Vol No. 4 1/29/16 C O U R T O F A P P E ALS NEW FILINGS. Preliminary Appeal Statements processed by the Court of Appeals Clerk's Office

Similar documents
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Nassau IAS Trial Part 22 Part Rules Updated: January 25, 2018

Civil Litigation Forms Library

RULES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS (Revised effective January 1, 2011)

Fermas v Ampco Sys. Parking 2016 NY Slip Op 32096(U) September 29, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 22618/2012 Judge: David Elliot

CHAPTER 33. BUSINESS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GENERAL ORIGINAL MATTERS Applications for Leave to File Original Process. KING S BENCH MATTERS

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For plaintiff-appellee: : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION KEITH RICKS : For defendant-appellant:

TAKING APPEALS IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT. ROBERT A. RAUSCH, Esq.

[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]

STATE OF OHIO SCOTT WHITE

Chapter 5 VENUE, FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND REMOVAL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU -PART 47

COURT RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department Rules of Practice. Effective September 17, 2018

Scialdone v Stepping Stones Assoc., LP 2014 NY Slip Op 33861(U) November 10, 2014 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 12514/11 Judge:

STATE OF OHIO STEVEN MURPHY

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016

Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals

Rule Change #1998(14)

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v McLean-Chance 2013 NY Slip Op 32606(U) October 17, 2013 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 11828/2012 Judge:

APPENDIX A Affidavit in Support of Application to Resign While Proceeding or Investigation is Pending INSTRUCTIONS An application pursuant to section

Don t Leave Without Your Ethics. Christopher A. Guetti, Flink Smith Law LLC

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

City of New York v Crotona VII Hous. Dev. Fund Corp NY Slip Op 33885(U) March 23, 2012 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /12

District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules

107 ADOPTED RESOLUTION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Hickory McCoy appeals from the district court s order

No. 132, September Term, 1993 PORTER HAYDEN COMPANY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY. [Dismissal Of An Appeal For Lack Of A Final Judgment]

Love v BMW of N. Am., LLC 2017 NY Slip Op 30528(U) February 21, 2017 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /16 Judge: Kim Dollard Cases

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Merrill Lynch Mtge. Lending, Inc NY Slip Op 32257(U) November 3, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

THERE ARE NO SUBMITTED MOTIONS IN THIS PART AND ALL MOTIONS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, MUST BE ORALLY ARGUED.

SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. Atlanta June 11, The Honorable Supreme Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following order was passed:

SUPREME COURT - NASSAU COUNTY - IAS PART 56 PART RULES & PROCEDURES

NEW JERSEY APPELLATE PRACTICE HANDBOOK

Supreme Court of Florida

Glossary. FY Statistical Reference Guide 11-1

THE COURTS. Title 231 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Estates of Hallet's Cove Homeowners Assoc. Inc. v Fakir 2016 NY Slip Op 32083(U) July 22, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 10962/2014

Chapter III ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. Administrative law concerns the authority and procedures of administrative agencies.

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS CRIMINAL LEAVE APPLICATION PRACTICE OUTLINE STUART M. COHEN, ESQ.

Ownit Mtge. Loan Trust v Merrill Lynch Mtge. Lending, Inc NY Slip Op 32303(U) December 7, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

COURT RULES OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD MOTT, J.S.C. 401 Union Street Columbia County Courthouse (Temporary)

RULES OF CIVIL APPELLATE PROCEDURE. Tribal Council Resolution

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018

FOURTH DEPARTMENT MOTION PRACTICE IVAN E. LEE, ESQ.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016

v No Lenawee Circuit Court I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Defendant, Prevost Car (US) Inc., Individually and as. Successor to Nova Bus, by its attorneys, MAIMONE & ASSOCIATES,

CHAD CRAWFORD ROBERSON OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 25, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 91 1

EXAM NO. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW FINAL EXAMINATION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION JUDGE RAYMOND W. MITCHELL STANDING ORDER.

Proposal by Judge Conway to amend various juvenile rules to conform to P.A On 9-17-

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

United States v. Biocompatibles, Inc. Criminal Case No.

Kyung Rim Choi v Han Ik Cho 2014 NY Slip Op 33920(U) July 21, 2014 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: Judge: Timothy S.

Professional Offshore Opportunity Fund, Ltd. v Braider 2015 NY Slip Op 31657(U) August 20, 2015 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number:

Matter of Steinberg-Fisher v North Shore Towers Apts., Inc NY Slip Op 33107(U) August 21, 2014 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No CITY OF WESTLAKE, : ACCELERATED DOCKET. Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY

Beroza v Sallah Law Firm, P.C NY Slip Op 33523(U) April 1, 2014 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 33959/2013 Judge: Paul J.

NC General Statutes - Chapter 7A Article 5 1

Civil Procedure Basics. N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure 7/6/2010

Kolanu Partners LLP v Sparaggis 2016 NY Slip Op 30987(U) May 31, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /13 Judge: Shlomo S.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

RECEIVED by Michigan Court of Appeals 8/19/2013 3:21:17 PM

U.S. Bank N.A. v Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc NY Slip Op 30307(U) March 3, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013

United States Supreme Court Term: Cases Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure

Contractual Clauses That Impact Disputes. By David F. Johnson

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

Matter of Dubois v NYS Bd. of Parole 2013 NY Slip Op 32559(U) October 18, 2013 Sup Ct, Franklin County Docket Number: Judge: S.

CHAPTER 10. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL COURT AND THE PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL COURT TRAFFIC DIVISION

EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/06/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2006 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2016. Exhibit 21

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

COMMERCIAL CALENDAR N (Effective November 17, 2010)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Salas, Jr. was charged in a two-count

Abroon v Gurwin Home Care Agency, Inc NY Slip Op 31534(U) May 30, 2012 Supreme Court, Nassau County Docket Number: 22249/10 Judge: Roy S.

RULES GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Siegel v Engel Burman Senior Hous. at E. Meadow, LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 33833(U) October 21, 2010 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 6709/09 Judge:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/09/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2015

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

on a date and at a time certain in a specified court room, and

HSBC Bank USA v Jones 2016 NY Slip Op 30296(U) February 9, 2016 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: /14 Judge: Darrell L.

Video Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched

Nos & cons. Filed: IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

v No Washtenaw Circuit Court v No

Before Judges Accurso, Manahan and Lisa. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,928. In the Matter of ELIZABETH ANNE HUEBEN, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE

PROPOSED RULE CHANGES (REPEAL AND REENACTMENT) COLORADO RULES OF PROBATE PROCEDURE

TRIBAL CODE CHAPTER 82: APPEALS

Transcription:

1/29/16 C O U R T O F A P P E ALS NEW FILINGS Preliminary Appeal Statements processed by the Court of Appeals Clerk's Office January 22, 2016 through January 28, 2016 Each week the Clerk's Office prepares a list of recentlyfiled appeals, indicating short title, jurisdictional predicate, subject matter and key issues. Some of these appeals may not reach decision on the merits because of dismissal, on motion or sua sponte, or because the parties stipulate to withdrawal. Some appeals may be selected for review pursuant to the alternative procedure of Rule 500.11. For those appeals that proceed to briefing in the normal course, the briefing schedule generally will be: appellant's brief to be filed within 60 days after the appeal was taken; respondent's brief to be filed within 45 days after the due date for the filing of appellant's brief; and a reply brief, if any, to be filed within 15 days after the due date for the filing of respondent's brief. The Court welcomes motions for amicus curiae participation from those qualified and interested in the subject matter of these newly filed appeals. Please refer to Rule 500.23 and direct any questions to the Clerk's Office. ACQUEST WEHRLE, LLC v TOWN OF AMHERST: Supreme Court, Erie County, judgment of 1/6/16, bringing up for review 4 TH Dept. App. Div. order of 6/19/15; modification; sua sponte examination whether App. Div. order directly involves a substantial constitutional question so as to support an appeal as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601(d); CIVIL RIGHTS - FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM - DEPRIVATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS - TERMINATION OF OFFICE PARK PROJECT LOCATED IN WETLAND - WHETHER PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHED A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY INTEREST IN A SEWER TAP-IN WAIVER REQUEST THAT TOWN BOARD MADE THEN RESCINDED; DAMAGES - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING EVIDENCE IN MITIGATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES AND IN ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN UNRELATED ENTITY;

Page 2 Supreme Court judgment awarding plaintiff money damages and attorneys' fees; App. Div. modified by granting that part of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the eighth cause of action and vacating the jury award on that cause of action, affirmed the judgment as modified, and remitted to Supreme Court for recalculation of the final judgment; therefore, Supreme Court awarded plaintiff $3,941,967.64. AGENCIES FOR CHILDREN'S THERAPY SERVICES, INC. v NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.: 2 ND Dept. App. Div. order of 12/30/15; reversal; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SEPARATION OF POWERS - WHETHER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 38 AND TWO SETS OF REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DOH), AS SET FORTH IN 10 NYCRR PART 1002 AND IN CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO 10 NYCRR SUBPART 69-4, VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE EMBODIED IN THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION; EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN PROVIDED BY PRIVATE AGENCIES THROUGH CONTRACT WITH THE DOH; Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment declaring that Executive Order (Cuomo) No. 38 (9 NYCRR 8.38), 10 NYCRR part 1002, and certain amendments to 10 NYCRR subpart 69-4 are invalid and may not be enforced, and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment declaring that 10 NYCRR part 1002 and the challenged amendments to 10 NYCRR subpart 69-4 are valid; App. Div. reversed, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for entry of a judgment declaring that 10 NYCRR part 1002 and the challenged amendments to 10 NYCRR subpart 69-4 are valid. ARTIBEE, et al. v HOME PLACE CORPORATION: 3 RD Dept. App. Div. order of 8/13/15; modification; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 1/6/16; NEGLIGENCE - COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE - APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY FALLING TREE BRANCH BETWEEN DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER AND STATE OF NEW YORK, A NONPARTY WHICH WAS BEING SUED SEPARATELY BY PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JURY CHARGE ON APPORTIONMENT; JURY INSTRUCTIONS; Supreme Court, Warren County, among other things, denied defendant's motion in limine for a jury charge on apportionment; App. Div. modified by reversing so much of the order as denied defendant's motion for a jury charge on apportionment, granted defendant's motion, and affirmed as so modified.

Page 3 BOOKMAN (DAVID), PEOPLE v: 2 ND Dept. App. Div. order of 9/30/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Austin, J., 1/8/16; Rule 500.11 review pending; CRIMES - SUPPRESSION HEARING - HANDGUN FOUND IN TRUNK OF CAR STOPPED FOR INOPERATIVE BRAKE LIGHT AND ITEMS HANGING FROM REARVIEW MIRROR - CAR SEARCHED AFTER ARREST OF CAR OCCUPANTS WHEN POLICE OFFICER SAW "CLOUDY" PLASTIC BAG, BELIEVED TO CONTAIN COCAINE RESIDUE, IN CAR; WHETHER THE PEOPLE MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT THE STOP OF THE VEHICLE HAD A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BASIS; APPEAL - WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL - WHETHER DEFENDANT'S WAIVER WAS VOLUNTARY, KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT; Supreme Court, Queens County, convicted defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and imposed sentence; App. Div. affirmed. CITIZENS FOR ST. PATRICK'S et al., MATTER OF v WATERVLIET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, et al.: 3 RD Dept. App. Div. order of 7/23/15; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved and whether any basis exists for an appeal as of right; INJUNCTIONS - DAMAGES - BOND POSTED WHEN APPELLATE DIVISION JUSTICE GRANTED PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL - WHETHER SUPREME COURT ERRED IN GRANTING RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES, IN THE FORM OF COUNSEL FEES, INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (THEREAFTER AWARDING RESPONDENT DAMAGES IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE BOND SUM) - CPLR 6315; Supreme Court, Albany County, among other things, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted a motion by respondent PCP Watervliet, LLC for damages sustained as a result of a temporary restraining order; App. Div. affirmed. CUNNINGHAM v SECURITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY: County Court, Tompkins County, order of 12/14/15; affirmance; sua sponte examination whether an appeal as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601(b)(1) lies from a County Court order entered in an action originating in City Court; APPEAL - CHALLENGE TO COUNTY COURT ORDER AFFIRMING A CITY COURT JUDGMENT THAT DID NOT AWARD PLAINTIFFS ALL DAMAGES SOUGHT; Ithaca City Court awarded plaintiff $1,798.50 in damages after rejecting certain claims for uncovered costs of repairs to a vacation cottage; County Court affirmed. MATTER OF KARNAZES, A DISBARRED ATTORNEY: 3 RD Dept. App. Div. order of 11/12/15; denial of motion for reconsideration; sua sponte examination whether the order appealed from finally determines the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right;

Page 4 ATTORNEY AND CLIENT - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DISBARMENT - MISAPPROPRIATION OF CLIENT FUNDS - RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE - CLAIMED CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS; App. Div. granted the motion of the Committee on Professional Standards, disbarred attorney Karnazes, commanded her to desist from the practice of law in any form, and ordered that she comply with the court's rules regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys; App. Div. thereafter denied her motion for reconsideration. NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., &c. v NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC. (AND THREE OTHER ACTIONS): 1 ST Dept. App. Div. order of 10/13/15; modification; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 1/5/16; CONTRACTS - BREACH OR PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES - WHETHER "SOLE REMEDY" PROVISION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO CURE OR REPURCHASE MORTGAGE LOANS NOT CONFORMING TO REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES PROHIBITS PLAINTIFFS FROM SEEKING MONEY DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL PROVISION PROVIDING THAT THE CONTRACT CONTAINS NO UNTRUE STATEMENTS; Supreme Court, New York County, (Index No. 653783/12) granted defendant Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint as to the third and fourth causes of action and denied the motion as to the first and second causes of action; (Index No. 651124/13) granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as to the third and fourth causes of action and denied the motion as to the first and second causes of action; (Index No. 652614/12) as relevant here, limited the relief available under the first cause of action to specific performance of the repurchase protocol or, if loans cannot be repurchased, to damages consistent with its terms, limited the first cause of action to the alleged breaches of the Mortgage Representations, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action, and denied the motion as to the third cause of action; and (Index No. 650337/13) as relevant here, limited the relief available under the first cause of action to specific performance of the repurchase protocol or, if loans cannot be repurchased, to damages consistent with its terms, limited the first cause of action to the alleged breaches of the Mortgage Representations, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the second cause of action, and denied the motion as to the third cause of action; App. Div. modified the orders entered under Index Numbers 653783/12 and 651124/13 to deny the motions as to the third cause of action and modified the orders entered under Index Numbers 652614/12 and 650337/13 to permit plaintiffs to seek damages on the first cause of action for breach of the No Untrue Statement Provision (section 7 of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement [MLPA]) and for failure to give prompt written notice after discovering material breaches of the representations and warranties in section 8 of the MLPA, and otherwise affirmed.

Page 5 DYLAN P. &c., et al. v WEBSTER PLACE ASSOCIATES, L.P.: 1 st Dept. App. Div. order of 10/20/15; reversal with a two- Justice dissent; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 1/5/16; Rule 500.11 review pending; NEGLIGENCE - MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES - WHETHER DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER MET ITS INITIAL BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A MISSING DRAIN COVER IN THE BUILDING'S LAUNDRY ROOM; SUMMARY JUDGMENT; Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; App. Div. reversed and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. PALENCIA (CARLOS), PEOPLE v: 2 ND Dept. App. Div. order of 7/29/15; reversal with a two-justice dissent; Rule 500.11 review pending; MOTOR VEHICLES - OPERATING VEHICLE WHILE UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS - WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE THE RESULTS OF A PORTABLE BREATH TEST (PBT) - WHETHER PROBATIVE VALUE OF PBT EVIDENCE WAS OUTWEIGHED BY ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT; Supreme Court, Nassau County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1192(3), and imposed sentence; App. Div. reversed and ordered a new trial. RETAMOZZO v FRIEDLAND, et al.: 1 ST Dept. App. Div. order of 10/22/15; denial of motion; sua sponte examination whether the order finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved to support an appeal as of right; MOTIONS AND ORDERS - APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REARGUMENT OR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM AN APPELLATE DIVISION ORDER THAT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER AND ENSUING JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT AS A SANCTION FOR WILFULLY REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS; Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an order and ensuing judgment dismissing plaintiff's verified amended complaint as a sanction for wilfully refusing to comply with discovery orders; App. Div. affirmed, and thereafter denied plaintiff's motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. RICKETTS (RICARDO), PEOPLE v: 2 ND Dept. App. Div. order of 2/18/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Lippman, Ch.J., 12/29/15; Rule 500.11 review pending;

Page 6 CRIMES - RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION - ALLEGED VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WHEN TRIAL COURT ALLOWED TWO UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICERS TO TESTIFY ANONYMOUSLY WITHOUT THRESHOLD SHOWING OF NECESSITY FOR ANONYMOUS TESTIMONY; ALLEGED IMPROPER REMARKS MADE BY PROSECUTOR; SENTENCE - CLAIMED EXCESSIVE SENTENCE; Supreme Court, New York County, convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, resisting arrest, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, and imposed sentence; thereafter, Supreme Court entered an amended sentence; App. Div. affirmed the judgment of conviction and amended sentence. ROLLINS v FENCERS CLUB, INC., et al.: 1 ST Dept. App. Div. order of 5/5/15; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by App. Div., 1/5/16; Rule 500.11 review pending; CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE - DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT - WHETHER THE APPELLATE DIVISION CORRECTLY HELD THAT DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF AGE-BASED DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; App. Div. affirmed.