD WINE TO HIM - WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S CONSUMER PROTECTION CLAIMS UNDER GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (GBL) §§ 349 AND 350 ARE BARRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE DISCLAIMER SET FORTH IN THE AUCTION CATALOG'S "CONDITIONS OF SALE/PURCHASER'S AGREEMENT"; Supreme Court, New York County denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action under GBL §§ 349 and 350; App. Div. reversed, granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action under GBL §§ 349 and 350, and dismissed such causes of action.

O., MATTER OF v M. (88 AD3d 797):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/11/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 12/13/11; Rule 500.11 review pending; PARENT AND CHILD - SUPPORT - PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 5 TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY AND FOR AN AWARD OF CHILD SUPPORT - ORDER FOR GENETIC MARKER-DNA TEST WHERE NO HEARING WAS HELD REGARDING ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL - WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER PETITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT WHERE ANOTHER SUPPORT ORDER EXISTED IN NEW JERSEY FOR SAME CHILD; Family Court, Dutchess County, in a 3/4/11 order, upon an order of filiation dated 11/15/10 adjudging him to be the father of the subject child, and after a hearing, directed respondent to pay biweekly child support in the sum of $430; Family Court, in a 4/21/11 order, among other things, denied certain of respondent's objections to the 3/4/11 order; App. Div. dismissed appeal from 3/4/11 Family Court order, and affirmed, insofar as appealed from, the 4/21/11 Family Court order.

NATHAN O., MATTER OF v JENNIFER P. (88 AD3d 1125):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/20/11; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; PARENT AND CHILD - PATERNITY - PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLES 5 AND 6 TO ESTABLISH PATERNITY; CLAIMED DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS; Family Court, Saratoga County, in a 5/5/10 order, denied respondent Jennifer P.'s motion to dismiss the petitions in two proceedings; Family Court, in a 6/18/10 order, among other things, granted petitioner's application, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act articles 5 and 6, to adjudicate petitioner as the father of the child born to respondent Jennifer P.; App. Div. dismissed the appeal from the 5/5/10 Family Court order, and affirmed the 6/18/10 Family Court order.

VASQUEZ (DANIEL), PEOPLE v (87 AD3d 1042):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/13/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Graffeo, J., 12/13/11; CRIMES - IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT - SHOWUP AND POINT OUT - CPL 710.30 PRETRIAL NOTICE DID NOT LIST THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION - AT TRIAL, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT RAISE THE LACK OF PRETRIAL NOTICE AS A BASIS FOR EXCLUDING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION - CLAIMED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; Supreme Court, Queens County convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and menacing in the second degree, and imposed sentence; App. Div. affirmed.

WARREN (DAMIEN), PEOPLE v (87 AD3d 36):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 6/17/11; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Smith, J., 12/16/11; CRIMES - RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL - SIMULTANEOUS BENCH TRIAL OF CO-DEFENDANT AND JURY TRIAL OF DEFENDANT - WHETHER DEFENDANT WHO DOES NOT WAIVE A JURY TRIAL IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE JURY EXCLUDED WHEN THE CO-DEFENDANT WHO DID WAIVE A JURY PUTS ON HIS DEFENSE; PRESERVATION; Erie County Court convicted defendant of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree; App. Div. reversed, and granted a new trial.