Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's denial of Gravity Ciders, Inc.'s pre-note-of-issue motions for summary judgment on three counterclaims. Gravity had asked the court to declare unenforceable a contract provision awarding Copeland Holdings a 5% ownership interest (plus another 5%) and to win on a conversion/replevin claim over a corporate book. The court found genuine factual disputes and legal issues (including whether Alcoholic Beverage Control Law provisions render the ownership-transfer clause void) that precluded summary judgment, and held return of the corporate book while the motion was pending defeated replevin but left conversion contested.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Mark David Kaufman from a final decision of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County involving Case No. 062016DR013212AXXXCE. Both parties appeared pro se. The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry; it notes concurrence by all three judges and that the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by H. James Herborn, III, from a Broward County circuit court decision in a civil case against Adam Kanter. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion announcing its decision to affirm the lower court's judgment. All three judges concurred. The opinion is brief and contains no extended reasoning; it simply affirms and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by tenant Travis Wells from a Seminole County Court decision involving Sanford Portfolio 460 DE, LLC (d/b/a Stoneridge Pointe Apartments). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam disposition, affirmed the lower court's judgment and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No written opinion or reasoning beyond the affirmation was provided; the decision was issued April 30, 2026, and the panel concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely authorized motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Aaron Rogers from a Volusia County circuit court judgment in case number 2018-030061-FMCI. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam order on April 30, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. No opinion or written reasons accompanied the disposition in the published entry, and the appellee did not file an appearance. The judgment stands affirmed, subject to any timely, authorized post-decision motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Robin Cornelison from a decision of the Circuit Court of Escambia County against Enterprise Leasing Company South Central, LLC d/b/a Enterprise Car Sales. The appellate court issued a short, per curiam opinion on April 30, 2026 and affirmed the lower court's decision. No opinion text or reasoning beyond the single-word disposition was included in the published entry; the court simply announced 'AFFIRMED' and the three judges concurred.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between appellant Yosbani Jose Hernandez and appellee law firm Shutts & Bowen LLP. The appeal (No. 4D2025-1642) came from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without published opinion, adopting the lower court's disposition and leaving the case concluded unless a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between appellant Richard Block and appellee Midwest One Bank. The appeal, taken from an order in Palm Beach County Circuit Court (case no. 502024CA008105XXXAMB), was argued pro se by Block; Midwest One Bank was represented by counsel. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating simply: Affirmed. No separate written opinion, legal analysis, or change in the lower court's judgment was provided in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's nonfinal orders in a consolidated appeal brought by LP Glass Technologies, Inc. against Barron Development Corporation. The appellate panel, in a brief per curiam decision, concluded that the lower court's rulings should stand and did not provide extended reasoning in the published entry. The opinion affirms the challenged orders and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed two consolidated nonfinal circuit court orders in a civil dispute between LP Glass Technologies, Inc. (appellant) and Barron Development Corporation (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no substantive reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the appellate disposition as affirmed, with concurrence by all three judges. The decision is not final pending any timely rehearing motion. No further factual or legal detail was provided in the opinion itself.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in a case in which Kevin Bain, representing himself, appealed a decision involving Aaron Bryan. The appeal arose from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The panel issued a per curiam opinion simply stating "Affirmed" without published reasoning. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No further factual or legal detail is provided in the opinion.

The District Court of Appeal for Florida's Fourth District affirmed a nonfinal county court order in an appeal filed by George Lambro in a case against Eduardo Lautieri. The opinion is short: the panel issued a per curiam affirmance without published reasoning. The decision was entered on April 30, 2026, and the judgment is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. Lambro appeared pro se; appellee was represented by counsel.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, in a dispute between Carlos De La Paz Bernitt (appellant, proceeding pro se from Ecuador) and U.S. Bank National Association as trustee (appellee). The panel issued a short per curiam decision, simply stating 'Affirmed' and noting the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No substantive reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bidbumpers, LLC and Christian C. Carmona from a Broward County Court decision involving Lobel Financial Corp. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No extended opinion, reasoning, or change to the trial court's disposition was published; the mandate is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal circuit-court order in a civil dispute between A&J Capital Inc. (appellant) and HC CBA, LLC (appellee). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 30, 2026, and provides no extended reasoning in the published entry. The appellate panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's nonfinal order, leaving any further relief dependent on timely post-opinion motions. The opinion is not final until resolution of any timely motion for rehearing.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims for specific performance, fraud, and tortious interference and denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motions. The court found that the seller (Gholis) showed it was ready, willing, and able to close by producing a title policy and that the buyer (Scott Randolph, LLC) defaulted by failing to appear at the time-of-the-essence closing, so Gholis may retain the down payment. The court also found Bushwack and Stellberger entitled to dismissal of the fraud and interference claims because key events occurred after the plaintiff sought to terminate the contract.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of Rosario's wrongful-death, fraud, and civil-conspiracy claims against the Town and Village of Mount Kisco. The plaintiff alleged the municipality failed to enforce housing regulations after her adult son died in a basement fire in an illegally converted apartment. The court held the complaint did not plead a special relationship between the municipality and decedent, did not identify a private right of action under the cited statutes, and failed to allege facts showing voluntary assumption of duty, affirmative control, justifiable reliance, or municipal participation in fraud or a conspiracy.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to Lakeview Auto Sales and Service, Inc., and to Herold Motor Cars, Inc. and John C. Herold, and denying RJK Auto Brokers' cross-motion. RJK had purchased nine vehicles from Dream Carz, which never obtained title; RJK then paid Herold Motor to obtain title to eight sold vehicles. The court held the moving defendants showed they had no contract or fraudulent conduct with RJK and that Dream Carz was not an entrustee or a merchant able to pass good title. RJK failed to raise triable issues of fact to avoid dismissal.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's personal-injury claims against homeowner Kim Eichle and certain claims against third-party defendant Joseph Russo. The plaintiff alleged the infant was injured after being punched outside a New Year's Eve party at Eichle's home and asserted causes of action under New York's Dram Shop statutes and premises liability. The court held Eichle showed she neither served visibly intoxicated guests nor furnished alcohol to minors, and that the infant could not identify whether an icy sidewalk caused his fall, so the plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order (after reargument) granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' personal injury complaint. The court held the defendants had shown, as a matter of law, that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) and that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of causation because their expert did not rebut defendants' evidence that the injuries were preexisting and degenerative. The court affirmed on the alternative ground of lack of causation, though it noted some triable issues as to certain injury categories before resolving causation against the plaintiffs.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting Lalezarian Properties, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint in a slip-and-fall personal injury action. The plaintiff, a security guard who slipped on ice in an underground garage, sued the alleged property owner. The court held that Lalezarian showed it did not own, manage, operate, or control the property and thus cannot be liable for the hazardous condition, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court therefore properly granted the defendant's motion upon reargument.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Margaret Liu’s motion to vacate a 2018 default judgment awarding Shau Chung Hu $1,480,636.50 in a hybrid proceeding seeking, among other relief, ownership and rescission relating to Lowbet Realty Corp. The Court held Liu’s CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion was untimely because it was made more than one year after service of the judgment, and that her claimed excuse—lack of personal service of the petition—failed because she had filed a notice of appearance and never challenged jurisdiction. The court also rejected relief under CPLR 317 because Liu had appeared in the action.

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment awarding the claimant $15,508,705 as just compensation after the MTA condemned a Queens retail property for elevator renovations at the Flushing Main Street station. Following a nonjury trial, the trial court accepted the claimant's appraisal, which treated the property's highest and best use as one-story retail with development potential and relied on a nearby comparable sale to set a 2.5% capitalization rate. The court rejected the MTA's appraisal, which used a 6.5% cap rate based on national strip-center data and less comparable local transactions, finding the trial court's valuation was within the experts' ranges and adequately explained by the evidence.

The Appellate Division affirmed a lower court judgment that annulled the Town/Village of Harrison Planning Board's denial of BKP Harrison, LLC's application for amended site plan approval to replace a restaurant with a new restaurant and drive-through. The court held the board's denial was arbitrary and capricious because it relied on speculative traffic predictions, subjective doubts about the applicant honoring delivery-hour commitments, an improper interpretation of zoning (a power reserved to code enforcement and the zoning board of appeals), and a traffic study not shared with the applicant. The appellate court therefore ordered the planning board to grant the application.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's refusal to award additional attorneys' fees to Smart Choice Medical, P.C. after Smart Choice filed its fee submission late and then sought permission to renew based on an argument that the court's briefing schedule postdated its deadline. The court held that Smart Choice's asserted “new” factual basis was actually available earlier and that it failed to offer a reasonable justification for not presenting that information earlier. Because the renewal standard under CPLR 2221(e) was not met, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying renewal or awarding additional fees.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court judgment refusing to award additional attorneys' fees to Citimed Surgery Center, LLC. Citimed had been directed to file a motion for fees within 30 days after a May 11, 2023 order, but filed late and did not explain the delay. The court denied Citimed's motions as untimely, relying on precedent that court-ordered time frames must be respected to preserve the integrity of judicial orders. Because the second motion was filed beyond the 30-day period, the appellate court held the denial was proper and affirmed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment confirming a master arbitration award in favor of Bay Ridge Surgi-Center, LLC and refusing to award Bay Ridge additional attorney fees under 11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4). Bay Ridge had sought relief after failing to appear for oral argument and moved to vacate that portion of the prior order and to obtain fees; the court denied the CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion and reargument request. The court held Bay Ridge could not use reargument to raise the fee claim for the first time and that Bay Ridge failed to submit the contemporaneous time records required to justify an award of additional fees.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting the plaintiff summary judgment on liability and dismissing the defendants' affirmative defense of comparative negligence in a rear-end collision case. The plaintiff showed he was slowing for a red light when the defendant's vehicle struck his car from behind, establishing a presumption of the defendant's negligence. The defendants' evidence that the plaintiff made a sudden stop and that their car skidded on wet pavement did not provide a sufficient nonnegligent explanation or show the skid was unavoidable, so no triable issue of fact was created.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff Alejandro Perez Barranco's claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) arising from a 2017 ladder fall. The court held the homeowner's exemption protected defendant Marina Fronshtein because the property was a one-family residence and she did not direct or control the work. The court also held defendant Marat Fronshtein was entitled to dismissal under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision because he and the injured plaintiff were coemployees acting within the scope of employment. The defendants' cross-appeal was rendered academic.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the Reinholds' motion to vacate a March 23, 2022 order that granted JPMorgan Chase leave to enter a default judgment in a mortgage foreclosure. The Reinholds had not answered the foreclosure complaint and did not oppose the plaintiff's motion for default; they later sought relief under CPLR 5015(a) claiming law-office failure and that prior counsel had misled them. The court found their submissions inadequate to show a reasonable excuse for the defaults and therefore properly denied vacatur without reaching whether they had meritorious defenses.