Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Robert F. Whitbeck Jr.'s convictions for multiple sexual and related offenses after a jury trial. Whitbeck was convicted of third-degree rape, first-degree criminal sexual act, first-degree attempted rape, criminal obstruction of breathing, second-degree unlawful imprisonment, and criminal contempt, and sentenced to aggregate prison terms and postrelease supervision. The court held the guilty verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, deferring to the jury's credibility findings given the victim's testimony, corroborating observations by the victim's daughter, and defendant's text messages that included apparent admissions. Claims of trial error and ineffective assistance were rejected as either unpreserved or unsupported by the record.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Nsikak K. Okure’s conviction and sentence after he pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting. Okure entered a plea agreement specifying concurrent prison terms (no less than 7–21 to no more than 8–24 years for the homicide count and 2⅓–7 years concurrent for leaving the scene) and waived his right to appeal. The court rejected his sole claim—that the within-agreement sentence was harsh—holding that his valid, unchallenged appeal waiver bars review of that challenge.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant David Host’s conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for a break-in that resulted in two deaths. Host had waived appeal rights, but the court considered his preserved claim that the plea was involuntary. The court found his claim unpreserved because he did not make a postallocution motion and that no statements during the plea proceeding raised significant doubt about voluntariness. Even on the record, the court concluded mental-health history did not undermine the plea, and the appellate waiver bars a challenge to sentence severity.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jonathan Guerin’s 2019 convictions and prison sentence following his guilty plea to multiple driving-related offenses arising from an April 2018 incident. The court held that challenges to the voluntariness of the plea and to counsel’s effectiveness were unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea after allocution, and no statements during the plea colloquy triggered the narrow exception to preservation. The court also found the excessiveness claim moot because defendant has reached his sentence's maximum expiration and is incarcerated on a separate conviction.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed County Court's denial of defendant Alex M. Ferrer's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his burglary convictions. Ferrer argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his being fitted with a concealed stun cuff and the presence of SERT officers during trial. After a hearing County Court credited trial counsel's testimony that he was not informed of the device and found counsel's strategy reasonable because the cuff was not visible, alternatives would have been more obvious restraints, and Ferrer was not chilled from testifying. The appellate court deferred to those credibility findings and affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Amanda C. Diaz's convictions for aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child passenger, driving while intoxicated, and endangering the welfare of a child. The court reviewed a weight-of-the-evidence challenge and rejected it, finding the jury reasonably credited testimony from two off-duty paramedics and state troopers who observed disorientation, failed field sobriety testing, and admissions of alcohol use over the defendant's sister's contrary testimony. The court also held that a hearsay statement from the child, elicited at trial, was cured by prompt curative instructions and was harmless given the other evidence of guilt.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed a conviction and sentence entered after defendant Abdallah A. Aboueida waived indictment and pleaded guilty to attempted third-degree burglary under a superior court information. County Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of five years probation. On appeal the defendant argued the sentence was unduly harsh, but the appellate court rejected that challenge as barred by the unchallenged waiver of the right to appeal contained in the plea agreement, and therefore affirmed the judgment.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of Ernestiaze Moore's claim against the State under the Adult Survivors Act. Moore alleged two sexual assaults by a correction officer and originally filed dates in 2022, but counsel later disclosed the correct dates were in 2023. The Court of Claims found the incorrect year was a jurisdictional defect under Court of Claims Act § 11(b) that could not be cured by amendment, and therefore denied Moore's motion to amend and dismissed the claim. The appellate court concluded the statutory filing requirements must be strictly construed and affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, denied petitioner Tyrone Winston's CPLR Article 78 challenge to a prison disciplinary finding from Auburn Correctional Facility. The court reviewed the Superintendent's determination that Winston violated a disciplinary rule and concluded the determination should be upheld. The court issued a brief order affirming the disciplinary finding and dismissed the petition, without issuing an opinion explaining its reasoning.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Family Court's November 25, 2024 order allowing respondent's assigned counsel to withdraw and denying the respondent further assigned counsel in a Family Court Article 8 family offense proceeding. The court found the record shows respondent received notice and opposed the withdrawal, but the attorney-client relationship had irretrievably broken down because respondent repeatedly accused counsel of acting against him and engaged in conduct that frustrated representation. Because respondent had a persistent pattern of causing breakdowns with multiple assigned attorneys, the court concluded further appointments would be futile and that he forfeited the right to additional assignment here.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion to immediately suspend Adebukola Ogunsanya from practicing law in New York while it investigates multiple misconduct complaints. The court found she failed to respond to some complaints, did not appear for an examination under oath, and did not produce requested records. Because refusal to comply with investigative demands threatens the public interest and the disciplinary process, the court concluded interim suspension was warranted until further order, with warnings about possible disbarment if she continues not to cooperate.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of Juan Carlos Ocasio's CPLR article 78 petition challenging his honorable discharge from the New York Guard and related FOIL claims. The court held that the challenge to discharge implicated military order and discipline and was therefore nonjusticiable under the intra-military immunity doctrine. The court also found the FOIL claims moot because DMNA had responded to the requests and Ocasio failed to exhaust administrative appeals regarding any alleged inadequacy. The court denied sanctions against the respondent for lack of support in the record.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Hideaki Kubo's application to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed Kubo's sworn affidavit and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response, found Kubo eligible to resign under the court's disciplinary rules, accepted the resignation, struck Kubo's name from the roll of attorneys, and ordered Kubo to cease practicing law in New York and to surrender any Attorney Secure Pass within 30 days. The resignation was accepted with immediate effect and without a disciplinary finding.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision denying claimant Karen Figueroa's request to preclude a September 2023 independent medical examination (IME) report. Figueroa argued the carrier's instructions to the IME physician required a separate IME-3 filing under Workers' Compensation Law § 137, which was not done. The court held the carrier filed an IME-5 with instructions that identified the issues to be addressed, claimant's objection was untimely, and the IME substantially complied with statutory and regulatory requirements, so the report was admissible and the Board did not abuse its discretion.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that claimant James Brognano sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Board found that testimony describing a loud noise in the claimant's cubicle, his subsequent change in appearance and behavior, hospital findings of head bruising, and medical proof of a blunt-force epidural hematoma supported a workplace accident. The employer's challenge that no one observed a fall or could explain the mechanism and its attempts to rebut the presumption of compensability were held insufficient as a matter of substantial evidence.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Supreme Court's December 12, 2024 order dismissing the amended complaint against the Unified Court System (UCS). Plaintiffs — four individuals and Disability Rights New York (DRNY) — challenged SCPA article 17-a and UCS's role, alleging ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations and other claims. The court held DRNY lacked organizational standing because it did not show an injury-in-fact from its advocacy expenditures, and that the individual plaintiffs' ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were time-barred under New York's three-year personal-injury statute, with accrual at the dates they were placed under guardianship. The court rejected continuing-violation and unpreserved equitable-tolling arguments.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed a Supreme Court judgment awarding Ellis Hospital $5,048.55 plus costs for unpaid medical bills after a summary judgment motion. The hospital showed it provided services, produced an itemized bill showing the outstanding deductible, and submitted a services agreement signed by the patient’s husband acknowledging financial responsibility. The court found the patient failed to raise a triable issue of fact — her claims about not receiving bills, lack of authorization, and challenge to the contract were not supported by evidence — so summary judgment was properly granted.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision and ordered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with costs. The plaintiff, Mega Beverage Redemption Center, appealed from a lower-court ruling but failed to show that its appeal to the Appellate Division did not raise questions of fact or that the Appellate Division made the specific CPLR 5615 findings required when factual questions exist. Because those statutory prerequisites were absent, the Court concluded it was bound to affirm and enter judgment absolute dismissing the complaint.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal by Thomas Wood against the State of Florida. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, announced the judgment as AFFIRMED, and provided no published opinion or extended reasoning. The panel of judges (Soud, Boatwright, and Maciver) concurred. The decision is subject to any timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 but otherwise concludes the appeal in favor of the State.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Donovan Tyler Adkins. The appeal arose from a conviction or post-conviction ruling in Brevard County Circuit Court, and the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision on April 16, 2026, concluding the lower court's decision should stand. No additional opinion or written reasoning was published in this document; the court simply announced affirmance and noted concurrence by the three judges.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case in which Christopher Thomas Petry appealed a Volusia County circuit court decision. The appellate panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 16, 2026, concluding the lower court's ruling should stand. No written opinion or extended reasoning accompanies the short disposition; the court simply noted the affirmation and that the three judges concurred. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal case. Appellant Carmelo Cruz appealed a Volusia County criminal matter, but the appellate panel (per curiam) found no reversible error and denied relief. The court issued a brief order affirming the lower court's judgment without opinion; three judges concurred. The opinion notes that the decision is not final until the time for certain authorized post-judgment motions expires.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a pro se appeal by Andre Patrick Edwards from a Brevard County circuit court ruling under Florida Rule 3.800. The panel issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 16, 2026, affirming the lower court’s disposition. No written opinion explaining reasons was published, and there was no appearance by the State. The judgment is subject to any timely authorized motions under Florida appellate rules before it becomes final.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Reginald Lawrence Perry Jr.'s appeal from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion by the Duval County Circuit Court. The appellate court, in a per curiam decision issued April 16, 2026, affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion. The panel unanimously concurred, and the opinion is not final until any timely permitted motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court judgment in a case brought by appellant Luiz Silva against Frances Von Holten, Joseph Von Holten, Vinicius Lara, and Vizzion Construction, LLC. The appeal was decided by a three-judge panel and the court issued a brief per curiam affirmance citing Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a). No appellee brief or appearance was filed. The decision is final subject to any timely motion authorized by the appellate rules for rehearing or clarification.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Kyle Nelson Robinson from the Duval County circuit court's decision on a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 matter. The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No opinion discussion or factual or legal reasoning is provided in the published entry; the court simply entered an affirmance with all three judges concurring and noted that the judgment is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a dispute between Jose and Nancy Quinones (appellants) and Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (appellee). The per curiam opinion, issued April 16, 2026, simply states 'AFFIRMED' without additional explanation in the published text. The appeal arose from the circuit court in Duval County, and the appellate panel—Chief Judge Jay and Judges Lambert and Maciver—concurred in the decision to affirm.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by John M. Johnson, Jr. from the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion in the Circuit Court for Duval County. The appellate court issued a per curiam decision on April 16, 2026, summarily rejecting the appeal and affirming the lower court's ruling. No extended opinion or substantive reasoning is included in the published disposition; the court simply affirmed the trial court's action and noted that the decision is not final until any timely motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331 are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the circuit court's decision in James Delosa's appeal under Florida Rule 3.800. Delosa, appearing pro se, appealed an order from the Brevard County Circuit Court (Judge Stephen George Henderson). The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 16, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED, with no published opinion or additional reasoning provided. The judgment is subject to any timely motions for rehearing authorized under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Christopher Samuels's appeal from the denial of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion in Brevard County. The court, in a short per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling without published opinion or extended explanation. The panel issued a unanimous affirmance on April 16, 2026, and noted the decision is not final until any timely motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.