author: Rivera, J.

text:
    [77 NE3d 349, 54 NYS3d 632]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn J. Sivertson, Appellant.
    Argued January 3, 2017;
    reargued March 22, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      David C. Schopp, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy and Barbara J. Davies of counsel), for appellant.

      Michael J. Flaherty, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Lowry and Michael J. Hillery of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorándum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The conclusion that the warrantless entry by police into defendant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there is support in the record for the Appellate Division’s conclusion, the issue is beyond our further review (see People v Gibson, 24 NY3d 1125, 1126 [2015]; People v Brown, 95 NY2d 942, 943 [2000]; People v Hallman, 92 NY2d 840, 842 [1998]). “The rule applies ‘where the facts are disputed ... or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference to be drawn [from the established facts]’ ” (People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477 [1982], quoting People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 601 [1980]). The dissent’s conclusion to the contrary is based on a narrative derived from the suppression hearing record that unduly emphasizes the testimony and resulting inferences that are favorable to defendant.

Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Rivera, J.

(dissenting). As a matter of law, there is no record evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into defendant’s home. Therefore, the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered. I dissent.

I.

Defendant was charged with one count of robbery in the first degree for stealing a few dollars from a donation jar inside a convenience store located near the University of Buffalo campus. According to the testimony at the hearing on defendant’s suppression motion, 15 to 20 officers from the Buffalo Police Department, Niagara Frontier Transit Authority, and the University of Buffalo security force responded after a store employee made a 911 call to report that a robbery had just occurred. Based on images from the in-store surveillance video and statements from two employees who interacted with the robber, the officers developed a description of a white male in his 50s, who was armed with a small knife and was wearing a coat, gloves, and a scarf.

The store manager also told the officers that she had chased the robber across the street and through an alleyway before she lost track of him. Several officers fanned out and conducted a search of the area, but did not locate the robber.

Meanwhile, back at the store, two people told one of the officers that earlier in the day they had seen someone who fit the description of the robber sitting on the stoop of a building across the street from the store. Buffalo Police Officer Mayhook then went to that building and spoke with a man, who told him that the person sitting on the stoop had recently moved into a rear apartment in the building.

Based on this information, several officers surrounded the building. As they approached, they noticed a door on one side of the rear apartment and two closed windows on the other. The lights were on inside, and they could look directly through the windows at defendant, who they observed alone and lying in bed watching television. They described the apartment as very small, approximately 500 square feet in size, and so compact that one officer could see a pair of gloves on the kitchen table that looked like the gloves worn by the robber.

The officers knocked on the door and window for approximately 10 minutes, yelling for defendant to “show [your] hands and . . . come out.” Defendant made eye contact with the officers peering in his window, then rolled over and closed his eyes. One officer said that from his view it appeared defendant was in a “stupor.” Upon authorization from Officer Mayhook, several officers forced open the door, pulled defendant out of bed, and handcuffed him. Once inside, the officers seized a black knit hat, gloves, three small knives from the kitchen counter, and a scarf and jacket.

Officer Mayhook testified that he was at the door, but did not personally witness the defendant’s actions or look inside the apartment prior to giving the order to enter. He based his decision to enter without a warrant on the other officers’ observations of defendant as relayed to him, which he testified consisted of defendant matching the robber’s description, as well as the fact that the officers were unaware if defendant was alone, if defendant could access other parts of the building, or if there were other weapons in the apartment. Officer Mayhook further testified that when he gave the order he knew the officers were armed and had surrounded the building, and that defendant was not threatening anyone.

The court partially denied defendant’s suppression motion, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and that items in plain view were properly seized. However, the court granted the motion as to the jacket and scarf, finding that the police unlawfully obtained these items by opening a closed container.

The jury convicted defendant on the sole count of first-degree robbery (Penal Law § 160.15). Thereafter, the court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate incarceratory period of 20 years to life.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, concluding, as did Supreme Court, that the forced entry was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances (People v Sivertson, 129 AD3d 1467, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]). As a matter of law, the facts do not support this conclusion.

II.

A person s home is a place of safety, security, and uninterrupted respite from the demands of the external world (see Florida v Jardines, 569 US 1, 6 [2013]; see also Matalon v Hynnes, 806 F3d 627, 633 [1st Cir 2015] [“It is common ground that a (person)’s home is (a) castle and, as such, the home is shielded by the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection”]). Society’s interest in preserving the sanctity of the home is reflected in the federal and state constitutional guarantee that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (see US Const, 4th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 12). History teaches that the “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed” (United States v United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 407 US 297, 313 [1972]). Indeed, “[flreedom from intrusion into the home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment” (Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 587 [1980] [citation omitted]; see also People v Mothersell, 14 NY3d 358, 363-364 [2010] [“(I)nnocent persons are commonly encountered in private spaces, such as homes, and, in fact, possess in those spaces the most constitutionally compelling expectations of privacy”]).

To maintain a person’s security in the home, it is a “basic principle” that “warrantless entries into a home to make an arrest are presumptively unreasonable” (People v McBride, 14 NY3d 440, 445 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Payton, 445 US at 586; People v Jenkins, 24 NY3d 62, 64 [2014]).

“Over and again [the United States Supreme] Court has emphasized that the mandate of the Fourth Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes, and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions” (Katz v United States, 389 US 347, 357 [1967] [alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted]).

One such exception, relied upon by the People here, holds that so long as “there is probable cause, the police may proceed without a warrant to effectuate an arrest within a home if exigent circumstances exist to justify a warrantless entry” (McBride, 14 NY3d at 445 [citations omitted]). This exception to the warrant requirement is narrowly construed, such that “ ‘the scope of the conduct thus sanctioned is strictly limited by the necessities of the circumstances in which it arises’ ” (Jenkins, 24 NY3d at 65, citing People v Knapp, 52 NY2d 689, 696 [1981]; see also McBride, 14 NY3d at 445).

When the People invoke the exception, “the ultimate inquiry a suppression court must make is ‘whether in light of all the facts of the particular case there was an urgent need that justifies a warrantless entry’ ” (McBride, 14 NY3d at 446, quoting United States v Martinez-Gonzalez, 686 F2d 93, 100 [1982]). “In answering that question, we must be cognizant of the [United States] Supreme Court’s admonition that ‘exceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number and carefully delineated and that the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests’ ” (Harris v O'Hare, 770 F3d 224, 234 [2d Cir 2014], quoting Loria v Gorman, 306 F3d 1271, 1284-1285 [2d Cir 2002] and Welsh v Wisconsin, 466 US 740, 749-750 [1984]). “In other words, the People who seek exemption from constitutional mandate must show that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative” (Matter of Kwok T., 43 NY2d 213, 220 [1977]; see also Welsh, 466 US at 749-750 [“(T)he police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests”]; People v Jenkins, 24 NY3d 62 [2014]; United States v Reed, 572 F2d 412, 424 [2d Cir 1978]; accord Vale v Louisiana, 399 US 30, 35 [1970]).

Exigent circumstances, by definition, “are those [circumstances] that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the suspect’s escape, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts” (William Rin-gel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions § 10:8 [2d ed 2016]; accord Jenkins, 24 NY3d at 65 n 2; Kentucky v King, 563 US 452, 460 [2011]). These include “time pressures, the emergency nature of the situation, and the potential danger of the situation which makes obtaining a warrant impossible or ill-advised in light of the urgent need for immediate action” (Ringel § 10:1). A finding of exigency necessarily depends on the circumstances presented to the officers at the time of the warrantless entry (see Welsh, 466 US at 748 n 9; see also United States v George, 883 F2d 1407, 1412 [9th Cir 1989] [“The exigencies must be viewed from the totality of circumstances known to the officers at the time of the warrantless intrusion” (emphasis added)]; United States v Schaffer, 286 Fed Appx 81, 85 [4th Cir 2008]; United States v Talkington, 843 F2d 1041, 1045 [7th Cir 1988]).

Various factors may assist and guide the court in deciding the essential question of whether exigent circumstances are present at the time of entry into the home (McBride, 14 NY3d at 446). In McBride, the Court identified some such factors relied on by other courts — ranging from whether the police have probable cause to believe a defendant is the perpetrator of the crime, to the likelihood that a defendant will escape if not swiftly apprehended. Those factors are “illustrative and not to be viewed as definitive or exhaustive” (id. at 446 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). No one factor, or any combination, is determinative (id.). Courts may consider other factors, such as whether obtaining a warrant was impossible or impracticable under the circumstances, whether any delay attendant to securing a warrant risked what the exception specifically seeks to avoid, namely the destruction of evidence and a suspect’s escape, or whether life or property are in imminent danger (see United States v Jones, 635 F2d 1357, 1360 [8th Cir 1980]; see also United States v Mondragon, 181 Fed Appx 904, 906 [11th Cir 2006]; Jenkins, 24 NY3d at 65 n 2; People v Molnar, 98 NY2d 328 [2002]).

The People mistakenly rely primarily on the particular factors that point to defendant as the robber, as well as the gravity of the crime. Those factors only address part of the analysis because, even if the police have probable cause to believe defendant is the culprit, they may not make a warrantless entry into defendant’s home absent an urgent need to do so (United States v Altman, 797 F2d 514, 515 [7th Cir 1986]; see also Dorman v United States, 435 F2d 385, 389 [DC Cir 1970] [explaining that more than probable cause is required if the government makes a warrantless entry into a home]).

McBride is instructive on this issue. There, the police had eyewitness identification of the defendant as a suspect in an armed robbery and five officers went to his address looking for him. This Court held that exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless entry into his apartment not solely on the basis of probable cause to believe he was the robber, but bécause of what the police observed and heard when they arrived (McBride, 14 NY3d at 444). The police saw a body on the floor of the apartment from the window and, after they knocked on the door and identified themselves, the officers heard someone run to the door, which was then answered by a woman who was hyperventilating and crying (id. at 444-445). Based on her appearance and lack of responsiveness, one of the officers believed the woman faced a life-threatening situation and therefore entered the apartment (id. at 445). The Court concluded that these circumstances, observed and considered by the officers immediately prior to the time of entry, supported the finding of an urgent need for the officers to act without a warrant (id. at 447).

Here, when the officers surrounded defendant’s building they blocked the door and had an unobstructed view of the defendant and the apartment through its two windows. There was a light on inside so they were able to look around this very small space and observe defendant lying in bed, watching television and apparently unaware of the presence of the police. Only after several minutes of the police banging on defendant’s door and windows, yelling at him to open up and come out, did defendant react by making eye contact with the officers, at which point the officers saw him turn his back, roll over in bed and close his eyes. These record facts do not support a finding that defendant presented a danger to the police or someone else in the building, or “a likelihood that [defendant would] escape if not swiftly apprehended,” thus justifying the warrantless entry (id. at 446).

Although the police testified that they did not know if defendant had access to another part of the building, they also testified that defendant was in their sights the entire time, and the apartment was “very small,” making defendant’s movements easily visible. Significantly, defendant did not leave his bed or try to escape when he had the chance — from the moment he saw the police at his windows, until the officers broke into his home. Further, no facts suggest that once the officers surrounded the apartment, they were unable to enter the building and block defendant’s access to the interior. Nor did the officers testify that once they knew defendant was inside the apartment, it was impossible or impracticable to ascertain whether he had access to other areas of the building.

The officers’ knowledge that the robber was armed with a small knife also fails to support a finding of exigency in this case. The officers were outside defendant’s apartment, protected by a closed door and windows, and well beyond defendant’s immediate reach. As the record establishes, the officers maintained a view of defendant at all times, and never saw him brandish a weapon or move towards them.

Further, although the suspect displayed a knife during the course of the robbery, he did not harm or attempt to harm anyone. Indeed, apparently having no fear defendant would use the knife, the store manager chased after defendant for some distance. Thus, this case is distinguishable from cases in which the defendant has acted violently and shown a willingness to injure someone with a weapon, justifying a warrantless search (see e.g. People v Hill, 70 AD3d 1487 [4th Dept 2010]). For example in People v Hill, the court found exigent circumstances because when the police arrived they encountered defendant armed with a claw hammer and the victim bleeding from the head, having been attacked by the defendant (70 AD3d at 1488; see also United States v MacDonald, 916 F2d 766, 770 [2d Cir 1990] [explaining that the presence of semi-automatic weapons increased the danger of the situation]; United States v Belisle, 164 Fed Appx 657, 661-662 [10th Cir 2005] [holding that the victim’s report that the defendant possessed a gun was grounds to believe the defendant was a danger to the officers]; United States v Huddleston, 593 F3d 596, 600 [7th Cir 2010] [ruling that a sleeping suspect was dangerous because the officers could see him holding a gun while he slept]; United States v Singer, 62 F3d 1426 [9th Cir 1995 mem] [table; text at 1995 WL 453238, 1995 US App LEXIS 31270 (1995)] [finding that a knife could give rise to exigent circumstances when a single officer arrived at a defendant’s home after a report of a stabbing and there was blood in front of the house next door]; Thompson v Lake, 607 Fed Appx 624 [2015 mem] [ruling in an excessive force case that exigent circumstances cannot be found when officer only found knives after entering the home]; People v Wilson, 144 AD2d 980, 980 [4th Dept 1989 mem] [finding exigent circumstances when the victim was stabbed in abdomen and a bystander told police the suspect was in the house with the knife]). Nor were any facts elicited at the hearing that suggested that any person “may have been seriously injured and in need of imminent emergency assistance” (People v Doll, 21 NY3d 665, 671 [2013]).

Officer Mayhook’s assertion that he did not know what defendant was capable of doing and was concerned that defendant might rush out and attack someone does not provide record support for the warrantless entry because what matters is whether the police action is objectively justified (cf. Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 404 [2006] [explaining that the circumstances must objectively justify a warrantless entry in the emergency exception]; accord People v Ringel, 145 AD3d 1041, 1044 [2d Dept 2016]). Officer Mayhook’s uncertainty or speculation about defendant’s possible conduct in the face of defendant’s passivity provided no reason to break down the door at that precise moment, rather than seek a warrant. Yet, the trial court’s ruling that an officer’s subjective belief, when contrary to the record facts, nonetheless may establish an “exigency” essentially transformed this narrow exception into a general rule of entry.

Our Court’s admonition that “the police themselves cannot by their own conduct create an appearance of exigency” (People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 146 [1984]) is particularly relevant here where over a dozen officers responded to the 911 call and immediately took control of the situation. Given these resources, the officers had a clear alternative course of action — they could have monitored the defendant while a warrant was obtained, or waited for defendant to emerge of his own volition. Those actions would have preserved defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and our State Constitution.

III.

In the moments before the police broke through the door of defendant’s apartment — the moments critical to a determination whether exigent circumstances existed in this case— defendant did not take any action against the officers, or attempt to escape or avoid capture. To the contrary, he simply lay in bed, aware that the police were outside his door and looking through his windows. Further, unlike the officers in McBride, the police here were not faced with a situation in which defendant or someone else was in apparent distress and in need of immediate assistance. Nor had defendant harmed anyone during the robbery or before the police broke into his home.

When the police observed defendant in his apartment he did not pose an immediate threat of escape, or a danger to other residents or the police. Hence, there is no basis for the suppression court’s finding of an “urgent need that j us tifie [d] a warrantless entry” {McBride, 14 NY3d at 446), and defendant’s motion to suppress the items obtained from his apartment should have been granted in its entirety.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur; Judge Rivera dissents in an opinion in which Judge Stein concurs.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.

      . Despite the majority’s exhortation to the contrary, I have not misinterpreted the record below (majority op at 1007). I have based my analysis on the responding officers’ express testimony as to what they saw and did when they arrived at defendant’s home. The People carry a heavy burden to justify a warrantless entry into a suspect’s home (Welsh v Wisconsin, 466 US 740, 749-750 [1984]), and the officers’ description of the unfolding events, read plainly, falls short of the constitutional benchmark to support a finding of exigent circumstances.

      . The Court in McBride listed the following factors: (1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime; (4) strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered; (5) a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry (McBride, 14 NY3d at 446).

      . Defendant does not challenge that the police had probable cause to believe he was the robber.

      . Defendant had no duty to respond to the officers or to open his door, so his failure to respond to these demands does not justify the warrantless entry (see King, 563 US at 470).

      . Based on my conclusion that defendant is entitled to a new trial, I do not address his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Stein, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    [77 NE3d 357, 54 NYS3d 639]
    Town of Amherst, Appellant, v Granite State Insurance Company, Inc., Respondent.
    Argued May 2, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo (John G. Schmidt, Jr. and Nicolas J. Rotsko of counsel), for appellant.

      Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, New York City (Marc S. Voses and Jeffrey S. Matty of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs. Under the facts of this case, including the terms of the parties’ insurance policy, which incorporated the rules of the American Arbitration Association, the issue of whether the later agreement between the parties affected the arbitrability of the dispute should be resolved by the arbitrator (see Matter of Cassone, 63 NY2d 756 [1984]; Matter of Schlaifer v Sedlow, 51 NY2d 181 [1980]).

Stein, J.

(dissenting). Unlike the majority, I interpret the arbitration clause at issue here as narrow, rather than broad. In my view, under the facts of this case and that interpretation of the policy, the determination of the arbitrability of the parties’ dispute should be made by the courts (see generally Silverstein Props. v Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, 65 NY2d 785, 787-788 [1985]). Accordingly, I dissent and would reverse the order of the Appellate Division.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Garcia and Wilson concur; Judge Stein dissents in an opinion; Judge Fahey taking no part.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


text:
    Richard Chamberlain et al., Appellants, v New York State Department of Taxation and Finance et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 1, 2017
   Appeal transferred without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, Third Department, upon the ground that the constitutional question presented on this direct appeal is not substantial (see Gerzof v Gulotta, 40 NY2d 825 [1976]).


text:
    In the Matter of Gilberto Diaz, Appellant, v Arlene Goldberg et al., Respondents.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (see CPLR 5601). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Gilberto Diaz, Appellant, v Cyrus R. Vance et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 24, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (see CPLR 5601). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Amil Dinsio, Appellant, v Raymond J. Elliott, III, Respondent.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the December 20, 2016 and January 27, 2017 letters sought to be appealed from are neither judgments nor orders from which an appeal to this Court may be taken (see CPLR 5512 [a]; 5602 [a]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Charles R. Fotheringham, Appellant, v Riversource Life Insurance Co. of New York, Formerly Known as IDS Life Insurance of New York, et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 1, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    Karine Gevorkyan et al., Appellants, v Ira Judelson, Respondent.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017

      See 841 F3d 584.
   Motion by The Legal Aid Society to join the amici curiae brief filed by Brooklyn Defender Services et al. granted.


text:
    In the Matter of Michael A. Gurnett, Appellant, v James F. Bargnesi, Acting Niagara County Court Judge, in his Capacity as Licensing Officer for Pistol Permits in Niagara County and Individually, Respondent.
    Decided June 1, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    Kathleen Makinen et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Appellants.
    Decided June 1, 2017

      See 857 F3d 491.
   Certification of a question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of this Court’s Rules of Practice, accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson.


text:
    In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Charles D. North, as Executor of Ralph P. North, Deceased, Respondent, v Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as Successor by Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants, National Grid Generation, LLC, Appellant, and O’Connor Constructors, Inc., Respondent.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 28 NY3d 915 (2017)].


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gonzalo Aguilar, Appellant.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nagmeldeen Azaz, Appellant.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Godfrey, Appellant.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Brian Hakes, Respondent.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Kathryn Friedman, Esq., c/o The Sage Law Firm Group, P.O. Box 200, 465 Grant Street, Buffalo, NY 14213 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Bryan Henry, Respondent.
    Submitted May 15, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Judah Maltz, Esq., 125-10 Queens Boulevard, Suite 12, Kew Gardens, NY 11415 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Perez, Appellant.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Durville Small, Respondent.
    Submitted May 8, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10005 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Savage Smith, Appellant.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion by New York Civil Liberties Union for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Teri W., Appellant.
    Submitted May 8, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Seymour W. James, Jr., Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Diane Word, Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 1, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Fred Simcha Wang, Appellant, v LSUC et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal etc. denied [see 28 NY3d 914 (2017)].


text:
    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, in Trust for the Registered Holders of Park Place Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-WCW1, Respondent, v Doron Eitani et al., Defendants, and David Cohan, Appellant.
    Decided June 1, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Beverly Weston, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided June 1, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see Rules of Ct of Appeals [22 NYCRR] § 500.24 [b]) [see 27 NY3d 904 (2016)].


text:
    In the Matter of Okolie Cyril, Appellant, v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 17, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 28 NY3d 913 (2017)].


text:
    Indigo Secured High Income Note, Ltd., Respondent, v HCI Secured Medical Receivables Special Purpose Corporation et al., Defendants, and Steven Nitsberg, Appellant.
    Submitted April 10, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution (see Burke v Crosson, 85 NY2d 10, 18 n 5 [1995]).


text:
    In the Matter of Jasmine G. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Pamela G., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.
    Submitted April 3, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Maimouna Kamate, Respondent, v MJ Cahn Co. et al., Appellants.
    Submitted April 3, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v David A. Gabay, Respondent.
    Decided June 6, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v David A. Gabay et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 6, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.
    Submitted April 10, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s February 16, 2017 dismissal order denied [see 28 NY3d 1165 (2017)].


text:
    In the Matter of Leo A. Marino, Appellant, v Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
    Submitted April 3, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Leo A. Marino, Appellant, v Steven Racette, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.
    Submitted April 10, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Karlo Morato-Rodriguez, Appellant, v Riva Construction Group, Inc., Defendant, and 1412 Broadway, LLC, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 3, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Perry Pendell, Appellant, v Columbia County Sheriff’s Office et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 10, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.
    Decided June 6, 2017
   Reargument ordered and case set down for argument at a future session of the Court of Appeals.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fa-hey and Garcia. Taking no part: Judge Wilson.


text:
    In the Matter of Bethanne Serwatka, Respondent, v Joseph Serwatka, Appellant.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Robert Siegel, Appellant, v The Dakota, Inc., Respondent.
    Submitted April 10, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Makcus Sykes, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.
    Submitted April 3, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine an action or proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Gasper A. Tirone et al., Cotrustees of Gasper A. Tirone and Elaine E. Tirone Trust, Respondents, v Deborah A. Buczek, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted April 3, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion for reargument denied [see 28 NY3d 1180 (2017)].


text:
    U.S. Bank National Association, Respondent-Appellant, v DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.
    Submitted January 23, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017
   Motion by appellant-respondent for leave to appeal granted. Motion by respondent-appellant for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely.

Judge Wilson taking no part.


text:
    (May 1, 2017 through
    May 31, 2017)
    People v Albert
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1657 (Monroe)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Ameer
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 54 Misc 3d 138(A) (Kings)

denied 5/17/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Anderson
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 714 (Westchester)

denied 5/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Ashe
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 887 (NY)

denied reconsideration 5/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Baez
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 517 (NY)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Barkley
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Misc 3d 62 (Richmond)

denied 5/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Barnaby
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 821 (Nassau)

denied 5/17/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Basile
   App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 54 Misc 3d 139(A) (Westchester)

dismissed 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Basu
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 869 (Kings)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Battee
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1076 (Kings)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Beasley
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1549 (Livingston)

denied 5/24/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Benedith
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 141(A) (Bronx)

denied 5/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Bentancourt
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 621 (NY)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Bentley
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 64379(U) (Livingston)

dismissed 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Betancourt
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 621 (NY)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Blackwood
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 716 (Westchester)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Blair
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1426 (Essex)

denied 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Blanding (John)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 63294(U) (NY)

denied 5/4/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Blanding (Johnny)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 63294(U) (NY)

denied 5/4/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Blandino
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 144(A) (NY)

denied 5/30/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Boland
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 909 (Queens)

denied reconsideration 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Bonet
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 647 (NY)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Boone
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 458 (NY)

denied 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Bovian
   2d'Dept: 148 AD3d 924 (Kings)

denied 5/17/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Bowens
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 925 (Richmond)

denied 5/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Brady
   County Ct, 12/15/16 (Livingston)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Brims (Edward)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1025 (Rockland)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Brims (Edward)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2014 NY Slip Op 87970(U) (Rockland)

dismissed 5/17/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Brinker
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 133(A) (NY)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Brockington
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 460 (NY)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Moses)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 967 (Kings)

denied 5/4/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Oneick)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 969 (Nassau)

denied 5/18/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Stephen)
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 570 (NY)

denied 5/17/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Willie)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1483 (Onondaga)

denied 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Bryant
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 779 (Kings)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Bunting
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 794 (Kings)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Cabrera
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 693 (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Callistro
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 795 (Richmond)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Campbell
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 821 (Nassau)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Carr
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1506 (Oswego)

denied 5/4/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Carsey
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 449 (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Carter (Rick)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1514 (Allegany)

denied 5/5/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Carter (Travon)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1540 (Oneida)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Carver
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 415 (Bronx)

denied 5/8/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Censoprano
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 970 (Suffolk)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Clay
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1499 (Monroe)

denied 5/4/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Coleman
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 478 (NY)

denied 5/16/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Coley
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1651 (Monroe)

denied 5/18/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Collins
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 870 (Kings)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Colon
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 465 (Bronx)

denied 5/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Colsrud
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1639 (Steuben)

denied 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Copeland
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 719 (Westchester)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Cord
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 715 (NY)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Cox
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1507 (Monroe)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Cruz
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 534 (NY)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Curry
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 65176(U) (Albany)

dismissed 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Davis
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 657 (NY)

denied 5/16/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Dawkins
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 898 (Kings)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Day
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1298 (Erie)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v DeBerry
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 65679(U) (Kings)

dismissed 5/30/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v De La Rosa
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 927 (Queens)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Deleon
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 576 (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v DePerno
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1463 (Cortland)

denied 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Diaz-Olmo
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1047 (Kings)

denied 5/30/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Dixon
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 701 (Nassau)

denied 5/8/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Doggett
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1172 (Albany)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Dorsey
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1352 (Albany)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Drake
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 89799(U) (Erie)

denied reconsideration 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Driscoll
   3d Dept: 131 AD3d 766 (Cortland)

denied reconsideration 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Durham
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 545 (NY)

denied 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Dushaun
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 465 (NY)

denied 5/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Elliott
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1606 (Lewis)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Ellis
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 806 (Queens)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Eyes
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1199 (Broome)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Fairweather
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1153 (Ulster)

denied 5/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Feliz-Lopez
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 871 (Suffolk)

denied 5/4/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Filer
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 806 (Queens)

denied 5/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Foli
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1322 (Chemung)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Fort
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1017 (Broome)

denied 5/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Francis
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62959(U) (NY)

dismissed 5/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Friello
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1519 (Monroe)

denied 5/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Fuller
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1344 (Monroe)

denied 5/4/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia (Martin)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 928 (Queens)

denied 5/8/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Garcia (Matthew)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 732 (Dutchess)

denied 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Garner (Antoine)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1573 (Erie)

denied 5/9/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Garner (Kenyatta)
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 940 (Westchester)

denied 5/26/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Garrow
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1459 (Clinton)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Gaye
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 141(A) (NY)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Getman (Derek)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1360 (Livingston)

denied 5/8/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Getman (Derek)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1360 (Livingston)

denied 5/8/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Gibson
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1507 (Monroe)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Godley
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1689 (Onondaga)

denied 5/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Goodwin (Darryl)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1352 (Monroe)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Goodwin (Daryl)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1352 (Monroe)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Gousse
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 974 (Nassau)

denied 5/9/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Granger
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62858(U) (NY)

dismissed 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Grant
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 872 (Kings)

denied 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Gray
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 909 (Queens)

denied reconsideration 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Gunn
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 64950(U) (Onondaga)

dismissed 5/8/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Guzman (Angel)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1450 (Wayne)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Guzman (Angel)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1452 (Wayne)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Harris (Eric)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1694 (Onondaga)

denied 5/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Harris (Timothy)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1354 (Erie)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Henderson (Lisa)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1312 (Ontario)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Henderson (Lisa)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1312 (Ontario)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Hicks
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 723 (Westchester)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hilson
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 91380(U) (NY)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hodge (Shakeymo)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1502 (Steuben)

denied 5/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Hodge (Shakeymo)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1503 (Steuben)

denied 5/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Hollis
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1505 (Erie)

denied 5/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Holmes
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 465 (NY)

denied 5/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Hovan
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 498 (NY)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Ignatyev
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 489 (NY)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v J
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1156 (Albany)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Jean
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 932 (Nassau)

denied 5/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Jeremiah
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1199 (Broome)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Johnson (Johnathan)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 825 (Queens)

denied 5/18/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Johnson (Jonathan)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 825 (Queens)

denied 5/18/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Eric)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1521 (Monroe)

denied 5/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Erican)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1521 (Monroe)

denied 5/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Nedra)
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1590 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jones-McFarland
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 978 (Kings)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Jordan
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 584 (NY)

denied 5/3/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Junious
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1606 (Monroe)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Kareem
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 550 (NY)

dismissed 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Khan
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 810 (Rockland)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v King
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1540 (Onondaga)

denied 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Knox
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 979 (Dutchess)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Krenkel
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1598 (Niagara)

denied 5/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lam
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 133(A) (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Lamont
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 65167(U) (Rensselaer)

denied 5/18/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lara
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 485 (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lassiter (Levy)
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 915 (Dutchess)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Lassiter (Levy)
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 916 (Dutchess)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Lassiter (Levy)
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 917 (Dutchess)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Lester
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62959(U) (NY)

dismissed 5/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lightfoot
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1626 (Niagara)

denied 5/26/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Logan
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 146(A) (Bronx)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Loja-Llivicota
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 726 (Rockland)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Lozada
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 826 (Queens)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Lynch
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 699 (NY)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Madden
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1576 (Monroe)

denied 5/23/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Madore
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1440 (Niagara)

denied 5/25/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Maher
   App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 52 Misc 3d 136(A) (Suffolk)

denied 5/31/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Marji
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1327 (Onondaga)

denied 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Martin
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1058 (Westchester)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Martinez (Anthony)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 826 (Kings)

denied 5/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Martinez (Lesley)
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 642 (NY)

denied 5/24/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v McCall
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1156 (Albany)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v McCarthy
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 983 (Queens)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v McClain
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1192 (Albany)

denied reconsideration 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mears (Steven)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 78918(U) (NY)

dismissed 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Mears (Steven)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2014 NY Slip Op 86355(U) (NY)

dismissed 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Milan
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 588 (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Mitchell
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 144(A) (NY)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mohammad
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1185 (Nassau)

denied 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Molina
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 815 (Orange)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Moore
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62654(U) (NY)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Moreno
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 827 (Nassau)

denied 5/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Morris (Eric)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1083 (Suffolk)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Morris (Ricky)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 71727(U) (NY)

denied 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mullings
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 65166(U) (Albany)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Nealon
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 784 (Queens)

denied 5/30/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Newell
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1216 (Rensselaer)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Nowlin (Quintin)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1447 (Monroe)

denied 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Nowlin (Quintin)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1451 (Monroe)

denied 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Nowlin (Quintin)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1452 (Monroe)

denied 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 3)


text:
    People v Obbagy (Shawn)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1296 (Livingston)

denied 5/10/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Obbagy (Shawn)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1302 (Livingston)

denied 5/10/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Ospina
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 681 (NY)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Owens
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1312 (Monroe)

denied 5/2/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Patterson
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 903 (Dutchess)

denied 5/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Peoples (Jalaal)
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62143(U) (Greene)

denied 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Peoples (Jalaal)
   App Div, 3d Dept, 2/23/17 (Greene)

dismissed 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Peters
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 68209(U) (Chemung)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Pig
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1606 (Monroe)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Pridgen
   App Term, 1st Dept: 53 Misc 3d 155(A) (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Proctor
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 87408(U) (NY)

dismissed 5/8/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Puccini
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1107 (Franklin)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Quezada
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 597 (Bronx)

denied 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Ramos (David)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1058 (Kings)

denied 5/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Ramos (Marco)
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 443 (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Reinard
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1658 (Niagara)

denied 5/22/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 & 2)


text:
    People v Rendino
   App Div, 4th Dept, 1/31/17 (Onondaga)

dismissed 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Riggins
   County Ct, 2/21/17 (Saratoga)

dismissed 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Rispers
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 988 (Westchester)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Rivera (Angel)
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 61434(U) (Onondaga)

dismissed 5/30/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Rivera (Gasper)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 129(A) (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rivera (Jason)
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 642 (NY)

denied 5/24/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Rivera (Noel)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1672 (Monroe)

denied 5/17/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Robinson
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 786 (Kings)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Rojas (David)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1535 (Ontario)

denied 5/17/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Rojas (Joseph)
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 587 (NY)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rolle
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 990 (Queens)

denied 5/22/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Romero
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1490 (Onondaga)

denied 5/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v St. Ives
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1185 (Broome)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Sanchez
   App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 54 Misc 3d 139(A) (Suffolk)

denied 5/9/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Sanders
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 846 (Queens)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Santi
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 464 (NY)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Sassenscheid
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 732 (Dutchess)

denied 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Scott
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 555 (Bronx)

denied 5/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Screahben
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62651(U) (Bronx)

denied 5/2/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Seldon
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1327 (Onondaga)

denied 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Silva
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62851(U) (NY)

dismissed 5/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Singh
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 787 (Kings)

denied 5/5/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Smalls
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 86585(U) (Westchester)

denied reconsideration 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Smith
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 939 (Suffolk)

denied 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Spears
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1059 (Kings)

denied 5/18/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Spencer (Kury)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1508 (Livingston)

denied 5/8/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Spencer (Kury)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1510 (Livingston)

denied 5/8/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Suarez
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 606 (NY)

denied 5/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Suzana
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 705 (NY)

denied 5/17/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Terborg
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 67579(U) (Monroe)

dismissed 5/30/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Texidor
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 664 (NY)

denied 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Then
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 991 (Kings)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Thomas
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 991 (Kings)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Thompson (Derrick)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 94743(U) (Queens)

dismissed 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Thompson (Mark)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1298 (Erie)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Torriente
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 555 (NY)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Trimble
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 60935(U) (Nassau)

dismissed 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Turner
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 425 (NY)

denied 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Tweedy
   County Ct, 12/9/16 (Onondaga)

denied reconsideration 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Tyler
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1441 (Ontario)

denied 5/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Umana
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1174 (Chemung)

denied 5/22/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v VanGorden
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1436 (Steuben)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Vargas
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 144(A) (Bronx)

denied 5/8/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Vartholomeou
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 875 (Queens)

denied 5/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Vasquez
   App Div, 4th Dept, 12/12/16 (Ontario)

denied reconsideration 5/2/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Victorino
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 440 (Bronx)

denied 5/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Villafuerte
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 414 (Bronx)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Villegas
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 54 Misc 3d 137(A) (Queens)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Virdree
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 594 (NY)

denied 5/3/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Waiters
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 494 (NY)

denied 5/25/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Warrington (Brandon)
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1233 (Warren)

denied 5/25/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Warrington (Walter)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 144(A) (Bronx)

denied 5/1/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Weatherbee
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1526 (Genesee)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v White
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 876 (Kings)

denied 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Craig)
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 902 (Suffolk)

denied 5/31/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Dennis)
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 502 (NY)

denied 5/17/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Eric)
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 592 (Bronx)

denied 5/11/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Javell)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 996 (Kings)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Michael)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 983 (Dutchess)

denied 5/12/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Wilner
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 919 (Nassau)

denied 5/16/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Winston
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 587 (NY)

denied 5/4/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Wisniewski
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1388 (Orleans)

denied 5/8/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Witherspoon
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 985 (Queens)

denied 5/8/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Wolfgeorge
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 145(A) (NY)

denied 5/24/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Yeldon
   App Div, 4th Dept, 1/27/17 (Erie)

dismissed 5/26/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Yorke
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 920 (Suffolk)

denied 5/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Zelaya
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 986 (Suffolk)

denied 5/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    (May 1, 2017 through
    May 31, 2017)
    People v Morrison
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1707 (Oneida)

granted 5/22/17 (Peradotto, J.)


text:
    People v Simmons
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1464 (Erie)

granted 5/23/17 (Lindley, J.)


text:
    In the Matter of Talib W. Abdur-Rashid, Appellant, v New York City Police Department et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Samir Hashmi, Appellant, v New York City Police Department et al., Respondents.
    Submitted June 12, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Reported below, 140 AD3d 419.

Motion by New York Civil Liberties Union for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judges Wilson and Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Aranessa L., Respondent, v Isaac C., Appellant.
    Submitted April 17, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Jennifer Cangro, Appellant, v Phyllis C. Solomon et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 22, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that it is does not lie (see NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601).

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Cara Associates, L.L.C., et al., Respondents, v Howard P. Milstein et al., Appellants.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Nilda Casiano, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent. In the Matter of Nilda E. Casiano, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
    Submitted May 8, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judges Stein and Feinman taking no part.


text:
    HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated August 1, 2006, ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-FM1, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Respondent, v Cindy Corazzini, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted May 8, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Robert Lebensold, Respondent, v Frank Mancuso, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Decided June 22, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Lisa T., Respondent, v King E.T., Appellant.
    Submitted June 5, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for poor person relief granted.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Lisa T., Respondent, v King E.T., Appellant.
    Submitted June 12, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for poor person relief granted.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Frank Maki, Appellant, v Bassett Healthcare et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 22, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Teddy Moore, Appellant, v Frank Guerra, Defendant, and City of New York et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 22, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joe Darrell, Appellant.
    Submitted June 19, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Zayas-Torres, Appellant.
    Submitted June 5, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Harry Roland, Appellant, v Warden, Rikers Island, Respondent.
    Decided June 22, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Melissa O., Appellant; Administration for Childrens Services, Respondent.
    Submitted June 19, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
   Motion for poor person relief granted.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    S&P Global Inc., Formerly Known as McGraw Hill Financial, Inc., Appellant, v New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 22, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Anthony Thompson, Appellant, v Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 22, 2017
   Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    [78 NE3d 1190, 56 NYS3d 505]
    In the Matter of Lurlyn A. Winchester.
    Decided June 27, 2017
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that the Honorable Lurlyn A. Winchester is suspended, with pay, effective immediately, from the office of Justice of Monroe Town Court, Orange County, pursuant to New York Constitution, article VI, § 22 and Judiciary Law § 44.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman.


text:
    Kevin Checksfield, Appellant, v Stefan D. Berg, Respondent.
    Submitted May 8, 2017;
    decided June 27, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (see CPLR 5601). Motion for leave to appeal denied.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Todd Courtney et al., Appellants, v 18th & 8th LLC et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 8, 2017;
    decided June 27, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]; Eaton v State of New York, 76 NY2d 824 [1990]).

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    E.J. Brooks Company, Doing Business as TydenBrooks, Appellant-Respondent, v Cambridge Security Seals, Respondent-Appellant.
    Decided June 27, 2017

      See 858 F3d 744.
   Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson. Taking no part: Judge Feinman.


text:
    Lillian Fischer, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 24, 2017;
    decided June 27, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal, insofar as taken from that portion of the Appellate Division order affirming so much of the Supreme Court order as granted the motion to dismiss the complaint, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portions of the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Thomas Flanigan, Appellant, v Bonnie Smyth, Respondent. Linda A. Mandel Clemente, Nonparty Appellant.
    Submitted May 1, 2017;
    decided June 27, 2017
   Motion, insofar as Thomas Flanigan seeks leave to appeal, dismissed upon the ground that he is not a party aggrieved (see CPLR 5511); motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ryan P. Brahney, Appellant.
    Submitted May 15, 2017;
    decided June 27, 2017
   Motion for reargument denied [see 29 NY3d 10 (2017)].

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Jeanetta Stega, M.S., Ph.D., M.S.N., Also Known as Jeanetta Malanowska-Stega, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v New York Downtown Hospital et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted May 8, 2017;
    decided June 27, 2017
   Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Amtrust-NP SFR, Venture, LLC, Respondent, v Karen Emmel, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 29 NY3d 940 (2017)].

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C., Appellant, v Progressive Insurance Company, Respondent.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division entered in this action commenced in the Civil Court of the City of New York (see NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [7]; CPLR 5602 [a]).

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    John L. Bell, Individually and as Shareholder of Norpco Restaurant, Inc. and Butcher Block of Albany, Inc., Appellant, v David R. White et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 29 NY3d 961 (2017)].

Judges Stein and Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Richard A. Brummel et al., Appellants, et al., Petitioner, v Town of North Hempstead Town Board, Also Known as Town Council, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 29 NY3d 903 (2017)].

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Daniel R. Wotman & Associates, PLLC, Respondent, v Janet Chang, Appellant.
    Submitted May 15, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Shawn Green, Appellant, v Debra A. Martin, State of New York, Respondent.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Nakita Harris, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Myra Harris, Appellant, v City of Buffalo et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]; 2103 [b] [2]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v David A. Gabay et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal, insofar as taken from that part of the October 2016 order dismissing plaintiffs appeal from the judgment, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portions of the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.
    Submitted June 12, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 27, 2017 dismissal order denied [see 29 NY3d 975 (2017)]. Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the March 2013 Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie, appellant having previously moved in the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal (22 NY3d 993 [2013]) from the same Appellate Division order from which she currently seeks leave to appeal (see Selinger v Selinger, 90 NY2d 842 [1997]); motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the August 26, 2016 Appellate Division order as dismissed the appeal from that portion of the Supreme Court order granting the motion for a litigation injunction, denied; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the remainder of the August 26, 2016 Appellate Division order and from the August 2011, April 2016, and August 1, 2016 Appellate Division orders, dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Nella Manko et al., Appellants, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, Respondent.
    Submitted May 30, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion to vacate this Court’s April 25, 2017 dismissal order denied.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Vincent Oliva, Appellant, v New York State Division of Human Rights, Also Known as DHR, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted May 22, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Terry E. Ryan, Appellant, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted June 5, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 29 NY3d 908 (2017)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of the Claim of Dorota Von Maack, Appellant, v Wyckoff Heights Medical Center et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.
    Submitted June 5, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 29 NY3d 965 (2017)].

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    Wagner Davis P.C., Respondent, v James Brady, Jr., Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted May 15, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 29 NY3d 965 (2017)].

Judge Feinman taking no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Yan Ping Xu, Appellant, v New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Respondent.
    Submitted May 15, 2017;
    decided June 29, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Feinman taking no part.