author: Judge Feinman took no part.

text:
    CAPITAL ONE TAXI MEDALLION FINANCE, Respondent, v. Patton R. CORRIGAN, et al., Appellants.
    Motion No: 2018-530
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion by The Association of Commercial Finance Attorneys, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served, an original and nine copies filed, and the brief submitted in digital format within seven days.
   Judge Feinman took no part.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    In the MATTER OF Paula ASSIMAKOPOULOS, Deceased.
    Eva Lana, Respondent, v. Nicolle Assimakopoulos-Panuthos, Appellant.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    In the Matter of Gloria M. COTTO, Respondent, v. William H. DANIELSON, Appellant, et al., Respondent.
    (And Another Related Proceeding)
    2018-364
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    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.


text:
    Luisa C. ESPOSITO, Appellant, v. Allen H. ISAAC, etc., et al., Respondents.
    Motion No: 2018-257
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    June 7, 2018
    Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division entered in this action commenced in Civil Court of the City of New York (see NY Const. art VI, § 3 [b][7]; CPLR 5602 ).


text:
    In the Matter of Charles E. HENRY, Jr., Appellant, v. Mark H. FANDRICH, et al., Respondents.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


text:
    In the Matter of Leeann GALEA, Appellant, v. Matthew J. KROL, Respondent.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    In the Matter of PAMELA N., Respondent, v. AARON A., Appellant.
    2018-347
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.


text:
    In the Matter of Louis IVIES, etc., Appellant, v. Gregory L. LASAK, etc., et al., Respondents.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question ( CPLR 5601 ).


text:
    Nella MANKO, Appellant, v. LENOX HILL HOSPITAL, Respondent.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that the orders appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    Otu A. OBOT, Appellant, v. DENNIS EVCHICH AGENCY, INC., Respondent.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal (see NY Const. art VI, § 3 [b][7]; CPLR 5601 ).


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Boris BROWN, Appellant.
    Motion No: 2018-533
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    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 appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Joseph A. PETERKIN Jr., Appellant.
    2018-546
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Jaime LOPEZ-MENDOZA, Appellant.
    2018-541
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Christina A. Swarns, Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


author: Judge Stein took no part.

text:
    In the Matter of Philip J. PATOUHAS, Appellant, v. John P. COLANGELO, etc., et al., Respondents.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
   Judge Stein took no part.


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Manuel RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.
    2018-455
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Christina A. Swarns, Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darrell SPENCER, Appellant.
    Motion No: 2018-267
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for reargument denied. [see 29 N.Y.3d 302, 56 N.Y.S.3d 494, 78 N.E.3d 1178 (2017) ].
   Judge Feinman took no part.


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Victor THOMAS, Appellant.
    2018-537
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    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 appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Appellant, v. Domingo RICART, Respondent.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that the reversal by the Appellate Division was not on the law alone or upon the law and such facts, which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal ( CPL 450.90[2][a] ).


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Derrick ULETT, Appellant.
    2018-507
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Paul Skip Laisure, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 111 John Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    The PEOPLE etc., Respondent, v. Fidel VEGA, Appellant.
    Motion No: 2018-528
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    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 appellant on the appeal herein.


text:
    Paul B. SUCHOW, Respondent, v. Margaret SUCHOW, Appellant.
    Motion No: 2018-506
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.


text:
    Paul B. SUCHOW, Respondent, v. Margaret SUCHOW, Appellant.
    Motion No: 2018-406
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    On the Court's own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.


text:
    TRIBECA LENDING CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Gregory M. BARTLETT, etc., Appellant,
    NYS Department of Taxation et al., Defendants.
    Motion No: 2018-337
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    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 TABITHA T.S.M.
    Heart Share Human Services of New York, Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, Respondent;
    Tracee L.M., Respondent. v. Candace E., Nonparty-Appellant;
    Carmen H., Intervenor-Respondent.
    (And A Related Proceeding)
    2018-400
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
   Judge Feinman took no part.


text:
    In the Matter of Carl D. WELLS, Appellant, v. Warden Ada PRESSLEY, et al., Respondents.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
   Judge Feinman took no part.


author: WILSON, J.

text:
    The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Bryan HENRY, Respondent.
    No. 60
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 12, 2018
    Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola (Cristin N. Connell, Tammy J. Smiley, Judith R. Sternberg and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for appellant.
    Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, for respondent.
    OPINION OF THE COURT
   WILSON, J.

The issue before us is whether interrogation of Mr. Henry on a murder charge-for which he was not represented by counsel-was prohibited. The Appellate Division held that Mr. Henry's statements regarding the murder should have been suppressed, because the murder charge was factually related to a robbery charge, and Supreme Court had suppressed Mr. Henry's statements regarding the robbery. We conclude that the Appellate Division misapplied CPL 470.15 and the standard established by this Court's decision in People v. Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d 632, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 (1997). Therefore, we reverse.

In December 2010, two masked men robbed the occupants of a tattoo parlor at gunpoint, taking a BlackBerry cellphone from one victim. Surveillance footage showed a black Hyundai Sonata with tinted windows present in the parking lot behind the parlor. Two days later, a masked gunman shot and killed a 19-year-old man who was sitting in a parked car at a gas station convenience store where his friend had gone to make a purchase. An eyewitness reported that the shooter arrived in a black Hyundai Sonata with tinted windows and sped away in it afterwards.

Five days after the shooting, Mr. Henry-driving a black Hyundai Sonata with tinted windows-sped away when a police car passed by, running two stop signs at 40 m.p.h. before being pulled over. One police officer approaching the car smelled marijuana, and then saw loose marijuana on Mr. Henry's lap. The officers arrested Mr. Henry, and one officer drove the Sonata to the precinct, where it was impounded after a search. Mr. Henry was charged with criminal possession of marijuana, and an attorney was assigned to represent him on that charge. He was subsequently arraigned and released on bail. When arresting Mr. Henry, the police observed several cell phones on the floor of the car; Mr. Henry disclaimed ownership of one of them, a BlackBerry. Following an inventory search of the Sonata and investigation, the police determined that the BlackBerry was the one stolen from the tattoo parlor owner.

Three days after his arrest, Mr. Henry-now driving a different car-was pulled over for speeding; the car's state inspection had also expired. Upon learning that Mr. Henry was wanted for possession of the stolen BlackBerry, the police arrested him and read him his Miranda rights, which he waived. During several hours of questioning about the robbery and the murder, Mr. Henry admitted that he was the driver and identified the passengers, but denied any additional involvement. A grand jury returned an indictment charging Mr. Henry with multiple counts of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree.

Mr. Henry moved to suppress his statements regarding the robbery and murder as having been obtained in violation of his right to counsel, which had attached as to the marijuana charge. Supreme Court suppressed his statements regarding the robbery, reasoning that the robbery and marijuana charges were related under Cohen, because the BlackBerry was obtained as a result of the marijuana arrest. Supreme Court refused to suppress Mr. Henry's statements regarding the murder, because the murder and marijuana charges were completely unrelated. Mr. Henry was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. He was acquitted of the robbery charges. Mr. Henry appealed.

The Appellate Division held that Mr. Henry's statements to the police regarding the murder charge should have been suppressed ( 144 A.D.3d 940, 41 N.Y.S.3d 527 [2016] ). A Judge of this Court granted the People leave to appeal. The People argue that the Appellate Division misapplied Cohen by analyzing the relationship between the murder and the robbery (for which Mr. Henry was not represented by counsel) instead of the murder and the marijuana (for which he was represented).

Generally, a defendant who is represented by counsel may be questioned about a different, unrepresented crime (see People v. Taylor, 27 N.Y.2d 327, 329, 318 N.Y.S.2d 1, 266 N.E.2d 630 [1971] ). However, there are two categories of cases in which police questioning on an unrepresented crime may violate a defendant's right to counsel : (1) where the two matters are "so closely related transactionally, or in space or time, that questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel" ( Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d at 638-639, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ); and (2) where, although the matters are "less intimately connected ... the police [are] aware that the defendant was actually represented by an attorney in one of the matters," and "the interrogation actually entail[s] an infringement of the suspect's State constitutional right to counsel by impermissible questioning on the represented crime" ( id. at 640, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ; see People v. Ermo, 47 N.Y.2d 863, 865, 419 N.Y.S.2d 65, 392 N.E.2d 1248 [1979] ; People v. Miller, 54 N.Y.2d 616, 618-619, 442 N.Y.S.2d 491, 425 N.E.2d 879 [1981] ).

Here, Mr. Henry was represented on the marijuana charge only. However, the Appellate Division did not analyze whether the murder was related to the marijuana charge. Rather, the Appellate Division looked to the relationship between the murder and the robbery. The Appellate Division reasoned that because CPL 470.15 prevented the Appellate Division from reversing Supreme Court's suppression of Mr. Henry's statements concerning the robbery, the Appellate Division was "bound by" Supreme Court's determination "that questioning of the defendant on the robbery charges violated his right to counsel" when considering the questioning on the murder ( 144 A.D.3d 940, 944, 41 N.Y.S.3d 527 [2016] ). That analysis misinterprets CPL 470.15 and misapplies the standard in Cohen. The Appellate Division should have compared the murder charge to the represented (marijuana) charge; CPL 470.15 does not alter that analysis.

Supreme Court's determination as to the relatedness of the marijuana and robbery has no bearing on the suppression of the statements in connection with the murder charge. CPL 470.15(1) states: "Upon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant." As the Appellate Division correctly noted, CPL 470.15 prevented it from reversing Supreme Court's order suppressing the statements in connection with the robbery charge. However, for purposes of reviewing the suppression ruling as to the murder charge, CPL 470.15 did not bind the Appellate Division to Supreme Court's determination that the marijuana and robbery charges are sufficiently related. Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Henry as to suppression on the murder charge, so CPL 470.15 does not restrict the Appellate Division from making an independent determination as to the statements about the murder.

Under Cohen, the relevant comparison is between the unrepresented and the represented charges. The first category concerns whether "questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel" ( Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d at 638, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ; see People v. Townes, 41 N.Y.2d 97, 104, 390 N.Y.S.2d 893, 359 N.E.2d 402 [1976] ). The purpose of the rule is to protect the right to counsel once it has attached; if the questioning on the unrepresented charge will inevitably lead to statements about the represented charge, the statements should be suppressed. However, if the relationship between the unrepresented and the represented charges is insufficient, then "discrete questioning [on the unrepresented charge] by a police officer mindful and respectful of the indelible attachment of defendant's right to counsel [on the represented charge] would not [ ] create[ ] any serious risk of incriminating responses as to the latter crime[ ]" ( Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d at 639-640, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ). Thus, the question the Appellate Division should have considered is whether the murder charge was sufficiently related to the marijuana charge. No evidence in the record would support that claim; indeed, even Mr. Henry does not press it.

In Cohen, the defendant was represented as to the burglary of Thompson's Garage, in which three guns were stolen; after a robbery-murder at a Citgo gas station with a gun matching one of those stolen from Thompson's Garage, the police questioned the defendant on both crimes. There, we held that the crimes were not so closely related that statements as to the Citgo murder had to be suppressed. In People v. Grant, 91 N.Y.2d 989, 676 N.Y.S.2d 117, 698 N.E.2d 946 (1998), the defendant was questioned about a homicide, for which he was not represented, and a gun possession charge, for which he was represented. The same pistol was implicated in both crimes. Although we sent the case back to the Appellate Division to consider whether the questioning was purposefully exploitative under the second category of Cohen, we held the charges "were not so interwoven that any interrogation on the latter would almost necessarily elicit incriminating responses on the former. The only common factual element linking the two was that both involved the same 9-millimeter Glock pistol. Without any other significant unifying factor, that fortuity has no independent legal significance" ( id. at 991, 676 N.Y.S.2d 117, 698 N.E.2d 946 ).

We have held that charges were sufficiently related when they stemmed from the same incident (see People v. Townes, 41 N.Y.2d at 104-105, 390 N.Y.S.2d 893, 359 N.E.2d 402 [defendant was charged with attempted murder and attempted assault of a police officer, and subsequently filed a civil complaint alleging that he had been illegally beaten by police officers on the night of the incident] ) or took place at the same location and were close in time (see People v. Carl, 46 N.Y.2d 806, 807-808, 413 N.Y.S.2d 916, 386 N.E.2d 828 [1978] ["(B)oth incidents involved burglaries or attempted burglaries at the same location, the Tanner Building Company, and were little more than a week apart"] ). None of those elements is present here, nor has Mr. Henry pointed to any others that may be relevant. The only fact linking the marijuana charge to the murder charge is the Sonata. However, in Grant, we held that two crimes were not sufficiently related where the same pistol was implicated in both ( 91 N.Y.2d at 991, 676 N.Y.S.2d 117, 698 N.E.2d 946 ). Similarly, here, the mere fact that a black Sonata was used in the commission of the murder and was also the vehicle Mr. Henry was driving when the police discovered marijuana does not make the murder and marijuana charges "so closely related transactionally, or in space or time, that questioning on the [murder charge] would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the [marijuana charge] in which there had been an entry of counsel" ( Cohen, 90 N.Y.2d at 638, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ). Questioning about the murder would not have implicated Mr. Henry's marijuana charge at all.

The questioning of Mr. Henry also did not implicate Cohen 's second category.

The police questioned Mr. Henry about the robbery and murder, but Mr. Henry was not represented on either of those charges at the time. The officers asked Mr. Henry nothing whatsoever about the marijuana charge, so the second category of Cohen is inapplicable.

Accordingly, the order should be reversed and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts ( CPL 470.25[2][d] ; 470.40[2][b] ) and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that court.

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

Order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for consideration of the facts ( CPL 470.25[2][d] ; 470.40[2][b] ) and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that court.

      A different rule applies when a defendant is in custody on a charge upon which the right to counsel has attached. In that case, the police are prohibited from questioning the defendant on any matters, related or unrelated (see People v. Burdo, 91 N.Y.2d 146, 149-151, 667 N.Y.S.2d 970, 690 N.E.2d 854 [1997] ; People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 169, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709 [1979] ).

      The statements were ultimately suppressed because, although the crimes were not sufficiently related, the questioning was purposefully exploitative under Cohen's second category (90 N.Y.2d at 642, 665 N.Y.S.2d 30, 687 N.E.2d 1313 ).


text:
    Anthony ZAPPIN, Appellant, v. Claire COMFORT, Respondent.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided June 7, 2018
    Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court of Appeals sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.


author: Feinman, J.

text:
    PEOPLE v. BROWN (Andrew)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied Reconsideration


author: Fahey, J.

text:
    PEOPLE v. BRIMS (Edward)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: Garcia, J.

text:
    PEOPLE v. BAXTER (Derrick)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 19, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ALVARADO (Jose)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BEVEL (Carlton)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 12, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: Rivera, J.

text:
    PEOPLE v. ADRIAN-REYES (Miguel)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BROOKS (Elijah)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: Wilson, J.

text:
    PEOPLE v. BARNES (Andre)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 5, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: Stein, J.

text:
    PEOPLE v. BROWN (Kianna)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BROWN (Carl)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BAKER (Mary)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN (Vontia)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: DiFiore, J.

text:
    PEOPLE v. ACEVEDO (Hector)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BRITO (Winnis)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ACOSTA (Jesus)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BURCA (Ruslan)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. AGUILERA (Ricardo)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CHIMELIS (Mark)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DAVIS (Lataya)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. BYNG (Kevin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. DEBERRY (Eric)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: ( Wilson, J.)

text:
    PEOPLE v. DERRYAN J.
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided April 20, 2018
   ( Wilson, J.)

APPLICATIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CONDE (Fama)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DOWNING (James)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CURRY (Paul)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DICKSON-EASON (Benjamin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DRAIN (Lanod)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CAMPBELL (Sandino)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CRENSHAW (Darron)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 6, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DURANGO (Job)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 4, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DRELICH (Marvin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 3, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Granted


text:
    PEOPLE v. DALEY (Jason)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DAVIS (Erica)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN (Lionel)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CUNNINGHAM (Bryant)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CHANEYFIELD (Tyrome)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DIAZ (Julio)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. DRAPER (Howard)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. COELLO (Eddy)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. CRIPPEN (Kashawn)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. CRAWFORD (Samuel)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. GEORGE (Mark)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. GERZOF (Richard)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FOSTER (Christopher)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FOFANA (Sidy)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FELTEN (Charles)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FRAZIER (Davaj)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. FOWLER (Tylin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FENNER (Lois)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FERGUSON (Michael)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FRATESCHI (John)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 12, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. EVERETTE (James)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 28, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FIGUEROA (Edwin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 6, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. GARCIA (Paola)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 5, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. EVANGELISTA (Melchor)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 5, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FELDER (Bobby) aka Hart (Zebadiah)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 4, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. FORD (Cory)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FREEMAN (Michael)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FRUMUSA (Lawrence)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. GOTHAM (Jermaine)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. GARCIA (Frank)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. FLANIGAN (John)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. GARCIA (Ruben)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. FEOLA (Elvio)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. HOOPER (William)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. KEIZER (Messiah)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (Kerwin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. JOHNSTON (Raysean)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ISAAC (Jake)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. JENKINS (James)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. GUERMAN (Ioulia)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. LETRIZ (Jose)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: ( DiFiore, J.)

text:
    PEOPLE v. KNOESEL (KEITH)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 13, 2018
   ( DiFiore, J.)

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. IRBY (Michael)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. HAZARE (Anand)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 5, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. JACOB (Sedgrick)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 5, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. HART
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided April 4, 2018
    (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
    APPLICATIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. JAMES (Andrew)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
    Stein, J
    Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE v. GUERRERO (Darren)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. HOFFMAN (Christopher)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. HALLUMS (Danny)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. JOUBERT (Jose)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. JOHN (Benjamin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. JARRETT (Dystell)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. LINDSEY (Yuraina)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. LISI (Brandon)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. MCCARTHY (Kevin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MCKINSEY (Nelson)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MUCKEY (Ronald)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MCINTOSH (Jamel)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 19, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MOBAYED (Craig)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 19, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MAJAK (Anyar)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 19, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. NDAULA (Alexander)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 19, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MONTERO (Jonathan)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MERRITT (Justin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MICHEL (Jean)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MARCUCCI (Roberto)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. MAHER (Angelo)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MONTGOMERY (Gentry)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MURRAY (Kareem)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. NELSON (Dillin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MEDINA
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided April 10, 2018
    (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
    APPLICATIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MCARTHUR (Maurice)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. LOCENITT (Kiaza)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MOORE (Christopher)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MICKEL (Kyle)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MILES (Chris)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. LOPEZ (Rene)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MCPHAIL (Lakira)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. MORRIS (Deshaun)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RESNICK (Michael)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. REDDICK (Eric)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. POLANCO (Josse)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. PENA (Carlos)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. PARKER (Edward)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: ( Fahey, J.)

text:
    PEOPLE v. PATEL (AMIT)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   ( Fahey, J.)

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. PATEL (Amit)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. PETERSON (Rene)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. QUINONES (Wilbert) aka Medina (Wilbert)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RELIFORD (Derrick)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. POWELL (Azeez)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. PROCTOR (Allen)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 4, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RAMIREZ (Timothy)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. REYNOLDS (Leroy)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RIVERA (William)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. NEWMARK (Michael)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. NGUYEN (Dawn)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RIVERA (Juan)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. NOVAK (Brian)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RIVES (Cameron)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RIVERA (Jose)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. PADILLA (Marino)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. OLIVERO (Arkeny)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 24, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. PALIN (Hector)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 24, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. POWELL (Damien)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SPRINGS (Terah)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SAPETKO (Matthew)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SAMPSON (Latroy)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ROWE (Kavin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SANTIAGO (Joseph)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SOLOMON (Clifton)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (LORENZO)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   ( Fahey, J.)

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. STANFORD (Allen)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 19, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SANABRIA (Christina)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ (Luis)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ROBINSON (Christopher)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (Jose)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SILBER (Yoel)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 18, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SMITH (Willie)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 12, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (Manuel)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Granted


text:
    PEOPLE v. SCIVOLETTE (George)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 6, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SHARP (Thomas)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SCOTT (Devin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 28, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ROOKARD (Tony)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 27, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SINDONI (George)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SANTANA (Ezequiel)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SPAGNOLA (Anthony)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. ROSADO (Froilan)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (Frederick)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SCHULTZ (Krista)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. WHITE (Raymond)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: ( Rivera, J.)

text:
    PEOPLE v. VASQUEZ (ABRAHAM) aka Velazquez (Juan)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   ( Rivera, J.)

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. WELLINGTON (Courtney)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. VELAZQUEZ
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    Decided April 25, 2018
   ( Rivera, J.)

APPLICATIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. THOMPSON (Antwan)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. TERBORG (Jeffrey)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. TENEYCK (Jason)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. TERBORG (Jeffrey)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 20, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. WOODY (John)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 17, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. THOMPSON (Garnell)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 16, 2018
   Fahey, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (Romeo)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. THACKER (Gregory)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 12, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. THOMAS (Gavin)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 10, 2018
   Rivera, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. VETTER (James)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 5, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (Frederick)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 4, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (Thomas)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 2, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. TARBELL (Robert)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. SUKHU (James)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   DiFiore, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. VARGAS (Isaias)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. WIGGINS (Robert)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ULETT (Derrick)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 26, 2018
   Feinman, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Granted


text:
    PEOPLE v. TUFF (Leroy)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: ( Garcia, J.)

text:
    PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (DARIAN)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   ( Garcia, J.)

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. THOMAS (Jeffrey)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 25, 2018
   Garcia, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. ZAGOURSKY (Anthony)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 30, 2018
   Wilson, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


text:
    PEOPLE v. WRIGHT (Troy)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Dismissed


text:
    PEOPLE v. WRIGHT (Robert)
    Court of Appeals of New York.
    April 23, 2018
   Stein, J.

Applications in Criminal Cases for Leave to Appeal Denied


author: JENSEN, P.J.

text:
    Robert HURST, Appellant v. CARRIAGE HOUSE WEST CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC., INC., et al., Appellees
    No. L-17-1114
    Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County.
    Decided: December 22, 2017
    Mark A. Skeldon, for appellant.
    J. Mark Trimble, Toledo, and Tracy B. Selis, for appellees.
    DECISION AND JUDGMENT
   JENSEN, P.J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Robert Hurst, appeals the April 7, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Carriage House West Condominium Association, Inc. and Seaway Asset Management Co. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court judgment.

I. Background

{¶ 2} Plaintiff-appellant, Robert Hurst, owns and resides in a condominium in the Carriage House West complex in Toledo, Ohio. On April 18, 2015, he was helping a neighbor clean her balcony. They needed a nozzle for a hose, so Hurst entered the darkened storage area of the underground parking garage-an area primarily used by maintenance employee, Robert Perine-to try to find one. Hurst walked toward the back of the garage where he knew there were shelving units, but he did not know where the light switch was located. He pulled out his phone to utilize its flashlight, but before he was able to turn it on, he stepped into a partially uncovered sump pump. He suffered serious injuries to his shoulder, for which he underwent two surgeries.

{¶ 3} Hurst filed a complaint against defendants-appellees, Carriage House West Condominium Owners Association, Inc., and Seaway Asset Management Company, the entities responsible for managing and maintaining the common areas of the complex. He alleged that by failing to properly cover the sump pit and maintain adequate lighting, appellees breached their duties to keep the common areas in good repair and free from hazards, to fix any such known hazards, and to warn of concealed dangers or dangers about which they had superior knowledge. He also claimed that Seaway breached its duty to properly manage the property.

{¶ 4} Appellees moved for summary judgment on February 21, 2017. In an order journalized on April 7, 2017, the trial court granted summary judgment to appellees. It found that Hurst walked into a dark maintenance area, the darkness was an open and obvious hazard, and appellees owed no duty to warn against the danger of walking into a darkened area.

{¶ 5} Hurst appealed the trial court judgment and assigns the following error for our review:

The Trial Court erred by failing to analyze the, "step-in-the-dark rule" to determine if Plaintiff acted without knowledge, information or investigation as to what the darkness might conceal when he stepped into the maintenance area and sustained injuries.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

{¶ 6} Appellate review of a summary judgment is de novo, Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. , 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996), employing the same standard as trial courts. Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts. , 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 129, 572 N.E.2d 198 (9th Dist.1989). The motion may be granted only when it is demonstrated:

(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. , 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 67, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978), Civ.R. 56(C).

{¶ 7} When seeking summary judgment, a party must specifically delineate the basis upon which the motion is brought, Mitseff v. Wheeler , 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988), syllabus, and identify those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Dresher v. Burt , 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). When a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, an adverse party may not rest on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must respond with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Civ.R. 56(E) ; Riley v. Montgomery , 11 Ohio St.3d 75, 79, 463 N.E.2d 1246 (1984). A "material" fact is one which would affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law. Russell v. Interim Personnel, Inc. , 135 Ohio App.3d 301, 304, 733 N.E.2d 1186 (6th Dist.1999) ; Needham v. Provident Bank , 110 Ohio App.3d 817, 826, 675 N.E.2d 514 (8th Dist.1996), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

III. Law and Analysis

{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, Hurst claims that the trial court erred in failing to analyze the "step-in-the-dark rule" to determine if he acted reasonably when he walked into the darkened storage area. He maintains that a question of fact exists given that he had lived in the complex for six or seven years, the storage area was located in the parking garage, Perine had directed him to the storage area in the past to retrieve items, and he knew the area to be safe based on the other times he was directed by Perine to enter the area.

{¶ 9} Appellees respond that Perine testified at deposition that while residents were not prohibited from entering the storage area, he kept nothing in the area that he would want a resident to use. They deny that Hurst was ever directed into the storage area in the past, and they emphasize that no one directed him into the storage area on the date of his fall. Appellees cite Hurst's deposition testimony indicating that he walked 25-30 feet into the storage area without a light while he tried to activate his cell phone flash light. They insist that Hurst was contributorily negligent and assumed the risk by stepping into a dark, unfamiliar area without using a source of light.

{¶ 10} To establish actionable negligence, one must show the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and injury resulting proximately therefrom. Mussivand v. David , 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989). Under common law premises liability principles, the status of a person who enters on land determines the scope of the legal duty owed to him or her. Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood Assocs. , 71 Ohio St.3d 414, 417, 644 N.E.2d 291 (1994).

{¶ 11} An owner of a unit in a condominium complex is generally considered to be a business invitee in relation to a homeowners' association that controls the common areas of the complex. Hill v. Monday Villas Property Owners Assn. , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24714, 2012-Ohio-836, 2012 WL 690316, ¶ 11. Typically, therefore, appellees would owe business invitees a duty of ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition and a duty to warn of latent or hidden dangers. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc. , 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 80, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 5.

{¶ 12} There is no duty, however, to warn against open and obvious conditions. Id. If a hazard is determined to be "open and obvious," this doctrine obviates the duty to warn and operates as a complete bar to liability for negligence. Id. A hazard is considered to be open and obvious when it is in plain view and readily discoverable upon ordinary inspection. See Miller v. First Internatl. Fid. & Trust Bldg., Ltd. , 6th Dist. L-08-1187, 2009-Ohio-6677, 2009 WL 4893169, ¶ 68, citing Parsons v. Lawson Co. , 57 Ohio App.3d 49, 51, 566 N.E.2d 698 (5th Dist.1989).

{¶ 13} Courts routinely observe that "darkness is an open and obvious condition, which should not be disregarded." Mayhew v. Massey , 2017-Ohio-1016, 86 N.E.3d 758, ¶ 18. See also Bombok v. Pittegrew , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-79-097, 1980 WL 351153, *5 (Feb. 1, 1980) ("Darkness is always a warning of danger, and for one's own protection it may not be disregarded." (Internal citations and quotations omitted.)). To that end, courts have enunciated the step-in-the-dark rule which provides that "one who, from a lighted area, intentionally steps into total darkness, without knowledge, information, or investigation as to what the darkness might conceal, is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law." Posin v. A. B. C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc. , 45 Ohio St.2d 271, 276, 344 N.E.2d 334 (1976). The step-in-the-dark rule raises an inference of the lack of prudence and ordinary care on the part of a plaintiff who is injured while venturing into the dark. Id. The step-in-the-dark rule is an affirmative defense that relates to the cause of the plaintiff's injury, rather than to the duty element of a negligence claim. Hissong v. Miller , 186 Ohio App.3d 345, 2010-Ohio-961, 927 N.E.2d 1161, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 14} Unlike an open-and-obvious doctrine analysis, "the action of the plaintiff in encountering the hazard is the central consideration in addressing whether he or she exercised ordinary care when stepping into the darkness." Miller v. Wayman , 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3057, 2012-Ohio-5598, 2012 WL 5995246, ¶ 44. Thus, summary judgment in favor of the defendant may be inappropriate "[i]f conflicting evidence exists as to the intentional nature of the step into the dark, the lighting conditions and degree of darkness, the nature and appearance of the premises, or other circumstances exist tending to disprove a voluntary, deliberate step into unknown darkness. Posin at 276, 344 N.E.2d 334.

{¶ 15} Here, Hurst denies that he stepped into the storage area "without knowledge, information, or investigation." But he does not argue that his step in the dark was unintentional, he raises no issue as to the degree of the darkness, and he says nothing of the nature and appearance of the premises. He argues only that Perine had directed him to the storage area in the past when there were items he wanted to borrow, therefore, he reasonably believed the maintenance area was safe for him to enter.

{¶ 16} Courts have recognized that "a person can be induced by another to enter darkness, having been instilled with a sense of safety in doing so." Hissong , 186 Ohio App.3d 345, 2010-Ohio-961, 927 N.E.2d 1161, ¶ 39, citing 62A American Jurisprudence 2d, Premises Liability, Section 761 (2009). In Hissong , a sales clerk directed the plaintiff to a restroom in the back room of a shop, and she fell down a flight of steps when she walked through the wrong door. The court held that one could reasonably find that the plaintiff exercised ordinary care because she was following directions provided to her by the sales clerk. Id. at ¶ 45. See also Dixon v. Miami Univ. , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-1132, 2005-Ohio-6499, 2005 WL 3316963, ¶ 56 (finding question of fact where plaintiff was lulled into a false sense of safety when he was directed to area of property by defendant's representative who failed to warn him of a danger concealed by darkness); Chardon Lakes Inn Co. v. MacBride , 56 Ohio App. 40, 44, 10 N.E.2d 9 (11th Dist.1937) (finding no error in denying directed verdict to property owner where plaintiff might reasonably rely upon the belief that she would not be directed into a place of danger by the person in charge of inn).

{¶ 17} Here, Hurst testified that he had been directed to the storage area twice before, and no light was on those two occasions. He did not indicate when he was last in the storage area and he did not recall whether he had seen the sump pump, but it is undisputed that he was not directed to the storage area on the day he was injured. Hurst testified that he walked approximately 25-30 feet into the storage area while attempting to retrieve his phone for a flashlight.

{¶ 18} In Mayhew , 2017-Ohio-1016, 86 N.E.3d 758, ¶ 61, the appellate court found that summary judgment to the property owner was appropriate where the plaintiff walked down a dark, but familiar, staircase during a power outage without the aid of a flashlight or other illumination such as a cell phone. We reach the same conclusion here. Hurst recognized the danger inherent in proceeding through the storage room in the darkness, yet chose to do so anyway instead of waiting until he successfully activated his cell phone flashlight. Under these circumstances, we find that there exists no conflicting evidence to overcome the inference of the lack of ordinary prudence and care raised by the step-in-the-dark rule.

{¶ 19} Accordingly, we find Hurst's sole assignment of error not well-taken.

IV. Conclusion

{¶ 20} For the foregoing reasons, we find Hurst's assignment of error not well-taken and affirm the April 7, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. The costs of this appeal are assessed to Hurst under App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.

Arlene Singer, J.

CONCUR.


author: Baldwin, J.

text:
    SUGARCREEK AMISH TOURS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Donald Rodney MARTIN, et al., Defendant-Appellee
    No. 2017 AP 06 0016
    Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Tuscarawas County.
    DATE OF JUDGMENT: December 27, 2017
    ROBERT R. STEPHENSON II, Stephenson, Stephenson & Carrothers, 206 West High Avenue, New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663, For Plaintiff-Appellant
    J. KEVIN LUNDHOLM, Kyler, Pringle, Lundolm & Durmann, L.P.A., 405 Chanuncey Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 668, New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663, For Defendant-Appellee Rhonda C. Martin
    JUDGES: Hon. John W. Wise, P.J., Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J., Hon. Earle E. Wise, J.
   Baldwin, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Sugarcreek Amish Tours, Inc. appeals the trial court's May 24, 2017 decision to quash a subpoena served upon Huntington National Bank requesting production of the checking account records of Rhonda C. Martin. Appellee is Rhonda C. Martin.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

{¶ 2} This case began with Appellant's complaint to recover loan proceeds. Appellant filed a complaint on April 2, 2016 alleging Donald Rodney Martin (former spouse of Appellee), Donal Enterprises, Inc. and PRP Railroad Construction & Supply, LLC defaulted on loan obligations, and that the Defendants, including Appellee, were unjustly enriched. On June 4, 2016, Appellee and PRP Railroad Construction & Supply, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). On June 12, 2016 Appellant filed a notice of dismissal of Appellee and PRP Railroad Construction & Supply, LLC without prejudice. After a bench trial on June 28, 2016, the trial court found that defendant Donald Ronald Martin was legally obligated to pay Appellant $4,879,555.46. The pending claim against defendant Donal Enterprises, Inc. was severed for a separate bench trial.

{¶ 3} In pursuit of collection of the judgment against Mr. Martin, Appellant obtained and recorded certificates of judgment and filed a motion requesting an order compelling a judgment debtor exam. The request for a judgment debtor exam was granted but the results of the exam are not part of the record. In furtherance of its collection efforts, on April 4, 2017, Appellant issued the following subpoenas:

{¶ 4} 1. To J.P. Morgan Chase Bank for checking account records for PRP Rail Construction, LLC from February 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015;

{¶ 5} 2. To Huntington Bank for checking account records for Rhonda C. Martin for March 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015;

{¶ 6} 3. To Farmers National Bank for checking account records for Donald R. Martin and/or Rhonda C. Martin from September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015;

{¶ 7} 4. To Farmers National Bank for checking account records for Donal Enterprises, Inc. dba DM Enterprises, from December 1, 2013 through December 31, 2015.

{¶ 8} On April 19, 2017, Appellee filed a motion to quash the subpoena to Huntington National Bank, claiming that the records sought were personal and private and disclosure should not be permitted. She also claimed that because she was no longer a party and because the statute of limitations had expired for any claims against her, the discovery of these records should not be permitted.

{¶ 9} On April 28, 2017, Appellant filed a memorandum opposing the motion to quash, contending that the records were discoverable pursuant to Civ.R. 69 and were a critical part of Appellant's effort to track the funds loaned to Donald R. Martin.

{¶ 10} An oral hearing regarding the motion to quash occurred on May 1, 2017, but the record does not contain a transcript of that hearing. On May 2, 2017, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry scheduling the final disposition of the pending motion and granted leave to Appellee to file a Reply Memorandum on or before 4:30 pm on May 19, 2017.

{¶ 11} On May 24, 2017, the trial court sustained Appellee's Motion and issued an entry quashing the subpoena to Huntington National Bank. The Court found:

...that after thorough consideration of the legal positions of Plaintiff and former party Rhonda C. Martin pertaining to the 4/4/2017 subpoena filed by plaintiff seeking the personal checking account records of former party Rhonda C. Martin at the Huntington National Bank, the 4/19/2017 motion to quash subpoena should be granted.

{¶ 12} From this Judgment Entry, Appellant, Sugarcreek Amish Tours, Inc., appeals and submits a single assignment of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶ 13} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUASHING APPELLANT'S APRIL 4, 2017, SUBPOENA ISSUED TO HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK FOR RHONDA C. MARTIN'S CHECKING ACCOUNT RECORDS.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶ 14} This Court's standard of review of a trial court's decision on a motion to quash a subpoena is the abuse of discretion standard. State ex rel. The V. Companies v. Marshall , 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 692 N.E.2d 198 (1998). The Supreme Court of Ohio has held the term abuse of discretion implies the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore , 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). When applying this abuse of discretion standard, this court may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Board , 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993).

{¶ 15} "Decisions are unreasonable if they are not supported by a sound reasoning process." AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990). "The term "arbitrary," in this context, means without adequate determining principle and governed by no fixed rules or standard. See Sandusky Properties v. Aveni, 15 Ohio St.3d 273, 275, 15 OBR 408, 409-410, 473 N.E.2d 798, 800-801 (1984)." D.G.M., Inc. v. Cremeans Concrete & Supply Co. , 111 Ohio App.3d 134, 141, 675 N.E.2d 1263 (4th Dist.1996). With these definitions in mind, we review the record to determine if the trial court abused its discretion.

{¶ 16} Appellant issued several subpoenas as a part of its effort to collect a judgment of over four million dollars against Donald R. Martin. Civ.R. 69 specifically authorizes the issuance of the subpoenas to discover information in aid of execution. That rule states in relevant part that "[i]n aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor or his successor in interest when that interest appears of record, may also obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, in the manner provided in these rules." Appellee does not contend that this rule does not apply to Appellant's efforts.

{¶ 17} Appellee argues that because she is no longer a party to the lawsuit and because any claim against her is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, Appellant must not be permitted to obtain her checking account records from Huntington National Bank. Appellee cites no authority for her position.

{¶ 18} The Civil Rules do not support Appellee's limitations on Appellant's ability to obtain information. "[T]he scope of discovery is broad and includes "* * * any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party * * *." In re Estate of Geneva , 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2016 AP 02 0013, 2016-Ohio-5382, 2016 WL 4362862, ¶ 15, appeal not allowed, 148 Ohio St.3d 1411, 2017-Ohio-573, 69 N.E.3d 751, ¶ 15. Further, we have addressed a similar situation and found that:

The plain language of Civ.R. 69 clearly permits discovery, from any person, in aid of executing on a judgment and is not limited to the judgment debtor. Therefore, the fact that Whitey's, Inc. and TFS Management, Inc. were not parties to the litigation does not exempt these entities from discovery under Civ.R. 69. Also, the fact that Appellant Schluter was found not personally liable for the acts of Whitey's, Inc. of Shelby is also irrelevant for purposes of discovery under this rule.

Schluter v. PSL Motors, Inc., 5th Dist. Richland No. 99 CA 67, 2000 WL 964965, *2 (Jun. 29, 2000).

{¶ 19} Further, "This Court has previously held that Civil Rule 45 allows subpoenas to be issued to nonparties." In re Estate of Geneva, supra , at ¶ 16.

{¶ 20} Consequently, we find that Appellee's argument regarding the statute of limitations and her status as a non-party are irrelevant and cannot serve as a basis for the trial court to quash the subpoena.

{¶ 21} The trial court did not describe its analysis of the facts before it or how it came to its decision to quash the subpoena. For that reason, we have reviewed the record and considered the application of the requirements of Civ.R. 45 to determine if there is any reasonable, non-arbitrary support for the trial court's holding.

{¶ 22} The grounds for quashing a subpoena are described in Civ.R. 45(C) :

(3) On timely motion, the court from which the subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena, or order appearance or production only under specified conditions, if the subpoena does any of the following:
(a) Fails to allow reasonable time to comply;
(b) Requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter and no exception or waiver applies;
(c) Requires disclosure of a fact known or opinion held by an expert not retained or specially employed by any party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial as described by Civ.R. 26(B)(5), if the fact or opinion does not describe specific events or occurrences in dispute and results from study by that expert that was not made at the request of any party;
(d) Subjects a person to undue burden.

{¶ 23} Appellee cites Civ.R. 45 as grounds for her motion, but she does not argue that she was not allowed reasonable time to comply with the subpoena or that the subpoena is related to facts or opinions held by an expert. She cannot argue that it subjects her to an undue burden because the subpoena was not issued to her, but was directed to Huntington National Bank who would be obligated to collate and provide the records at Appellant's cost ( R.C. 9.02 ). The only possible basis for quashing the subpoena pursuant to Civ.R. 45 is that it seeks production of "privileged or otherwise protected matter and no exception or waiver applies."

{¶ 24} Generally, "[t]he burden to show that testimony or documents are confidential or privileged is on the party seeking to exclude the material." Grace v. Mastruserio , 182 Ohio App.3d 243, 2007-Ohio-3942, 912 N.E.2d 608, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.), citing Lemley v. Kaiser , 6 Ohio St.3d 258, 263-264, 452 N.E.2d 1304 (1983).

{¶ 25} Appellee asserts that the information is private and confidential but offered no authority to establish that the information sought by the subpoena was "privileged or otherwise protected." Neither the Revised Code nor any relevant case law supports a finding that bank records are privileged and nothing within the case record shows that they are otherwise protected. Tisco Trading USA, Inc. v. Cleveland Metal Exchange, Ltd. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97114, 2012-Ohio-493, 2012 WL 425871, ¶ 10.

{¶ 26} Further, these records are likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Appellant holds a judgment in excess of four million dollars against Appellee's former spouse. Appellee signed two checks sent to Appellant in payment of that debt in the amounts of $100,000.00 and $300,000.00 and finally, Appellee has been the subject of litigation by one of the parties in this action in which it was alleged that loan proceeds were transferred to her. (Trial Brief of Defendant, Donal Enterprises, Inc., page 1-2, filed in this case on March 1, 2017). Under the circumstances, it is likely the records will provide some relevant information regarding disposition of loan proceeds or other relevant evidence. The fact that she is no longer a party and may be protected from claims by the statute of limitations is irrelevant and shall not be used as a shield to prevent Appellant from exhausting options to track the funds loaned to Donald R. Martin.

{¶ 27} The trial court considered this record and quashed the subpoena without memorializing its reasoning process or citing the rule or determining principle that supported its conclusion. Since the trial court did not give a reason for granting the motion, and we find no support for granting it, we hold that the court abused its discretion. Jamestown Village Condo. Owners Assn. v. Mkt. Media Research, Inc. , 96 Ohio App.3d 678, 695, 645 N.E.2d 1265 (8th Dist.1994).

{¶ 28} Consequently, the decision of the Tuscarawas Court of Common Pleas is reversed and this matter is remanded to the Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

{¶ 29} Costs are assessed to Appellee.

John Wise, P.J., and Earle Wise, J., concur.