Court Filings

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 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 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 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 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.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of Century Indemnity Company's CPLR article 78 challenge to the Attorney General's denial of a FOIL request. Century sought documents the Diocese of Ogdensburg produced to the Attorney General during an investigation; the Attorney General withheld them under FOIL's law-enforcement exemption. The court found the agency met its burden by identifying categories of records compiled for law enforcement and explaining how disclosure would interfere with the ongoing investigation, so nondisclosure was proper and counsel fees were not awarded.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition challenging Suffolk County Department of Civil Service's May 22, 2024 determination that the petitioner was not qualified for hire as a police officer after an adverse psychological evaluation. The court held that the appointing authority has broad discretion in determining fitness for law enforcement, may rely on its own medical evaluators even when a candidate produces a contrary independent opinion, and that the Department's decision was not irrational or arbitrary. Because the agency acted reasonably, the court would not substitute its judgment for the administrative factfinder.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Public Employment Relations Commission's decision allowing twenty-eight employees in eleven job titles at Kean University, Montclair State University, and The College of New Jersey to be members of collective bargaining units represented by the AFT or CWA. The State argued those positions were managerial executives and thus excluded from union membership, but PERC (and the Director whose factual findings PERC adopted) found the positions did not formulate or direct the effectuation of management policy without independent review by higher-level supervisors. The court found PERC's application of statutory language and precedent reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision denying claimant Karen Figueroa's request to preclude a September 2023 independent medical examination (IME) report. Figueroa argued the carrier's instructions to the IME physician required a separate IME-3 filing under Workers' Compensation Law § 137, which was not done. The court held the carrier filed an IME-5 with instructions that identified the issues to be addressed, claimant's objection was untimely, and the IME substantially complied with statutory and regulatory requirements, so the report was admissible and the Board did not abuse its discretion.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that claimant James Brognano sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Board found that testimony describing a loud noise in the claimant's cubicle, his subsequent change in appearance and behavior, hospital findings of head bruising, and medical proof of a blunt-force epidural hematoma supported a workplace accident. The employer's challenge that no one observed a fall or could explain the mechanism and its attempts to rebut the presumption of compensability were held insufficient as a matter of substantial evidence.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Division of Administrative Hearings in a dispute between Seventy7, LLC and the Florida Department of Revenue. The appeal challenged an administrative ruling, but the appellate court, in a per curiam decision with three judges concurring, concluded the lower administrative decision should stand. The opinion contains only the disposition 'AFFIRMED' without published reasoning in this document.

The Florida Supreme Court granted the Florida Bar’s petition to amend several Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to replace terminology: “chemical dependency” becomes “substance use disorder” and “psychological problems” becomes “mental health conditions.” The Court also revised a bylaw to allow the Board of Governors to establish programs for enhanced participation by minority members and updated funding restrictions for Bar assistance programs. The amendments are adopted as proposed, will appear in the appendix, and take effect June 15, 2026. One justice dissented, expressing concern about adopting changes tied to external organizations and potential policy consequences.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order allowing the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to enter private properties under California’s precondemnation entry statutes to conduct environmental, cultural, and geological investigations for the Delta Conveyance Project. The court held that those statutes authorize any public entity that is authorized to acquire property by eminent domain to perform such testing without first satisfying separate Water Code “project approval” provisions that apply to commencing a classic condemnation. The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Property Reserve I, finding the statutes constitutionally adequate.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of inmate Robert Bates’s mandamus complaint seeking the names of certain prison officers under the Public Records Act. The appellate court dismissed the case because Bates’s accompanying affidavit of prior civil actions did not strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(A): he failed to list the name of each party to several prior lawsuits. The Supreme Court held that R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory, requires strict compliance, and permits sua sponte dismissal for noncompliance, so dismissal was proper and the merits were not reached.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied appellants' challenge and affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 2, 2026 order. The Court granted the appellants' request to supplement the record but upheld the lower court's decision that the candidate Al Buchtan’s nomination petition stands. The Court also ordered that Buchtan’s petition be treated as amended to list his legal residence as 100 Betty Boulevard, Carmichaels, Pennsylvania 15320, Greene County. Three justices recorded their dissent; a full opinion will follow explaining the detailed rationale.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered Mark LaVelle’s challenge to a Commonwealth Court standing order that deems candidates notified of petitions to set aside nomination petitions when the court posts the filing on its public website. LaVelle argued this practice violates Section 977 of the Election Code, which requires an order specifying the time and manner of notice to the candidate. The Justice writing separately expressed doubt about the standing order’s compliance with the statute but concluded any defect in notice would only require a new hearing, not dismissal. Because LaVelle had, by stipulation, fewer than the 300 valid signatures required for the ballot, the Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s order for that independent reason.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Pengfei Philip Chi’s petition challenging the DMV’s suspension of his driver’s license after he refused a chemical test following a DUI arrest. Chi argued the DMV hearing officer acted as a prosecutor rather than a neutral adjudicator, violating his due process rights. The appellate court held that the DMV’s post-2022 policy requires hearing officers to act as neutral factfinders who may introduce evidence, ask clarifying questions, and rule on objections, and that combining investigative and adjudicative functions does not, by itself, create an unacceptable risk of bias. Because Chi presented no evidence of a constitutionally intolerable risk of bias, the court affirmed the judgment.

The appellate court affirmed the Illinois Department of Human Services’ decision requiring Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization (KOCO) to repay $451,198 in grant funds. KOCO had challenged IDHS’s recovery determination after administrative and circuit-court review, arguing it properly spent the grants and that IDHS denied due process and changed its basis for recovery. The court held KOCO failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring recovery because it did not produce adequate accounting records—most critically, KOCO refused to provide its general ledger—so IDHS permissibly sought recovery under the Grant Funds Recovery Act and related regulations.