Court Filings

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed three Supreme Court orders in a dispute over property damage and toxic dust infiltration between owners of adjoining townhomes. The court upheld (1) defendants' leave to amend their answer to add a counterclaim for setoff based on plaintiffs' alleged delays and increased remediation costs, (2) denial of plaintiffs' motion to compel additional discovery related to that new counterclaim, and (3) denial of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment seeking payment under a license agreement. The court found the counterclaim not frivolous, the discovery requests unnecessary to the setoff theory, and that disputed factual terms in the license agreement precluded summary judgment.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Anzar Thompson's conviction and two-year sentence for attempted second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Thompson challenged the stop-and-frisk as unsupported by reasonable suspicion based on a 911 caller's information; the court held the claim was unpreserved and declined review in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the 911 tip reliable because it included identifying details (partial name and callback number), a detailed description and location, and accurate vehicle information corroborated by the officer's observations, which together supplied reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment of the New York County Supreme Court in People v. Imbert. The appeals challenged a criminal conviction and sentence imposed on March 28, 2023. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate panel reviewed the record, considered counsel's arguments, and concluded the sentence was not excessive. The court therefore upheld the trial court's judgment and denied relief to the defendant, issuing a short unanimous order affirming the judgment on April 21, 2026.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Victor Jimenez Cespedes's conviction and eight-year sentence for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. The court reviewed the jury verdict and found it was not against the weight of the evidence, crediting the jury's credibility determinations. Key facts supporting conviction were that defendant entered an undercover officer's car carrying a box containing over 6,000 fentanyl pills, acted as the courier in a negotiated $25,000 transaction, and admitted he would receive $2,000. The court held these facts supported an inference that he knew the box's contents and rejected his testimonial denial.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant US Weatherseal Windows & Doors Operation Inc.'s motion to dismiss a negligence claim brought by condominium unit owners. The plaintiffs allege Weatherseal negligently designed, manufactured, installed, and attempted to repair windows, causing sash sealing failures and recurring water leaks that damaged interior property. The court held that, at this early stage, plaintiffs plausibly alleged an exception to the general rule barring third-party liability under contract because Weatherseal may have created or increased an unreasonable risk of harm, allowing the property-damage negligence claim to proceed.

The First Department affirmed a January 15, 2025 judgment granting Nationstar Mortgage LLC's motion to confirm a referee's report and for judgment of foreclosure and sale against Steve Vassi, and denying Vassi's cross-motion to toll interest. The court held that Vassi retained standing to challenge the foreclosure despite transferring the property because he remains liable on the note and potentially subject to a deficiency judgment. On the merits, the court found plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304's notice and mailing requirements and that the referee's report was supported by admissible business-record evidence, so confirmation and foreclosure were proper.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Family Court order finding that appellant Carlos M.-J. committed a family offense amounting to second-degree harassment by intentionally bumping into the petitioner, Pascal W. The court upheld the Family Court's credibility findings and sustained the six-month suspended judgment and corresponding six-month order of protection. The appeal was not moot despite the protection order's expiration because the underlying finding can have future legal consequences. The court concluded the evidence met the fair preponderance standard and the protection order was a proper exercise of discretion.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Surrogate's Court order denying objectant Michael Marino’s motion for summary judgment challenging executor Janet Marino Gerlach’s accountings for two accounting periods. The court held objectants failed to prove, as a matter of law, that Gerlach’s decisions caused financial loss, that she overpaid herself fees, or that she failed to withhold estate tax to certain beneficiaries. The court found triable issues of fact based on Gerlach’s investment strategy, will provisions granting broad discretion, competing expert opinions on fees, and an attorney affidavit about tax withholding, so summary judgment was inappropriate.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s orders granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants and granting conditional contractual indemnification to landlord Abeken against tenant Blended Family. The court held that the technician’s work — drilling two holes to run a cable between ceilings and rooms — did not constitute construction-related activity or an alteration that would trigger Labor Law § 240(1). The court also rejected the landlord’s argument that Public Service Law § 228 barred the claim, finding that the worker was a telecommunications, not cable television, installer. Questions of fact about the building ladder precluded summary judgment on common-law negligence, and the lease indemnity clause was enforceable but conditional.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order dismissing the remaining causes of action against several defendants in a fraud and contract dispute arising from a double sale of real property. The court held it lacked general jurisdiction over certain out-of-state defendants, applied New York's procedural law (including its six-year statute of limitations) to bar a statute-of-limitations defense based on Ohio law, but found the fraud, aiding-and-abetting, and certain contract-based claims were insufficiently pleaded or duplicative and thus properly dismissed. Because dismissal was proper on those grounds, other defenses were not reached.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Sompo America Insurance Company's motion to dismiss a fire-damage complaint brought by 120 Main Hotel LLC. The insurer argued an exclusion for damage to vacant or unoccupied premises barred coverage. The appellate court held Sompo failed to prove the exclusion applied because factual disputes remain about the property's condition, whether covered hotel property adequate for operation was present, and whether the plaintiff was conducting customary business operations shortly before the fire. The court also struck new arguments raised for the first time in reply.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of Supreme Court's judgment in a CPLR article 78 challenge. Petitioner Bi-Coastal Properties had sought review of respondents' denial of a clerical error review application and claimed entitlement to J-51 tax exemption benefits beginning July 1, 2020. The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge—asserting an overassessment caused by failure to apply a change in physical value and an exemption after window replacement—was reviewable only under the Real Property Tax Law's article 7 procedures, not by CPLR article 78. The certified question was left unanswered as unnecessary.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Zakariya Daud Clarke from the denial of a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (postconviction relief) in the Circuit Court for Clay County. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is brief and does not include detailed reasoning in the published entry; the appellate panel unanimously concurred and issued the decision on April 21, 2026.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a short per curiam decision affirming a nonfinal ruling from the Circuit Court for Brevard County in case number 2019-CA-052645. The appeal was brought by William Ivan (individually and as trustee) against Jeff Holder and Andrew Holder (and nominal parties). The appellate court, without published opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No reasoning or detailed findings are included in the document beyond the affirmance and the judges' concurrence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a case brought by Si’leshia Green as parent and natural guardian of a minor against the Flagler County School Board. The appeal arose from the circuit court in Flagler County (case 18-2023-CA-99). The opinion is per curiam, issued April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The panel of Judges Lambert, Edwards, and Harris concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court ruling in a dispute between policyholder Norma Tamburini and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The opinion is per curiam and contains only the single-word disposition “AFFIRMED,” indicating the appellate court upheld the circuit court’s judgment. No published reasoning or opinion text appears in the document beyond the affirmation and the panel concurrence, so the court relied on the record and the circuit court’s decision without issuing additional analysis in this entry.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Gary W. Lucas, Jr.'s appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The panel issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, and concluded the appeal lacked merit, affirming the judgment below. No published opinion or extended reasoning accompanied the single-line disposition; the court simply announced AFFIRMED and recorded concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post‑opinion motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Carl Joseph Johnson's appeal from Seminole County circuit court criminal proceedings and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 21, 2026, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended explanation or reasoning, and the panel (Chief Judge Jay and Judges Eisnaugle and Boatwright) issued a unanimous affirmance. The mandate is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case of Brent Paul Venrooy v. State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition "AFFIRMED." The panel of judges (Lambert, Soud, Boatwright) concurred. The decision notes the case came from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County and that any timely post-opinion motions under Florida appellate rules may still be filed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Viswanauth Somwaru's appeal from the trial court's denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule 3.850. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate court issued a short, per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, holding that the lower court's ruling would be affirmed. The opinion contains no extended reasoning in the published entry; it simply affirms the circuit court's disposition and notes the panel members who concurred.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal considered an appeal by Trevorisse Thomas from the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion in Duval County. The court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's ruling. No written opinion was provided and the state did not file an appearance. The panel unanimously concurred, and the decision is subject to any timely motion for rehearing or certification under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Timothy Barrett, Sr.'s appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion. The court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding the appeal should be affirmed. No reasons are provided in the published entry; the panel judgment affirms the circuit court's ruling, and judges Jay, Edwards, and Kilbane concurred. The decision is subject to timely motion for rehearing or certification under the Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for Lake County in a family-law dispute between Thomas B. Symonette (appellant) and Mary Symonette n/k/a Mary M. Bradley (appellee). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the circuit court's ruling without published opinion or extended explanation. The decision was entered on April 21, 2026, and the panel of judges concurred. The opinion notes that the decision is not final until disposition of any authorized post-judgment motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a family law matter between Micaiah Lufcy (appellant) and Sarah Lufcy (n/k/a Tolfa) (appellee). The appeal arose from proceedings in the Seminole County Circuit Court, and the appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating 'AFFIRMED.' No additional reasoning or factual details are included in the published entry. The panel of judges Wallis, Edwards, and Maciver concurred, and the decision was issued April 21, 2026.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Matthew Lucas Wade. The appeal arose from a conviction in Citrus County circuit court and was argued by Wade's public defenders against the State. The per curiam opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the court's conclusion to affirm. All three panel judges concurred and the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Justin Ryan McMillian’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion under Florida Rule 3.850 (postconviction relief). The appellate court, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court’s ruling without published opinion or extended explanation. The court’s brief order indicates it found no reversible error in the trial court’s handling of McMillian’s 3.850 claims and left the circuit court’s disposition intact.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed two nonfinal orders in a family-related proceeding: one denying Elizabeth Collins's motion to disqualify the respondent's trial counsel and a separate order staying the underlying action. The court treated the disqualification matter as an interlocutory appeal under the Florida Rules and affirmed the lower court's denial. The petition challenging the stay order was dismissed. The opinion is short and does not provide detailed reasoning on the merits of the disqualification ruling.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Christine Marie Lackey's appeals from three circuit-court criminal cases in Sumter County. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a unanimous per curiam decision affirming the judgments below. The opinion contains no extended discussion or legal analysis; it simply announces that the appellate court affirms the trial-court rulings. Judges Wallis, Harris, and Maciver concurred, and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a civil case between appellant Britne White and appellee Fidus Roofing & Construction, LLC. The appeal arose from a judgment or order entered by the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, with the panel unanimously concurring and affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion or extended reasoning in the document provided.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal matter involving Keith Taurus Hamlet, Sr. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion—stating only 'AFFIRMED'—with three judges concurring and without published reasoning in the opinion excerpt provided. The defendant represented himself on appeal; the State was represented by the Attorney General's office.