author: Stein, J. Abdus-Salaam, J.

text:
    [71 NE3d 1205, 49 NYS3d 638]
    Carol Artibee et al., Appellants, v Home Place Corporation, Respondent.
    Argued January 5, 2017;
    decided February 14, 2017

      POINTS OF COUNSEL

      Towne Ryan & Partners, P.C., Albany (Robert H. Coughlin, Jr. and James T. Towne, Jr. of counsel), for appellants.

      Bailey, Kelleher & Johnson, EC., Albany (Thomas J. Johnson of counsel), for respondent.

      Eric T Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frederick A. Brodie, Barbara D. Underwood and Andrew D. Bing of counsel), for State of New York, amicus curiae.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Stein, J.

This appeal presents us with the question of whether the factfinder in Supreme Court may apportion fault to the State under CPLR 1601 (1) when a plaintiff claims that both the State and a private party are liable for noneconomic losses in a personal injury action. We conclude that such apportionment is not permitted and, therefore, reverse.

L

Plaintiff Carol Artibee and her spouse, derivatively, commenced this action in Supreme Court to recover for injuries that plaintiff sustained while traveling on a state highway when a large branch broke off a tree bordering the road, fell through plaintiffs Jeep and struck her on the head. Defendant allegedly owns the property on which the tree was located. The complaint alleges , that defendant was negligent in failing to inspect, trim and remove the dead or diseased tree. Plaintiffs also filed a claim against the State of New York in the Court of Claims, alleging that Department of Transportation employees were negligent in failing to monitor open and obvious hazards along the state highway, properly maintain the trees, or warn drivers of the hazard.

Defendant in this action moved for permission to introduce evidence at trial of the State’s negligence and for a jury charge directing the apportionment of liability for plaintiff’s injuries between defendant and the State. Plaintiff expressed her “position that nothing bars the Supreme Court jury from hearing evidence at trial as to the State of New York’s potential liability for [plaintiff’s] injuries,” but objected to allowing the jury to apportion fault against the State. Supreme Court ruled that, while evidence of the State’s negligence would be admissible, the jury would not be instructed to apportion liability between defendant and the State. The court concluded, based on the language of CPLR 1601, that the issue before it was “whether the plaintiff’s inability to join the State in the Supreme Court action, because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, equates to the plaintiff’s inability to obtain jurisdiction over a non-party thereby limiting the applicability of CPLR [a]rticle 16 apportionment.” The court determined that the language of the statute and equitable considerations required denial of defendant’s request for a jury instruction regarding apportionment.

Thereafter, the court adjourned the trial to permit defendant to appeal, reasoning that it had essentially granted summary judgment dismissing defendant’s claim for apportionment. The Appellate Division modified by reversing the denial of defendant’s motion for a jury charge on apportionment (132 AD3d 96 [3d Dept 2015]). In holding that defendant was entitled to have the jury consider apportionment against the State when determining defendant’s fault as a joint tortfeasor, the Court observed that, under CPLR 1601, “where potential tortfeasors are not joined in an action, the culpability of a nonparty tort-feasor may be imposed upon the named defendant [only] if the plaintiff can show that he or she is unable to obtain jurisdiction over the nonparty tortfeasor” (132 AD3d at 98). The Court concluded that plaintiffs here did “not face a jurisdictional limitation in impleading the State as a codefendant, but instead [could not] do so due to the doctrine of sovereign immunity’ (id.). The Court then explained that, “[g]iven the statutory purpose of CPLR 1601 (1) to limit[ ] a joint tortfeasor’s liability for noneconomic losses to its proportionate share, provided that it is 50% or less at fault,’. . . juries . . . should be given the option to . . . apportion fault between defendant and the State” (id. at 100, quoting Rangolan v County of Nassau, 96 NY2d 42, 46 [2001]). A dissenting Justice agreed with the majority that evidence of the State’s wrongdoing is admissible, but expressed concern that,

“if we permit the requested charge and ask a jury (in the context of the Supreme Court action) to apportion fault (if any) between defendant, which will be present in the courtroom and which no doubt will present a vigorous defense, and the State, which, as the ‘constitutionally mandated empty chair’ in the courtroom, can neither appear nor offer any defense, an unfair—or, at the very least, skewed—result will occur” (132 AD3d at 101 [Egan Jr., J., dissenting]).

The Third Department granted plaintiffs leave to appeal, certifying the question of whether it erred in its order of modification.

II.

CPLR 1601 (1) “modifie[d] the common-law rule of joint and several liability by limiting a joint tortfeasor’s liability in certain circumstances” (Rangolan, 96 NY2d at 46). The statute provides that, in a personal injury action involving two or more jointly-liable tortfeasors or in a claim brought against the State in the Court of Claims, the liability for noneconomic loss of a defendant with 50% or less “of the total liability assigned to all persons liable . . . shall not exceed that defendant’s equitable share determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss” (CPLR 1601 [1]). In other words, under CPLR 1601, “a joint tortfeasor whose share of fault is 50% or less [is] liable for [a] plaintiff’s noneconomic loss only to the extent of that tortfeasor’s share of the total noneconomic loss,” so that “low-fault tortfeasors are liable only for their actual assessed share of responsibility” (Chianese v Meier, 98 NY2d 270, 275 [2002]). Apportionment against a nonparty tortfeasor is available under section 1601, unless “the claimant proves that with due diligence he or she was unable to obtain jurisdiction over” the nonparty tortfeasor “in said action (or in a claim against the state, in a court of this state)” (CPLR 1601 [1]).

The statutory language permitting the State to seek apportionment in the Court of Claims against a private tortfeasor if the claimant could have sued that tortfeasor in any court of this State was specifically requested by the office of the Attorney General (see Mem of Dept of Law, Bill Jacket, L 1986, ch 682 at 14). Pursuant to that language, as long as a claimant in the Court of Claims could have commenced an action against a private tortfeasor in any court in the State of New York, then the tortfeasor’s culpable conduct can be considered by the Court of Claims in determining the State’s equitable share of the total liability (see Siegel, NY Prac § 168C at 290 [5th ed 2011]). The statute does not, however, contain similar, express enabling language to allow apportionment against the State in a Supreme Court action (see id. [acknowledging that such a rule has derived from case law, rather than any “statute in point”]).

Plaintiffs, along with the State, argue that the inclusion of unambiguous language permitting the Court of Claims to consider the liability of a nonparty tortfeasor—while, at the same time, omitting language to allow the factfinder in Supreme Court to consider the liability of the State— demonstrates the legislature’s intent not to allow apportionment of the State’s liability in Supreme Court. Moreover, even apart from the absence of language permitting apportionment against the State in Supreme Court, CPLR 1601 (1) provides that a nonparty tortfeasor’s relative culpability must not be considered in apportioning fault “if the claimant . . . with due diligence . . . was unable to obtain jurisdiction over such person in said action” (emphasis added). The meaning of that language is at the heart of the dispute herein.

Of course, “[t]he primary consideration of courts in interpreting a statute is to ‘ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature’. . . [and] the words of the statute are the best evidence of the Legislature’s intent” (Riley v County of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 463 [2000], quoting McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 92 [a] at 177 [1971 ed]). Inasmuch as no claimant can obtain jurisdiction over the State in Supreme Court and the statute does not, by its terms, otherwise authorize the apportionment of liability against the State in that court, we agree with plaintiff that defendant was not entitled to a jury charge on apportionment in this action.

¡-M hS I—i

Initially, we reject any argument that plaintiff did not face a jurisdictional limitation in impleading the State as a codefend-ant in this action. Rather, the State Constitution and our case law both indicate that the restriction on Supreme Court imposed by the doctrine of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature. Specifically, we have explained that New York Constitution, article VI, § 9, which “preserves] the State’s historical sovereign immunity from suit,” is a constitutional limitation on “the jurisdiction of Supreme Court” (People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213, 227 [2010] [emphasis added]; see Siegel, NY Prac § 12 at 16 [5th ed 2011] [noting that “(t)here are two broad categories of original jurisdiction that . . . (S)upreme (C)ourt lacks: cases of which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred by Congress on the federal courts, and actions against the state, where jurisdiction is conferred exclusively on the (C)ourt of (C)laims”]). Article VI, § 9 states that the Court of Claims “shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine claims against the state or by the state against the claimant or between conflicting claimants as the legislature may provide.” As this Court stated in Correa, “claims for money damages brought against the State . . . must be initiated and tried in the Court of Claims” and, thus, “Supreme Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over [such] claims” (15 NY3d at 227-228 [emphasis added])—that is, article VI, § 9 limits the jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

Because it concluded in this case that there is no jurisdictional bar against suing the State in Supreme Court, the Appellate Division did not consider defendant’s argument that the word “jurisdiction” in the statute refers to personal jurisdiction, as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction. To be sure, defendant’s argument finds support in various commentaries and lower court cases (see Brown v State of New York, 268 AD2d 548, 549 [2d Dept 2000]; Duffy v County of Chautauqua, 225 AD2d 261, 267 [4th Dept 1996], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 89 NY2d 980 [1997]; Rezucha v Garlock Mech. Packing Co., 159 Misc 2d 855, 860 [Sup Ct, Broome County 1993]; Siegel, NY Prac § 168C at 290 [5th ed 2011]; Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C1601:3). The argument is not, however, supported by the language of the statute, its legislative history, or its purpose.

>—1 <5

This Court has observed that “[¡Jurisdiction is a word of elastic, diverse, and disparate meanings” (Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71, 74 [1976]). It can refer to both subject matter jurisdiction, relating to “a court’s competence to entertain an action,” as well as to the court’s “power to render a judgment on the merits,” which does not relate to subject matter jurisdiction (id. at 75).

“[T]he rationale for the jurisdictional restriction [in CPLR 1601] is that if a diligent claimant were able to sue all tortfeasors but neglected to do so, then it would not be unfair for the culpability of a nonparty to be considered even though the claimant’s recovery might not be as complete as that provided by the common-law rule of joint and several liability” (Rezucha, 159 Mise 2d at 860).

As a practical matter, it makes no difference to the parties what type of jurisdiction is absent—regardless of whether a defendant is not subject to long-arm jurisdiction or Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the “claimant [cannot] with due diligence . . . obtain jurisdiction over such person in said action” (CPLR 1601 [l]).

To read the word “personal” into the statute, as dissenters and defendant would have us do, results in an interpretation broader than that required by the statutory language itself, which simply uses “the catchall word ‘jurisdiction’ ” (Lacks, 41 NY2d at 75). Because CPLR 1601 is a statute in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed (see e.g. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 24 NY3d 275, 281 [2014]; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 301, Comment). By its terms, the statute does not specify that the inability to obtain jurisdiction must have a particular cause. “If the legislature intended that the term [‘jurisdiction’] mean only 1personal jurisdiction,’ it could have easily done so with the addition of that one word to the statute” (Siegel & Connors, NY Prac § 168C, Jan. 2017 Supp at 118; see Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d 232, 240 [2003]).

Moreover, interpreting the word “jurisdiction” as limited to “personal jurisdiction” effectively renders meaningless the phrase “in said action . . . or in a claim against the state” in CPLR 1601 (1). “[T]he inclusion of the [phrase] . . . is a strong indication that the term ‘jurisdiction’ encompasses both subject matter and personal jurisdiction” (Siegel & Connors, NY Prac § 168C, Jan. 2017 Supp at 118). On the other hand, if that phrase were eliminated, the statute would prohibit apportionment only “if the claimant prove [d] that with due diligence he or she was unable to obtain jurisdiction over such person . . . in a court of this state” (CPLR 1601 [1] [as modified to accommodate defendant’s argument]). Thus, if the statute had been so drafted, apportionment would be unauthorized only if the claimant proved that personal jurisdiction could not be obtained because the tortfeasor “is not a domiciliary of New York and no basis for extraterritorial (i.e., longarm) jurisdiction is available against [the tortfeasor]” (Siegel, NY Prac § 168C at 290 [5th ed 2011]). Inasmuch as a claimant can obtain jurisdiction over the State in a court of this State—the Court of Claims—apportionment against the State in Supreme Court would be permitted. However, judicially excising language to reach the result that defendant urges would contravene the “ ‘accepted rule that all parts of a statute are intended to be given effect and that a statutory construction which renders one part meaningless should be avoided’ ” (Matter of Springer v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 27 NY3d 102, 107 [2016], quoting Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 515 [1991]).

V.

Our reading of CPLR 1601 (1) further accords with the legislative history and objective of the statute. The legislative history is largely silent on the meaning of the word “jurisdiction” in CPLR 1601 (1), although the Governor’s Approval Memorandum states that a defendant “will not be able to reduce his or her share by any amount for which a third party is responsible if jurisdiction cannot be obtained over such party” (Governor’s Mem approving L 1986, ch 682, 1986 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 3183; see Mem of Dept of Law, Bill Jacket, L 1986, ch 682 at 12). Again, “the catchall word ‘jurisdiction’ ” {Lacks, 41 NY2d at 75) is used in the memoranda of the Governor and Department of Law, with no indication that only personal jurisdiction was considered.

The legislative history does, however, more clearly confirm that the statute reflects “careful deliberations over the appropriate situations for a modified joint and several liability rule” (Governor’s Mem approving L 1986, ch 682, 1986 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 3184; see Chianese, 98 NY2d at 275; Rangolan, 96 NY2d at 49; Morales v County of Nassau, 94 NY2d 218, 224-225 [1999]). This Court has recognized that the statute “was the product of a painstaking balance of interests . . . including], among many others, the burdens to be imposed on innocent plaintiffs as well as a concern that defendants at fault to a small degree were consistently paying a disproportionate share of damages awards, adversely affecting the availability and affordability of liability insurance” (.Morales, 94 NY2d at 224-225). Given the assiduous balancing of interests that went into this statute—including the provision permitting apportionment in the Court of Claims to benefit the State, at the State’s request (see Mem of Dept of Law, Bill Jacket, L 1986, ch 682 at 14)—we decline to recognize the availability of apportionment where the statute does not expressly permit it.

The legislative history further confirms that a strict construction of the statute is consistent with the legislature’s purpose in enacting it. While the statute was intended to “ ‘remedy the inequities created by joint and several liability on low-fault, “deep pocket” defendants’ ” (Chianese, 98 NY2d at 275, quoting Rangolan, 96 NY2d at 46), the driving purpose behind that intent was to alleviate a liability insurance crisis (see Morales, 94 NY2d at 225; Mem of Dept of Law, Bill Jacket, L 1986, ch 682 at 13-14). The modifications to joint and several liability arose out of the recommendations of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Liability Insurance, chaired by former Court of Appeals Judge Hugh R. Jones (see Governor’s Mem approving L 1986, ch 682, 1986 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY at 3183-3184; see also Rangolan, 96 NY2d at 46).

The Commission opined that amendment of the common-law joint and several liability rule—which developed in the contributory negligence regime—had become necessary as a result of New York’s 1975 replacement of the rule of contributory negligence with the comparative fault concept (see Insuring Our Future, Report of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Liability Insurance at 130 [Apr. 7, 1986]). “[T]he expansions of liability created by [the] contemporary doctrine . . . create [d] insurance prices that [were] greater than even institutional insureds [could] bear” (id. at 125), but the courts were “blind ... to the health of the risk-spreading mechanism that American society . . . developed to assure that compensation is in fact available for those who are entitled to receive it” (id. at 127-128). The Commission noted that “the ends of justice are subverted when insurance is unavailable at an affordable price” (id. at 128), and concluded that the switch from contributory negligence to comparative fault rules exacerbated the problem by removing the disincentive for plaintiffs to sue “defendants whose minor degrees of fault might dramatize the fact that the plaintiff’s fault was at least as great” (id. at 130). That led to defendants who were “adjudged to have a small percentage share of fault, but wound up paying all . . . of a large money judgment because no reimbursement was forthcoming from co-defendants” (id. at 130-131). The right of contribution under the old joint and several liability rule was “cold comfort” to deep-pocket defendants and their insurers “when the other tortfeasors [were] insolvent or nearly so” (Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C1601:l).

The State, however, is not insolvent and, if a defendant believes that it has been held liable in Supreme Court for what is actually the State’s negligent conduct, the defendant can sue the State for contribution in the Court of Claims (see Bay Ridge Air Rights v State of New York, 44 NY2d 49, 54 [1978]). Indeed, a strict construction of the statute does not deprive a tortfeasor of the opportunity to prove that it is a low-liability defendant because it may do so in the Court of Claims. In that regard, even defendant acknowledges that the risk of potential prejudice to such a defendant with an absent bankrupt tortfea-sor—who is subject to apportionment in Supreme Court—is far greater than the risk present when the State is the alleged joint tortfeasor because “[t]he State will always have sufficient resources to satisfy whatever judgment” is obtained against it. True, our interpretation of the statute places on defendants, rather than “on innocent plaintiffs” {Morales, 94 NY2d at 224), the burden of having to seek recovery against the State in the Court of Claims. However, that burden is not nearly of the same order of magnitude as the burden that CPLR 1601 was intended to remedy—forcing deep pocket defendants to pursue contribution from insolvent tortfeasors who were assessed a much greater portion of liability. Given that a strict construction of the statute does not “result in the very inequity the Legislature sought to eliminate” {Chianese, 98 NY2d at 278) and, in fact, promotes equity, we apply the statute as it is written. Plaintiffs remaining arguments are unpreserved.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by denying the motion of defendant Home Place Corporation insofar as it sought a jury charge on apportionment of liability of the State of New York pursuant to CPLR 1601 and, as so modified, affirmed, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Abdus-Salaam, J.

(dissenting). The majority’s interpretation of CPLR 1601 is a strained reading of the statutory language and contravenes the legislative goal of limiting the liability of any and all tortfeasors who are responsible for 50% or less of the total liability. The majority’s analysis gives the State a preferred status over other tortfeasors, despite no indication that the legislature intended such a result, and notwithstanding that the plain reading of the text indicates the legislature simply wanted to create parallel rights of apportionment for state tortfeasors and non-state tortfeasors. Furthermore, the majority’s holding creates anomalous situations that I do not believe were intended by the legislature: (1) a defendant in Supreme Court cannot shift liability to the nonparty State, but a state defendant in the Court of Claims can shift liability to a private party; and (2) a plaintiff in the Court of Claims will face apportionment with the State pointing to an empty chair, but a plaintiff in the Supreme Court will not face apportionment where the empty chair is the State. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the Appellate Division’s order.

CPLR article 16 was promulgated as a modification of the common-law theory of joint and several liability, the purpose of which was “to remedy the inequities created by joint and several liability on low-fault, ‘deep pocket’ defendants” (Rangolan v County of Nassau, 96 NY2d 42, 46 [2001]). As we noted in Rangolan, the statute was especially intended to benefit governmental entities such as municipalities (e.g., the defendant State, in plaintiffs’ Court of Claims action) and landowners (e.g., the defendant Home Place, in plaintiffs’ Supreme Court action) (see Rangolan at 48, citing the report issued by the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Liability Insurance, chaired by former Court of Appeals Judge Hugh R. Jones, referenced in the majority opinion at 751).

In resolving this appeal, we are guided by the established principle that “the statutory text ... is the clearest indicator of legislative purpose” (Matter of M.B., 6 NY3d 437, 447 [2006]). In my view, the majority’s analysis of the text, while appropriately focused on the word “jurisdiction,” ignores the meaning of the word “or,” and fails to adequately weigh the significance of the phrases “due diligence” and “over such person.”

The first general provision of CPLR 1601 (1) states:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a verdict or decision in an action or claim for personal injury is determined in favor of a claimant in an action involving two or more tortfeasors jointly liable or in a claim against the state and the liability of a defendant is found to be fifty percent or less of the total liability assigned to all persons liable, the liability of such defendant to the claimant for non-economic loss shall not exceed the defendant’s equitable share determined in accordance with the relative culpability of each person causing or contributing to the total liability for non-economic loss” (emphasis added).

The general provision, by its use of the term “or” in referring to an action involving two or more tortfeasors jointly liable or in a claim against the State, indicates that the legislature intended to address alternative situations (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 235, Comment [“Use of the conjunction ‘or’ in a statute usually indicates that the language is to be construed in an alternative sense”]; see also McSweeney v Bazinet, 269 App Div 213, 216 [3d Dept 1945], affd 295 NY 797 [1946]; Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 829 [Merriam-Webster 9th ed 1986] [“or” is “used as a function word to indicate an alternative ccoffee (or) tea> <sink (or) swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases”]). Thus, the general provision applies alternatively—equivalently, to state tortfeasors or non-state tortfeasors. In other words, whether in Supreme Court or the Court of Claims, in a personal injury action involving jointly liable tortfeasors, where the liability of a tortfeasor is found to be 50% or less of the total liability, that tortfeasor’s monetary share of the damages may not be greater than the share of liability assigned to that tortfeasor.

The statute’s application to either state tortfeasors or non-state tortfeasors is again addressed in the first proviso, which states:

“provided, however that the culpable conduct of any person not a party to the action shall not be considered in determining any equitable share herein if the claimant proves that with due diligence he or she was unable to obtain jurisdiction over such person in said action (or in a claim against the state, in a court of this state)” (CPLR 1601 [1]).

Again, the use of the word “or,” which the majority does not address, demonstrates that the legislature was indicating alternative, equivalent situations—non-state tortfeasors as well as state tortfeasors. The parenthetical language was a technical change, “made to ensure that the State can take advantage of the modifications in joint and several liability contained” in the statute (Mem of Dept of Law, Bill Jacket, L 1986, ch 682 at 14). There is no indication in the legislative history that the legislature intended that the State be given special status under CPLR 1601. The State has waived its sovereign immunity and an action seeking damages for personal injury may be commenced against the State in the Court of Claims (see Court of Claims Act § 8).

Furthermore, if the legislature had actually wanted to preclude a private tortfeasor from seeking apportionment against the State in Supreme Court, in contravention of the overall purpose of CPLR 1601 which is to limit the liability of low-fault tortfeasors to only their actual share of responsibility (see Chianese v Meier, 98 NY2d 270, 275 [2002]), it could have simply specified that a joint tortfeasor cannot seek apportionment against the State. It is unlikely that the legislature would carve out such an important exclusion without express language indicating its intent. Yet, the majority concludes that the apportionment rule, vis-a-vis state tortfeasors, is the polar opposite in Supreme Court than it is in the Court of Claims.

The majority points out that the statute “was the product of a painstaking balance of interests . . . including], among many others, the burdens to be imposed on innocent plaintiffs” (majority op at 750, 752, quoting Morales v County of Nassau, 94 NY2d 218, 224-225 [1999]). But the majority does not explain why the legislature would treat “innocent plaintiffs” less favorably in the Court of Claims than in Supreme Court. And yet, that is a consequence of the majority opinion, because it exposes a plaintiff in the Court of Claims to apportionment, but does not similarly disadvantage a plaintiff in Supreme Court when the nonparty tortfeasor is the State. The legislature has evinced no intention of exposing plaintiffs suing the State in the Court of Claims to the apportionment of damages, while permitting plaintiffs in Supreme Court to escape that outcome.

Furthermore, while the majority correctly recognizes that “jurisdiction” “is a word of elastic, diverse, and disparate meanings” (majority op at 747, quoting Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71, 74 [1976]), the majority veers off course when it applies the broadest possible interpretation of that term, without giving due weight to the context in which it is used. I do not quarrel with the majority’s point that in CPLR 1601, the legislature did not expressly specify whether it was referring to personal or subject matter jurisdiction. However, I disagree with the conclusion that because the legislature did not so specify, it must have been referring to either personal or subject matter jurisdiction.

The statute’s requirement that the plaintiff exercise due diligence to obtain jurisdiction over a tortfeasor cannot possibly refer to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, where the plaintiff’s due diligence has no bearing because a plaintiff can do nothing to affect a court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the parties’ claims. Instead, the phrase “due diligence” only makes sense in relation to personal jurisdiction, where a plaintiff may or may not exercise due diligence (see generally CPLR 308). Similarly, the phrase “over such person” makes sense when “jurisdiction” is read as “personal jurisdiction,” as the phrase is meaningless in the context of subject matter jurisdiction, which refers to the authority of a court to hear particular claims. Hence, the reference to jurisdiction in the statute logically refers only to personal jurisdiction.

Moreover, that the legislature did not specify personal or subject matter jurisdiction cannot simply be discounted as imprecise drafting. The Supreme Court always has subject matter jurisdiction over personal injury actions (other than those interposed against the State), although it might not always have personal jurisdiction. There would be no reason for the legislature to be concerned with subject matter jurisdiction in the context of a personal injury action, such as this case. Consequently, in enacting CPLR 1601, the legislature must have sought to address situations in which a party cannot obtain jurisdiction “over such person.”

As noted by the majority, the conclusion reached by most courts and legal scholars that have considered the meaning of the term “jurisdiction” in the context of this statute is that personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction, is the focus of the statute (see majority op at 746-747). In reaching the opposite conclusion, the majority’s analysis ignores the context in which the term is used, and the descriptive phrases of “due diligence,” and “over such person,” which clearly only apply to personal jurisdiction.

In sum, given the purpose of CPLR 1601, which is to limit the liability of “low-fault, ‘deep pocket’ defendants” (Rangolan at 46), there is no reason why the State should be permitted to demonstrate the culpability of nonparties in the Court of Claims but defendants in Supreme Court should not have the parallel right to demonstrate the State’s culpability. Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, the language of the statute does not require this disparate treatment of state tortfeasors and private tortfeasors, but instead, calls for comparable treatment. The majority’s construction of the statute does not promote equity (see majority op at 752); it promotes inequity, by elevating the rights of plaintiffs in Supreme Court over those of plaintiffs in the Court of Claims, and the rights of state tortfeasors in the Court of Claims over those of private tortfeasors in Supreme Court.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Fahey and Garcia concur; Judge Abdus-Salaam dissents and votes to affirm in an opinion in which Judge Rivera concurs; Judge Wilson taking no part.

Order modified, without costs, by denying the motion of defendant Home Place Corporation insofar as it sought a jury charge on apportionment of liability of the State of New York pursuant to CPLR 1601, and, as so modified, affirmed, and certified question answered in the affirmative.

      . The State is not a party to this action, which originated in Supreme Court, but it has submitted an amicus brief to protect its interests in assuring that the procedures for litigating claims against it are applied in a manner consistent with the governing statutes. The State contends that, if apportionment is permitted against it in Supreme Court, it would be prejudiced because the parties do not adequately represent its interests—with defendants seeking to show the State is entirely liable, and plaintiff simultaneously suing the State in the Court of Claims. The State concedes that any finding of culpability against it in Supreme Court is not binding on the Court of Claims, but notes that, as a practical matter, Court of Claims judges are “attentive” to the reduction of a plaintiff’s Supreme Court verdict to account for the State’s supposed negligence and are less likely under those circumstances to accept the State’s argument that it is not liable at all.

      . We do not ignore the meaning of the word “or” in the statute (see dissenting op at 753-754), but recognize that the disparate language in CPLR 1601 regarding “actionís],” on the one hand, and “claim[s] against the state,” on the other, has disparate implications for private tortfeasors, as opposed to state tortfeasors.

      . Although this Court previously concluded in People ex rel. Swift v Luce (204 NY 478 [1912]) that the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims did not amount to limitations on the jurisdiction of Supreme Court, Swift was decided prior to the amendment to the New York Constitution, effective January 1950, that created the Court of Claims as a constitutional court of record (see Easley v New York State Thruway Auth., 1 NY2d 374, 377 [1956]). At the time Swift was decided, the “Court of Claims” was “only an auditing board and a quasi-judicial body” (Swift, 204 NY at 486)—i.e., it “was one of a series of boards and tribunals set up successively by various legislative acts to hear and audit various kinds of claims against the State” (Easley, 1 NY2d at 377). Inasmuch as legislative acts cannot deprive Supreme Court “of one particle of its jurisdiction” (People v Correa, 15 NY3d 213, 229 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]), Swift was correct at the time it was decided. However, as indicated above, we have recognized, following the 1950 amendment of the State Constitution, that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is a constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of Supreme Court (see id. at 227-228).

      . We do not overlook the context in which the term “jurisdiction” is used, or the phrases “with due diligence” and “over such person” (see dissenting op at 755-756). Rather, we recognize that the “due diligence” requirement leads to the same result regardless of whether subject matter jurisdiction is lacking or long-arm (i.e., personal) jurisdiction is lacking—the claimant will not be able to obtain jurisdiction in either instance. Furthermore, when the term “jurisdiction” is used in reference to the State in the context of a personal injury action—the type of action to which CPLR 1601 applies—subject matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction, is the primary consideration. The statutory language directs us to consider whether a claimant is able “with due diligence ... to obtain jurisdiction over such person” in Supreme Court. When the “person” is the State, the relevant question is whether Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. While Supreme Court generally has subject matter jurisdiction over personal injury actions, it lacks such subject matter jurisdiction when the defendant is the State, as explained above (see Correa, 15 NY3d at 227-228). Thus, there is, indeed, a “reason for the legislature to be concerned with subject matter jurisdiction in the context of a personal injury action” (dissenting op at 756).

      . There is no merit to defendant’s argument that interpreting jurisdiction to mean “subject matter jurisdiction” would bar apportionment against tortfeasors who are absent from the plaintiff’s action in Supreme Court due to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, thereby rendering meaningless the second proviso of section 1601 (1) or section 1602 (4). Defendant’s argument is based upon its assumption that Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over actions against employers whose employees have received workers’ compensation benefits. However, “[w]ork-[ers’] compensation is an exclusive remedy as a matter of substantive law . . . , it is not the kind of subject-matter jurisdiction deficiency which ousts a court of competence to decide the case” (Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 407 [1977]). In any event, third-party contribution claims can be brought by a defendant/third-party plaintiff against an employer/third-party defendant when, among other things, the plaintiff has suffered a grave injury; such claims may be resolved in the same trial as the employee plaintiff’s direct claims against the defendant, even though a direct action by the plaintiff against the employer is barred by the exclusivity provisions (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 11; see generally Dole v Dow Chem. Co., 30 NY2d 143, 152-153 [1972]). In such a scenario, there would be a “claimant” within the meaning of CPLR 1601 (1) (the defendant/third-party plaintiff) who can “obtain jurisdiction over” the employer.

      . Defendant argues—and the dissent agrees—that, because the Department of Law’s memorandum referred to this provision as a “technical change [ ] . . . made to ensure that the State can take advantage of the modifications in joint and several liability” (Mem of Dept of Law, Bill Jacket, L 1986, ch 682 at 14), the State should be viewed merely as being on the same footing as other defendants to which the statute applies, rather than enjoying any special status. Defendant and the dissenters note that the memorandum does not reference any request for special status for the State pursuant to which apportionment would not be allowed in Supreme Court. However, the absence of any such request can be explained by the fact that no further request would be necessary to ensure that the State enjoys a “special status.” The language of the statute, on its face, prohibits apportionment against the State in Supreme Court because a claimant cannot “obtain jurisdiction” over the State in that court. The lack of jurisdiction, which gives the State its “special status” under the statute, is simply a function of sovereign immunity.

      . Where, as here, the plaintiff is also suing the State in the Court of Claims, our interpretation of the statute as placing the burden on a private defendant to seek contribution from the State following an adverse verdict in Supreme Court facilitates the achievement of a fair result for both plaintiffs and defendants because it provides an incentive for all parties—including both private and state tortfeasors—to appear in, and develop a full record before, a single court.

      . As noted in the majority opinion, any apportionment determination in one court is not binding on the other court (majority op at 745 n 1).

      . I acknowledge that because a plaintiff cannot commence a personal injury action against a private tortfeasor in the Court of Claims, and cannot bring a personal injury action against the State in Supreme Court, the empty chair element of apportionment can result in an outcome that does not fully compensate a plaintiff. However, that is fundamentally rooted in the division of our court system, and not in this statute.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Decided September 8, 2016
    Aly T., Matter of, v Francisco B.
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 597

denied


text:
    Baker v Lofink Motor Co., Inc.
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1613

denied


text:
    Bethune v MTA Long Is. Bus
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1052

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO Matter of, v Westchester County Health Care Corp.
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 741

denied


text:
    Garofano, Matter of, v Board of Educ. of Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist.
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 726

denied


text:
    Greco-Meyer, Matter of, v Nassau County Police Dept.
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1296

denied


text:
    Hyman v Schwartz
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74811(U), 2016 NY Slip Op 74812(U)

denied


text:
    Jacobs, Matter of, v Jacobs
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 742

denied


text:
    Johnson, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1519

denied


text:
    Levine v 425 Madison Assoc.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 606

denied


text:
    Lucas v Devlin
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1196

denied


text:
    People v Coalition Against Breast Cancer, Inc.
   2d Dept: 134 AD3d 1081

denied


text:
    People v Colon
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 466

denied*


text:
    People v Reid
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 156

denied


text:
    Pieroni v Phillips Lytle LLP
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1707

denied


text:
    Queens W. Dev. Corp., Matter of (Nixbot Realty Assoc.)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 863

denied


text:
    Smoke, Matter of, v Planning Bd. of Town of Greig
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1437

denied


text:
    Tisdell v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 844

denied


text:
    Wietschner v Dimon
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 461

denied


text:
    Decided September 13, 2016
    Allied World Natl. Assur. Co. v Great Divide Ins. Co.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 103

denied


text:
    Batten v City of New York
   2d Dept: 133 AD3d 803

denied


text:
    Diana N., Matter of (Kim N.)
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 573

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Hudson v Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 511

denied


text:
    Jasmine E.C., Matter of (Gabriel J.C.)
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 440

denied*


text:
    Johnson, Matter of, v Prichard
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1617

denied*


text:
    Kenefick, Matter of, v Sticht
   4th Dept: 139 AD3d 1380

denied


text:
    Khan, Matter of, v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
   2d Dept: 135 AD3d 940

denied


text:
    Leo v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
   4th Dept: 136 AD3d 1333

denied


text:
    McMaster, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1289

denied


text:
    People v Glanowski
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1625

denied*


text:
    People v Labarbera
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 463

denied*


text:
    People v Parker
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 720

denied*


text:
    People v Wells
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 947

denied


text:
    Prichard, Matter of, v Johnson
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1617

denied*


text:
    Rick A.U., Matter of, v James K.
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1624

denied


text:
    Rick A.U., Matter of, v Rebecca K.
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1624

denied


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Cleophus H.
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 868

denied


text:
    Terranova, Matter of, v Lehr Constr. Co.
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1309

granted


text:
    Troy SS., Matter of, v Judy UU.
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1348

denied


text:
    Turi, Matter of, v Five L. Enters., Inc.
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1307

denied


text:
    United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Iannuzzi
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 638

denied


text:
    Vista Food Exch., Inc. v BenefitMall
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 535

denied


text:
    Walczyk, Matter of, v Lewis Tree Serv., Inc.
   3d Dept: 134 AD3d 1364

denied


text:
    Wittels v Sanford
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 657

denied


text:
    Decided September 15, 2016
    Board of Mgrs. of Regent’s Park Gardens Condo v Chavez
   2d Dept: 136 AD3d 953

denied


text:
    CPD NY Energy Corp., Matter of, v Town of Poughkeepsie Planning Bd.
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 942

denied


text:
    Dexia SA/NV v Morgan Stanley
   1st Dept: 135 AD3d 497

denied


text:
    Emily R., Matter of (Martin C.)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1074 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP (US)
   1st Dept: 134 AD3d 610

denied


text:
    Fagan, Matter of, v Village of Harriman
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 868

denied


text:
    Harris, Matter of
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 89

denied


text:
    John Z., Matter of (Commissioner of Mental Health)
   3d Dept: 136 AD3d 1208

denied


text:
    People v Alas
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 841

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People ex rel. Franza v Connolly
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 803

denied*


text:
    Sean C., Matter of (Martin C.)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1074 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Timmons, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1224

denied


text:
    Yvelisse C., Matter of (Martin C.)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1074 (Proceeding No. 3)

denied


text:
    Decided September 20, 2016
    Allen, Matter of, v Venettozzi
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1208

denied


text:
    Bates v Rector, Church-Wardens, & Vestrymen of Trinity Church in the City of N.Y.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 503

denied


text:
    Castlestone Mgt. LLC v Diamond
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 551

denied


text:
    Christian, Matter of, v City of New York
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 457

denied


text:
    Colantonio v Mercy Med. Ctr.
   2d Dept: 135 AD3d 686

denied


text:
    Dawn DD., Matter of, v James EE.
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1225

denied


text:
    Greene, Matter of (Syracuse Socy. for New Music, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor)
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1146

denied


text:
    Nicholson, Matter of, v Nicholson
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1689

denied*


text:
    People v Cortes
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 576

denied*


text:
    People v Findley
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 842

denied*


text:
    People v Lowery
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1141

denied*


text:
    People v Mack
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 843

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Morris
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 843

denied


text:
    People v Roldan
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 411

denied*


text:
    People v Smith
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1705

denied


text:
    Robinson v Oz Master Fund, Ltd.
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 639

denied


text:
    Selena L., Matter of (Susan B.L.)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 769

denied


text:
    Sheryll v United Gen. Constr.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 612

denied


text:
    Tucker, Matter of, v Miller
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1383

denied


text:
    Decided October 6, 2016
    Avella, Matter of, v Johnson
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1111

denied


text:
    Pilla, Matter of, v Karnsomtob
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1116

denied


text:
    Decided October 20, 2016
    Joshua T.N., Matter of (Tommie M.)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1763

denied


text:
    Lihanna A., Matter of (Marcella H.)
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 404

denied*


text:
    Malik S., Matter of (Latangya B.)
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 428

denied


text:
    Martin v Martin
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 916

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Latta v Martuscello
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1421

denied


text:
    Roberta P., Matter of, v Vanessa J.P.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 457

denied*


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Dean G.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 972

denied


text:
    Decided October 25, 2016
    AMCAT Global, Inc. v Greater Binghamton Dev., LLC
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1370

denied


text:
    Bailey, Matter of, v Prack
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1508

denied


text:
    Birch Tree Partners, LLC v Windsor Digital Studio, LLC
   2d Dept: 132 AD3d 932

denied


text:
    Chavez v State of New York
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 994

denied


text:
    City Club of N.Y., Inc., Matter of, v Hudson Riv. Park Trust, Inc.
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 803

denied


text:
    Esposito, Matter of, v Magill
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1772

denied


text:
    Figueroa v Mandel
   1st Dept: 136 AD3d 534

denied


text:
    Galbraith v Westchester County Health Care Corp.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 696

denied


text:
    Griffith v ETH NEP, L.P.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 451

denied


text:
    Hollander, Matter of, v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., Child Support Enforcement Bur.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1064

denied


text:
    Ioveno v Schwartz
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 1012

denied


text:
    Maddox, Matter of, v Maddox
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 529

denied


text:
    Mason F., Matter of (Katlin G.-Louis F.)
   3d Dept: 141 AD3d 764 (Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2)

denied


text:
    Nizamuddeen, Matter of, v New York City Tr. Auth.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 880

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Hamlin
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 842

denied*


text:
    People v Sabin
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1282

denied


text:
    People v Witherspoon
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1674

denied


text:
    Razinski v 136 Field Point Circle Holding Co. LLC
   1st Dept: 136 AD3d 436

denied


text:
    Richardson, Matter of, v New York City Hous. Auth.
   1st Dept: 136 AD3d 484

denied


text:
    S.B. v Caledonia-Mumford Cent. Sch.
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1619

denied


text:
    Star Meth Corp. v Steiner
   1st Dept: 134 AD3d 555

denied


text:
    Wally G. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (Metro. Hosp.)
   1st Dept: 120 AD3d 1082

denied


text:
    Williams v City of New York
   2d Dept: 134 AD3d 809

denied


text:
    Decided October 27, 2016
    County of Broome, Matter of, v Shah
   3d Dept: 130 AD3d 1347

granted


text:
    Garcia, Matter of, v Morris
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1441

denied


text:
    Garguilo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 708

denied


text:
    Hamilton, Matter of, v Alley
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1564

denied


text:
    Knickerbocker Dev. Corp. v State of New York
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1444

denied


text:
    Lakeside Realty LLC v County of Sullivan
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1450

denied


text:
    Lin Shi v Alexandratos
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 451

denied


text:
    Masciello v Incorporated Vil. of Lloyd Harbor
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 834

denied


text:
    Masullo, Matter of, v City of Mount Vernon
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 95

denied


text:
    People v Finocchiaro
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1676

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Whitaker
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 578

denied*


text:
    Sand Land Corp., Matter of, v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1289

denied


text:
    Schaffer v Jaskowiak
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1748

denied


text:
    Schneider, Matter of, v Schuyler County
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1373

denied


text:
    Schottland v Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 997

denied


text:
    Sitomer v Goldweber Epstein, LLP
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 642

denied


text:
    Wigdor v SoulCycle, LLC
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 613

denied


text:
    Decided November 1, 2016
    Blake T.L., Matter of (Robert L.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 525 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    Blumenthal v Bronx Equestrian Ctr., Inc.
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 432

denied


text:
    Bookman, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 141 AD3d 1060

denied*


text:
    Caetano, Matter of, v DiNapoli
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1579

denied


text:
    Clarke v Verizon N.Y., Inc.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 505

denied


text:
    Clifford v County of Rockland
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1108

denied


text:
    Dejesus v CEC Entertainment, Inc.
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1390

denied


text:
    Excelsior Capital LLC v K&L Gates LLP
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 492

denied


text:
    Finn, Matter of, v City of New York
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 436

denied


text:
    Frankie L., Matter of (Dustin L.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 657 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Frankie L., Matter of (Talia G.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 657 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    Gavin G., Matter of (Dustin L.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 657 (Proceeding No. 3)

denied


text:
    Gavin G., Matter of (Talia G.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 657 (Proceeding No. 3)

denied*


text:
    James T.L., Matter of (Robert L.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 525 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Kinsey v City of New York
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 420

denied


text:
    Kira G., Matter of (Dustin L.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 657 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Kira G., Matter of (Talia G.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 657 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*


text:
    Morales v Avalon Bay Communities, Inc.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 533

denied


text:
    192nd St. LLC v 569 W. 192nd St., LLC
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 592

denied


text:
    People v Figueroa
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1112

denied


text:
    People v Lightaul
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1256

denied


text:
    People v Moshman
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1176

denied*


text:
    People v Reuter
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1143

denied


text:
    TDD Irrevocable Trust v J & A Saporta Realty Corp.
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 706, 708

denied


text:
    VSA Architectural Consultants, P.C., Matter of, v State of N.Y. Div. of Human Rights
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 499

denied


text:
    Decided November 17, 2016
    Grace J., Matter of (Steven J.)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1166

denied


text:
    Grand Imperial, LLC, Matter of, v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 579

denied


text:
    Leon Holdings, LLC v Northville Indus. Corp.
   2d Dept: 134 AD3d 910

denied


text:
    Monte, Matter of, v Miccoli
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 617

denied*


text:
    Monte, Matter of, v Miccoli
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 630

denied*


text:
    Monte, Matter of, v Mingo
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 617

denied*


text:
    Palmieri v Fred Shore Beach Club, Inc.
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 94171(U)

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Grafton v Sposato
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 66660(U)

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Wingate v Capra
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 92435(U)

denied


text:
    Samima I.A.C., Matter of (Idzumi S.S.)
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 582

denied*


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Clyde J.
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 723

denied


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Patrick L.
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 591

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Timothy B., Matter of (Paul K.)
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1460

denied*


text:
    Van Wagner Communications, LLC, Matter of, v Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of N.Y.
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 650

denied


text:
    Decided November 21, 2016
    Abdur-Rashid, Matter of, v New York City Police Dept.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 419

granted


text:
    Alintoff, Matter of, v Alintoff
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 518

denied


text:
    Chomyn, Matter of, v Boller
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1705

denied


text:
    Darcy, Matter of, v Darcy
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1061

denied


text:
    Elsayed v Edrees
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 503

denied


text:
    Hampshire Recreation, LLC, Matter of, v Board of Assessors
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1029

denied


text:
    Hashmi, Matter of, v New York City Police Dept.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 419

granted


text:
    Hunter v New York City Hous. Auth.
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 717

denied


text:
    Kaufman, Matter of
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1034

denied


text:
    Kaufman, Matter of
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1035

denied


text:
    Kingston v New York City Tr. Auth.
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 78897(U)

denied*


text:
    Lasner v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1023

denied


text:
    Law Offs. of Thomas F. Liotti, LLC v State of New York
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 812

denied


text:
    Maldonado v DiBre
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1501

denied


text:
    Palm v Tuckahoe Union Free Sch. Dist.
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 635

denied


text:
    People v Benitez
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1140

denied


text:
    People v Cooper
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 710

denied*


text:
    People v Miguel
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 497

denied*


text:
    People v Uphael
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1143

denied*


text:
    Stilwell Value Partners, IV, L.P. v Cavanaugh
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 609

denied


text:
    Structure Tek Constr., Inc. v Waterville Holdings, LLC
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1151

denied


text:
    Weichert v Village of Parish
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74080(U)

denied


text:
    Weissbrod, Matter of, v DoPico
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2014 NY Slip Op 76844(U)

denied


text:
    Decided November 22, 2016
    Abdus-Samad, Matter of, v Annucci
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1101

denied


text:
    Angel R. v New York City Tr. Auth.
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 590

denied


text:
    BGC Notes, LLC v Gordon
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 435

denied


text:
    Bond & Broadway, LLC v Funding Exch., Inc.
   1st Dept: 132 AD3d 488

denied


text:
    Collins v Unger
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 421

denied


text:
    Diamond, Matter of, v Lichaw
   2d Dept: 136 AD3d 1031

denied


text:
    Hollander v Shepherd
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 84226(U)

denied


text:
    Manuel H. v Landsberger
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 490

denied


text:
    Meyer v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc.
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 880

denied


text:
    Meyer v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc.
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 878

denied


text:
    111 Condominium, Matter of, v Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of N.Y.
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 443

denied


text:
    Paramount Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 464

granted


text:
    Pinkham v West Elm
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 477

denied


text:
    People v Broadus
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 595

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Burke
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1268

denied


text:
    People v Gonzalez
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 541

denied*


text:
    People v Graziano
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1541

denied


text:
    People v Jordan
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 596

denied*


text:
    People v Mitchell
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 542

denied*


text:
    People v Pavia
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 655

denied


text:
    Saavedra v 64 Annfield Ct. Corp.
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 771

denied


text:
    Theaprin Pharms., Inc. v Conway
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1256

denied


text:
    Theaprin Pharms., Inc. v Conway
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1254

denied


text:
    Decided December 15, 2016
    Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., Matter of, v New Way Massage Therapy P.C.
   1st Dept: 134 AD3d 495

denied


text:
    Bloom, Matter of
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 173

denied


text:
    Braverman v Braverman
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 413

denied


text:
    Burton v Lucido
   2d Dept: 135 AD3d 885

denied


text:
    Donofrio, Matter of
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 80620(U)

denied


text:
    Harry S., Matter of, v Olivia S.A.
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 531

denied


text:
    Merinda MM., Matter of (Carl MM.)
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1095

denied


text:
    Sania S., Matter of (Marcia McG-W.)
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 545

denied


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v James M.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1178

denied


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Nushawn W.
   4th Dept: 139 AD3d 1375

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Decided December 20, 2016
    Abrams v Bute
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 179

denied


text:
    Cheung, Matter of, v Commissioner, Dept. of Hous. Present & Dev.
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 411

denied


text:
    Cleary v Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Connecticut
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 501

denied


text:
    Etzion v Etzion
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 678

denied


text:
    Flournoy, Matter of, v Bezio
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1513

denied


text:
    Franklin, Matter of, v New England Motor Frgt.
   3d Dept: 142 AD3d 747

denied


text:
    Grabell, Matter of, v New York City Police Dept.
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 477

denied


text:
    Gunther v Vilceus
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 639

denied


text:
    Kolel Damsek Eliezer, Inc. v Schlesinger
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 810

denied


text:
    Rosa, Matter of, v June Elec. Corp.
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1353

denied


text:
    Swinton, Matter of, v Schriro
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 81111(U)

denied*


text:
    Take Two Outdoor Media LLC, Matter of, v Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of N.Y.
   1st Dept: 128 AD3d 563

denied


text:
    Todres v W7879, LLC
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 597

denied


text:
    Decided December 22, 2016
    Balyberdina, Matter of, v National Inst. for the Psychotherapies
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 616

denied


text:
    Behringer v 19407 Linden, LLC
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 777

denied


text:
    Bingham v 347 11th St., LLC
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 686

denied


text:
    Carver, Matter of, v Nassau County Interim Fin. Auth.
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1003

denied


text:
    Clark, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 142 AD3d 1211

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Donohue, Matter of, v Nassau County Interim Fin. Auth.
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1008

denied


text:
    Essleiny A., Matter of (Rafael A.)
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 862

denied*


text:
    Hoffman v Colleluori
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 900

denied


text:
    IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., Matter of, v Jagsarran
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 465

denied


text:
    Jaronczyk, Matter of, v Nassau County Interim Fin. Auth.
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1020

denied


text:
    Koster v Davenport
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 966

denied


text:
    MP Cool Invs. Ltd. v Forkosh
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 286

denied


text:
    People v Arbi
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 423

denied*


text:
    People v Grabowski
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 697

denied


text:
    People v Hiram
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1304

denied*


text:
    People v Sanderline
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1061

denied*


text:
    People v Wellman
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 879

denied*


text:
    Revels v Schoeps
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 661

denied


text:
    Stebick v McGee
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1330

denied


text:
    Wejs v Heinbockel
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 990

denied


text:
    Williams v Prudential Fin., Inc.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 643

denied


text:
    Decided January 5, 2017
    Broomfield, Matter of, v Evans
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 748

denied


text:
    Chavis, Matter of, v Fischer
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1489

denied


text:
    Crispino, Matter of, v Chun
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1169

denied*


text:
    Curto, Matter of, v State of N.Y. Dept. of Pub. Serv.
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1339

denied


text:
    Desiree M., Matter of (Aythea M.)
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 512

denied*


text:
    Jayden Isaiah O., Matter of (Rossely R.-O.)
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 465

denied


text:
    Kittle, Matter of, v D’Amico
   3d Dept: 141 AD3d 991

denied


text:
    Klein, Matter of, v Theus
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 984 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Lisa W., Matter of, v John M.
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 879

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Collette
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1300

denied


text:
    People v Guardiola
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 519

denied*


text:
    People v Roman
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 476

denied*


text:
    Rhina M.M., Matter of, v Sandy M.M.
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 426

denied


text:
    Theus, Matter of, v Klein
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 984 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Decided January 10, 2017
    City of New York, Matter of, v 2305-07 Third Ave., LLC
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 69; 2016 NY Slip Op 88844(U)

denied


text:
    Federico v Defoe Corp.
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 682

denied


text:
    Huffer, Matter of, v Nesconset Fire Dist.
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1039

denied


text:
    OTR Media Group, Matter of, v Board of Stds. & Appeals of the City of N.Y.
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 417

denied


text:
    People v Brunson
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 431

denied*


text:
    People v Edney
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 793

denied


text:
    People v Harris
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 518

denied*


text:
    People v Lebron
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 535

denied*


text:
    People v Nesbit
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 501

denied*


text:
    People v Romero
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 876

denied


text:
    People v Solis
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 585

denied*


text:
    Decided January 12, 2017
    Cavetti, Matter of, v Proud
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 1054

denied


text:
    Cohen v Affordable Inflatables & Party Rentals, Inc.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 731 (Action No. 5)

denied


text:
    Green v Affordable Inflatables & Entertainment, Inc.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 731 (Action No. 3)

denied


text:
    Hughes v Affordable Inflatables & Party Rentals, Inc.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 731 (Action No. 2)

denied


text:
    Marra v Affordable Inflatables & Party Rentals, Inc.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 731 (Action No. 4)

denied


text:
    McKay, Matter of, v Village of Endicott
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1327

denied


text:
    People v Rossano
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1042

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v White
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 881

denied*


text:
    Rodriguez v Daily News, L.P.
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1062

denied


text:
    Ruderman v City of New York
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 863

denied


text:
    Stanton v Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 731 (Action No. 1)

denied


text:
    Van Wie Chevrolet, Inc. v General Motors, LLC
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1 (Appeal No. 3); 143 AD3d 1265 (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

denied


text:
    Decided February 9, 2017
    Ayesha FF., Matter of, v Evelyn EE.
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1120 (Proceeding No. 4)

denied*


text:
    Badesha v Soch
   4th Dept: 136 AD3d 1415

denied


text:
    Barry v Cadman Towers, Inc.
   2d Dept: 136 AD3d 951

denied


text:
    Brown v State of New York
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1539

granted


text:
    Brown v State of New York
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1535

granted


text:
    Castillo v Mount Sinai Hosp.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 619

denied


text:
    Costa v State of New York
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 43

denied


text:
    Cramer, Matter of, v Cramer
   4th Dept: 143 AD3d 1264

denied


text:
    Crociata, Matter of, v Cassano
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 751

denied


text:
    Cyril, Matter of, v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 632

denied


text:
    Evelyn EE., Matter of, v Ayesha FF.
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1120 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 59

granted


text:
    Golden v Pavlov-Shapiro
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1406

denied


text:
    Jody CC., Matter of, v Evelyn EE.
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1120 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*


text:
    Karma EE., Matter of (Evelyn EE.)
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1120 (Proceeding Nos. 3, 5 and 6)

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Kramer, Matter of
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 768

denied


text:
    Latuga, Matter of, v Giannadeo
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 771

denied


text:
    Michelle R. v Alexander R.
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 583

denied*


text:
    People v Dilillo
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 960

denied*


text:
    People v Velasquez
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 583

denied*


text:
    People v Wallace
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 775

denied*


text:
    People ex rel. Lasher v D’Agostino
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 90571(U)

denied


text:
    Sachs v State of New York
   4th Dept: 143 AD3d 1291

denied*


text:
    Shepherd, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 142 AD3d 1244

denied


text:
    Wang v LSUC
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 79492(U)

denied


text:
    Decided February 14, 2017
    Anthony L., Matter of (Lisa P.)
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1690

denied*


text:
    Aozora Bank, Ltd. v Credit Suisse Group
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 437

denied


text:
    Butterfield, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1284

denied*


text:
    Cameron, Matter of, v Shah
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 439

denied


text:
    Davila v City of New York
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 890

denied


text:
    Figura v Frasier
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1586

denied


text:
    Fletcher v Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 587

denied


text:
    George, Matter of, v Neville
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 711

denied


text:
    Golden Tech. Mgt., LLC v NextGen Acquisition, Inc.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 625

denied


text:
    Gordon, Matter of, v Morris
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1338

denied


text:
    Jimenez, Matter of, v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1221

denied


text:
    Joseph P. Carroll Ltd. v Ping-Shen
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 544

denied


text:
    Kingston v Cardinal O’Hara High Sch.
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1672

denied


text:
    Latonia W., Matter of (Anthony W.)
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1692

denied


text:
    Locust Val. Cent. Sch. Dist. v Benstock
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 758 (Matter No. 1)

denied


text:
    Locust Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., Matter of, v Locust Val. Teachers’ Assn.
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 758 (Matter No. 2)

denied


text:
    Marine Holdings, LLC, Matter of, v New York City Commn. on Human Rights
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1284

granted


text:
    Morgan, Matter of, v Stanford
   3d Dept: 142 AD3d 1226

denied


text:
    New York City Asbestos Litig., Matter of
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 408

denied


text:
    New York State United Teachers v State of New York
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 90

denied


text:
    North v Air Liquid Sys. Corp.
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 408

denied


text:
    Orange County Land Trust, Inc. v Tamira Amelia Farm, LLC
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 632

denied


text:
    Pebble Hill Bldg. Corp. v Madelik
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 684

denied


text:
    People v Alexander
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1008

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Garcia
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 650

denied*


text:
    People v Gifford
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1678

denied


text:
    People v Hayden
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1010

denied*


text:
    People v Rivera
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1595

denied


text:
    People v Smith
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 652

denied*


text:
    People ex rel. Stokes v New York State Div. of Parole
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1550

denied*


text:
    Prioleau, Matter of, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 439

denied


text:
    Richard H., Matter of
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 799

denied


text:
    Decided February 16, 2017
    DeCintio v Lawrence Hosp.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 414

denied


text:
    Dominquez, Matter of, v Annucci
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1605

denied*


text:
    Gravano v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 776

granted


text:
    Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 776

granted


text:
    Mary R.F., Matter of (Angela I.)
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1493

denied


text:
    Melissa H., Matter of, v Shameer S.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 472

denied*


text:
    Mercer v Bryant
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 82267(U)

denied*


text:
    New York Ind. Contrs. Alliance, Matter of, v Liu
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 505

denied


text:
    People v Lewis
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 604

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Rodriguez
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 489

denied


text:
    People v Sanchez
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 880

denied*


text:
    Scott, Matter of, v Leverett
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 614

denied


text:
    Shiner, Matter of, v SUNY at Buffalo
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1371

denied


text:
    Thomas, Matter of, v Armstrong
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1567

denied*


text:
    (August 1, 2016 through
    August 31, 2016)
    Oliver, Matter of, v Board of Assessors of the Towns of Champlain
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74764(U), 2016 NY Slip Op 74765(U), 2016 NY Slip Op 74766(U), 2016 NY Slip Op 74767(U)

8/25/16


text:
    PineView Apts., LLC v Sathue
   City Ct, Niagara County, 5/17/16

8/25/16


text:
    (August 1, 2016 through
    August 31, 2016)
    Charite v Duane Reade, Inc.
   2d Dept: 120 AD3d 1378

8/2/16


text:
    (August 1, 2016 through
    August 31, 2016)
    People v Agee
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1704 (Niagara)

denied 8/24/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Alfair
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 531 (NY)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Allen (Kevin)
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1632 (Erie)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Allen (Lamont)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 781 (Queens)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Amos
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1683 (Erie)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Andretta
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 476 (NY)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Antoine (Ted)
   2d Dept: 131 AD3d 1178 (Kings)

denied 8/10/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Antoine (Ted)
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1295 (Kings)

denied 8/10/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Armstrong
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 877 (Queens)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Arroyo
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 71756(U) (NY)

denied 8/31/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Arterberry
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1675 (Monroe)

denied 8/19/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Bah
   App Term, 1st Dept: 51 Misc 3d 146(A) (NY)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Baker (Gene)
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 581 (NY)

denied 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Baker (Joanne)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 1078 (Westchester)

denied 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Balde
   App Term, 1st Dept: 51 Misc 3d 152(A) (Bronx)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Banker
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1253 (Clinton)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Banner
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 869 (Nassau)

denied 8/5/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Barber
   2d Dept: 133 AD3d 868 (Nassau)

denied 8/4/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Barber-Montemayor
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1455 (Onondaga)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Barksdale
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1778 (Erie)

denied 8/19/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Barnes
   4th Dept: 139 AD3d 1371 (Ontario)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Barton
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 750 (Queens)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Batista
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 522 (Bronx)

denied 8/22/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Baught
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1129 (Kings)

denied 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Baxter
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1109 (Monroe)

denied 8/31/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Beauchamp (Angel)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 85251(U) (Bronx)

denied 8/25/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Beauchamp (Angel)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 93830(U) (Bronx)

dismissed 8/25/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Beebe
   4th Dept: 137 AD3d 1663 (Wayne)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Beharry
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 869 (Kings)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Bell
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1695 (Monroe)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Beverly
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1400 (Albany)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Blair
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1478 (Hamilton)

denied 8/23/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Blanding
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 641 (NY)

denied 8/25/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Blond
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 68278(U) (Schenectady)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Blue
   2d Dept: 136 AD3d 840 (Kings)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Bowman
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1251 (Albany)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Boyce
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 881 (Suffolk)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Breazil
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74726(U) (Kings)

dismissed 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Briggs
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1355 (Schenectady)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Bristol
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 781 (Queens)

denied 8/19/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Britton
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 975 (Kings)

denied 8/31/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Brooks (Shantee)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 751 (Queens)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Brooks (Tracy)
   4th Dept: 139 AD3d 1396 (Ontario)

denied 8/11/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Derrick)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 963 (Kings)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Brown (Shyron)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 964 (Dutchess)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Caballero
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 929 (Queens)

denied 8/2/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Cabrera
   1st Dept: 133 AD3d 495 (NY)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Calas
   2d Dept: 134 AD3d 1043 (Queens)

denied 8/25/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Campbell (Christopher)
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 531 (NY)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Campbell (Jabbar)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74482(U) (Kings)

dismissed 8/29/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Carney
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 68898(U) (Erie)

denied reconsideration 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Carpenter
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1130 (Queens)

denied 8/15/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Cartel
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1110 (Cayuga)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Case
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1239 (Albany)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Castaneda
   County Ct, 5/23/16 (Monroe)

denied 8/10/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Ceruti
   2d Dept: 132 AD3d 776 (Queens)

dismissed 8/25/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Charleau
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 597 (NY)

denied 8/5/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Cintron
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 402 (Bronx)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Clairmont
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 76972(U) (Saratoga)

dismissed 8/29/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Clark
   4th Dept: 139 AD3d 1368 (Monroe)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Clemente
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 751 (Queens)

denied 8/11/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Coleman
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 544 (NY)

denied 8/31/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Conway
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1185 (Suffolk)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Cooke
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74242(U) (Queens)

dismissed 8/17/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Coriolan
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1134 (Queens)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Cumberland
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 598 (NY)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Danclair
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 541 (NY)

denied 8/19/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Dangerfield
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1626 (Monroe)

denied 8/18/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Davis
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 73031(U) (Bronx)

dismissed 8/8/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Decker
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1113 (Montgomery)

denied 8/8/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v DeJesus
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 788 (Kings)

denied 8/22/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Delaney
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1420 (Monroe)

denied 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Diamond M.
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 628 (Bronx)

denied 8/31/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Diaz
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 871 (Queens)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Dingle
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 623 (Bronx)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Dixon
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74294(U) (Kings)

dismissed 8/25/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Dobbs
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1352 (Albany)

denied 8/24/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Drake
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1396 (Livingston)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Dudden
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1452 (Onondaga)

denied 8/17/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Dwight
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 466 (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Ellison
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1137 (Queens)

denied 8/3/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Ero
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1248 (Clinton)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Fana
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 534 (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Farnham
   3d Dept: 136 AD3d 1215 (Albany)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Farquharson
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 467 (Bronx)

denied 8/16/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Ferguson
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 641 (Bronx)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Forde
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1085 (Queens)

denied 8/23/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Forget
   3d Dept: 136 AD3d 1115 (Franklin)

denied 8/15/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Fournier
   3d Dept: 137 AD3d 1318 (Cortland)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Fox
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 871 (Nassau)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Franklin
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1103 (Monroe)

denied 8/31/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Franks
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 936 (Richmond)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Frazier
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 977 (Queens)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Galunas
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74121(U) (Ulster)

denied 8/16/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia (Angel)
   3d Dept: 141 AD3d 861 (Albany)

denied 8/25/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia (Frank)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 1090 (Dutchess)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia-Cruz
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1414 (Onondaga)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Gasparro
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1247 (Ulster)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Gaston
   1st Dept: 135 AD3d 575 (NY)

denied 8/15/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Gee
   App Div, 4th Dept, 6/6/16 (Monroe)

dismissed 8/10/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Gordon
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1265 (Warren)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Graham (Raquad)
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1242 (Albany)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Graham (Tyrone)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1686 (Monroe)

denied 8/19/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Gramza (Debora)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1643 (Erie)

denied 8/25/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Gramza (Debora)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1644 (Erie)

denied 8/25/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Green (Kahleif)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1660 (Onondaga)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Green (Trameil)
   4th Dept: 132 AD3d 1268 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Gressler
   App Div, 3d Dept, 4/19/16 (Rensselaer)

dismissed 8/31/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Hagaman
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1183 (Warren)

denied 8/5/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Hampton
   4th Dept: 139 AD3d 1368 (Monroe)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Harris
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1244 (Chemung)

denied 8/17/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Harrison
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 757 (Queens)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Hayes
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 754 (Queens)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Heath
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 421 (NY)

denied 8/5/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Henriquez
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2015 NY Slip Op 66066(U) (Chemung)

denied 8/5/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Hewitt
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 754 (Westchester)

denied 8/19/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Hibbert
   2d Dept: 134 AD3d 957 (Dutchess)

denied 8/2/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Hilario
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 500 (NY)

denied 8/15/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Hill (Desean)
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 468 (Bronx)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Hill (Jacqueline)
   App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 51 Misc 3d 134(A) (Nassau)

denied 8/16/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Howell
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 484 (Bronx)

denied 8/15/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Hunter
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 536 (NY)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Irby
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1319 (Sullivan)

denied 8/11/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Irizarry
   1st Dept: 135 AD3d 641 (NY)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Isaac
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 641 (NY)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Ivey
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 574 (NY)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Damion)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 875 (Queens)

denied 8/17/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Rasheed)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1771 (Onondaga)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Jaen
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 594 (NY)

denied 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v James (Julian)
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 592 (Bronx)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v James (Ovarado)
   County Ct, 5/5/16 (Monroe)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Jamison
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1020 (Queens)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Jaramillo
   4th Dept: 136 AD3d 1354 (Jefferson)

denied reconsideration 8/5/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jennings
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 526 (NY)

denied 8/11/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Jimenez
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 631 (NY)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Joaquin
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 422 (Bronx)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Johnson (Gregory)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 978 (Suffolk)

denied 8/23/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Johnson (Jonathan)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 72184(U) (Queens)

denied reconsideration 8/31/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Johnson (Jimmie)
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1454 (Monroe)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Dylan)
   App Term, 1st Dept: 50 Misc 3d 136(A) (NY)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Gary)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 880 (Queens)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Justin)
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1189 (Chemung)

denied 8/19/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (Nathaniel)
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1237 (St. Lawrence)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (William)
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1145 (Richmond)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Jones (William)
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1144 (Richmond)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Kelly
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 574 (NY)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Ken
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1233 (Albany)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Khan
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1261 (Schenectady)

denied 8/15/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v King
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 69944(U) (Kings)

denied reconsideration 8/31/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Kopper
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1782 (Genesee)

denied 8/31/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Krieg
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 625 (NY)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Kwas
   App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 52 Misc 3d 52 (Nassau)

denied 8/22/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Larock
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1241 (St. Lawrence)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lashley
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 640 (NY)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Laventure
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1023 (Kings)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lawrence
   App Div, 3d Dept, 5/12/16 (Broome)

dismissed 8/11/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Lawson
   App Div, 4th Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 61273(U) (Onondaga)

dismissed 8/8/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Layou
   4th Dept: 134 AD3d 1510 (Onondaga)

denied reconsideration 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Leach
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1300 (Kings)

denied 8/16/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Leduc
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1305 (Clinton)

denied 8/18/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lee
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1258 (Chemung)

denied 8/24/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lewis (Gil)
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 571 (NY)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lewis (Michael)
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1495 (Ontario)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Light
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1400 (Albany)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Linton
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 416 (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Little
   4th Dept: 139 AD3d 1356 (Erie)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Llewellyn
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 888 (Kings)

denied 8/23/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Lockwood
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1705 (Onondaga)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Lorraine
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1494 (Niagara)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Louallen
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 637 (Bronx)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Mack
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 791 (Kings)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Maier
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1603 (Erie)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Maldonado
   4th Dept: 122 AD3d 1379 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Marino
   2d Dept: 135 AD3d 877 (Queens)

denied 8/25/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Mathura
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 888 (Queens)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Maxey
   4th Dept: 129 AD3d 1664 (Wayne)

denied reconsideration 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v May
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1024 (Westchester)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v McCain
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 50 Misc 3d 132(A) (Queens)

granted 8/5/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v McCrea
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1655 (Wyoming)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Meadow
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1596 (Onondaga)

denied 8/4/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Medina
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 460 (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Meehan
   App Div, 3d Dept, 1/14/16 (Broome)

denied reconsideration 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mena
   1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 69493(U) (Bronx)

denied 8/31/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Mendez
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 495 (NY)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Meza
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1110 (Cayuga)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Miles
   3d Dept: 138 AD3d 1350 (Broome)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mirabella
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1513 (Monroe)

dismissed 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Montgomery
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1662 (Monroe)

denied 8/23/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Moore (Richard)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1684 (Niagara)

denied 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Moore (Zachary)
   County Ct, 5/18/16 (Monroe)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Moors
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1207 (Ulster)

denied 8/11/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Mora
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 641 (Bronx)

denied 8/25/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Morales
   App Term, 1st Dept: 51 Misc 3d 148(A) (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Morehouse
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1202 (Warren)

denied 8/8/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Moreno
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 401 (NY)

denied 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Moss
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 761 (Nassau)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Mrkulic
   App Term, 1st Dept: 52 Misc 3d 130(A) (Bronx)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Muridi M.
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1643 (Erie)

denied 8/25/16 (Stein, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Nanand
   2d Dept: 137 AD3d 945 (Queens)

denied 8/17/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Nevaro
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 525 (NY)

denied 8/30/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v New
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1297 (Schenectady)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Newland
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 611 (NY)

denied 8/12/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Niddy
   3d Dept: 139 AD3d 1261 (Schenectady)

denied 8/15/16 (Fahey, J.)


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

denied 8/10/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)

      . Denied, with leave to renew within 30 days after the Court of Appeals renders a decision in People v Whitehead (130 AD3d 1142 [2015], Iv granted 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]).


text:
    People v Nunez
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 983 (Queens)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v O’Kane
   County Ct, 9/14/15 (Albany)

granted 8/1/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Olah
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 964 (Dutchess)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Ortiz (Jose)
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 448 (NY)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Ortiz (Jovan)
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 592 (NY)

denied 8/26/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Owens
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1035 (Queens)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Paris
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 537 (NY)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Parker
   4th Dept: 132 AD3d 1268 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Paulin (Rakim)
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 72186(U) (Dutchess)

dismissed 8/30/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Paulin (Rakim)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 985 (Dutchess)

denied 8/30/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Pendleton
   2d Dept: 128 AD3d 856 (Dutchess)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Pereira-Orlando
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 616 (Bronx)

denied 8/30/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Peters
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 72779(U) (Chemung)

denied 8/30/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Peyatt
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1680 (Niagara)

denied 8/31/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Quinones (Luis)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1693 (Onondaga)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Quinones (Nolber)
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 408 (NY)

denied 8/30/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Rabanal
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 758 (Nassau)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rahman
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 523 (Bronx)

denied 8/11/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Ramdass
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 51 Misc 3d 138(A) (Queens)

denied 8/25/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Ramos
   3d Dept: 135 AD3d 1234 (Albany)

denied 8/16/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Ramsundar (Gomatee)
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 890 (Queens)

denied 8/26/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Ramsundar (Shane)
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 891 (Queens)

denied 8/26/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Ramsundar (Shantel)
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 892 (Queens)

denied 8/26/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Ramtahal
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 983 (Queens)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Rebelo
   3d Dept: 137 AD3d 1315 (Delaware)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Respress
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1324 (Chemung)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Ricci
   County Ct, 5/5/16 (Oneida)

denied 8/11/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Rich
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1407 (Warren)

denied 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Rivera
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 401 (NY)

denied 8/17/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Roberts
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 985 (Kings)

denied 8/10/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Rodriguez
   3d Dept: 135 AD3d 1181 (Ulster)

denied 8/11/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Roth
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1090 (Lewis)

denied 8/31/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Rowser
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 489 (Bronx)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Sahadeo
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1093 (Queens)

denied 8/30/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Santiago
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 515 (Bronx)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Santos
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 462 (NY)

denied 8/22/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Scaringe
   3d Dept: 137 AD3d 1409 (Franklin)

denied 8/24/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Seitz
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1694 (Onondaga)

denied 8/31/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Sha Banger
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 964 (Dutchess)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Sha Easy
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 964 (Dutchess)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Shepard
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 895 (Nassau)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Sherrod
   4th Dept: 136 AD3d 1353 (Erie)

denied 8/30/16 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Shipp
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1416 (Monroe)

denied 8/10/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Silva
   1st Dept: 135 AD3d 498 (Bronx)

denied 8/18/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Singh
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 761 (Queens)

denied 8/26/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Singleton
   App Term, 1st Dept: 51 Misc 3d 145(A) (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Smith (Bobby)
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1396 (Columbia)

denied 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Smith (Brian)
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1418 (Monroe)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Smith (Jeffrey)
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 628 (NY)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Soto
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 533 (NY)

denied 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v SP
   2d Dept: 134 AD3d 957 (Dutchess)

denied 8/2/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Spragion
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 903 (Kings)

denied 8/18/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Stapleton
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 74250(U) (Kings)

dismissed 8/3/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Stewart
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1654 (Onondaga)

denied 8/25/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Stitt
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1783 (Erie)

denied 8/29/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Stokes
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 800 (Kings)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Summerville
   2d Dept: 138 AD3d 897 (Nassau)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Suyoung Yun
   1st Dept: 140 AD3d 402 (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Sweeper
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 66539(U); 2016 NY Slip Op 66540(U) (NY)

dismissed 8/1/16 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Symonds
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1685 (Livingston)

denied 8/24/16 (Pigott, J.)


text:
    People v Tackman
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 537 (NY)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Tai
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 69509(U) (NY)

dismissed 8/17/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Tai Chi Chuan
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 69509(U) (NY)

dismissed 8/17/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Taylor
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 547 (Bronx)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Thomas (Bernard)
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1715 (Erie)

denied 8/31/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Thomas (English)
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 764 (Westchester)

denied 8/25/16 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Thomas (John)
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 698 (NY)

denied 8/2/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Torres
   4th Dept: 136 AD3d 1329 (Monroe)

denied 8/1/16 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Truitt
   4th Dept: 132 AD3d 1268 (Erie)

denied reconsideration 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J-) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v Tumminello
   App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 53 Mise 3d 34 (Nassau)

denied 8/17/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Udeozo
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1094 (Richmond)

denied 8/31/16 (Rivera, J.)