Caputo v. Holt
Docket MOTION NO. (76/26) CA 24-01298.
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Denied
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02594
- Docket
- MOTION NO. (76/26) CA 24-01298.
Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals following an earlier Appellate Division disposition.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department denied plaintiff James R. Caputo’s motion for reargument or for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals in his action against multiple defendants including Nathan Holt and others. The court issued a brief memorandum and order on April 24, 2026, declining both reliefs without published opinion. No change was made to the underlying appellate disposition by this decision; the motion was simply denied.
Issues Decided
- Whether the Appellate Division should grant reargument of its prior decision.
- Whether leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals should be granted.
Court's Reasoning
The court denied the motion for reargument and the request for leave to appeal, indicating that the moving party failed to show a basis for reconsideration or exceptional circumstances warranting permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The memorandum and order reflects the court's conclusion that no legal or factual error requiring reexamination was demonstrated.
Parties
- Plaintiff
- James R. Caputo
- Defendant
- Nathan Holt
- Defendant
- Owen Billet
- Defendant
- Premium Mortgage Corporation
- Defendant
- Donald Cheney, Esq.
- Defendant
- Cheney Law Firm, PLLC
- Defendant
- Abar Abstract Corporation
- Defendant
- Monroe County Clerk's Office
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult appellate counsel
Speak with an appellate attorney to determine whether any rare extraordinary remedies exist or whether further actions in the trial or appellate courts are appropriate.
- 2
Comply with final appellate mandate
Ensure that any obligations created by the underlying appellate decision are performed, since the denial leaves that decision intact.
- 3
Consider other procedural options
If new, significant evidence or a controlling law change emerges, evaluate whether a motion to reargue or other post-judgment relief might be possible in the appropriate court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Appellate Division denied the motion for reargument and the request for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Primarily the plaintiff, James R. Caputo, and the listed defendants, because the court refused to reopen or escalate review of the prior appellate ruling.
- Does this change the underlying appellate outcome?
- No. Denial of reargument or leave to appeal leaves the earlier appellate outcome in place.
- Can this denial be appealed?
- Orders denying leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals are generally not independently appealable; the usual next step would be to seek other extraordinary relief, but options are very limited.
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
Caputo v Holt - 2026 NY Slip Op 02594 Caputo v Holt 2026 NY Slip Op 02594 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department JAMES R. CAPUTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v NATHAN HOLT, OWEN BILLET, PREMIUM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, DONALD CHENEY, ESQ., CHENEY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ABAR ABSTRACT CORPORATION, MONROE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. Decided on April 24, 2026 MOTION NO. (76/26) CA 24-01298. Present: Curran, J.P., Bannister, Ogden, And Delconte, JJ. (Filed Apr. 24, 2026.) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.