New York Appellate Lawyers Blog

*1 In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2205 and SCPA 2206, inter alia, to compel an accounting of trust assets, the petitioner appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate's Court, Richmond County (Gigante, S.), dated February 22, 2012, as, in effect, denied that branch of her petition which was to invalidate those portions of a document dated June 1, 2006, entitled “Amendment to the Arthur Stuart and Muriel Stuart Living Trust Agreement dated February 20, 1998,” which amended the original terms of an agreement entitled “Arthur Stuart and Muriel Stuart Living Trust Agreement” dated February 20, 1998, by altering the beneficiary allocation for assets designated as “Trust A” and by replacing the petitioner as successor trustee, and Ellen Stuart, Barry Stuart, and Dennis Trimper cross-appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as, in effect, granted that branch of the petition which was to invalidate the portion of the above-mentioned document dated June 1, 2006, which amended the beneficiary allocation for assets designated as “Trust B” and “Trust C.”

Amed Marzano & Sediva PLLC’s appellate group successfully represented the appellee in Grasson v. Bd. of Educ., 11-5295-cv in dismissing the appellant’s interlocutory appeal.  The 2^nd Circuit clarified the exception to the FRAP 1291 finality rule and held that an interlocutory appeal on the basis of FRCP Rule 60(b) will be jurisdictionally barred unless the district court assumes jurisdiction and power to act when neither exists.  The Circuit decision in Rineiri v. News Syndicate Co, 385 F.2d 818 left an opening for this appellant to seek appellate jurisdiction because the District Court granted a Rule 60(b) motion that was brought within one year but four months after the decision that the plaintiff sought to vacate. 

This decision closes that opening and holds that so long as the district court had jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 60(b), an appeal will be barred, and the circuit will not address any improprieties within that decision.

The text of the summary order follows....

Where deeds are void, on the ground of absolute fraud, they are to be considered as

On numerous occasions, courts have stressed that real property devolves at the moment

A motion to quash or vacate is the exclusive

Although it is possible to emerge victorious even if a respondent does nothing, it is an extremely

An appeal is a request to a higher court to review decision(s) made by a lower court.  Many appeals are brought after a trial has been held, and the trial judge’s many decisions are submitted to an appellate tribunal for review.  Appeals can also be brought, however, on

New York Appellate practice comes at a cost to the lawyer and the client. 

The cost is often greater for the appellant than it is for

Undue influence is proved by a preponderance of the credible evidence to demonstrate motive, opportunity, and the actual exercise of undue influence. See Matter of Walther, 6 N.Y.2d 49 [1959].

Appellate lawyer, and the ins and outs of appellate practice.  We wecome you to visit our site and contact us with a any questions and comments.  This information is not intended and should not be relied upon as legal advice.  You should discuss your specific matter with a New York appellate lawyer.

Taking an appeal in New York is generally accomplished by the timely filing of a document called the Notice of Appeal.  In most New York appellate courts the notice of appeal is filed within thirty days of a specified judicial event.  In most New York state court civil cases for instance, a lawyer or litigant must file a notice of appeal within thirty days of receipt of a judgment, or decision and order.

Amed Marzano & Sediva PLLC's NY appellate lawyers have handled and are presently handling cases in NY courts dealing with malicious prosecution.  If you need assistance in this area of law, please contact us or another law firm of your choosing.

An action for malicious prosecution in New York will not survive a motion for summary judgment unless the party making the claim can satisfy all four of the below elements.

1. That a criminal proceeding was commenced,
2. That it was terminated in favor of the accused,
3. That it lacked probable cause,
4. That the proceeding was brought out of actual malice.