Return to New Filings Page


For March 9, 2018 through March 15, 2018, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

OSBORNE, MATTER OF (ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE) (2018 NY Slip Op 63520[U]): ( 2017 NY Slip Op 87748[U]): ( 2017 NY Slip Op 79519[U]): ( 2017 NY Slip Op 63602[U]):
1st Dept. App. Div. orders of 2/13/18, 10/3/17, 7/11/17 and 2/7/17; denial of applications; sua sponte examination whether (1) the 7/11/17 and 2/13/18 orders finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; (2) a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; and (3) the appeal is timely; Attorney and Client--Reinstatement--Denial of application for reinstatement to the bar; alleged deprivation of due process and violation of First Amendment free speech rights; App. Div. denied petitioner's application for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law (2/7/17 order); denied petitioner's motion to vacate the 2/7/17 order of the App. Div. and for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law (7/11/17 order); denied petitioner's application for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law, and directed that no petition for reinstatement be accepted for filing within two years from the entry of said order (10/3/17 order); and thereafter, denied petitioner's motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (2/13/18 order).

TOWNS (AGAPE A.), PEOPLE v (151 AD3d 1638):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 6/9/17; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by DiFiore, Ch.J., 2/28/18; Crimes--Conduct of Trial Judge--Whether the trial court's conduct in personally negotiating and entering into a cooperation agreement with a prosecution witness deprived defendant of a fair trial; whether witness testimony should have been precluded as fruit of the poisonous tree because the police learned of the identity of the witness from defendant after violating his right to counsel; County Court, Monroe County, convicted defendant of six counts of robbery in the first degree; App. Div. affirmed.

For March 16, 2018 through March 22, 2018, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

ANDRYEYEVA v NEW YORK HEALTH CARE, INC. (153 AD3d 1216):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/13/17; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 3/7/18; Actions--Class Actions--Whether plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification was properly granted; employment relationships--wages--whether the Appellate Division erred in finding that the premise upon which the employer based its payment practices with respect to nonresidential home health care attendants--that is, the Department of Labor's interpretation of the Wage Order (12 NYCRR 142.2.1)--is neither rational nor reasonable; Supreme Court, Kings County, granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification pursuant to CPLR article 9; App. Div. affirmed.

MATTER OF MARIN, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY (158 AD3d 889):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/1/18; denial of motion; sua sponte examination of 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 Proceedings--Denial of motion to vacate suspension order; alleged constitutional violations; App. Div., among other things, denied respondent's motion for an order vacating, ab initio, a prior order suspending him from the practice of law.

MORENO v FUTURE CARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (153 AD3d 1254):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 9/13/17; reversal; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 3/7/18; Labor--Hours and Wages--Whether defendant employer violated Labor Law article 19 by paying plaintiff home health care attendants a flat rate for 24-hour shifts, resulting in a wage below minimum wage; application of 12 NYCRR 142-2.1(b); actions--class actions--whether Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification; Supreme Court, Kings County, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to CPLR article 9 (4/24/15 order); and, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination in the 4/24/15 order (10/27/15 order); App. Div. (1) dismissed the appeal from the order dated 4/24/15 as superseded by the order dated 10/17/15, and (2) reversed the 10/27/15 order insofar as appealed from, vacated the 4/24/15 order, and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to CPLR article 9.