Return to New Filings Page


For November 14, 2025 through November 20, 2025, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MATTER OF ROWE v TORRES (— AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 05242):
APL-2025-00195 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/1/25; dismissal; sua sponte examination of whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved in the order appealed from; Proceeding Against Body or Officer--Whether the petition was properly dismissed for failure to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought; App. Div. in a proceeding under CPLR article 78, granted branches of motions by certain respondents to dismiss the petition as against them, dismissed petition insofar as purportedly asserted by certain petitioners under Judiciary Law §487, otherwise denied petition and dismissed the proceeding.

SAPP v CLARK WILSON, INC. (206 AD3d 1014):
APL-2025-00201 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/29/22; dismissal of order and affirmance of judgment, leave to appeal granted by the appellate division on a certified question, 11/3/25; Landlord and Tenant--Rent Regulation--Whether the motion by defendants-owners for summary judgment dismissing causes of actions predicated on a claim of deprivation of the benefits of rent stabilization by an illusory tenancy scheme asserted against them by certain plaintiffs, recipients of transitional housing and services for homeless individuals placed in the owners' apartments by the New York City Department of Homeless Services under the Cluster Transitional Residence Program, was properly granted; Supreme Court, Kings County, among other things, granted those branches of the motion of the defendants Clark Wilson, Inc., Clark Assoc., Inc., Wilson Flat, Inc., Wilson Mer Assoc., Inc., Wilson-Hins Assoc., and Wilson-Han Assoc., Inc. (owners), which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and third causes of action insofar as asserted against them by the appellants; Supreme Court, Kings County, among other things, upon the order, awarded owners possession of the units occupied by appellants; App. Div. with one Justice dissenting in part, affirmed the judgment and dismissed the appeal from the order.

PEOPLE v SPINKS (JONATHAN) (240 AD3d 1176, 240 AD3d 1186):
APL-2025-00177 4th Dept. App. Div. orders of 7/25/25; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Whalen, J., 9/11/25; Crimes--Consolidation and Severance--Whether Supreme Court properly consolidated the indictments; Whether defendant was deprived of a fair trial; Supreme Court, Monroe County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (three counts); App. Div. affirmed, with one Justice dissenting; Supreme Court, Monroe County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), App. Div. affirmed, with one Justice dissenting.

For November 21, 2025 through November 27, 2025, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

PEOPLE v NANTAN (TAMMY) (85 Misc 3d 142[A], 2025 NY Slip Op 50741[U]):
APL-2025-00191 1st Dept. App. Term order of 5/12/25; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Wilson, Ch. J., 10/27/25; Crimes--Plea of Guilty--Forfeiture of Right to Raise Issues on Appeal-- Whether CPL 30.30(6), which provides that an order finally denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) shall be reviewable on an appeal from a judgment of conviction notwithstanding a plea of guilty, applies where the plea was entered prior to January 1, 2020 and a direct appeal was pending when CPL 30.30(6) was enacted; Criminal Court, City of New York, Bronx County, convicted defendant, upon her guilty plea, of harassment in the second degree, and imposed sentence; App. Term affirmed.

NATIONSTAR v OLIVERI (— AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 06067):
APL-2025-00203 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 11/5/25; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved in the order appealed from; Mortgages--Foreclosure--Whether section 5 of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act applies retroactively; Whether the retroactive application of the Act violates substantive and procedural due process; Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the motion of defendant Christina Oliveri for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that defendant's affirmative defense alleging that the action is time-barred; App. Div. affirmed.