The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s for-cause challenge to a prospective juror should have been granted: … Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s for-cause challenge to a prospective juror who evinced a state of mind that was likely to preclude the prospective juror from rendering an impartial […]
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mendez, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the handgun seized in a street stop should have been suppressed. Two police officers in a vehicle observed the defendant crossing the street. The defendant was carrying haff-full bottles of alcohol, but the bottles were not open. […]
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the release signed by plaintiff applied to both actions plaintiff had brought against the city, not just the action identified in the caption of the release. Plaintiff brought two separate actions challenging two arrests occurring 14 days apart. The release identified the action stemming from […]
The Third Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined that the heightened definition of “impaired” which has been applied to a vehicular manslaughter charge need not be applied to driving while ability impaired by drugs or a combination thereof, the charges against defendant here. Therefore the failure to request that the jury be instructed […]
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and remitting the matter, determined that whether the federal offense used as a predicate for defendant’s second felony offender designation is the equivalent of a New York felony depends on the underlying facts of the federal offense: … [T]he federal statute under which defendant was previously convicted provides, in […]
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this slip and fall case did not demonstrate the defect which allegedly caused plaintiff’s foot to sink down about an inch into soft temporary asphalt was trivial or open and obvious as a matter of law: Although defendants stress that the alleged defect was, at most […]
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined plaintiff stated causes of action for both a violation of privacy pursuant to the Civil Rights Law, and breach of a fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleged defendant plastic surgeon posted before and after photographs of the plaintiff without her consent. The breach […]
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a protruding nail in a basement stairway which allegedly caused plaintiff to slip and fall. The defendant did not present any evidence demonstrating when the stairway was last inspected or cleaned: … [T]he defendants failed to […]
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The bank did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure requirements of RPAPL 1304. The notice did not include the phone number for the NYS Department of Financial Services’ toll-free helpline: “Where an RPAPL 1304 […]
he First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landlord’s motion to renew based upon a change in the law should have been granted} On appeal, this Court agreed with defendant that the law as it existed prior to enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) applies in this case. However, […]
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy