Court Filings

The Appellate Division reviewed plaintiffs’ appeals from two Supreme Court orders in a dispute over whether plaintiffs (children from the decedent’s first marriage) are entitled to the decedent’s 50% interest in unimproved Martha’s Vineyard property. The court held that the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint on its own motion, but it affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm. The appeal of the denial of reargument was dismissed as not appealable. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the complaint.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's January 22, 2024 order in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Bank of America against Muhammad and Zubaida Sarwar. The trial court granted the bank summary judgment on the complaint as to the Sarwars, struck two affirmative defenses/counterclaims alleging a fraud/conspiracy and that bank employees facilitated illegal activity, and ordered reference. The appellate court agreed that Muhammad was precluded from testifying because he failed to complete his deposition as directed, declined to consider his affidavit, and found the defendants failed to raise a triable issue that the named bank employees had actual or apparent authority to bind the bank. Costs were awarded to the bank.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a lower court judgment that Amtrust North America must defend Authority Fleet Services and related plaintiffs in an underlying personal-injury lawsuit arising from a September 30, 2022 construction accident. The court held that the underlying complaint, liberally construed, reasonably suggested a possibility of coverage under the employer's workers' compensation and employers' liability policy, triggering the insurer's broader duty to defend. Because Amtrust failed to show there was no possible factual or legal basis for indemnity, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment requiring Amtrust to defend the insureds.

The Appellate Division reviewed a mortgage foreclosure where defendant Cheryl Hunte defaulted and a referee's report and judgment of foreclosure and sale were entered. The court dismissed Hunte's direct appeal from an interim order as moot but reversed the foreclosure judgment insofar as it depended on presumed valid service of process. Because Hunte submitted a sworn denial with supporting facts sufficient to rebut the process server's affidavit, the court remitted the case for a hearing to determine whether she was properly served, and ordered a new determination afterward on confirmation of the referee's report and the motion to vacate the earlier default judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of Mansoor Alam's claim against the State of New York. Alam had sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress after New York City Department of Social Services accepted his Medicaid application but required a monthly spenddown, which he said left him unable to cover living expenses. The court held the claim necessarily required review of an administrative agency determination and therefore fell outside the Court of Claims' subject-matter jurisdiction; such challenges must be pursued in Supreme Court by an Article 78 proceeding.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment and for a protective order. The plaintiff obtained a judgment after the defendants failed to appear or oppose a summary-judgment-in-lieu-of-complaint motion seeking rent and damages under a commercial lease and guaranty. The defendants later moved under CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the November 2020 judgment and under CPLR 5240 to vacate restraining notices on bank accounts; the court found their excuses for default unreasonable and declined to disturb the restraining notices because they were needed to secure enforcement of the judgment.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Zenayda Guadalupe Portillo-Rodriguez’s appeal from a Potter County district court judgment because she failed to pay the required appellate filing fee and did not seek to proceed without payment. The Clerk notified her of the overdue fee and gave a deadline of April 13, 2026, but she took no action. Relying on the court’s appellate rules and the Clerk’s notice requirement, the court concluded dismissal was appropriate for noncompliance and entered a per curiam dismissal on April 29, 2026.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Jason M. Rivera’s pro se appeal from a decision by the Circuit Court for Manatee County. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court’s judgment. The opinion contains no extended written reasoning and simply affirms the trial court decision. All three judges concurred and the mandate leaves the trial court’s ruling in place.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the circuit court's decision in a case brought by Nancy M. Gavrilis, as personal representative of the Estate of John Monteforte, and intervenor Stylianos Gavrilis, against appellee Sabrina Hayes. The appeal challenged the lower court's ruling; the appellate panel issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed.' No opinion text explaining reasoning or issues is included in the document, and the judges concurred. The decision leaves the circuit court's judgment intact.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a civil dispute between appellant Katalin Fodor and appellee Krisztian Gonda. The appeal was taken to the district court from the Pinellas County Circuit Court, and the appellate panel, writing per curiam, concluded that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended opinion, reasoning, or factual discussion was provided in the published disposition beyond the court's one-line affirmance and concurrence by the three judges.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Stephanie Candace Moure Cramer from a Sarasota County circuit court decision in a dispute against Brendan Walker. The Second District issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 29, 2026, concluding only that the lower court's judgment should be affirmed. No published reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the opinion beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by all three judges, and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the county court's decision in favor of Hillsborough County Animal Control. Maurice F. Bayless, appearing pro se, appealed a county court judgment; the appeals court reviewed the matter and concluded there was no reversible error. The per curiam opinion provided no extended discussion and simply affirmed the lower court's ruling, with judges Morris, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. No detailed factual or legal reasoning appears in the published entry.

The Third District reversed a final summary judgment of foreclosure entered for Miami Beach Townhomes because the trial court never adjudicated the homeowner-appellant Steven Kwartin’s pending affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The Association proved overdue assessments and obtained a judgment liquidating the amount due, but the judgment did not rule on Kwartin’s claims that he had tendered payment, that the Association rejected payments, and that it breached duties. The appellate court followed precedent holding a foreclosure judgment is premature and reversible when interrelated defenses and counterclaims remain unresolved.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a County Court decision in a case between appellant Shella Lucien and appellee Pablo Martinez Ruiz. The appellate court, writing per curiam, concluded that Lucien failed to provide an adequate record for appellate review. Citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, the court explained that without a sufficient record it cannot resolve factual disputes or determine that the trial judge misapplied the law, so reversal is not warranted.

The Third District affirmed most of the trial court's summary judgment in favor of FAM Productions and Herrera, holding that plaintiff Saldana's claims based on four successive loans are limited to a single claim against FAM Productions (Washington) on the fourth loan and that neither FAM (Florida) nor Herrera are liable on the notes. The panel reversed the portion of the judgment dismissing Saldana’s claim against FAM (Washington) without prejudice to arbitration because the trial court did not resolve Saldana’s argument that FAM (Washington) waived arbitration by its litigation conduct. The case is remanded for the trial court to decide waiver in the first instance.

The Third District Court of Appeal granted a writ of certiorari and quashed the trial court’s February 6 and February 19, 2026 discovery orders that compelled the petitioner to appear for an in-person deposition in Miami-Dade County after a final default judgment had been entered. The appellate court concluded that once a final judgment is entered, the trial court lacks authority to order depositions in the case in chief and may only permit post-judgment discovery limited to execution or certain narrow exceptions not present here. Because the discovery orders sought materials and testimony that should have been obtained before judgment, they were improper and subject to certiorari relief.

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court order that denied Hartford’s motion to dismiss MSP Recovery’s second amended complaint. MSP had sued for a pure bill of discovery and declaratory relief under Florida’s motor-vehicle no-fault statute, alleging the trial court had specific personal jurisdiction over Hartford. The trial court found Hartford had abandoned its jurisdictional defense, but the appellate court held Hartford did not abandon that defense and, applying a recent controlling precedent (USAA Casualty Ins. Co. v. MSP Recovery Claims), concluded the long-arm jurisdictional allegations were insufficient. The case is dismissed and remanded with directions to dismiss the action.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a three-year injunction for protection against stalking that the trial court had entered for the Wife against the Girlfriend. The appellate court held the evidence did not show the two separate, legally distinct instances of harassment required by Florida law: the October 23 barrage of messages constituted a single episode, and the other alleged acts (two social-media posts and one child-support text) were either isolated or served legitimate purposes. The court also found the communications did not objectively cause the high level of emotional distress the statute requires.

The Fourth District reversed a trial court order denying dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ruth sued nonresident trustee Dunham Trust Company (DTC) in Florida for breach of fiduciary duties related to a trust created by a Florida resident. The court held DTC’s acceptance of a successor co-trusteeship and routine communications to a beneficiary who later moved to Florida were insufficient to show that DTC purposefully availed itself of conducting business in Florida. Because DTC’s administration occurred in Nevada and contacts with Florida were tied to unilateral acts of the settlor/beneficiary, due process was not satisfied.

The appellate court reversed a county court order denying the landlord’s motion to dismiss or transfer a security-deposit suit for improper venue. The complaint showed the leased property, tenancy, and a prior eviction action were all in Hillsborough County and did not allege any office or agent of the landlord in Palm Beach County. Because the plaintiff did not plead a sufficient basis for selecting Palm Beach County, the Fourth District held venue is proper in Hillsborough County and remanded with directions to grant the motion and transfer the case there.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a civil case between appellant Kazi Ahmed and appellee Krzysztof Duszka. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, and both parties appeared pro se. The per curiam opinion is brief and simply states the appeal is affirmed without published reasoning in the opinion. The ruling is subject to possible change if a timely motion for rehearing is filed.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-final circuit court order in a civil case where appellant Fernando Costantini Gomes sought to pursue punitive damages under Florida’s vulnerable-adult statutes. The panel held that the statutory framework permits a vulnerable adult to recover actual and punitive damages for abuse, neglect, or exploitation, but a plaintiff must make a reasonable showing in the record (or by proffer) that the defendant’s conduct amounted to intentional misconduct or gross negligence to justify punitive damages. Applying those standards, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between Emilie Gonzalez and others (appellants) and Maria Del Pilar Alvarez (appellee). The appellate court concluded the record was insufficient to overturn the lower court and deferred to the trial judge's exercise of discretion. Citing precedent, the court explained that without a trial record the appellate court cannot resolve factual disputes or find an abuse of discretion, so the lower court's ruling stands.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-final circuit court order in a civil case between appellant Carlos A. Zarraluqui and appellees Fetes & Events, Inc., et al. The appeal arose from a 2023 Miami-Dade County proceeding and was argued by counsel for both sides. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, simply stating 'Affirmed,' without published opinion or extended reasoning in this document. The judgment affirms the lower court's non-final ruling, and the mandate will follow after disposition of any timely motion for rehearing.

The appellate court reviewed Marie Fleurima's appeal from a Broward County circuit court final judgment. Because Fleurima did not provide a trial transcript and the offered statement of the evidence lacked the trial court's required approval under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5), the Fourth District limited its review to errors apparent on the face of the final judgment and found none. The court therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment. The opinion cites Edman v. Edman as controlling precedent and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Court of Appeal reversed a superior court judgment that had dismissed a Proposition 65 enforcement lawsuit for inadequate pre-suit notice. The plaintiff, a private enforcer, had sent a 60-day notice that identified the organization and provided contact information for its outside counsel rather than a specific internal “responsible individual.” The appellate court followed a recent decision (Pancho Villa’s) and held the regulation requiring a contact for the noticing entity is directory, not mandatory, and that the notice here substantially complied with the regulation’s purposes (informing prosecutors and giving defendants an opportunity to investigate and cure). The case is remanded for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Christopher Garner’s writ petition after the California Victim Compensation Board rejected his request for compensation under Penal Code section 4900. Garner had his 2007 murder conviction vacated and resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.6, and he sought compensation for time served beyond the revised sentence. The Board denied the claim because Garner did not allege an "erroneous conviction" as required by section 4900 — his original conviction was lawful under the law in effect at the time — and the Board permissibly used a regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 642) to screen and dismiss legally deficient claims without a hearing. The court held the statute and regulation were correctly applied and valid.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court award of attorney fees to environmental group Raptors Are the Solution under California’s private attorney general statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5). Raptors sued the Department of Pesticide Regulation over its renewals and reevaluation decisions for certain rodenticides. Two trade associations (CropLife and RISE) intervened to defend the Department and were held jointly and severally liable for fees along with other defending parties. The appellate court found the associations had asserted direct pecuniary interests when seeking intervention, actively participated in the litigation, and therefore qualified as opposing parties eligible to share fee liability. The court also upheld the trial court’s fee calculation and refusal to apportion liability among defenders.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Nichelle Taylor’s direct appeal from the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside a final judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60(d). The court held it lacked jurisdiction because appeals from denials of such motions must be pursued by application for a discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(8), (b), and Georgia precedent makes that process jurisdictional. Because Taylor filed a direct appeal instead of seeking discretionary review, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on April 28, 2026.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted the City of Atlanta's application for an interlocutory appeal in the case City of Atlanta v. William Neal. The order permits the appellant to file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the order date (April 28, 2026) and directs the Clerk of State Court to include this order in the record sent to the Court of Appeals. The court's action is procedural—allowing review before final judgment—rather than resolving the underlying merits of the dispute.