Return to New Filings Page
For March 29, 2024 through April 4, 2024, the following preliminary appeal statements
were filed:
HOBISH v AXA (—
AD3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op 01508):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 3/19/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the
Appellate Division, 3/19/24 with a certified question; Insurance--Whether plaintiff
may seek breach of contract damages based on the contract's loss in value caused by
a breach after receiving funds due on termination of the contract; whether plaintiff
may seek damages under General Business Law § 349 without showing plaintiff is
entitled to breach of contract damages; whether punitive damages are recoverable
under General Business Law § 349; whether punitive damages are recoverable for
breach of contract when defendant allegedly deceived a state regulator and plaintiff;
whether an insurance contract must be construed based on the reasonable
expectations of the average insured; Supreme Court, New York County, denied
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their breach of
contract cause of action, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint against it, and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent
of dismissing certain categories of damages sought by plaintiff; App. Div. affirmed.
MATTER OF HUSEJNOVIC v DEPROSPO (— AD3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op
01177):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 3/6/24; confirmed determination; sua sponte
examination of whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to
support an appeal as of right; Proceeding Against Body or Officer--Whether
application of the CPLR article 78 standard of review to the determination of a
pistol licensing officer violates the Second Amendment; whether the Appellate
Division denied petitioner/plaintiff's Second Amendment rights by affirming the
denial of petitioner/plaintiff's application; whether the Appellate Division
improperly applied section 400.00 of the Penal Law in violation of the Second
Amendment; App. Div. in a hybrid proceeding under CPLR article 78, among other
things, to review a determination of respondent, a former Judge of the County Court,
Orange County, dated November 18, 2022, which denied the application of the
petitioner/plaintiff for a pistol license, and action for declaratory relief, confirmed
determination, denied petition, and dismissed proceeding/action.
MATTER OF THE PEOPLE BY JAMES v VDARE (224 AD3d 516):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 2/15/24; affirmance; sua sponte examination of
whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support the appeal
taken as of right; Attorney General--Investigatory Powers--Whether the Appellate
Division erred by ordering VDARE to turn over the names of its anonymous and
pseudonymous writers; whether the Appellate Division erred by holding that
VDARE failed to make a prima facie showing that turning over its writers and
vendors would chill its free speech and free association rights; whether state law
presumptions in favor of the Attorney General mask constitutional violations;
whether the Appellate Division failed to assess whether the investigatory subpoena
complied with Americans for Prosperity Found. v Bonta, 141 S Ct 2372 (2021);
Supreme Court, New York County, granted petitioner's motion to compel compliance
with the subpoena duces tecum dated June 23, 2022, subject to certain agreed-to
redactions, and to produce a redaction log, and denied respondent's motion to dismiss;
App. Div. affirmed.
KATLESKI v CAZENOVIA GOLF CLUB (— AD3d —, 2024 NY Slip Op 01366):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 3/14/24; reversal; Negligence--Assumption of Risk--
Whether the Appellate Division properly held that plaintiff assumed the risk of
being struck by an errant golf ball, while acknowledging differing expert opinions
and identifying disputes on whether defendant golf course unreasonably increased
the risk to plaintiff; Supreme Court, Madison County, denied motion by defendant
Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it;
App. Div., with two Justices dissenting, reversed, granted motion for summary judgment,
and dismissed the complaint.