The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the pat down search of defendant traffic offender was not supported by reasonable suspicion: … [A] pat down search of a traffic offender is not authorized unless, when the vehicle is stopped, there is reasonable suspicion that the defendant is armed or poses a threat to the officer’s […]
The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was induced to enter the plea by a threat to impose a heavier sentence after trial. The defendant did not preserve the issue for appeal by a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, but the appeal was heard in the interest of justice: […]
The Fourth Department determined County Court should have held a hearing on the amount of restitution and remitted the matter: Penal Law § 60.27 (2) provides in relevant part that, when a court requires restitution to be made, “[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the […]
The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined unambiguous language in a deed is not subject to interpretation: The construction of deeds generally “presents a question of law for the court to decide” … , and deeds must be “construed according to the intent of the parties, so far as such intent can be gathered […]
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the complaint in this dog-bite case, determined an affidavit which should have been disclosed because it contained the statement of a party was admissible in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (the Davis affidavit). In addition, the affidavit of a non-party witness should have been considered […]
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parents’ income was not properly calculated for child-support purposes: The Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) “sets forth a formula for calculating child support by applying a designated statutory percentage, based upon the number of children to be supported, to combined parental income up to the statutory […]
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been sanctioned for harassing defendants: In 2015, the plaintiff commenced this shareholder’s derivative action. After the action was commenced, the plaintiff and his attorney sent approximately 75 letters to various defendants, as well as those defendants’ family members, clergy, and attorneys. Therein, the plaintiff made […]
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate standing to bring the action. Therefore the lack-of-standing affirmative defense should not have been struck: … [A] plaintiff may demonstrate its standing in a foreclosure action through evidence that it was in possession of the subject note endorsed […]
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements in the mortgage: … Supreme Court improperly determined that the plaintiff established, prima facie, that it complied with the notice requirement of paragraph 22 of […]
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a two-judge dissent, determined that a corporation registered to do business in New York consents to the service of process in New York, but not to general jurisdiction in New York. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from a car accident in Virginia. Both Ford […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy