Court Filings

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in favor of Otavio Metzker against Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The appeal arose from Broward County circuit court proceedings (case no. 062020CA020823AXXXCE). The appellate panel, in a per curiam opinion with concurrence by all judges, issued a simple affirmance without extended opinion. The decision is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed and resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in a civil dispute between appellants Adem H. Adem and Upper Jets Maintenance, LLC and appellee N898PA, LLC. The appeal arose from a case litigated in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County. The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision simply stating “Affirmed,” indicating the court found no reversible error in the trial court’s proceedings or judgment. The opinion was unanimous and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District of Florida, affirmed a county court judgment in a dispute between Well Done Mitigation as assignee of Danielle Harvard and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The appeal (No. 4D2025-0802) arose from Broward County Circuit Court, and the panel, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No further published reasoning appears in the short opinion.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between Valerie Williams (appellant) and Horace Williams (appellee). The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court matter (case no. 062023CA015644AXXXCE). The appellate panel, writing per curiam, concluded the trial court's ruling should stand and issued a short dispositive opinion simply stating "Affirmed." The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal interlocutory order from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County in a dispute between condominium associations and multiple defendants, including homebuilder Lennar Homes, LLC and individual appellees. The appellate panel issued a single-line per curiam decision: Affirmed. The opinion contains no extended reasoning in the published slip and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Olga Quijano and Jose Luis De Vivo from a Broward Circuit Court judgment involving HSBC Bank National Association. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion that affirmed the lower court's decision. No detailed reasoning or factual discussion appears in the published entry; the opinion simply states the judgment is affirmed and notes parties may file a timely motion for rehearing. All three judges concurred.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in a dispute between My Harrison Corp. (appellant) and Home Tower Condominium, Inc. (appellee). The appeal arose from a Broward County Circuit Court case (No. 062024CA016458AXXXCE). The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion, with Judges Levine, Conner, and Shepherd concurring, and entered judgment affirming the trial court. The opinion is short and does not state the underlying factual or legal reasoning in the published entry.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a dispute between G.T. Construction and Development, Inc. (appellant) and Century Tile and Marble, Inc. (appellee). The panel issued a per curiam opinion, with Judges Levine, Conner, and Shepherd concurring, and noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved. No substantive reasoning, facts, or legal analysis appears in the published entry beyond the affirmance.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Allamanda Gardens Condominium Inc. and Sheldon R. Rosenthal in an appeal brought by Alexandria Investment, LLC. The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court case (No. 062022CA004954AXXXCE). The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without elaborating on the reasoning in the published entry. The decision is subject to any timely motion for rehearing before it becomes final.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Wells Fargo USA Holdings, Inc. in an appeal brought by 5307 CWELT-2008. The appeal arose from a Broward County circuit court case (062016CA004032AXXXCE). The appellate panel issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating “Affirmed,” with no published opinion or extended reasoning included in the decision summary. The court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed a no-answer default judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 10 in Bexar County in favor of Investment Retrievers, Inc. The Rodriguezes, appearing pro se, challenged the default judgment on three grounds: violation of due process, the absence of a hearing, and that their SSI benefits are exempt from execution. The appeals court found the record showed proper service and compliance with rules for default judgments, that damages may be proved by affidavit without oral testimony, and that the appellants failed to support or cite authority for their exemption claim, so there was nothing preserved for review.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment granting Castroville State Bank a judicial foreclosure against Lance and Kerry Meyer after the Meyers defaulted on loans secured by deeds of trust. The Bank moved for a hybrid summary judgment and no-evidence dismissal of the Meyers’ affirmative defenses; the trial court granted final summary judgment. The appellate court held the Meyers (pro se) failed to raise fact issues or provide admissible, properly cited record evidence to defeat summary judgment and waived other complaints, so the foreclosure judgment stands.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Ryan Karr's pro se complaint against the Estate of Dianna Sayre and Joseph Aaron Sayre. Karr had alleged perjury, abuse of a disabled person, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other misconduct tied to a prior CPO proceeding, but his nine-page complaint failed to plead distinct causes of action, facts, dates, or the elements required to give defendants adequate notice. The appellate court held the complaint did not satisfy Civ.R. 8(A) and affirmed dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), noting Karr also failed to meaningfully brief his assignments of error on appeal.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s dismissal with prejudice of United Equitable Insurance Company’s 2022 declaratory judgment complaint. UEIC sought a declaration it owed no coverage beyond a $25,000 policy limit and that it breached no duties to its insured; Walker moved to dismiss arguing res judicata and lack of an actual controversy. The court held the policy limit was undisputed and that UEIC improperly sought retrospective clearance from liability for alleged past bad-faith conduct—matters properly litigated in Walker’s separate bad-faith lawsuit—so there was no justiciable controversy for a declaratory judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff Myles Watson's employment-discrimination suit against the Metropolitan Transit Authority and NYCTA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case based on a broad release the plaintiff signed after disciplinary proceedings, but the appellate court found factual disputes about the circumstances of signing and therefore rejected dismissal on that ground. The court nonetheless affirmed because the complaint failed to state a viable disability discrimination claim under New York State law and the evidence showed no available safe and reasonable accommodation under the New York City law; the hostile-work-environment claim was also inadequately pleaded.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the bank's foreclosure complaint against 972 Gates Avenue, LLC as time-barred. Chase earlier commenced a foreclosure in August 2010 that accelerated the mortgage, starting the six-year statute of limitations. US Bank filed a new foreclosure in June 2022, over 11 years later, and did not plead or prove it was acting on behalf of Chase. Under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act's CPLR 205-a, a successor/assignee cannot use the six-month savings rule unless it pleads and proves it acts for the original plaintiff, so US Bank was not entitled to tolling and the dismissal was proper.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The dispute concerned whether John Evelyn, who conveyed his interest in the mortgaged Brooklyn property in 2015, remained a necessary defendant in a 2008 mortgage foreclosure. The court held that because Evelyn had made an absolute conveyance and the plaintiff waived any deficiency claim against him, he was no longer a necessary party and could be dropped from the caption under CPLR 1003. The foreclosure and sale order was therefore affirmed as to Evelyn.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order that denied the plaintiff’s renewed attempt to obtain summary judgment on liability against defendant Olson E. Van Rossum in a pedestrian-vehicle negligence case. The court held the plaintiff failed to show new facts with reasonable justification required for renewal, and on reargument the evidence still did not establish the plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment on liability. Because the plaintiff’s submissions did not prove the defendant breached a duty proximately causing her injuries, the court adhered to the original denial of summary judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' negligence complaint against the Town of North Hempstead. The plaintiffs sued after Yelena Sharbani allegedly tripped on an uneven sidewalk; the Town moved for summary judgment arguing it had no prior written notice of the defect. The court held the Town showed it lacked prior written notice and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue that an exception (affirmative creation of the defect or special use) applied, so the Town was entitled to dismissal as a matter of law.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County judgment dismissing Rios's personal-injury complaint after a jury found the bus driver’s negligence was not a substantial factor in the crash and that the other vehicle’s driver was solely at fault. The plaintiff had moved to set aside the liability verdict as against the weight of the evidence, but the court denied that motion. The court also found any claimed errors in admitting certain defense expert testimony to be harmless because the outcome would not have changed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence claim against Garden City Public Schools. The plaintiff sued under the Child Victims Act alleging the school negligently failed to prevent sexual abuse by a teacher. The school moved for summary judgment arguing it had no actual or constructive notice of the teacher's propensity for sexual abuse; the personnel file showed an earlier accusation was investigated and deemed unfounded. The court held the plaintiff's speculative allegations about bias or a cover-up did not create a triable issue of fact, so dismissal was proper.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability in a pedestrian-vehicle collision case. The plaintiff had sought a ruling that the driver was solely at fault and dismissal of the defendants' comparative negligence defense. The court held the plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden because her testimony did not eliminate triable issues about whether the driver could have seen her and whether she was at fault, so summary judgment was inappropriate.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's negligence claims against defendant driver Christopher McCabe and his employer Brown's of Bellport, Inc. The plaintiff was in a left non-HOV lane and rear-ended a stopped tractor-trailer after McCabe swerved left into the HOV lane to avoid being struck from behind. The court held that McCabe’s evasive maneuver merely furnished the occasion for the collision and was not a proximate cause, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact about McCabe’s negligence, so Brown's cannot be vicariously liable.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a trial court order denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer, preclude their defenses, or resolve liability in the plaintiff’s favor for failure to produce court-ordered discovery in a personal injury action. The Supreme Court had found no clear showing that the defendants’ discovery lapses were willful and contumacious and instead extended a deadline for production. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under disclosure and sanction rules and therefore affirmed the denial of the extreme sanctions sought by the plaintiff.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's June 9, 2021 order denying both the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a tenant's home health aide plaintiff's negligence complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff was scalded by unexpectedly hot water while showering and alleged the landlord negligently maintained the building's hot-water/boiler system. The court held that competing evidence about prior hot-water incidents and the building's system created triable issues of fact about whether the defendant created or had notice of the dangerous condition, so neither side was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint against the New York City Transit Authority and bus driver Loraine C. Lord and dismissing the Cintron defendants' cross-claim against those defendants. The court reviewed a jury verdict that found the bus driver's admitted negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the collision and that the Cintron vehicle operator's negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court held the jury’s verdict was reasonably supported by testimonial, photographic, and video evidence and therefore was not against the weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in civil contempt, to obtain retroactive child support, and for counsel fees. The parties had a 2009 stipulation requiring annual child support increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but they later executed a 2011 amendment that modified the child support provision and did not include the CPI increase. The court held the CPI provision was no longer in effect and the plaintiff failed to prove prejudice from the defendant's alleged failure to produce tax returns, so a contempt hearing was not required.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders in a personal injury action arising from a 2015 construction-site accident. The court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add Skanska Civil Northeast, Inc., finding the plaintiff did not satisfy the relation-back test because Skanska USA and Skanska Northeast were not united in interest. The court also affirmed denial of the plaintiff's renewal motion. Finally, the court affirmed denial of Skanska USA's renewed cross-motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff showed discovery might uncover evidence to oppose the motion based on public materials Skanska USA had disseminated.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant Kathy McElroy's pre-answer motion to dismiss an amended mortgage foreclosure complaint or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff's counsel to produce proof of authority to commence the action. The plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its servicer's assistant vice president and a limited power of attorney showing the servicer was authorized to act and that the law firm had been retained to begin the foreclosure. The court held those submissions sufficiently established the law firm's authority, so dismissal and compelled production were properly denied.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and modified the dismissal order by treating the defendant's motion as a request for declaratory relief and granting it. The court held that the plaintiffs' one-day-old, prematurely filed default motion was properly denied, and that, even accepting the plaintiffs' allegations, there is no legal basis to declare them released from their mortgage because the defendant's failure to produce a chain of title does not itself free them from the loan. The case is remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the defendant's entitlement to that declaration.