Court Filings

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed a municipal-court judgment awarding William R. Meek $4,160 against Gino Collins for an incomplete fence installation and return of materials. Collins appealed pro se arguing the damages award lacked competent proof and was against the weight of the evidence. The appeals court held Collins failed to provide a transcript or an approved substitute of the bench hearing, so the court could not review the factual record and must presume the trial court acted properly. For that reason the appellate court affirmed the judgment.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the municipal court’s rulings that tenants Nedra Bloor and Wayne Reed could deposit rent with the clerk and that the escrowed rent should not be released to landlord Alan Barnes. The tenants had notified Barnes of multiple repair issues (roof leaks, mold, loose fixtures, exposed wiring, floor problems) and deposited rent after giving notice. The trial court found the tenants were current on rent when they initiated escrow and that Barnes failed to remedy the conditions. The appeals court upheld the credibility findings and applied Ohio landlord-tenant statutes to affirm the return of the escrowed funds to the tenants.

The Superior Court affirmed the denial of Tyrell Giles’s PCRA petition challenging his convictions for aggravated assault and related offenses. Giles filed a late (nunc pro tunc) post-conviction petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when witnesses testified that he was on state parole. The court held the petition was untimely and Giles failed to plead or prove any statutory exception to the PCRA time bar, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review the claim. The Superior Court therefore affirmed denial of relief, noting the lower court’s merits ruling was unnecessary.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that cast vote records (CVRs) are not the "contents of ballot boxes and voting machines" under Section 308 (25 P.S. § 2648) of the Election Code, and therefore are not exempt from public disclosure. The court rejected the Commonwealth Court’s view that CVRs are the digital equivalent of machine contents and found the statute’s plain language dispositive. The Court noted that if policy concerns exist about disclosure, the proper remedy is legislative change rather than judicial construction of a statute enacted in 1937.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff Moises Ramirez's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim against 2500 Webb LLC. The court found that genuine issues of fact remained about which object struck the plaintiff (horizontal versus vertical pipe/post), whether that object was a target of disassembly when the injury occurred, and whether a safety device was available that would have prevented the accident. Because these disputed facts are material to liability under Labor Law § 240(1), summary judgment was properly denied.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Khalil Wisdom's conviction after a jury trial for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the concurrent 12-year sentences imposed as a second violent felony offender. The court also affirmed the denial of his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment alleging ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence. The court concluded counsel provided effective representation under state and federal standards, any alleged failures did not prejudice defendant given overwhelming video and other evidence, and the trial court properly declined various jury instructions and a new-evidence hearing.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Yordani Urena’s conviction following a guilty plea to second-degree assault and the three-year probation sentence, but modified the probation by striking fees and mandatory surcharge. The court declined to review an unpreserved facial constitutional challenge to a probation condition restricting association and places, and alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the association/frequenting condition reasonably necessary given the violent nature of the offense, but concluded that imposing court fees and the mandatory surcharge was not related to rehabilitation and therefore removed that condition.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court's June 14, 2021 judgment in People v. Gonzalez. Carlos Gonzalez appealed his conviction and sentence; the appellate panel reviewed the arguments, found the sentence was not excessive, and unanimously affirmed the trial court judgment. The court provided no extended opinion or new legal rule, simply announcing affirmation and referring appellant's counsel to the court's rule § 606.5 regarding appellate practice matters.

The First Department unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's order dismissing Yolanda Murray's complaint against Planned Parenthood as time-barred and for failure to state a viable claim. The court held Murray's claims arising from alleged 1996 misconduct did not fall within the Adult Survivors Act because the complaint did not allege criminal conduct enumerated by that statute, and the Child Victims Act revival window had already closed. The court also found that, even on the merits, Murray failed to plead facts showing Planned Parenthood's knowledge of the provider's dangerous propensities, control over the local affiliate, or any valid alter-ego theory, and there was no evidence of judicial bias.

The Appellate Division, First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for reciprocal discipline and suspended attorney Tamar Toledano from the practice of law in New York for four months, effective 30 days from the order. The suspension follows Toledano's consent to a four-month USPTO suspension for violating USPTO trademark signature and conduct rules, and her admission in a USPTO settlement that she permitted non-signatories to sign trademark filings and failed to timely notify clients about a referring firm's fraud. The court found New York rules substantially similar and imposed reciprocal discipline on consent.

The Appellate Division, First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for an immediate interim suspension of attorney William John Lloyd King. The court found uncontroverted documentary evidence — bank records and King's written admission — that he converted or misappropriated $17,420 in a client's funds to satisfy a gambling addiction. The court rejected King's request for diversion or a disability suspension, concluding his misconduct posed an immediate threat to the public and that addiction-based mitigation, restitution, or brief recovery efforts do not prevent an interim suspension pending any formal charges.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing Harvey's personal-injury complaint arising from a May 2020 motor vehicle accident. Defendants (the New York Foundling Hospital and others) presented expert reports and MRI comparisons showing plaintiff's cervical, lumbar, and right-shoulder conditions were preexisting, chronic, and degenerative from a prior March 30, 2019 crash, not caused by the 2020 accident. The court held plaintiff's expert failed to meaningfully dispute the prior-accident causation, so she could not meet the statutory threshold for a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d).

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a lower court order denying the insurer Mountain Valley Indemnity Company's summary judgment motion to dismiss an insureds' fire-damage complaint. The insurer argued the dwelling was a three-family property (allowing a coverage disclaimer) based on the basement configuration, while the insureds said it was two-family and the basement was shared family space. The court found disputed facts about the basement's physical separation, usage, and the investigator's qualifications, so summary judgment was improper and the case must proceed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Dana Meador’s pretrial habeas petition seeking a reduction of a $750,000 bond in a first-degree murder prosecution. The court reviewed the statutory and common-law factors for bail, including the violent nature of the offense, potential punishment, community safety, flight risk, and financial ability to post bond. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court, the appeals court found Meador failed to prove the bond was excessive or used as an instrument of oppression and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Shaun Patrick Stewart's appeal from a Sumter County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief; the court issued a short ruling without published reasoning and all three judges concurred. The decision notes that it is not final until any timely, authorized post-decision motions are resolved under Florida appellate rules. No additional factual or legal analysis is included in the opinion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Gregory Simpson's appeal from a Marion County circuit court postconviction proceeding under Florida Rule 3.800. The court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision, citing Galindez v. State and Washington v. Recuenco to support its ruling. No appellee appearance was entered and the appellant proceeded pro se. The opinion concludes the appellate court saw no reversible error and affirmed the circuit court's disposition without extended discussion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in a dispute between the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (appellant) and A & B Verma Family, LLC (appellee). The appeal arose from a Volusia County circuit court ruling; the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment without published opinion. All three judges concurred. The mandate notes that the decision is not final until any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Erique Goshay's appeal from his criminal conviction and sentence in Duval County. After considering the briefs and record, the appellate court issued a per curiam opinion that affirms the lower court's decision without published opinion or stated reasons. The judgment of the circuit court is left in place and the panel of judges unanimously concurred. The opinion notes that it is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a pro se appeal by David Charles Sussman. The appeal challenged actions involving the Assistant State Attorney, a circuit judge, and the Assistant Attorney General. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the circuit court without published opinion or extended reasoning. The opinion is final subject to timely authorized post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case. Calvin W. Thomas appealed a Seminole County circuit court decision; the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED. The court did not elaborate its reasoning in the published entry and the three-judge panel concurred. No additional factual findings, legal analysis, or instructions were included in the opinion.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Antonio Christopher Youngblood's appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or extended reasoning is provided in the document; the court simply issued an affirmance with all three judges concurring. The decision becomes final unless a timely, authorized motion for rehearing or certification is filed under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a nonfinal trial-court ruling in a case where Alan G. Williams, individually and as personal representative of an estate, appealed against Pace Island Owners Association, Inc. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 28, 2026, simply stating AFFIRMED without published opinion or extended reasoning. The panel of judges (Jay, C.J., Edwards, and Harris, JJ.) concurred, and the judgment is nonfinal pending any timely authorized post-decision motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County in a family-law case between Michelle Lany Yoakum (appellant) and William Lee Tschumy, Jr. (appellee). The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's order. The opinion is brief and cites no reasoning or authorities; the court simply affirmed the trial court's ruling and noted the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se defendant's appeal under Florida Rule 3.800 from a Citrus County circuit court decision. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, unanimously concluding that the lower court's ruling should stand. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published in this document; the court simply entered an affirmance of the circuit court's judgment. The decision is subject to any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Curtis McNealy's appeal from the circuit court's ruling on his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 motion. McNealy represented himself; the State did not file an appearance. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision, concluding simply that the lower court's decision was correct and affirming that judgment. No extended opinion, reasoning, or citation of legal authorities was provided in the document beyond the court's one-line disposition.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower-court decision in a foreclosure-related appeal brought by Suzanne De Lisi against The Bank of New York Mellon (as trustee). The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion stating simply "AFFIRMED," with all three judges concurring. No reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry; the decision confirms the county court's ruling against the appellant and preserves the lower court's result.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Keita Jermaine Gaymon Jr.'s appeal from a Lee County circuit court criminal case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court issued a per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, concluding that the trial court's judgment or ruling should stand. No extended opinion, legal analysis, or separate concurrence/dissent accompanied the brief order. The panel of judges Wozniak, White, and Mize concurred and the clerk noted the usual rehearing period is available.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a consolidated appeal (6D2023-3209 and 6D2023-3444) brought by John Daniel Smith against attorneys Kenneth E. Kemp II, Elizabeth Claire Bentley, and the law firm Patrone, Kemp & Bentley, P.A. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 28, 2026, and contains no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition "AFFIRMED." The panel (Nardella, White, and Smith JJ.) concurred, and counsel for the parties are listed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jason Daniel Aycox's appeal from the Lee County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). After considering the record, the court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. No separate opinion or extended reasoning was provided; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion notes the decision is not final until the rehearing period expires.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Derek D. Durant's appeal from the Lee County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 28, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No separate opinion or explanation of reasoning was provided in the published entry; the panel of three judges concurred and the court noted the usual period for filing a motion for rehearing.