Return to New Filings Page

For March 21, 2025 through March 27, 2025, no new preliminary appeal statements were filed.

For March 28, 2025 through April 3, 2025, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MATTER OF CLAIM OF GONZALEZ (232 AD3d 1011):
APL-2025-00056 3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 11/14/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 3/20/25; Workers' Compensation--Counsel Fees--Whether the request by counsel for claimant for fees payable from penalties awarded to claimant were properly denied; whether Workers' Compensation Law § 24 provides for an award of counsel fees payable from a late payment penalty imposed on a carrier under Workers' Compensation Law § 25; App. Div. affirmed (1) a decision of the Worker's Compensation Board, filed July 6, 2023, which denied counsel's application for an award of counsel fees, and (2) a decision of said Board, filed September 1, 2023, which denied counsel's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review.

MANKO v CITY OF NEW YORK (2025 NY Slip Op 60254[U]):
APL-2025-00060 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 1/8/25; denied motions; sua sponte examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution and whether any jurisdictional basis exists for an appeal as of right; Motions and Orders; App. Div. denied branch of motion to vacate dismissal of appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 28, 2020, and otherwise denied motions as academic.

MRIJAJ v GENTING (235 AD3d 558):
APL-2025-00061 1st Dept. App. Div. order of 2/25/25; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution and whether the order appealed from directly involves a substantial constitutional question; Constitutional Law--Due Process of Law--Whether the Appellate Division properly held that plaintiff's arguments failed to demonstrate that his due process rights were violated by any deprivation of liberty arising from his first detention as authorized by the Gaming Commission's bulletin; Supreme Court, Bronx County, among other things, denied plaintiff's motion for class certification and granted in part defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint; App. Div. affirmed.

PEOPLE v PAULINO (RANDY) (233 AD3d 6):
APL-2025-00041 1st Dept. App. Div. order of 9/26/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Rodriguez, III., J., 2/4/25; Rule 500.11 review pending; Crimes--Sentence--Whether, in light of this Court's decision in People v Brisman (— NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 00123 [2025]), the Appellate Division applied an erroneous standard of review to defendant's excessive sentence argument; Supreme Court, Bronx County, convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree, and imposed sentence; App. Div., with two Justices dissenting, affirmed.

VEGA v HEMPSTEAD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT (235 AD3d 696):
APL-2025-00058 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/5/25; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether any jurisdictional basis exists for an appeal as of right; Limitation of Actions--Whether plaintiff's causes of action alleging breach of contract and fraud were time-barred pursuant to Education Law § 3813(2-b); Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted defendants' motion under CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint; App. Div. affirmed.

WILMINGTON TRUST v ARGENTIC REAL ESTATE (226 AD3d 493):
APL-2025-00057 1st Dept. App. Div. order of 4/11/24; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 3/20/25; Appeal--Academic and Moot Questions--Whether defendant's satisfaction of the judgment of specific performance by repurchasing the subject loan, without seeking a stay of enforcement, rendered the appeal moot; Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment; Supreme Court, New York County, required defendant to repurchase the subject loan from plaintiff at a set purchase price plus prejudgment interest; App. Div. granted motion to dismiss appeal, dismissed appeal from judgment as moot and dismissed appeal from order as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.