Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision disqualifying Peirce Screen from receiving unemployment benefits because his employment was terminated for misconduct. The appeal was brought by Screen (pro se) against his former employer A & K Automotive and the Commissioner of Labor. The court issued a short order affirming the Board's ruling without opinion or costs, leaving the Board's finding of misconduct and resulting disqualification in place.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision refusing to preclude a December 2023 independent medical examination (IME) report in claimant Michael Martinez's workers' compensation matter. Martinez argued the IME report was inadmissible because the examiner did not file an IME-3 form as required by section 137, but the Board found the carrier's timely-filed IME-5 form and separately filed instructions supplied the same substantive information about body parts to be examined and issues to address. The court concluded those filings satisfied statutory and regulatory notice requirements and that exclusion was not warranted.

The Appellate Division, Third Department granted attorney Norika Kunii’s motion to be reinstated to the practice of law after a suspension imposed in October 2021. The court reviewed Kunii’s affidavit, exhibits, and the Committee’s response and found by clear and convincing evidence that she satisfied the reinstatement requirements, complied with the suspension order and court rules, demonstrated the requisite character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered immediate reinstatement under the court’s disciplinary reinstatement rules.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision that Warren Knights was ineligible for unemployment benefits for multiple periods because he falsely certified he was totally unemployed while earning money delivering for Instacart. The Department of Labor issued revised determinations finding overpayments and imposing forfeiture penalties based on willful misrepresentations. The Board credited evidence and testimony showing Knights failed to report his paid work despite having received a handbook explaining reporting obligations, and the court found substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of willfulness and the monetary penalties.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that claimant Jorge Ferra did not commit fraud under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Ferra was seriously injured when his parked vehicle was struck after a minor accident; hospital toxicology showed a .18 blood alcohol level. The Board and the workers' compensation judge had previously found the injury compensable because intoxication was not the sole cause. The carrier later sought suspension of benefits for alleged perjury about drinking, but the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of material fraud and the Appellate Division found substantial evidence supporting that conclusion.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of claimant Omar Ebanks's request to preclude an independent medical examination (IME) report. Ebanks had argued the carrier failed to file an IME-3 form as required under the statute and Board rules, but the Board found the carrier had filed an IME-5 scheduling form, timely IME-4 cover sheet and detailed examiner instructions that provided notice and the requested information. The court held that these submissions constituted substantial compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 137 and 12 NYCRR 300.2, so the April 2024 IME report was admissible and the Board did not abuse its discretion.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision awarding benefits for an occupational disease to Samuel Davis, a brick mason who alleged repetitive-trauma injuries to both hands/wrists and knees. The Board credited treating physician Dr. Hecht's opinion linking Davis's long history of repetitive masonry duties to his diagnoses, despite conflicting opinions from the carrier's consultant. The court also upheld a $500 penalty the Board imposed (reduced from $2,500) against the carrier for unilaterally conducting a third deposition of Dr. Hecht while an administrative appeal was pending, finding that the deposition constituted a frivolous proceeding.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's dismissal of Century Indemnity Company's CPLR article 78 challenge to the Attorney General's denial of a FOIL request. Century sought documents the Diocese of Ogdensburg produced to the Attorney General during an investigation; the Attorney General withheld them under FOIL's law-enforcement exemption. The court found the agency met its burden by identifying categories of records compiled for law enforcement and explaining how disclosure would interfere with the ongoing investigation, so nondisclosure was proper and counsel fees were not awarded.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Supreme Court's denial of defendants' summary judgment motions in a wrongful-death/medical malpractice suit. Plaintiff sued after her husband presented to the emergency department with left-sided back pain and difficulty breathing and later died of a heart attack four days after discharge. Defendants submitted expert affidavits saying care met the standard and testing would not have changed the outcome; plaintiff produced expert opinions that an EKG and troponin should have been ordered and that timely testing/treatment would likely have prevented death. The court found disputed issues of fact on breach and causation and rejected defendants' claim plaintiff raised a new theory of recovery.

The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed Supreme Court's declaration that Justin Ball is entitled to a civil jury trial to contest administrative charges seeking fines and revocation of his EMT license. The court held that the federal Seventh Amendment has not been incorporated against the states and therefore does not guarantee a civil jury in a state administrative licensure proceeding, and that New York's constitutional jury guarantee does not extend to regulatory license-revocation proceedings rooted in the statutory scheme governing professional licensure. The court granted the Department of Health's motion to dismiss and ended the injunction against the administrative process.

The Court of Appeals held that the federal Graves Amendment preempts New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (which imposed vicarious liability on rental companies) but does not preempt VTL § 370's independent requirement that rental car companies carry minimum amounts of insurance. The court concluded that Section 370, insofar as prior New York precedent read it to require rental companies to provide primary insurance coverage to renters up to the statutory minimums, is preempted by the Graves Amendment's prohibition on vicarious liability; however, the statute’s separate obligation that rental companies maintain specified minimum insurance limits survives. The Appellate Division's order affirming summary disposition was therefore affirmed.

The Court of Appeals held that a defendant may not be required, as a condition of a negotiated guilty plea, to waive a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). N.H. accepted a plea conditioned on waiving a § 60.12 hearing; the Court concluded such a waiver is not enforceable and reversed the Appellate Division, remitting the case to Supreme Court for further proceedings. The majority emphasized the DVSJA’s remedial purpose to afford survivor-defendants a judicial opportunity to establish eligibility for alternative, less severe sentences and treated the hearing right as unwaivable in plea bargaining.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term, vacated Warren Burgess's guilty plea to misdemeanor criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and remitted the case to Criminal Court for further proceedings. Burgess had pleaded to a misdemeanor after felony counts were crossed out at arraignment, but the accusatory instrument lacked any factual allegation that the recovered firearm was operable — an element required to sustain the weapon possession charge. Because a facially sufficient accusatory instrument is a jurisdictional prerequisite that survives a guilty plea, the Court concluded the misdemeanor information was jurisdictionally defective and could not support the plea.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff Myles Watson's employment-discrimination suit against the Metropolitan Transit Authority and NYCTA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case based on a broad release the plaintiff signed after disciplinary proceedings, but the appellate court found factual disputes about the circumstances of signing and therefore rejected dismissal on that ground. The court nonetheless affirmed because the complaint failed to state a viable disability discrimination claim under New York State law and the evidence showed no available safe and reasonable accommodation under the New York City law; the hostile-work-environment claim was also inadequately pleaded.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the bank's foreclosure complaint against 972 Gates Avenue, LLC as time-barred. Chase earlier commenced a foreclosure in August 2010 that accelerated the mortgage, starting the six-year statute of limitations. US Bank filed a new foreclosure in June 2022, over 11 years later, and did not plead or prove it was acting on behalf of Chase. Under the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act's CPLR 205-a, a successor/assignee cannot use the six-month savings rule unless it pleads and proves it acts for the original plaintiff, so US Bank was not entitled to tolling and the dismissal was proper.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The dispute concerned whether John Evelyn, who conveyed his interest in the mortgaged Brooklyn property in 2015, remained a necessary defendant in a 2008 mortgage foreclosure. The court held that because Evelyn had made an absolute conveyance and the plaintiff waived any deficiency claim against him, he was no longer a necessary party and could be dropped from the caption under CPLR 1003. The foreclosure and sale order was therefore affirmed as to Evelyn.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order that denied the plaintiff’s renewed attempt to obtain summary judgment on liability against defendant Olson E. Van Rossum in a pedestrian-vehicle negligence case. The court held the plaintiff failed to show new facts with reasonable justification required for renewal, and on reargument the evidence still did not establish the plaintiff’s prima facie entitlement to judgment on liability. Because the plaintiff’s submissions did not prove the defendant breached a duty proximately causing her injuries, the court adhered to the original denial of summary judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' negligence complaint against the Town of North Hempstead. The plaintiffs sued after Yelena Sharbani allegedly tripped on an uneven sidewalk; the Town moved for summary judgment arguing it had no prior written notice of the defect. The court held the Town showed it lacked prior written notice and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue that an exception (affirmative creation of the defect or special use) applied, so the Town was entitled to dismissal as a matter of law.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County judgment dismissing Rios's personal-injury complaint after a jury found the bus driver’s negligence was not a substantial factor in the crash and that the other vehicle’s driver was solely at fault. The plaintiff had moved to set aside the liability verdict as against the weight of the evidence, but the court denied that motion. The court also found any claimed errors in admitting certain defense expert testimony to be harmless because the outcome would not have changed.

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court order that had granted the plaintiff summary judgment to quiet title and declared a 2004 administrator's deed void from the start. The plaintiff had sued after her mother, appointed administrator c.t.a., conveyed decedent's property to herself and the plaintiff as joint tenants, contrary to the decedent's will leaving the property to the plaintiff alone. The appellate court held that because the defendant had Surrogate's Court letters of administration c.t.a., her transfer was cloaked with apparent authority and therefore was voidable (subject to attack), not void ab initio. The cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's negligence claim against Garden City Public Schools. The plaintiff sued under the Child Victims Act alleging the school negligently failed to prevent sexual abuse by a teacher. The school moved for summary judgment arguing it had no actual or constructive notice of the teacher's propensity for sexual abuse; the personnel file showed an earlier accusation was investigated and deemed unfounded. The court held the plaintiff's speculative allegations about bias or a cover-up did not create a triable issue of fact, so dismissal was proper.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing two counts of a grand jury indictment against defendant Rony Zino. The charges—criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving—arose from an October 11, 2023 vehicle-pedestrian accident that resulted in the pedestrian's death. The court held the grand jury evidence, even viewed in the People’s favor, did not provide the prima facie proof required for those crimes because it failed to show the defendant engaged in the degree of blameworthy conduct or reckless disregard of consequences necessary for conviction.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order designating Benjamin Williams a level two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing child sexual performance material; after a SORA hearing the court scored him 80 points on the risk instrument, denied his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and imposed the level two designation. The appellate court held the trial court properly exercised its discretion because the quantity, nature, duration of viewing, and sharing of images supported the assessed risk, and other claimed mitigating factors were either unpreserved or already accounted for by the Guidelines.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Troy Williams's conviction for first-degree manslaughter after a jury trial but reduced his sentence in the interest of justice. The court found the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, denied claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and held a claim that the People withheld Brady material must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion because the supporting facts are dehors the record. Exercising its discretion, the court reduced the prison term from 15 years to 8 years (postrelease supervision unchanged) and otherwise affirmed the judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court judgment convicting Brian Whittaker, who pleaded guilty to first-degree reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a firearm and was sentenced. The court held Whittaker validly, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his appellate rights and his written waiver of prosecution by indictment was valid. Although he argued the plea allocution was factually insufficient and thus involuntary, that claim was unpreserved and without merit because the allocution demonstrated he understood the charges and knowingly entered the plea.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two County Court judgments that convicted Orlando Ramsay on multiple drug- and weapon-related charges after he pleaded guilty. Ramsay argued his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and raised ineffective-assistance claims, but the court found those claims unpreserved because he never moved to withdraw his pleas or raised the issue below. The court also held his plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on guilt, and the record independently shows the pleas were valid. Any ineffective-assistance claims not directly related to plea negotiations or sentencing were forfeited by the guilty pleas.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender following his guilty plea to attempted second-degree robbery, but modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee. The court concluded those monetary assessments must be set aside because recent legislative amendments (and subsequent state appellate authority) apply retroactively to youthful-offender dispositions and repeal mandatory surcharges and victim assistance fees for youthful offenders. All other aspects of the judgment, including the youthful offender adjudication and sentence, were left intact.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court's denial without a hearing of Valery Latouche's 2024 CPL 440.47 motion to vacate his sentences and be resentenced under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (Penal Law § 60.12). The court held Latouche failed to submit the required corroborating evidence—at least two pieces, one of which must be a specified form of record—showing he was subjected to substantial domestic abuse at the time of the offenses and that such abuse significantly contributed to his criminal behavior. The panel modified the order to state the denial was without prejudice.

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.