What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's denial of plaintiff's request for summary judgment, so the case was not decided in plaintiff's favor at this stage.

Who is affected by this decision?

The parties to the lawsuit—plaintiff Maura Bianco and defendant Jacqueline S. Johnson—are directly affected because the case returns to the trial court for further proceedings.

What happens next in the case?

Because summary judgment was denied, the case remains pending in the trial court and may proceed to discovery, motion practice, or trial unless the parties settle.

Can this decision be appealed further?

The Appellate Division's decision could be eligible for further review by the New York Court of Appeals only if permission is granted through leave to appeal; the parties should consult counsel about prospects and deadlines.

Bianco v. Johnson

Docket 394 CA 25-00711

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02579
Docket: 394 CA 25-00711

Appeal from an order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a civil action

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court (Steuben County) order that denied plaintiff Maura Bianco's motion for summary judgment in her suit against defendant Jacqueline S. Johnson. The appellate court reviewed the lower court's December 27, 2024 order and concluded there were issues precluding summary disposition, so the matter remains for further proceedings in the trial court. The appellate decision was issued April 24, 2026 and affirmed without costs.

Issues Decided

Whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment
Whether the record presented issues of fact precluding summary disposition

Court's Reasoning

The appellate court affirmed because the Supreme Court properly found that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment could not be granted on the record before it. There remained factual or legal issues that precluded resolving the case as a matter of law, so summary judgment was inappropriate. The Fourth Department therefore left the matter for further proceedings rather than disturbing the trial court's discretion.

Parties

Plaintiff: Maura Bianco
Plaintiff-Appellant: Maura Bianco
Defendant: Jacqueline S. Johnson
Defendant-Respondent: Jacqueline S. Johnson
Attorney: Bronster LLP (Melanie S. Wolk, of counsel)
Attorney: Mancuso Brightman PLLC (Erin E. Elmouji, of counsel)
Judge: Jason L. Cook
Judge: Whalen, P.J.
Judge: Bannister, J.
Judge: Montour, J.
Judge: Nowak, J.
Judge: Hannah, J.

Key Dates

lower court order date: 2024-12-27
appellate decision date: 2026-04-24

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult trial counsel
Discuss the implications of the denial and plan the trial-court strategy, including whether to renew motions, conduct additional discovery, or prepare for trial.
2
Consider interlocutory relief or leave to appeal
If the plaintiff believes the issue warrants further appellate review, explore seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or other appropriate relief, noting strict procedural deadlines.
3
Prepare for further proceedings
Collect additional evidence and witness statements to address the factual issues that prevented summary judgment so the case can be tried or resolved.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's denial of plaintiff's request for summary judgment, so the case was not decided in plaintiff's favor at this stage.
Who is affected by this decision?: The parties to the lawsuit—plaintiff Maura Bianco and defendant Jacqueline S. Johnson—are directly affected because the case returns to the trial court for further proceedings.
What happens next in the case?: Because summary judgment was denied, the case remains pending in the trial court and may proceed to discovery, motion practice, or trial unless the parties settle.
Can this decision be appealed further?: The Appellate Division's decision could be eligible for further review by the New York Court of Appeals only if permission is granted through leave to appeal; the parties should consult counsel about prospects and deadlines.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Bianco v Johnson - 2026 NY Slip Op 02579

Bianco v Johnson

2026 NY Slip Op 02579

April 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

MAURA BIANCO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v

JACQUELINE S. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on April 24, 2026

394 CA 25-00711

Present: Whalen, P.J., Bannister, Montour, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ.

BRONSTER LLP, NEW YORK CITY (MELANIE S. WOLK OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

MANCUSO BRIGHTMAN PLLC, ROCHESTER (ERIN E. ELMOUJI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Jason L. Cook, J.), entered December 27, 2024. The order, inter alia, denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: April 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn