Cases

Matter of Walker v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 02701 April 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Junarian Walker, Appellant, v Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Correction

POOLER, Circuit Judge: *81Plaintiff-Appellant Mark Burns appeals from a February 10, 2015 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Kahn, J .), adopting the report-recommendation of the magistrate judge (Hummel, M.J. ) in its entirety, and granting summary judgment to defendants

Matter of Dean v Martuscello (2025 NY Slip Op 01692) Matter of Dean v Martuscello 2025 NY Slip Op 01692 Decided on March 20, 2025 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary La

Matter of Barletta v Martuscello (2025 NY Slip Op 04286) Matter of Barletta v Martuscello 2025 NY Slip Op 04286 Decided on July 24, 2025 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Matter of Strong v Martuscello (2024 NY Slip Op 04873) Matter of Strong v Martuscello 2024 NY Slip Op 04873 Decided on October 4, 2024 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judici

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. After a correction officer observed that petitioner had his cell window completely covered by a towel, which obstructed the officer’s view inside the cell, he instructed petitioner to remove it. P

15-1631 Burns v. Martuscello 15‐1631 Burns v. Martuscello 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2017 6 7 (Argued: October 11, 2017

MEMORANDUM, ORDER & JUDGMENT JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge. Table of Contents I. Introduction...........................................................99 II. Pacts.................................................................100 A Crime of Conviction.................................................100

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Greene County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. After a correction officer observed that petitioner had his cell window completely covered by a towel, which obstructed the officer’s view inside the cell, he instructed petitioner to remove it. P

Matter of Barletta v Martuscello 2026 NY Slip Op 03213 May 21, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Daniel A. Barletta, Appellant, v Daniel F. Martuscello III, as Commissioner of Correct

Matter of Shaw v Martuscello (2025 NY Slip Op 06373) Matter of Shaw v Martuscello 2025 NY Slip Op 06373 Decided on November 20, 2025 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

Following an investigation in which information was received from a confidential source, correction officials discovered that a letter intercepted in the mail room had been placed in the mail by petitioner. The letter contained gang-related materials, as well as an altered state-issued razor blade. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing gang-related materials, altering state property and violating facility corresponden

Following an investigation in which information was received from a confidential source, correction officials discovered that a letter intercepted in the mail room had been placed in the mail by petitioner. The letter contained gang-related materials, as well as an altered state-issued razor blade. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing gang-related materials, altering state property and violating facility corresponden

In an action to recover moneys allegedly owing upon a separation agreement, in which a default judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff on March 16, 1966, in the Supreme Court, Westchester County, she appeals from an order of said court, dated June 1, 1971, which (1) granted defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment and (2) directed defendant to serve an answer to plaintiff’s supplemental complaint. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and mo

OPINION OF THE COURT Shapiro, J. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition which, inter alia, requested the court to compel the respondents to reduce the mortgage lien on his home to reflect the amount he earned by reason of his work on a public works project. The petitioner was assigned to work on the public works project as an employable recipi

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 14, 1975, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of a dangerous weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by reversing the convictions of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of a dangerous weapon

Hopkins, Acting P. J. This appeal in a wrongful death action entails two separate but related issues—whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case on the jury trial of the issues of negligence and contributory negligence and whether defendant Farmingdale Garage, Inc. was estopped from disclaiming liability resulting from the use of its dealer’s registration plates on the automobile which struck the decedent represented by

No opinion. Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., concurs, with the following memorandum: The judgment of conviction in this case was affirmed by this court (People v. Walker, 24 A D 2d 1079) and applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States were both denied. In my opinion, appellant’s contention that because the s

*728Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Munder, Acting P. J., Martuscello and Gulotta, JJ., concur, with the following separate memoranda: Martuseello, J. I am of the view that the rule enunciated in Harrington v. California (395 U. S. 250), that the denial of the right of confrontation, as it is defined by Bruton v. United States (391 U. S. 123), may be found to be harmless error, applies to the case at bar. I am mindful of the fact that the test of harmless e