Court Filings

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.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's negligence claims against defendant driver Christopher McCabe and his employer Brown's of Bellport, Inc. The plaintiff was in a left non-HOV lane and rear-ended a stopped tractor-trailer after McCabe swerved left into the HOV lane to avoid being struck from behind. The court held that McCabe’s evasive maneuver merely furnished the occasion for the collision and was not a proximate cause, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact about McCabe’s negligence, so Brown's cannot be vicariously liable.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a trial court order denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer, preclude their defenses, or resolve liability in the plaintiff’s favor for failure to produce court-ordered discovery in a personal injury action. The Supreme Court had found no clear showing that the defendants’ discovery lapses were willful and contumacious and instead extended a deadline for production. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under disclosure and sanction rules and therefore affirmed the denial of the extreme sanctions sought by the plaintiff.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's June 9, 2021 order denying both the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a tenant's home health aide plaintiff's negligence complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff was scalded by unexpectedly hot water while showering and alleged the landlord negligently maintained the building's hot-water/boiler system. The court held that competing evidence about prior hot-water incidents and the building's system created triable issues of fact about whether the defendant created or had notice of the dangerous condition, so neither side was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint against the New York City Transit Authority and bus driver Loraine C. Lord and dismissing the Cintron defendants' cross-claim against those defendants. The court reviewed a jury verdict that found the bus driver's admitted negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the collision and that the Cintron vehicle operator's negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court held the jury’s verdict was reasonably supported by testimonial, photographic, and video evidence and therefore was not against the weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in civil contempt, to obtain retroactive child support, and for counsel fees. The parties had a 2009 stipulation requiring annual child support increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but they later executed a 2011 amendment that modified the child support provision and did not include the CPI increase. The court held the CPI provision was no longer in effect and the plaintiff failed to prove prejudice from the defendant's alleged failure to produce tax returns, so a contempt hearing was not required.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders in a personal injury action arising from a 2015 construction-site accident. The court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add Skanska Civil Northeast, Inc., finding the plaintiff did not satisfy the relation-back test because Skanska USA and Skanska Northeast were not united in interest. The court also affirmed denial of the plaintiff's renewal motion. Finally, the court affirmed denial of Skanska USA's renewed cross-motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff showed discovery might uncover evidence to oppose the motion based on public materials Skanska USA had disseminated.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant Kathy McElroy's pre-answer motion to dismiss an amended mortgage foreclosure complaint or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff's counsel to produce proof of authority to commence the action. The plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its servicer's assistant vice president and a limited power of attorney showing the servicer was authorized to act and that the law firm had been retained to begin the foreclosure. The court held those submissions sufficiently established the law firm's authority, so dismissal and compelled production were properly denied.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and modified the dismissal order by treating the defendant's motion as a request for declaratory relief and granting it. The court held that the plaintiffs' one-day-old, prematurely filed default motion was properly denied, and that, even accepting the plaintiffs' allegations, there is no legal basis to declare them released from their mortgage because the defendant's failure to produce a chain of title does not itself free them from the loan. The case is remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the defendant's entitlement to that declaration.

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 Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case against James L. Hudson. The court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without additional comment, but explicitly noted that Hudson remains free to pursue a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The decision leaves the underlying conviction intact while preserving Hudson's right to seek postconviction relief through the appropriate rule-based motion in the trial court.

The appellate court (Florida Second District) reviewed an appeal by Troy Markeith Griffin, Jr. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County. After considering the arguments and record, the court issued a per curiam decision simply stating the judgment is affirmed. No published opinion or extended reasoning appears in the document; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order revoking Joshua Aaron Edwards's probation and the resulting sentence for his 2022 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The court clarified that a defendant does not enter a "plea" to an alleged violation of probation but may admit the violation; the rules governing guilty pleas on charged offenses do not apply to violation proceedings. The court explained that an admission waives the State's burden to prove the violation, while the decision to revoke remains reviewable for abuse of discretion and the post-revocation sentence may also be reviewed.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal case brought by the State of Florida against appellant Sophina Webb. The appellate panel, writing per curiam, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a departure sentence. The court relied on controlling precedent that sentencing departures are discretionary and will be upheld on review unless the trial court clearly abused that discretion. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed Shakel Devon McClain’s convictions for attempted first-degree murder, carjacking with a deadly weapon, and fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. McClain argued the trial court wrongly admitted his text messages to his girlfriend from days before the crimes as improper character evidence. The appellate court held that even if admission of the messages was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no reasonable possibility the messages contributed to the guilty verdicts, citing controlling harmless-error precedent.