Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Third Department denied Mary Elizabeth Rain's motion for reinstatement to the New York bar following a two-year suspension imposed in 2018 for multiple professional misconduct violations committed while she served as a district attorney. The court applied the three-part reinstatement test requiring compliance with suspension terms, proof of character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence, and demonstration that reinstatement would serve the public interest. The court found Rain failed to show she had meaningfully addressed the misconduct that led to suspension and provided no concrete plans or assurances that reinstatement would not harm the public, so her motion was denied.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department denied plaintiff-appellant Hoi Trinh's motion for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in his action against defendant-respondent Joseph Thien Nguyen. The court's one-paragraph memorandum and order, issued April 24, 2026, simply denies both requested forms of relief, leaving the prior appellate disposition in place and refusing further review by the state's highest court or reconsideration by this panel.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department denied plaintiff James R. Caputo’s motion for reargument or for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals in his action against multiple defendants including Nathan Holt and others. The court issued a brief memorandum and order on April 24, 2026, declining both reliefs without published opinion. No change was made to the underlying appellate disposition by this decision; the motion was simply denied.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, denied the plaintiff's motion for reargument and denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in the case where Joseph D. Burgdorf sought further review of a prior decision against Betsy Ross Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and various individual defendants. The court affirmed its earlier disposition by refusing to revisit the matter or permit an appeal to New York’s highest court. No extended opinion or new legal analysis was provided in this memorandum and order.