Return to New Filings Page


For February 5, 2021 through February 11, 2021, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MATTER OF JONES (DARYLL BOYD), A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY (2020 NY Slip Op 75932[U]):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 12/11/20; denial of motion; sua sponte examination of whether any basis exists for an appeal as of right; Attorney and Client--Disciplinary Proceedings--Denial of reinstatement; App. Div. denied the motion for reinstatement to the bar with leave to renew upon proof to timely passage of the MPRE, as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.16(b), and completion of sufficient CLE credits in accordance with 22 NYCRR 691.11(a).

McDOWELL, MATTER OF v BLUE POINT FIRE DEPARTMENT (188 AD3d 1069):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 11/18/20; reversal; sua sponte examination of whether (1) appellant is a party aggrieved by the order appealed from; (2) the order appealed from finally determines the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; and (3) a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal taken as of right; Proceeding Against Body or Officer--Whether the Appellate Division erred by remitting the matter for a hearing and not granting the broader relief of reinstatement; Supreme Court, Suffolk County, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Blue Point Fire Department of Wardens, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding; App. Div. reversed, granted petition to the extent of annulling the determination of the Blue Point Fire Department Board of Wardens expelling petitioner, otherwise denied the petition, otherwise dismissed the proceeding, and remitted matter to the Blue Point Fire Department for a hearing and a new determination thereafter in accordance with the court's decision.

MITCHELL (MARC), PEOPLE v (69 Misc 3d 133[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 51240[U]):
App. Term, 1st Dept. order of 10/23/20; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Rivera, J., 1/26/21; Crimes--Accusatory Instrument--Whether the misdemeanor complaint provided reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of fraudulent accosting; whether accosting element was satisfied by allegation that defendant asked pedestrians to give donations to the homeless; Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of fraudulent accosting, and imposed sentence. App. Div. affirmed.