Return to New Filings Page


For December 17, 2021, through December 23, 2021, no preliminary appeal statements were filed.

For December 24, 2021 through December 30, 2021, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

DAWSON v NYU (160 AD3d 555):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 4/19/18; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of appeals, 12/16/21; Limitation of Actions--Four-Month Statute of Limitation--Whether plaintiff's complaint, which alleged unlawful discrimination by university, was time-barred by four-month statue of limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings; Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred and denied plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint; App Div. affirmed.

ESTATE OF MURPHY v NYCHA (193 AD3d 503):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 4/13/21; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 11/18/21; Negligence--Maintenance of Premises--Whether defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of decedent's death; complaint alleged that defendant negligently maintained premises and provided inadequate security at building where decedent was shot and killed; Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendant New York City Housing Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it; App. Div. affirmed.

PEOPLE ex rel. MOLINARO v WARDEN (195 AD3d 885):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/16/21; reversal; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 12/14/21; Habeas Corpus--When Remedy Appropriate--Whether the criminal court erred in ordering that realtor who was statutorily entitled to release under CPL articles 510 and 530 remain confined in jail pending the outcome of a CPL article 730 competency examination; Supreme Court, Kings County, denied petition for writ of habeas corpus and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding; App. Div. reversed, granted petition, sustained the writ, and directed relator's immediate release.

For December 31, 2021 through January 6, 2022, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MATTER OF FORECLOSURE OF TAX LIENS (2021 NY Slip Op 74790[U]):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 11/10/21; modification with two Justices dissenting; sua sponte examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; Liens--Foreclosure--Whether a tax foreclosure proceeding may include a parcel where the owner is deceased at the time the action is commenced; Supreme Court, Schenectady County, in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 11, among other things, partially denied petitioner's motion for summary judgment; App. Div. modified by reversing so much of the order as dismissed the petition against respondent Congress Holding Corp. and Jason Sacks, granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment as against respondent Congress Holding Corp., and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings, and, as so modified, affirmed.

PEOPLE BY JAMES v ALLEN (LAURENCE G.) (198 AD3d 531):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 10/21/21; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved in the order appealed and whether the order appealed from finally determines the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; Fraud--Martin Act--Whether the Martin Act claims are preempted by federal law; Limitation of Actions--Whether CPLR 213(9)'s six-year statute of limitations applies to plaintiff's Martin Act claims; alleged due process and contracts clause violations; Supreme Court, New York County entered judgment against defendants and relief defendants in plaintiff's favor; App. Div., inter alia, affirmed the judgment.

PEOPLE v KAVAL (RUDOLPH) (194 AD3d 746):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 5/5/21; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Dillon, J., 12/13/21; Crimes--Sentence--Where defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender and the People conceded on defendant's first appeal that defendant was not such an offender leading the Appellate Division to remit for resentencing, whether the resentencing court was permitted to resentence defendant, once again, as a persistent violent felony offender; whether the previous adjudication was the law of the case; whether upon remittitur Supreme Court should have permitted the People to present additional evidence pertaining to the same prior conviction that they failed to prove at the initial hearing; Supreme Court, Queens County, convicted defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposed sentence upon his adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender; App. Div. modified judgment by vacating defendant's adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender and imposed sentence thereon, affirmed the judgement as so modified and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for resentencing; Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed resentence upon defendant's adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender; App. Div. reversed and remitted to Supreme Court to resentence defendant as a second violent felony offender.