Chan v. Tomasino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Feb 24, 2009

Versions:59 A.D.3d 680

874 N.Y.S.2d 214

Stevenson start mid-paragraph on the first page, indicating it‘s a continuation. Per the instructions for multi-opinion documents (“convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body“), I will skip the partial content at the beginning of page 680 and focus on the first full case that starts on that page: Kam Chan et al. v. Vincent Tomasino, Sr. However, the partial content at the top of page 680 actually belongs to the preceding case. Looking at the prompt, I see the instructions: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Therefore, I will begin with “Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant.” and skip the first two paragraphs on page 680. Case 1: Chan v. Tomasino Case 2 (partial start): Kohl v. American Transit Insurance Company. I will provide only the Chan case. Wait, looking at the provided images, Page 680 starts with the end of a foreclosure case (HSBC Bank). Then a new case starts: Kam Chan et al. v. Vincent Tomasino, Sr. This case ends on Page 681. Then another case starts: Kristopher Kohl v. American Transit Insurance Company. Following the instruction to convert the MAIN opinion (the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body), I will convert “Kam Chan et al. v. Vincent Tomasino, Sr.” Metadata for Kam Chan et al. v. Vincent Tomasino, Sr.: Case Name: Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant. Short Name: Chan v. Tomasino Citation: 874 NYS2d 214 Docket: not explicitly provided with a “No.” prefix but mentioned in context of orders. Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (implied by the judges Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ, and the reporter NYS2d/AD3d style). Date: The order appealed from is Jan 7, 2008 and June 28, 2007. The judgment is Feb 13, 2008. The decision date of this appellate order isn‘t explicitly on the header of this specific page fragment, but the citations are from 2008. Usually, these pages are from a reporter. Refining the metadata: Case name: KAM CHAN et al., Respondents, v VINCENT TOMASINO, Sr., Appellant. Citation: 874 N.Y.S.2d 214 Short Name: Chan v. Tomasino Court: N.Y. App. Div. Let‘s look at the text carefully. The Chan case starts on page 680 and ends on page 681. The Kohl case starts on page 681. I will process the Chan case. Page 680 content for Chan: Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant. [874 NYS2d 214] — In an action to recover the accelerated amounts allegedly due on two promissory notes, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), dated January 7, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, which previously had been denied in an order dated June 28, 2007, and upon reargument, granted the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered Febru- Page 681 content for Chan: ary 13, 2008, which, upon the order dated January 7, 2008, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $1,427,629.86. Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 7, 2008 is dismissed; and it is further, Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, upon reargument, the determination in the order dated June 28, 2007 denying the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is adhered to; and it is further, Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant. The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Although reargument was properly granted, upon reargument, the Supreme Court should have adhered to its original determination denying the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant raised triable issues of fact as to whether he was fraudulently induced to sign the subject promissory notes (see See v Ach, 56 AD3d 457 [2008]; Black Rock, Inc. v Z Best Car Wash, Inc., 27 AD3d 409 [2006]; Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993]), and the applicability of the acceleration clauses. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur. Citations to process: - Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976] -> Case - CPLR 5501 [a] [1] -> Law (N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1)) - See v Ach, 56 AD3d 457 [2008] -> Case - Black Rock, Inc. v Z Best Car Wash, Inc., 27 AD3d 409 [2006] -> Case - Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993] -> Case Wait, I need to check the exact text in the image for the first case. “Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant.” Then “[874 NYS2d 214]” Then “—In an action...” (the em-dash is there). Wait, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” I will convert Chan v. Tomasino. Wait, I should check if there are any other full opinions. “Kristopher Kohl, Appellant, v American Transit Insurance Company, Respondent.” starts at the bottom of 681. It looks like it is also a full opinion starting there. The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. If there are multiple full starts, usually the first complete one is the focus. The first full case starting in the provided document is Kam Chan et al. v. Vincent Tomasino, Sr. Let‘s double check the court. The reporter 874 N.Y.S.2d is used for NY state cases. The format “Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.” indicates the Appellate Division, Second Department. Date for decision: Usually not on the page, but I will look at the [874 NYS2d 214] citation. The orders being appealed are from 2008. One detail: “[874 NYS2d 214]” is often the starting page of the case in the New York Supplement. The internal pagination of the reporter pages is 680 and 681. These are likely from the Official Reports (Appellate Division). 59 A.D.3d 680? Let‘s check. Yes, this looks like 59 A.D.3d 680. One nuance: the text says “Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.” at the end of the Chan case. Let‘s build the HTML. Case Info: Short name: Chan v. Tomasino Case name: KAM CHAN et al., Respondents, v VINCENT TOMASINO, Sr., Appellant. Citation: 874 N.Y.S.2d 214 | 59 A.D.3d 680 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: Since not provided on page, I will omit the specific date or use the year from citations if required, but it is safer to omit if not on the document. Actually, it says “dated January 7, 2008” and “entered February 13, 2008“. The appellate decision must be after Feb 13, 2008. Wait, the prompt says: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. The body starts with “In an action...“. Let‘s structure. Page 1 (680): ... skip HSBC content ... Case Info for Chan. Body:

In an action to recover the accelerated amounts allegedly due on two promissory notes, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), dated January 7, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, which previously had been denied in an order dated June 28, 2007, and upon reargument, granted the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered February 13, 2008, which, upon the order dated January 7, 2008, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $1,427,629.86.

Wait, the text block for Chan starts with “Kam Chan et al...“. In reporter format, this is the caption. HTML:

...

KAM CHAN et al., Respondents, v VINCENT TOMASINO, Sr., Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

874 N.Y.S.2d 214 | 59 A.D.3d 680

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 7, 2008 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, upon reargument, the determination in the order dated June 28, 2007 denying the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is adhered to; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Although reargument was properly granted, upon reargument, the Supreme Court should have adhered to its original determination denying the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant raised triable issues of fact as to whether he was fraudulently induced to sign the subject promissory notes (see See v Ach, 56 AD3d 457 [2008]; Black Rock, Inc. v Z Best Car Wash, Inc., 27 AD3d 409 [2006]; Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993]), and the applicability of the acceleration clauses.

Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Wait, the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Wait, what about the Kohl case that starts at the bottom of 681? “Kristopher Kohl, Appellant, v American Transit Insurance Company, Respondent. [874 NYS2d 213] — In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is required to defend and indemnify... Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from,” The screenshot for page 2 cuts off right after “Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from,“. This means the Kohl case is also partial (the rest is on the next page which is not provided). The Chan case is complete. Wait, looking at the OCR for Kohl: “Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from,” - this is the end of page 2. Since I am told to convert the MAIN opinion, and Chan is the only complete full opinion (start to finish) in the provided screenshots, I will output Chan. Let‘s refine the Law Cite for CPLR 5501 [a] [1]. Jurisdiction is NY. Cite is N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1). Wait, the prompt says: “strip from cite, preserve in inner text” for et seq. And “normalize full name“. “CPLR 5501 [a] [1]” -> jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5501(a)(1)” or just “CPLR 5501(a)(1)“. Usually “N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1)“. One check on the text “Febru- [page break] ary“. Correctly rejoined as February but markers placed. Metadata check: Court name: Usually reporter headers say something like “Second Department, March 2009” or something. I will use “Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department” as the court since it is identified by the judges and reporter. Citation: 874 N.Y.S.2d 214. One more thing: The case starting at the top of 680 is also partial. I will skip it as instructed. Let‘s re-read the start of Chan on 680. “Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant. [874 NYS2d 214] — In an action...” The black box in the screenshot is likely the case header or summary. The text after the dash “In an action...” is the summary/syllabus. The “Ordered that...” part is the order. The “The appeal from...” part is the opinion body. I will include all of it. Wait, looking at the layout: “Kam Chan et al... [874 NYS2d 214]” is the caption. “—In an action...” is a summary. “Ordered that...” is the formal order. “The appeal from...” is the memo/opinion. “Spolzino... concur” is the signature/concurrence line. One more look at “Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant.” Is there a docket? No docket number listed on the page. One more check on the CPLR citation. CPLR is the Civil Practice Law and Rules of New York. jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1)” Double check citations: - Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976] -> - CPLR 5501 [a] [1] -> CPLR 5501 [a] [1] - See v Ach, 56 AD3d 457 [2008] -> - Black Rock, Inc. v Z Best Car Wash, Inc., 27 AD3d 409 [2006] -> - Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993] -> Note on names: “See v Ach“. The text is “See v Ach“. There is also a “see” signal before it. Text: “(see See v Ach, 56 AD3d 457 [2008]; ...)” The first “see” is the signal. “See v Ach” is the case name. Wait, is “See” the party name? Yes, “See” is a common name. Wait, looking at the first case on 680 (the partial one): “First Continental...“. It has “see Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo...“. And “see CPLR 5015...“. I will skip this first case as it is a partial end. Starting with Chan. One check on “Febru-ary“. Page 680 ends with “Febru-“. Page 681 starts with “ary“. I will join them: “February“. Check page markers: (start of Chan content) ... February ... end of Chan content. I won‘t include Kohl because it is incomplete (the screenshots end mid-sentence/mid-order for Kohl). The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Chan fits this perfectly. One final check on the signature block: “Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.” I‘ll put this in a signature block div. Wait, is “In an action... $1,427,629.86.” one paragraph or two? OCR for page 1: “...and (2) a judgment of the same court entered Febru-” OCR for page 2: “ary 13, 2008, which... $1,427,629.86.” It seems to be one paragraph describing the appeal. One more thing: “[874 NYS2d 214]” - the text has an em-dash after it. “—In an action...“. I will include the em-dash. Wait, the prompt says “Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“. So I won‘t repeat “Kam Chan et al... [874 NYS2d 214]” in the body. HTML layout:

—In an action to recover the accelerated amounts allegedly due on two promissory notes, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite Nelson, J.), dated January 7, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument of their motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, which previously had been denied in an order dated June 28, 2007, and upon reargument, granted the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered February 13, 2008, which, upon the order dated January 7, 2008, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against him in the principal sum of $1,427,629.86.

... Wait, the em-dash is at the start of the summary paragraph. Wait, looking at the image: “Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant. [874 NYS2d 214] — In an action...” The em-dash is part of the text. Wait, is there more info? Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. One detail: the “Ordered that...” lines. “Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 7, 2008 is dismissed; and it is further,” The comma and “and it is further,” suggest these might be separate paragraphs or one long sentence. In reporter style, they are usually separate block-indented paragraphs. Let‘s check the indentation in the screenshot. Yes, they look like separate paragraphs. Final review of Law cite for CPLR. jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1)” And “CPLR 5501 [a] [1]” in text. One check on “Brathwaite Nelson, J.“. This is the judge. Actually, the case name in metadata should be: KAM CHAN et al., Respondents, v. VINCENT TOMASINO, Sr., Appellant. Wait, “v” is used instead of “v.“. I will follow the source exactly. “KAM CHAN et al., Respondents, v VINCENT TOMASINO, Sr., Appellant.” One check: “874 NYS2d 214” Citation: cite=“874 N.Y.S.2d 214” Should I include the page number 681 in metadata? Citation: 874 N.Y.S.2d 214 | 59 A.D.3d 680 Official citation 59 A.D.3d 680 is standard for this reporter volume. Wait, the prompt says “Reporter page numbers (e.g., *324 or star pagination)” - priority 2. The pages provided are 680 and 681. I will use these. Final paragraph: “Although reargument was properly granted...“. Citations in this paragraph: (see See v Ach, 56 AD3d 457 [2008]; Black Rock, Inc. v Z Best Car Wash, Inc., 27 AD3d 409 [2006]; Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993]) Wait, “See v Ach” has a typo in the OCR? OCR says “See v Ach“. Image shows “See v Ach“. Wait, the party name is “See“. Case is See v. Ach. Actually, I should check if it‘s “Sce“. OCR says “See v Ach“. Image shows “See v Ach“. It looks like “See“. Wait, looking closer at the image for 56 AD3d 457... it‘s “See v Ach“. Wait, I just checked. 56 AD3d 457 is “See v. Ach“. Correct. Okay, everything looks good. One small thing: “February 13, 2008” The page break: “Febru- [page 681] ary 13, 2008“. Text should be “February 13, 2008“. One more check on “reargument“. The OCR has “rear- [break] gument“. Rejoin it: “reargument“. Ready. Wait, one more thing. The “Spolzino...” line. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur. The JJ is plural for Judges (Justices). The J.P. is Justice Presiding. Final check on Kohl. If I don‘t convert it, am I missing a complete opinion? “Kristopher Kohl... Appellant, v American Transit Insurance Company, Respondent. [874 NYS2d 213]” The opinion text: “In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is required to defend and indemnify... order of the Supreme Court... granted the defendant‘s cross motion for summary judgment. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from,” This seems like a complete opinion? It‘s a memorandum decision. Wait, usually there‘s a concur line like “Spolzino... JJ., concur.” Kohl doesn‘t have it on this page. It likely continues on page 682. Since 682 is not provided, Kohl is incomplete. Chan is complete. I will stick to Chan. One thing: The citation in Chan “Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]“. jurisdiction is NY. Court is Court of Appeals of New York (NY2d is official). Wait, the HSBC case at the top of 680 also mentions Spolzino. “Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.” Wait, these cases are all from the same court/sitting. One last check on the Metadata Court. “Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department” is more precise. Wait, the prompt says “Use Bluebook abbreviation“. N.Y. App. Div. Let‘s go. ```html

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 7, 2008 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

``` One correction: The em-dash is “—In an action“. I‘ll keep it exactly. Wait, the OCR says “—In anaction“. I will fix the spacing error (“anaction” -> “an action“) as per instructions to reflow. One final check on the signature. “Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.” This isn‘t a signature block in the traditional sense (with titles like “UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE“) but a concurrence line. I will use the signature block structure as it fits the format of judge names at the end. Wait, the em-dash “—” is often used in New York Official Reports to separate the syllabus/summary from the case caption. One more look at the page 680 start for Chan. “Kam Chan et al., Respondents, v Vincent Tomasino, Sr., Appellant. [874 NYS2d 214] — In an action...” It seems the summary starts immediately after the citation on the same line. I‘ll put the summary in its own paragraph. One check on Kohl again. Actually, Chan is a perfect complete case. Kohl is clearly cut off. One detail: “Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]” Official citation for N.Y. Court of Appeals is N.Y.2d. Cite: “39 NY2d 241“. Court: “N.Y.“. Final check on citations for Law. CPLR 5501 [a] [1] -> N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1) I‘ll use jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5501(a)(1)“. One thing: “Silber v Muschel, 190 AD2d 727 [1993]“. AD2d is Appellate Division, Second Series. Court is N.Y. App. Div. Wait, I should check the case “See v Ach“. OCR says “See v Ach“. Image shows “See v Ach“. Wait, checking 56 AD3d 457. It is “See v. Ach“. I‘ll keep the text “See v Ach” but make sure the tag cite is correct. Done.