Court Filings

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.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case against James L. Hudson. The court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without additional comment, but explicitly noted that Hudson remains free to pursue a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The decision leaves the underlying conviction intact while preserving Hudson's right to seek postconviction relief through the appropriate rule-based motion in the trial court.

The Second District Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of certiorari from plaintiffs Carolyn Hoskins and Lolita Johns challenging a trial court order that dismissed without prejudice their direct-liability medical-malpractice claim against Women's Care of Florida for failure to satisfy presuit notice under chapter 766. The appellate court concluded the petitioners failed to show the required irreparable harm from the without-prejudice dismissal. Because certiorari is an extraordinary remedy and jurisdictional prerequisites were not met, the court dismissed the petition without addressing the trial court's legal ruling on presuit notice.

The appellate court (Florida Second District) reviewed an appeal by Troy Markeith Griffin, Jr. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County. After considering the arguments and record, the court issued a per curiam decision simply stating the judgment is affirmed. No published opinion or extended reasoning appears in the document; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order revoking Joshua Aaron Edwards's probation and the resulting sentence for his 2022 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The court clarified that a defendant does not enter a "plea" to an alleged violation of probation but may admit the violation; the rules governing guilty pleas on charged offenses do not apply to violation proceedings. The court explained that an admission waives the State's burden to prove the violation, while the decision to revoke remains reviewable for abuse of discretion and the post-revocation sentence may also be reviewed.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal case brought by the State of Florida against appellant Sophina Webb. The appellate panel, writing per curiam, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a departure sentence. The court relied on controlling precedent that sentencing departures are discretionary and will be upheld on review unless the trial court clearly abused that discretion. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed Shakel Devon McClain’s convictions for attempted first-degree murder, carjacking with a deadly weapon, and fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. McClain argued the trial court wrongly admitted his text messages to his girlfriend from days before the crimes as improper character evidence. The appellate court held that even if admission of the messages was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no reasonable possibility the messages contributed to the guilty verdicts, citing controlling harmless-error precedent.

The Second District Court of Appeal dismissed Neelam Uppal’s petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a Pinellas County circuit court decision. The petition named multiple respondents including a condominium association, management companies, mortgage entities, and individual defendants. The court issued a short per curiam order simply stating “Dismissed” without extended reasoning, and three judges concurred. The filing indicates counsel appearances for some respondents and no appearance for others; the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The State of Florida appealed a county court decision concerning defendant Stephen Bryce Balsinger. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, reviewed the appeal and unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam (unsigned) and provides no additional reasoning in the published entry. The panel—Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Sleet and Rothstein-Youakim—concurred. The decision is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The district court reviewed an appeal by Louis Serball from a Pasco County circuit court decision. After considering the record, the appellate panel issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published beyond the simple affirmation, and the appellee did not file an appearance in the appeal. The mandate affirms the trial court's ruling, leaving the circuit court's judgment intact.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, affirmed a lower court ruling in an appeal brought by Silvia Perez under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The opinion is brief: the court issued a per curiam decision affirming the circuit court's ruling without published opinion. The judges concurred, and the decision may be revised before official publication. No specific factual or legal reasoning is provided in the document itself.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a pro se appeal by Jenouch Ivory Pasco from a Pinellas County circuit court order. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's judgment. No published opinion or extended reasoning was provided in the document; the three-judge panel simply announced affirmation and noted the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Ortega's appeal from a Pinellas County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a brief per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. No opinion text or substantive reasoning was provided in the published entry beyond the affirmance and the judges who concurred.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal filed by Christopher Clayton Miller against the State of Florida. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision, with Judges Kelly, Khouzam, and Sleet concurring, and concluded that the trial court's ruling should stand. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or citations were included in the published opinion, and the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal appeal filed by Mark A. Kalina against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure rule governing appeals in criminal cases. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and concludes without published reasoning; the panel of judges concurred and the judgment of the lower court stands.