Court Filings

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's 2019 conviction for criminal possession of a firearm following a guilty plea. The court reviewed the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence recovered during a traffic stop. The court found the defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal invalid but held that the suppression motion was properly denied without a hearing because the supporting papers were conclusory and did not allege sufficient facts to require a hearing. Unpreserved constitutional challenges to the gun statute were not considered.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a guilty plea and sentence. The defendant had challenged the search warrant and sought disclosure of an unredacted warrant application and hearing minutes to attack probable cause and the confidential informant's anonymity. The court upheld the trial court's redactions as necessary to protect the informant and, after reviewing the unredacted materials, concluded there was probable cause for the warrant and properly denied suppression of the recovered firearms.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment that adjudicated the defendant a youthful offender after a guilty plea to criminal possession of a firearm and imposed sentence. The defendant argued the conviction was unconstitutional, but the court held those constitutional challenges were not preserved because they were not raised below and declined to address them in the interest of justice. Because the court resolved preservation, it did not reach the defendant's remaining arguments.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal contempt following his guilty plea and sentence. The defendant appealed, and his assigned counsel submitted an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw for lack of nonfrivolous issues. After conducting an independent review of the record, the court agreed there were no meritorious appellate issues and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, affirming the judgment of conviction.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed defendant Michael Barnett's conviction for petit larceny entered on his guilty plea, but modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees that had been imposed at sentencing. The court relied on Criminal Procedure Law § 420.35(2-a) and recent Appellate Division decisions allowing waiver of such financial penalties for defendants who were under 21 at the time of the offense. The People consented to the modification, and the court exercised its interest-of-justice jurisdiction to relieve Barnett of the surcharge and fees while leaving the conviction and sentence otherwise intact.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability in a pedestrian-vehicle collision case. The plaintiff had sought a ruling that the driver was solely at fault and dismissal of the defendants' comparative negligence defense. The court held the plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden because her testimony did not eliminate triable issues about whether the driver could have seen her and whether she was at fault, so summary judgment was inappropriate.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order that, after a hearing, granted the mother's petition for sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child (born 2022) and denied the father's petition for joint physical custody. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interest analysis — emphasizing the mother's greater ability to provide stability, overall well-being, and to foster the child's relationship with the other parent — had a sound and substantial basis in the record. The court also held the Family Court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint an attorney for the very young child.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order that authorized involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to Thomas B., an involuntarily committed patient who denied having a mental illness. The court reviewed a petition brought by the State and held that the petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas B. lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision about treatment and that the proposed medication was narrowly tailored to protect his liberty interest. The court deferred to the hearing court’s factual findings, including the treating psychiatrist’s testimony diagnosing schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with violent symptoms.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition challenging Suffolk County Department of Civil Service's May 22, 2024 determination that the petitioner was not qualified for hire as a police officer after an adverse psychological evaluation. The court held that the appointing authority has broad discretion in determining fitness for law enforcement, may rely on its own medical evaluators even when a candidate produces a contrary independent opinion, and that the Department's decision was not irrational or arbitrary. Because the agency acted reasonably, the court would not substitute its judgment for the administrative factfinder.

The Appellate Division reviewed Family Court proceedings in which the Administration for Children's Services alleged the father neglected two children. The appeals from the fact-finding and dispositional orders were dismissed in part, and the court affirmed the order of disposition insofar as reviewed. Because the dispositional order was entered on the father's default and has expired by its own terms, appellate review was limited to whether the father neglected the children. The court held that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the father's lack of insight into ongoing mental-health issues and his bizarre and irrational behavior placed the children at imminent risk, supporting the neglect finding.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order finding that the mother neglected her child by inflicting excessive corporal punishment. ACS brought an Article 10 neglect proceeding alleging the mother repeatedly physically, verbally, and emotionally abused the child and on one occasion bit the child's finger, causing an infected human bite mark. The court concluded ACS proved neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, crediting the Family Court's credibility findings and finding the child's out-of-court statements were corroborated by medical records and ACS observations.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order of protection that found the appellant—who had previously surrendered parental rights and agreed to an adoption—committed harassment in the second degree and fourth-degree stalking against the adoptive child. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court directed the appellant to stay away from the child except pursuant to a court-ordered visitation, through December 15, 2026. The appellate court upheld the Family Court’s credibility findings and concluded the evidence met the fair preponderance standard for the charged family offenses.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court disposition finding that the mother abused and neglected her child based on her criminal convictions for shooting the child's father, but it modified the disposition because the Family Court improperly delegated to ACS the authority to decide the mother's therapeutic supervised parental access. The panel held collateral estoppel applied to give preclusive effect to the mother's guilty pleas, supporting summary judgment on abuse and neglect. The court remanded for the Family Court itself to decide whether to allow therapeutic supervised access and, if so, to set a specific schedule.

The Appellate Division reversed a Family Court order that denied the mother's objections to two Support Magistrate orders. The Support Magistrate had ordered the father to pay spousal support and ordered the mother to pay child support, based on findings that included the father's approximately $161,000 income and an imputed income to the mother. The appellate court held the Family Court erred: the father's deferred income must be included in calculating combined income, and the Support Magistrate abused discretion by imputing income to the mother above her reported earnings. The case is remitted for recalculation and further proceedings.

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court order that granted the mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' child and directed the father to pay temporary child support arrears. The appellate court held the Supreme Court erred by deciding custody without a plenary hearing and without making specific findings about the child's best interests. The case is remitted for a hearing and a new determination; meanwhile, the custody provision of the August 8, 2022 order remains in effect pending that hearing. The child-support arrears directive was vacated pending further proceedings.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court order adjudicating 14-year-old Gabriel G. a juvenile delinquent for third-degree robbery and conditionally discharging him for 12 months. The court dismissed as academic the portion of the appeal challenging the 12-month conditional discharge because that period expired, but it reviewed and rejected Gabriel's motion to dismiss the indictment for due process and statutory speedy-trial violations. The court found the five-month pre-arrest delay and the prosecution's discovery timing did not violate constitutional or statutory speedy-trial rights, so dismissal was not required.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order denying a mother's 2023 petition to modify a 2018 custody order to permit her to relocate with her child from New Jersey to Michigan. The parents share joint legal custody and the mother has physical custody. After a hearing, the Family Court found the mother failed to show the move would improve the child's economic or educational circumstances and that it would not harm the child's relationship with the father. The appellate court held that the Family Court's best-interest determination had a sound and substantial basis in the record and upheld the denial.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's negligence claims against defendant driver Christopher McCabe and his employer Brown's of Bellport, Inc. The plaintiff was in a left non-HOV lane and rear-ended a stopped tractor-trailer after McCabe swerved left into the HOV lane to avoid being struck from behind. The court held that McCabe’s evasive maneuver merely furnished the occasion for the collision and was not a proximate cause, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact about McCabe’s negligence, so Brown's cannot be vicariously liable.

The Appellate Division dismissed John Evelyn's appeals from two Supreme Court orders in a mortgage foreclosure action because the right to a direct appeal ended when the court entered the final order and judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss these appeals, noting the issues raised are properly considered on the existing appeal from the final foreclosure judgment. The panel therefore dismissed the appeals without costs and treated related issues as preserved for review on the appeal from the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a trial court order denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer, preclude their defenses, or resolve liability in the plaintiff’s favor for failure to produce court-ordered discovery in a personal injury action. The Supreme Court had found no clear showing that the defendants’ discovery lapses were willful and contumacious and instead extended a deadline for production. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion under disclosure and sanction rules and therefore affirmed the denial of the extreme sanctions sought by the plaintiff.

The Appellate Division, Second Department modified the Supreme Court order by granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability in a personal-injury action where the plaintiff's electric bicycle collided with a vehicle while the driver attempted a left turn. The court concluded the driver was negligent as a matter of law for attempting the left turn when it could not be made with reasonable safety, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue on liability. The court nevertheless affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's separate motion to dismiss the defendants' comparative negligence affirmative defense under CPLR 3211(b).

The Appellate Division reversed a Nassau County Supreme Court order and granted plaintiff Kelvin Goode leave to enter a default judgment against Bespoke Motor Group, LLC and Bentley Long Island, LLC in a breach of contract action. The court found service on an employee identified as a "service consultant" was proper under the rules for serving limited liability companies, the defendants failed to timely answer, and the plaintiff provided proof of service and the defendants' default. Because the defendants did not show a reasonable excuse for the default, the court granted default judgment without reaching the merits of any asserted defenses.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's June 9, 2021 order denying both the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing a tenant's home health aide plaintiff's negligence complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff was scalded by unexpectedly hot water while showering and alleged the landlord negligently maintained the building's hot-water/boiler system. The court held that competing evidence about prior hot-water incidents and the building's system created triable issues of fact about whether the defendant created or had notice of the dangerous condition, so neither side was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint against the New York City Transit Authority and bus driver Loraine C. Lord and dismissing the Cintron defendants' cross-claim against those defendants. The court reviewed a jury verdict that found the bus driver's admitted negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the collision and that the Cintron vehicle operator's negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court held the jury’s verdict was reasonably supported by testimonial, photographic, and video evidence and therefore was not against the weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying the plaintiff's motion to hold the defendant in civil contempt, to obtain retroactive child support, and for counsel fees. The parties had a 2009 stipulation requiring annual child support increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but they later executed a 2011 amendment that modified the child support provision and did not include the CPI increase. The court held the CPI provision was no longer in effect and the plaintiff failed to prove prejudice from the defendant's alleged failure to produce tax returns, so a contempt hearing was not required.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders in a personal injury action arising from a 2015 construction-site accident. The court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add Skanska Civil Northeast, Inc., finding the plaintiff did not satisfy the relation-back test because Skanska USA and Skanska Northeast were not united in interest. The court also affirmed denial of the plaintiff's renewal motion. Finally, the court affirmed denial of Skanska USA's renewed cross-motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff showed discovery might uncover evidence to oppose the motion based on public materials Skanska USA had disseminated.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying defendant Kathy McElroy's pre-answer motion to dismiss an amended mortgage foreclosure complaint or, alternatively, to compel plaintiff's counsel to produce proof of authority to commence the action. The plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its servicer's assistant vice president and a limited power of attorney showing the servicer was authorized to act and that the law firm had been retained to begin the foreclosure. The court held those submissions sufficiently established the law firm's authority, so dismissal and compelled production were properly denied.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment and modified the dismissal order by treating the defendant's motion as a request for declaratory relief and granting it. The court held that the plaintiffs' one-day-old, prematurely filed default motion was properly denied, and that, even accepting the plaintiffs' allegations, there is no legal basis to declare them released from their mortgage because the defendant's failure to produce a chain of title does not itself free them from the loan. The case is remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the defendant's entitlement to that declaration.

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a Supreme Court order and granted defendant Aileen Betances' renewed summary judgment motion dismissing the amended complaint against her in a personal injury action. Plaintiffs alleged their vehicle was struck from the rear and that the defendant owned or operated the offending vehicle. The court held the defendant made a prima facie showing that she and her vehicle were not involved in the accident, and the plaintiffs' opposing papers failed to raise a triable issue of fact, so dismissal was appropriate.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of medical-malpractice and wrongful-death claims against two groups of individual and corporate defendants (the Sullivan defendants and the Ramapo defendants) as time-barred. The plaintiffs had added those providers to an existing action years after the decedent's death; the court held the statute of limitations had expired and the plaintiffs failed to show that relation back applied. Although the claims arose from the same event and the new defendants shared an interest with the hospital, the plaintiffs could not show the new defendants had timely notice that they should have been sued.