1. Home
  2. Term
  3. Calendar
February Term

Wed Mar 03 Argument #333

OP 20-00776

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
    V
STEUBEN COUNTY PISTOL PERMIT CLERK

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to compel respondents to disclose certain records, to disqualify respondent Licensing Officer Chauncey J. Watches and to annul the denial of his application for a pistol permit.

Images and video recordings of the Court’s Justices on the Court’s website or otherwise may not be used to advance private interests or in furtherance of any commercial purpose (see Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Op. 20-158; see generally 22 NYCRR 100.2 [C], 100.4 [D] [3]).

317
KA 18-00617

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
EDISON N. HERNANDEZ

Robbery

  HELEN SYME 5
  SCOTT MYLES 5

318
KA 18-01975

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
GRANT PRICE

Sexual Abuse

  J. SCOTT PORTER 10
  MELISSA SWARTZ 5

319
KA 19-00222

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
LAWRENCE TAYLOR

Robbery

  KATHRYN B. FRIEDMAN 10
  DANIEL GROSS 10

320
KA 16-00549

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
MELVIN G. CRUZ

Predatory Sexual Assault Against a Child

     JAMES A. HOBBS SUB
  NANCY GILLIGAN 5

321
KA 19-01759

PEOPLE
    V
CYNTHIA TAYLOR

Sentence

     RYAN J. MULDOON SUB
     R. MICHAEL TANTILLO SUB

322
KA 19-01761

PEOPLE
    V
CYNTHIA TAYLOR

Sentence

TO BE ARGUED WITH #321

323
KA 20-00139

PEOPLE
    V
KENNETH C. SHELTON, SR.

Criminal Sale Controlled Substance

     DAVID P. ELKOVITCH SUB
     CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA SUB

324
KA 19-00671

PEOPLE
    V
MICHAEL LEACH

Sex Offender Registration Act

     KELIANN M. ARGY SUB

325
OP 20-00556

PLAY

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
    V
CHAUNCEY JOSEPH WATCHES

Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78

  MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY 15
  FRANK BRADY 10

326
OP 20-00844

DAVID M. BLY
    V
M. WILLIAM BOLLER

Original Proceeding

327
CA 19-02362

MOMENTUM AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC
    V
RADIUM2 CAPITAL, INC.

Dismiss Petition

OVER THE TERM

328
CA 20-00519

PLAY

IN THE MATTER OF
ESTATE OF KATHERINE E. KEOUGH, DECEASED.

Probate

  DAVID C. SIELING 15
  ERIC JOHN WARD 15

329
CA 19-02155

PLAY

KIMBERLY STRIBING
    V
WENDEL & LOECHER, INC.

Jury Verdict

  R. COLIN CAMPBELL 20
  BRENT C. SEYMOUR 15
  MEGHANN N. ROEHL 15

330
CA 19-02327

PLAY

KIMBERLY STRIBING
    V
WENDEL & LOECHER, INC.

Jury Verdict

TO BE ARGUED WITH #329

331
CA 20-01399

PLAY

KIMBERLY STRIBING
    V
WENDEL & LOECHER, INC.

Jury Verdict

TO BE ARGUED WITH #329

332
CA 20-01402

PLAY

KIMBERLY STRIBING
    V
WENDEL & LOECHER, INC.

Jury Verdict

TO BE ARGUED WITH #329

333
OP 20-00776

PLAY

MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
    V
STEUBEN COUNTY PISTOL PERMIT CLERK

Original Proceeding

  MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY 30
  FRANK BRADY 10

334
CA 20-00663

PLAY

LAURIE ANN SMITH
    V
STATE OF NEW YORK

Dismiss Claim

  NORMAN A. OLCH 15
  KATHLEEN M. TREASURE 10

335
CA 19-02006

PLAY

KULBACK'S INC.
    V
BUFFALO STATE VENTURES, LLC

Dismiss Claims

  FRANK J. JACOBSON 15
  JOSEPH S. NACCA 15

336
CA 20-00558

PLAY

THOMAS M. KOWALAK, M.D.
    V
KEYSTONE MEDICAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, P.C.

Summary Judgment

  SCOTT M. PHILBIN 15
  MARK RICHARD UBA 10

337
CA 20-00386

PLAY

PHILIP LAMA
    V
PETER PHAM

Summary Judgment

     RICHARD JAY STEINER SUB
  MATTHEW D. PFALZER 10
RULES FILING FORMS ASSIGNED COUNSEL MOTIONS PERFECTING APPEALS ARGUMENTS DECISIONS NOTICES

ACCESSIBILITY

If you are unable to access the archive of a particular argument because of a disability, please contact Alan Ross, Deputy Clerk of the Court and the Court’s designated ADA Liaison (by e-mail at aross@nycourts.gov or by telephone at 585-530-3102), to request a reasonable accommodation.

Hearing Assistance

ASSISTED LISTENING devices are available in each courtroom during arguments. Please see a court attendant when you enter the courtroom.

CLOSED CAPTIONING is available while viewing archived (not live) oral arguments. Hover your mouse over the video and click the [cc] icon to activate the captions. Please note: these captions are generated by a computer algorithm and are not considered a transcript of the proceedings.

Periodically the court may suspend a broadcast to protect the privacy interests of individuals in matters before the Court.

  Comment  Share your thoughts, comments or suggestions as part of the Court's Excellence Initiative.