Court Filings
21 filings indexedRecent court opinions cross-linked with public notices by case number, summarized and classified by AI.
Matter of Nunez v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.
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.
AdministrativeAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0605Matter of City of Yonkers v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation
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.
AdministrativeReversedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-24-1565Matter of Westchester Plaza Tenants Coalition v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
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.
AdministrativeReversedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York2022-01057Matter of Kinsella v. New York State Pub. Serv. Commn.
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.
AdministrativeDismissedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York2021-06572 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENTMatter of Toledano
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkMotion No. 2026-00706|Case No. 2026-00597|Matter of Camacho v. New York City Hous. Auth.
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.
AdministrativeReversedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkIndex No. 101177/23|Appeal No. 6472|Case No. 2025-00862|Matter of Scanlon v. Miller-Williams
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York213.1 CA 25-01798Matter of New York State Assembly v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York89 CA 24-01652Matter of DuBose v. City of New York
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkIndex No. 101289/24|Appeal No. 6433|Case No. 2025-03737|Matter of Bridge & Tunnel Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkIndex No. 652428/24|Appeal No. 6444|Case No. 2025-00206|Matter of Martinez v. Sing Sing Corr. Facility
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0759Matter of Kunii
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.
AdministrativeGrantedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkPM-76-26Matter of Knights (Commissioner of Labor)
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0502Matter of Ferra v. Paramount Global
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0176Matter of Ebanks v. Sing Sing Corr. Facility
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0485Matter of Century Indem. Co. v. Office of the N.Y. Attorney Gen.
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0568Ball v. New York State Dept. of Health
The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed Supreme Court's declaration that Justin Ball is entitled to a civil jury trial to contest administrative charges seeking fines and revocation of his EMT license. The court held that the federal Seventh Amendment has not been incorporated against the states and therefore does not guarantee a civil jury in a state administrative licensure proceeding, and that New York's constitutional jury guarantee does not extend to regulatory license-revocation proceedings rooted in the statutory scheme governing professional licensure. The court granted the Department of Health's motion to dismiss and ended the injunction against the administrative process.
AdministrativeReversedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0810Matter of Szlepcsik v. County of Suffolk
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York2024-13011Matter of Figueroa v. Sing Sing Corr. Facility
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-25-0451Matter of Brognano v. County of Oneida
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.
AdministrativeAffirmedAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New YorkCV-24-1286Matter of Jones v. New York State Commn. on Jud. Conduct
The Court of Appeals ordered the immediate suspension with pay of Hon. Walter W. Jones from his Canandaigua Town Court judgeship while it reviews a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The suspension was issued on the Court's own motion under the New York Constitution and Judiciary Law pending the appellate review. A majority of the Court concurred in the order; one judge did not participate. The suspension is administrative and temporary, preserving pay during the review process.
AdministrativeNew York Court of Appeals67