You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE VAPING ASSOCIATION PREVAILED IN ITS ACTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S REGULATIONS BANNING FLAVORED VAPING LIQUIDS, THE DEPARTMENT’S ACTION WAS “SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED;” THEREFORE THE VAPING ASSOCIATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent Public Health and Planning Council (within the NYS Department of Health) (the council) should not have been ordered to pay attorney’s fees to petitioner Vapor Technology Association (the vaping association) pursuant to the State Equal Access to Justice Act. The respondent council had adopted emergency regulations […]

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE BY ALLEGING THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AGAINST THE WISHES OF DECEDENT AND DECEDENT’S HEALTH-CARE AGENTS PROLONGED DECEDENT’S PAIN AND SUFFERING; THE “WRONGFUL LIFE” LINE OF CASES DOES NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a cause of action sounding in medical malpractice by alleging the treatment of plaintiff’s decedent against decedent’s wishes and the wishes of his health-care agents prolonged his pain and suffering. This action was distinguished from the “wrongful life” line […]

, ,

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT ADDRESS THE OPINION OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint in this medical malpractice case, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted because plaintiffs’ expert did not address the defendants’ expert’s opinion. The defense expert averred plaintiff’s problems were caused by cancer. Plaintiffs’ expert took the position plaintiff never had cancer, […]

, , ,

THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the wife was entitled to maintenance in this divorce proceeding. The parties had been married for 44 years. The wife’s income was around $31,000 and the husband’s income was around $117,000. Both were retired. The Third Department noted that Supreme Court did not give any indication of […]

,

PETITIONER STARTED PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE EXECUTOR’S HANDLING OF DECEDENT’S ASSETS IN SURROGATE’S COURT; AFTER RELIEF WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER STARTED SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT, A COURT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION; THE EXECUTOR’S MOTION TO TRANSFER THAT PROCEEDING TO SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that Surrogate’s Court, not Supreme Court, was the proper forum for this proceeding concerning respondent-executor’s handling of decedent’s assets. Both respondent and petitioner are decedent’s children. Petitioner had commenced proceedings in Surrogate’s Court, and, after the requested relief was denied without […]

,

THE HOSPITAL FROM WHICH LAPTOPS WERE STOLEN WAS NOT A “DWELLING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BURGLARY STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing two of defendant’s burglary convictions, determined the hospital from which laptops were stolen was not a “dwelling” as that term is used in the burglary statutes: Defendant’s convictions under counts three and four of the indictment, regarding the 2017 thefts of laptop computers from the Physicians & Surgeons Building at Columbia […]

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR SAID TRAVEL PLANS PROHIBITED HER FROM SERVING BEYOND THE PROJECTED LAST DAY OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when a prospective juror said travel plans prohibited her from serving beyond the projected last day of the trial: During jury selection, the court advised the panel that the trial could last until April 17, 2018. The panelist at issue stated that […]

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ON THAT GROUND, THE DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S “LIMITED APPEARANCE” AT A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER; THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an attorneys “limited appearance” at a foreclosure settlement conference provided the court with jurisdiction over matter despite the fact defendants demonstrated they were not properly served with the summons and complaint: … [A]n attorney appeared in the action on behalf of the defendants by filing notices of appearance […]

, ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SEND DEFENDANT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE AS REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was entitled to summary judgment because the bank did not send the notice of default in a separate envelope as required by RPAPL 1304: RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences […]

,

AT THE TIME THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED THAT THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT INCLUDE THE NUMBER OF DAYS THE BORROWER HAD BEEN IN DEFAULT; A DISCREPENCY BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE DEFAULT IN THE 90-DAY NOTICE (JULY 2009) AND THE DATE IN THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE MORTGAGE AND IN THE COMPLAINT (MAY 2011) CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action was not entitled to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. At the time the action was commenced, RPAPL 1304 required the notice to state the number of days the borrower had been in […]

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy