Return to New Filings Page


For April 27, 2012 through May 3, 2012, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

CITY OF ROCHESTER, MATTER OF (CERMAK v CITY OF ROCHESTER) (90 AD3d 1480):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 12/23/11; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether the App. Div. order finally determines the proceeding and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE INSPECTIONS - JUDICIAL WARRANT FOR INSPECTION OF RENTAL PROPERTY WITH REGARD TO ISSUANCE OR RENEWAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY - ROCHESTER CITY CODE § 90-16(G)(1)(a) AND LOCAL LAW NO. 3; CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 690; Supreme Court, Monroe County, among other things, denied a challenge to Local Law No. 3 of the City of Rochester and ordered a hearing on an application for a judicial warrant for inspection; App. Div. affirmed.

DIAZ, MATTER OF v TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (2012 NY Slip Op 66841[U]):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 3/8/12; denial of motion; sua sponte examination whether the order appealed from finally determines the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; APPEAL - APPELLATE DIVISION - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING; DISMISSAL UPON DEFAULT; App. Div. denied petitioner's motion, treated as a motion to vacate the Appellate Division's 12/8/11 order dismissing the proceeding upon default.

CITY OF ROCHESTER, MATTER OF (NELSON v CITY OF ROCHESTER) (90 AD3d 1485):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 12/23/11; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether the App. Div. order finally determines the proceeding and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE INSPECTIONS - JUDICIAL WARRANT FOR INSPECTION OF RENTAL PROPERTY WITH REGARD TO ISSUANCE OR RENEWAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY - ROCHESTER CITY CODE § 90-16(G)(1)(a) AND LOCAL LAW NO. 3; CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 690; Supreme Court, Monroe County, among other things, denied a challenge to Local Law No. 3 of the City of Rochester and ordered a hearing on an application for a judicial warrant for inspection; App. Div. affirmed.

RODRIGUEZ (ANTONIO), PEOPLE v (86 AD3d 429):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 7/7/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Jones, J., 4/24/12; CRIMES - JURORS - SUGGESTION OF PREMATURE DELIBERATIONS - WHETHER TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN, AT THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE AND PRIOR TO SUMMATIONS, THE COURT RECEIVED A NOTE FROM ONE JUROR REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INDIVIDUAL INQUIRY OF THE JURORS, BUT RATHER DIRECTED ITS INQUIRIES TO THE JURY AS A GROUP; EVIDENCE - WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AT TRIAL EVIDENCE ILLUSTRATING THE INTERNATIONAL FLOW OF DRUGS; Supreme Court, New York County convicted defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 12 years and 5 to 15 years; App. Div. affirmed.

For May 4, 2012 through May 10, 2012, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

ABREU, MATTER OF v HOGAN (91 AD3d 996):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/5/12; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; PRISONS AND PRISONERS - CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT - DENIAL OF INMATE GRIEVANCE THAT HE WAS IMPROPERLY DENIED PARTICIPATION IN THE SEX OFFENDER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT PROGRAM AND WAS NOT RECEIVING PROPER MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT - CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CORRECTION LAW § 622 AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; Supreme Court, Albany County dismissed petitioner's CPLR article 78 application to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance; App. Div. affirmed.

ADAMS (KEITH A.), PEOPLE v:
Monroe County Court order of 11/16/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Jones, J., 4/24/12; DISTRICT AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS - WHETHER DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF OR BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM PROSECUTING CASE WHERE COMPLAINANT WAS CITY COURT JUDGE BEFORE WHOM DISTRICT ATTORNEY REGULARLY APPEARS; DENIAL, WITHOUT HEARING, OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR; Rochester City Court convicted defendant of one count of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and sentenced him to time served, a one-year conditional discharge with an order of protection, and a $200 surcharge; County Court affirmed.

GALASSO, MATTER OF, AN ATTORNEY (94 AD3d 30):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/21/12; suspension of attorney; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 5/1/12; ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER SUSPENDING ATTORNEY BASED UPON TEN SUSTAINED CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT - STRICT AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF ATTORNEY FOR CRIMINAL ACTS OF LAW FIRM EMPLOYEE; App. Div., among other things, suspended respondent attorney from the practice of law for a period of two years, commencing March 21, 2012.

GELMAN v BUEHLER (91 AD3d 425):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 1/3/12; modification with dissents; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 4/26/12; PARTNERSHIP - DISSOLUTION - UNILATERAL DISSOLUTION OF ORAL PARTNERSHIP - MEANING OF "DEFINITE TERM" AND "PARTICULAR UNDERTAKING" AS USED IN PARTNERSHIP LAW § 62 (1)(b) - APPLICATION OF HAINES v CITY OF NEW YORK (41 NY2d 769) TO SUPPLY MISSING TERMS TO ORAL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT; Supreme Court, New York County granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint; App. Div. modified to the extent of reinstating the breach of contract cause of action.

MAYRICH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MATTER OF v OLIVER LLC (90 AD3d 509):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 12/15/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 4/26/12; LIENS - PRIORITY - WHETHER FUNDS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT UNDER TWO MORTGAGES WERE RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH AN IMPROVEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE FUNDS CONSTITUTE ASSETS OF A TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF PETITIONER AND OTHER CONTRACTORS WHO PERFORMED WORK ON RESPONDENT'S HIGH- RISE BUILDING PROJECT IN MANHATTAN - LIEN LAW ARTICLE 3-A; Supreme Court, New York County, upon reargument, vacated a 3/19/10 order and judgment granting the petition and directing respondent owner to serve upon petitioner a verified statement drawn in accordance with Lien Law § 76, denied the petition and dismissed the special proceeding; App. Div. affirmed.

MC GEE (DEMETRIUS), PEOPLE v (87 AD3d 1400):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 9/30/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Jones, J., 4/24/12; CRIMES - EVIDENCE - ATTEMPTED MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE - RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT IN THE FIRST DEGREE - SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT CHARGED AS AN ACCESSORY WHERE DEFENDANT WAS THE DRIVER OF A CAR INVOLVED IN, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE SHOOTING DEATH OF A PERSON ON A RESIDENTIAL STREET; RIGHT TO COUNSEL - ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A LESSER- INCLUDED OFFENSE AND TO MOVE TO SEVER THE TRIAL BASED UPON THE ADMISSION OF THE NON-TESTIFYING CO-DEFENDANT'S CONFESSION; Supreme Court, Erie County convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree; App. Div. affirmed.

MURPHY & O'CONNELL, MATTER OF v TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL (93 AD3d 530, 536):
1st Dept. App. Div. orders of 3/20/12; confirmed determination and dismissed petition; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved; TAXATION - UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX - CHALLENGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT CONTRIBUTION LAW FIRM MADE TO DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN FOR A PARTNER WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE - NEED FOR RESPONDENTS TO PROMULGATE A RULE PURSUANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT - APPLICATION OF MATTER OF ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ALBANY v NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH (66 NY2d 948); App. Div. confirmed the decision of respondent New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal which, in part, affirmed an administrative law judge's determination to sustain a notice of determination asserting a deficiency for petitioner's New York City unincorporated business tax return for calendar year 2001; denied petitioner's application and dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition.

THOMPSON (PAUL), PEOPLE v (81 AD3d 670):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/1/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Jones, J., 4/24/12; CRIMES - EVIDENCE - WHETHER TRIAL COURT ERRED, IN RESPONSE TO AN ARGUMENT MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN SUMMATION, IN ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO REOPEN THEIR CASE TO INTRODUCE A FINGERLESS GLOVE THAT HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED; CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS DURING GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS AND AT TRIAL; CLAIMED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; Supreme Court, Richmond County convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and imposed sentence; App. Div. affirmed.

For May 11, 2012 through May 17, 2012, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

DOLAN, MATTER OF v EFMAN (94 AD3d 1116):
2nd Dept. App. Div. judgment of 4/24/12; dismissed proceeding; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; PROCEEDING AGAINST BODY OR OFFICER - MANDAMUS - WHEN REMEDY AVAILABLE - FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT TO RELIEF; App. Div. denied a CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of mandamus to compel a Suffolk County Court Judge to vacate an order denying petitioner's motion for release of his presentence investigation report, and dismissed the proceeding.

HARRIS (JAMES A., JR.), PEOPLE v (93 AD3d 58):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/10/12; reversal with dissent; leave to appeal granted by Dillon, J., 4/25/12; Rule 500.11 review pending; CRIMES - RIGHT TO COUNSEL - WHETHER DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION, "I THINK I WANT TO TALK TO A LAWYER," INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; WHETHER STATEMENTS THEN GIVEN BY DEFENDANT IN ABSENCE OF COUNSEL MUST BE SUPPRESSED; HARMLESS ERROR; Orange County Court convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree and tampering with physical evidence, and imposed sentence; App. Div. reversed, granted that branch of defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, and ordered a new trial.

MEJIAS (MIGUEL), PEOPLE v (86 AD3d 429):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 7/7/11; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Jones, J., 4/24/12; CRIMES - JURORS - SUGGESTION OF PREMATURE DELIBERATIONS - WHETHER TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN, AT THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE AND PRIOR TO SUMMATIONS, THE COURT RECEIVED A NOTE FROM ONE JUROR REQUESTING CERTAIN INFORMATION, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE COURT DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INDIVIDUAL INQUIRY OF THE JURORS, BUT RATHER DIRECTED ITS INQUIRIES TO THE JURY AS A GROUP; Supreme Court, New York County convicted defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 13 years and 5 to 15 years; App. Div. affirmed.

POVOSKI, MATTER OF v FISCHER (93 AD3d 963):
3rd Dept. App. Div. judgment of 3/18/12; confirmation of determination; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; PRISONS AND PRISONERS - DISCIPLINE OF INMATES - MISBEHAVIOR REPORT - SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; App. Div. confirmed determination of respondent Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition.

PUTNEY v PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (94 AD3d 1193):
3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 4/5/12; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether (1) so much of the App. Div. order as affirmed so much of the 8/19/10 Supreme Court order as denied plaintiffs' cross motion to amend the complaint finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution; (2) so much of the App. Div. order as dismissed the appeal from the 2/24/11 Supreme Court order denying reargument finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution; and (3) a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - EMINENT DOMAIN - DISMISSAL OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION BASED ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LACHES; DENIAL OF MOTION(S) TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND FOR REARGUMENT; Supreme Court, St. Lawrence County granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiffs' cross motion to amend the complaint; App. Div. affirmed.

CITY OF YONKERS, MATTER OF v YONKERS FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 628, IAFF, AFL- CIO (90 AD3d 1043):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 12/27/12; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 5/3/12; ARBITRATION - MATTERS ARBITRABLE - WHETHER CIVIL SERVICE LAW § 201(4) AND RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW § 470 BAR ARBITRATION OF DISPUTE - WHETHER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF YONKERS AND FIRE FIGHTERS' UNION WAS "IN EFFECT" ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ARTICLE 22 OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW; Supreme Court, Westchester County denied a petition to permanently stay arbitration and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75; App. Div. reversed and granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration.

ZHENG v CITY OF NEW YORK (93 AD3d 510):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 3/20/12; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 5/8/12; LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT REGULATION - CLASS ACTION TO BAR TERMINATION OF RENT SUBSIDY PAYMENTS UNDER THE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM RUN BY THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES; MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; Supreme Court, New York County, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the causes of action for specific performance, injunction and deprivation of due process, and declared that defendants are not contractually obligated to continue making rent subsidy payments under the Advantage Program; App. Div. affirmed.