Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Anthony Nesbitt’s convictions and sentences following his guilty plea to first-degree criminal contempt, attempted second-degree assault, and second-degree menacing. The court held that Nesbitt’s written appeal waiver was invalid because it failed to clearly explain what collateral challenges survived, so his challenge to sentence was not precluded. On the merits, however, the court found the agreed-upon consecutive sentences lawful and not unduly harsh, declined to modify the sentence in the interest of justice, and noted that any request about a missing letter of support should be made to County Court.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Jose Martinez's conviction and sentence for third-degree robbery after he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver. The court found the oral plea colloquy adequately explained the appeal waiver, separate from rights lost by pleading guilty, and that Martinez acknowledged discussing the waiver with counsel and understood its consequences. Because the waiver was knowing and voluntary and Martinez had been informed of the possible prison exposure if he failed interim probation, his challenge to the severity of the sentence was barred.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jerry Ellington's conviction and agreed-upon sentence after a guilty plea to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Ellington had pleaded guilty in satisfaction of an indictment charging multiple contraband-related offenses and admitted his involvement; County Court imposed a 1½ to 3-year term to run consecutive to his existing sentence. The appellate court found his challenges to plea voluntariness and counsel performance unpreserved and, on the merits, concluded the plea colloquy and record showed the plea was knowing and voluntary. The court also held the agreed sentence was the minimum authorized by law and not excessive.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed County Court's denial of defendant Duane MM.'s 2022 application for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). Defendant, convicted in 1996 of two counts of second-degree murder and other property offenses for killings committed when he was 16, argued his history of sexual abuse by his father significantly contributed to the crimes and that his original sentence was unduly harsh. The court found the expert testimony lacked sufficient contact with or records about defendant and offered no nexus to one murder, and defendant's own statement did not tie the abuse to his actions. Because defendant did not prove the required DVSJA factors by a preponderance of the evidence, resentencing was properly denied.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision disqualifying Peirce Screen from receiving unemployment benefits because his employment was terminated for misconduct. The appeal was brought by Screen (pro se) against his former employer A & K Automotive and the Commissioner of Labor. The court issued a short order affirming the Board's ruling without opinion or costs, leaving the Board's finding of misconduct and resulting disqualification in place.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision refusing to preclude a December 2023 independent medical examination (IME) report in claimant Michael Martinez's workers' compensation matter. Martinez argued the IME report was inadmissible because the examiner did not file an IME-3 form as required by section 137, but the Board found the carrier's timely-filed IME-5 form and separately filed instructions supplied the same substantive information about body parts to be examined and issues to address. The court concluded those filings satisfied statutory and regulatory notice requirements and that exclusion was not warranted.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision that Warren Knights was ineligible for unemployment benefits for multiple periods because he falsely certified he was totally unemployed while earning money delivering for Instacart. The Department of Labor issued revised determinations finding overpayments and imposing forfeiture penalties based on willful misrepresentations. The Board credited evidence and testimony showing Knights failed to report his paid work despite having received a handbook explaining reporting obligations, and the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of willfulness and the monetary penalties.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that claimant Jorge Ferra did not commit fraud under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Ferra was seriously injured when his parked vehicle was struck after a minor accident; hospital toxicology showed a .18 blood alcohol level. The Board and the workers' compensation judge had previously found the injury compensable because intoxication was not the sole cause. The carrier later sought suspension of benefits for alleged perjury about drinking, but the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of material fraud and the Appellate Division found substantial evidence supporting that conclusion.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of claimant Omar Ebanks's request to preclude an independent medical examination (IME) report. Ebanks had argued the carrier failed to file an IME-3 form as required under the statute and Board rules, but the Board found the carrier had filed an IME-5 scheduling form, timely IME-4 cover sheet and detailed examiner instructions that provided notice and the requested information. The court held that these submissions constituted substantial compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 137 and 12 NYCRR 300.2, so the April 2024 IME report was admissible and the Board did not abuse its discretion.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision awarding benefits for an occupational disease to Samuel Davis, a brick mason who alleged repetitive-trauma injuries to both hands/wrists and knees. The Board credited treating physician Dr. Hecht's opinion linking Davis's long history of repetitive masonry duties to his diagnoses, despite conflicting opinions from the carrier's consultant. The court also upheld a $500 penalty the Board imposed (reduced from $2,500) against the carrier for unilaterally conducting a third deposition of Dr. Hecht while an administrative appeal was pending, finding that the deposition constituted a frivolous proceeding.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of Century Indemnity Company's CPLR article 78 challenge to the Attorney General's denial of a FOIL request. Century sought documents the Diocese of Ogdensburg produced to the Attorney General during an investigation; the Attorney General withheld them under FOIL's law-enforcement exemption. The court found the agency met its burden by identifying categories of records compiled for law enforcement and explaining how disclosure would interfere with the ongoing investigation, so nondisclosure was proper and counsel fees were not awarded.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's denial of defendants' summary judgment motions in a wrongful-death/medical malpractice suit. Plaintiff sued after her husband presented to the emergency department with left-sided back pain and difficulty breathing and later died of a heart attack four days after discharge. Defendants submitted expert affidavits saying care met the standard and testing would not have changed the outcome; plaintiff produced expert opinions that an EKG and troponin should have been ordered and that timely testing/treatment would likely have prevented death. The court found disputed issues of fact on breach and causation and rejected defendants' claim plaintiff raised a new theory of recovery.

The Court of Appeals held that the federal Graves Amendment preempts New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (which imposed vicarious liability on rental companies) but does not preempt VTL § 370's independent requirement that rental car companies carry minimum amounts of insurance. The court concluded that Section 370, insofar as prior New York precedent read it to require rental companies to provide primary insurance coverage to renters up to the statutory minimums, is preempted by the Graves Amendment's prohibition on vicarious liability; however, the statute’s separate obligation that rental companies maintain specified minimum insurance limits survives. The Appellate Division's order affirming summary disposition was therefore affirmed.

The court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment declaring valid and enforceable a 2018 contract conveying a 25% interest in income-producing property to two law firms (later assigned to HPGM, LLC). Price’s attempt to defeat summary judgment relied on untimely, stricken amended pleadings and did not respond with evidence to many no-evidence challenges to her originally pleaded claims and defenses. The court also upheld the award of approximately $300,000 in attorney’s fees to HPGM, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion given HPGM’s billing records and counsel’s testimony about rates, services, and the receivership and bankruptcy work that advanced the declaratory claim.

The Court of Appeals of the Second Appellate District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s December 10, 2025 order terminating Father’s parental rights to A.M. The Department of Family and Protective Services had petitioned to terminate under multiple statutory grounds. Father challenged one predicate ground and alleged due-process defects in the Department’s timelines and service plan, but he did not challenge the other independent predicate findings or preserve the service-plan complaint for appeal. Because at least one unchallenged statutory ground and the best-interest finding supported termination, the appellate court affirmed.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Gene Anthony Tutt’s convictions and 38-year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and occlusion assault. Tutt complained on appeal that (1) the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements to an officer as hearsay and (2) the State failed to prove he was the same person convicted of two prior felonies used to enhance punishment. The court held the victim’s statements were admissible as excited utterances and that documentary evidence (judgments, identification numbers, social security number, booking/ten-print records) and fingerprint comparison sufficiently linked Tutt to the prior Missouri convictions.

The Second Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Carolyn Rodriguez’s conviction for hindering an official proceeding by disorderly conduct (Tex. Penal Code § 38.13). Rodriguez argued the statute was unconstitutional, the court erred in quashing a subpoena for County Judge Tim O’Hare, the jury charge was defective, and the evidence was insufficient. The court rejected her facial and applied First Amendment challenges, found no abuse of discretion in quashing O’Hare’s subpoena, determined the jury charge contained one harmless omission in mental-state wording but no reversible error, and held the evidence (including an audiovisual recording and deputy testimony) was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. Highland Village Management (HVM) had obtained a temporary injunction preventing appellants from using or transferring funds or property allegedly taken from HVM. Appellants argued on appeal that HVM failed to prove irreparable injury and that newly revealed facts required dissolution. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the original injunction and found appellants presented no new evidence or changed circumstances at the dissolution hearings, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dissolve the injunction.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial-court judgment ordering specific performance of a written buy-sell agreement requiring Joann Crawford to convey a parcel to Buffalo Creek Properties, LLC (an assignee of Trails End). The trial court found Buffalo Creek ready, willing, and able to perform, that Crawford breached the contract and conveyed the property with knowledge of the pending suit and lis pendens, and it adjusted the sale proceeds for liens, taxes, life-estate compensation, costs, and fees. The appellate court presumed the trial record supported the findings (Crawford failed to timely request the reporter’s record) and found no reversible error in the trial court’s award or its accounting adjustments.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed a jury conviction of Ronald Wayne Stivers, Jr. for failing to register as a sex offender. Stivers argued the trial court erred by admitting a prior Illinois conviction as extraneous-offense evidence and that its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value. The court held the prior conviction was admissible to prove Stivers knew of his duty to register — a required mental-state element — and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The opinion also sua sponte corrected the judgment to cite Article 62.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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 reviewed Joseph Traeger's criminal case from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appeal was brief and the opinion per curiam simply states the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. The panel (Kuntz, C.J., May and Forst, JJ.) concurred. The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. The appeal, filed by Timothy Floyd from a Clay County circuit court conviction or ruling, was considered on the briefs and oral argument, and the appellate court, per curiam, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The court's brief order indicates no change to the judgment below and leaves in place the trial court's outcome and any attendant penalties or orders.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Timothy Asaad Brown's appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal proceeding and, in a brief per curiam opinion dated April 23, 2026, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED,” with the panel (Jay, C.J., Eisnaugle and MacIver, JJ.) concurring. No substantive reasoning, factual summary, or citation to authorities appears in the published entry, and the opinion notes that it is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Keyon M. Paige from an order of the Duval County Circuit Court in a 3.800 proceeding (postconviction relief). The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision on April 23, 2026, affirming the lower court's ruling. No written opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply stated AFFIRMED and noted concurrence by three judges and the possibility of filing certain post-decision motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed James E. McNair's appeal from a ruling of the Marion County Circuit Court under Florida Rule 3.800 (postconviction relief). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 23, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion explanation is included in this document; the court's single-line disposition simply affirms the circuit court's ruling, and the judgment is final subject to any timely authorized motions under Florida appellate rules.

The appellate court reviewed a circuit court order that denied William Brunner's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion and affirmed that denial. Brunner, proceeding pro se, appealed the post-conviction motion ruling. The Fourth District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's order without published opinion and with no briefed response from the State. The court's short decision provides final appellate disposition subject to any timely motion for rehearing.

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.