Return to New Filings Page


For March 27, 2026 through April 2, 2026, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

FEDERAL NATL. MTGE. ASSN. v MARSHALL (246 AD3d 1234):
APL-2026-00032 3rd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/19/26; reversal; sua sponte examination of whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved in the order appealed from; Mortgages--Foreclosure--Whether the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act's retroactive application violates the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and New York Constitutions; Supreme Court, Columbia County, among other things, upon renewal, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; App. Div. reversed order and judgment, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to confirm the referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment canceling and discharging the subject mortgage.

For April 3, 2026 through April 9, 2026, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MATTER OF MILLER v STATE OF NEW YORK (— AD3d —, 2026 NY Slip Op 01409):
APL-2026-00033 1st Dept. App. Div. order of 3/12/26; modification; Constitutional Law—State Constitutional Law—Whether the Equal Rights Amendment to the State Constitution—which, among other things, added the category of "age" to the Civil Rights Clause set forth in article I, § 11 of the State Constitution—nullified the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices of the New York State Courts set forth in article VI, § 25(b) of the State Constitution; whether the application of Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 violates article I, § 11 of the State Constitution; Supreme Court, New York County, granted the cross-motion of respondent State of New York to dismiss the petition-complaint seeking a judgment declaring that the 2024 amendment to article I, § 11 of the State Constitution rendered null and void the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices of the New York State Courts set forthin article VI, § 25(b) of the State Constitution and that the application of Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 violates article I, § 11 of the State Constitution, and seeking an injunction barring respondents from requiring petitioners to retire or be denied certification for service, and dismissed this hybrid proceeding brought under CPLR articles 30, 63, and 78; App. Div. modified to grant judgment to respondents to the extent of declaring that article VI, § 25(b) of the State Constitution has not been repealed and that Judiciary Law §§ 23 and 115 are not unconstitutional, and otherwise affirmed.