Court Filings

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's order discontinuing reunification services and approving a permanency plan of adoption for two minor children after finding the parents subjected the younger child, A. A., to chronic physical abuse. Medical evidence showed A. A. suffered twelve fractures in various healing stages; a child-abuse pediatrician concluded the injuries resulted from repeated adult-inflicted pulling and twisting. The parents invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege at the nonreunification hearing, and the court drew adverse inferences from that refusal. The appellate court held that the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard for nonreunification and aggravated circumstances.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ergin Tek’s direct appeal of a trial court order that removed a mechanic’s lien and found slander of title because the case was not final. The trial court reserved damages and attorney-fee issues for a later hearing, so the case remained pending. The Court explained that Tek needed either a final judgment, an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, or compliance with interlocutory appeal procedures (including a certificate of immediate review) to obtain appellate jurisdiction. Because Tek did not follow those procedures, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Allied Property Group, LLC’s application for interlocutory review as untimely. Allied sought review after the trial court dismissed all its claims and granted a certificate of immediate review on March 17, 2026. Georgia law requires an application to this Court within ten days of that certificate, but Allied filed on March 31, 2026—four days late. Because compliance with OCGA § 5-6-34(b) is jurisdictional, the Court lacked authority to consider the late application and dismissed it, leaving Allied to await final judgment to pursue an appeal.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of class certification in Stewart v. Farmers Insurance. The plaintiff insured’s vehicle was declared a total loss and Farmers invoked a court-ordered, binding appraisal provision in the policy. The appraisal produced a higher actual-cash-value award, which Farmers paid. The appellate court held that because the appraisal award resolved the plaintiff’s individual contract claim before class certification, the controversy was moot and the entire action — including class claims — had to be dismissed. The court declined to apply the “pick-off” exception because the payment resulted from an enforceable contractual appraisal, not a unilateral settlement tactic.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals, on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, affirmed the trial court’s ruling that relators’ writ of mandamus alleging inverse condemnation against the City of Cleveland was not barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The court concluded the cause of action did not accrue until the airport runway expansion at issue was completed in August 2004, because that completion was when all events fixing Cleveland’s alleged liability occurred. Because the relators filed their mandamus petition on August 1, 2008, the court held the action was timely and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of the taking claim.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Euclid Municipal Court’s denial of Malik Dahdouh’s last-minute motion to continue a small-claims trial. The case arose after the plaintiff sued for vehicle damage; the trial was scheduled within the 40-day small-claims deadline. Dahdouh filed a pro se continuance request the day before trial, citing overseas travel, which the magistrate denied. The appellate court held the trial court properly applied the factors governing continuances (including statutory timing, delay length, prejudice to the plaintiff, and the defendant’s contribution to the delay) and did not abuse its discretion in refusing the continuance.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Dr. Anthony Gingo in his defamation suit against Jane Hanak based on a Yelp review. The appellate court held the challenged statements were false, defamatory per se, and not protected by any qualified privilege; damages (total $245,000, including $145,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive) and attorney fees were upheld after a hearing. The court also affirmed the trial court’s prior designation of Hanak as a vexatious litigator. The ruling rests on undisputed admissions, admissible record evidence, and the conclusion that the statements alleged criminal conduct and attacks on professional reputation.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Shawn Hamilton's negligence and intentional-tort claims against Ameristone, American Countertops, and employee Noah Troyer. Hamilton was injured at work and sued for negligence, negligence per se, and under Ohio's intentional-tort statute. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings and denied leave to amend because the complaint did not allege deliberate intent to injure, and the employers were covered by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation. The appellate court agreed that the pleadings failed to state an actionable intentional-tort claim and affirmed.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Cicorettis’ complaint against A&M Total Restoration. The Cicorettis repeatedly filed complaints captioned as breach of contract but pleaded only negligent, defective, and unworkmanlike performance and failed to attach a written contract or adequately plead contract terms as required by Civ.R. 10(D). The appellate court agreed the complaint failed to state a cognizable breach claim and that negligence/oral-contract claims were time-barred, so dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Delaware County contempt order that jailed Dominic Anusionwu for seven days with a $1,200 purge for failing to pay child support. The court held that because imprisonment was a likely outcome, the trial court was required to ensure Anusionwu either had appointed counsel or knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel via a formal colloquy. The Superior Court found the trial court erred by not conducting that waiver inquiry or determining indigency at the March 12, 2025 hearing and remanded the matter for compliance with the applicable procedures.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the lower court's denial of Eastmore Owners Corp.'s motion to dismiss three causes of action brought by tenant Blanche Zelmanovich. The court held that Zelmanovich plausibly pled housing discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under federal, state, and city fair housing and human rights laws. Her complaints about inaccurate noise reports, temporal proximity between notice of default and notice of her disability, differential treatment of a neighbor, and a psychologist's letter supporting an emotional support dog were sufficient at the pleading stage to create inferences of discrimination and failure to engage in an interactive accommodation process.

The Appellate Division, First Department dismissed Christina Ventura's appeal from a Bronx Supreme Court order that granted defendant Ahmed summary judgment dismissing her complaint for lack of a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The appellate court held the order was entered against plaintiff for failure to timely respond (a default), so the order was not appealable as of right. The proper procedure was to move to vacate the default and then appeal any denial. Because of that procedural defect, the court did not reach Ventura's substantive arguments on the motion's merits.

The Appellate Division, First Department reviewed a contempt finding against plaintiff-wife for allegedly failing to transfer funds under this Court's March 20, 2025 order. The court held that the contempt adjudication was an improvident exercise of discretion and vacated the contempt finding because the prior order lacked a clear deadline for transfer and the motion court did not make required findings that the wife's conduct impaired the husband's rights. The court otherwise affirmed the lower court's order as to issues not challenged on appeal.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court's partial denial of defendants' summary judgment motion and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the medical malpractice claim. Plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to diagnose Cushing's syndrome, but defendants' expert attested that care met the standard and there was no biochemical or pathological evidence of Cushing's or an ACTH-secreting tumor during defendants' treatment. Plaintiffs' expert did not meaningfully rebut defendants' causation evidence or address 2019 surgical pathology, so plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue on causation.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court, Bronx County's denial of defendant Federal 53 Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff alleged his vehicle struck a tow truck's detached front bumper; Federal 53 argued plaintiff was solely at fault because the tow truck was legally stopped. The appellate court found Federal 53 did not eliminate material factual issues, pointing to authenticated photographs that raised questions whether the tow truck's bumper protruded into the plaintiff's lane in violation of a local regulation and whether that condition proximately caused the collision. A later order granting leave to reargue was dismissed as academic.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Bronx Supreme Court order that denied US Bank's motion to confirm a Referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and granted defendant Moises Merino's cross-motion to toll mortgage interest for certain multi-year periods. The court found the Referee relied solely on a servicer employee's affidavit and attached records that lacked sufficient attestation or identifying marks tying them to the plaintiff or a particular servicer, so confirmation was improper. The court also held the lender caused lengthy delays in the referee process that prejudiced Merino, warranting equitable tolling of interest.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's denial of Joseph Pena's amended petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York and NYPD officers. The court held Pena failed to prove the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of his negligence claim within 90 days of accrual or within a reasonable time thereafter. The submitted evidence — an accident report and an alleged incomplete notice served after the deadline — did not show the City knew the facts supporting his theory that an NYPD high-speed chase caused the collision, and Pena also failed to show the City was not prejudiced by the delay.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment confirming a partial final arbitration award that required petitioners to pay respondent $1,123,644.48. Petitioners had sought to vacate the award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded her powers and misinterpreted contract rights to advancement and indemnification. The appellate court held that judicial review is extremely limited, that the arbitrator’s contract interpretation was rational and within the scope of her authority under the JAMS rules, and that petitioners did not show a violation of public policy or any clear excess of power warranting vacatur.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court's order that had vacated an arbitration award in a dispute between transit employees and the New York City Transit Authority. The appellate court held the arbitrator acted within his authority, properly reviewed the process by which the Medical Review Officer reached and then altered his drug-test determination, and found improper influence by the employer's representative. The panel concluded the award did not violate public policy and reinstated the arbitration award, denying the Authority's cross-motion to vacate and granting the petition to confirm.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court judgment confirming a final arbitration award in favor of MLN New York Inc. and denying Jinong Liu's cross-petition to vacate the award. The court held that the arbitrator reasonably relied on testimony from multiple employee witnesses that Liu misreported hours, shifted blame to the majority shareholder, attempted to induce employees to sue the company for a kickback, and otherwise acted disloyally. The court found these facts supported findings that Liu was a faithless servant and breached fiduciary duties, and rejected Liu's manifest-disregard and insufficiency arguments.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order that denied petitioner Elisabeth Kepley’s motion for leave to vacate a prior dismissal and denied her request to file additional papers. The court found that Kepley had previously abused the judicial process by bringing meritless litigation and that the proposed additional papers were irrelevant to the issues already decided. The First Department concluded the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to permit further filings and denied the requested relief, while awarding costs to the respondents.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Lisa Johnson's personal-injury complaint arising from a slip-and-fall at defendants' bowling alley. The court held the appeal was properly considered on the merits despite a procedural argument about appeal timing, but found no admissible evidence that any specific negligent condition (such as excessive oiling or waxing) caused the fall. Because causation could only be based on speculation, defendants met their burden and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, so the dismissal was upheld.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order granting plaintiff Luis Gavilanes summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against defendant 919 Ground Lease LLC and others. The court held that the evidence shows defendants’ negligence in failing to provide proper fall protection — plaintiff was directed to climb cross-pipes without a harness tie-off and could not secure his harness — and that this was a proximate cause of his injury. The court also found defendant translations insufficiently certified but that factual disputes about ladder availability did not defeat liability.

The Appellate Division, First Department dismissed Jacob Adekola’s appeal from Supreme Court orders that granted Deutsche Bank’s motions for a default judgment, an order of reference, confirmation of a referee’s report, and a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court held Adekola lacked standing to appeal because he failed to appear in the underlying action before filing his notice of appeal and therefore was not an aggrieved party. Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of standing, the panel did not reach the merits of Adekola’s arguments for relief.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of defendant Isabella Geriatric Center’s motion to dismiss a wrongful-death complaint brought after a resident contracted COVID-19 and died. The court held that defendant did not establish entitlement to immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act because, while two statutory prerequisites were satisfied (it was a health care facility providing COVID-related services), there were triable issues about whether the facility acted in good faith and whether its conduct rose to gross negligence. A post-death health department citation suggesting policy noncompliance was central to the decision.

The Appellate Division, First Department modified a lower-court order denying summary judgment to the landlord-defendants on their counterclaim for unpaid rent. The court held defendants were entitled to partial summary judgment that plaintiffs owe use-and-occupancy damages for the period October 2020 through March 2021, when plaintiffs returned to and lived in the apartment after elevator service was restored. The court otherwise affirmed the denial of summary judgment because disputed facts remain about defendants' alleged fraudulent inducement, whether plaintiffs were partially constructively evicted or unreasonably rejected alternative housing, and whether plaintiffs ratified the lease.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed Supreme Court Bronx County's grant of summary judgment for New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and reinstated Janice Campbell's medical malpractice complaint. The suit alleges surgeons lacerated the plaintiff's bladder during pelvic surgery. The appellate court found that plaintiff's expert affidavit raised a triable issue by opining surgeons deviated from the standard of care by failing to perform a retrograde bladder fill, which would have better delineated bladder margins given substantial pelvic adhesions. The court held this claim was included in the bill of particulars, so dismissal was improper.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the foreclosure judgment entered for Bank of America against defendant Nicholas Sands. The court confirmed the Referee's report on the amount due because the bank submitted admissible business records and supporting filings, and Sands failed to produce proof of payments or raise evidentiary objections. The court found any failure to calendaring a post-report hearing did not prejudice Sands. It declined to review a separate challenge to service of a 90-day notice because Sands had abandoned that issue by not appealing the prior order or raising it below. The court also held the loan was not a protected "home loan."

The Appellate Division, First Department modified a Bronx Supreme Court order on a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The court affirmed that plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment and defendants were not entitled to dismissal as to Industrial Code §§ 23-1.5(c)(3) and 23-9.2(a) because the grinder lacked a visible guard, the employer had notice, and the unguarded tool was necessary for the work. The court reversed as to Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(1), holding that provision is too vague to support liability under Labor Law § 241(6). The remainder of the lower court's order was affirmed.

The Appellate Division, First Department modified a Supreme Court order concerning deposition priority in a multi-plaintiff civil case. The court held that defendants who filed a pre-answer motion preserved their CPLR 3106(a) priority to take party depositions and plaintiffs needed court leave to depose defendants before the defendants' time to answer expired. The Appellate Division also ruled that defendants are entitled to depose each individual plaintiff (all 27), not just 10, because each sues in his individual capacity and the Commercial Division presumptive limit can be altered. Nonparty depositions and document discovery may proceed as scheduled.