Return to New Filings Page


For July 8, 2016 through July 14, 2016, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

DONMEZ, MATTER OF v NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS (139 AD3d 595):
1st Dept. App. Div. order of 5/26/16; dismissal of appeal; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; APPEAL - ACADEMIC AND MOOT QUESTIONS - CHALLENGE TO APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT APPEAL CHALLENGING AGENCY DETERMINATION TO SUSPEND PETITIONER'S PEDICAB DRIVER LICENSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FINES BY A CERTAIN DATE; Supreme Court, New York County, denied the CPLR article 78 petition challenging the determination of respondent Department of Consumer Affairs to suspend petitioner's pedicab driver license for failure to pay fines, if he did not pay the fines by a certain date, without a further hearing; App. Div. dismissed the appeal as moot.

FRANCIS (JUDE), PEOPLE v (137 AD3d 91):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/27/16; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Court of Appeals, 6/9/16; CRIMES - SEX OFFENDERS - SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) - USE OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION IN DETERMINING RISK LEVEL - WHETHER A DEFENDANT'S PRIOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE DEFENDANT'S RISK LEVEL DESIGNATION UNDER SORA; Supreme Court, Kings County, adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender; App. Div. affirmed.

JOHNSON (CLINTON), PEOPLE v (134 AD3d 1388):
4th Dept. App. Div. order of 12/23/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Pigott, J., 7/1/16; Rule 500.11 review pending; CRIMES - TIMELINESS OF PROSECUTION - DUE PROCESS - PREINDICTMENT DELAY OF OVER 53 MONTHS - WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW MALICE OR BAD FAITH BY THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT WITNESSES OR EVIDENCE LOST DURING DELAY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCULPATORY; Supreme Court, Onondaga County, convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; App. Div. affirmed.

SMITH, MATTER OF v CONDON (2016 NY Slip Op 74960[U], 132 AD3d 1002):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 5/27/16 and judgment of 10/28/15; denial of reargument (5/27/16 order) and denial of CPLR article 78 petition (10/28/15 judgment); sua sponte examination whether the appeal, insofar as it is taken from the 10/28/15 Appellate Division judgment, is timely; whether the 5/27/16 Appellate Division order 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; PROCEEDING AGAINST BODY OR OFFICER - RELIEF SOUGHT - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN TREATING THE PETITION AS ONE FOR MANDAMUS RATHER THAN PROHIBITION AND HOLDING THAT MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE TO COMPEL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, VACATE PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN HIS UNDERLYING CRIMINAL CASE; WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION ERRED IN GRANTING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER CPLR 506; App. Div. (10/28/15 judgment) in a CPLR article 78 proceeding treated as one in the nature of mandamus to compel respondent William J. Condon, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate a judgment of conviction of the same court rendered February 8, 2013, in a criminal action entitled People v Smith, under Indictment No. 1341-12, and application for poor person relief, (1) granted respondent County of Suffolk's motion to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against it, citing CPLR 506, (2) denied the application for poor person relief in part, (3) denied the petition on the merits insofar as asserted against respondents William J. Condon and Thomas J. Spota, and (4) dismissed the proceeding; and thereafter, App. Div. (5/27/16 order) denied petitioner's motion for reargument.

WIGGS (IQUAN), PEOPLE v (130 AD3d 659):
2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 7/1/15; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Pigott, J., 6/27/16; Rule 500.11 review pending; CRIMES - JURORS - MEANINGFUL NOTICE TO DEFENDANT OF SUBSTANTIVE JUROR INQUIRY - FAILURE TO RESPOND TO JUROR INQUIRY WHERE JURY FIRST ANNOUNCES IT HAS REACHED A VERDICT - PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; Supreme Court, Queens County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree and menacing in the third degree, and imposed sentence; App. Div. reversed and ordered a new trial.