Return to New Filings Page


For June 20, 2025 through June 26, 2025, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

PEOPLE v BERRY (DAVID A.) (236 AD3d 1405):
APL-2025-00079 4th Dept. App. Div. order of 3/14/25; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Ogden, J., 4/23/25; Rule 500.11 review pending; Crimes—Search Warrant—Whether a search warrant application including hearsay information from a confidential informant satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test and the warrant was issued upon probable cause; Supreme Court, Monroe County, convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (six counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts); App. Div., with two Justices dissenting, affirmed.

GENESEE COUNTY FISH AND GAME v SULLIVAN (— AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 03407):
APL-2025-00123 4th Dept. App. Div. order of 6/6/25; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the action within the meaning of the Constitution; Adverse Possession—Whether summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiff's first and third causes of action seeking relief based on adverse possession; Supreme Court, Genesee County, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion insofar as it sought summary judgment on its first and third causes of action, seeking relief based on adverse possession, and denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment on their first counterclaim, seeking to quiet title, and dismissing the complaint; App. Div., with two Justices dissenting, affirmed.

PEOPLE v GUERRA (DIEGO) (231 AD3d 852):
APL-2025-00080 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/9/24; reversal; leave to appeal granted by Brathwaite Nelson, J., 4/18/25; Crimes—Right to Counsel—Whether defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel signed and permitted the jury to consider a stipulation containing definitions of the crimes charged that eliminated the required mens rea element; Supreme Court, Queens County, convicted defendant of promoting a sexual performance by a child (19 counts) and possessing a sexual performance by a child (49 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposed sentence; App. Div., with one Justice dissenting, reversed and remitted for a new trial.

JOHNSON v STATE OF NEW YORK (2025 NY Slip Op 66076[U]):
APL-2025-00084 4th Dept. App. Div. order of 4/1/25; denial of motion; 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 in the order appealed from; Motions and Orders—Whether the Appellate Division properly denied appellant's motion; alleged constitutional violations; App. Div., on appeal from an order of the Court of Claims, dated April 9, 2024, denied appellant's motion for costs, fees, sanctions, and other relief.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON v KHAN (2025 NY Slip Op 70227[U]):
APL-2025-00122 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/4/25; denial of motions; sua sponte examination of whether the order appealed from finally determines the actions within the meaning of the Constitution and whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved in the order appealed from; Motions and Orders; App. Div. on appeal from five orders of Supreme Court, Dutchess County, inter alia, denied as academic branches of appellant's motions to consolidate appeals, granted branches of appellant's motions to extend the time to perfect appeals, and otherwise denied appellant's motions.

For June 27, 2025 through July 3, 2025, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

PEOPLE v CARNEGIE (ELIJAH) (233 AD3d 903):
APL-2025-00118 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 12/18/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 6/17/25; Crimes--Sex Offenders--Sex Offender Registration Act—Whether defendant's age at the time of offense was adequately taken into account by the guidelines such that it did not constitute a mitigating circumstance for purposes of the downward departure request; whether proffered grounds for downward departure—including family support—were adequately taken into account by the guidelines such that they did not constitute mitigating circumstances; Supreme Court, Kings County, after a hearing, designated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C; App. Div. affirmed.

PEOPLE v DOCKERY (ANTHONY) (233 AD3d 808):
APL-2025-00117 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 12/11/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 6/17/25; Crimes--Sex Offenders--Sex Offender Registration Act-- Whether defendant's age at the time of offense was adequately taken into account by the guidelines such that it did not constitute a mitigating circumstance for purposes of the downward departure request; whether Supreme Court was required to consider the potential application of the Sexual Assault Reform Act residency restrictions in connection with defendant's request for a downward departure; Supreme Court, Kings County, after a hearing, designated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C; App. Div. affirmed.

PEOPLE v GREEN (HIKEEM) (229 AD3d 814):
APL-2025-00119 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 7/31/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 6/17/25; Crimes--Sex Offenders--Sex Offender Registration Act--Whether proffered grounds for downward departure--including employment, a family support network, and completion of sex offender treatment--were adequately taken into account by the guidelines such that they did not constitute mitigating circumstances; Supreme Court, Queens County, after a hearing upon remittitur from the Appellate Division (see People v Green, 216 AD3d 1115 [2d Dept 2023]), designated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

PEOPLE v KHIAMDAVANH (KHAM) (234 AD3d 1353):
APL-2025-00114 4th Dept. App. Div. order of 1/31/25; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by Rivera, J., 6/2/25; Crimes--Witnesses--Failure to Call Witness--Missing Witness Charge-- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge on the basis that the witness's testimony would have been cumulative; Crimes-- Justification--Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the initial aggressor exception to the justification defense; County Court, Oneida County, convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§110.00, 125.25 [1]), assault in the first degree (§120.10 [1]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§265.03[3]); App. Div. affirmed.

PEOPLE v PAMPERIEN (GARY) (231 AD3d 976):
APL-2025-00121 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 10/16/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 6/17/25; Rule 500.11 review pending; Crimes--Sex Offenders--Sex Offender Registration Act--Whether defendant was correctly assessed points pursuant to risk factors 3 (number of victims) and 7 (relationship to victims) in connection with his conviction for possession of child pornography; whether defendant was properly designated a sexually violent offender; whether County Court erred by denying defendant's application for a downward departure; County Court, Suffolk County, after a hearing, designated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C; App. Div. affirmed.

PEOPLE v TOWNSEND (KENNETH) (233 AD3d 548):
APL-2025-00120 1st Dept. App. Div. order of 12/17/24; affirmance; leave to appeal granted by the Court of Appeals, 6/17/25; Crimes--Sex Offenders--Sex Offender Registration Act--Whether defendant's prior criminal history was adequately taken into account by the guidelines such that it could not constitute an aggravating factor for purposes of the People's upward departure request; Supreme Court, New York County, adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent and predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C); App. Div. affirmed.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v MAVE HOTEL INVESTORS (237 AD3d 512):
APL-2025-00129 1st Dept. App. Div. order of 4/10/25; modification; leave to appeal granted by the Appellate Division on a certified question, 6/24/25; Mortgages--Foreclosure--Whether the complaint should be dismissed under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1301(3) on the ground that plaintiff impermissibly commenced a second cause of action to collect a mortgage debt; whether the first, third, and fourth causes of action should be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff is not entitled to the collection of "rents" because it has not taken possession of the mortgaged property; whether the fifth cause of action should be dismissed on the ground that claims of tortious conduct cannot be based upon alleged breaches of contractual duties; Supreme Court, New York County, among other things, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint; App. Div., with one Justice dissenting, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, modified by dismissing the sixth cause of action for declaratory judgment, and otherwise affirmed.

For July 4, 2025 through July 10, 2025, the following preliminary appeal statements were filed:

MEGA BEVERAGE v MOUNT VERNON (— AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 03319):
APL-2025-00131 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/4/25; reversal; sua sponte examination of whether the order appealed from was on questions of fact or discretion; Pleading--Amendment-- Whether the trial court erred by sua sponte substituting a cause of action alleging a violation of plaintiff's right to procedural due process under 42 USC 1983 in place of the cause of action alleging an unlawful taking; Supreme Court, Westchester County, among other things, denied that branch of defendant's motion which was under CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a jury verdict on the cause of action to recover damages for a violation of plaintiff's substantive due process rights under 42 USC 1983 and for judgment as a matter of law dismissing that cause of action; Supreme Court, Westchester County, upon a jury verdict, finding that defendant violated plaintiff's substantive and procedural due process rights and awarding damages, and upon a prior order, issued judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the principal sum of $2,400,000; App. Div. dismissed appeal from order, reversed judgment, and remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial.

PEOPLE v MIERISCH (JUSTIN) (— AD3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 03593):
APL-2025-00128 2nd Dept. App. Div. order of 6/11/25; affirmance; sua sponte examination of whether a substantial constitutional question is directly involved in the order appealed from; Crimes--Sex Offenders--Whether the hearing court properly assessed defendant points under risk factors 3 and 7; whether the assessment of points under risk factors 3 and 7 in child pornography cases violated defendant’s right to due process; whether the hearing court properly denied defendant’s application for a downward departure; Supreme Court, Kings County, after a hearing, designated defendant a level two sex offender; App. Div. affirmed.