Return to New Filings Page


For February 28, 2014 through March 6, 2014, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

FORD (DENNIS), PEOPLE v (112 AD3d 600):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 12/4/13; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 2/25/14; CRIMES - SEX OFFENDERS - SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) - WHETHER HEARING COURT'S DETERMINATION DESIGNATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE OFFENDER IS SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE - WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY ASSESSED POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 12 WHERE HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM WHILE INCARCERATED BECAUSE HIS LENGTHY DISCIPLINARY RECORD PREVENTED HIS PARTICIPATION; Supreme Court, Kings County, after a hearing, designated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C; App. Div. affirmed.

LEE, MATTER OF v FISCHER (113 AD3d 1016):
3rd Dept. App. Div. judgment of 1/30/14; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; PRISONS AND PRISONERS - DISCIPLINE OF INMATES - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION JUDGMENT CONFIRMING DETERMINATION FINDING INMATE GUILTY OF VIOLATING CERTAIN DISCIPLINARY RULES; App. Div. confirmed a determination of respondent which found petitioner in this CPLR article 78 proceeding guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.

NIEVES (PHILLIP), PEOPLE v:
Supreme Court order of 12/31/13; sua sponte examination whether a direct appeal lies pursuant to CPLR 5601(b)(2) and whether any civil appeal lies from the order appealed from in this criminal proceeding; CRIMES - SENTENCE - MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE (CPL 440.20); Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied defendant's motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20.

For March 7, 2014 through March 13, 2014, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

BASILE (CURTIS), PEOPLE v (40 Misc 3d 44):
App. Term, 2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts, order of 4/22/13; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Lippman, Ch. J., 2/25/14; CRIMES - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS - MENS REA - WHETHER THE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A CULPABLE MENTAL STATE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE AN ANIMAL WITH NECESSARY SUSTENANCE IN VIOLATION OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW § 353 - DEFENDANT FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR HIS DOG; Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of failing to provide proper sustenance to an animal under Agriculture and Markets Law § 353; App. Term affirmed.

GOLDSTEIN, MATTER OF v TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (111 AD3d 986):
3rd Dept. App. Div. judgment of 11/7/13; confirmation; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; TAXATION - PERSONAL INCOME TAX - CPLR ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO CHALLENGE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER TRUST BENEFICIARIES, WHO WERE OWED A REFUND FOR TAX YEAR 1994, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE REFUND FROM THE DATE THE ORIGINAL 1994 RETURN WAS FILED, BUT ONLY FROM THE DATE THE AMENDED RETURN WAS FILED; CLAIMED DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATIONS RELATED TO INTEREST CALCULATIONS AND TREATMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS AND UNDERPAYMENTS IN VARIOUS TAX YEARS; App. Div. confirmed determination of respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal which denied petitioners' request for a refund of personal income tax imposed under Tax Law article 22, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition.

PINES v STATE OF NEW YORK (115 AD3d 80):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/22/14; reversal; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; JUDGES - JUDICIAL SALARIES - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE COMPENSATION OF JUDGES AND JUSTICES OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WAS NOT INCREASED BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAWS OF 2009, CHAPTER 51, § 3; Supreme Court, Nassau County, judgment that, upon a February 9, 2011 order of the same court, denied defendant's converted motion for summary judgment, granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, declared that the compensation of judges and justices of the Unified Court System was increased pursuant to the Laws of 2009, chapter 51, § 3 and directed defendant, among other things, to pay the judges and justices of the Unified Court System of the State of New York accordingly, retroactive to April 1, 2009; App. Div. reversed the judgment, denied plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, granted defendant's converted motion for summary judgment, modified the order accordingly, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of an appropriate judgment declaring that the compensation of judges and justices of the Unified Court System of the State of New York was not increased by the enactment of the Laws of 2009, chapter 51, § 3.

PEOPLE ex rel. RODRIGUEZ v SMITH (114 AD3d 976):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/6/14; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; HABEAS CORPUS - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; Supreme Court, Ulster County, denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing; App. Div. affirmed.

SHAULOV (BORIS), PEOPLE v (107 AD3d 829):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/12/13; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Lippman, Ch. J., 2/28/14; CRIMES - RAPE - EVIDENCE CONCERNING BOTH PROMPT OUTCRY AND DELAYED OUTCRY AT TRIAL - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL ON THE GROUND OF UNFAIR SURPRISE WHERE THE PEOPLE INTENDED TO PROCEED WITH THE CASE AS ONE INVOLVING A DELAYED OUTCRY BUT THE COMPLAINANT TESTIFIED AT TRIAL THAT SHE HAD MADE A PROMPT OUTCRY; ALLEGED VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AND DEPRIVATION OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL; Supreme Court, Kings County, convicted defendant of two counts of rape in the third degree, criminal sexual act in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence; App. Div. affirmed.

SIDNEY W., MATTER OF v CHANTA J. (112 AD3d 950):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 12/26/13; reversal with a two-Justice dissent; sua sponte examination whether the order appealed from finally determines the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and whether the two-Justice dissent is on a question of law; CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY - MATERIAL MISTAKE OF FACT - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A PARTY SEEKING TO VACATE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY NEED ONLY ARTICULATE "SOME BASIS" FOR THE ALLEGATIONS OF NONPATERNITY; Family Court, Westchester County, denied a petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 516-a to vacate an acknowledgment of paternity; App. Div. reversed, reinstated the petition, and remitted to Family Court for further proceedings in accordance with its decision and order.

For March 14, 2014 through March 20, 2014, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

BURTON v NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE:
Supreme Court, Albany County judgment of 1/31/14; grant of motion; sua sponte examination whether the only question involved on the appeal is the constitutional validity of a statutory provision; TAXATION - NONRESIDENT SHAREHOLDERS - PLAINTIFFS' ELECTION UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE CODE § 338 (h) (10) TO TREAT STOCK SALE AS AN ASSET SALE - WHETHER TAX LAW § 632 (a) (2), AS AMENDED IN 2010, VIOLATES ARTICLE XVI, § 3 OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION BY TREATING THE GAIN FROM THE SALE OF STOCK SUBJECT TO SUCH AN ELECTION AS NEW YORK SOURCE INCOME TAXABLE IN NEW YORK, RATHER THAN AS NON-TAXABLE INCOME FROM THE SALE OF INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY; Supreme Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and declared that Tax Law § 632 (a) (2), as amended in 2010, is constitutional.

C., MATTER OF: (2014 NY Slip Op 70291[U]):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/23/14; denial of motion to dismiss; sua sponte examination whether the order appealed from finally determines the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, WHERE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ISSUED AN ORDER DISBARRING RESPONDENT IN 1999; App. Div. denied respondent's motion to dismiss proceeding for failure to prosecute.

CROWDER (ADAM), PEOPLE v (110 AD3d 1384):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/31/13; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Graffeo, J., 3/10/14; CRIMES - SENTENCE - POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) - DEFENDANT INFORMED ABOUT PRS WHEN HE WAS CONSIDERING PLEA AGREEMENT, BUT COURT DID NOT DISCUSS THE PRS TERM AT THE PLEA PROCEEDING - WHETHER DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED ON THE BASIS THAT COUNTY COURT FAILED TO APPRISE HIM OF HIS PRS TERM AT THE TIME OF HIS PLEA IS REVIEWABLE; PRESERVATION; REVIEWABILITY OF CATU ERROR (PEOPLE v LOUREE, 8 NY3d 541 [2007]); CLAIMED DUE PROCESS VIOLATION IN SENTENCE ENHANCEMENT; County Court, Schenectady County, convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted burglary in the second degree; App. Div. affirmed.

E., MATTER OF (113 AD3d 1019):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/30/14; suspension of attorney; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - SUSPENSION - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT ATTORNEY "ENGAGED IN CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WITHDREW FROM REPRESENTATION OF A CLIENT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COURT AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE CLIENT, AND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE REGARDING THE DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR MISSING CLIENTS"; App. Div., among other things, found attorney guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one year.

GRAHAM COURT OWNER'S CORP. v TAYLOR (115 AD3d 50):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 1/21/14; modification with a two-Justice dissent; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 3/11/14; LANDLORD AND TENANT - LEASE - ATTORNEYS' FEE PROVISION - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION CORRECTLY HELD THAT A PROVISION IN A LEASE GIVING LANDLORD THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE LEASE IF TENANT DID NOT TIMELY CURE A DEFAULT, REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES THROUGH A SUMMARY HOLDOVER PROCEEDING, RE-RENT THE APARTMENT AND USE ANY RENT THEREFROM TO PAY LANDLORD'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL FEES, TRIGGERS THE TENANT'S RECIPROCAL RIGHT TO LEGAL FEES UNDER THE IMPLIED COVENANT PROVIDED BY REAL PROPERTY LAW § 234; Civil Court, New York County, dismissed respondent-tenant's claim for attorneys' fees pursuant to Real Property Law § 234, granted respondent-tenant's claim for attorneys' fees under Real Property Law § 223-b, and restored the proceeding to the calendar for a hearing on the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded; App. Term modified the Civil Court order to dismiss the claim for attorneys' fees under Real Property Law § 223-b; App. Div. modified the App. Term order to grant respondent-tenant's claim for attorneys' fees pursuant to Real Property Law § 234, remanded the matter to Civil Court for a hearing to determine the amount of the fees, and otherwise affirmed.

INGUTTI v ROCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL (114 AD3d 1302):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 2/14/14; reversal with a two-Justice dissent; sua sponte examination whether the order finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution; NEGLIGENCE - DUTY - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT HOSPITAL DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT ADMITTED PATIENT FROM LEAVING THE HOSPITAL AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE OR TO ENSURE PATIENT'S SAFE RETURN HOME; Supreme Court, Monroe County, denied defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, which was for common law negligence; App. Div. reversed, granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action, and dismissed the first cause of action.

JONES (CLEMON), PEOPLE v (109 AD3d 1108):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 9/27/13; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Read, J., 3/5/14; CRIMES - SENTENCE - PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER - WHETHER THE PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUTE (PENAL LAW § 70.10) SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT NON- NEW YORK PREDICATE FELONIES HAVE A NEW YORK EQUIVALENT, AS DOES THE SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUTE (PENAL LAW § 70.06); County Court, Monroe County, denied defendant's motion to set aside his sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20; App. Div. affirmed.

WILLIAMS (PAUL), PEOPLE v (107 AD3d 1391):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 6/7/13; modification; leave to appeal granted by Abdus-Salaam, J., 3/5/14; CRIMES - INSTRUCTIONS - SEX CRIMES - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE JURY COULD NOT HAVE CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE FIRST DEGREE BASED ON A THEORY NOT CHARGED IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE UNCHARGED THEORY WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL; ARGUMENT AND CONDUCT OF COUNSEL - PROSECUTOR'S IMPROPER COMMENTS REGARDING DEFENDANT'S SILENCE - HARMLESS ERROR; SENTENCE - CONCURRENT AND CONSECUTIVE TERMS - WHETHER SENTENCES IMPOSED ON CONVICTIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND RAPE IN THE THIRD DEGREE MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY BECAUSE THEY AROSE FROM ONE CONTINUOUS ACT; County Court, Onondaga County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the third degree and criminal impersonation in the first degree; App. Div. modified the judgment by vacating that part convicting defendant of criminal impersonation in the first degree and dismissing count five of the superseding indictment, and by vacating the sentence imposed for rape in the third degree; remitted the matter to Onondaga County Court for resentencing on that count; and affirmed the judgment as so modified.