author: Wilson, J.

text:
    [80 NE3d 1032, 58 NYS3d 286]
    Robert E. Wilson, III, Respondent, v Daniel Valente Dantas et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
    Argued May 2, 2017;
    decided June 6, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York City (Philip C. Korologos and Paul Fattaruso of counsel), for appellants.

      Lankford & Reed, P.L.L.C., Alexandria, Virginia (Terrance G. Reed, of the Virginia bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP, Middlebury, Vermont (Peter F. Langrock, of the Vermont bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and K&L Gates, New York City (.Martin F Gusy and Matthew J. Weldon of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative. Defendants have expressly abandoned their personal jurisdiction claims in their appeal to this Court. Their remaining claims, to the extent reviewable on this appeal, are without merit (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).

Wilson, J.

(dissenting). We should dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction; the two issues as to which defendant sought leave to appeal have been rendered academic by plaintiffs subsequent amendment of his complaint. Defendants agree that those two issues are no longer present. However, because the majority has concluded otherwise, requiring us to reach the nonfinal arguments now raised by defendants, I address those arguments in detail. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion as to the complaint’s sufficiency, and would remand the forum non conveniens issue for redetermi-nation.

I.

Our rules require parties requesting leave to appeal to include

“[a] concise statement of the questions presented for review and why the questions presented merit review by this Court, such as that the issues are novel or of public importance, present a conflict with prior decisions of this Court, or involve a conflict among the departments of the Appellate Division. Movant shall identify the particular portions of the record where the questions sought to be reviewed are raised and preserved” (22 NYCRR 500.22 [b] [4]).

The First Department’s rules similarly require that “[t]he moving papers shall include a copy of the order of this court from which leave to appeal is requested, and shall set forth the questions of law to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals” (Rules of App Div, 1st Dept [22 NYCRR] § 600.14 [b]).

Defendants petitioned the First Department for leave to appeal to this Court. They identified two legal questions, both concerning the sufficiency of the original complaint in pleading personal jurisdiction. Within the 34 page memorandum urging review by this Court, there is a single boilerplate statement that “[defendants respectfully request leave to bring all cognizable issues before the Court of Appeals.” Defendants did not mention the issues they now press on appeal.

In opposition, plaintiff argued that the Appellate Division can grant leave from nonfinal orders generally only “where the questions present important issues of substantial public and pressing interest,” and that defendants “are limited to the questions that they have raised in their motion for leave to appeal.” In reply, defendants mentioned only the two issues relating to personal jurisdiction, and did not dispute plaintiff’s contention that their appeal was limited to the two personal jurisdiction issues.

After the Appellate Division granted leave, plaintiff amended his complaint to eliminate the claimed defects in the allegations of personal jurisdiction. Defendants thereafter conceded the mootness of the issues they pressed on us, and instead ask us to review issues they have never claimed meet the standards for review by this Court of nonfinal orders.

To justify this switcheroo, defendants cite the Appellate Division’s certified question: “whether Supreme Court’s order as modified by the Appellate Division was properly made.” However, as we held in Quain, “if a party in its application for leave to appeal specifically limits the issues it seeks to have reviewed, it is bound by such limitation and may not raise additional issues on the appeal” (Quain v Buzzetta Constr. Corp., 69 NY2d 376, 379 [1987]). Although Quain involved a motion for leave granted by this Court and not the Appellate Division, the rule should be the same.

The justification for binding a party to its express limitation implicates questions of notice and fairness. “To permit [the party to appeal other questions not raised] necessarily disadvantages the opposing parties, who might have joined issue or even cross-moved for leave to appeal as to additional issues had adequate notice been given” {id. at 380). Here, for example, plaintiff did not cross-move or seek leave to appeal from the Appellate Division’s dismissal of his third, fifth and ninth causes of action, presumably on the understanding — as plaintiff asserted in his opposition to the leave to appeal — that the leave request was limited to the two personal jurisdiction questions presented by defendants as, in defendants’ words, “deserving consideration by the Court of Appeals.”

Unlike the United States Supreme Court, we lack (but should possess) the ability to dismiss appeals based on an improvident grant of leave to appeal. It is therefore particularly important that we avoid cases where the issues specified by the appellant as the basis for review have evaporated.

II.

Given the Court’s decision that we must decide the nonfinal issues newly raised by defendants, I conclude that, as a matter of law, only a portion of one cause of action in plaintiff’s complaint should survive defendants’ motion.

As alleged in the complaint, plaintiff Robert E. Wilson, III, who was employed by Citibank in the 1990s, devised an investment strategy related to Brazil, which he persuaded Citibank to pursue. In 1997, Citibank, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Dantas agreed to form a Cayman Islands entity, Opportunity Equity Partners, Ltd. (OEP), to be managed by Mr. Dantas in furtherance of that investment strategy. Citibank instructed Mr. Wilson to move to Brazil to assist with management of the investment fund; he was employed in Brazil by OEP, of which he was also a 1% shareholder. Mr. Wilson alleges that Mr. Dantas and two business enterprises formerly headed by Mr. Dantas, OEP and Opportunity Invest II, Inc. (01), wrongfully injured him by promising and failing twice to pay him 5% of the carried interest in the private equity funds run by OEP.

Mr. Wilson claims that before leaving Citibank to become a principal and shareholder of OEP, he sent Mr. Dantas a letter in July 1997 that specified the terms of Mr. Wilson’s forthcoming employment, including that he was to receive 5% of the carried interest generated by the funds. Mr. Wilson signed the letter; no one else did.

Six months later, in December of 1997, the seven shareholders of OEP, including Mr. Wilson, entered into a Shareholders’ Agreement, to which OEP and 01 were also parties. At the same time, OEP, as General Partner, Citibank, N.A., as Initial Limited Partner, and International Equity Investments, Inc., as Limited Partner, entered into the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement (LP Agreement). Also at the same time, OEP, 01, Citibank, N.A., Banco Opportunity S.A., CVC/Opportunity Equity Partners Administradora de Recur-sos, Ltda., and the seven principals of OEP, including Mr. Wilson, entered into an Operating Agreement.

The Shareholders’Agreement provided that, of OEP’s 100 issued shares, 01 would own 96 and Mr. Wilson and three other individuals would each own one. The Shareholders’ Agreement specifically provided: “Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute or be deemed to constitute a partnership between any of the parties hereto.” In 2005, various Citibank entities sued OEP and Mr. Dantas, who filed counterclaims. That litigation was resolved in 2008 through a confidential settlement. Mr. Wilson was not a party to that litigation. He claims that Mr. Dantas falsely promised him that he would be paid his share of the carried interest out of the settlement proceeds, and that he was thereby induced to take no action with regard to the settlement, to his detriment.

Mr. Wilson initially commenced an action in federal court, seeking to recover his promised share of the carried interest, against OEP, OI, Mr. Dantas, and four Citibank entities, including International Equity Investments. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Wilson then brought this action in state court, against the same set of defendants. Citibank removed the case to federal court, which dismissed Mr. Wilson’s claims against the Citibank entities pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 12 (b) (6). The federal district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and remanded Mr. Wilson’s claims against OEP, OI and Mr. Dantas back to Supreme Court.

Each of Mr. Wilson’s causes of action, under different theories, seeks to recover the 5% share of the carried interest he claims was promised to him first in 1997, and then again in 2008, together with interest, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Supreme Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction (40 Misc 3d 1236[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51439[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]). The Appellate Division reversed and determined that CPLR 302 (a) (1) conferred personal jurisdiction over defendants, and at the same time denied defendants’ request to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, as well as their alternative grounds for dismissal (128 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2015]). The Appellate Division also granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to three of the nine causes of action, denying it as to the other six.

III.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, “[w]e accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Here, accepting all facts alleged in the complaint as true, all but one of Mr. Wilson’s claims fail as a matter of law. Having assumed the burden of reviewing the Appellate Division’s nonfinal order on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, I cannot cursorily agree that defendants’ motion to dismiss is “without merit.” To consider the viability of Mr. Wilson’s six remaining causes of action, I have reordered them to begin with his breach of contract claims.

The Sixth Cause of Action

The sixth cause of action alleges a breach of: (a) the 1997 Shareholders’ Agreement; (b) the July 1997 purported letter agreement; and (c) an oral promise by Mr. Dantas to use proceeds from the 2008 settlement to pay Mr. Wilson his carried interest.

First, Mr. Wilson’s breach of contract claims as to the Shareholders’ Agreement should be dismissed as a matter of law. The contract concerns the terms of Mr. Wilson’s employment in Brazil. Its only mention of a “Carried Interest” is in Annex A, which contains a bullet point, “Carried Interest” with no further detail as to whom (among the seven shareholders) it would be owed, how it might be calculated, when it might be paid, or any material term necessary to enforce a contractual obligation. The Shareholders’ Agreement “shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Cayman Islands,” and the Cayman courts, in interpreting this very agreement with regard to Wilson’s co-employee and cosignatory, Mr. Demarco, determined: “Annex A was not complete: it was, as Mr. Dantas agreed in cross-examination, a ‘to-do list’ .... This impression is confirmed by the fact that every party to the agreements signed by the same attorney, one Danielle Silbergleid, in New York” (Demarco v Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd., [2006] UKPC 44, [82] [appeal taken from Cayman Is]). The Cayman high court agreed with the lower courts that the Shareholders’ Agreement did not contain any enforceable terms as to carried interest, and that “[a]s a result the shareholders’ agreement was reduced in whole or in part to an agreement to agree” (id. at [83]). In New York, “it is rightfully well settled in the common law of contracts . . . that a mere agreement to agree, in which a material term is left for future negotiations, is unenforceable” (Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109 [1981]).

That same analysis applies to Mr. Wilson’s claim that he was entitled to an “irrevocable put option.” Paragraph 12 (3) of the Shareholders’ Agreement provides: “Opportunity hereby grants to each of Wilson, Andrade, Demarco and Carvalho an irrevocable put option over their Shares in the Company at a price and according to the payment terms and conditions to be agreed pursuant to Annex A.” Annex A contains merely a bare bullet point stating “Call/put upon exit,” without any specification of when or how it would be implemented or how the put price might be determined. In the Demarco litigation, the Cayman court observed,

“A shareholders’ agreement prohibited the sale of shares other than to the company and gave each of the minority shareholders an irrevocable put option and the company a corresponding call option in respect of their shares, to be exercised in accordance with terms and conditions in a schedule to the agreement. The relevant schedule was blank” (Matter of CVC Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd., [1999] CILR 378, 378 [Grand Ct]).

The Shareholders’ Agreement, under either Cayman or New York law, does not contain sufficient detail for a court to determine what, if anything, the parties intended by the bare reference to a “Call/put option,” and therefore no such contractual right can be enforced.

Mr. Wilson next contends that defendants’ failure to disclose the terms of the 2008 Settlement Agreement was a breach of the Shareholders’ Agreement. The Shareholders’ Agreement does not require the disclosure of settlements, and even if such an obligation existed, Mr. Wilson has alleged no injury from the failure to provide him the information concerning the settlement (which it is undisputed he now possesses). The validity of his claim arising from the breach of an alleged promise to use part of the settlement to pay his share of the carried interest does not depend on any breach relating to the provision of information, especially because OEP, the General Partner, was contractually entitled to make all decisions unilaterally, except “Important management decisions,” for which it needed approval of 51% of the shareholders. Although the Shareholders’ Agreement lists “commence [ment] [of] legal proceedings” as an important management decision, it does not list settlement or termination of lawsuits as such. In any event, because defendant International Equity Investments held 96% of OEP’s shares (and Mr. Dantas another 1%), defendants had unilateral authority to enter into the 2008 Settlement regardless of whether settlement is an important management decision. Mr. Wilson’s throwaway sentence that the same conduct constituting a breach of contract also breaches the attendant covenant of good faith and fair dealing adds nothing to this cause of action.

Second, the sixth cause of action contains a claim based on a letter from July 1997, signed by Wilson and conveying his proposed terms of employment. Mr. Wilson’s letter requested that Mr. Dantas countersign the letter to evidence OEP’s agreement to its terms, but neither Mr. Dantas nor any representative of OEP did so. A purported contract which is unsigned by the party against whom it is sought to be charged is unenforceable. As we held in Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, “before one may secure redress in our courts because another has failed to honor a promise, it must appear that the promisee assented to the obligation in question” (52 NY2d at 109).

Moreover, six months after Mr. Wilson sent his July letter, he entered into the Shareholders’ Agreement, which governs the terms of his employment and status as a shareholder of OEP. The Agreement provides:

“This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the matters dealt with therein and supersedes any previous agreement between the parties hereto in relation to such matters. Each of the parties hereto hereby acknowledges that in entering into this Agreement it has not relied on any representation or warranty save as expressly set out herein or in any document referred to herein.”

Under Cayman law, a contract provision allowing that the current agreement supersedes “any previous agreement” has been held as “sufficient to prevent the claimant [from] bringing any claim on a pre-contractual or collateral agreement” (Re Atlantic Fashions Ltd., [2011] EWHC [QB] 1431 [36], [46]-[46], quoting SERE Holdings Ltd. v Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd., [2004] EWHC 1551 [Ch] [22]). Under New York law, even if the July 1997 letter evidenced an enforceable agreement, it would not survive the execution of the Shareholders’ Agreement (see e.g. Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317 [1959]).

Third, Mr. Wilson alleges that Mr. Dantas promised him that some of the proceeds of the 2008 settlement would be used to pay Mr. Wilson his share of the carried interest. The Shareholders’ Agreement, however, expressly states: “No variation of this Agreement shall be valid or effective unless made by one or more instruments in writing signed by such of the parties hereto which would be affected by such variation.” Mr. Wilson’s argument is that, despite the fact the Shareholders’ Agreement’s bullet-point reference to “carried interest” is unenforceable, Mr. Dantas subsequently committed orally to pay it. The Shareholders’ Agreement expressly bars that argument (Re Atlantic Fashions Ltd., [2011] EWHC [QB] 1431 [36], [45]-[46], quoting SERE Holdings Ltd. v Volkswagen Group United Kingdom Ltd., [2004] EWHC 1551 [Ch] [22]). Likewise, under New York law, “[a] written agreement or other written instrument which contains a provision to the effect that it cannot be changed orally, cannot be changed by an executory agreement unless such executory agreement is in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change is sought or by his agent” (General Obligations Law § 15-301 [1]; see Eujoy Realty Corp. v Van Wagner Communications, LLC, 22 NY3d 413 [2013]).

The Seventh Cause of Action

In the seventh cause of action, Mr. Wilson alleges that Mr. Dantas, OEP and OI breached the LP Agreement, again claiming his entitlement to his share of the carried interest. The LP Agreement states that it is to be “governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Cayman Islands”; while the Operating Agreement “shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.”

Mr. Wilson is not a party to the LP Agreement, which is an agreement among OEP, Citibank and International Equity Investments. His breach of contract claim in his seventh cause of action is the following: (a) article 6.8.1 of the LP Agreement requires that OEP and CVC Brasil (the original and successor General Partners, respectively) agreed to bear the cost of all compensation, fees and expenses of their employees; (b) Mr. Wilson was an employee of OEP; (c) OEP’s agreement that it, not Citibank or International Equity Investments, would be responsible for the compensation of its employees, rendered all OEP employees (including Mr. Wilson) third-party beneficiaries of the LP Agreement; and (d) because, when the 2008 settlement agreement was signed, the General Partners failed to secure Mr. Wilson the compensation he claims he was owed, they are liable for breaches of the LP Agreement, as to which he is a third-party beneficiary.

As a matter of law, the fact that an agreement between two parties specifies who will be responsible for what payments does not make the recipients of the payments third-party beneficiaries with standing to sue for breaches of the agreed-upon allocation of liability between the two contracting parties. Under Cayman law,

“a third party may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if-
“(a) he is expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description, which includes a person nominated or otherwise identified pursuant to the terms of the contract but the third party need not be in existence when the contract is entered into; and
“(b) the contract expressly provides in writing that he may” (Cayman Islands Contracts [Rights of Third Parties] Law § 4 [Rights of third party to enforce contractual term] [2014]).

Mr. Wilson does not, and could not, allege that he falls into either category.

Furthermore, in disposing of Mr. Wilson’s identical claims against the Citibank entities, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both held that Mr. Wilson can assert no such claim under the LP Agreement or Operating Agreement (Wilson v Dantas, 2013 WL 92999, 2013 US Dist LEXIS 3475 [SD NY, Jan. 7, 2013, No. 12 Civ. 3238(GBD)]; Wilson v Dantas, 746 F3d 530 [2d Cir 2014]). That holding collaterally estops Mr. Wilson here: his seventh cause of action here is the same claim, by the same party, against an identically situated party, as to which Mr. Wilson had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a narrower species of res judicata, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same” (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]; see B. R. DeWitt, Inc. v Hall, 19 NY2d 141 [1967]). Even were Mr. Wilson not collaterally estopped, the district court and Second Circuit decisions would be persuasive precedent for concluding Mr. Wilson lacked any rights under those agreements. Finally, even if he could sue under them, his claim depends upon the proposition that he was owed money and wrongfully deprived of it via the 2008 settlement. Because, as discussed above, his claimed entitlement to a share of the carried interest is defective as a matter of law, this claim would vanish with it for that independent reason.

The Eighth Cause of Action

In the eighth cause of action, Mr. Wilson brings a claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. “To prevail on such a cause of action, the party advancing it must demonstrate that the opposing party made a clear and unambiguous promise, upon which the former reasonably relied, to its detriment” (R. Freedman & Son v A.I. Credit Corp. 226 AD2d 1002, 1003 [1996]). Mr. Wilson alleges that there were two promises to pay him 5% of the carried interest: one made before he moved to Brazil and began managing the portfolio, and one made around the time of the 2008 settlement agreement negotiations.

As to the first, he alleges that he relied to his detriment by moving to Brazil and managing the portfolio, but that promise is extinguished as a matter of law by the Shareholders’ Agreement containing a merger/integration clause and the unenforceable bullet point regarding carried interest. The agreement covers the same subject matter as the alleged promise (terms of employment), and by its express terms extinguishes all prior representations (see supra at 1059-1060). In addition, courts are reluctant to find that sophisticated business people have detrimentally relied on an agreement that was not documented (401 Hotel v MTI/Image Group, 251 AD2d 125, 126 [1st Dept 1998]). As to the second, his allegation as to detrimental reliance is completely conclusory: his “forbearance from challenging the settlement.” As previously discussed, Mr. Wilson was not a party to the litigation, was not a party to the contracts at issue in that litigation, was not a third-party beneficiary of those contracts, and, if he had or has a valid claim against one or more of the parties to that settlement, the settlement could not extinguish his claim.

The Fourth Cause of Action

In the fourth cause of action, Mr. Wilson alleges claims based on the doctrines of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and monies had and received. Under each of those theories, Mr. Wilson seeks to recover the “reasonable value of his services,” which he defines as his share of the carried interest. As we have previously said, “[t]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim and contemplates an obligation imposed by equity to prevent injustice, in the absence of an actual agreement between the parties” (Georgia Malone & Co., Inc. v Rieder, 19 NY3d 511, 516 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, “[A] party may not recover in . . . unjust enrichment where the parties have entered into a contract that governs the subject matter” (Pappas v Tzolis, 20 NY3d 228, 234 [2012], quoting Cox v NAP Constr. Co., Inc., 10 NY3d 592, 607 [2008]).

The fourth cause of action is completely barred by the Shareholders’ Agreement, which compensates Wilson for his services (thereby setting out the parties’ bargain concerning the value of Wilson’s services) and contains a merger/ integration clause. Other than the carried interest, Mr. Wilson does not allege that defendants failed to pay him salary, moving expenses, reimbursable business expenses, or any other compensation due him. Thus, because the Shareholders’ Agreement establishes Mr. Wilson’s compensation, provides no legally enforceable right to a portion of the carried interest, and contains.a merger and integration clause to which Mr. Wilson agreed, his claims for unjust enrichment, quantum me-ruit and monies had and received fail as a matter of law.

The First Cause of Action

In the first cause of action, Mr. Wilson alleges a breach of fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty exists “between two persons when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relation” (EBC I, Inc. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 19 [2005], quoting Restatement [Second] of Torts § 874). This relationship is “necessarily fact-specific” and rooted in “a higher level of trust than normally present in the marketplace between those involved in arm’s length business transactions” (id.). An employment relationship, no matter how lengthy the tenure, in itself does not create a fiduciary relationship (Rather v CBS Corp., 68 AD3d 49, 55 [1st Dept 2009]).

Liberally reading the first cause of action, as we must, Wilson alleges several bases on which he claims that defendants owed him a fiduciary duty. One allegation is that OEP and Dantas, who were majority shareholders, officers and directors, owed Mr. Wilson a fiduciary duty in his capacity as a minority shareholder. That proposition is true under New York law:

“Because the power to manage the affairs of a corporation is vested in the directors and majority shareholders, they are cast in the fiduciary role of ‘guardians of the corporate welfare’ (Leibert v Clapp, 13 NY2d 313, 317; see Case v New York Cent. R.R. Co., 15 NY2d 150, 156). In this position of trust, they have an obligation to all shareholders to adhere to fiduciary standards of conduct and to exercise their responsibilities in good faith when undertaking any corporate action” (Alpert v 28 Williams St. Corp., 63 NY2d 557, 568 [1984]; see also Gamble v Queens County Water Co., 123 NY 91 [1890]).

However, the Shareholders’ Agreement specifies that it is to be governed by Cayman law. Even if it did not, under the internal affairs doctrine, Mr. Wilson’s claims that, as a shareholder of OEP, its officers, directors and shareholders owe him a fiduciary duty would be governed by Cayman law (Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd., 138 AD3d 230, 233-234 [2016]; Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 AD2d 179, 182 [1st Dept 1987]). Under Cayman law, a fiduciary relationship is explained as a case where

“one person A holds property or exercises rights or powers for another, or for the benefit of another B. It is for that reason that A must deal with the property or exercise the rights or powers in the best interests of B and for the purposes which are properly within the scope of the power. It is for that reason that A owes a duty of loyalty to B and must not allow his duty to B to conflict with his own personal interests,” meaning that “trustees, directors, solicitors and agents will all owe fiduciary duties” (McKillen v Misland [Cyprus] Invs. Ltd., [2012] EWHC [Ch] 521 [94], [97]).

However, “a case that the shareholders owed each other fiduciary duties is not sustainable” (id. at [94]; Davis, 138 AD3d at 238). The Shareholders’ Agreement provides, “Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute or be deemed to constitute a partnership between any of the parties hereto and none of them shall have any authority to bind the others in any way.” A clause in a shareholder agreement saying that nothing in the agreement should be read to create any partnership between the parties is a “strong indicat [or]” that there was in fact, no such relationship of fiduciary duty (id. at [97]).

The Demarco case, cited by defendants for the proposition that Cayman law recognizes a fiduciary relationship arising from a quasi-partnership only in the context of a winding-up transaction, addresses at most Wilson’s alternative ground for the existence of a fiduciary relationship (quasi-partnership), not his minority shareholder ground. To the extent his first cause of action seeks to recover the carried interest on a claimed fiduciary duty among shareholders or partners, that recovery is barred by the Shareholders’ Agreement and Cayman law, as above.

However, to the extent the first cause of action seeks to recover payments owed to Mr. Wilson arising from his status as an OEP shareholder, predicated on a theory that defendants, as directors and officers of OEP, treated him unfavorably when compared to other shareholders (namely, Mr. Dantas and International Equity Investors), the allegations in his first cause of action are pleaded sufficiently to state that claim under either Cayman or New York law. In particular, the allegation, “reaching a Settlement Agreement that excluded Plaintiff from knowledge of its terms and from participation in the distribution of proceeds, and by thereafter failing to distribute to Plaintiff his interest in the subsequent proceeds of the divestment” can be fairly read to allege that Wilson was deprived of the fair value of his 1% ownership share via the 2008 settlement and/or through other acts of defendants, while the other OEP shareholders were treated better. Under Cayman law, in order for a director to owe a fiduciary duty to a shareholder, special factual circumstances must arise in which a director has caused a loss to a shareholder personally (Peskin v Anderson, [2001] BCC 874, 1 BCLC 372, 2000 WL 1841707 [2000]). This might occur in an instance where a director “direct [ly] approaches” and “deal[s] with, the shareholders in relation to a specific transaction . . . holding themselves out as agents for them in connection with the acquisition or disposal of shares; or making material representations to them ... or supplying to them specific information and advice on which they have relied” ([2001] BCC 874, 880 [34]). This is distinct from the case in which the shareholder suffers a loss of value to his shares based on a director’s action as a director of the company (id.). Here, Mr. Wilson’s allegations are sufficient to meet the special circumstances requirement, in that Mr. Dantas told Mr. Wilson that he would represent his interests in the settlement negotiations, but that in the end he was excluded from them, while other shareholders were treated more favorably.

The Second Cause of Action

Finally, in the second cause of action, Mr. Wilson alleges that defendants engaged in constructive fraud and fraudulent concealment when they failed to disclose the terms of the 2008 Settlement. Constructive fraud requires that

“(1) a representation was made, (2) the representation dealt with a material fact, (3) the representation was false, (4) the representation was made with the intent to make the other party rely upon it, (5) the other party did, in fact, rely on the representation without knowledge of its falsity, (6) injury resulted and (7) the parties are in a fiduciary or confidential relationship” (Del Vecchio v Nassau County, 118 AD2d 615, 617-618 [2d Dept 1986]).

Mr. Wilson’s second cause of action seeks damages from defendants on the theory that defendants fraudulently concealed the 2008 Settlement from Mr. Wilson, depriving him of the right to participate in the negotiations and/or know the terms so he could take some sort of unspecified action to block it. As discussed previously, Mr. Wilson had no claim that was settled or extinguished through the 2008 settlement, and was not a party to that litigation. Although he is a shareholder of OEP, and OEP settled its claims and claims against it, a minority shareholder does not have any legal right to participate in settlement negotiations or, absent circumstances not alleged here, block the officers and directors (or majority shareholders) from settling litigation brought by or against the company; those decisions are entrusted to the company and insulated by the business judgment rule.

To plead a claim for fraudulent concealment, “plaintiff must allege facts to support the claim that it justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations” (ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 25 NY3d 1043, 1044 [2015]). A claim of “fraudulent concealment requires, in addition to the four foregoing elements [of fraudulent misrepresentation], an allegation that the defendant had a duty to disclose material information and that it failed to do so” (P.T. Bank Cent. Asia, N.Y. Branch v ABN AMRO Bank N.V., 301 AD2d 373, 376 [1st Dept 2003]). Mr. Wilson’s fraudulent concealment claim fails for the additional reasons that defendants had no duty to disclose the settlement negotiations to Mr. Wilson, and given the merger, integration and written modification provisions of the Shareholders’ Agreement signed by Mr. Wilson, he could not have justifiably relied on an oral agreement with Mr. Dantas.

Absent a duty to disclose before signing the settlement (which defendants did not have), Wilson does not state a claim for constructive fraud or fraudulent concealment; the allegations here as to discrimination against minority shareholders are subsumed within his first cause of action.

IV.

The Appellate Division denied defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens is discretionary and based on a variety of factors. I would vacate the Appellate Division’s decision and remand for a redetermi-nation for two reasons: (1) the forum non conveniens calculus would likely be affected by the dismissal of most of Mr. Wilson’s claims; (2) the Appellate Division’s consideration of the unavailability of a jury trial in the Cayman Islands is an error of law; adequacy of the alternative forum does not consider whether a jury trial is available, but only the fairness and legitimacy of the process (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 481 [1984] [“the availability of another suitable forum is a most important factor to be considered in ruling on a motion to dismiss”]). Courts must take great care in assessing the adequacy of a foreign forum, not to impugn foreign judicial systems merely because they are different. It is common, in many jurisdictions, for civil cases not to warrant the availability of a jury (Piper Aircraft Co. v Reyno, 454 US 235, 252, n 18 [1981] [“jury trials are almost always available in the United States, while they are never provided in civil law jurisdictions. . . . Even in the United Kingdom, most civil actions are not tried before a jury”]; Lockman Found. v Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F2d 764, 768 [9th Cir 1991] [the lack of a right to a jury trial in Japan did not render Japan an inadequate forum]). Furthermore, under New York law, Mr. Wilson has waived “his right to a jury trial by joining legal and equitable claims” (Horizon Asset Mgt., LLC v Duffy, 106 AD3d 594, 594-595 [1st Dept 2013]).

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

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

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative, in a memorandum.

      . Defendants sought our review to address: (1) “[w]hether a reviewing court may assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant solely by inferring essential jurisdictional facts that plaintiff declined to allege in his pleading is an issue deserving consideration by the Court of Appeals”; and (2) “[wjhether a cause of action arises from a business transaction for jurisdictional purposes, when that transaction is immaterial to any element of the cause of action, is an issue deserving of consideration by the Court of Appeals.”

      . Before us, procedurally, is plaintiff’s original complaint, which contains nine causes of action. Because the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s third, fifth, and ninth causes of action, only six remain at present and plaintiff has, quite understandably, not asked us to review the portion of the nonfinal order of the Appellate Division dismissing those causes of action. Because the original complaint is the one before us, I refer here to the causes of action as numbered therein. (In any event, the amended complaint is not materially different from the original complaint, save for the deletion of three causes of action dismissed by the Appellate Division and a new cause of action not before us on this appeal).

      . “The covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to add a new term to a contract, especially to a commercial contract between two sophisticated commercial parties represented by counsel” (D & L Holdings v Goldman Co., 287 AD2d 65, 73 [1st Dept 2001]). As above, there was no disclosure requirement provided for in the Shareholders’ Agreement; even if the failure to disclose constituted a breach, that breach is not the cause of any damage articulated by Mr. Wilson, and, in any event, he now has the settlement agreement.

      . Both Mr. Wilson and defendants cite only New York law in their arguments about the enforceability of the July letter. The July letter has no choice of law clause, and indicates that Mr. Wilson was in New York when he sent the letter. Mr. Wilson also characterizes the promises in the letter as ones that induced him to move to Brazil. The parties do not cite, and I have not found, any Cayman law suggesting that a written agreement may be enforced against a party who did not sign it, when the written agreement calls for signature by the party.

      . That claim should be interpreted under Cayman law, because Wilson’s rights as a shareholder arise from the Shareholders’ Agreement, which chooses Cayman law, and because OEP is a Cayman corporation.

      . Mr. Wilson’s amended complaint includes a new cause of action, seeking an equitable accounting. Because the appeal before us is taken from the original complaint, which did not include that claim, even under the majority’s holding, we lack jurisdiction to consider it here.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    [79 NE3d 1125, 57 NYS3d 462]
    In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Dorcas Hackshaw, Individually and as Executrix of Selwyn A. Hackshaw, Deceased, Appellant, v ABB, Inc., as Successor in Interest to ITE Circuit Breakers, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Crane Co., Respondent.
    Decided June 22, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York City (Alani Golanski of counsel), for appellant.

      K&L Gates LLP, New York City (Eric R.I. Cottle of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and judgment absolute dismissing the complaint granted upon plaintiff’s stipulation. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Appellate Division’s reversal involved an error of law and, therefore, this Court is bound to affirm and render judgment absolute (see CPLR 5615).

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


text:
    [79 NE3d 1120, 57 NYS3d 457]
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Ganesh R. Ramsaran, Respondent.
    Decided June 29, 2017
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Joseph A. McBride, District Attorney, Norwich (Michael J. Genute of counsel), for appellant.

      Cheryl F. Coleman, Albany, for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of issues raised, but not determined, on the appeal to that Court.

The People’s forensic expert gave statistical testimony regarding the likelihood (“1.661 quadrillion times more likely”) that defendant and his deceased wife, rather than two randomly selected individuals, were contributors to a DNA mixture profile drawn from a blood stain on defendant’s sweatshirt. The prosecutor, during his summation, summarized this testimony by telling the jury that the victim’s DNA was “on” defendant’s sweatshirt. Defense counsel’s failure to object to this characterization did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. The expert testimony regarding the “likelihood ratio” here contrasts with the testimony at issue in People v Wright (25 NY3d 769 [2015]), which “only indicated that defendant could not be excluded from the pool of male DNA contributors, and . . . provided no statistical comparison to measure the significance of those results” (Wright, 25 NY3d at 771). Nor did counsel’s other alleged errors of representation, either individually or collectively, deprive defendant of meaningful representation.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur; Judge Feinman taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Third Department, for consideration of issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court, in a memorandum.


text:
    Bovis Lend Lease (LMB) Inc., Plaintiff/Third-Party Respondent, v Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Defendant. Arch Insurance Co., Third-Party Appellant.
    Submitted April 24, 2017;
    decided June 8, 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 William J. Coke, Sr., Appellant, v James F. Bargnesi, Erie County Court Judge, Respondent.
    Submitted April 24, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal, insofar as taken from the March 2017 Appellate Division order, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal, insofar as taken from that part of the November 2016 Appellate Division order denying petitioner’s motion for poor person relief, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the March 2017 Appellate Division order, 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, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the portion of the November 2016 Appellate Division order that denied petitioner’s motion for poor person relief, dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Stephane Cosman Connery et al., Respondents, v Burton S. Sultan, Appellant.
    Submitted April 17, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the February 2017 Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for the imposition of sanctions, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portions of the February 2017 order and the December 2016 order sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Ronnie Covington, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
    Submitted May 1, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding 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 proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Fahey taking no part.


text:
    Patricia J. Curto, Appellant, v New York Law Journal et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 3, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it (see NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5602).


text:
    HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-8, Respondent, v Larinzo Clayton, Also Known as Larinzo D. Clayton, Appellant, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted April 17, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Intermediate Account of HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee of the Trust under Agreement Dated January 21, 1957, Seymour H. Knox, Grantor, for the Benefit of the Issue of Seymour H. Knox, III, for the Period January 21, 1957 to November 3, 2005 and November 4, 2005 to June 25, 2012. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Respondent; W.A. Read Knox et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 17, 2017;
    decided June 8, 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:
    In the Matter of Johnathan Johnson, Appellant, v Evelyn L. Braun et al., Respondents.
    Submitted April 17, 2017;
    decided June 8, 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:
    Enrico Mezzone, Respondent, v Emilio Goetz, D.P.M., et al., Defendants, and Debbie Bautista, D.P.M., Appellant.
    Submitted April 24, 2017;
    decided June 8, 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:
    Theresa Odejimi, Appellant, v Town of Windsor, Respondent.
    Submitted April 24, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it (see NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5602). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Trevor Anderson, Appellant.
    Submitted May 15, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   Motion for reargument denied [see 29 NY3d 69 (2017)].


text:
    Sunoce Properties, Inc., Respondent, v Bally Total Fitness of Greater New York, Inc., Appellant.
    Submitted April 10, 2017;
    decided June 8, 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 Edward Wydra et al., Respondents, v Mendel Brach et al., Appellants.
    Submitted April 24, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017
   Motions 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 Wilson taking no part.


text:
    (June 1, 2017 through
    June 30, 2017)
    People v Acevedo
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 622 (NY)

denied 6/7/17 (Fahey, J.)


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

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Alcantara
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1179 (Richmond)

denied 6/12/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Alsadi
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 554 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Alvarracin
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1041 (Queens)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Anderson
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 85793(U) (Columbia)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Anonymous
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 647 (Bronx)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Archibald
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1794 (Erie)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Bailey
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 547 (NY)

granted 6/29/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Barrera
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 67792(U) (NY)

denied 6/21/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Barro
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 448 (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Bazemore
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 698 (NY)

denied 6/27/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Beard
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1745 (Monroe)

denied 6/14/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Beer
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 895 (Nassau)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Bell (Allen)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 632 (NY)

denied 6/27/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Bell (Brandon)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 143(A) (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Benoit
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 63567(U) (NY)

dismissed 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Binet
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1390 (Onondaga)

denied 6/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Bond
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1155 (Schenectady)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Bonds
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1304 (Schenectady)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Bones
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1793 (Niagara)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Bowers
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1042 (Queens)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Box
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1510 (Monroe)

denied 6/14/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Bravo
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 596 (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Briggs
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1077 (Westchester)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Broomfield
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Misc 3d 137(A) (Kings)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Devineil)
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 768 (Kings)

denied 6/27/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Dijon)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1534 (Erie)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Burdine (Romell)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1626 (Onondaga)

denied 6/8/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Burdine (Rommel)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1626 (Onondaga)

denied 6/8/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Butts
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 549 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


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

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Campbell
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1044 (Nassau)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Cappuccio
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 557 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Capriata
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 528 (NY)

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Card
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 133(A) (NY)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Carroll
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1546 (Onondaga)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Carter
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 635 (NY)

denied 6/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Carty
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 11 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Casey (Troy)
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 771 (Queens)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Casey (Troy)
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 770 (Queens)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Cassidy
   County Ct, 2/23/17 (Erie)

denied 6/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Chestnut
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 772 (Kings)

denied 6/8/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Clinkscales
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 472 (Bronx)

denied 6/13/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Coleman
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 717 (Queens)

denied 6/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Conway
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1739 (Erie)

denied 6/14/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Corbin
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 802 (Nassau)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


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

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


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

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Cowell
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 866 (Queens)

denied 6/14/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Crawford
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 426 (Bronx)

denied reconsideration 6/6/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Cruz
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 407 (Bronx)

denied 6/19/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Daniels (Jason)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1030 (Kings)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Daniels (Marshall)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1392 (Erie)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Davis (Kenneth)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 971 (Kings)

denied 6/15/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Davis (Larry)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 451 (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Deleon
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1273 (Otsego)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Delgado
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 483 (Bronx)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Destin
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 76 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Diaz
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 645 (Bronx)

denied 6/21/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Dingle
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1080 (Kings)

denied 6/7/17 (Rivera, J.)

       Denied, with leave to renew within 30 days after the Court of Appeals renders a decision in People v Boone (129 AD3d 1099 [2d Dept 2015], lv granted 26 NY3d 1086 [2015]).


text:
    People v Dixon
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1518 (Cayuga)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Dixson
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 484 (Bronx)

denied 6/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Doe
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1461 (Monroe)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


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

denied 6/23/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Dolberry
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1149 (Albany)

denied 6/7/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Dorsey
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 478 (NY)

denied 6/6/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Douglas
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 822 (Dutchess)

denied 6/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)


text:
    People v Doumounian
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 582 (NY)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Driscoll
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1157 (Chemung)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Duell
   App Div, 4th Dept, 3/2/17 (Oswego)

dismissed 6/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Dunning
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1047 (Queens)

denied 6/13/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Durham
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1070 (Rensselaer)

denied reconsideration 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Eastwood
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 899 (Orange)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Egan
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1048 (Suffolk)

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Elleby
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 687 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Elshabazz
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1725 (Erie)

dismissed 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Espinal
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Mic 3d 143(A) (NY)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Estevez
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 578 (NY)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Everette
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 513 (NY)

denied 6/7/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Falcon
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 133(A) (Bronx)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Felder
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 485 (Bronx)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Fenelon
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1051 (Nassau)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Fernandez
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1052 (Suffolk)

denied 6/7/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Fews
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1180 (Kings)

denied 6/19/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Fields
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1182 (Kings)

denied 6/20/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Flagg
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 513 (NY)

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Fogel
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 64282(U) (Queens)

dismissed 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Ford
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1656 (Monroe)

denied 6/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Francis
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 487 (Bronx)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Frankie
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1723 (Erie)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Freeman
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 555 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Fuentes
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 824 (Kings)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Fusco
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 776 (Nassau)

denied 6/23/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Gabbidon
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 70125(U) (Dutchess)

dismissed 6/14/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Gagnier
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1019 (Clinton)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


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

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Gallo
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 60331(U) (Schenectady)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1616 (Ontario)

denied reconsideration 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Gaston
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 412 (NY)

denied reconsideration 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Gerado
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 127(A) (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Gibson
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 779 (Nassau)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Giler
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1053 (Queens)

denied 6/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Goding
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 642 (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Golden
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 780 (Queens)

denied 6/13/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Gonzales
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1432 (Onondaga)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Gonzalez
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 482 (NY)

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Graham
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 412 (NY)

denied 6/29/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Grais
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 979 (Kings)

denied 6/14/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Granger
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 871 (Queens)

denied 6/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Grant
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 88845(U) (NY)

denied 6/15/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Gray
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 557 (NY)

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Hall (Kevin)
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 66925(U) (Albany)

dismissed 6/30/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Hall (Robert)
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1151 (Albany)

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Hankerson
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 778 (Queens)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Harris
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 500 (NY)

denied 6/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Hassane
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 425 (NY)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hawkins
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1685 (Chautauqua)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Head
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1083 (Kings)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Henley
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1578 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 6/19/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Henriquez
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 706 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Hernandez (Eduardo)
   4th Dept: 143 AD3d 1280 (Monroe)

denied 6/14/17 (Rivera, J.)


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

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Hernandez (Oscar)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 503 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Hernandez (Waskar)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 503 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Higgs
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 981 (Dutchess)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Hill (Angel)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1501 (Erie)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Hill (Anthony)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62653 (U) (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Hill (Herbert)
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1469 (Ulster)

denied 6/5/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hinton
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 545 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Holley
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1605 (Erie)

denied 6/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Holloway
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1461 (Monroe)

denied 6/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Hooks
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 930 (Kings)

denied 6/7/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Hough
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1671 (Erie)

denied 6/7/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Hughes
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 807 (Queens)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Hulme
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1513 (Wyoming)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Hurdle
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 528 (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hurley
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 91183(U) (Franklin)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Ice
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1304 (Schenectady)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Ignacio
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 824 (Kings)

denied 6/15/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Imhiavan
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 977 (Queens)

denied 6/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jack
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 779 (Kings)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Brandon)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1658 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 6/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Constantinee)
   App Div, 4th Dept, 4/19/17 (Onondaga)

dismissed 6/14/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Freddie)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1652 (Onondaga)

denied 6/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jakubowski
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Mise 3d 136(A) (Kings)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v James
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 869 (Kings)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jimenez (Carlos)
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 54 Mise 3d 139(A) (Richmond)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Jimenez (Irineo)
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 870 (Dutchess)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jimenez (Yomalbi)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 723 (Rockland)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Jiminez
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 496 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Joe
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 587 (Bronx)

denied 6/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Clement/Clemont)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1461 (Monroe)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)


text:
    People v Jones (Clemon)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1461 (Monroe)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)


text:
    People v Jones (Darryl)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1551 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 6/19/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (James)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1807 (Cattaraugus)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Justin)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1666 (Monroe)

denied 6/6/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Robert)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1590 (Monroe)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Steffen)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1461 (Onondaga)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Jungle
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1658 (Ontario)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Kahson B.
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 538 (Bronx)

denied 6/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Karlsen
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1466 (Seneca)

denied 6/6/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Kelly (David)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 70956(U) (Bronx)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Kelly (Devonte)
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 585 (NY)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Kilpatrick
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1183 (Suffolk)

denied 6/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Kindell
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 456 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Konovalchuk
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1514 (Monroe)

denied 6/13/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Krebs
   County Ct, 1/17/17 (Erie)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lewis (Antoine)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 628 (Bronx)

denied 6/21/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Lewis (David)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1056 (Kings)

denied 6/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lisojo
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 64695(U) (Bronx)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Little
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 822 (Dutchess)

denied 6/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)


text:
    People v Liu Yong
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 64978(U) (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Luciano (Eddie)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Mise 3d 145(A) (NY)

denied 6/2/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Luciano (Eddy)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Mise 3d 145(A) (NY)

denied 6/2/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Luckey
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 414 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Machado-Rodriguez
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1576 (Onondaga)

denied 6/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Mackenzie
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 69728(U) (Nassau)

dismissed 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v McEachern
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 565 (Bronx)

denied 6/6/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v McErlean
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 872 (Suffolk)

denied 6/13/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v McFarland
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1556 (Monroe)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Medina
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 598 (NY)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Melendez
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 611 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Mendez
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 555 (NY)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Micheaux
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 687 (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Miller
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1689 (Monroe)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Mills
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 559 (NY)

denied 6/13/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Minor
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 461 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Mitchell
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 730 (Nassau)

denied 6/21/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Mohamed
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1038 (Queens)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Molemohi
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 652 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Moody
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 634 (NY)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Moore
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1723 (Erie)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Moorman
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 605 (NY)

denied 6/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Morales (Sigfredo)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 59 (NY)

denied 6/6/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Morales (Wilfredo)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1638 (Erie)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Morelli
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 579 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Morgan (Anthony)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1560 (Monroe)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Morgan (Jason)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1590 (Monroe)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Moronta
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 90964(U) (NY)

denied 6/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Morris
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 732 (Westchester)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Moss
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1186 (Nassau)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mujica
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 902 (Kings)

denied 6/20/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Mullings
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 816 (Nassau)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Murray
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 649 (NY)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Nance
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1566 (Erie)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Nazim
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 129(A) (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Neal
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1699 (Monroe)

denied 6/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Newton
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1463 (Monroe)

denied 6/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Nino
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1094 (Albany)

denied 6/12/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Novak
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1352 (Sullivan)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Nunez
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 130(A) (Bronx)

denied 6/12/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Odum
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Mise 3d 128(A) (Bronx)

granted 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Olmedo
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 588 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Olsen
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 829 (Nassau)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Olutosin
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 69731(U) (Queens)

dismissed 6/12/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Ortiz
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 129(A) (Bronx)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Pandajis (James)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1469 (Monroe)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Pandajis (James)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1471 (Monroe)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Parker
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1583 (Erie)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Patel (Vinod)
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 511 (Nassau)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Patel (Vinod)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 63363(U) (Nassau)

dismissed 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Payne
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1226 (Albany)

denied 6/23/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Peglow (Ricky)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1391 (Cayuga)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Peglow (Ricky)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1393 (Cayuga)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Pelosi
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62457(U) (Suffolk)

denied 6/20/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Peoples
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1657 (Erie)

denied 6/15/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Perez
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 830 (Kings)

denied 6/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Perez-Vazquez
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Mise 3d 135(A) (Kings)

denied 6/12/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Peterson
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 595 (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Phinazee
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 531 (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Pigford
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1299 (Columbia)

denied 6/27/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Pilgrim
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 478 (Bronx)

denied 6/7/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Pryce (Wayne)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1625 (Ontario)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Pryce (Wayne)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1629 (Ontario)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Puryear
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1724 (Monroe)

denied 6/20/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Rahman
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 88831(U) (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Ramirez
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 987 (Queens)

denied 6/23/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Record
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1651 (Ontario)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Reyes
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 478 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Richardson
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 577 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Rigoberto
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 127(A) (NY)

denied 6/15/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Riley
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 69731(U) (Queens)

dismissed 6/12/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Roach
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1423 (Onondaga)

denied 6/15/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Robinson (Adam)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1351 (Oswego)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Robinson (Larry)
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 767 (Kings)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rock
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 921 (Dutchess)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)


text:
    People v Rodas (Felepe)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 523 (NY)

denied 6/27/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Rodas (Felipe)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 523 (NY)

denied 6/27/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Bernard)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 464 (NY)

denied 6/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Carlos)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Mise 3d 135(A) (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Elias)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 938 (Queens)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Jose)
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 65165(U) (Otsego)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Romaine
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 442 (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Romero
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1461 (Monroe)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rosales
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Mise 3d 55 (Kings)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rowe
   County Ct, 3/14/16 (Tompkins)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Ryder
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1022 (Albany)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Saffold
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1669 (Onondaga)

denied 6/1/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Santana (Eric)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 499 (NY)

denied 6/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


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

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Sapp
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1532 (Erie)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Scarver
   App Div, 4th Dept, 3/2/17 (Erie)

dismissed 6/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Schaffino
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 630 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Shabazz
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 91183(U) (Franklin)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Sharp
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1058 (Dutchess)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Shaun
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1658 (Ontario)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Shaw
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 938 (Kings)

denied 6/7/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Shevardenidze
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 733 (Kings)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Simcoe
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1724 (Niagara)

denied 6/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Simmons
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 140(A) (Bronx)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Simpson
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 67547(U) (Bronx)

dismissed 6/9/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Slater
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 921 (Dutchess)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)


text:
    People v Slishevsky
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1488 (Onondaga)

denied 6/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Smith (Bennie)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1631 (Onondaga)

denied 6/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Smith (Christopher)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 904 (Westchester)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Smith (Todd)
   County Ct, 3/23/17 (Monroe)

denied 6/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Smith (Wendell)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1527 (Monroe)

denied 6/22/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Sprauve
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1060 (Queens)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Stafford
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 129(A) (Bronx)

denied 6/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Stokes
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 510 (NY)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Strauss
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1426 (Oneida)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Suazo
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 423 (Bronx)

granted 6/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Switts (Richard)
   14th Dept: 148 AD3d 1610 (Oswego)

denied 6/5/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Switts (Richard)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1612 (Oswego)

denied 6/5/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Sydoriak
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 791 (Queens)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Syville
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Mise 3d 137(A) (Queens)

denied 6/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Terranova
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1086 (Queens)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Terrell
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1108 (Suffolk)

denied 6/27/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Thompson
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1088 (Kings)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Tiedeken
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 846 (Orange)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Torres (Jimmy)
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 490 (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Torres (Joel)
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1086 (Montgomery)

denied 6/13/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Torres (Noel)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 543 (NY)

denied 6/14/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Troy
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 995 (Nassau)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Tucker
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1261 (Schenectady)

denied 6/27/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Tullock
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1061 (Kings)

denied 6/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Tumolo
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1544 (Oswego)

denied 6/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Tyrone R.
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 67789(U) (NY)

denied 6/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Urena
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 985 (Queens)

denied 6/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Vanalst
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1658 (Ontario)

denied 6/26/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Vargas
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 130(A) (Bronx)

denied 6/14/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Velez
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 62655(U) (NY)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Vickers (Sean)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1535 (Genesee)

denied 6/27/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Vickers (Sean)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1538 (Genesee)

denied 6/27/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Vidro
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 526 (NY)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Vieira-Suarez
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1405 (Onondaga)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Villanueva
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 210 (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Vizcaino
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 481 (NY)

denied 6/6/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Walker
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1569 (Erie)

denied 6/30/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Wanass
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 97 (NY)

denied 6/9/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Warner
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1676 (Ontario)

denied 6/6/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Waters
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 552 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Webb
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 779 (Kings)

denied 6/23/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Weston
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 746 (Orange)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v White
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 530 (NY)

denied 6/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Wiggs
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 879 (Queens)

denied 6/22/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Wilkins (Miracle)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Mise 3d 146(A) (NY)

denied 6/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Wilkins (Richard)
   App Term, 2d Dept: 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 2016 NY Slip Op 91229(U) (Westchester)

withdrawn 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Demetrius)
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 596 (NY)

denied 6/9/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Patrick)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 821 (Nassau)

denied 6/9/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Shaquel)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1544 (Onondaga)

denied 6/8/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Wilson
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 793 (Queens)

granted 6/20/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Woodley
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 572 (NY)

denied 6/12/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Woods
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1156 (Schenectady)

denied 6/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Wright (Ronald)
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1094 (Albany)

denied 6/12/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Wright (Troy)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1088 (Kings)

denied 6/7/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Wyche
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1636 (Erie)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Yong Liu
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 64978(U) (NY)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Zeitz
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1636 (Niagara)

denied 6/26/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Zeleke
   County Ct, 4/10/17 (Monroe)

denied 6/8/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    (June 1, 2017 through
    June 30, 2017)
    People v Sanchez
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 831 (Dutchess)

granted 6/8/17 (LaSalle, J.)


text:
    People v Shags
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 831 (Dutchess)

granted 6/8/17 (LaSalle, J.)


text:
    (July 1, 2017 through
    July 31, 2017)
    People v Adamson
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 534 (NY)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Alexander
   App Div, 4th Dept, 4/20/17 (Oneida)

dismissed 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Arce
   3d Dept: 150 AD3d 1403 (Tompkins)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Banks
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Barrett
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Big Man
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 73671(U) (Montgomery)

dismissed 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Blake
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Bond
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1323 (St. Lawrence)

denied 7/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Bonneau
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1076 (Rockland)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Boyd
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Michael)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1547 (Monroe)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Walter)
   App Div, 4th Dept, 4/17/17 (Onondaga)

dismissed 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Butler
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1540 (Genesee)

denied 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Byng (Kevin)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1752 (Oneida)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Byng (Kevin)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1753 (Oneida)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Cahill
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1724 (Onondaga)

denied 7/27/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Carmona
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 670 (NY)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Carney
   App Div, 4th Dept, 4/10/17 (Erie)

dismissed 7/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Carter
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 69983(U) (Orange)

dismissed 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Castro
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 862 (Kings)

denied 7/27/17 (Fahey, J.)

       Denied, with leave to renew within 30 days after the Court of Appeals renders a decision in People v Austin (134 AD3d 559 [2015], Iv granted 2016 NY Slip Op 63709[U] [1st Dept 2016]).


text:
    People v Celi
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1548 (Oswego)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Coke
   App Div, 4th Dept, 5/10/17 (Niagara)

dismissed 7/20/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Costello (Mario)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 68557(U) (Queens)

dismissed 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Costello (Mario)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1180 (Queens)

denied 7/7/17


text:
    People v Cruz
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 429 (NY)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v David
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 776 (Kings)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Davidson
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 938 (Queens)

denied 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Deas
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 876 (Kings)

denied 7/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v DeJesus-Plaza
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 479 (Bronx)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Delius
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 71347(U) (Nassau)

dismissed 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Dorcinvil
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 867 (Kings)

denied 7/20/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Drennan
   App Div, 4th Dept, 5/21/17 (Wayne)

dismissed 7/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Dumbleton
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1688 (Genesee)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Durham
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1293 (Washington)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Fields
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Flow
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 647 (Bronx)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Forest
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1585 (Onondaga)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Foster
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 547 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Francis
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Misc 3d 137(A) (Kings)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia (Germaine)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 70886(U) (Kings)

dismissed 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia (Hugo)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 508 (Bronx)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia (Jason)
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 607 (Bronx)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Girard
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 87082(U) (Ulster)

dismissed 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Godfrey
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1364 (Broome)

denied 7/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Gonzalez
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1024 (Kings)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


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

denied reconsideration 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Greene
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 543 (Bronx)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Grefer (Charles)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1542 (Onondaga)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Grefer (Charles)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1543 (Onondaga)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Griffin
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 974 (Richmond)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Hale
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 975 (Dutchess)

denied 7/27/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Harris
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 872 (Dutchess)

denied 7/25/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Haywood
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 980 (Westchester)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Hemphill
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 476 (NY)

denied 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Herron
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 415 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Holliday
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 540 (NY)

denied 7/20/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Holloway
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 138(A) (NY)

denied 7/31/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Horr
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1610 (Monroe)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Iqbal
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 782 (Queens)

denied 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Constantine)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1625 (Onondaga)

dismissed 7/20/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Vance)
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1025 (Suffolk)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v James
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1026 (Kings)

denied 7/31/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Johnson (Odaine)
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 405 (Bronx)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Johnson (Robert)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Jollon
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1027 (Queens)

denied 7/31/17 (Fahey, J.) (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)


text:
    People v Kabba
   4th Dept: 151 AD3d 1739 (Monroe)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Kalina
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1264 (Sullivan)

denied 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lambert
   3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1119 (Ulster)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lassiter
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1579 (Monroe)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v LaTouche
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 74100(U) (Rockland)

dismissed 7/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Lee
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 138(A) (NY)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lettieri
   App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 55 Misc 3d 147(A) (Suffolk)

denied 7/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Livingston
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 448 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Lopez
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 70888(U) (Kings)

dismissed 7/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Lormil
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1101 (Kings)

denied 7/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Lundy
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1660 (Monroe)

denied 7/24/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Macaiba
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 651 (NY)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Maltese
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1780 (Genesee)

denied 7/31/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Mays
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 549 (NY)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v McFadden (Lloyd)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 599 (Bronx)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v McFadden (Ronell)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1769 (Monroe)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v McIntosh
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Misc 3d 142(A) (Queens)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v McKenzie
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 936 (Queens)

denied 7/24/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v McManus
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 762 (Nassau)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v McRae
   3d Dept: 150 AD3d 1328 (Albany)

denied 7/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Mejia
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1028 (Kings)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Melgurrero
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 560 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mendoza
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 425 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Middleton
   County Ct, 3/27/17 (Warren)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Murchison
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 69729(U) (Queens)

dismissed 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Murphy
   2d Dept: 151 AD3d 754 (Queens)

denied 7/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Musella
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1465 (Schenectady)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Myers
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1596 (Onondaga)

granted 7/28/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Myles
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1625 (Onondaga)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Nanny
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1592 (Erie)

denied 7/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Newsome
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 552 (NY)

denied 7/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Norwood
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1549 (Monroe)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Oliveri
   2d Dept: 151 AD3d 754 (Queens)

denied 7/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Parker
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1567 (Monroe)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Piersig
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 504 (NY)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Plass
   3d Dept: 150 AD3d 1558 (Albany)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Porter
   County Ct, 5/9/17 (Monroe)

denied 7/19/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Quattlebaum
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 61390(U) (Kings)

denied reconsideration 7/28/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Ramos
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 73671(U) (Montgomery)

dismissed 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Raymond
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 766 (Nassau)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Reid
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Resto
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1331 (Onondaga)

denied reconsideration 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Rivers
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 575 (Bronx)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Roberson
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1596 (Erie)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Josean)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1590 (Niagara)

denied 7/5/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Ronny)
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1154 (Queens)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Roman
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 657 (NY)

denied 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Rosa
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 442 (NY)

denied 7/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Rosario
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 982 (Kings)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Ruiz
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 440 (NY)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Rush
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72222(U) (Kings)

dismissed 7/31/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Russell
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 783 (Queens)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Santiago
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 435 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Santos
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 650 (NY)

denied 7/10/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Simmons
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1660 (Monroe)

denied 7/24/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Singletary
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 420 (Bronx)

denied 7/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Smith
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Mise 3d 138(A) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Strong
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 73673(U) (Warren)

dismissed 7/31/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Tapia
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 940 (Kings)

withdrawn 7/12/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Torres
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 613 (Bronx)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Triplett
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1592 (Erie)

denied 7/10/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Tucker
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72242(U) (NY)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Vargas (Oscar)
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 55 Misc 3d 136(A) (Queens)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Vargas (Oscar)
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 772 (Kings)

denied 7/28/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Walters
   App Term, 1st Dept: 55 Misc 3d 127(A) (Bronx)

denied 7/7/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Whaley (Crystal)
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1032 (Kings)

denied 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Whaley (John)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 72224(U) (Suffolk)

dismissed 7/24/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Wheeler
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1571 (Erie)

denied 7/25/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v White
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 510 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Anthony)
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 880 (Nassau)

denied 7/25/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Jason)
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1684 (Erie)

denied 7/20/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Williams (Levonne)
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 486 (NY)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Wilson
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1182 (Fulton)

denied 7/26/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Woods
   3d Dept: 150 AD3d 1560 (Albany)

denied 7/28/17 (Wilson, J.)


text:
    People v Worthington
   3d Dept: 150 AD3d 1399 (Chemung)

denied 7/26/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    [81 NE3d 379, 58 NYS3d 896]
    Ronald J. Papa et al., Doing Business as Muir Lake Associates, Appellants, v Associated Indemnity Corporation et al., Respondents.
    Decided June 22, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Duke, Holzman, Photiadis & Gresens LLP, Buffalo (Elizabeth A. Kraengel of counsel), for appellants.

      Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., Buffalo (Steven E. Peiper and Jennifer J. Phillips of counsel), for respondent Associated Indemnity Corporation.

      Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf & Cunningham LLC, Buffalo (Sean W. Costello of counsel), for respondent D&D Power, Inc.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division properly concluded that the insurance policy’s water damage exclusion and endorsement apply under these circumstances.

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


text:
    [81 NE3d 839, 59 NYS3d 305]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Lofton, Appellant.
    Argued May 31, 2017;
    decided June 22, 2017
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Brian Shif-frin of counsel), for appellant.

      Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court for consideration of defendant’s eligibility for a youthful offender adjudication.

We agree with defendant’s contention that the trial court failed to make an on-the-record determination as to whether defendant was eligible for a youthful offender adjudication by first “considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)” (People v Middlebrooks, 25 NY3d 516, 527 [2015]).

Defendant’s remaining contention, that certain remarks made by the prosecutor in summation constituted improper burden-shifting, is without merit. Viewed in conjunction with the entire summation and the trial court’s corrective action, the challenged remarks did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 913 [2006]).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur; Judge Feinman taking no part.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed and case remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.