author: Wilson, J. Garcia, J.

text:
    [82 NE3d 441, 60 NYS3d 100]
    In the Matter of City of New York et al., Appellants, v New York State Nurses Association et al., Respondents.
    Argued April 25, 2017;
    decided June 8, 2017

      POINTS OF COUNSEL

      Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York City {Devin Slack, Jane L. Gordon and Richard Dearing of counsel), for appellants.

      Steven E. Star, General Counsel, New York City Board of Collective Bargaining, New York City {Abigail R. Levy of counsel), for Board of Collective Bargaining of City of New York and another, respondents.

      Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New York City (<-Joseph J. Vi-tale of counsel), for New York State Nurses Association and another, respondents.

      David P. Quinn, Albany, New York State Public Employment Relations Board, amicus curiae.

      Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York City {Alan M. Klinger and Dina Kolker of counsel), and Greenberg Burzichelli Greenberg, P.C., Lake Success {Harry Greenberg of counsel), for Municipal Labor Committee, amicus curiae.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Wilson, J.

New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA, or the Union) filed an improper practice petition with the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York (the Board), alleging that it had a right to information, under Administrative Code of the City of New York (New York City Collective Bargaining Law [NYCCBL]) § 12-306 (c) (4), in connection with disciplinary proceedings brought against two nurses employed by the City’s Human Resources Administration (HRA). We agree with the Appellate Division that the City was required to furnish the information specified by the Board.

NYSNA represents more than 8,000 registered nurses, only 29 of whom are employed by HRA. In 2009, two union members employed by HRA were served disciplinary charges alleging that they had falsified their time records. HRA also sent notices to the nurses, outlining the steps of the disciplinary process. Step 1 of the process was an informal conference, at the conclusion of which, if applicable, the conference holder would recommend a penalty. If the charges were sustained at Step 1, each nurse would have the option of proceeding under Civil Service Law § 75 or following the procedures agreed upon in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). If the nurse chose the latter option, she would next attend a Step 2, “Grievance Hearing” before an HRA hearing officer. The notice instructed the nurses to “bring to the [h] earing all relevant documentation in support of your appeal.”

The Union then requested information from HRA, for the purposes of representing the employees in their disciplinary proceedings, and assessing compliance with the CBA. The Union sought relevant policies and the HRA Code of Conduct, information on timekeeping, patient treatment records for the relevant dates, witness statements, and a written statement detailing how the nurses violated the HRA Code of Conduct. The Union also requested to question the witnesses who gave statements and the nurses’ supervisors. The City refused to provide any of the requested information or witnesses. There is no dispute that a consistent practice exists whereby the Union has sought and received such information from the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), which employs the vast majority of the 8,000 union members covered by the same CBA that covers the 29 nurses employed by HRA.

In 2010, after the Step 1 conference resulted in a recommendation to terminate the nurses’ employment, the Union filed its improper practice petition, alleging that HRA’s failure to provide the requested information violated NYCCBL § 12-306 (a) (1) and (4). The Board, with two members dissenting, ruled that it was an improper practice for the City to refuse to respond to certain of the information requests, finding that section 12-306 (c) (4) extends to information “relevant to and reasonably necessary to the administration of the parties’ agreements, such as processing grievances” (NYSNA, 4 OCB2d 20 at 10 [BCB 2011], available at http://www.ocb-nyc.org/ uploads/2015/06/4-OCB2d-20-BCB-20ll-k6g.pdf, cached at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/webdocs/4-OCB2d-20-BCB-2011-k6g.pdf [citations omitted]). The Board found that the Union was not, however, entitled to witness statements or a written explanation regarding the violation or the opportunity to question the identified witnesses or supervisors, because section 12-306 (c) (4) is limited to information “normally maintained in the regular course of business.”

The City then initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court to challenge the Board’s determination. Supreme Court granted the City’s petition and annulled the determination, concluding that the Board improperly extended the right to obtain information for grievances pursuant to contract administration to disciplinary proceedings, noting that the agreement does not explicitly require the City to provide information in disciplinary proceedings. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, holding that the Board’s decision, which was entitled to “substantial deference,” had a rational basis (130 AB3d 28, 29-30 [1st Dept 2015]). The Appellate Division granted the City leave to appeal on a certified question of whether its order was properly made (2015 NY Slip Op 87882[U] [1st Dept 2015]).

NYCCBL provides that it is improper practice for a public employer “to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith on matters within the scope of collective bargaining with certified or designated representatives of its public employees” (NYCCBL § 12-306 [a] [4]). The law further requires both employers and unions “to furnish to the other party, upon request, data normally maintained in the regular course of business, reasonably available and necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining” (id. § 12-306 [c] [4]).

The Board held that section 12-306 (c) (4) extended to information “relevant to and reasonably necessary to the administration of the parties’ agreements, such as processing grievances,” and/or for collective negotiations on mandatory subjects of bargaining, citing several decisions of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), the Board’s analogue for state employees (4 OCB2d 20 at 9-10). As noted by the Board, PERB “has consistently upheld the right of a union to seek information for contract administration in the context of disciplinary grievances” (id. at 10).

The City contends that the NYCCBL “does not create a freestanding informational right,” but requires employers and unions to exchange data that is necessary to collective bargaining only. In its petition, the City acknowledges its statutory duty to provide information “under the rubric of contract administration and under this section of the NYCCBL” and that “grievances . . . are matters of contract administration.” The Appellate Division also noted, “Significantly, the City and HRA do not dispute the Board’s precedent holding that the duty to furnish information already applied to ‘contract administration’ and ‘grievances’ (including potential grievances)” (130 AD3d at 34). The City argues that grievances are entirely distinct from disciplinary proceedings, and therefore that the information obligations required for grievances do not apply to disciplinary proceedings. The City notes that if the Union had wanted the right to obtain information related to disciplinary proceedings, and not just grievances, it should have bargained for that to be included in the CBA.

In fact, the Union has bargained for and accomplished just that. Article VI, section 1 (D) of the CBA defines “grievance” to include: “[a] claimed wrongful disciplinary action taken against an employee.” Thus, by defining “grievance” to include disciplinary action, the CBA, has, as a matter of contract, incorporated as to disciplinary actions the information requirements applicable to grievances.

The City urges that “disciplinary action” in the CBA should be limited to the final action against an employee, such as suspension or termination, rather than defined to include all actions related to the disciplinary process. The City cites Matter of Kilduff v Rochester City Sch. Dist. in support of its argument, in which we referred to a 30-day suspension as a “disciplinary action” (24 NY3d 505, 507 [2014]). However, Kilduff contains no suggestion, much less a holding, that “disciplinary action” is limited to the final disposition. “Disciplinary action” may encompass a range of procedures and the results of such procedures. When the Union filed its improper practice petition, both nurses had been charged, and the conclusion of Step 1 of the disciplinary process was a recommendation of termination. Further, even were we to accept the City’s argument, the CBA also defines “grievance” to include a “claimed violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of the rules and regulations, written policy or orders of the Employer applicable to the agency which employs the grievant affecting terms and conditions of employment.” Here, the “claimed violation” occurred no later than the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings.

Matter of Pfau v Public Empl. Relations Bd., on which the City relies, is consistent with the Board’s ruling here (69 AD3d 1080 [3d Dept 2010]). In Pfau, the Appellate Division held that the Unified Court System had no obligation to provide information to employees subject to disciplinary proceedings. Pfau’s holding rested on three propositions: (1) “[The Unified Court System] had taken a consistent approach [and refused] disclosure demands in employee disciplinary matters for over 20 years, spanning the life of several collective bargaining agreements”; (2) neither the Rules of the Chief Judge nor the collective bargaining agreement contained any right to disclosure in disciplinary proceedings; and (3) the supposed “general rule that there is no right to disclosure in disciplinary proceedings” (id. at 1082-1083). Here, the first two factors are not present. It is undisputed that the consistent, longstanding position of HHC — which employs 8,000 union members as compared to the 29 employed by HRA — has been to provide disclosure in disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, unlike the circumstances in Pfau, the CBA, by defining “grievance” to include disciplinary actions, when coupled with HRA’s agreement that it is required to provide information for grievances, is not silent on the question of disclosure for disciplinary proceedings.

Finally, the City argues that disciplinary proceedings are meant to be resolved on an expedited timeline, and that the requirement to respond to burdensome information demands would bog down that process and eliminate its effectiveness. However, the great majority of nurses covered by this CBA are employed by agencies that have historically provided such information for disciplinary proceedings, and neither the record nor counsel could identify any undesirable effects that have actually occurred as a result of the provision of that information.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

Garcia, J.

(dissenting). The majority believes that the City of New York has conceded that the statutory discovery obligation contained in Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-306 (c) (4) (New York City Collective Bargaining Law [NYCCBL]) extends to “grievances” (majority op at 553). The majority then concludes that, because the parties’ collective bargaining agreement defines “grievance” to include “disciplinary action taken against an employee,” the City’s discovery obligation necessarily extends to disciplinary actions (majority op at 553). I disagree with both propositions, and therefore I respectfully dissent.

I.

Initially, I question the majority’s premise that the City has “acknowledge[d]” that its statutory duty under NYCCBL § 12-306 (c) (4) extends to “grievances” — a word found nowhere in the text of the statute (majority op at 553). While the City has recognized that the Board has found that section 12-306 (c) (4) applies to “information relevant to and reasonably necessary for the administration of the parties’ agreements, such as processing grievances” — an interpretation this Court has never affirmed — the City does not concede that the Board’s determination is correct. To the contrary, the City calls into question the Board’s “contract administration framework,” noting that it “lacks grounding in any statutory text” and that it “is not free from doubt.”

Moreover, even if section 12-306 (c) (4) applies to certain “grievances,” the CBA’s definition of “grievance” is irrelevant to our analysis. The parties do not dispute that the CBA does not provide for the discovery right that NYSNA now seeks. Rather, NYSNA contends that the source of its discovery right is statutory — namely, NYCCBL § 12-306 (c) (4). Contrary to the majority’s holding, the scope and meaning of that statutory right is not determined with reference to the parties’ private agreement. Like most statutes, NYCCBL § 12-306 (c) (4) is broadly applicable; it governs multiple collective bargaining agreements, not just NYSNA’s. The meaning of section 12-306 (c) (4) does not — and cannot — vary based on the particular agreement at issue, or the precise terms that the parties “bargained for” (majority op at 553). The terms of the CBA therefore have no place in our statutory interpretation analysis.

Nor did the Board believe that the parties’ CBA somehow gave rise to a discovery right “as a matter of contract” (majority op at 553). To the contrary, the Board determined that the CBA “does not explicitly obligate the parties to provide requested information in conjunction with the disciplinary process” (NYSNA, 4 OCB2d 20 at 13 [BCB 2011] [emphasis added]). The Board instead held that NYCCBL § 12-306 (c) (4) contains a “statutory duty” — independent of the CBA — that “applies to requests made in the context of disciplinary grievances” (id. at 11).

II.

A plain reading of the statute confirms that it was not intended to apply to the instant discovery requests. In relevant part, NYCCBL § 12-306 (c) provides:

“Good faith bargaining. The duty of a public employer and certified or designated employee organization to bargain collectively in good faith shall include the obligation: . . .
“(4) to furnish to the other party, upon request, data normally maintained in the regular course of business, reasonably available and necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding and negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining” (NYCCBL § 12-306 [c] [4]).

The statute falls within chapter 3 of title 12 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York — a chapter entitled, “Collective Bargaining.” Subdivision (c) — the provision defining “[g]ood faith bargaining” — sets forth those rights and obligations attendant to the collective bargaining process. The five paragraphs of NYCCBL § 12-306 (c), then, are designed to specify the component obligations that comprise a public employer’s statutory duty to “bargain collectively in good faith” (NYCCBL § 12-306 [c]). To that end, section 12-306 (c) (4) requires the exchange of “data” that is “necessary” to facilitate the bargaining process. Put another way, section 12-306 (c) (4) applies to discovery in connection with the formation and negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement, as distinguished from its implementation.

Here, NYSNA does not seek discovery that is relevant to, or “necessary for,” the collective bargaining process (NYCCBL § 12-306 [c] [4]). The requested discovery does not, for instance, pertain to the employee discipline process which, the City agrees, is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Rather, NYSNA seeks discovery in connection with two particular employee disciplinary proceedings being resolved pursuant to an already-bargained-for procedure set forth in the CBA. NYSNA’s discovery requests pertain only to the substance of the underlying dispute — the propriety of two employee terminations for falsifying time records — and therefore do not implicate matters to be negotiated or embodied in a collective bargaining agreement.

The majority’s conclusion to the contrary is also “in serious disaccord with one of the settled objectives of employee discipline” — to “promptly resolve allegations of employee misconduct” (Matter of Pfau v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 69 AD3d 1080, 1082-1083 [3d Dept 2010]). Indeed, this objective is embodied in the parties’ CBA, which contemplates a swift and efficient dispute resolution process. For instance, the CBA imposes narrow time limitations on each step of the disciplinary grievance procedure, culminating in an “expedited arbitration process” that “allow [s] for the prompt adjudication of grievances.” The CBA does not contemplate discovery until the parties reach arbitration — the fourth stage of the grievance process. Any earlier right to discovery is notably absent from the agreement.

III.

Nothing in the text of NYCCBL § 12-306 (c) (4) suggests that the statute itself confers the discovery right that NYSNA seeks. In order to reach its conclusion that discovery is required, the majority (1) adopts the view that the statute covers “grievances” — a term found nowhere in the text, and (2) concludes that the City therefore “bargained” away a discovery right by including disciplinary actions in the CBA’s definition of a “grievance” (majority op at 552-553). Our rules of statutory construction do not support that analysis. Nor did the Board adopt that reasoning.

NYSNA bargained for a detailed and comprehensive dispute resolution procedure outlined with specificity in the CBA — a process reflective of the parties’ intent to resolve employee grievances efficiently and expediently. If NYSNA desires a broader discovery right — or any other procedural protection — in connection with employee disciplinary proceedings, it is free to bargain for that right through the collective bargaining process.

I dissent, and would reverse the order of the Appellate Division, which dismissed the City’s CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Board’s decision.

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

Order affirmed, without costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative.

       The City has also conceded that duty in other proceedings (see e.g. District Council 37, 6 OCB2d 2 at 11 [BCB 2013], available at http://www.ocb-nyc.org/uploads/2015/06/6-OCB2d-2-BCB-2013-2w8.pdf, cached at http:// www.nycourts.gov/reporter/webdocs/6-OCB2d-2-BCB-2013-2w8.pdf).

      . The parties disagree regarding whether a deferential or de novo standard of review applies. Viewed as a matter of “pure statutory construction” subject to “de novo” review (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 8 NY3d 226, 231 [2007]), I believe the plain language of NYCCBL § 12-306 (c) (4) compels reversal in this case. I would, however, reach the same result under either standard. Notably, the majority is silent as to whether a deferential standard of review applies.

      . The majority also states that the City has conceded “in other proceedings” that its statutory duty extends to “grievances” (majority op at 553 n). But the 2013 Board decision cited by the majority postdates the parties’ 2008 CBA. The parties therefore could not have “incorporated” into the CBA an understanding, based on Board precedent, that section 12-306 (c) (4) applies to grievances, nor could they have “bargained for” the application of that discovery right to disciplinary actions (majority op at 553).

      . The four other paragraphs of section 12-306 (c) similarly specify component obligations of a public employer’s statutory duty to “bargain collectively in good faith,” and plainly aim to facilitate the bargaining process: paragraph (1) requires employers “to approach the negotiations with a sincere resolve to reach an agreement”; paragraph (2) requires employers “to be represented at the negotiations by duly authorized representatives prepared to discuss and negotiate on all matters within the scope of collective bargaining”; paragraph (3) requires employers “to meet at reasonable times and convenient places as frequently as may be necessary, and to avoid unnecessary delays”; and paragraph (5) states that, “if an agreement is reached,” the employer must “execute upon request a written document embodying the agreed terms, and to take such steps as are necessary to implement the agreement” (NYCCBL § 12-306 [c] [1]-[3], [5]).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    [82 NE3d 447, 60 NYS3d 106]
    In the Matter of Robert Morgan III et al., Appellants, v Bill de Blasio et al., Respondents.
    Argued August 30, 2017;
    decided August 31, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      James Walsh, Ballston Spa, for appellants.

      Stanley K. Schlein, Bronx, for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Petitioners brought this proceeding to challenge the Working Families Party’s designation of Bill de Blasio as a candidate in its primary election for Mayor of the City of New York. They contend that the designating petition is defective because the Executive Board failed to comply with the restrictions on designating and nominating candidates provided for in Election Law § 6-120 (3). Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, on the ground that petitioners had failed to name a necessary party, the Executive Board of the Working Families Party. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. We agree that petitioners’ failure to name as respondent the Executive Board of the Working Families Party results in dismissal, and we therefore affirm.

Necessary parties are those “who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action” (CPLR 1001 [a]). Appellants rely on Matter of O’Brien v Seneca County Bd. of Elections (22 AD3d 1036, 1036 [4th Dept 2005]) and Matter of Seaman v Bird (176 AD2d 1061, 1062 [3d Dept 1991]) to argue that, because complete relief could be obtained from the Board of Elections, the Executive Board of the Working Families Party is not a necessary party. Their reliance is misplaced. Here, where petitioners assert that the Executive Board’s certificate of authorization was invalid under Election Law § 6-120, the Executive Board of the Working Families Party was a necessary party because a judgment on this issue could inequitably affect its interests. To the extent that there are other decisions to the contrary, they should not be followed.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

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

Order affirmed, without costs.


text:
    Decided March 23, 2017
    Boolbol v Paradigm Mgt. Group, LLC
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 577

denied


text:
    Crawford, Matter of, v New York State Bd. of Parole
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1308

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Dominique VV., Matter of (Kelly VV.)
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1124

denied


text:
    Donmez, Matter of, v New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs
   1st Dept: 139 AD3d 595

denied*


text:
    Gray, Matter of, v Annucci
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1613

denied*


text:
    Jazmyne II., Matter of (Frank MM.)
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1459

denied


text:
    Lundyn S., Matter of (Al-Rahim S.)
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1511

denied


text:
    Monique Elizabeth J., Matter of, v Orlandro D.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 557

denied*


text:
    Nadjmaah S.B., Matter of (Aleshia R.M.)
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1058

denied*


text:
    Paar v Bay Crest Assn.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1137

denied


text:
    Parietti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1039

granted


text:
    People v Havens
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1632

denied


text:
    Safford, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1271

denied*


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Scott P.
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1654

denied*


text:
    Sullivan, Matter of, v Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Albany
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1480

denied


text:
    Szalay v Town of Webster Police Dept.
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1603

denied


text:
    Torres, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1289

denied


text:
    Velvia S., Matter of, v Carrie L.
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1511

denied


text:
    Decided March 28, 2017
    Anonymous, Matter of, v Molik
   3d Dept: 141 AD3d 162

granted


text:
    Barhite, Matter of, v Town of Dewitt
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1645

denied


text:
    Clarke, Matter of, v Wiltshire
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 776

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    D.H. v State of New York
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1559

denied*


text:
    Emmanuel W., Matter of (Tamika D.)
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1028 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Era O., Matter of (Emmanuel O.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 895 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    Jin Chung v Lehmann
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 563

denied


text:
    Julius O., Matter of (Emmanuel O.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 895

denied*


text:
    Kantor v 75 Worth St., LLC
   1st Dept: 118 AD3d 622

denied


text:
    Kellner v Town of Wappinger
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 676

denied


text:
    Kimberly F., Matter of (Maria F.)
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 562

denied


text:
    Martuscello, Matter of, v Jua TT.
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1355

denied*


text:
    Mia C.W.D., Matter of (Tamika D.)
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1028 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v Seville Elecs. Trading Corp.
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 921

denied


text:
    NRT N.Y. LLC v Johnson
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 825

denied


text:
    Oscibea O., Matter of (Emmanuel O.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 895 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*


text:
    Owens, Matter of, v Pound
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1643

denied*


text:
    Patrick v United Parcel Serv., Inc.
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 436

denied


text:
    People v Arrahman
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1009

denied


text:
    People v Benoit
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 687

denied


text:
    People v Fenton
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 519

denied


text:
    People v Flores
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 611

denied*


text:
    People v Fowler
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 437

denied


text:
    People v Guzman
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 459

denied


text:
    People v Haywood
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 495

denied


text:
    People v Robinson
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 805

denied


text:
    Pound, Matter of, v Owens
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1643

denied*


text:
    Rundberg v Rundberg
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1461

denied


text:
    Sager v County of Sullivan
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1175

denied


text:
    Thornton, Matter of, v Saugerties Cent. Sch. Dist.
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1138

denied


text:
    Decided March 30, 2017
    Altman v 285 W. Fourth LLC
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 415

granted


text:
    Altschuler v Jobman 478/480, LLC
   Sup Ct, NY County, 12/8/16 (135 AD3d 439)

denied


text:
    Cooper v Pullar
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1247

denied


text:
    CPS 227 LLC v Brody
   Sup Ct, NY County, 10/11/16 (135 AD3d 607)

denied


text:
    Doppelt v Denahan
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 573

denied


text:
    Hunter R., Matter of (Delinda R.)
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 526

denied


text:
    Karin R., Matter of (Delinda R.)
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 526

denied


text:
    Moore, Matter of, v Departmental Disciplinary Comm. for the First Jud. Dept.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 602

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Moore, Matter of, v New York State Commn. on Jud. Conduct
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 636

denied*


text:
    New York Cent. Lines, LLC v State of New York
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 703

denied


text:
    People v Capellan
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 636

denied*


text:
    People v Destio
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1047

denied


text:
    People v Garcia
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 640

denied*


text:
    People v Harmon
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 688

denied*


text:
    People v Nelson
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 498

denied*


text:
    People v Picariello
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 804

denied


text:
    People v Reid
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 458

denied*


text:
    People v Rukasov
   2d Dept: 132 AD3d 748

denied*


text:
    People v Williams
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 548

denied


text:
    Decided April 4, 2017
    Alexsander N., Matter of (Lena N.)
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1047

denied


text:
    American Tr. Ins. Co. v Baucage
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 413

denied


text:
    Barth v Southbridge Towers, Inc.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 576

denied


text:
    Brown v Bawa
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 448

denied


text:
    Brummel, Matter of, v Town of N. Hempstead Town Bd.
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 880

denied


text:
    Caraway, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1296

denied


text:
    Davis, Matter of, v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 716

denied


text:
    Elias P., Matter of (Ferman P.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1066 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Fekete-Markovits, Matter of, v Markovits
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1061

denied


text:
    Ferman P., Matter of (Ferman P.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1066 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*


text:
    Fletcher v Dakota, Inc.
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 95915(U)

denied


text:
    Gill, Matter of (Phoenix Energy Mgt. Inc.—Commissioner of Labor)
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1141

denied


text:
    Jose E.P.M., Matter of (Ferman P.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1066 (Proceeding No. 4)

denied*


text:
    Kay v Southbridge Towers, Inc.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 576

denied


text:
    Mahoney v Brockbank
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 200

granted


text:
    Matigan G., Matter of (Sara E.W.-G.)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1484

denied*


text:
    Melissa P.-M., Matter of (Ferman P.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1066 (Proceeding No. 3)

denied*


text:
    Moran v JRM Contr., Inc.
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1584

denied


text:
    Noble, Matter of, v Paris
   4th Dept: 143 AD3d 1288

denied


text:
    People v Calle-Calle
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 804

denied


text:
    People v Colon
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 822

denied


text:
    People v Guichardo
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 910

denied*


text:
    People v Jamison
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 921

denied


text:
    People v Jean-Bart
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 690

denied*


text:
    People v Lopez
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 477

denied


text:
    People, Matter of, v Juarez
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 589

granted


text:
    People v Velasquez
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 924

denied*


text:
    People v Ziliox
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 925

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Morales v Warden
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 86695(U)

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Nolley v Annucci
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1518

denied


text:
    Decided April 27, 2017
    Briggs, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1301

denied


text:
    Kearse, Matter of, v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1312

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Nyshawn R.V.S., Matter of (Erica M.V.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 902 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Nyshawn R.V.S., Matter of (Tyshawn R.S.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 902 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Schultheis, Matter of, v Schultheis
   2d Dept: 141 AD3d 721

denied


text:
    Decided May 2, 2017
    Almonte, Matter of, v New York State Bd. of Parole
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1307

denied


text:
    Ginelle T.A., Matter of (Rondale J.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 877

denied*


text:
    Jesse E., Matter of, v Lucia F.
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1373

denied*


text:
    Jordan R., Matter of
   2d Dept: 139 AD3d 1074

denied


text:
    Kenneth C., Matter of (Terri C.)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1612

denied*


text:
    Khan, Matter of, v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 600

denied


text:
    People v Kohout
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 922

denied*


text:
    People v Urrego
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 923

denied*


text:
    People v Walker
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 569

denied*


text:
    Rosales, Matter of, v Venetozzi
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1687

denied


text:
    Warren RR., Matter of (Brittany Q.—Christopher RR.)
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1072

denied


text:
    Warren RR., Matter of (Christopher RR.—Brittany Q.)
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1072

denied


text:
    Decided May 4, 2017
    Aaliyah B., Matter of (Christina B.)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1357

denied*


text:
    Ashley, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1238

denied*


text:
    Barner v Depner
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1636

denied


text:
    Berger, Matter of (Gail & Rice, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor)
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1024

denied


text:
    Child A., Matter of (Parent M.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 874 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Child C., Matter of (Parent M.)
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 874 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Crane, Matter of
   2d Dept: 100 AD3d 626

denied


text:
    Dopp, Matter of, v State Univ. of N.Y.
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1058

denied


text:
    Gibbs v Porath
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1221

denied


text:
    Hanifan v COR Dev. Co., LLC
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1569

denied


text:
    Hansard v Federal Ins. Co.
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 734

denied


text:
    Johnson, Matter of, v Ellis
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 60375(U)

denied


text:
    Joyce S., Matter of, v Robert W.S.
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1343

denied


text:
    Kenyon, Matter of, v Broome County Supreme Ct.
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 95150(U)

denied


text:
    McCauley, Matter of, v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys.
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1066

denied


text:
    Ortiz, Matter of, v Zugibe
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 919

denied


text:
    People v Gardner
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 921

denied


text:
    People v Loughlin
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1426

denied


text:
    People v Noble
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 824

denied


text:
    People v Reber
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1627

denied


text:
    Plotnick, Matter of, v Sullivan
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1018 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Qualls, Matter of, v Bronx Dist. Attorney’s Off.
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1213

denied


text:
    Ralex Servs., Inc., Matter of, v Shah
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1013

denied


text:
    Smith, Matter of, v Stewart
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1534

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Justin D.
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 735

denied


text:
    Sullivan, Matter of, v Plotnick
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1018 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Vivir of L I, Inc. v Ehrenkranz
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 834

denied


text:
    Ward v Safajou
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 836

denied


text:
    Wilson, Matter of, v New York City Hous. Auth.
   Sup Ct, NY County, 1/11/17 (90 AD3d 428)

denied


text:
    Women’s Interart Ctr., Inc. v Clinton Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
   1st Dept: 132 AD3d 442

denied


text:
    Women’s Interart Ctr., Inc. v New York City Economic Dev. Corp.
   1st Dept: 132 AD3d 442

denied


text:
    Decided May 9, 2017
    Bassett, Matter of, v Town of Manlius
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1636

denied


text:
    Bayley W., Matter of (Patrick K.)
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1097

denied


text:
    Beck v Christie’s Inc.
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 442

denied


text:
    Burns v Goyal
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 952

granted


text:
    Clark, Matter of
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 495

denied


text:
    Croci v Town of Haverstraw
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 748

denied


text:
    Elijah W.L., Matter of (Elijah L.)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 784 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Elijah W.L., Matter of (Omisa C.L.)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 784 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*


text:
    Gallagher, Matter of, v Pignoloni
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 781

denied


text:
    Garcia, Matter of, v Annucci
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1464

denied


text:
    Hector V.P., Matter of (Mariana V.)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 889 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    Jackson, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1285

denied


text:
    Korsinsky v Winkelreid
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 427

denied


text:
    Lanijah J.L., Matter of (Elijah L.)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 784 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    Lanijah J.L., Matter of (Omisa C.L.)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 784 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    Lavender, Matter of, v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Bolton
   3d Dept: 141 AD3d 970

denied


text:
    Lemma, Matter of, v Nassau County Police Officer Indem. Bd.
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 760

granted


text:
    Malkan v State of New York
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1601

denied


text:
    Nicotera v Allstate Ins. Co.
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1474

denied


text:
    Pedro V.P., Matter of (Mariana V.)
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 889 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*


text:
    People v Henriquez
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 911

denied


text:
    People v Kelly
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 696

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Maldonado
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 798

denied


text:
    People v Moultrie
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 800

denied*


text:
    People v Paredes
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 684

denied*


text:
    People v Parker
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 523

denied


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Igroit)
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 452

denied


text:
    People v Rodriguez (Israel)
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1513

denied*


text:
    People v Rose
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 911

denied*


text:
    People v Simmons
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 912

denied*


text:
    People v Suarez
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 802

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Williams v Sheahan
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1517

denied


text:
    Pollack v Scottsdale Ins. Co.
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 794

denied


text:
    Ringel v Rogosnitzky
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 450

denied


text:
    Ryan, Matter of, v DiNapoli
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1030

denied*


text:
    Sawitsky v State of New York
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 914

denied


text:
    Selvaggio, Matter of
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 891

denied


text:
    Sica, Matter of, v DiNapoli
   3d Dept: 141 AD3d 799

granted


text:
    Varga v McGraw Hill Fin., Inc.
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 480

denied


text:
    Walker, Matter of, v Zucker
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 789

denied


text:
    William O., Matter of, v John A.
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1258

denied


text:
    Decided June 1, 2017
    Blake v State of New York
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1336

denied*


text:
    Cianchetti v Burgio
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1539

denied


text:
    DeJesus, Matter of, v Venettozzi
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1275

denied


text:
    De La Rosa v Okwan
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 644

denied


text:
    Ellison, Matter of, v Stanford
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1122

denied*


text:
    Gammon v Curley
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 727

denied


text:
    Grant, Matter of, v New York City Loft Bd.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 638

denied


text:
    Hernandez v City of New York
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 821

denied


text:
    Horn v Horn
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 666

denied


text:
    James P., Matter of (Tiffany H.)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1526

denied*


text:
    Jordan, Matter of
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1630

denied


text:
    Pagan, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1125

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 53

denied


text:
    People v Carlo
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 681

denied*


text:
    People v Symonds
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1325

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Hemphill v McCardle
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1315

denied


text:
    Rosales, Matter of, v Eugene J. Felice Landscaping
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1206

denied


text:
    Sarbo, Matter of, v Tri-Valley Plumbing & Heating
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1219

denied


text:
    7-Eleven, Inc., Matter of, v Town of Huntington
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 889

denied


text:
    Stephanie M., Matter of (Jose M.)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 954 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied*


text:
    347 Cent. Park Assoc., LLC v Pine Top Assoc., LLC
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 785

denied


text:
    Till, Matter of, v Apex Rehabilitation
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1231

denied


text:
    Walton, Matter of, v Colvin
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1560

denied


text:
    Williams, Matter of, v City of New York
   1st Dept: 142 AD3d 901

granted


text:
    Yolanda M., Matter of (Jose M.)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 954 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied*


text:
    Decided June 6, 2017
    Annarae I., Matter of (Jennifer K.)
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1243

denied


text:
    Bush, Matter of, v Lahtinen
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 65170(U)

denied


text:
    Cody W., Matter of (Ronald L.)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 914 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Davey v Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull P.C.
   1st Dept: 138 AD3d 417

denied


text:
    Grabar v Nichols, Long & Moore Constr. Corp.
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1489

denied


text:
    JD’s Towing & Battery Ctr., Inc., Matter of, v New York State Dept. of Motor Veh.
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 835

denied


text:
    Kevin A.B., Matter of (Deasia R.)
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1309

denied


text:
    Kieffer, Matter of, v DeFrain
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1539

denied


text:
    Louisias, Matter of, v Venettozzi
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1126

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Mears, Matter of, v Andrias
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1064

denied


text:
    Monroe Equities, LLC v State of New York
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 680

denied


text:
    Moore, Matter of, v State of N.Y. Grievance Comm. for the Second, Eleventh, & Thirteenth Jud. Dists.
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 811

denied*


text:
    New York Ins. Assn., Inc. v State of New York
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 80

denied


text:
    People v Bryant
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 412

denied


text:
    People v Fuentes
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 734

denied*


text:
    People v Gordon
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 988

denied*


text:
    People v Price
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 847

denied*


text:
    People v Shepard
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1091

denied*


text:
    People v Sweat
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 802

denied


text:
    Plainview-Old Bethpage Congress of Teachers, Matter of, v New York State Health Ins. Plan
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1329

denied


text:
    Ronell L.L., Matter of (Ronald L.)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 914 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Roniyah L.L., Matter of (Ronald L.)
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 914 (Proceeding No. 3)

denied


text:
    Roslyn Teachers Assn., Matter of, v New York State Health Ins. Plan
   3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1332

denied


text:
    Sebastian Holdings, Inc. v Deutsche Bank, AG
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 706

denied


text:
    Smith, Matter of, v Venettozzi
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1277

denied*


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Avon L.
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1067

denied


text:
    U.S. Bank N.A. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc.
   1st Dept: 141 AD3d 431

granted


text:
    VFP Invs. I LLC v Foot Locker, Inc.
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 491

denied


text:
    Watson, Matter of, v Kaplan
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 561

denied


text:
    Wilson v Poughkeepsie City Sch. Dist.
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1112

denied


text:
    Decided June 8, 2017
    Brady J.C., Matter of (Damaris F.R.)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1691

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Branch v Community Coll. of the County of Sullivan
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1410

denied


text:
    Broadway Bretton, Inc., Matter of, v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 406

denied


text:
    Carpenter, Matter of, v New York City Hous. Auth.
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 674

denied*


text:
    City of Long Beach, Matter of, v Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 710

denied


text:
    Clinton Hill Holding 1, LLC v Kathy & Tania, Inc.
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 631

denied


text:
    Estate of Gen Yee Chu v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 677

denied


text:
    Gaines v 1840 7th Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 63276(U)

denied


text:
    Graham, Matter of, v Rawley
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 816

denied


text:
    Graham, Matter of, v Rawley
   2d Dept: 143 AD3d 817

denied


text:
    Graham, Matter of, v Rawley
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1018 (Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3)

denied


text:
    Harrell, Matter of, v Blue Diamond Sheet Metal
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1189

denied


text:
    Johnson, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1123

denied


text:
    LAWS Constr. Corp., Matter of, v Contract Dispute Resolution Bd.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 523

denied


text:
    Mac Truong, Matter of (Truong Dinh Tran)
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 67532(U)

denied*


text:
    Morphius I., Matter of (Blossom P.I.)
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 948

denied*


text:
    Pater v City of Buffalo
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1130

denied


text:
    People v Askins
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1598

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Blum
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 520

denied*


text:
    People v Cepeda
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 942

denied*


text:
    People v Etheredge
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 446

denied*


text:
    People v Etheridge
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 446

denied*


text:
    People v Hoyos-Sanchez
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 701

denied


text:
    People v Leeson
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1677

denied*


text:
    People v Nilsen
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1688

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Wright v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
   App Div, 3d Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 67452(U)

denied


text:
    Pepin, Matter of, v New York City Dept. of Educ.
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 443

denied


text:
    Perez, Matter of, v Richmond
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 904

denied*


text:
    Phister v City of Buffalo
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1130

denied


text:
    Rawley, Matter of, v Graham
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1018 (Appeal No. 4)

denied


text:
    Sealy, Matter of, v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1127

denied*


text:
    Snyder v City of Buffalo
   4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1130

denied


text:
    State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Dr. Ibrahim Fatiha Chiropractic, P.C.
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 696

denied


text:
    Waite, Matter of, v Town of Champion
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1634

granted


text:
    Decided June 22, 2017
    Altic, Matter of, v Board of Educ., Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1311

denied


text:
    Baby B.W., Matter of (Tracy B.H.)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1786

denied*


text:
    Chloe W., Matter of (Amy W.)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1672

denied*


text:
    Dietl, Matter of, v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y.
   1st Dept: 151 AD3d 504

denied


text:
    Gonzalez, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 256

granted


text:
    Iceies B., Matter of (Shacoya L.)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1809

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Isaiah OO., Matter of (Benjamin PP.)
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1188

denied


text:
    Kellerman, Matter of, v Ross
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1056

denied


text:
    Lukes Jacob R., Matter of (Cynthia R.)
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 420

denied


text:
    Nolan, Matter of, v Renda
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 839

denied


text:
    Qualiayah J., Matter of (Taneka J.)
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 495

denied


text:
    Raleak H., Matter of (Tracy B.H.)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1786

denied*


text:
    Raymond C., Matter of (Maria V.)
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 476

denied


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v David HH.
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1230

denied


text:
    Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Anderson
   1st Dept: 133 AD3d 540

denied


text:
    2138747 Ontario, Inc. v Samsung C&T Corp.
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 122

granted


text:
    Tyrone D., Matter of, v State of New York
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1682

denied


text:
    Williamson v Hodson
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1488

denied


text:
    Decided June 27, 2017
    Astoria Landing, Inc., Matter of, v New York City Envtl. Control Bd.
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1141

denied


text:
    Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 980

denied


text:
    Daniels, Matter of, v Long Is. D.D.S.O.
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1482

denied


text:
    Eddy v John Hummel Custom Bldrs., Inc.
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 16

denied


text:
    Encarnacion, Matter of, v Price
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 535

denied


text:
    Graham, Matter of, v Firetog
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 735

denied*


text:
    Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Berryman & Henigar, Inc.
   1st Dept: 130 AD3d 514

denied


text:
    Hobbins v North Star Orthopedics, PLLC
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 784

denied


text:
    Kaprov v Stalinsky
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 869

denied


text:
    Marin v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 484

denied


text:
    Matthew Louis S., Matter of (Raymond R.)
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 430

denied


text:
    Paino v Reitano
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1057

denied


text:
    People v Asfour
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1669

denied


text:
    People v Britton
   2d Dept: 148 AD3d 1064

granted


text:
    People v Diaz
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 60

granted


text:
    People v Johnson
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1802

denied


text:
    People v King
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1599

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v McCall
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1769

denied


text:
    People v Newman
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1600

denied


text:
    People v Sakowski
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 882

denied*


text:
    People ex rel. Azor v Saunders
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 90909(U)

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Campbell v Colvin
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1747

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Cole v Graham
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1350

denied*


text:
    Prospect Funding Holdings L.L.C. v Maslowski
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 535

denied


text:
    Quishpi v 80 WEA Owner, LLC
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 66397(U)

denied


text:
    Schroeder v State of New York
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1204

denied


text:
    Williams, Matter of, v Yearwood
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 469

denied*


text:
    Decided June 29, 2017
    Coöperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., “Rabobank Intl.,” N.Y. Branch v Atradius Credit Ins. N.V.
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 416

denied


text:
    Couri v Siebert
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2017 NY Slip Op 70566(U)

denied


text:
    E.W. Howell Co., LLC v City Univ. Constr. Fund
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 479

denied


text:
    Green, Matter of, v Chappius
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1129

denied


text:
    Kowal, Matter of, v DiNapoli
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1152

granted


text:
    Lau v Margaret E. Pescatore Parking, Inc.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 567

granted


text:
    People v Brown
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 411

denied*


text:
    People v Fessel
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1113

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    People v Nieves
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 881

denied*


text:
    People v Sykes
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 784

denied*


text:
    People ex rel. Green v Sticht
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1691

denied*


text:
    Shapiro v Ettenson
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 650

denied


text:
    Town of N. Hempstead v County of Nassau
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1134

denied


text:
    2390 Creston Holdings LLC v Bivins
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 415

denied


text:
    Webber v Webber
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1499

denied


text:
    Zarnoch v Luckina
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1615 (Appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

denied


text:
    ZRAJ Olean, LLC v Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y.
   4th Dept: 134 AD3d 1557

denied


text:
    Decided August 30, 2017
    Campusano, Matter of, v Ortega
   1st Dept: 153 AD3d 443

denied


text:
    Casella, Matter of, v Yates County Bd. of Elections
   4th Dept: 153 AD3d 1134

denied


text:
    Clark, Matter of, v Ortega
   1st Dept: 153 AD3d 443

denied


text:
    DeStefano, Matter of, v Borkowski
   2d Dept: 153 AD3d 817

denied


text:
    Espinal, Matter of, v Sosa
   2d Dept: 153 AD3d 819

denied


text:
    Giordano, Matter of, v Westchester County Bd. of Elections
   2d Dept: 153 AD3d 821

denied


text:
    Marchionda, Matter of, v Casella
   4th Dept: 153 AD3d 1133

denied


text:
    Morgan, Matter of, v de Blasio
   2d Dept: 153 AD3d 834

granted


text:
    Nitti, Matter of, v Reilich
   4th Dept: 153 AD3d 1131

denied


text:
    Segarra, Matter of, v Clausen
   2d Dept: 153 AD3d 834

denied


text:
    Decided September 7, 2017
    Blue Is. Dev., LLC v Town of Hempstead
   Sup Ct, Nassau County, 1/25/17 (143 AD3d 656)

denied


text:
    City of New York v Granite State Ins. Co.
   Sup Ct, NY County, 5/26/17 (136 AD3d 523)

denied


text:
    Dhar, Matter of, v Commissioner, N.Y. City (NYC) Dept. of Transp.
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 573

denied


text:
    Eagle Cr. Land Resources, LLC, Matter of (Woodstone Lake Dev., LLC)
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1324

denied


text:
    Espinal, Matter of, v Venettozzi
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1447

denied


text:
    Green, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1443

denied


text:
    Grewal v DHL Express (USA), Inc.
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 450

motions denied


text:
    Hockett v City of Ithaca
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1378

denied


text:
    King v Niagara Falls Water Auth.
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1398

denied


text:
    KJ, Matter of, v New York City Hous. Auth.
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 694

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Lefkara Group, LLC v First Am. Intl. Bank
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 450

denied


text:
    Lindsay-Thompson v Montefiore Med. Ctr.
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 638

denied


text:
    Livingston v Better Med. Health, P.C.
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1061

denied


text:
    MAA-Sharda, Inc. v First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1484

denied


text:
    Maldonado, Matter of, v Howard
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1501

denied


text:
    Morabito, Matter of, v Martens
   3d Dept: 149 AD3d 1316

denied


text:
    Murphy v County of Suffolk
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 854

denied


text:
    Pena, Matter of, v New York State Gaming Commn.
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1244

granted


text:
    People v Bell
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 666

denied*


text:
    People v Colon
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 498

denied*


text:
    People v Fonteboa
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 880

denied


text:
    People v Headley
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 988

denied*


text:
    People v Kaff
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 783

denied


text:
    People v Krembel
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1702

denied


text:
    People v Kunz
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1696

denied


text:
    People v McMichael
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 670

denied*


text:
    People v Rocano-Quintuna
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 1114

denied


text:
    People v Tatner
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1595

denied


text:
    People v Vasquez
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1584

denied


text:
    People ex rel. Crawford v Warden of Vernon C. Bain Ctr.
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 488

denied


text:
    Pittsford Canalside Props., LLC, Matter of, v Village of Pittsford
   Sup Ct, Monroe County, 3/20/17 (137 AD3d 1566)

denied


text:
    State of New York, Matter of, v Keith F.
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 671

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Stein v Reisner
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 499

denied


text:
    Tauscher Cronacher PE PC, Matter of (Commissioner of Labor)
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1491

denied


text:
    Wallace v M&C Hotel Interests, Inc.
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1652

denied


text:
    West St. Props., LLC v American States Ins. Co.
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 792

denied


text:
    Decided September 5, 2017
    Aliyah B., Matter of, v Taliby K.
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 667

denied


text:
    Christian C.-B., Matter of (Christopher V.B.—Renee E.C.)
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1775

denied*


text:
    Danyel J., Matter of (Leeann K.-G.)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1611

denied


text:
    Darnel J.P., Matter of, v Lianna Y.D.
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 406

denied


text:
    Ferrara v Peaches Café LLC
   4th Dept: 138 AD3d 1391

granted


text:
    Joseph M., Jr., Matter of (Joseph M., Sr.)
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1647

denied


text:
    New Greenwich Litig. Trustee, LLC v Citco Fund Servs. (Europe) B.V.
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 16

denied


text:
    Oliver A., Matter of, v Diana Pina B.
   1st Dept: 151 AD3d 485

denied*


text:
    Olivia S., Matter of (Dawn S.)
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1566

denied*


text:
    People ex rel. Haddock v Dolce
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1593

denied*


text:
    Sydney A.B., Matter of (Felicia M.)
   1st Dept: 151 AD3d 533

denied


text:
    Thompson, Matter of, v Vance
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 406

denied


text:
    Decided September 12, 2017
    Dawn M., Matter of (Michael M.—Brendi M.)
   3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1489

denied*


text:
    Desirae M., Matter of (Michael M.—Brendi M.)
   3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1489

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Duane II., Matter of (Andrew II.)
   3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1129 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Felix v Felix
   2d Dept: 87 AD3d 1106

denied


text:
    Fetahaj, Matter of, v Starbucks Corp.
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1350

denied


text:
    Fotheringham v Riversource Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1519

denied


text:
    Gass v Gass
   1st Dept: 137 AD3d 423

denied


text:
    Goldstein, Matter of, v Zabel
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 624

denied


text:
    Highway Supt. Assn. of Rockland, Inc., Matter of, v Town of Clarkstown
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 731

denied


text:
    Jay’s Distribs., Inc., Matter of, v Boone
   3d Dept: 148 AD3d 1237

denied


text:
    Jones v Swede
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1323

denied


text:
    Junior v City of New York
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 646

denied


text:
    Justyce HH., Matter of (Andrew II.)
   3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1129 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    Kirkland, Matter of, v Annucci
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 736

denied


text:
    Lamb, Matter of, v Egan
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 854

denied


text:
    Level 3 Communications, LLC, Matter of, v Clinton County
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 115

denied


text:
    Lynch, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1148

denied*


text:
    Maione, Matter of, v New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 916

denied


text:
    Mayer v Mayer
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 691

denied


text:
    Nafissatou D., Matter of, v Ibrahima B.
   1st Dept: 149 AD3d 517

denied*


text:
    Oparaji, Matter of, v Books & Rattles
   3d Dept: 147 AD3d 1165

denied


text:
    Pacy v Cowen Holdings, Inc.
   4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1747

denied


text:
    People v Hahn
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1285

denied*


text:
    People v Maier
   4th Dept: 151 AD3d 1702

denied


text:
    People v Ramos
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 1090

denied


text:
    People v Scattareggia
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1033

denied


text:
    People v Velasco
   2d Dept: 147 AD3d 877

denied*


text:
    Pfalzer, Matter of, v Pfalzer
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1705

denied


text:
    PSW NYC LLC v Bank of Am., N.A.
   1st Dept: 150 AD3d 601

denied


text:
    Reyes, Matter of, v Annucci
   3d Dept: 150 AD3d 1373

denied*


text:
    Risk Control Assoc., Inc. v Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske, P.C.
   1st Dept. 148 AD3d 440

denied


text:
    Scott Q. v Joy R.
   3d Dept: 151 AD3d 1206

denied


text:
    Town of Aurora v Village of E. Aurora
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1506

granted


text:
    Wenz, Matter of, v Brogan
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 970

denied


text:
    Weston v Martinez
   4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1505

denied


text:
    Decided September 14, 2017
    A.F. v Cathedral Props., LLC
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 710

denied


text:
    Brooklyn S., Matter of (Stafania Q.—Devin S.)
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1698

denied


text:
    Capital One Taxi Medallion Fin. v Corrigan
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 677

granted


text:
    Frantz, Matter of, v Venettozzi
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1254

granted


text:
    Gallagher v Ruzzine
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1456

denied


text:
    Iskalo 5000 Main LLC, Matter of, v Town of Amherst Indus. Dev. Agency
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1414

denied


text:
    Kashipour v Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 985

denied


text:
    Koslosky v Ross-Malmut
   2d Dept: 149 AD3d 925

denied


text:
    Lillian SS., Matter of (Brian SS.)
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1088 (Proceeding No. 1)

denied


text:
    Lillian SS., Matter of (Keri SS.)
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1088 (Proceeding No. 2)

denied


text:
    MBI Intl. Holdings Inc. v Barclays Bank PLC
   1st Dept: 151 AD3d 108

denied


text:
    MJ Cahn Co., Matter of, v New York State Div. of Human Rights
   1st Dept: 148 AD3d 602

denied


text:
    Moon 170 Mercer, Inc. v Vella
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 537

denied


text:
    Nataylia C.B., Matter of (Christopher B.)
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1657 (Appeal No. 1)

denied

       Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.


text:
    Nataylia C.B., Matter of (Christopher B.)
   4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1659 (Appeal No. 2)

denied*


text:
    Ortiz v Igby Huntlaw LLC
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 682

denied


text:
    People v Ragabi
   2d Dept: 150 AD3d 1161

denied*


text:
    Pittner, Matter of, v St. Gobain Corp.
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1348

denied


text:
    Salyamov v Lyhovsky
   1st Dept: 147 AD3d 450

denied


text:
    Shelmerdine v Myers
   3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1200

denied


text:
    Workers’ Compensation Bd. of State of N.Y. v Old Lamson Sta., Inc.
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1460

denied


text:
    [71 NE3d 1218, 49 NYS3d 651]
    Kyreese L. Franklin, Appellant, v Carmen Rosa Gareyua et al., Respondents.
    Decided March 23, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      McMahon & McCarthy, Bronx (Matthew J. McMahon of counsel), for appellant.

      Mauro Lilting Naparty LLP, Woodbury (Matthew W. Naparty and Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the affirmative. The Appellate Division correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he suffered a serious left shoulder injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the underlying motor vehicle accident.

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


text:
    [72 NE3d 565, 50 NYS3d 30]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darrion B. Freeman, Appellant.
    Decided March 23, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James A. Hobbs of counsel), for appellant.

      Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s plea vacated, that portion of his motion which requested suppression of tangible property and statements obtained following the entry into defendant’s residence granted, the first and second counts of the indictment dismissed, and the case remitted to County Court for further proceedings on the third count of the indictment. Applying the factors outlined by this Court in People v Gonzalez (39 NY2d 122, 127 [1976]), we hold, consistent with the reasoning of the Appellate Division dissent, that the record lacks support for the conclusion of the courts below that defendant voluntarily consented to the entry and search of his home.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, defendant’s plea vacated, that portion of his motion which requested suppression of tangible property and statements obtained following entry into defendant’s residence granted, the first and second counts of the indictment dismissed, and case remitted to County Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the third count of the indictment, in a memorandum.


text:
    In the Matter of American Independent Insurance Co., Appellant, v Nova Acupuncture, P.C., et al., Respondents.
    Submitted January 9, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Ramandeep Badwal, Respondent, v Avtar S. Badwal, Appellant.
    Submitted January 23, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 28 NY3d 1067 (2016)].


text:
    CMSG Restaurant Group, LLC, Doing Business as Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club, et al., Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents.
    Submitted January 3, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.


text:
    In the Matter of Nina Courant, Deceased. Ernest D. Courant, Appellant; David B. Berkowitz et al., Respondents; et al., Respondent.
    Submitted January 9, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of Chauncey Girard, Appellant, v Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
    Submitted January 23, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Liang-Houh Shieh, a Disbarred Attorney, Appellant. Committee on Professional Standards, Respondent.
    Submitted January 30, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion to vacate this Court’s December 8, 2016 dismissal order denied [see 28 NY3d 1122 (2016)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v David A. Gabay et al., Respondents.
    Decided March 28, 2017
   Appeal, insofar as taken from that part of the October 2016 order dismissing plaintiff’s appeal from the judgment, dismissed by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved; appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portions of the orders appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.
    Submitted November 28, 2016;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 30, 2011, November 21, 2011, and March 29, 2012 dismissal orders, and for reargument of motion for leave to appeal, dismissed as untimely (see 22 NYCRR 500.24 [b]) [see 18 NY3d 952 (2012); 17 NY3d 933 (2011); 17 NY3d 788 (2011)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.
    Submitted January 17 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 20, 2011 dismissal order dismissed as untimely (see 22 NYCRR 500.24 [b]) [see 18 NY3d 855 (2011)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    Nella Manko, Appellant, v Lenox Hill Hospital, Respondent.
    Submitted January 17, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 21, 2016 dismissal order denied [see 28 NY3d 1082 (2016)].

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.


text:
    Reina Nunez, Respondent, v George Bardwil, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Submitted February 6, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.


text:
    Matthew J. Ryan, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Powers & Santola, LLP, et al., Respondents.
    Submitted January 23, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 28 NY3d 1068 (2016)]. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Jennifer Sanders, Respondent, v Mitchell Sanders, Appellant.
    Submitted January 9, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos A., Appellant.
    Submitted January 30, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that movant is not a party aggrieved (see CPLR 5511). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    [73 NE3d 354, 51 NYS3d 14]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yusuf Sparks, Appellant.
    Argued February 15, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Andrew J. Dalack of counsel), for appellant.

      Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Susan Gliner and Alan Gadlin of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was charged with one count of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) following a dispute at a Manhattan bodega. Defendant, then age 19, and the victim, a 50-year-old man with a long history of substance abuse and criminal activity, had a verbal exchange inside the bodega after the victim provoked defendant. Based on that affront, defendant twice threatened to “murder” the victim, who was in an inebriated, stumbling state, before eventually punching him inside that store. In defendant’s words, the punch “knocked [the victim] out.”

The surveillance footage that was admitted into evidence at the jury trial contains images of what happened outside the bodega after defendant punched the victim. In sum, after defendant struck the victim, defendant and the victim separately left the immediate vicinity of that store on foot. A few minutes later, the footage reflects that defendant reentered the bodega; soon thereafter, the victim returned to the area immediately outside that store and stumbled about. Inside the bodega, defendant asked the shopkeeper for a stick, but the shopkeeper refused that request, saying that the punch was “enough for [the victim].” Defendant, however, told the shopkeeper that he was going to walk outside and “knock [the victim] out again.”

The surveillance footage reflects that defendant did exactly that. As he walked out of the bodega, defendant struck the unsuspecting victim in the face with a milk crate. The blow knocked the victim to the sidewalk, and defendant walked away from that store. The victim, however, was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was determined to have a broken nose and cheekbone, and where he received potentially lifesaving treatment for a traumatic brain injury.

Following the trial, defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction (132 AD3d 513 [1st Dept 2015]). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (26 NY3d 1092 [2015]), and we now affirm the Appellate Division order.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of justification. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see People v Watts, 57 NY2d 299, 301 [1982]), we conclude there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would have permitted the factfinder to conclude that defendant’s conduct was justified (see People v Cox, 92 NY2d 1002, 1004 [1998]; cf. People v Petty, 7 NY3d 277, 284 [2006]). That is, we agree with the People that there is no evidence that objectively supports a belief that defendant was in danger of b.eing physically harmed by the victim at the time defendant used force against him (see Cox, 92 NY2d at 1005; see also People v Wesley, 76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]).

Here, after “knocking] [the victim] out,” defendant was able to freely and safely walk away from the bodega. Moreover, there simply is no evidence that, once he returned to the bodega, defendant needed to leave that store to strike the victim to defend himself. Even if defendant’s trial testimony establishes that he actually believed that the victim was lying in wait for him with a weapon (see generally Wesley, 76 NY2d at 559), there is no reasonable view of the evidence that “a reasonable person in . . . defendant’s circumstances would have believed” the victim to have threatened him with the imminent use of unlawful physical force (Umali, 10 NY3d at 425; see Penal Law § 35.15 [1]). Put simply, the surveillance footage reflects that defendant’s ambush of the victim with the milk crate cannot be considered self-defense.

We agree with defendant that the trial court erred in adjusting its Sandoval ruling based on defendant’s trial testimony (cf. People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 645-647 [1993]). We further conclude, however, that the error is harmless. The evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different in the absence of that error (see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.

      . The surveillance footage also captured audio of defendant’s altercations with the victim.

      . To be clear, the
      “justification [defense] is comprised of both subjective and objective elements. The subjective element [in a case such as this one] is concerned with whether the defendant believed that the use of [physical] force was necessary; while under the objective prong, the jury must consider whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would have believed that [physical] force was required. When a defense of justification is raised, ‘the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant’s conduct was not justified’ (People v Craig, 78 NY2d 616, 619 n 1 [1991]). In other words, the People must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not believe [physical] force was necessary or that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have perceived that [physical] force was necessary (see e.g. People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 115 [1986])” (People v Umali, 10 NY3d 417, 425 [2008]; see Wesley, 76 NY2d at 559).


text:
    [73 NE3d 341, 51 NYS3d 1]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elmer Castillo, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Degraffenreid, Appellant.
    Decided March 23, 2017

      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York City (Akash M. Toprani, George R. Painter IV and Samuel S. Brickfield of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action.

      Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Barbara Zolot of counsel), for appellant in the second above-entitled action.

      Dar cel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Lori Ann Farrington of counsel), for respondent in the first and second above-entitled actions.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed in each case. Codefendants Elmer Castillo and Brian Degraffen-reid appeal from orders of the Appellate Division affirming their convictions for manslaughter in the first degree. Co-defendants’ challenge to the trial court’s general charge on causation is unpreserved, and there was no mode of proceedings error (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; see also People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 472 [1980]; People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976]). In addition, defense counsel’s failure to object to the charge does not constitute ineffective assistance, as the jury instructions, viewed in totality, neither improperly shifted the burden to codefendants nor relieved the People of their burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Thomas, 50 NY2d at 472; see also People v Drake, 7 NY3d 28, 33-34 [2006]). Additionally, codefendants’remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims are without merit as both codefendants received meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; see also People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714 [1998]; People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183-184 [1989]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]).

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.


text:
    [73 NE3d 342, 51 NYS3d 2]
    In the Matter of East Ramapo Central School District, Appellant, v John B. King, Jr., in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.
    Argued February 8, 2017;
    decided March 28, 2017
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

      Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York City and Washington, D.C. (Randall M. Levine, David J. Butler, Stephanie

      Schuster and Judd E. Stone of counsel), and Harris Beach PLLC, Albany (Douglas E. Gerhardt of counsel), for appellant.

      Eric T Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (<Jeffrey W. Lang, Barbara D. Underwood and Andrea Oser of counsel), for respondents.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The issue on appeal is whether the East Ramapo Central School District (the District) may obtain CPLR article 78 review of a determination by the New York State Education Department (the State) that the District’s dispute resolution practices for placing students with disabilities violated a federal statute — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the IDEA [20 USC § 1400 et seq.]) — and related state law, and which directed the District to revise its practices accordingly. The Appellate Division dismissed the District’s article 78 petition on the basis that there was no private right of action in the IDEA that would permit the District to bring a claim of this nature (130 AD3d 19, 20 [3d Dept 2015]). We affirm but on different grounds.

In 2012, the State found that the District’s dispute resolution practices violated federal and state law and directed the District to take corrective action. Although the State informed the District that failure to comply could result in further enforcement actions, including withholding federal funds, the State did not make a final decision to withhold funds.

A proceeding under CPLR article 78 “shall not be used to challenge a determination . . . which is not final or can be adequately reviewed by appeal to a court or to some other body or officer” (CPLR 7801 [1]). Likewise, this Court has recognized that “[t]o challenge an administrative determination, the agency action must be final and binding upon the petitioner” (Matter of Ranco Sand & Stone Corp. v Vecchio, 27 NY3d 92, 98 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). In addition, in the absence of injury, there is no standing to bring an article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6, 11 [1975]).

Assuming, without deciding, that a school district may bring an article 78 proceeding to challenge a final determination by the State under the IDEA, here, the State has not made a final determination, the District has not shown that it has exhausted its administrative remedies, and the District is unable to articulate any actual, concrete injury that it has suffered at this juncture. Accordingly, the District’s petition was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


text:
    Richard Altman, Respondent, v 285 West Fourth LLC, Appellant.
    Submitted February 6, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affirmation is accepted as filed.


text:
    Lane Altschuler, Respondent, v Jobman 478/480, LLC, Appellant.
    Submitted January 30, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc., et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the affirmation is accepted as filed.


text:
    Amtrust-NP SFR, Venture, LLC, Respondent, v Karen Emmel, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
    Submitted January 30, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Bank of New York Mellon, Formerly Known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2006-S2, Appellant, v Arif Izmirligil, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted March 20, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by respondent for the imposition of sanctions denied.


text:
    Bank of New York Mellon, Formerly Known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2006-S2, Appellant, v Arif Izmirligil, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted March 20, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by appellant for permission to withdraw the appeal granted and appeal marked withdrawn.


text:
    The Burlington Insurance Company, Appellant, v NYC Transit Authority et al., Respondents.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by Turner Construction Company for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.


text:
    Russell E. Cooper, Appellant, v James E. Pullar et al., Defendants, and First Niagara Bank, N.A., Formerly Known as First Niagara Bank, as Successor by Merger to Hudson River Bank and Trust, Respondent.
    Submitted March 20, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Betty Floyd, Appellant, v Glenn Gardens Associates et al., Respondents.
    Submitted January 17, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Betty Floyd, Appellant, v Glenn Gardens Associates et al., Respondents.
    Submitted February 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.


text:
    For the People Theatres of N.Y., Inc., Doing Business as Fair Theatre, Plaintiff, and JGJ Merchandise Corp., Doing Business as Vishans Video, Also Known as Mixed Emotions, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants. Ten’s Cabaret, Inc., Formerly Known as Stringfellow’s of New York, Ltd., et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Appellants.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Reported below, 131 AD3d 279.

Motion by First Amendment Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.


text:
    In the Matter of Jennifer L., Appellant, v Gerald S., Jr., Respondent. In the Matter of Gerald S., Jr., Respondent, v Jennifer L., Appellant. In the Matter of Melinda L.-B., Respondent, v Gerald S., Jr., Appellant, and Jennifer L., Respondent. (And Another Action.)
    Submitted February 14, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Reported below, 145 AD3d 1581.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    Frank Maki, Appellant, v The Travelers Companies, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
    Decided March 30, 2017
   Appeal, insofar as taken as against defendant Northland Insurance Company, dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that as to that defendant the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; appeal otherwise dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    Sara Myers et al., Plaintiffs, and Eric A. Seiff et al., Appellants, v Eric Schneiderman, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by Agudath Israel of America for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge DiFiore taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by The Innocence Project, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.

Judge Wilson taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by Daniel R. Alonso, et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judge Wilson taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by American Psychological Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judge Wilson taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judge Wilson taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otis Boone, Appellant.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion by NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief must be served and an original and nine copies filed within seven days.

Judge Wilson taking no part.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Raymond Crespo, Respondent.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 120 Wall Street, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10005 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Perry, Appellant.
    Submitted March 6, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion to dismiss appeal denied.


text:
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pedro A. Umana, Appellant.
    Submitted March 27, 2017;
    decided March 30, 2017
   Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    (March 1, 2017 through
    March 31, 2017)
    People v Abdul-Jaleel
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1296 (Monroe)

denied 3/6/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Alequin
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 526 (NY)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Alfonso
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1180 (Dutchess)

denied 3/22/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Algarin
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 455 (Bronx)

denied 3/1/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Arnie
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1082 (Ulster)

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


text:
    People v Artie
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1082 (Ulster)

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


text:
    People v Ayrhart
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1657 (Orleans)

denied 3/22/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Baez
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 134(A) (NY)

denied 3/27/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Barnes
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1714 (Niagara)

denied reconsideration 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Baugh
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 794 (Queens)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Baxter
   2d Dept: 140 AD3d 1180 (Rockland)

denied 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Becraft
   4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1706 (Oneida)

denied 3/3/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Bethea
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 738 (Kings)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Bhowan
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 689 (Bronx)

denied 3/29/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Borgella
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1048 (Kings)

denied 3/23/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Bottomley
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1026 (Schenectady)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Bowers
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1049 (Kings)

denied 3/22/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Boyd
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1481 (Monroe)

denied 3/15/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Brisco
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1028 (Queens)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Brown
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1549 (Onondaga)

denied 3/6/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Brunson
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1476 (Onondaga)

denied 3/29/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Burns
   4th Dept: 142 AD3d 1401 (Cayuga)

denied 3/13/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Cambridge
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 795 (Queens)

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


text:
    People v Campbell
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 435 (Bronx)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Carr
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1506 (Erie)

denied 3/3/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Chirse
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1031 (Albany)

denied 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Clayton
   2d Dept: 131 AD3d 623 (Kings)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Cobb
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 738 (Suffolk)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Colbert
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 565 (NY)

denied 3/13/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Cole
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 699 (Orange)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Coleman
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1641 (Cayuga)

denied 3/3/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Colon
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 562 (NY)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Cooper
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 898 (Nassau)

denied 3/29/17 (Garcia, J.)


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

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Crespo
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 461 (NY)

granted 3/6/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Cuesta
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 503 (NY)

denied 3/22/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Cummings
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 490 (NY)

granted 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Dame
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1625 (Onondaga)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Devaney
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 803 (Kings)

denied 3/3/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v DiPalma (Samuel)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1647 (Erie)

denied 3/23/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v DiPalma (Samuel)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1647 (Erie)

denied 3/23/17 (Garcia, J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v Duart
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1173 (Suffolk)

denied 3/1/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Eghebamien
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 414 (Bronx)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Encarnacion
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 89384(U) (NY)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Encarnacion-Cross
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 89384(U) (NY)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


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

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Flores (John)
   1st Dept: 134 AD3d 425 (NY)

denied 3/21/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Flores (John)
   1st Dept: 143 AD3d 537 (NY)

denied 3/21/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Forbes
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 572 (NY)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Franklin
   3d Dept: 146 AD3d 1082 (Ulster)

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


text:
    People v Fred
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1399 (Schenectady)

denied 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Garcia
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 503 (Bronx)

denied 3/9/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Garlick
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 605 (Bronx)

denied 3/3/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


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

denied 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Genao
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 739 (Kings)

denied 3/27/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Giurdanella
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 479 (NY)

denied 3/22/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Gnesin
   1st Dept: 127 AD3d 652 (NY)

denied 3/15/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Gomez
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 622 (NY)

denied 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Goodman
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 602 (NY)

denied 3/21/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Goodson
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1515 (Genesee)

denied 3/13/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Guadalupe
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 88670(U) (Orange)

dismissed 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Gutierrez
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 89383(U) (NY)

denied 3/29/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Guzman
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 450 (NY)

denied 3/27/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)


text:
    People v Guzman-Moore
   3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1267 (Albany)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hall
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 915 (Kings)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Harris
   App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists: 53 Misc 3d 153(A) (Kings)

granted 3/13/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Hazel
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 797 (Westchester)

denied 3/3/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Hernandezgonza
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 572 (NY)

denied 3/2/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Herring
   4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1345 (Monroe)

denied 3/29/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hilkert
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1609 (Yates)

denied 3/29/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Hizbullah
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 95323(U) (Kings)

dismissed 3/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Holmes
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 641 (Bronx)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Houghtaling
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1591 (Livingston)

denied 3/13/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Hunt
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 550 (NY)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


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

denied 3/27/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Jackson (Takieme)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1564 (Onondaga)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v James
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 574 (Bronx)

denied 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Jarama
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1034 (Kings)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Johnson
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1109 (Broome)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Joseph
   2d Dept: 145 AD3d 916 (Kings)

denied 3/27/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Kasanova
   2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1180 (Dutchess)

denied 3/22/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Katsafaros
   3d Dept: 145 AD3d 1343 (Columbia)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Kelly
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1431 (Cayuga)

denied 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Knight (Christopher)
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 536 (NY)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Knight (Willis)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1626 (Monroe)

denied 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lambert
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 607 (NY)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Lebron
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 642 (NY)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Leiva
   1st Dept: 144 AD3d 599 (Bronx)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)


text:
    People v Lopez
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1628 (Onondaga)

denied 3/22/17 (Rivera, J.)


text:
    People v Machado
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1633 (Livingston)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Maldonado
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 706 (Suffolk)

denied 3/29/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Maley
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 815 (Queens)

denied 3/22/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Manigault
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1428 (Erie)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Mansilla
   4th Dept: 143 AD3d 1263 (Oneida)

denied 3/29/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Marshall
   App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 130(A) (NY)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Martin
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1443 (Erie)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Martinez
   App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 80797(U) (NY)

dismissed 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Mayhand
   4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1616 (Monroe)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v McCarthy (Joshua)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1572 (Wyoming)

denied 3/6/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal No. 1)


text:
    People v McCarthy (Joshua)
   4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1573 (Wyoming)

denied 3/6/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.) (Appeal No. 2)


text:
    People v McClennon
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 564 (NY)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v McKenzie
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 95323(U) (Kings)

dismissed 3/16/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Miller (Quanel)
   1st Dept: 146 AD3d 501 (Bronx)

denied 3/30/17 (Stein, J.)


text:
    People v Miller (Taryn)
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 593 (NY)

denied 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Mitchell
   App Div, 2d Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 92811(U) (Queens)

dismissed 3/1/17 (Fahey, J.)


text:
    People v Modeste
   2d Dept: 144 AD3d 1177 (Queens)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Morin
   2d Dept: 146 AD3d 901 (Westchester)

denied 3/29/17 (Garcia, J.)


text:
    People v Morris (Tasheem)
   1st Dept: 145 AD3d 474 (NY)

denied 3/13/17 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)