Court Filings

The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' consolidated personal-injury claims against defendant Montgomery Realty Associates. After a liability trial, the jury found for Montgomery; the plaintiffs moved to set aside that verdict and for judgment as a matter of law, but the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court held there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict because the fire resulted from the contractor's means and methods (use of a torch) rather than a defective condition of the building, so the landlord was not liable as a matter of law under the general rule for independent contractors and applicable exceptions did not apply.

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a trial court order and granted summary judgment to defendants Dr. Steven Athanail and Lutheran Medical Center in a medical malpractice suit. The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to timely diagnose and treat a colonic perforation after a May 2016 hospital admission, but the defendants produced expert proof showing no departure from the standard of care. The plaintiff's opposing expert offered only conclusory and speculative assertions and failed to confront the defendants' experts with specific, record-supported reasoning, so no triable issue of fact existed.

The Appellate Division reviewed plaintiffs’ appeals from two Supreme Court orders in a dispute over whether plaintiffs (children from the decedent’s first marriage) are entitled to the decedent’s 50% interest in unimproved Martha’s Vineyard property. The court held that the trial court should not have dismissed the complaint on its own motion, but it affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm. The appeal of the denial of reargument was dismissed as not appealable. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the complaint.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's January 22, 2024 order in a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Bank of America against Muhammad and Zubaida Sarwar. The trial court granted the bank summary judgment on the complaint as to the Sarwars, struck two affirmative defenses/counterclaims alleging a fraud/conspiracy and that bank employees facilitated illegal activity, and ordered reference. The appellate court agreed that Muhammad was precluded from testifying because he failed to complete his deposition as directed, declined to consider his affidavit, and found the defendants failed to raise a triable issue that the named bank employees had actual or apparent authority to bind the bank. Costs were awarded to the bank.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a lower court judgment that Amtrust North America must defend Authority Fleet Services and related plaintiffs in an underlying personal-injury lawsuit arising from a September 30, 2022 construction accident. The court held that the underlying complaint, liberally construed, reasonably suggested a possibility of coverage under the employer's workers' compensation and employers' liability policy, triggering the insurer's broader duty to defend. Because Amtrust failed to show there was no possible factual or legal basis for indemnity, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment requiring Amtrust to defend the insureds.

The Appellate Division reviewed a mortgage foreclosure where defendant Cheryl Hunte defaulted and a referee's report and judgment of foreclosure and sale were entered. The court dismissed Hunte's direct appeal from an interim order as moot but reversed the foreclosure judgment insofar as it depended on presumed valid service of process. Because Hunte submitted a sworn denial with supporting facts sufficient to rebut the process server's affidavit, the court remitted the case for a hearing to determine whether she was properly served, and ordered a new determination afterward on confirmation of the referee's report and the motion to vacate the earlier default judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of Mansoor Alam's claim against the State of New York. Alam had sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for intentional infliction of emotional distress after New York City Department of Social Services accepted his Medicaid application but required a monthly spenddown, which he said left him unable to cover living expenses. The court held the claim necessarily required review of an administrative agency determination and therefore fell outside the Court of Claims' subject-matter jurisdiction; such challenges must be pursued in Supreme Court by an Article 78 proceeding.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the defendants' motion to vacate a default judgment and for a protective order. The plaintiff obtained a judgment after the defendants failed to appear or oppose a summary-judgment-in-lieu-of-complaint motion seeking rent and damages under a commercial lease and guaranty. The defendants later moved under CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate the November 2020 judgment and under CPLR 5240 to vacate restraining notices on bank accounts; the court found their excuses for default unreasonable and declined to disturb the restraining notices because they were needed to secure enforcement of the judgment.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Zenayda Guadalupe Portillo-Rodriguez’s appeal from a Potter County district court judgment because she failed to pay the required appellate filing fee and did not seek to proceed without payment. The Clerk notified her of the overdue fee and gave a deadline of April 13, 2026, but she took no action. Relying on the court’s appellate rules and the Clerk’s notice requirement, the court concluded dismissal was appropriate for noncompliance and entered a per curiam dismissal on April 29, 2026.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas granted the appellant's unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal of a trial court order adjudicating him guilty of theft of a firearm and sentencing him to seven months confinement. The motion complied with the appellate rule requiring signature by both the appellant and his attorney. Because no opinion had been issued in the case, the court dismissed the appeal, denied any rehearing motions, and directed that the court's mandate issue immediately.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas dismissed an unopposed voluntary motion by appellant D.E.P. to dismiss an appeal from a final order in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (child referred to by initials). The court found the motion complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), that granting dismissal would not prejudice any party, and no appellate decision had been issued. The court granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, declined to entertain a rehearing motion, and ordered issuance of its mandate immediately.

The Seventh Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Curtis Johnson’s jury conviction for continuous sexual abuse of his six-year-old granddaughter and his 40-year prison sentence. Johnson argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior sexual abuse against another victim (A.J.) because the State’s notice was insufficient. The court held Johnson waived complaint by not requesting a continuance or other relief to address alleged surprise, and even assuming error, any notice defect was harmless because the State had informed him of the victim, offenses, and date range well before trial and A.J. testified at a pretrial hearing.

The Second District Court of Appeal dismissed J. Stanford Lifsey’s petition for writ of certiorari as moot. The court concluded that changed circumstances meant it could not provide any effective relief, citing precedent that moot appeals must be dismissed. The petition had sought review of a circuit court decision, but because subsequent events eliminated the possibility of judicial relief, the appeal was terminated without reaching the merits.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Evan Holley’s appeal from a Union County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion dated April 29, 2026, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The opinion is brief: the court announced its unanimous decision to affirm and provided no extended written reasoning. The panel noted the availability of timely post-opinion motions under Florida appellate rules and identified counsel for both sides.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed De Ante George Green's appeal from the Leon County Circuit Court and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 29, 2026, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion contains no stated reasoning beyond the single-word disposition and notes that the decision is not final until timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved. The panel of judges Lewis, Roberts, and Kelsey concurred. Green appeared pro se; the State was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Jason M. Rivera’s pro se appeal from a decision by the Circuit Court for Manatee County. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court’s judgment. The opinion contains no extended written reasoning and simply affirms the trial court decision. All three judges concurred and the mandate leaves the trial court’s ruling in place.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bobby Lee Johnson from a Pinellas County circuit court judgment and, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion contains no published reasoning or citation; the panel affirmed the judgment below and all three judges concurred. The opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a dependency case involving children E.W., C.M., and C.C. with J.R.B. as the appellant and the Department of Children and Families and the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office as appellees. The appellate court issued a short per curiam decision and affirmed the lower court's ruling. No additional reasoning or changes to the trial court's orders were provided in the published opinion; the panel concurred and the judgment stands as affirmed.

The court reviewed Andre Hunter's appeal from a Manatee County circuit court decision under Florida appellate rules. The Second District Court of Appeal, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is short, unsigned, and gives no published reasoning; it simply states the judgment is affirmed and that the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed the circuit court's decision in a case brought by Nancy M. Gavrilis, as personal representative of the Estate of John Monteforte, and intervenor Stylianos Gavrilis, against appellee Sabrina Hayes. The appeal challenged the lower court's ruling; the appellate panel issued a short per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed.' No opinion text explaining reasoning or issues is included in the document, and the judges concurred. The decision leaves the circuit court's judgment intact.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a civil dispute between appellant Katalin Fodor and appellee Krisztian Gonda. The appeal was taken to the district court from the Pinellas County Circuit Court, and the appellate panel, writing per curiam, concluded that the lower court's ruling should stand. No extended opinion, reasoning, or factual discussion was provided in the published disposition beyond the court's one-line affirmance and concurrence by the three judges.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Stephanie Candace Moure Cramer from a Sarasota County circuit court decision in a dispute against Brendan Walker. The Second District issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 29, 2026, concluding only that the lower court's judgment should be affirmed. No published reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the opinion beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by all three judges, and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida considered an appeal by Jason Casanas from a decision of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion concluding that the circuit court's ruling should be affirmed. No extended reasoning, factual background, or specific legal issues are discussed in the published entry; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion was filed April 29, 2026.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the county court's decision in favor of Hillsborough County Animal Control. Maurice F. Bayless, appearing pro se, appealed a county court judgment; the appeals court reviewed the matter and concluded there was no reversible error. The per curiam opinion provided no extended discussion and simply affirmed the lower court's ruling, with judges Morris, Atkinson, and Labrit concurring. No detailed factual or legal reasoning appears in the published entry.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed a pro se appeal by Labronx Bailey from a Hillsborough County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. No substantive reasoning or opinion text is provided in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by three judges. The opinion may be revised before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by Louis Narada Armstrong from a Manatee County circuit court decision. After considering the parties' filings and arguments, the appellate court issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion was brief, filed April 29, 2026, and did not elaborate reasoning in the published entry; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment of the circuit court stands as affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment below in a criminal case. The appeal was taken by Anthony Carl Williams, who proceeded pro se, from a decision of the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, summarily rejecting the appellant's contentions and affirming the lower court's ruling without extended opinion. The panel judges concurred and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal/post-conviction matter brought by appellant Pythis Pleas. The per curiam opinion, issued April 29, 2026, contains a single-line disposition: AFFIRMED. The panel (Bilbrey, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ.) concurred and noted the decision is not final until any timely permitted motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved. No reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is included in the published entry.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal case involving appellant Kemauri Lionel McNeal and the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and states only the disposition "AFFIRMED" without publishing reasoning in this document. The appeal arose from a judgment or order entered by the Circuit Court for Escambia County before Judge Amy P. Brodersen. The panel of judges (Lewis, Rowe, and Nordby) concurred, and the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized motion is resolved under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Joseph Luther’s appeal and addressed a sentencing discrepancy. The trial court orally pronounced concurrent life sentences on Counts I and II, but the written sentencing order incorrectly stated the sentences would run consecutively. Because the orally pronounced sentence controls when the written order conflicts, the court reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to enter a written sentence matching the oral pronouncement. The remainder of the judgment and sentence was affirmed.