Court Filings

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court and City of Tucker in denying Cox Store Management’s application for a license to operate coin-operated amusement machines (COAMs) at its Idlewood convenience store. The City’s 2022 COAM ordinance bars COAMs within the distance limits that apply to alcohol sales; the store is 80.2 yards from a nearby church. The court held that the enabling statute allows municipalities to impose distance restrictions for COAMs no more restrictive than those for alcohol sales, and that the ordinance’s application to Cox was therefore lawful regardless of the types of alcoholic beverages Cox sells.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for UC Health, LLC in Danielle Drake’s wrongful-termination suit. Drake, an at-will social worker, was fired after she accessed a patient’s protected health information (PHI) without a legitimate business reason while attempting to report a coworker’s suspected HIPAA violation. The court held that UC had an overriding legitimate business justification—enforcement of its strict policy forbidding unauthorized PHI access—and Drake failed to show that termination was pretextual.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court default judgment in favor of Pheasant Ridge Association, Inc. in its foreclosure action against property owner Jeremy Harper for unpaid association assessments. Harper, who was served with the complaint, failed to file an answer or otherwise respond; the Association moved for default judgment and submitted an affidavit of account, its declaration, and its certificate of lien. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting default judgment because Harper forfeited defenses by failing to respond and provided no evidence to dispute the Association’s proofs.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s dental malpractice complaint against the Deol defendants. Plaintiff sued for injuries from root canals performed by an endodontist, Dr. Taggar, who practiced at premises operated by the Deol defendants. The court concluded Taggar was an independent contractor, not an employee, and the Deol defendants neither controlled his professional work nor actually supervised him, so they are not vicariously or directly liable. Plaintiff’s opposition lacked admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing plaintiff Varma's complaint against Allstate and Wayne LeVan. The court held the complaint was barred by res judicata because the claims — challenging termination and asserting breach based on the same agency agreement and incorporated supplement — either were raised or could have been raised in an earlier action between the same parties. The court also held that the prior dismissal and the denial of leave to amend had preclusive effect because the new complaint mirrors the proposed amended pleading previously rejected on the merits.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed a lower court order denying plaintiff Jeremiah Smith's motion for leave to amend his complaint against the City of Buffalo, its police department, and unnamed officers. The appeal challenged Supreme Court (Erie County)'s November 12, 2024 decision refusing permission to amend, but the appellate court found no reversible error and denied relief. The appellate decision is brief and affirms the trial court's exercise of discretion without further elaboration in the slip opinion.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed an order of the Court of Claims that granted the administrator of Kaazim Freeman’s estate leave to amend her wrongful-death claim against the State and denied the State’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the proposed amendments related back to the original claim for statute-of-limitations purposes because they arose from the same occurrence — Freeman’s unexplained death in state custody — and that the State failed to show prejudice from the delay. Consequently, amendment was properly allowed under CPLR 3025 and CPLR 203(f).

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Supreme Court (Erie County) order granting summary judgment to defendants in a dispute brought by plaintiff-appellant Colleen Pandy, as executor and individually, against Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America and individual defendants. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the moving defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, resolving the appeal against the plaintiff. The decision is brief and affirms the dismissal of the plaintiff’s remaining claims without further comment or costs awarded to the appellant.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to two third-party defendants and denying NYAC summary judgment on its indemnification claim. Plaintiff sued for injuries from a scaffold fall. The court held that Next Level was not contractually obligated to indemnify NYAC because the indemnity language covered only claims arising from Next Level's work and there was no evidence plaintiff’s injury related to Next Level’s work. The court also held that an indemnity agreement between NYAC and Anderson, signed after the accident, could not be applied retroactively because NYAC failed to show the parties intended an earlier effective date.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the Town of Floyd Zoning Board of Appeals' denial of three variances sought by petitioner Jeffrey Kotary to incorporate two shipping containers into a new barn and to exceed height and setback limits. Kotary sought judicial review under CPLR article 78 after the ZBA granted only a height variance and denied the other variances. The court held the ZBA properly applied the statutory balancing test, relied on safety concerns, feasible alternatives, and the largely self-created nature of petitioner’s need, and concluded there was a rational basis for denying the variances.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's denial of petitioner Karen Anthone's motion for summary judgment in a proceeding to enforce a judgment lien against real property owned by George Carlo and the Carlo Family Trust. The court held that the trust is a self-settled trust and therefore its assets are available to satisfy the settlor's creditors, so petitioner did not need to prove a fraudulent conveyance. However, the court found a triable issue whether the homestead exemption applies to the property sale, so summary judgment was improper and the matter remains for further fact-finding on that exemption issue.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Supreme Court order in a medical malpractice and wrongful death case that compelled defendants TLC Health Network and Lake Shore Health Care Center to produce electronic medical record audit trails and related discovery. The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion because new deposition evidence—developed after an earlier appeal—suggested audit-trail data might exist, had not been fully disclosed, and that defendants' representatives lacked knowledge about retention policies. The appellate court held the new evidence justified additional discovery and found no conflict with its prior decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed a trial court order that, after reargument, denied plaintiff’s challenge to defendant’s motion (converted to summary judgment) dismissing certain claims and awarding defendant unpaid alternative rent. The dispute arose from a lease cotenancy clause requiring a single anchor tenant; when the anchor space was filled by two tenants, the landlord sought full rent while the tenant claimed entitlement to an offset under the cotenancy provision. The court held the tenant could enforce the alternative rent under the lease amendments and that the landlord could not rely on an estoppel certificate to negate that rent offset obligation.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing plaintiff Shawn Broton's second amended complaint. Broton, formerly Deputy Chief of Syracuse Police, alleged constitutional and statutory claims after being denied reinstatement to a rank-and-file position in December 2017 and after an ethics investigation later found his allegations unfounded. The court held most claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations because they accrued on the December 18, 2017 denial, and alternatively found no triable issues of fact as to defendants’ entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a trial court order denying summary judgment to defendants Dr. Saurin Popat and Delaware Medical Group in a medical malpractice suit brought by Meg and Brian Bray. The court found defendants initially showed they met the standard of care, but plaintiffs submitted an expert affirmation—establishing medical licensure and board certification in endocrine surgery—that raised triable issues as to whether Dr. Popat's assessment, diagnosis, and treatment fell below the accepted standard. Because the parties’ experts conflicted, summary judgment was inappropriate and the case must proceed.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court (Steuben County) order that denied plaintiff Maura Bianco's motion for summary judgment in her suit against defendant Jacqueline S. Johnson. The appellate court reviewed the lower court's December 27, 2024 order and concluded there were issues precluding summary disposition, so the matter remains for further proceedings in the trial court. The appellate decision was issued April 24, 2026 and affirmed without costs.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a trial court judgment awarding Amber Well Drilling money damages based on a jury verdict in quantum meruit. The court held that the written home-improvement contract failed to comply with General Business Law § 771, so the contractor could not enforce the contract for breach or recover contractually stipulated interest and attorneys' fees. The court nonetheless allowed recovery for completed work under unjust enrichment/quasi-contract and awarded prejudgment interest at a statutory/alternative rate. Plaintiff's broader arguments to revisit precedent and to sever the fee/interest clause were rejected.

The Texas Supreme Court (Justice Hawkins, joined by two justices) concurred with the Court’s opinion holding that the plaintiffs qualify as prevailing parties entitled to attorney’s fees under a specific Texas statute. The concurrence explains that although the trial court labeled the relief a "temporary injunction," the statutory scheme at issue makes such relief effectively final because disclosure of information cannot be undone. Because the defendants complied and the information was disclosed, the plaintiffs obtained ultimate relief and thus prevailed for fee-shifting purposes.

The Texas Supreme Court held that two former Webb Consolidated ISD board members who obtained a trial-court temporary injunction ordering the district to produce requested board materials qualified as "prevailing" under Texas Education Code § 11.1512(c-2) and may recover reasonable attorney’s fees for the relief obtained. The court explained that although temporary injunctions normally preserve the status quo and do not confer prevailing-party status, the injunction here effectively granted the only relief the statute authorizes — production of requested information — and the district complied. The court also held board members need not exhaust administrative remedies before suing under § 11.1512(c-2). The case is remanded for determination of recoverable fees limited to the injunction-related claims.

The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus to direct the trial court to enter summary judgment for Bell Helicopter. The family of a pilot who died in a 2017 helicopter crash sued Bell, claiming the flight manual failed to warn adequately about flying with a loose engine cowling. Bell invoked the federal General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA), which bars suits against manufacturers brought more than 18 years after delivery unless a "new" part that is alleged to have caused the accident was added or replaced within 18 years. The Court held the manual revisions did not restart GARA’s 18-year clock because none of the changes constituted a new part alleged to have caused the crash.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment holding that Willis A. Smith Construction, Inc. (WASC) is not entitled to workers' compensation immunity in a wrongful-death/negligence suit brought by the estate of Phillip Keathley. The underlying accident occurred when Keathley fell while preparing a subcontractor bid for West Shore on a USF restoration project. The court concluded WASC had a contract with USF but did not sublet any portion of that contractual obligation to West Shore because West Shore never submitted a bid or entered an enforceable subcontract with WASC.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a premises-liability or related negligence appeal brought by Joan Randazzo against Walgreens, 8951 Hudson LLC, and Dynaserv Florida, LLC. The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision concluding the lower court's ruling was correct and required no change. The court did not publish a full opinion here; the judgment below therefore stands as reviewed and affirmed without published reasoning in this entry.

The appellate court reviewed Jakina Lynum's appeal from a Hillsborough County circuit court judgment involving the Department of Revenue, Child Support Program, and Keevin-Austin Smith. The Second District issued a brief per curiam opinion and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion or noted briefing by appellees. The panel unanimously affirmed the judgment, with Judges Khouzam, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. No reasoning, factual background, or citations were provided in the opinion beyond the affirmance and procedural origin.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family members and the estate/trust of Robert Laurine. The appellate court reviewed the record and the parties' arguments and concluded there was no reversible error warranting reversal or modification of the lower court's judgment. The opinion is per curiam, short, and does not elaborate reasoning beyond affirming the trial court's ruling, with all three judges concurring.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute involving David Laurine and several family-related appellees, including Victoria A. Shupe in various capacities. The appeal from the Pinellas County circuit court was heard on the record and the panel issued a per curiam opinion, affirming the lower court's ruling without published opinion. The court provided no extended reasoning in this short entry and the judgment of the circuit court therefore stands as affirmed.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming a lower-court ruling. The appeal was brought by Joshua Jennings against Richard Clark from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The appellate panel, with all three judges concurring, affirmed the trial court's decision without published opinion and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication. No further reasoning or factual background is provided in the document.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bridge Golde from a Glades County County Court decision. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam order, affirmed the lower court's decision and cited Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). All three judges concurred. The appellant proceeded pro se and the appellee did not appear. The opinion is short-form and finality is subject to the time for filing a motion for rehearing.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Kimberly C. Shook from a Pasco County Court decision and, after consideration, issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment. The appeal was submitted with the appellant appearing pro se and no counsel appearing for the appellee. The opinion is brief, notes concurrence by the three-judge panel, and affirms the county court ruling without published reasoning in this short entry.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a wrongful-death/negligent security appeal. The panel held there was no genuine dispute of material fact that would allow a jury to find the defendants owed or breached a legally cognizable duty to prevent the criminal act that caused the decedent’s death. The court relied on Florida summary-judgment standards and precedent distinguishing foreseeability as part of duty and proximate cause, concluding the record did not impose liability on the landowner under current law.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s denial of Blue Origin’s motion to compel arbitration of former employee Craig Stoker’s employment claims. The court found the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable because it was an adhesion contract presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and substantively unconscionable because it was overbroad, lacked mutuality, waived jury trial, and barred representative claims including PAGA-style claims. Because multiple defects tainted the agreement and severance would not cure the one-sided scheme, the court held the arbitration clause unenforceable and affirmed denial of the petition to compel arbitration.