1. Home
  2. Term
  3. Calendar
March Term

Wed Apr 06 Argument #419

CA 21-00495

CHARLES A. MCKAY, JR.
    V
FINGER LAKES TRAFFIC CONTROL LLC

Appeal from a decision and order of the Supreme Court, Yates County (Jason L. Cook, J.), entered March 25, 2021. The decision and order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Finger Lakes Traffic Control LLC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claims of defendant Seneca Stone Corporation.

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]).

410
KA 20-01084

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
ALLEN WHALEY

Aggravated Family Offense

  NOREEN MCCARTHY 10
  BRADLEY W. OASTLER 10

411
KA 20-00391

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
CAMERON GRADY

Robbery

  J. SCOTT PORTER 10
  KENNETH H. TYLER, JR. 10

412
KA 18-01957

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
TYQUAN JOHNSON

Criminal Possession Controlled Substance

  PAUL B. WATKINS 10
  SCOTT MYLES 10

413
KA 20-00932

PEOPLE
    V
HASSAN NELSON

Attempted Criminal Possession Weapon

     MARY P. DAVISON SUB
  KAITLYN M. GUPTILL SUB

414
KA 19-00672

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
ROBERTO LEON

Murder

  NELSON S. TORRE 10
  MICHAEL J. HILLERY 10

415
KA 19-01637

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
DELBRIAN GROVNER

Criminal Possession Controlled Substance

     MELISSA SWARTZ SUB
  KAITLYN M. GUPTILL 10

416
KA 19-02347

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
RYAN J. REEDER

Criminal Possession Controlled Substance

  CHARLES J. GREENBERG 10
  MARK S. SINKIEWICZ 5

417
KA 17-01666

PLAY

PEOPLE
    V
BALTAZAR LOPEZ

Sexual Abuse

  SHIRLEY A. GORMAN 10
  SCOTT MYLES 5

418
CA 21-00692

PLAY

ARLISA MAYS
    V
TYLER GREEN

Damages

  VALERIE L. BARBIC 10
     RON F. WRIGHT SUB

419
CA 21-00495

PLAY

CHARLES A. MCKAY, JR.
    V
FINGER LAKES TRAFFIC CONTROL LLC

Summary Judgment

  DAVID M. KATZ 15
  ELIZABETH OGNENOVSKI 15
  MATTHEW J. KAISER 15

420
CA 21-01591

PLAY

ROBERT STERN
    V
GOLUB CORPORATION

Discovery

     ROBERT STERN 10
  JAMES W. CUNNINGHAM 15
     JOHN L. BETSEY SUB

421
CA 21-01598

ROBERT STERN
    V
GOLUB CORPORATION

Discovery

TO BE ARGUED WITH #421

422
CA 21-00830

PLAY

S & J PROPERTIES OF WATERTOWN, LLC
    V
THE MAIN STREET AMERICA GROUP

Summary Judgment

  VICTOR L. PRIAL 15
  MATTHEW E. WARD 10

423
CA 21-01447

SHIRLEY VANLOAN
    V
CARRIESUE ROSIE ROE

Summary Judgment

SETTLED

424
CA 21-01025

PLAY

STEPHEN A. PANARO, PH.D
    V
ATHENEX, INC.

Summary Judgment

  TRISTAN D. HUJER 15

425
CAF 19-00159

PLAY

JENNIFER A. TURNER
    V
TODD D. YONKER

Custody

  TYSON BLUE 10
     ROBERT A. DINIERI SUB

426
TP 21-01573

VANESSA VEGA
    V
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN

CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of

     JAMES S. HINMAN SUB
     BRIAN D. GINSBERG SUB

427
CA 21-00879

PLAY

TODD SALANSKY
    V
JEFFREY EMPRIC

Summary Judgment

  STANLEY DALE COHEN 15
  JOHN A. COLLINS 15

428
CA 22-00086

PLAY

THE CAMPAIGN FOR BUFFALO HISTORY
    V
CITY OF BUFFALO

Injunction

  RICHARD J. LIPPES 15
  DAVID M. LEE 15
  EDWARD J. MARKARIAN 15
     CARMEN ALEXANDER VACCO SUB

429
OP 22-00326

PLAY

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. JON GRIFFIN
    V
TODD BAXTER

  JONATHAN FREDERIC GARVIN 10
  KATE H. NEPVEU 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.