Return to New Filings Page
For February 28, 2020 through March 6, 2020, the following preliminary appeal
statements were filed:
ABASCAL-MONTALVO v CITY OF NEW YORK (179 AD3d 620):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 1/30/20; affirmance; sua sponte examination of
whether any basis exists for an appeal as of right; Dismissal and Nonsuit–Dismissal of
Complaint--Whether complaint fails to state a cause of action; Supreme Court, New
York County, granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint; App. Div.
affirmed.
DANIELS (TODD), PEOPLE v (175 AD3d 1551):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/25/19; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by
Wilson, J., 2/20/20; Rule 500.11 review pending; Crimes--Appeal--Waiver of Right to
Appeal--Whether defendant validly waived the right to appeal; Supreme Court, Kings
County, imposed sentence on 11/8/17; App. Div. affirmed.
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC v NAIDU (175 AD3d 1387):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/18/19; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of
Appeals, 2/18/20; Mortgages--Acceleration Clause--Whether plaintiff's execution of a
stipulation to discontinue prior foreclosure action constituted an affirmative act to
revoke plaintiff's election to accelerate the mortgage, thereby rendering subsequent
foreclosure action timely; Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion of
defendant Naidu to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him as time-barred
and granted those branches of plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the
complaint insofar as asserted against defendant Naidu and for an order of reference; App.
Div. reversed the orders, granted the motion of defendant Naidu to dismiss the complaint
insofar as asserted against him as time-barred, and denied as academic those branches of
plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint as asserted against
defendant Naidu and for an order of reference.
DUVAL (DRURY), PEOPLE v (179 AD3d 62):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 11/26/19; affirmance with dissents; leave to appeal
granted by Gesmer, J., 1/15/20; Crimes--Search Warrant--Whether the search
warrant on its face gave adequate constitutional notice of which particular unit in
the house would be searched; whether the motion court was authorized to rely on
materials not incorporated into the warrant to uphold its validity; Supreme Court,
Bronx County, among other things, denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence
seized pursuant to search warrant (4/16/13 order); denied motion to reargue motion to
suppress evidence seized pursuant to search warrant (10/7/13 order); and thereafter,
convicted defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (12/4/15
judgment [amended 1/5/16]); App. Div. affirmed.
FROEHLICH, MATTER OF v NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (179 AD3d 1408):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/30/20; affirmance with dissents; Rule 500.11
review pending; Civil Service--Judicial Review--Whether respondent rationally
determined that petitioner was not assulted within the meaning of Civil Service Law
§ 71 and therefore was not entitled to a two-year leave of absence from his
employment as a correctional sergeant; Supreme Court, Albany County, dismissed
petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a
determination of respondent denying petitioner a two-year leave of absence pursuant to
Civil Service Law § 71; App. Div. affirmed.
JEAN-PAUL v 67-30 DARTMOUTH ST. OWNERS CORP. (174 AD3d 870):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 7/31/19; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court
of Appeals, 2/18/20; Parties--Capacity to Sue--Whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
proceeding dismissal restores a debtor-plaintiff's capacity or standing to pursue a
personal injury action that the debtor-plaintiff failed to list as an asset during the
bankruptcy proceeding; Supreme Court, Queens County, among other things, granted
that branch of defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint; App. Div. affirmed.
REDDY v ABITBOL (2020 NY Slip Op 61232[U]):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 1/14/20; denied motion to transfer; sua sponte
examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the
meaning of the Constitution and whether any jurisdictional basis exists for an appeal as of
right; Appeal--Denial of motion to transfer appeal; Supreme Court, Onondaga County,
inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an order of that court dated 12/7/18; App.
Div. denied plaintiff's motion to transfer the appeal.
REDDY v WSYR NEWSCHANNEL 9 (2020 NY Slip Op 61201[U]):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 1/13/20; denied motion to transfer; sua sponte
examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the
meaning of the Constitution and whether any jurisdictional basis exists for an appeal as of
right; Appeal--Denial of motion to transfer appeal; Supreme Court, Onondaga County,
inter alia, denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an order of that court dated 11/27/17; App.
Div. denied plaintiff's motion to transfer the appeal.
TORRES (CARLOS), PEOPLE v (65 Misc 3d 19):
App. Term, 1st Dept. order of 9/23/19; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by
Feinman, J., 2/10/20; Constitutional Law--Validity of Statute--Whether
Administrative Code of the City of New York § 19-190 is unconstitutional because it
criminalizes an act committed without "due care," a civil negligence standard rather
than a criminal negligence standard; whether Administrative Code § 19-190 is
preempted by state law; Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County,
convicted defendant of failure to exercise due care to avoid collision with a pedestrian
and failure to yield to a pedestrian; App. Div. affirmed.
VARGAS v DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (168 AD3d 630):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 1/31/19; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court
of Appeals, 2/18/20; Mortgages--Acceleration Clause--Whether letter from
defendant's predecessor-in-interest, which informed plaintiff that the mortgage debt
would be accelerated if he failed to cure his default, accelerated the loan balance and
commenced the statute of limitations for foreclosure action; whether discontinuance
of prior foreclosure action constituted an affirmative act by defendant to revoke
acceleration; Supreme Court, New York County, upon renewal, denied defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary
judgment declaring plaintiff's property free and clear of all liens and encumbrances by
defendant; App. Div. affirmed.