MidFirst Bank v. AjalaMidFirst Bank v. Ajala
Versions:146 A.D.3d 87544 N.Y.S.3d 7712017 NY Slip Op 2982017 NY Slip Op 00298
Blackstone‘s Law dictionary defines “hybrid proceeding” but the instructions say to skip partial content from a previous case. The first full opinion starts with “MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant...“. I will skip the partial content at the top of the page.
Wait, looking at the document, the top portion is the end of a previous opinion. The first full case starts with MidFirst Bank.
Wait, there is a third case starting at the bottom: “In the Matter of 22-50 Jackson Avenue Associates, L.P., ...“. This is also a full opinion starting.
I will follow the instruction: “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.”
Case 1 (Top): Partial end of a case. Skip.
Case 2 (Middle): “MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants.” This appears to be a complete summary-style opinion.
Case 3 (Bottom): “In the Matter of 22-50 Jackson Avenue Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants, v Suffolk County Water Authority, Respondent.” This starts at the bottom and continues (presumably).
However, Case 2 is fully contained on this page. Case 3 is cut off. Usually, when provided a single page, the “MAIN” opinion is the first one that starts on that page with a caption.
Case 2 Info:
Name: MidFirst Bank v. Joseph Ajala
Short Name: MidFirst Bank v. Ajala
Docket: [44 NYS3d 771] - wait, this is a citation. There is no docket provided.
Court: Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.). On appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department (inferred from the judges Balkin, Rivera etc and the style). The reporter citation 44 NYS3d 771 is for the Appellate Division. The court name for the citation is N.Y. App. Div.
Date: March 20, 2013 (Order appealed from), July 2, 2012 (Judgment appealed from). The date of THIS decision is not explicitly stated on the page except that it follows a 2016 citation. The judges are Rivera, Austin, Roman and Connolly. This is a memorandum decision of the NY Appellate Division, Second Department.
Citation: 44 NYS3d 771 (though usually formatted as 14X AD3d XXX).
Let‘s look at Case 2 content:
“MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants. [44 NYS3d 771]—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joseph Ajala appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 20, 2013, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated July 2, 2012.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant‘s contentions, he waived the defenses of lack of standing, statute of limitations, and personal jurisdiction by failing to raise them in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]; South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]; Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]).
The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant‘s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale.
Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
Case 3 Info:
“In the Matter of 22-50 Jackson Avenue Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants, v Suffolk County Water Authority, Respondent. [46 NYS3d 637]—”
This case is just starting.
I will convert the MidFirst Bank case as the main complete opinion on the page.
Metadata extraction:
Case Name: MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants
Short Name: MidFirst Bank v. Ajala
Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department - inferred from the judges listed and the NYS3d citation)
Date: The page doesn‘t show the exact date of this decision, but the previous one cited is 2016. However, looking at the layout, these are brief memorandum decisions.
Citation: 44 NYS3d 771
Docket: Not provided.
Judges: Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ.
Since the prompt asks to skip partial content at the beginning, I will start with Case 2.
Case 2 metadata:
Actually, looking at the layout “875” at the top right, this is page 875 of a reporter.
Body text:
CPLR 320 [b]
3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e] -- actually, it‘s better to break these if possible or use the first section.
CPLR 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e] -> 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]
Wait, the text says “see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]“.
I will treat 3211 as a single law tag or multiple?
Usually, multiple.
CPLR 320 [b] ; 3211 [a] [5] , [8] ; [e]
Actually, the text says “3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]“. This is very dense. I‘ll stick to a simpler grouping if it‘s clearer.
Let‘s look at the instruction: “Never split a citation across multiple or tags.”
But “3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]” are different subsections of section 3211.
I‘ll use: 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e] or split. Split is safer for normalization.
3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]
Let‘s check “In the Matter of 22-50 Jackson Avenue Associates, L.P.“.
If I convert both MidFirst and 22-50 Jackson, is that allowed?
“If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion“.
Usually, this means picking one. In legal document processing, “Main” often means the one that is the focus of the request or the first complete one. MidFirst Bank is complete.
Wait, “In the Matter of 22-50 Jackson...” starts with a black box separator. MidFirst Bank also has a black box separator (at the beginning of its caption).
Actually, looking at the OCR/image:
- End of first case.
- Black box.
- MidFirst Bank case.
- Black box.
- 22-50 Jackson Avenue case.
- Black box.
- Paragraph text for 22-50 Jackson.
Case 2 (MidFirst Bank) is a complete short opinion.
Case 3 (22-50 Jackson) is just beginning.
I will convert MidFirst Bank as the main complete opinion.
One detail: “Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
This signature block is for the MidFirst case.
Correction: “Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.” is the signature for the first (partial) case.
Let‘s do MidFirst Bank.
Metadata:
- Case Name: MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants
- Short Name: MidFirst Bank v. Ajala
- Citation: 44 N.Y.S.3d 771
- Court: N.Y. App. Div. (derived from NYS3d and AD3d citations)
- Date: No date for the opinion itself is on the page. I will omit date attribute for metadata if unknown.
Wait, the prompt says “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)“.
I‘ll look for any date for the Appellate decision. It‘s not there. Only dates of the orders being appealed (March 20, 2013 and July 2, 2012).
Wait, the page header says “875“.
Body text:
MIDFIRST BANK, Respondent, v JOSEPH AJALA, Appellant, et al., Defendants. [44 NYS3d 771]—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joseph Ajala appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 20, 2013, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated July 2, 2012.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant‘s contentions, he waived the defenses of lack of standing, statute of limitations, and personal jurisdiction by failing to raise them in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]; South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]; Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]).
The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant‘s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale.
Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Wait, should I include the case caption in the metadata AND the body?
“Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body”
The caption is: “MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants. [44 NYS3d 771]”
If I put it in metadata, I skip it in the body.
But the opinion starts with “—In an action to foreclose...“. I should start the body text there.
Wait, if I extract the citation 44 NYS3d 771 to the metadata citation field, do I keep it in the body?
Rule: “Case Information ... Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“.
So the body will start with “In an action...“.
Let‘s check Case 3. It‘s also a complete opinion start.
If I have to choose the “MAIN” one, and one is complete and the other is not, the complete one is a better candidate.
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.”
MidFirst Bank has a complete caption and full opinion body (ending with the concurrence).
Jackson Avenue Associates has a complete caption but the body is cut off at the end of the page.
Therefore, MidFirst Bank is the Main opinion.
Wait, checking OCR for Case 1 end:
“... that he sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant‘s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.”
This is a snippet.
One detail: “875” at the top. I should place the ps marker.
Wait, let‘s look at the Jackson case again. It is quite long. It might be the intended “main” opinion of a larger set, but on this page, MidFirst is the only complete one.
Let‘s review the law citation for 3211.
“3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]”
Normalized: N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(5), (8); (e).
Actually, NY CPLR 3211(a) has paragraphs (5) and (8). (e) is a separate subdivision.
I will use:
3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]
Wait, “oflack” in OCR is “of lack“. Rejoin and correct typos from OCR?
“defenses oflack of standing” -> “defenses of lack of standing“.
Rule: “The text must match the source exactly.”
Image shows “of lack” (two words, though close). OCR merged them. I will use the image as the source of truth.
“appellant‘s contentions” - straight quotes.
One more thing. The judges for MidFirst are “Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
The signature block format in the instructions:
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I will format the concurring judges like this.
Wait, the citation 44 NYS3d 771.
In the Case Information:
44 N.Y.S.3d 771
Wait, the image shows “44 NYS3d 771” (no dots). I‘ll keep it as “44 NYS3d 771” in text but “44 N.Y.S.3d 771” is the standard. I‘ll stick to the source text for metadata strings but formatted correctly.
Wait, the court name is not on the page. But these are reported in the New York Supplement (N.Y.S.) and refer to “AD3d” (Appellate Division). The format of “Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ.” is classic Appellate Division, Second Department. I will use “N.Y. App. Div.” for court attribute.
Let‘s check the Jackson Avenue case start again.
“In the Matter of 22-50 Jackson Avenue Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants, v Suffolk County Water Authority, Respondent. [46 NYS3d 637]”
Then a black bar.
Then “In a hybrid proceeding...“.
This looks like a more substantial opinion. But it‘s cut off. The instructions say “Skip partial content from a previous case ... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
MidFirst is the only one with a full body.
Wait, looking at the image, there is a black box above “MidFirst Bank” and another black box above the text for Jackson Avenue.
The Jackson Avenue case caption is above the black box. The text is below.
The MidFirst Bank case caption is above its own text.
I will proceed with MidFirst Bank.
Wait, one more check. Is “MIDFIRST BANK” the start of the caption? Yes.
Does it have a signature? Yes, “Rivera... concur.”
Is there any Syllabus or Headnotes? No.
Wait, the instructions say:
“Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body”
So I will not put the case name “MidFirst Bank...” at the start of the body. I will start with “In an action...“.
Wait, but the bracketed citation “[44 NYS3d 771]” is part of that caption line.
I‘ll include it in the metadata.
Case Info:
ShortName: MidFirst Bank v. Ajala
Case Name: MIDFIRST BANK, Respondent, v JOSEPH AJALA, Appellant, et al., Defendants
Court: N.Y. App. Div.
Citation: 44 NYS3d 771
One detail: “Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.”
This is the end of the previous case. I skip it.
“defenses of lack of standing”
In image, it is “defenses of lack“.
“pre-answer” is hyphenated on one line.
“defend-ant‘s” is hyphenated across lines. Rejoin.
“issue (see Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969). of fact Che” - this OCR is messy.
Wait, “issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969).”
Re-reading the source text carefully:
“... raise a triable issue of fact (see Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969).”
OCR has “issue (see Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d at 969). of fact Che“. I will fix based on visual.
But wait, I am skipping that part because it‘s the end of the previous case.
Let‘s look at MidFirst Bank text:
“In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joseph Ajala appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 20, 2013, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated July 2, 2012.”
“Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.”
“Contrary to the appellant‘s contentions, he waived the defenses of lack of standing, statute of limitations, and personal jurisdiction by failing to raise them in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]; South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]; Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]).”
“The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.”
“Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant‘s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale.”
“Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
This is the full opinion.
One law cite check: “CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]”
I‘ll normalize as N.Y. C.P.L.R. ...
Actually, the standard Bluebook for CPLR is “N.Y. C.P.L.R. 320(b)“.
One note on the ps marker. It goes at the start.
Final check on the case caption exclusion rule.
The caption “MIDFIRST BANK, Respondent, v JOSEPH AJALA, Appellant, et al., Defendants.”
I extract it.
The brackets “[44 NYS3d 771]” contain the reporter cite. I extract it.
The dash “—” precedes the opinion body.
Should I include the “Ordered that...” as a heading? No, it‘s a paragraph.
“The appellant‘s remaining contentions...” paragraph.
“Accordingly, ...” paragraph.
The signature block:
Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Wait, “Rivera, J.P.” etc. are multiple names. Usually, in NY decisions, this is the format. I‘ll keep it in one or two lines as appropriate.
Let‘s double check the “Main Opinion” rule.
Case 3 starts with: “In the Matter of 22-50 Jackson Avenue Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants, v Suffolk County Water Authority, Respondent. [46 NYS3d 637]”
Then the body: “In a hybrid proceeding... (continues for many lines) ... and search- ing the record and awarding summary judgment to the Suffolk”
This case is cut off at the bottom.
Case 2 is fully present.
If I am given only one page, and one case is complete and the other is not, Case 2 is the main one to convert.
Wait, if I convert Case 2, and then Jackson starts... should I include the start of Jackson?
Rule: “If the document contains multiple opinions ... convert only the MAIN opinion“.
So I provide ONLY Case 2.
One more law cite: “CPLR article 78” (in Case 3). I won‘t need it.
Let‘s refine Case 2 Info.
Court: N.Y. App. Div. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division)
Citation: 44 N.Y.S.3d 771 (or 44 NYS3d 771)
Short Name: MidFirst Bank v. Ajala
One detail: The brackets around the cite “[44 NYS3d 771]“. I‘ll omit them in the attribute but they are in the source.
HTML construction:
Case Information
MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
44 NYS3d 771
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joseph Ajala appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 20, 2013, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated July 2, 2012.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant‘s contentions, he waived the defenses of lack of standing, statute of limitations, and personal jurisdiction by failing to raise them in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]; South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]; Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]).
The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant‘s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale.
Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Wait, the caption in the image has “MIDFIRST BANK” in small caps or all caps. “MidFirst Bank” in metadata is fine, but party names in Case Name should follow the source “MIDFIRST BANK...“.
Image: “MidFirst Bank” is mixed case in the caption line? No, it‘s Small Caps.
Actually, the bold text “MidFirst Bank...”
I‘ll use “MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants” in the metadata.
Wait, looking closer at the image, the caption line is bold.
“**MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants.**”
Actually, the party names are in bold caps/mixed case.
One more thing. “Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.” is often set in italics or specific formatting. Here it is plain text.
Wait, I should check the date again. There is no year for the Appellate decision on this page. I‘ll leave the date attribute out.
Law cites check:
CPLR 320 [b] -> N.Y. C.P.L.R. 320(b)
3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e] -> I‘ll split these.
3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]
Case cites check:
South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]
cite=“139 AD3d 935” pinpoint=“935-936” date=“2016” court=“N.Y. App. Div.”
Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]
cite=“71 AD3d 949” pinpoint=“950” date=“2010” court=“N.Y. App. Div.”
Wait, the citation in brackets [44 NYS3d 771] is after the case name. It‘s a parallel or primary citation. I‘ll include it in metadata citation field.
Is there any Syllabus? No.
One last check on the “Main Opinion” rule. If I provided both Case 2 and Case 3, would that be better?
“convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
Jackson (Case 3) is definitely NOT a full opinion body on this page. It ends mid-sentence.
So converting Jackson is incorrect. Converting only MidFirst is the correct interpretation.
Let‘s double check if “875” is the correct page number. Yes, top right.
One detail: “Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
Is this a signature or a paragraph? It is the list of judges. I‘ll use the signature block.
Final check on the text “—In an action to foreclose...“. The dash is part of the separator between caption and body. I‘ll skip the dash as it‘s a visual separator, but I‘ll make sure the text is correct. Or I can include it. “—In an action...“. I‘ll include it to be verbatim.
Actually, the rule says: “Formatting ... Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat court name, party names, or docket in the body“.
If I start the body with “—In an action...“, it makes sense.
Wait, the bracketed citation “[44 NYS3d 771]” - should I include it in the text or just metadata?
Instruction: “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“.
So I‘ll exclude it from the body.
One more look at Case 3 (Jackson). If the document provided was multiple pages, Jackson might be the “Main” one. But as a single page, MidFirst is the only complete one.
Wait, the judges listed at the end of the first snippet “Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.” are definitely not for MidFirst. They are the signature of the previous case.
Let‘s verify the judge line for MidFirst: “Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
Yes, this is correct.
Wait, the snippet at the top mentions “Che Hong Kim v Kossoff, 90 AD3d 969 [2011]“. This is another case cite. But it‘s in the partial text.
Final review of the prompt‘s exclusion rules.
- Skip partial content from previous case: Yes (top paragraph).
- Convert only the MAIN opinion: Yes (MidFirst).
- Extract metadata, don‘t repeat in body: Yes.
- Semantic HTML: Yes.
- Citations tagged: Yes.
- ps markers: Yes.
One detail: “defenses oflack” -> “defenses of lack“. Image clearly shows a space. OCR failed. I will use “of lack“.
Wait, “pre-answer” is on one line in the image. “pre-” and “answer” are on the same line. Okay.
“defend-ant‘s” is split. Rejoin to “defendant‘s“.
“appel-lant‘s” is split. Rejoin to “appellant‘s“.
“appel-” and “lant‘s” in the 5th line from the bottom. Rejoin.
One law cite for CPLR 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]:
I will use: 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e].
Actually, the “see” applies to both 320 and 3211.
I‘ll wrap: (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]; ... )
Wait, the semicolon after [b] separates the laws.
Also note the brackets used in the original text for subsections. CPLR 320 [b]. I‘ll keep the brackets in the inner text.
One last thing: “Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.”
I‘ll put this in a paragraph.
Wait, I need to make sure I don‘t miss “et al., Defendants” in the case name metadata.
Name: MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants
The court is Westchester County Supreme Court for the original order, but the Appellate Division is the court of the decision.
Metadata:
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
Ready.
One final check on the signature. In NY reports, these lists of judges are not signatures in the sense of a judge signing a solo order, but they are the attribution. I‘ll use the signature block.
```html
Case Information
MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York
44 NYS3d 771
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joseph Ajala appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 20, 2013, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated July 2, 2012.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant‘s contentions, he waived the defenses of lack of standing, statute of limitations, and personal jurisdiction by failing to raise them in his answer or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]; South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]; Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]).
The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant‘s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale.
Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.
```
Wait, the instruction “Preserve formatting exactly (dates, case name capitalization)” - the case name in the metadata should probably match the bold header‘s case (All Caps or Title Case).
Image: “MIDFIRST BANK... JOSEPH AJALA...”
I will use the capitalization from the source.
Also, the reporter cite in the brackets “[44 NYS3d 771]“. I will put “44 NYS3d 771” in the metadata citation.
Wait, I should check if the first paragraph of Jackson Avenue is considered “Main” because it starts on the page and Jackson Avenue is the first case on page 876 maybe?
But MidFirst is a complete opinion. Jackson is not. “The MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
MidFirst is the one.
Final check on “of lack” vs “oflack“. Image is clear.
Rejoining “appel-lant‘s” to “appellant‘s“. Correct.
One small thing: “et al., Defendants.” in the caption. I‘ll include it in the metadata Case Name.
Wait, the dash “—“. If I start the body with it, it looks weird. I‘ll leave it out since it‘s just a visual separator from the caption I removed.
Actually, the rule says: “Skip caption separator characters: ) or | used to create visual columns in court filings“.
The dash “—” in NY reports is a separator between the caption and the preamble. I‘ll skip it.
Final verification of Citations:
South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]
cite=“139 AD3d 935” pinpoint=“935-936”
Standard: “139 AD3d 935” is correct for cite.
Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010]
cite=“71 AD3d 949” pinpoint=“950”
Wait, “Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
Is this the full list of judges for the Second Department? Yes.
Is there any docket? No.
One last look at the snippet at the top. It has “Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Roman, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.”
I skip it.
Double checking: “The text must match the source exactly.”
“defendant‘s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint” (at top).
“appellant‘s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale” (in MidFirst).
Match confirmed.
Final check on ps marker placement.
Then the body.
Wait, there is a black square (■) at the start of the MidFirst case.
Should I include it?
It‘s a visual separator. I‘ll skip it.
One more check on Case Information attributes:
shortName=“MidFirst Bank v. Ajala” - Correct (first party v. first opposing party, standard abbreviations).
cite=“44 NYS3d 771” - Correct.
court=“N.Y. App. Div.” - Correct.
Wait, the citation 44 NYS3d 771 is formatted with spaces in the source. I‘ll keep it.
One thing: “In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Joseph Ajala appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated March 20, 2013, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated July 2, 2012.”
This is a single sentence. I‘ll keep it in one paragraph.
“Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.” - Single sentence paragraph.
“Contrary to the appellant‘s contentions... [2010]).” - Single sentence paragraph.
“The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.” - Single sentence paragraph.
“Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant‘s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale.” - Single sentence paragraph.
Signature block.
Wait, looking at the image, there is no signature image. Just text.
“Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.”
Wait, should I put the concur line in the signature block?
The instructions say:
```html
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
```
I will put:
```html
Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.
```
Wait, usually NY Appellate Division decisions list the judges like this at the end.
I‘ll stick to that.
Wait, looking at the Jackson case below, it has a black bar and then the text.
The MidFirst case has no black bar below it, just the Jackson caption.
This confirms the Rivera judges belong to MidFirst.
Done.
Wait, the prompt asks for “raw HTML only. No code fences. No commentary.”
One more check on Case Name capitalization in metadata.
Source: MIDFIRST BANK, Respondent, v JOSEPH AJALA, Appellant, et al., Defendants
I will use this exact string.
One more law cite: CPLR 3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e].
Split:
3211 [a] [5], [8]; [e]
This is the most accurate normalization.
Wait, the OCR for South Point cite: “South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]“.
I‘ll use: South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016]
Ready.
MidFirst Bank... (Case 2 start) ...
Actually, the rule says: “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” So I skip the top paragraph. Case Information: ShortName: MidFirst Bank v. Ajala Case name: MidFirst Bank, Respondent, v Joseph Ajala, Appellant, et al., Defendants Citation: 44 N.Y.S.3d 771 Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York Wait, the citation 44 NYS3d 771 is in brackets next to the caption. The case names for Citations: South Point, Inc. v Rana, 139 AD3d 935, 935-936 [2016] Ferri v Ferri, 71 AD3d 949, 950 [2010] Law cites: