Court Filings

The Sixth District Court of Appeal granted the Department of Revenue’s motion to dismiss an appeal by Adrelynn Shattell Thomas for lack of jurisdiction. Thomas, the obligee parent, attempted to directly appeal a final administrative paternity and support order entered February 10, 2026. The court followed White v. Department of Revenue and concluded Florida law (section 409.2563 read with chapter 120) authorizes direct appellate review only to the obligor parent and the Department in these administrative support proceedings, not to an obligee parent. Because Thomas lacked statutory standing to invoke direct review, the appeal was dismissed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s temporary injunction that had blocked the Texas Department of State Health Services from treating manufactured delta-8 THC products as Schedule I controlled substances. The Department and its commissioner had amended Schedule I definitions after objecting to a federal rule; the Court held those amendments were within the commissioner’s broad, statutorily granted discretion and did not conflict unambiguously with the 2019 Texas Farm Bill. The Court also held the Administrative Procedure Act did not govern publication of schedule changes, and that sovereign immunity bars the vendors’ claims.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed an administrative appeal by Dr. Joseph Badie Abdelmalak challenging the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court’s affirmation of the State Medical Board of Ohio’s revocation of his medical license and $20,000 fine. The appeals court upheld most rulings but found reversible error because the common pleas court failed to determine whether the Board’s order was supported by substantial evidence as required by R.C. 119.12(N). The court affirmed that the Board did not improperly shift the burden of proof and did not deny due process by admitting a two-page ombudsman excerpt, but remanded for the common pleas court to assess the substantial-evidence question.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated part of the Commonwealth Court's order that had sustained a preliminary objection to Christopher Rogalski's request for a writ of mandamus to remove disciplinary information from Department of Education websites. The Supreme Court directed the Commonwealth Court to reconsider that preliminary objection in light of its recent decision in T.G.A. v. Department of Education, 348 A.3d 1043 (Pa. 2025). All other parts of the Commonwealth Court's order were affirmed, and jurisdiction over the case was relinquished.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and held that the judicially created "positive steps" test cannot disqualify an unemployment benefits claimant for self-employment when the claimant has not actually performed services for wages. The case involved a claimant who, after leaving employment, formed a business entity, created a website, and spent money advertising but had not yet performed services or received earnings. The Court ruled that Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Unemployment Compensation Law requires proof that services were performed for wages before applying the control and independence inquiry, so aspirational or preparatory acts alone cannot bar benefits.

The Appellate Division reviewed a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action by Nicholas Nunez seeking vacatur of a default revoking his license and relief under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The court agreed that Nunez was entitled to vacatur of the administrative default and remanded for a new hearing. It found Nunez substantially prevailed on his FOIL claims because the agency ultimately provided the requested records and metadata, but remanded to Supreme Court to determine whether the agency had a reasonable basis for its initial denial and thus whether Nunez is entitled to statutory counsel fees and costs.

The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court and held that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) must apply a deferential standard when reviewing the New York City Water Board’s rates for voluntary “excess water.” The court concluded that DEC should assess whether the Water Board’s excess-water rates serve the Board’s economic and public policy goals and have a rational basis, rather than applying the statutory “fair and reasonable” test used for entitlement water. The court granted DEC’s motion for summary judgment and modified the judgment accordingly.

The appellate court reviewed Charles F. Cheleden's appeal from final agency actions by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Management. After considering the record and briefs, the court unanimously affirmed the agency's decisions. The opinion is short and does not elaborate on legal reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the judgment affirming the agency. The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s orders adopting an independent auditor’s recommendations about the Power-Purchase-Agreement (PPA) Rider for AEP Ohio for 2018–2019. OCC and OMAEG argued the commission erred in finding the PPA Rider costs prudent, violated due process by denying a subpoena for a commission staff member, and applied the wrong standard for auditor independence. The Court held the commission reasonably credited evidence that a must-run strategy for OVEC coal units was prudent when chosen, that denial of the subpoena did not prejudice the parties because other witnesses covered the issues, and that the commission properly found no undue influence on the auditor.

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had denied a CPLR article 78 petition by the Westchester Plaza Tenants Coalition challenging DHCR determinations that upheld a Rent Administrator's decision permitting an owner to modify pool and related facilities. The court found the DHCR's conclusion that the pool was not an essential service was arbitrary and capricious because the record showed the landlord maintained the pool on May 29, 1974, and charging fees for club membership alone did not remove the facility from the regulatory definition of essential services. The matter is remitted to DHCR for a new determination consistent with the opinion.

The Appellate Division, Second Department dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by Simon Kinsella challenging a March 18, 2021 Public Service Commission determination that granted South Fork Wind, LLC a certificate for an offshore submarine export cable. The court granted motions by the Commission, Department of Public Service, and South Fork Wind to dismiss because the petitioner failed to timely join South Fork as a necessary party within the 30-day limitations period following the Commission’s final order. Because the defect was jurisdictional under the governing statute and precedent, the court dismissed the proceeding without costs.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI). The court held that the one-year limitation in RCW 51.32.240(1)(a) applies to benefits paid to injured workers and does not bar DLI from recouping overpayments made to health service providers like Office Careers. The court also affirmed partial summary judgment for DLI terminating Office Careers’ provider number, finding Office Careers failed to raise a genuine factual dispute and that DLI’s audits and use of available records were lawful.

The Appellate Division, First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for reciprocal discipline and suspended attorney Tamar Toledano from the practice of law in New York for four months, effective 30 days from the order. The suspension follows Toledano's consent to a four-month USPTO suspension for violating USPTO trademark signature and conduct rules, and her admission in a USPTO settlement that she permitted non-signatories to sign trademark filings and failed to timely notify clients about a referring firm's fraud. The court found New York rules substantially similar and imposed reciprocal discipline on consent.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a lower court order that had remanded an NYC Housing Authority denial of a remaining family member (RFM) grievance. The petitioner, Eric Camacho, sought succession after his aunt (the tenant) died; NYCHA denied his claim because he did not meet the policy requirement of at least 12 months of continuous authorized occupancy prior to the tenant's death. The court held NYCHA's denial had a rational basis, rejected hardship and estoppel arguments, and found that a later change in NYCHA policy would not have altered the outcome.

The court dismissed H&S Investment Properties, LLC’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the Ashtabula County Auditor to change the owner name on the county tax list to match an affidavit recorded under R.C. 5301.252. The court held that the recorder’s affidavit statute does not itself create a right to change tax-roll entries and that the auditor’s duty under R.C. 319.28 is to compile the tax list, not to alter it based on a recorded affidavit. Because Relator cannot show a clear legal right or corresponding clear legal duty by the auditor, mandamus relief was unavailable and the petition was dismissed; the summary-judgment motion was denied as moot.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Orama’s Delivery Transport Corp from an order of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board involving the Florida Department of Transportation. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 27, 2026, affirming the board's order. No extended opinion or reasoning appears in the published entry; the court simply affirmed the lower body's decision and noted concurrence by three judges. The decision is not final until any timely motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an administrative appeal by Hanna Oaks Operating LLC from a decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration. The court issued a short per curiam opinion affirming the agency's decision. No opinion text explaining the reasoning was published in this disposition; the court simply affirmed the agency's action and noted concurrence by three judges. The decision was entered April 27, 2026, and is subject to any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an administrative appeal by 5539 NPR Operating LLC (doing business as New Port Richey Center for Assisted Living & Memory Care) from a decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration. The court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, and affirmed the agency's decision. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning appears in the file beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by the three judges.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision in a dispute with 200 Venice Operating LLC, which operates the Venice Center for Independent and Assisted Living. The appeal challenged an administrative action by the Agency; the appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, concluding the Agency's action should stand. The opinion provided no extended discussion and the three-judge panel concurred, leaving the Agency's ruling intact and the appellant's challenge unsuccessful.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court judgment granting a mandamus petition that required the Buffalo Comptroller to issue and sell bonds authorized by the Buffalo Common Council. The court held that the comptroller has no discretion to refuse issuance where the Common Council has validly authorized borrowing under the City Charter and the Local Finance Law. Although the comptroller has duties to advise and report on fiscal capacity and certain procedural roles, those responsibilities do not permit vetoing or declining to execute bond issuances lawfully authorized by the council.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of the Assembly’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking to stop the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) from pursuing a discrimination and harassment complaint filed by employee Nicole Golias. DHR had found probable cause and added the Assembly as a respondent. The court held that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy limited to lack or excess of jurisdiction and may not be used to bypass administrative review. The Assembly must first pursue DHR’s administrative process and, if necessary, judicial review under Executive Law § 298.

The Texas Supreme Court dismissed interlocutory appeals and vacated three trial-court temporary injunctions that had barred the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) from investigating reports that minors received puberty blockers or hormone therapy for gender transition. The Court concluded the injunctions presented no live controversy because DFPS permanently closed most of the investigations and the remaining child reached majority, so there is no credible threat of future enforcement. A psychologist’s claim for injunctive relief likewise failed for lack of standing because her alleged injuries were speculative.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Department of Revenue's action in an appeal brought by Mikesha Chantae Johnson. The court issued a short per curiam ruling simply stating AFFIRMED and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315. No written opinion or substantive reasoning is provided in the document; the judgment of the lower tribunal is therefore upheld. The decision was announced April 24, 2026, and participating judges concurred. Johnson proceeded pro se and the Department of Revenue was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Supreme Court's May 27, 2025 order dismissing Angel S. DuBose's CPLR article 78 petition seeking to compel the Department of Investigation (DOI) to investigate alleged criminal conduct while she worked at the NYC Public Advocate's Office. The court held mandamus is unavailable because the DOI's decision whether to investigate is discretionary under the City Charter, and the DOI rationally directed DuBose to report the allegations to the police. The court also affirmed denial of DuBose's motion to recuse the assigned Justice.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a Supreme Court order and granted a union's petition to confirm a 2023 arbitration award in full. The lower court had denied part of the petition and modified the award to strike a cease-and-desist order. The appellate court held that CPLR 7510-a(a), which requires confirmation of public-sector arbitration awards unless a timely motion to vacate or modify is made within 90 days, applied and that the respondent did not move within that period. The court also rejected the argument that the statute excludes unions from its coverage.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision refusing to preclude a December 2023 independent medical examination (IME) report in claimant Michael Martinez's workers' compensation matter. Martinez argued the IME report was inadmissible because the examiner did not file an IME-3 form as required by section 137, but the Board found the carrier's timely-filed IME-5 form and separately filed instructions supplied the same substantive information about body parts to be examined and issues to address. The court concluded those filings satisfied statutory and regulatory notice requirements and that exclusion was not warranted.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Norika Kunii’s motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in October 2021. The court reviewed Kunii’s affidavit, exhibits, and the Committee’s response and found by clear and convincing evidence that she satisfied the reinstatement requirements, complied with the suspension order and court rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered immediate reinstatement under the court’s disciplinary reinstatement rules.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision that Warren Knights was ineligible for unemployment benefits for multiple periods because he falsely certified he was totally unemployed while earning money delivering for Instacart. The Department of Labor issued revised determinations finding overpayments and imposing forfeiture penalties based on willful misrepresentations. The Board credited evidence and testimony showing Knights failed to report his paid work despite having received a handbook explaining reporting obligations, and the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of willfulness and the monetary penalties.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that claimant Jorge Ferra did not commit fraud under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Ferra was seriously injured when his parked vehicle was struck after a minor accident; hospital toxicology showed a .18 blood alcohol level. The Board and the workers' compensation judge had previously found the injury compensable because intoxication was not the sole cause. The carrier later sought suspension of benefits for alleged perjury about drinking, but the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of material fraud and the Appellate Division found substantial evidence supporting that conclusion.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of claimant Omar Ebanks's request to preclude an independent medical examination (IME) report. Ebanks had argued the carrier failed to file an IME-3 form as required under the statute and Board rules, but the Board found the carrier had filed an IME-5 scheduling form, timely IME-4 cover sheet and detailed examiner instructions that provided notice and the requested information. The court held that these submissions constituted substantial compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 137 and 12 NYCRR 300.2, so the April 2024 IME report was admissible and the Board did not abuse its discretion.