Return to New Filings Page


For March 7, 2025 through March 13, 2025, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

111 WEST 57th v 111 W57 MEZZ (220 AD3d 435):
APL-2025-00045 Supreme Court, New York County order of 6/7/24; granted motion; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 2/18/25; Covenants--Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing--Whether language in a contract related to the loan at issue bars a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Apollo lenders; whether plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract based on a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Apollo Lenders; whether plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference with contact based on a breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealing against the Spruce defendants; whether plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference with contract against the Spruce defendants based on an alleged breach of a provision of the Join Venture Agreement; Supreme Court, New York County, granted in part and denied in part defendants' various motions to dismiss; App. Div. modified to dismiss the derivative claims against the Apollo Lenders for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), and, as so modified, affirmed; Supreme Court, New York County, granted the motion of defendants ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, and AGRE Debt 1-111 W 57 LLC (collectively, the Apollo Lenders) to discontinue their cross-claims.

SUSAN ABRUZZI AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA PETILLO v HINDENBURG (221 AD3d 753):
APL-2025-00039 Supreme Court, Nassau County judgment of 1/15/25; dismissal; Physicians and Surgeons--Whether summary judgment was properly granted as against defendants Alexander Hindenburg and Winthrop Oncology Hematology Associates, P.C.; Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the motion of the defendants Alexander Hindenburg and Winthrop Oncology Hematology Associates, P.C., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as asserted against them; Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted judgment in favor of defendants Alexander Hindenburg and Winthrop Oncology Hematology Associates, P.C., and against plaintiff dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants; App. Div. 2nd Dept., with two Justices dissenting, dismissed appeal from order and affirmed judgment; Supreme Court, Nassau County, upon a jury verdict, dismissed action against defendant Maller; Supreme Court, Nassau County, upon jury verdict, dismissed action against defendants Ciro Ciccarelli and Critical Care.

PEOPLE v LEWIS (JARVIS) (228 AD3d 1226):
APL-2025-00026 4th Dept. App. Div. order of 6/14/24; affirmance; Crimes--Right to Counsel--Whether defendant was deprived of the right to a fair trial due to the ineffective assistance of counsel and the denial of his request for new counsel prior to trial; whether the trial court erred in convicting and sentencing defendant on duplicitous charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (3); whether the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for a CPL article 730 examination prior to the start of trial; whether the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences of incarceration and imposing a sentence that was unduly harsh and excessive; Supreme Court, Monroe County, convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts), assault in the second degree, and resisting arrest; App. Div., with two Justices dissenting, affirmed.

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

SMITH v CITY OF NEW YORK (— AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 01198):
APL-2025-00055 1st Dept App. Div. order of 3/4/25; reversal; Release--Scope of Release--Whether the Appellate Division properly held that a general release executed in a another action barred plaintiff's claims in this action; Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied defendants City of New York and New York City Police Department's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; App. Div., with two Justices dissenting, reversed and granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

SOLOMON v AMAZON.COM (— AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 00929):
APL-2025-00053 1st Dept App. Div. order of 2/18/25; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether the order appealed from 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; Dismissal and Nonsuit--Dismissal of Complaint--Whether the courts below properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint as against certain defendants that purported to assert a claim under 42 USC � 1983 and 1985 for deprivation of his constitutional rights to cross-examine underlying anonymous complainants in a discrimination proceeding he initiated with the New York State Division of Human Rights; Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the motion of defendants The Chartwell Law Offices LLP, Amazon.com, Whole Foods Market Group Inc., Carmen Nicolaou, individually and as lawyer employed by The Chartwell Law Offices LLP, and Jay Warren, individually (WFM/Chartwell defendants) to dismiss the complaint; Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied as moot nine motions brought by plaintiff; App. Div. affirmed.

US NATIONAL BANK ASSOCIATION v LAWTONE-BOWLES (2025 NY Slip Op 62472[U]):
APL-2025-00049 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 2/10/25; dismissal; 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; Appeal--Dismissal-- Whether the Appellate Division properly dismissed appeals on the ground that the right of direct appeal of the orders terminated upon entry of judgment; Supreme Court, Orange County, granting plaintiff's application for appointment of a referee to effectuate a sale of the premises; Supreme Court, Orange County, vacated satisfaction of mortgage, and ordered that plaintiff's mortgage lien was valid and had priority over the lien of co-defendant Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, and that plaintiff was entitled to an order of reference; App. Div. on the Court's own motion, dismissed appeals, and denied as academic motions by appellant and application of respondent.