You are here: / False Imprisonment
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
,

MOTHER ATTACKED HER SISTER WITH A KNIFE WHEN MOTHER’S CHILDREN WERE IN THE HOME, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REVERSED THE NEGLECT FINDING BY THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES, THERE WAS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE CHILDREN WITNESSED OR WERE AWARE OF THE ATTACK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence that mother attacked her sister with a knife while mother’s children were in the home supported the finding of neglect. There was no need to demonstrate the children witnessed the attack:

“To establish neglect pursuant to Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B), a petitioner must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, and (2) that the actual or threatened harm to the child is due to the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” … .

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, an imminent danger of impairment to the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the subject children should be inferred from the mother’s egregious conduct of attacking the children’s pregnant aunt with a knife while the children were in the home … . Furthermore, impairment or imminent danger of physical impairment should also be inferred from the subject children’s proximity to violence directed against a family member, “even absent evidence that they were aware of or emotionally impacted by the violence” … . Matter of Najaie C. (Niger C.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04935, Second Dept 6-19-19

 

/by
, , , , ,

VALID EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WERE NOTICED BY APPELLATE COUNSEL BUT WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT TRIAL, THE STATE’S VERDICT IN THIS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, FALSE ARREST AND UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT ACTION AFFIRMED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, noting the validity of questions raised about the evidence that claimant sold the drugs, affirmed the verdict in favor of the state in this malicious prosecution, false arrest and unlawful imprisonment action. The evidentiary issues were noticed and raised by appellate counsel, but were not raised in the Court of Claims:

If taken at face value, this evidence would validate claimant’s testimony that he did not sell drugs to the informant and that defendant should have known as much. Critically important, however, is the fact that this timing discrepancy was never addressed at claimant’s criminal trial or the subject bench trial before the Court of Claims, and appears only to have been discerned by claimant’s counsel in his appellate brief. Defendant points out in its brief that it was unable to verify when the audio recording began because it did not have the original compact disc. The discrepancy between the commencement of the audio recording and the taking of the photographs is a matter of minutes at best. Missing from this record is any testimony expressly validating the timing as to when the audio recording began. Had this discrepancy been called to the attention of the Court of Claims, corresponding testimony could have been entertained … . As such, on this record, we decline to disturb the credibility determination made by the Court of Claims. Jenkins v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02932, Third Dept 4-18-19

 

/by
, , , , , ,

NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s application for permission to file a late notice of claim should not have been granted. After criminal charges were dismissed, eight months after the deadline for filing a notice of claim, petitioner sought to bring an action alleging violations of 42 USC 1983, false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and malicious prosecution. The Second Department found that a notice of claim is not required for the 42 USC 1983 action, the statute of limitations had expired on the assault and battery actions, reports documenting an investigation did not provide the city with timely notice of the essential facts of the claim, the excuse for the delay was not reasonable, and petitioner did not show the city was not prejudiced by the delay:

The branch of the petition which sought leave to serve a late notice of claim to assert, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, violations of the petitioner’s federal civil and constitutional rights, should have been denied as unnecessary… . Such a claim is not subject to the State statutory notice of claim requirement … . …

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the relevant state law claims within 90 days after they arose or a reasonable time thereafter. Actual knowledge could not be readily inferred from two reports dated June 18, 2015, documenting an internal investigation conducted by the police department to determine how a firearm was allegedly carried into, and concealed within, the station house, that “a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the [City]” against the plaintiff … . Moreover, the mere alleged existence of other police reports and records, without evidence of their content, and the involvement of the City’s police officers in the alleged incident, without more, were insufficient to impute actual knowledge to the City … .

We also disagree with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the petitioner presented a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The petitioner’s incarceration did not constitute such an excuse, since the relevant state law claims did not accrue, and the petitioner’s time to serve a notice of claim did not begin to run, until he was released from custody … . Matter of Nicholson v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 08134, Second Dept 11-28-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (42 USC 1983,  NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/42 USC 1983 (NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BATTERY (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))//MALICIOUS PROSECUTION  (NOTICE OF CLAIM, NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 42 USC 1983, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED ON ASSAULT AND BATTERY, PERMISSION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ON THE REMAINING STATE CHARGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/by
, , ,

POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department determined the petition to file a late notice of claim in this false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution action was properly denied. The police report association with petitioner's arrest did not provide notice of the claims to the city and that allegation that petitioner's assigned counsel did not timely inform him of the notice of claim requirement was not an adequate excuse:

… [T]he involvement of a City police officer in arresting the petitioner did not, without more, establish that the City acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner's claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter… . In addition, the contents of the arrest report and the certificate of disposition, submitted by the petitioner in support of his application, were insufficient to impute actual knowledge to the City of the facts underlying his claims … . Further, the petitioner failed to establish that the delay in serving a notice of claim and seeking leave to serve such notice would not substantially prejudice the City in maintaining its defense on the merits with respect to those claims … . Matter of Islam v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05763, Second Dept 8-15-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE ARREST (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT  (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY CITY OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

/by
, , ,

THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution causes of action should have been dismissed. Drugs were found in her apartment when a search warrant was executed in her absence. Her children’s father pleaded guilt to possession of the drugs. The First Department determined there was probable cause for her arrest under the theory of constructive possession of the drugs:

​

The evidence shows that plaintiff resided in and was the leaseholder of an apartment where contraband was discovered pursuant to a search warrant. Plaintiff’s residence and tenancy established her dominion and control over the apartment, and thus placed her in constructive possession of the contraband found therein … . This is so despite the fact that her children’s father had access to the apartment and also admitted and was charged with possession of the same contraband, since “[p]ossession if joint is no less possession” … . This is also true despite the fact that plaintiff was not in the apartment when the search warrant was executed and the contraband discovered … . Plaintiff’s possession of the contraband, in turn, gave rise to probable cause for her arrest. Nor does the record show that there were any material changes in fact to undermine the probable cause between her arrest and the filing of charges against her … . There is no evidence in the record sufficient to overcome the presumption of validity in the search warrant which led to the discovery of the contraband … .

The existence of probable cause constitutes a complete defense to plaintiff’s state claims …  and federal claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution … . Phin v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00333, First Dept 1-18-18

FALSE ARREST (THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FALSE IMPRISONMENT  (THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION  (THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

/by
, ,

“At Will” Employee Stated a Cause of Action Alleging Defendants Fraudulently Induced Him to Take the “At Will” Job

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for fraud in the inducement in connection with plaintiff’s acceptance of “at will” employment with defendants. The complaint alleged that defendants induced plaintiff to leave his well-compensated position with J P Morgan by falsely indicating plaintiff was being hired because of defendants’ heavy work load. The complaint further alleged that defendants did not have much work and plaintiff was hired solely to provide defendants with his business contacts. After turning over his business contacts, plaintiff alleged, defendants terminated him, claiming there was not enough work to support his position. The First Department reasoned plaintiff was not seeking damages for wrongful termination, which is not available for an “at will” employee, but rather was seeking damages for defendants’ fraudulently inducing him to give up his lucrative employment with J P Morgan in order to take the “at will” employment. The court further noted that the “general” merger clause in the “at will” employment contract did not preclude the action and the action concerned statements of material existing fact, not (nonactionable) statements of future expectations:

An at-will employee, who has been terminated, can not state a fraudulent inducement claim on the basis of having relied upon the employer’s promise not to terminate the contract … , or upon any representations of future intentions as to the duration or security of his employment … . However, where an at-will employee alleges an injury “separate and distinct from termination of the [his] employment,” he may have a cause of action for fraudulent inducement … . The at-will employee must allege not that his employer wrongly fired him, but that “[he] would not have taken the job in the first place if the true facts had been revealed to [him]” … .

Plaintiff does not allege that defendants wrongfully terminated him. He claims that they misrepresented the nature of the job that they were hiring him to do, that they were only hiring him to gain access to his contacts and that if they had told him this he would not have left his job at J.P. Morgan to work for them. Indeed, plaintiff’s injury preceded his termination.

Nor are plaintiff’s damages speculative, since he alleged that they stem not from his loss of employment with defendants, but from his loss of employment with J.P. Morgan. These damages represent “the sum necessary for restoration to the position occupied before the commission of the fraud” … . Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06646, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

/by
,

Re: False Arrest and False Imprisonment—Allegations Sufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause Action

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment properly survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action: “

Although liability for false arrest and false imprisonment generally will not be imposed where a civilian complainant merely furnishes information to law enforcement authorities rather than taking ” an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ . . . with the intent that [the] plaintiff be confined” …, we conclude that the complaint and plaintiff’s submissions in opposition to defendant’s motion here sufficiently allege that defendant’s employees made false statements to investigators with the intent of having plaintiff be arrested and confined … . Harrison v Samaritan Med. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 03971, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

/by
, , ,

Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined a mistake made by the Division of Parole, which resulted in claimant’s prosecution and imprisonment for a violation of parole at a time when his parole had been terminated, was privileged.  Therefore, the claimant’s action for false imprisonment was properly dismissed:

To establish a claim of false imprisonment, claimant must demonstrate, among other things, that the confinement was not privileged … . “To that end, it is settled that ‘[a]n otherwise unlawful detention is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction or parole authorities'” … . Here, there is no dispute that claimant’s confinement was pursuant to parole violation warrants that were valid on their face. Yet, according to claimant, because his sentence should have terminated by law on March 10, 2005, the Division acted without jurisdiction when it commenced the April 2005 parole revocation proceeding, revoked his parole and thereafter subjected him to various periods of incarceration.

“‘There is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter. The former is privileged, the latter is not'” … .

While the [Division of Parole’s] ….interpretation of Executive Law former § 259-j (3-a) may well have been mistaken, any such “error in judgment neither negates nor defeats defendant’s claim of privilege” … . The statute vested the Division with the authority to grant a termination of sentence under certain described circumstances, and interpreting the provisions that implement such power is a legitimate part of the Division’s function .. . The Division made a reasoned judgment …[which] was neither inconsistent with nor contrary to extant judicial authority … . Thus, at most, the Division “acted in excess of its jurisdiction, not in the complete absence [thereof], and its conduct therefore was privileged”… . Marsh v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03320, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

/by
, ,

Mall Security Guards Did Not Actively Participate in Arrest of Plaintiff But Rather Acted at the Behest of the Police—False Arrest, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution Causes of Action Against the Mall Should Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined the causes of action against a mall for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution should have been dismissed.  The court determined the mall personnel (security guards) did not actively cause the plaintiff to be arrested, but rather were instructed to act by the police:

…[T]he causes of action for false arrest and false imprisonment are synonymous …, and our analysis treats them as such. We agree with the Mall defendants that the court erred in denying that part of their motion concerning those causes of action. In order to establish liability therefor on the part of the Mall defendants, plaintiff is required to prove, inter alia, that the Mall defendants ” took an active role in the [arrest] of the plaintiff, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act’ “… . Here, however, the Mall defendants met their initial burden on their motion of establishing as a matter of law that their security guard did not take the requisite “active role” in arresting plaintiff. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the record establishes that the security guard handcuffed plaintiff only at the direction of a Town of Greece police officer (hereafter, police officer), who informed plaintiff that she was under arrest … .

…[T]he court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking dismissal of the cause of action for malicious prosecution. In order to hold the Mall defendants liable for that tort, plaintiff is required to prove, inter alia, “the commencement . . . of a criminal proceeding by the [Mall] defendant[s] against” her … . To establish that element, plaintiff would have to prove that the Mall defendants “affirmatively induced the [police] officer to act,” for example, by “taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the [police] officer [was] not acting of his own volition” … . We conclude in this case, however, that the Mall defendants met their initial burden on their motion of establishing that they did not commence a criminal proceeding against plaintiff inasmuch as the security guard did not affirmatively induce the police officer to act to the point where the police officer was not acting of his own volition. Indeed, the record establishes that the police officer observed the altercation, and acted of his own volition in directing the security guard to handcuff plaintiff and in informing plaintiff that she was under arrest. Washington v Town of Greece, 2015 NY Slip Op 02661, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

/by
,

Claimant’s Imprisonment for a Month After His Release Date Was Not Privileged

The Third Department affirmed the Court of Claims, finding that claimant’s confinement was not privileged.  Claimant had completed his sentence at the time of sentencing but he was held for a month:

…[I]n order to succeed on a claim of false imprisonment or unlawful confinement, claimant was required to show “that (1) defendant intended to confine him, (2) he was conscious of the confinement, (3) he did not consent to the confinement, and (4) such confinement was not otherwise privileged”… . The first three elements have undoubtedly been satisfied and, accordingly, the question distills to whether claimant’s confinement by DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] was privileged. The facts leading up to his detention are not in dispute and, after reviewing them, we agree with the Court of Claims that the confinement was not privileged.

Claimant was sentenced to a prison term as the result of his conviction and, “where a facially valid order issued by a court with proper jurisdiction directs confinement, that confinement is privileged” … . That being said, DOCCS was “‘conclusively bound’ by the terms of the sentence and commitment order,” which unambiguously directed that claimant be released after 1½ years of confinement … . DOCCS continued to confine claimant after that period had ended and, given the absence of any order that required it to do so, its actions were not privileged … . Miller v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00408, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy