The firm has been involved recently in many significant decisions of interest. The Appellate Decisions in which we successfully represented the interests of our clients in recent months include the following:

Alzamora v. Village of Chester, 2009 WL 578630 (2d Cir. 2009).

Affirming District Court. Plaintiff did not establish a protected property interest prior to zoning change where they did not complete substantial construction prior to the amendment.

Costello v. Town of Warwick, 273 Fed. Appx. 118 (2^nd Cir. 2008).

Affirming District Court. Police Officer’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable where decedent’s actions placed police officers at risk of immediate and severe injury.

Chiara v. Wells, 61 AD3d 973 (2^nd Dept. 2009)

Petitioner failed to show that initiation of disciplinary action was done on retaliation for commencing a lawsuit against the Town Administrator.

Kaufman v. Wells, 56 AD3d 674 (2^nd Dept. 2008). Administrative determination to terminate police officer for misconduct was based on substantial evidence.

Rist v. Town of Cortlandt, 56 AD3d 451 (2^nd Dept. 2008).

Affirming Supreme Court. Untimely Notice of Claim barred negligence action.

Williams v. Town of Greenburgh, 535 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008).

Affirming District Court. Municipality decision to limit access to recreational facility did not deprive plaintiff of a libert interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Simko v. Town of Highlands, 276 Fed. Appx. 39 (2^nd Circ. 2008).

Affirming District Court. Area searched by Town Animal Control Officer was not within the curtilage of plaintiff’s home and, therefore, he did not sustain a constitutional violation.

Espinosa v. Petro, 53 AD3d 408 (1^st Dept. 2008).

Reversing trial court and finding that there was no question of fact that oil company improperly locked fuel cap after delivery the day before plaintiff tripped and fell.

McFadden v. Village of Ossining, 48 AD3d 761 (2^nd Dept. 2008).

Reversing trial court and finding that Village sign was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident.

Affri v. Basch, 45 AD3d 615 (2^nd Dept. 2008). Reversing trial court and finding that homeowner was not liable for injury by handyman because homeowner did not exercise supervisory control.

49 East Maple Avenue, Inc. v. Loniewski, 50 AD3d 628 (2^nd Dept. 2008).

Affirming Supreme Court and finding that a denial of a building permit – even if arbitrary – is not a constitutional violation under 42 USC § 1983.