Court Filings

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s divorce judgment. The court held the prenuptial agreement signed the wedding day was valid because Wife could have postponed the ceremony, had prior divorce experience, made edits to the agreement, and Husband’s testimony about timing and disclosure was credible. The court found most contested assets (proceeds from sale of Husband’s family businesses, silver bars, and funds in several UBS accounts) were Husband’s separate property based on the prenup and an unchallenged forensic accounting. The court awarded time-limited spousal support to Wife and taxed costs to the appellant.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Jackie Robinson’s May 2, 2025 filing, which the trial court properly treated as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief. Robinson challenged his 1976 burglary conviction and related sentencing issues, but he filed decades after the statutory window for direct appeal and post-conviction relief had closed. Because he did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts underlying his claims or that a new, retroactive right applied, the court concluded the trial court lacked authority to entertain the petition and therefore denied relief.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Charles Link’s convictions and sentence for six counts of rape and seven counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI). A jury convicted Link after testimony from two victims, C.D. and K.N., family members who described repeated inappropriate touching and sexual acts occurring over years while in Link’s relatives’ home. Link argued ineffective assistance of counsel, that some convictions should have merged, and that evidence was insufficient as to K.N. The court rejected each argument, finding trial strategy reasonable, separate daytime touching supported GSI distinct from nighttime rapes, and sufficient evidence to convict on the K.N. count.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Chad Jay Cobb’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his 2013 guilty pleas to multiple serious charges, including aggravated murder. Cobb claimed his plea was involuntary because a domestic relations attorney and defense counsel told him he would lose parental rights if the case was not resolved within a year, and he argued ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the court rejected Cobb’s credibility, noted lack of attorney testimony or affidavits supporting his claims, and emphasized the long delay in seeking relief.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed a trial court judgment for the Vinings Estates Homeowners Association (HOA) against Earl and Deidre Cotton. The HOA sued over the Cottons’ unapproved construction of an outdoor kitchen and pool pavilion that violated the subdivision’s Declaration and board-adopted design guidelines. A jury awarded the HOA monetary relief for fines and attorney fees, and the trial court later granted a permanent injunction requiring removal of the detached structure. The court held the Declaration plainly allowed the HOA to adopt enforceable design guidelines, rejected the Cottons’ procedural and evidentiary challenges, and found no abuse of discretion in issuing the injunction.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that evidence of a plaintiff’s future medical expenses is inadmissible in a personal-injury trial against a tortfeasor if those projected expenses fall within the plaintiff’s personal injury protection (PIP) coverage, even when the PIP benefits are provided through the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (UCJF/NJPLIGA). The Court found that the No-Fault Act’s inadmissibility provision (N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12) applies to UCJF PIP benefits and bars evidence of benefits that are "collectible or paid." Because the plaintiff’s projected future medical costs did not exhaust her $250,000 PIP limit, they were "collectible" and therefore inadmissible; the Appellate Division’s modification of the judgment was affirmed.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a civil appeal brought by Selamawit Tewolde and Tesgai Fissha against Professional Security Consultants, Brandon Shopping Center Partners, Ltd., and Westfield Property Management, LLC. The panel issued a brief per curiam decision on May 6, 2026, concluding the appellants’ challenge lacked merit and therefore the lower court's ruling stands. No extended opinion or new legal rule was announced; the court unanimously affirmed without published opinion and the decision may be revised before official publication.

The State appealed a county court decision in Sarasota County involving defendant Bryan Leonard Redding, Jr. The District Court of Appeal reviewed the matter and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, provides no extended reasoning in the published text, and simply affirms the county court's decision. All three panel judges concurred. No further elaboration or factual background is provided in the opinion as presented.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment in a criminal appeal. The appellate panel, consisting of three judges, reviewed the appeal from the Sarasota County Circuit Court and concluded that the trial court's decision should be upheld. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition "Affirmed." The decision is subject to revision prior to official publication.

The appellate court reviewed a criminal appeal by Kenneth James Kendrick from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County and, after considering the record, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion was delivered per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida on May 6, 2026, and no written opinion explaining the reasoning was published with the order. The appellate panel consisting of Judges Villanti, Khouzam, and Labrit concurred. The judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Jason Friend from a Pasco County circuit court decision brought by Shawnee Friend individually and on behalf of C.F. The Second District issued a per curiam opinion affirming the lower court's judgment. The court provided no published reasoning in this short entry and the panel concurred, leaving the trial court's ruling in place without change.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed an appeal by Deshaunte Jabar Delancy from a Sarasota County circuit court criminal matter. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning is included in the document; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as reviewed under the applicable rule for appeals from final judgments in criminal cases.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Jermaine Roshell Conaway from a Manatee County circuit court decision and summarily affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is per curiam, issued May 6, 2026, and the panel (Silberman, Villanti, and Atkinson, JJ.) concurred. No written opinion or extended reasoning appears in the provided text beyond the single-word disposition "Affirmed." The judgment of the circuit court therefore stands as decided below.

The State appealed a county court order that granted Ariel Paul’s motions to suppress evidence in a DUI case after the prosecution failed to produce three subpoenaed officers for a suppression hearing. At the first hearing one officer testified and the court continued the matter, instructing the remaining officers to appear; the State did not contact those officers and they did not appear at the continued hearing. The trial court denied the State’s request for further continuance and granted suppression. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion because the State failed to show due diligence in securing the witnesses.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a probate court order revoking a 2010 will executed by Isabel Camacho. The probate court had concluded the will failed as a self-proving instrument because the notary affidavit did not comply with Florida notary statutes, so the will’s proponent (the decedent’s son Pedro Camacho) bore the burden to prove formal execution at trial. The proponent presented only the drafting attorney whose faded memory the trial court found unreliable. Because the proponent failed to meet his burden, the appellate court affirmed the revocation.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's termination of the guardianship of the property for ward Milton Wallace under Florida Probate Rule 5.680. Appellant Hardy Wallace argued co-guardians Mark Wallace and Angel Insua misrepresented the estate had no assets and that the guardianship was prematurely ended. The appellate court concluded Hardy failed to provide the trial hearing transcript, preventing review of factual findings, and applied the presumption that the trial court's factual determinations were correct. Because guardianship decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, the court affirmed.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary denial of Enrique Jesus Someillan’s postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Someillan filed the motion more than 30 years after his judgment and sentence became final and failed to plead any of the limited exceptions to Florida’s two-year filing deadline. The court noted the State demonstrated prejudice from the delay: the trial lawyer is deceased, investigative files were destroyed, and key witnesses are unavailable, and Someillan already benefited from his plea terms. Because the motion was untimely and barred, the denial was affirmed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a homeowner plaintiffs’ suit challenging a neighbor’s parked RV. The appellants sued under Florida Statute section 720.305, but the court concluded their claimed injury was one to the homeowners association as a whole, not a personal injury. Because the claim was derivative in nature, the appellants were required to satisfy the pre-suit requirements of section 617.07401 for derivative actions and failed to do so. The appellate court therefore affirmed without addressing the merits of the RV dispute.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a non-jury foreclosure judgment entered for The Bank of New York Mellon against Carlos Pantoja. The homeowner appealed solely because the lender failed to file its trial exhibits with the clerk after a hybrid (Zoom/in-person) trial, although the judge admitted and reviewed the exhibits during trial and the homeowner never objected then. The court held that the mere failure to file admitted exhibits is a clerical defect, not an independent basis for reversal, and explained that post-trial motions or motions to correct the record are the correct remedies to preserve review.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a lower court order denying defendants' motion to dismiss a personal-injury complaint on sovereign-immunity grounds. Plaintiff was injured when a bus owned by New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. (NJTBO) struck her vehicle. Defendants argued NJTBO is an arm of New Jersey and therefore immune, but the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Galette (which affirmed the New York Court of Appeals in Colt) held that New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) is not an arm of the State. Because NJTBO's immunity claim depends on NJT's status, the court concluded immunity does not apply and affirmed the denial of dismissal.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Madalina Garrido's negligence action against Barawine LLC. Garrido claimed she tripped on a sidewalk crack and that Barawine's sidewalk café forced her into the defective middle slab. The court relied on Barawine's lease disclaiming sidewalk maintenance responsibility, an engineer's affidavit finding adequate clearance to avoid the defect, and testimony that tables would not have diverted the plaintiff's path. The court found plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact and properly rejected plaintiff's affidavit as inconsistent with her deposition.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff M.P. summary judgment on liability for battery, assault, and false imprisonment and denied defendant A.'s cross-motion to dismiss claims based on wrongful transmission of a sexually transmitted disease (STD). The court found the plaintiff's sworn affidavit and exhibits (photographs, arrest report, police report) established a prima facie case and that the defendant submitted no evidence creating a triable issue. The court also allowed the complaint to be conformed to proof to include the STD transmission claim and ordered a trial solely on damages.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court (Bronx County) judgment directing a disciplinary hearing under Civil Service Law § 75(1)(c) for petitioner Joshua Clemente, who had been discharged by the Bronx County District Attorney. The court rejected Clemente’s claim for immediate full back pay, explaining that any entitlement to back pay (which may begin 30 days after suspension) and offsets (such as other earnings or unemployment benefits) must be determined at the § 75(3) hearing. The court rejected the remaining arguments and affirmed without costs.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a trial court order vacating a prior summary-judgment ruling in favor of MIC General Insurance Corporation and, upon vacatur, denying the insurer summary judgment. The court held the trial judge correctly found a reasonable excuse for the default and that questions of fact exist about whether the insured property and relationships fit the policy terms “residence” and “household.” Because the policy terms are not defined and ambiguities are construed against the insurer, the court concluded summary judgment was improper and also affirmed denial of the insurer’s motion to renew.

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 First Department affirmed the denial of ExxonMobil's motion to dismiss claims by former InterOil shareholders who allege ExxonMobil manipulated post-closing appraisals to reduce contingent payments. The court held plaintiffs now have standing because one plaintiff acquired enough Escrow Verification Receipts (EVRs) after the Contingent Resource Payment Agreement (CRPA) terminated to meet the contract's Required Holder threshold. The court found transfer restrictions in §§ 3.03 and 3.04 did not survive termination under § 8.11, so EVRs were freely transferable post-termination, and the complaint therefore survives dismissal on standing grounds.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Bronx County Supreme Court order denying defendants' motion to disqualify the Grigoropoulos Law Group (GLG) from representing plaintiff in a personal-injury action arising from a 2019 vehicle collision. GLG initially represented both plaintiff and driver Santos, obtained a written conflict waiver, and later withdrew for Santos when Santos's position became adverse and proceeded to represent only the plaintiff. The court found defendants waived the disqualification claim by delaying about three years, the written waiver adequately warned of potential conflicts and withdrawal, and there was no evidence that confidential information obtained during GLG's brief representation of Santos was used to plaintiffs' advantage.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Bronx Supreme Court order denying defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, the Grigoropoulos Law Group (GLG). The dispute arose from GLG's brief, joint-retainer representation of both plaintiff and defendant Santos after a 2019 motor vehicle accident; GLG later withdrew from representing Santos and continued for the plaintiff. The court found defendants had waived any conflict by delaying three years to move for disqualification, that the signed conflict waiver adequately informed both clients of potential adverse positions, and there was no evidence confidential information obtained from Santos was used to the defendants' prejudice.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court judgment entered December 20, 2022, in the criminal case against Jose Cabrera. The appeal challenged the conviction and/or sentence, but the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive after briefing and oral argument. The court issued a brief decision and order affirming the judgment and referred appellant's counsel to the court's Rule 606.5 regarding appellate counsel obligations or procedures.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Bronx County conviction and sentence. Defendant Kshawn Bowers pleaded guilty to petit larceny and was sentenced to three years' probation. The court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore foreclosed review of his excessive-sentence claim, and it found no basis to reduce the sentence. The court declined to reach a preserved constitutional challenge to a probation condition in the interest of justice but, alternatively, rejected that challenge on the merits. It upheld a nonconstitutional challenge to the same probation condition as reasonably related to rehabilitation.