Court Filings

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of medical-malpractice and wrongful-death claims against two groups of individual and corporate defendants (the Sullivan defendants and the Ramapo defendants) as time-barred. The plaintiffs had added those providers to an existing action years after the decedent's death; the court held the statute of limitations had expired and the plaintiffs failed to show that relation back applied. Although the claims arose from the same event and the new defendants shared an interest with the hospital, the plaintiffs could not show the new defendants had timely notice that they should have been sued.

The district court reviewed an appeal by Louis Serball from a Pasco County circuit court decision. After considering the record, the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published beyond the simple affirmation, and the appellee did not file an appearance in the appeal. The mandate affirms the trial court's ruling, leaving the circuit court's judgment intact.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court’s final judgment and its denial of Robert Vidal’s motion for new trial in a case brought by Barclays Bank Delaware. The appellate court held Vidal failed to preserve the claimed errors, did not provide an adequate record for appellate review, and did not show reversible error. The court relied on precedent requiring an adequate trial record to evaluate factual and legal claims on appeal and therefore found no basis to disturb the lower court’s rulings.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil dispute between appellant Marylou Elaine Muscillo and appellee Gilles P. Cournoyer. The opinion, issued April 22, 2026, is per curiam and brief, stating only the disposition without published reasoning. The appellate court declined to reverse or remand the lower court's decision, leaving the trial court's ruling in place subject to any timely rehearing motion. No further factual or legal explanation appears in the opinion.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in a civil appeal brought by Joseph Johel Pineda and others against Ricky Enrique De Cespedes. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 22, 2026, and concluded the lower court's order should stand. The opinion is brief, notes the appeal number and counsel, and states the judgment as "Affirmed." No further reasoning or factual discussion is provided in the published docket entry.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a final injunction for protection against domestic violence entered by the circuit court. The appellant, proceeding pro se, claimed his lawyer had documents not presented at the hearing, but he failed to provide a trial transcript or statement of the proceedings. Because the appellate record lacked the testimony and evidence necessary to evaluate factual and legal claims, the court relied on binding precedent that an inadequate record requires affirmance and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Real Dream Investors, LLC in a dispute over redemption of a tax deed purchased by Monarch Holdings Group, LLC. Monarch bought the property at a tax sale and published a barment notice giving April 16, 2022 as the redemption deadline; the Court held that state time-computation rules extended that deadline to Monday, April 18, 2022. Real Dream timely tendered a cashier’s check and deed on April 18 by attempted personal delivery and overnight mailing after Monarch could not accept delivery, and Monarch’s rejection waived any further tender, extinguishing its tax deed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the jury verdict for Thomas Chevrolet in Scott Martin’s wrongful-termination suit. Martin alleged he was fired for refusing his supervisor’s instructions to commit insurance fraud. The jury found for the employer, and the trial court denied post-trial relief. On appeal Martin argued the court erred by (1) refusing a jury instruction on the “cat’s paw” theory, (2) denying a juror challenge for cause, and (3) excluding evidence and an email about other employees’ post-termination allegations against the supervisor. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the court’s jury instructions, juror inquiry, or relevancy and prejudice rulings on evidence, and affirmed judgment.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium (388 West) in a slip-and-fall suit by Miguel Torres. The court held that 388 West did not meet its initial burden to show it bore no liability for a trip hazard formed where its sidewalk and an adjacent sidewalk met. Evidence showed 388 West or a prior owner had altered the sidewalk in 2002, creating a sloped ramp that encroached on the neighbor’s sidewalk, and the record did not eliminate the possibility that 388 West failed to keep the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition, making summary judgment inappropriate.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders: one denying plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' counsel, and the other granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the business judgment rule prevented judicial review of the board's actions because the complaint lacked sufficient allegations showing the board majority was not independent. The court also found plaintiffs failed to show a conflict of interest warranting counsel disqualification, noting a written waiver from the organization's executive director. Because dismissal rested on the business judgment rule, the court did not decide standing or pleading sufficiency.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Consolidated Edison and Verizon in a personal-injury suit after plaintiff's motorcycle encountered low-hanging wires. The court held that Con Ed could be liable because, under the Joint Use Agreement, it was responsible for maintaining the pole and had actual notice of the hazard from a morning complaint but did not inspect until hours after the crash. Verizon likewise failed to show it had no responsibility or lacked notice because ownership of the offending wires was disputed and its claimed defenses were unpreserved or unsupported.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed three Supreme Court orders in a dispute over property damage and toxic dust infiltration between owners of adjoining townhomes. The court upheld (1) defendants' leave to amend their answer to add a counterclaim for setoff based on plaintiffs' alleged delays and increased remediation costs, (2) denial of plaintiffs' motion to compel additional discovery related to that new counterclaim, and (3) denial of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment seeking payment under a license agreement. The court found the counterclaim not frivolous, the discovery requests unnecessary to the setoff theory, and that disputed factual terms in the license agreement precluded summary judgment.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant US Weatherseal Windows & Doors Operation Inc.'s motion to dismiss a negligence claim brought by condominium unit owners. The plaintiffs allege Weatherseal negligently designed, manufactured, installed, and attempted to repair windows, causing sash sealing failures and recurring water leaks that damaged interior property. The court held that, at this early stage, plaintiffs plausibly alleged an exception to the general rule barring third-party liability under contract because Weatherseal may have created or increased an unreasonable risk of harm, allowing the property-damage negligence claim to proceed.

The First Department affirmed a January 15, 2025 judgment granting Nationstar Mortgage LLC's motion to confirm a referee's report and for judgment of foreclosure and sale against Steve Vassi, and denying Vassi's cross-motion to toll interest. The court held that Vassi retained standing to challenge the foreclosure despite transferring the property because he remains liable on the note and potentially subject to a deficiency judgment. On the merits, the court found plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304's notice and mailing requirements and that the referee's report was supported by admissible business-record evidence, so confirmation and foreclosure were proper.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s orders granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants and granting conditional contractual indemnification to landlord Abeken against tenant Blended Family. The court held that the technician’s work — drilling two holes to run a cable between ceilings and rooms — did not constitute construction-related activity or an alteration that would trigger Labor Law § 240(1). The court also rejected the landlord’s argument that Public Service Law § 228 barred the claim, finding that the worker was a telecommunications, not cable television, installer. Questions of fact about the building ladder precluded summary judgment on common-law negligence, and the lease indemnity clause was enforceable but conditional.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order dismissing the remaining causes of action against several defendants in a fraud and contract dispute arising from a double sale of real property. The court held it lacked general jurisdiction over certain out-of-state defendants, applied New York's procedural law (including its six-year statute of limitations) to bar a statute-of-limitations defense based on Ohio law, but found the fraud, aiding-and-abetting, and certain contract-based claims were insufficiently pleaded or duplicative and thus properly dismissed. Because dismissal was proper on those grounds, other defenses were not reached.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Sompo America Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a fire-damage complaint brought by 120 Main Hotel LLC. The insurer argued an exclusion for damage to vacant or unoccupied premises barred coverage. The appellate court held Sompo failed to prove the exclusion applied because factual disputes remain about the property's condition, whether covered hotel property adequate for operation was present, and whether the plaintiff was conducting customary business operations shortly before the fire. The court also struck new arguments raised for the first time in reply.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a short per curiam decision affirming a nonfinal ruling from the Circuit Court for Brevard County in case number 2019-CA-052645. The appeal was brought by William Ivan (individually and as trustee) against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder (and nominal parties). The appellate court, without published opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No reasoning or detailed findings are included in the document beyond the affirmance and the judges' concurrence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a case brought by Si’leshia Green as parent and natural guardian of a minor against the Flagler County School Board. The appeal arose from the circuit court in Flagler County (case 18-2023-CA-99). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The panel of Judges Lambert, Edwards, and Harris concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court ruling in a dispute between policyholder Norma Tamburini and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The opinion is per curiam and contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED,” indicating the appellate court upheld the circuit court’s judgment. No published reasoning or opinion text appears in the document beyond the affirmation and the panel concurrence, so the court relied on the record and the circuit court’s decision without issuing additional analysis in this entry.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between appellant Britne White and appellee Fidus Roofing & Construction, LLC. The appeal arose from a judgment or order entered by the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, with the panel unanimously concurring and affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion or extended reasoning in the document provided.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil case between borrower Peter A. Liggatt (appellant) and Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (appellee). The appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision, noting the appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County and concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended opinion or reasoning was published in the document; the court simply entered judgment affirming the lower tribunal's decision and the three judges concurred.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Edward and Roberta Kemp from a Lee County circuit court decision involving Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, simply stating the judgment was affirmed. No written opinion with reasoning was provided in the document; the court's summary disposition affirms the lower court's ruling without published explanation. The panel of Judges Stargel, Gannam, and Pratt concurred.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the King County Assessor in a class action brought by the Washington Hospitality Association (WHA). WHA sought property tax relief under RCW 84.70.010(1), arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic qualified as a “natural disaster” that reduced hotel property values. The court held that “natural disaster” in the statute refers to a physically destructive event originating in the earth, atmosphere, or planet (e.g., flood, earthquake, eruption), and does not encompass a pandemic or disease-related economic losses. Because WHA’s properties suffered no physical damage, relief was unavailable.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kurt Rillema’s motion to strike a November 18, 2024 default judgment entered in favor of C.M. Rillema argued the judgment should be stricken because of defects related to notice, the automatic bankruptcy stay, and the court’s allegedly excessive sanctioning for failure to comply with a prior order. The panel held the trial court properly denied relief because (1) the court could enter default judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1037(c) for failure to answer, (2) the automatic stay rendered earlier court action void but did not extend Rillema’s time to answer, and (3) no fatal defect appeared on the face of the record to warrant striking the judgment.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's order ordering the Will County Clerk to place Cesar Guerrero on the April 1, 2025 consolidated election ballot as the Democratic nominee for Joliet Township Supervisor. The Board of Elections had listed Guerrero on a ballot-forfeiture list because his campaign committee owed civil penalties, and the County Clerk removed his name. Guerrero paid the fines on January 29, 2025, was renominated to fill the vacancy in early February, and the court held that the Election Code did not bar ballot placement once the penalties were paid and that the vacancy-filling complied with timing rules. The court also affirmed summary judgment for the County Clerk on Guerrero’s statutory civil-rights claim because the record lacked evidence of willful and wanton conduct.

The Third District affirmed the trial court’s grant of D.R. Horton’s motion for relief from a default final judgment. Amerant Bank obtained a clerk’s default and default final judgment after D.R. Horton failed to respond to an amended complaint; D.R. Horton later moved under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), citing calendaring and clerical errors and in-house counsel’s unexpected maternity leave. The trial court found excusable neglect, a meritorious defense (supported by a draft answer), and prompt diligence after discovering the judgment, and therefore vacated the default final judgment. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.

The court affirmed the Sandusky Municipal Court’s August 20, 2025 judgment denying Shardaye Smith’s motion for relief from judgment under Ohio Civil Rule 60(B). LVNV Funding obtained summary judgment in a small-claims-style collection action after serving process by certified mail to the address on Smith’s account. Smith later sought relief, claiming defective service, lack of jurisdiction, and invalid evidentiary foundation; the magistrate and trial court found she was properly served, had notice (as shown by an earlier filing contesting jurisdiction), failed to show a meritorious defense, and filed her motion untimely. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief and affirmed.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the dealership’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Plaintiff Berman sued Napleton for charging and not providing a rust- and stain-prevention product and signed two separate arbitration agreements during purchase: the Retail Installment Contract (RIC) and a Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA). The court held the two agreements contain irreconcilable, material conflicts—about the arbitration forum, who decides whether a dispute is arbitrable, and allocation of arbitration fees—so no enforceable arbitration agreement exists as to Napleton’s effort to compel arbitration.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Brittany Colatorti’s amended complaint seeking a declaration that Darby Hills’s appointment to a vacant state senate seat was invalid. Colatorti argued the committee failed to give statutorily required notice and that Hills was not a member of the Republican Party at relevant times. The court held the statute requires only that the appointee be a member of the party at the time of appointment; Hills became a precinct committeeperson before her February 28, 2025 appointment and therefore qualified. The complaint was legally insufficient and properly dismissed.