Court Filings

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Michael Ruiz’s petition for a writ of certiorari against the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate because the petition was filed after the deadline. The court relied on its prior decision in Adams v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission to support dismissal for untimeliness. The opinion is per curiam and unanimous, and it notes the judgment is not final until any timely motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure is resolved.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a lower court dismissal and partially granted a CPLR 7803(3) petition by NYPD sergeants who challenged DCAS determinations that their promotional exam answers not be scored because they used cell phones before being dismissed. The court found the agency's application of an ambiguous test-taking rule — forbidding cell phone use “before, during and after” the test — to be irrational, especially given uncertainty about when the exam ended and inconsistent agency statements about the rule’s scope. The case is remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings, with the aspects of the determinations vacated and respondents ordered to answer petitioners’ requests for relief.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Amanda Spina Lurie’s CPLR Article 78 petition challenging the New York City Department of Education’s August 23, 2023 determination terminating her employment. The court held DOE’s finding of time theft and time fraud over nearly two years was rationally supported by the record and not arbitrary or capricious. The court declined to consider evidence and news articles not presented to the agency and found Lurie’s argument that termination was conscience-shocking to be unpreserved because it was not raised below.

The Appellate Division dismissed Amira Lebda’s appeal from a Supreme Court order that denied her CPLR article 78 petition seeking grade changes and reinstatement at Touro College School of Education. The court unanimously dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect the record on appeal because petitioner did not include her underlying complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights or the DHR determination that formed the basis of the Article 78 proceeding. The court explained that without those materials meaningful appellate review was impossible and therefore declined to reach the merits.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal from the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims concerning a worker's compensation matter arising from an accident on June 3, 2005. The panel issued a brief per curiam opinion on May 5, 2026, concluding simply that the lower tribunal's decision is affirmed. No extended reasoning or factual findings appear in the opinion; the court's mandate affirms the judgment of the judge of compensation claims without published opinion. Counsel for both sides are noted in the filing.

Relator Heather Hill sought a writ of mandamus to compel Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose to accept her replacement lieutenant-governor candidate after her running mate withdrew 13 days before the May 5, 2026 primary. The court dismissed the mandamus claim because R.C. 3513.311(C) expressly permits replacement only when the lieutenant-governor candidate dies within the specified window, not when the candidate withdraws. The court also dismissed Hill’s requests for a declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction for lack of this court’s original jurisdiction over those remedies. Hill’s emergency motion was denied.

The Ohio Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus directing Julie A. Ogg, clerk of Whitehall’s city council, to determine that three recall petitions lacked the number of signatures required by the Whitehall Charter and to certify the particulars in which each petition was defective. The court held that the charter requires a recall petition to be signed by at least 15% of the electors who voted at the most recent regular municipal election at which the mayor was on the ballot (not 15% of those who actually voted for mayor). Because the relevant election was 2023 (3,913 voters) the 15% threshold is 587 signatures, and each petition fell short, so Ogg abused her discretion by certifying them as sufficient.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied most of Melanie Leneghan’s mandamus claims after the Delaware County Board of Elections sustained a challenge to her voter registration and candidacy. The board found she lacked a fixed habitation in Delaware County between January and November 2025 and concluded she had not established bona fide residence in Galena thereafter. The court dismissed Leneghan’s request to force the board to retract referrals to prosecutors as improper injunctive relief, and denied the remaining mandamus relief because the board did not abuse its discretion or clearly disregard R.C. 3503.02 when canceling her registration and removing her from the ballot.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the common pleas court's judgment upholding the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission's decision that Brandon Michael Jones was disqualified from unemployment benefits because he was separated from his work due to incarceration. Jones, acting pro se, argued the trial court violated various Civil Rules, but the court held those rules do not govern administrative appeals and found the UCRC’s factual finding—Jones’s incarceration caused the separation—was supported by the administrative record and not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court therefore affirmed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal granted the Department of Revenue’s motion to dismiss an appeal by Adrelynn Shattell Thomas for lack of jurisdiction. Thomas, the obligee parent, attempted to directly appeal a final administrative paternity and support order entered February 10, 2026. The court followed White v. Department of Revenue and concluded Florida law (section 409.2563 read with chapter 120) authorizes direct appellate review only to the obligor parent and the Department in these administrative support proceedings, not to an obligee parent. Because Thomas lacked statutory standing to invoke direct review, the appeal was dismissed.

The Texas Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s temporary injunction that had blocked the Texas Department of State Health Services from treating manufactured delta-8 THC products as Schedule I controlled substances. The Department and its commissioner had amended Schedule I definitions after objecting to a federal rule; the Court held those amendments were within the commissioner’s broad, statutorily granted discretion and did not conflict unambiguously with the 2019 Texas Farm Bill. The Court also held the Administrative Procedure Act did not govern publication of schedule changes, and that sovereign immunity bars the vendors’ claims.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed an administrative appeal by Dr. Joseph Badie Abdelmalak challenging the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court’s affirmation of the State Medical Board of Ohio’s revocation of his medical license and $20,000 fine. The appeals court upheld most rulings but found reversible error because the common pleas court failed to determine whether the Board’s order was supported by substantial evidence as required by R.C. 119.12(N). The court affirmed that the Board did not improperly shift the burden of proof and did not deny due process by admitting a two-page ombudsman excerpt, but remanded for the common pleas court to assess the substantial-evidence question.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated part of the Commonwealth Court's order that had sustained a preliminary objection to Christopher Rogalski's request for a writ of mandamus to remove disciplinary information from Department of Education websites. The Supreme Court directed the Commonwealth Court to reconsider that preliminary objection in light of its recent decision in T.G.A. v. Department of Education, 348 A.3d 1043 (Pa. 2025). All other parts of the Commonwealth Court's order were affirmed, and jurisdiction over the case was relinquished.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court and held that the judicially created "positive steps" test cannot disqualify an unemployment benefits claimant for self-employment when the claimant has not actually performed services for wages. The case involved a claimant who, after leaving employment, formed a business entity, created a website, and spent money advertising but had not yet performed services or received earnings. The Court ruled that Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Unemployment Compensation Law requires proof that services were performed for wages before applying the control and independence inquiry, so aspirational or preparatory acts alone cannot bar benefits.

The Appellate Division reviewed a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action by Nicholas Nunez seeking vacatur of a default revoking his license and relief under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The court agreed that Nunez was entitled to vacatur of the administrative default and remanded for a new hearing. It found Nunez substantially prevailed on his FOIL claims because the agency ultimately provided the requested records and metadata, but remanded to Supreme Court to determine whether the agency had a reasonable basis for its initial denial and thus whether Nunez is entitled to statutory counsel fees and costs.

The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court and held that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) must apply a deferential standard when reviewing the New York City Water Board’s rates for voluntary “excess water.” The court concluded that DEC should assess whether the Water Board’s excess-water rates serve the Board’s economic and public policy goals and have a rational basis, rather than applying the statutory “fair and reasonable” test used for entitlement water. The court granted DEC’s motion for summary judgment and modified the judgment accordingly.

The appellate court reviewed Charles F. Cheleden's appeal from final agency actions by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Community Association Management. After considering the record and briefs, the court unanimously affirmed the agency's decisions. The opinion is short and does not elaborate on legal reasoning in the published entry; it simply states the judgment affirming the agency. The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s orders adopting an independent auditor’s recommendations about the Power-Purchase-Agreement (PPA) Rider for AEP Ohio for 2018–2019. OCC and OMAEG argued the commission erred in finding the PPA Rider costs prudent, violated due process by denying a subpoena for a commission staff member, and applied the wrong standard for auditor independence. The Court held the commission reasonably credited evidence that a must-run strategy for OVEC coal units was prudent when chosen, that denial of the subpoena did not prejudice the parties because other witnesses covered the issues, and that the commission properly found no undue influence on the auditor.

The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had denied a CPLR article 78 petition by the Westchester Plaza Tenants Coalition challenging DHCR determinations that upheld a Rent Administrator's decision permitting an owner to modify pool and related facilities. The court found the DHCR's conclusion that the pool was not an essential service was arbitrary and capricious because the record showed the landlord maintained the pool on May 29, 1974, and charging fees for club membership alone did not remove the facility from the regulatory definition of essential services. The matter is remitted to DHCR for a new determination consistent with the opinion.

The Appellate Division, Second Department dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding brought by Simon Kinsella challenging a March 18, 2021 Public Service Commission determination that granted South Fork Wind, LLC a certificate for an offshore submarine export cable. The court granted motions by the Commission, Department of Public Service, and South Fork Wind to dismiss because the petitioner failed to timely join South Fork as a necessary party within the 30-day limitations period following the Commission’s final order. Because the defect was jurisdictional under the governing statute and precedent, the court dismissed the proceeding without costs.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals and the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI). The court held that the one-year limitation in RCW 51.32.240(1)(a) applies to benefits paid to injured workers and does not bar DLI from recouping overpayments made to health service providers like Office Careers. The court also affirmed partial summary judgment for DLI terminating Office Careers’ provider number, finding Office Careers failed to raise a genuine factual dispute and that DLI’s audits and use of available records were lawful.

The Appellate Division, First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for reciprocal discipline and suspended attorney Tamar Toledano from the practice of law in New York for four months, effective 30 days from the order. The suspension follows Toledano's consent to a four-month USPTO suspension for violating USPTO trademark signature and conduct rules, and her admission in a USPTO settlement that she permitted non-signatories to sign trademark filings and failed to timely notify clients about a referring firm's fraud. The court found New York rules substantially similar and imposed reciprocal discipline on consent.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a lower court order that had remanded an NYC Housing Authority denial of a remaining family member (RFM) grievance. The petitioner, Eric Camacho, sought succession after his aunt (the tenant) died; NYCHA denied his claim because he did not meet the policy requirement of at least 12 months of continuous authorized occupancy prior to the tenant's death. The court held NYCHA's denial had a rational basis, rejected hardship and estoppel arguments, and found that a later change in NYCHA policy would not have altered the outcome.

The court dismissed H&S Investment Properties, LLC’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the Ashtabula County Auditor to change the owner name on the county tax list to match an affidavit recorded under R.C. 5301.252. The court held that the recorder’s affidavit statute does not itself create a right to change tax-roll entries and that the auditor’s duty under R.C. 319.28 is to compile the tax list, not to alter it based on a recorded affidavit. Because Relator cannot show a clear legal right or corresponding clear legal duty by the auditor, mandamus relief was unavailable and the petition was dismissed; the summary-judgment motion was denied as moot.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Orama’s Delivery Transport Corp from an order of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board involving the Florida Department of Transportation. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 27, 2026, affirming the board's order. No extended opinion or reasoning appears in the published entry; the court simply affirmed the lower body's decision and noted concurrence by three judges. The decision is not final until any timely motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an administrative appeal by Hanna Oaks Operating LLC from a decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration. The court issued a short per curiam opinion affirming the agency's decision. No opinion text explaining the reasoning was published in this disposition; the court simply affirmed the agency's action and noted concurrence by three judges. The decision was entered April 27, 2026, and is subject to any timely authorized motion under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an administrative appeal by 5539 NPR Operating LLC (doing business as New Port Richey Center for Assisted Living & Memory Care) from a decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration. The court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, and affirmed the agency's decision. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning appears in the file beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by the three judges.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision in a dispute with 200 Venice Operating LLC, which operates the Venice Center for Independent and Assisted Living. The appeal challenged an administrative action by the Agency; the appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, concluding the Agency's action should stand. The opinion provided no extended discussion and the three-judge panel concurred, leaving the Agency's ruling intact and the appellant's challenge unsuccessful.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court judgment granting a mandamus petition that required the Buffalo Comptroller to issue and sell bonds authorized by the Buffalo Common Council. The court held that the comptroller has no discretion to refuse issuance where the Common Council has validly authorized borrowing under the City Charter and the Local Finance Law. Although the comptroller has duties to advise and report on fiscal capacity and certain procedural roles, those responsibilities do not permit vetoing or declining to execute bond issuances lawfully authorized by the council.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of the Assembly’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking to stop the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) from pursuing a discrimination and harassment complaint filed by employee Nicole Golias. DHR had found probable cause and added the Assembly as a respondent. The court held that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy limited to lack or excess of jurisdiction and may not be used to bypass administrative review. The Assembly must first pursue DHR’s administrative process and, if necessary, judicial review under Executive Law § 298.