Return to New Filings Page


For December 3, 2021 through December 9, 2021 , the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

PEOPLE v LAGANO (ANTHONY) (72 Misc 3d 138[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 50767[U]):
App. Term, 2nd Dept., 2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts order of 7/30/21; reversal and dismissal; leave to appeal granted by Fahey, J., 11/29/21; Crimes-- Harassment--Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of second degree harassment; whether defendant's speech constituted a genuine threat of physical harm or an outburst; Criminal Court, Richmond County, convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of harassment in the second degree; App. Term reversed and dismissed the accusatory instrument.

MATTER OF ROCHESTER POLICE LOCUST CLUB v CITY OF ROCHESTER (196 AD3d 74):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 6/11/21; modification and affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 11/23/21; Local Laws--Inconsistency with State Law- -Whether Local Law No. 2 (2019), which amended the Rochester City Charter to establish Police Accountability Board to investigate and make determinations respecting complaints of misconduct against Rochester police officers, conflicts with the Taylor Law; Supreme Court, Monroe County, declared invalid, void and unenforceable the "portions of Local Law No. 2 which authorize and empower the Police Accountability Board to conduct disciplinary hearings and discipline officers of the City of Rochester Police Department"; App. Div. modified by vacating the fourth decretal paragraph of the judgment and, as so modified, affirmed.

For December 10, 2021 through December 16, 2021 , the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

34-06 73 LLC v SENECA INSURANCE (190 AD3d 628):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 1/28/21; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 11/23/21; Limitation of Actions--Claim in Amended Pleading-- Whether the courts below erred by permitting plaintiffs to conform the pleadings to the proof to assert a claim for reformation, based on mutual mistake, that would have been untimely but for the application of the relation back doctrine at CPLR 203(f); Supreme Court, New York County denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of reformation and direct judgment in defendant's favor; and thereafter entered a judgment for plaintiffs favor in the amount of $4, 541, 957.73; App. Div. affirmed.