Representative Cases-State and Federal Appellate Experience

Palydowycz v. Palydowycz

In Palydowycz v. Palydowycz, 138 A.D.3d 810 (2d Depít 2016), Ms. Hasapidis secured an equitable distribution award for her client and a change in the law. There, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the rule of double-counting does not apply to the husbandís medical practices because they hold a value, distinct from the income stream that the medical practices generated. As a result, the wife was entitled to maintenance based on the income stream from the practices in addition to a share of the value of the medical practices themselves. This ruling constituted a departure from the Second Departmentís earlier decisions on this case, as the court explained:

The rule against double counting applies where the projected earnings used to value an intangible asset, such as a professional license, are also used to calculate a maintenance award (see Keane v. Keane, 8 N.Y.3d 115, 121; Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 94 N.Y.2d 696, 704). However, "[i]t is only where '[t]he asset is totally indistinguishable and has no existence separate from the [income stream] from which it is derived' that double counting results" (Keane v. Keane, 8 N.Y.3d at 122, quoting Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 94 N.Y.2d at 704).

* * *

Here, the defendant's medical practices, which employ other individuals including several doctors, and his interest in an ambulatory surgical center, are not intangible assets which are "totally indistinguishable" from the income stream upon which his maintenance obligation was based (Keane v. Keane, 8 N.Y.3d at 122), and the valuation method used by the plaintiff's expert to determine the fair market value of these assets does not change their essential nature. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that it had no discretion to award the plaintiff any distributive share of the value of these assets because the parties considered the defendantís entire 2010 income in reaching a stipulation as to his maintenance obligation. To the extent that Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (70 A.D.3d 799) is inconsistent with our determination, it should no longer be followed. Palydowycz v. Palydowycz, 138 A.D.3d 810 (2d Depít 2016).

Read another commentatorís analysis:

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202756033849/The-Death- of-DoubleDipping-in-Divorce- Context#ixzz49CQeYLaf

In Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, the Court of Appeals Reversed Its Earlier Decision In The Same Case.

Ms. Hasapidis secured an unprecedented victory in Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership in the Court of Appeals on December 10, 2013. She represented a worker who was injured when a sheet of plywood fell from a 50-story-high construction site and struck him on the head as he walked down a New York City street.

Initially, on February 14, 2013, in Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, the Court of Appeals, for the first time, granted collateral estoppel effect to the decisions of the workers' compensation board in third-party actions regarding disability issues. That Decision and Order jeopardized the right to a jury trial on those issues and would have a serious impact on the ability of injured workers to seek justice through the court system, while also undermining the workers' compensation system.

Ms. Hasapidis requested that the Court of Appeals grant reargument of its Decision and Order, which is rarely granted. Yet, the Court granted reargument and, after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the Court unanimously vacated the earlier Decision and Order, and held that a determination of the workers' compensation board as to duration of disability could not be granted preclusive effect, reasoning:

Given the realities of these distinct proceedings, the finder of fact in a third-party negligence 'action, in its attempt to ascertain the extent of plaintiff's total damages, should not be bound by the narrow findings of the Board regarding the duration of plaintiff's injury or his need for further medical care.

The critical Decision in Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership will ensure that injured workers will continue to be able to hold third-parties accountable and to have their day in court. A copy of the full Decision is available here

Ms. Hasapidis received the support of a significant coalition of lawyers, labor and community organizations who worked tirelessly over many months to achieve this remarkable victory:

  • NYSTLA Amicus Committee;
  • New York State Bar Association;
  • AFL-CIO;
  • New York City Central Labor Council;
  • Building and Construction Trades of Greater New York;
  • Injured Workers Bar Association;
  • Workers Injury Law and Policy Group;
  • New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health;
  • Make the Road New York;
  • New York Communities for Change;
  • Center for Popular Democracy;
  • The Black Institute; and
  • Citizen Action of New York.

Few attorneys have achieved such a result Ė the vacatur of a published Decision of New York’s highest Court. This outcome is a testament to Ms. Hasapidis' appellate advocacy skills.

Watch video (Ms. Hasapidis starts at the 12 minute mark.)

The following case summaries illustrate the breadth of her experience and the complexity of some of the issues she has successfully presented on appeal.

  • Mawere v. Landau, 130 A.D.3d 986 (2d Depít 2015) (reversing dismissal of a complaint involving breach of an oral joint venture agreement to purchase a nursing home and legal malpractice).
  • Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208 (2011) (holding, inter alia, that in a threshold personal injury case, a plaintiff is not required to proffer "contemporaneous" numerical measurements of range of motion in order to defeat summary judgment).
  • Natiello v. Carrion, 73 A.D.3d 1070 (2d Dep't 2010) (annulling determination that mother failed to provide adequate supervision of her 16 year old autistic son and had committed educational neglect of her other emotionally disturbed son).
  • Verdugo v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 70 A.D.3d 600 (1st Dep't 2010) (dismissing the "act of God" affirmative defense, and determining that the existence of 30 mph winds, which caused plywood to become airborne and strike Plaintiff in the head, was not an "unusual, extraordinary and unprecedented event").
  • Valdez ex rel. Donely v. U.S., 518 F.3d. 173 (2d Cir. 2008) (reinstating a plaintiffs' medical malpractice action as timely based upon federal accrual and equitable estoppel rules).
  • Ellis v. Chao, 336 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2003) (finding that candidate for a union election raised a question of fact whether the Secretary of Labor's decision not to sue to set aside a union election was arbitrary and capricious).
  • Galanos v. Galanos, 20 A.D.3d 450 (2d Dep't 2005) (disqualifying the husband's counsel in a matrimonial action who had represented the wife's father in prior proceedings; the first case in New York to find that a father and child's finances were so inextricably intertwined as to justify disqualification).
  • Massimi v. Massimi, 35 A.D.3d 400 (2d Dep't 2006) (ruling that the husband had commingled marital and separate property, thereby entitling the wife to a distributive award of that property).
  • Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94 (2005) (as amicus curiae counsel for the Women's Bar of the State of New York) (ruling that joinder of tort claims in a matrimonial action is permissive, not mandatory).
  • Felty v. Feity, 66 A.D.3d 64 (2nd Dep't 2009) (the mother, who was a victim of domestic abuse and had lied to the father in order to safely flee from Kentucky to move to New York, started a custody action in New York after living there for six months. However, she allowed the children to visit the father for two weeks of that period. The motion court ruled that this absence from New York was not temporary and so the mother did not prove that New York had jurisdiction because the children had not resided there for six months. The appellate court reversed because the children's visit was temporary and because the mother never intended to return to Kentucky; she had maintained ail of her New York licenses and voting registration, while the father never prepared a permanent home for the children in Kentucky. Further the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the mother should not have been penalized for taking actions, like lying to the father, in order to protect her and the children from abuse).
  • Lazy S Group I v. Gomez, 660 A.D.3d 999 (2d Dep't March 31, 2009) (reversing the grant of summary judgment to vendor in specific performance action where questions of fact remained whether the communications between the parties to sale of real property and the parties' conduct at the closing constituted a counteroffer or a repudiation of the original contract, whether there was an actual agreement between the parties regarding the updated certificate of occupancy and whether there was a breach, and if so, which party was in breach, whether the conduct of parties to contract for sale of real property waived breach of contract, or whether actions were taken to further the negotiation of a new contract between the parties rather than as a continuation of performance under the original contract).
  • Pesantes v. Komatsu Forklift USA, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 823 (2d Dep't 2009) (reversing the denial of summary judgment to a forklift manufacturer where, in opposition, the plaintiff had raised a new theory of liability and had presented no evidence supporting that theory).
  • Valdez ex rei. Donely v U.S., 518 F.3d.173 (2d Cir. 2008) (reinstating the medical malpractice action as timely based upon federal accrual and equitable estoppel rules).
  • Ellis v. Chao, 336 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2003) (finding that a candidate for a union election raised a question of fact whether the Secretary of Labor's decision not to sue to set aside a union election was arbitrary and capricious).
  • Galanos v. Galanos, 20 A.D.3d 450 (2d Dep't 2005) (disqualifying the husband's counsel in a matrimonial action, where counsel had represented the wife's father in prior proceedings. This is the first case in New York to find that a father and his adult child's finances were so inextricably intertwined as to justify disqualification).
  • Massimi v. Massimi, 35 A.D.3d 400 (2d Dep't 2006) (ruling, inter alia, that the husband had commingled marital and separate property, thereby entitling the wife to a distributive award of that property, totaling more than $500,000).
  • Northbay Const. Co., Inc. v. Bauco Const. Corp., 38 A.D.3d 737 (2d Dep't 2007) (directing a new trial in a breach of fiduciary duty action for the court's failure to properly charge the jury on proximate cause).
  • Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94 (2005) (appearing as amicus curiae counsel for the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, the Court of Appeals ruled that joinder of tort claims in a matrimonial action is permissive, not mandatory).

The following is a list of Ms. Hasapidisí other appellate cases:

  • Mayer v. Mayer, --- N.Y.S.3d -- (2d Depít 2016)
  • Public Admír v. Levine, --- N.Y.S.3d -- (1st Depít 2016)
  • Pazienza v. Westchester County Health Care Corp., --- N.Y.S.3d -- (2d Depít 2016)
  • Parietti-Fogarty v. Fogarty, 141 A.D.3d 512 (2d Depít 2016)
  • Sewesky v. City of New York, 140 A.D.3d 666 (1st Depít 2016)
  • Mejia v. J. Crew Operating Corp., 140 A.D.3d 505 (1st Depít 2015)
  • In re Melville L. Fergang Revocable Trust, 140 A.D.3d 498 (1st Depít 2016)
  • Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Tramontozzi Sherlock, 140 A.D.3d 872 (2d Depít 2016)
  • Skinner v. Crandall, 140 A.D.3d 1215 (3d Depít 2016)
  • Goehringer v. Vozza-Nicolosi, 139 A.D.3d 949 (2d Depít 2016)
  • In re Auqui, 139 A.D.3d 411 (1st Depít 2016)
  • Palydowycz v. Palydowycz, 138 A.D.3d 810 (2d Depít 2016)
  • Brown v. Brown, 136 A.D.3d 852 (2d Depít 2016)
  • In re Woodson, 136 A.D.3d 691 (2d Depít 2016)
  • Asiam v. Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., A.D.3d 790 (2d Depít 2016)
  • Ryan v. Lewis, 135 A.D.3d 1135 (3d Depít 2016)
  • Delgrande v. Greenville Fire Dist., 132 A.D. 3D 987 (2d Depít 2015)
  • In re Kover, 134 A.D.3d 64 (Merrick v. Merrick, 132 A.D.3D 742 (1st Depít 2015)
  • Kim v. Solomon, 132 A.D.3d 463 (1st Depít 2015)
  • Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Assín v. County of Westchester, 132 A.D.3D 663 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Addesso v. Addesso, 131 A.D.3d 1053 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Addesso v. Addesso, 131 A.D.3d 1052 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Friedman v. Hebrew Home for Aged at Riverdale, 131 A.D.3d 421 (1st Depít 2015)
  • Tom v. Holtzman, 131 A.D.3d 420 (1st Depít 2015)
  • Mawere v. Landau, 130 A.D.3d 986 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Empara v. New Rochelle School Dist., 130 A.D.3d 1127 (3rd Depít 2015)
  • In re Tax Foreclosure Action No. 51, 129 A.D.3d 1093 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Grimes v. Grimes, 128 A.D.3d 894 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Jacobson v. Wilkinson, 128 A.D.3d 1335 (4th Depít 2015)
  • Ruiz v. Sciallo, 127 A.D.3d 1205 (2d Depít 2015)
  • White Plains Plaza Realty, LLC v. Cappelli Enterprises, Inc., 127 A.D.3d 1220 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Cohen v. Kings Point Tenant Corp., 126 A.D.3d 843 (2d Depít 2015)
  • In re Jennings, 125 A.D.3d 1152 (3d Depít 2015)
  • Sacher v. Village of Old Brookville, 124 A.D.3d 902 (2d Depít 2015)
  • Brown v. Simon, 123, A.D.3d 1120 (2d Depít 2014)
  • OíGorman v. OíGorman, 122 A.D.3d 744 (2d Depít 2014)
  • OíGorman v. OíGorman, 122 A.D.3d 743 (2d Depít 2014)
  • Rimbambito, LLC v. Lee, 118 A.D.3d 690 (2d Depít 2014)
  • Twaddell v. Drop & Lock Storage Co., Inc., 117 A.D.3d 937 (2d Depít 2014)
  • Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 648 (1st Depít 2014)
  • Schultz v. Hi-Tech Construction and Management Service, Inc., 124 A.D.3d 754 (2d Depít 2014)
  • Rodriguez v. Weinstein Enterprises, Inc., 113 A.D.3d 483 (1st Depít 2014)
  • Colarossi v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 113 A.D.3d 407 (1st Depít 2014)
  • Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 22 N.Y.3d 246
  • Troutman Sanders, LLP v. Parker, 111 A.D.3d 924 (2d Depít 2013)
  • Candelario v. City of New York, 539 Fed.Appx. 17 (2d Cir. 2013)
  • Cruz v. New York City Housing Authority, 106 A.D.3d 631 (1st Depít 2013)
  • Marley v. Marley, 106 A.D.3d 961 (2d Depít 2013)
  • V. Groppa Pools, Inc. v. Massello, 106 A.D.3d 723 (2d Depít 2013)
  • In Re Guardianship of Kevin Z., 105 A.D.3d 1269 (3d Depít 2013)
  • Skanga Energy & Marine Ltd. V. Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., 522 Fed.Appx. 88 (2d Cir. 2013)
  • Hutton v. Whelan, 104 A.D.3d 914 (2d Depít 2013)
  • Hannigan v. Hannigan, 104 A.D.3d 732 (2d Depít 2013)
  • Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 20 N.Y.3d 1035 (2013)
  • Padin v. Padin, 103 A.D.3d 729 (2d Depít 2013)
  • Heymann v. Heymann, 102 A.D.3d 832 (2d Depít 2013)
  • Robert AA. v. Colleen BB., 101 A.D.3d 1396 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Solomon v. Southampton Union Free School Dist., 504 Fed.Appx. 60 (2d Cir. 2012)
  • Maron v. Crystal Bay Imports, Ltd., 99 A.D.3d 867 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Lugo v. Austin-Forest Associates, 99 A.D.3d 865 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Terranova v. Terranova, 99 A.D.3d 788 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Y.H. v. Town of Ossining, 99 A.D.3d 760 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Snyder v. Rivera, 98 A.D.3d 1104 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Monachino v. Bair, 481 Fed.Appx. 20 (2d Cir. 2012)
  • Antunes v. Putnam Northern Westchester Bd. of Co-op Educ. Services, 482 Fed.Appx. 661 (2d Cir. 2012)
  • DiGirolamo v. MetLife Group, Inc., 494 Fed.Appx. 120 (2d Cir. 2012)
  • Yu v. Gentile, 98 A.D.3d 506 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Raguso v. Ubriaco, 97 A.D.3d 560 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Buday v. New York Yankees Partnership, 486 Fed.Appx. 894 (2d Cir. 2012)
  • Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority, 96 A.D.3d 906 (2d Depít 2012)
  • Seven Springs, LLC v. Nature Conservancy, 943 N.Y.S.2d 569 (2d Dep't 2012)
  • Altonen v. Kmart of N. Y. Holdings, Inc., 94 A.D.3d 920 (2d Dep't 2012)
  • Quintanilla v. State, 94 A.D.3d 846 (2d Dep't 2012)
  • Biascochea v. Boves, 93 A.D.3d 548 (1st Dep't 2012)
  • Schwartz v. Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., 93 A.D.3d 776 (2d Dep't 2012)
  • Russo v. Frankels Garden City Realty Co., 93 A.D.3d 708 (2d Dep't 2012)
  • Jones v. Jones, 92 A.D.3d 845, 939 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2012 WL 579697, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 01436, N.Y.A.D. 2 Depít., February 21, 2012 (NO. 2010-06965, 11639/07)
  • Winder v. Executive Cleaning Services, LLC, 91 A.D.3d 865 (2d Dep't 2012)
  • Lichtman v. Village of Klryas Joel, 90 A.D.3d 1001 (2d Dep't 2012)
  • Leichter v. Cambridge Development, LLC, 90 A.D.3d 557 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Perl v. Meher, 18 N.Y.3d 208 (2011)
  • Harlem Suites, LLC v. 231 Norman Ave., LLC, 88 A.D.3d 532 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Education Resources Institute, Inc. v. Hawkins, 88 A.D.3d 484 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Kruger v. EMFT, LLC, 87 A.D.3d 717 (2d Dep't 2011)
  • Gentile v. Village of Tuckahoe Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 A.D.3d 695 (2d Dep't 2011)
  • Futersak v. Perl, 84 A.D.3d 1309, 923 N.Y.S.2d 728, 2011 WL 2163976, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04629, N.Y.A.D. 2 Depít., May 31, 2011 (NO. 2010-04225, 2010-07330, 04825/09)
  • Suits v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, 84 A.D.3d 487 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Galanos v. Cifone, 84 A.D.3d 865 (2d Dep't 2011)
  • Sanchez v. lrun, 83 A.D.3d 611 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Clement v. Delaney Realty Corp., 83 A.D.3d 881 (2d Dep't 2011)
  • Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 83 A.D.3d 407 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Benn v. Benn, 82 A.D.3d 548 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Bender v. 101 Productions Ltd., 82 A.D.3d 520 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Benn v. Benn, 82 A.D.3d 548 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Bender v. 101 Productions Ltd., et al., 82 A.D.3d 520 (1st Dep't 2011)
  • Dobre v. Holzer, et al., 918 N.Y.S.2d 205 (2d Dep't 2011)
  • Green v. New York City Housing Authority, 81 A.D.3d 890 (2d Dep't 2011)
  • Davarashvili v. ABM Industries, Inc., 81 A.D.3d 776 (2d Dep't 2011)
  • Tounkara v. Fernicola, 80 A.D.3d 470 (1st Depít 2011)
  • McGuire v. Fuller, et al., 810 A.D.3d 794 (2d Depít 2011)
  • Lopez v. City of New York, 80 A.D.3d 432 (1st Depít 2011)
  • Gomez v. Gomez, 79 A.D.3d 1125 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Baez v. Ende Realty Corp., 78 A.D.3d 576 (1st Depít 2010)
  • Fiorenza v. A&A Consulting Engineers, P.C., 77 A.D.3d 569 (1st Dep't 2010)
  • Cuomo v. Ferran, 77 A.D.3d 698 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Adler v. Bayer, 77 A.D. 3d 692 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Zegarowlcz v. Ripatti, 77 A.D.3d 650 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Ortiz v. Orlov, 76 A.D.3d 1000 (2d Depít 2010)
  • Iron Ox Center v. Jurka, 76 A.D.3d 671 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Galanos v. Nevada Utilities, 75 A.D.3d 974 (3d Depít 2010)
  • Fletcher v. Boles, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 75 A.D.3d 469 (1st Depít 2010)
  • Springer v. Almontaser, 75 A.D.3d 539 (2d Depít 2010)
  • Bryan v. City of Peekskill, 74 A.D.3d 1115 (2d Depít 2010)
  • Schwartz v. City of New York, 74 A.D.3d 945 (2d Depít 2010)
  • Perl v. Meher, 74 A.D.3d 930 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Carrea v. Imagimed, LLC, 74 A.D.3d 860 (2d Depít 2010)
  • Blank v. Adler, 74 A.D.3d 802 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Tadco Canst. Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 73 A.D.3d 1022 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Natiello v. Carrion, 73 A.D.3d 1070 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Haleemeh M.S. ex rel. Mohammad S.F. v. MRMS Realty Corp., 38 Misc.3d 443 (2d Depít 2010)
  • Lamberti v. Angiolillo, 73 A.D.3d 463 (1st Dep't 2010)
  • Donovan v. Clapetta, 72 A.D.3d 635 (2d Depít 2010)
  • Blackberry Hill Village Condominium IV v. Blackberry Hill Village Condominium I , 71 A.D.3d 933 (2d Dep't 2010)
  • Masilotti v. Kamel, 71 A.D.3d 841 (2d Depít 2010)
  • People v. Sargsyan, 71 A.D.3d 401 (1st Dep't 2010)
  • Verdugo v. Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership, 70 A.D.3d 600 (1st Depít 2010)
  • Rashid v. Clinton Hill Apartments Owners Corp., 70 A.D.3d 1019 (1st Depít 2010)
  • In re Velez, 70 A.D.3d 1100 (3rd Dep't 2010)
  • Weissman v. Weissman, 68 A.D.3d 981 (2d Depít 2009)
  • Braun v. Weissman, 68 A.D.3d 797 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Post v. Post, 68 A.D.3d 741 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Zegarowlcz v. Ripatti, 67 A.D.3d 672 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Santana v. St. Vincent's Catholic Medical Center of New York, 65 A.D.3d 1119 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Moriera v. Durango, 65 A.D.3d 1024 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Sirivanta v. Sirivanta, 65 A.D.3d 545 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Alcantara v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 64 A.D.3d 774 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Rowley v. Amrhein, 64 A.D.3d 469 (1st Dep't 2009)
  • Felty v. Felty, 66 A.D.3d 64 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Northbay Const. Co., Inc. v. Bauco Canst. Corp., 64 A.D.3d 548 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Anderson v. Gulf Ins. Co., 63 A.D.3d 921 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Rasheed-Waters v. Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc., 60 A.D.3d 1030 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Lazy S Group I v. Gomez, 60 A.D.3d 999 (2d Dep't 2009)
  • Lequerique v. Lequerique, 60 A.D.3d 504 (1st Dep't 2009)
  • Pesantes v. Komatsu Forklift USA, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 823 (2d Dep't)
  • D'Agostino Law Office, P.C. v. Parlante, 58 A.D.3d 668 (2d Dep't)
  • KPSD Mineola, Inc. v. Jahn, 57 A.D.3d 853 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Kenny v. Di-Napoli, 11 N.Y.3d 873 (2008)
  • Peek v. Scialdone, 56 A.D.3d 743 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • White House Manor, Ltd. v. Benjamin, 11 N.Y.3d 393 (2008)
  • Massimi v. Massimi, 56 A.D.3d 624 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Goldman v. White Plains Center for Nursing Care, LLC, 11 N.Y.3d 173 (2008)
  • Stubbs v. Pirzada, 55 A.D.3d 597 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Ozoria .v. Acculift, et al., 55 A.D.3d 578 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Scully v. Scully, 54 A.D.3d 664 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Imperato v. Imperato, 54 A.D.3d 375 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Aurora Loan Services, LLC v. Thomas, 53 A.D.3d 561 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Gallagher v. Gallagher, 51 A.D.3d 718 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Avery & Avery, P.C. v. American Ins., Co., 51 A.D.3d 695 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Kenny v. DiNapoli, 50 A.D.3d 1445 (3d Dep't 2008)
  • Hannigan v. Hannigan, 50 A. D, 3d 957 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Peritore v. Peritore, 50 A.D.3d 874 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • In re Ferrara, 50 A.D.3d 899 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Higgins v. Higgins, 50 A.D.3d 852 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Nichols v. Stamer, 49 A.D.3d 832 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Totonelly v. Enos, 49 A.D.3d 710 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Klein v. Klein-Annis, 49 A.D.3d 648 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Moncrief v. Rosenthal, 49 A.D.3d 511 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Covillion v.Tri State Service Co., Inc., 48 A.D.3d 399 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Kessler v. Kessler, 47 A.D.3d 892 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • McKenzie v. Redl, 47 A.D.3d 775 (2d Dep't 2008)
  • Estate of LaMore v. Sumner, 46 A.D.3d 1262 (3d Dep't 2007)
  • Rowley v. Amrhein, 46 A.D.3d 489 (1st Dep't 2007)
  • Galanos v. Galanos, 46 A.D.3d 507 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Driscoll v. Driscoll, 45 A.D.3d 723 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • In re Will of Falk, 47 A.D.3d 21 (1st Dep't 2007)
  • Fox v. Fox, 44 A.D.3d 998 (2d Dep't 2007) (Two Decisions)
  • LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Gold, 44 A.D.3d 718 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Lutz v. Goldstone, 42 A.D.3d 561 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Volt Viewtech, Inc. v. Bomzer, 41 A.D.3d 326 (1st Dep't 2007)
  • Shah v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 696 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Petrovich v. Obradovic, 40 A.D.3d 1063 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • In re Estate of Reynolds, 40 A.D.3d 320 (1st Dep't 2007)
  • Klindworth v. Garron, 40 A.D.3d 642 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Galanos v. Galanos, 39 A.D.3d 702 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Connolly v. Connolly, 39 A.D.3d 643 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Goodman v. CF Galleria at White Plains, LP, 39 A.D.3d 588 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Northbay Const. Co., Inc. v. Bauco Const. Corp., 38 A.D.3d 737 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Lutz v. Goldstone, 38 A.D.3d 720 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Garrido v. International Business Mach. Corp., 38 A.D.3d 594 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Allan v. Casperkill Country Club, 38 A.D.3d 579 (2d Dep't 2007)
  • Brown v. PCM Development Corp., 37 A.D.3d 1147 (4th Depít 2007)
  • Hall v. Sinclaire, 35 A.D.3d 660 (2d Depít 2006)
  • Willard v. Meehan, 35 A.D.3d 488 (2d Dep't 2006)
  • Massimi v. Massimi, 35 A.D.3d 400 (2d Depít 2006)
  • Johnson v. Ford, 33 A.D.3d 529 (1st Depít 2006)
  • People v. McLaurin, 33 A.D.3d 819 (2d Depít 2006)
  • Singh v. Rosenberg, 32 A.D.3d 840 (2d Dep't 2006)
  • Licini v. Graceland Florist, Inc., 32 A.D.3d (2d Dep't 2006)
  • Korea Exchange Bank v. Yung Hyo Kim, 32 A.D.3d 690 (1st Depít 2006)
  • Franklin v. 172 Audubon Corp., 32 A.D.3d 454 (2d Dep't 2006)
  • Lutz v. Goldstone, 31 A.D.3d 449 (2d Dep't 2006)
  • Lutz v. Goldstone, 31 A.D.3d 398 (2d Dep't 2006)
  • In re Estate of Ferrara, 7 N.Y.3d 244 (2006)
  • Lackowitz v. City of Yonkers, 29 A.D.3d 744 (2d Dep't 2006)
  • White v. Kyung Kim, 29 A.D.3d 685 (2d Dep't 2006)
  • Galanos v. Galanos, 28 A.D.3d 554 (2d Depít 2006)
  • Pearson v. Parkside Ltd. Liability Co., 27 A.D.3d 539 (2d Depít 2006)
  • Fakhoury v. Kinlock, 27 A.D.3d 416 (2d Depít 2006)
  • Kulovany v. Cerco Products, Inc., 26 A.D.3d 224 (1st Dep't 2006)
  • In re Grillo, 26 A.D.3d 376, 813 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Depít 2006)
  • Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer, 6 N.Y.3d 94 (2005)
  • D'Agostino v. Franklin, 24 A.D.3d 495 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • Linder v. Dranoff, 22 A.D.3d 812 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • In re Ferrara, 22 A.D.3d 578 (2d Depít 2005)
  • 172 Audubon Corp. v. 1018 Morris Park Ave. Realty, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 861 (1st Depít 2005)
  • Ciccone v. Bedford Cent. School Dist., 21 A.D.3d 437 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • Galanos v. Galanos, 20 A.D.3d 450 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • People v. Gill, 20 A.D.3d 434 (2d Depít 2005)
  • Eastman v. Holland, 19 A.D.3d 444 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • Mari v. Mari, 19 A.D.3d 380 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • Miller v. Miller, 18 A.D.3d 629 (2d Depít 2005)
  • McCarthy v. St. Joseph's Medical Center, 16 A.D.3d 243 (1st Dep't 2005)
  • Irving O. Farber, PLLC v. Kamalian, 16 A.D.3d 506 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • Harrison v. Guglielmo, 15 A.D.3d 319 (1st Dep't 2005)
  • AIU Ins. Co. v. Henry, 14 A.D.3d 506 (2d Dep't 2005)
  • People v. Mourad, 13 A.D.3d 558 (2d Depít 2004)
  • People v. Davis, 9 A.D.3d 468 (2d Dep't 2004)
  • Juliano v. WSH Realty Corp., 8 A.D.3d 342 (2d Dep't 2004)
  • Hammerling v. Korn, 8 A.D.3d 227 (2d Depít 2004)
  • Milteer v. Milteer, 6 A.D.3d 407 (2d Dep't 2004)
  • Rudy v. Mazzetti, 5 A.D.3d 777 (2d Depít 2004)
  • Herr v. Herr, 5 A.D.3d 550 (2d Dep't 2004)
tml> tml>