Court Filings

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 a Supreme Court order dismissing two counts of a grand jury indictment against defendant Rony Zino. The charges—criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving—arose from an October 11, 2023 vehicle-pedestrian accident that resulted in the pedestrian's death. The court held the grand jury evidence, even viewed in the People’s favor, did not provide the prima facie proof required for those crimes because it failed to show the defendant engaged in the degree of blameworthy conduct or reckless disregard of consequences necessary for conviction.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order designating Benjamin Williams a level two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing child sexual performance material; after a SORA hearing the court scored him 80 points on the risk instrument, denied his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and imposed the level two designation. The appellate court held the trial court properly exercised its discretion because the quantity, nature, duration of viewing, and sharing of images supported the assessed risk, and other claimed mitigating factors were either unpreserved or already accounted for by the Guidelines.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Troy Williams's conviction for first-degree manslaughter after a jury trial but reduced his sentence in the interest of justice. The court found the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, denied claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and held a claim that the People withheld Brady material must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion because the supporting facts are dehors the record. Exercising its discretion, the court reduced the prison term from 15 years to 8 years (postrelease supervision unchanged) and otherwise affirmed the judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court judgment convicting Brian Whittaker, who pleaded guilty to first-degree reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a firearm and was sentenced. The court held Whittaker validly, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his appellate rights and his written waiver of prosecution by indictment was valid. Although he argued the plea allocution was factually insufficient and thus involuntary, that claim was unpreserved and without merit because the allocution demonstrated he understood the charges and knowingly entered the plea.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two County Court judgments that convicted Orlando Ramsay on multiple drug- and weapon-related charges after he pleaded guilty. Ramsay argued his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and raised ineffective-assistance claims, but the court found those claims unpreserved because he never moved to withdraw his pleas or raised the issue below. The court also held his plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on guilt, and the record independently shows the pleas were valid. Any ineffective-assistance claims not directly related to plea negotiations or sentencing were forfeited by the guilty pleas.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender following his guilty plea to attempted second-degree robbery, but modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee. The court concluded those monetary assessments must be set aside because recent legislative amendments (and subsequent state appellate authority) apply retroactively to youthful-offender dispositions and repeal mandatory surcharges and victim assistance fees for youthful offenders. All other aspects of the judgment, including the youthful offender adjudication and sentence, were left intact.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court's denial without a hearing of Valery Latouche's 2024 CPL 440.47 motion to vacate his sentences and be resentenced under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (Penal Law § 60.12). The court held Latouche failed to submit the required corroborating evidence—at least two pieces, one of which must be a specified form of record—showing he was subjected to substantial domestic abuse at the time of the offenses and that such abuse significantly contributed to his criminal behavior. The panel modified the order to state the denial was without prejudice.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the conviction and sentence of defendant Christopher Iregui. Iregui pleaded guilty in Queens County Supreme Court to attempted burglary in the second degree and was sentenced on July 24, 2023. On appeal he challenged the judgment and the severity of his sentence, but the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive and therefore upheld the conviction and sentence without further modification.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's convictions for second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and the resulting sentence. The court reviewed the denial of the defendant’s suppression motion and found the officers observed the defendant with a gun before pursuing or seizing him, giving them reasonable suspicion and then probable cause. The court also held the defendant abandoned the gun by throwing it beneath a tree, so he lacked standing to challenge its seizure. Claims of incredible police testimony, ineffective assistance, and prosecutorial misconduct were either unpreserved or without merit.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's 2019 conviction for criminal possession of a firearm following a guilty plea. The court reviewed the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence recovered during a traffic stop. The court found the defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal invalid but held that the suppression motion was properly denied without a hearing because the supporting papers were conclusory and did not allege sufficient facts to require a hearing. Unpreserved constitutional challenges to the gun statute were not considered.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a guilty plea and sentence. The defendant had challenged the search warrant and sought disclosure of an unredacted warrant application and hearing minutes to attack probable cause and the confidential informant's anonymity. The court upheld the trial court's redactions as necessary to protect the informant and, after reviewing the unredacted materials, concluded there was probable cause for the warrant and properly denied suppression of the recovered firearms.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment that adjudicated the defendant a youthful offender after a guilty plea to criminal possession of a firearm and imposed sentence. The defendant argued the conviction was unconstitutional, but the court held those constitutional challenges were not preserved because they were not raised below and declined to address them in the interest of justice. Because the court resolved preservation, it did not reach the defendant's remaining arguments.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal contempt following his guilty plea and sentence. The defendant appealed, and his assigned counsel submitted an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw for lack of nonfrivolous issues. After conducting an independent review of the record, the court agreed there were no meritorious appellate issues and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, affirming the judgment of conviction.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed defendant Michael Barnett's conviction for petit larceny entered on his guilty plea, but modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees that had been imposed at sentencing. The court relied on Criminal Procedure Law § 420.35(2-a) and recent Appellate Division decisions allowing waiver of such financial penalties for defendants who were under 21 at the time of the offense. The People consented to the modification, and the court exercised its interest-of-justice jurisdiction to relieve Barnett of the surcharge and fees while leaving the conviction and sentence otherwise intact.

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, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order that, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child (born 2022) and denied the father's petition for joint physical custody. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interest analysis — emphasizing the mother's greater ability to provide stability, overall well-being, and to foster the child's relationship with the other parent — had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court also held the Family Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint an attorney for the very young child.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order that authorized involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to Thomas B., an involuntarily committed patient who denied having a mental illness. The court reviewed a petition brought by the State and held that the petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas B. lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision about treatment and that the proposed medication was narrowly tailored to protect his liberty interest. The court deferred to the hearing court’s factual findings, including the treating psychiatrist’s testimony diagnosing schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with violent symptoms.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition challenging Suffolk County Department of Civil Service's May 22, 2024 determination that the petitioner was not qualified for hire as a police officer after an adverse psychological evaluation. The court held that the appointing authority has broad discretion in determining fitness for law enforcement, may rely on its own medical evaluators even when a candidate produces a contrary independent opinion, and that the Department's decision was not irrational or arbitrary. Because the agency acted reasonably, the court would not substitute its judgment for the administrative factfinder.

The Appellate Division reviewed Family Court proceedings in which the Administration for Children's Services alleged the father neglected two children. The appeals from the fact-finding and dispositional orders were dismissed in part, and the court affirmed the order of disposition insofar as reviewed. Because the dispositional order was entered on the father's default and has expired by its own terms, appellate review was limited to whether the father neglected the children. The court held that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the father's lack of insight into ongoing mental-health issues and his bizarre and irrational behavior placed the children at imminent risk, supporting the neglect finding.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order finding that the mother neglected her child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment. ACS brought an Article 10 neglect proceeding alleging the mother repeatedly physically, verbally, and emotionally abused the child and on one occasion bit the child's finger, causing an infected human bite mark. The court concluded ACS proved neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, crediting the Family Court's credibility findings and finding the child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by medical records and ACS observations.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order of protection that found the appellant—who had previously surrendered parental rights and agreed to an adoption—committed harassment in the second degree and fourth-degree stalking against the adoptive child. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court directed the appellant to stay away from the child except pursuant to a court-ordered visitation, through December 15, 2026. The appellate court upheld the Family Court’s credibility findings and concluded the evidence met the fair preponderance standard for the charged family offenses.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court order adjudicating 14-year-old Gabriel G. a juvenile delinquent for third-degree robbery and conditionally discharging him for 12 months. The court dismissed as academic the portion of the appeal challenging the 12-month conditional discharge because that period expired, but it reviewed and rejected Gabriel's motion to dismiss the indictment for due process and statutory speedy-trial violations. The court found the five-month pre-arrest delay and the prosecution's discovery timing did not violate constitutional or statutory speedy-trial rights, so dismissal was not required.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order denying a mother's 2023 petition to modify a 2018 custody order to permit her to relocate with her child from New Jersey to Michigan. The parents share joint legal custody and the mother has physical custody. After a hearing, the Family Court found the mother failed to show the move would improve the child's economic or educational circumstances and that it would not harm the child's relationship with the father. The appellate court held that the Family Court's best-interest determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record and upheld the denial.