Return to New Filings Page
For June 19, 2020 through June 25, 2020, the following preliminary appeal statements
were filed:
LIPIN v DANSKE BANK (— AD3d —, 2020 NY Slip Op 03292):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 6/11/20; affirmance; sua sponte examination of
whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the meaning of the
Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to
support an appeal as of right; Appeal; Supreme Court, New York County, among other
things, denied plaintiff's motions to renew a January 2018 motion to vacate prior orders,
for a default judgment against defendants, for a cease and desist order, and to hold certain
defendants and others in a criminal and civil contempt, granted defendants' motion for
sanctions and attorneys' fees, referred the issue to a special referee, and imposed a fine of
$250 on plaintiff for contempt, and granted defendants' motion to confirm a special
referee's report awarding them attorneys' fees; and thereafter, granted defendants' motions
to hear and report, and ordered plaintiff to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to
certain defendants; App. Div. affirmed, imposed litigation injunction, and granted motion
for further sanctions.
LIPIN, ESTATE OF v LIPIN (— AD3d —, 2020 NY Slip Op 03292):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 6/11/20; affirmance and dismissal; sua sponte
examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the
meaning of the Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly
involved to support an appeal as of right; Appeal; Supreme Court, New York County;
among other things, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the litigation and granted
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint renewing the 2008 money
judgment; and thereafter, renewed 2008 money judgment in favor of plaintiffs against
defendant; App. Div. affirmed the judgment and dismissed the appeals from prior orders
as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
ORTIZ, PEOPLE ex rel. v BRESLIN (183 AD3d 577):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 5/6/20; affirmance; Crimes–Sex
Offender–Whether Department of Corrections and Community Supervision's
placement of petitioner in a residential treatment facility during his period of post
release supervision until petitioner was able to locate housing that complied with the
Sexual Assault Reform Act violated his right to substantive due process and
constituted cruel and unusual punishment; Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the
habeas corpus petition and dismissed the proceeding; App. Div. affirmed.