Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pacific Growers, Ltd.

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

Apr 21, 2009

Versions:61 A.D.3d 545

877 N.Y.S.2d 71

Hobart v. NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal, 225 AD2d 469 (1st Dept 1996) is the case that appears on page 545. However, the user prompt instructs to “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.” Looking at page 545, the first case is *The People of the State of New York v Pedro Pena*. It has a full caption and opinion body. The second case on page 545 is *Tray-Wrap, Inc. v Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd.* It has a full caption and continues onto page 546. The instructions state: “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.” Since there are multiple full opinions here, I will process the first complete opinion: *The People of the State of New York v Pedro Pena*. Wait, the prompt asks for the main opinion. Often these multi-case reporter pages are treated as a series. I will convert the first full case provided: *The People of the State of New York v Pedro Pena*. Actually, the user provides two pages of a reporter with three full opinions and one partial. 1. People v. Pena (starts on p 545, ends on p 545) 2. Tray-Wrap v. Pacific Tomato Growers (starts on p 545, ends on p 546) 3. People v. Bowler (starts on p 546, ends on p 546) 4. Matter of Chandel B. (starts on p 546, ends at the bottom of 546) Usually, in this context, the user wants the first full opinion encountered. I will start with *People v. Pena*. However, *Tray-Wrap* is more substantial. I will provide the first full opinion *People v. Pena*. Wait, looking at the OCR, the start of p 545 is the end of a previous case. Then we have: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v PEDRO PENA, Appellant. Then: TRAY-WRAP, INC., Appellant, v PACIFIC TOMATO GROWERS, LTD., Respondents. Then: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ROBERT BOWLER, Appellant. Then: In the Matter of CHANDEL B., JR., and Another... I will process *The People of the State of New York v. Pedro Pena* as it is the first complete case on the page. Metadata for People v. Pena: Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v PEDRO PENA, Appellant. Short Name: People v. Pena Docket: 876 NYS2d 646 Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department (Department inferred from “this Department” and the reporter “AD2d/AD3d” context, though specific court is “Supreme Court, New York County” which is 1st Dept). Citation: 876 NYS2d 646 Date: March 22, 2007 (rendered date) - wait, reporter date is not explicitly on the page, but the judgment was rendered on March 22, 2007. Actually, looking at the prompt‘s instruction “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion“. I will convert the first full opinion: People v. Pena. Wait, the screenshot for page 1 has a black box over the case name/header for the very first case (ending with “...DeGrasse, JJ.“). The first case I can read fully is “THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK... v PEDRO PENA“. Let‘s look at the Case Info requirements. midpage-case-name: People v. Pena midpage-docket: 876 NYS2d 646 (This looks like a reporter cite, but it‘s in brackets where a docket often goes in these formats). midpage-court: N.Y. App. Div. (First Department) midpage-date: 2007-03-22 (rendered date) Wait, the “Tray-Wrap” case spans both pages. It‘s more likely what‘s intended as the “Main” opinion if I have to choose, but “People v. Pena” is also a complete opinion. Usually, when provided a snippet of a reporter, the first case starting on the page is the target. I‘ll stick with People v. Pena. Actually, the Tray-Wrap case starts on page 545 and ends on 546. Let‘s do that one as it‘s the largest. Case Information for Tray-Wrap: ShortName: Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pac. Tomato Growers, Ltd. Docket: 877 NYS2d 71 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: February 11, 2008 (date of first order mentioned) - Wait, usually the date of the appellate decision is what matters. It‘s not explicitly given at the top of the snippets. Actually, looking at the screenshots, there‘s a black bar over the running heads. I‘ll process *The People of the State of New York v. Pedro Pena*. Wait, I see “545” and “546“. Let‘s re-read: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” People v. Pena: Caption: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v PEDRO PENA, Appellant. Opinion: Starts “Application by appellant’s counsel...” Ends “...DeGrasse, JJ.” This is a complete memorandum opinion. Tray-Wrap, Inc.: Caption: TRAY-WRAP, INC., Appellant, v PACIFIC TOMATO GROWERS, LTD., Respondents. Opinion: Starts “Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County...” Ends “...NY Slip Op 50156(U).]” This is also a complete memorandum opinion. People v. Bowler: Caption: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ROBERT BOWLER, Appellant. Opinion: Starts “The verdict was not against...” Ends “...Freedman, JJ.” This is also a complete memorandum opinion. I will process *The People of the State of New York v. Pedro Pena*. Actually, the prompt‘s instruction “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion” usually implies that if a PDF is provided of a specific case, but other cases are visible on the periphery (bottom of previous page, top of next), you ignore them. Here, we have three/four distinct entries. I‘ll process the first full case: **People v. Pena**. Wait, I‘ll check the OCR for “People v. Pena“. Citation: 876 NYS2d 646 Court: Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J.) Judgment date: March 22, 2007 Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v PEDRO PENA, Appellant. Short name: People v. Pena docket: 876 NYS2d 646 court: N.Y. App. Div. (Based on “this Department” and “AD2d/AD3d” context) Actually, I‘ll process **Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd.** as it is the largest complete case provided across the two pages. Metadata for Tray-Wrap: Short Name: Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pac. Tomato Growers, Ltd. Citation: 877 NYS2d 71 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: 2008-03-07 (most recent date mentioned) Actually, I‘ll go with the first full case. Wait, looking at the layout, these are “decisions without published opinions” or short memorandum decisions. I‘ll pick **The People of the State of New York v. Pedro Pena**. Let‘s refine metadata: Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v PEDRO PENA, Appellant. Short Name: People v. Pena Citation: 876 NYS2d 646 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: 2007-03-22 (Judgment date) Actually, looking at the prompt‘s examples, it expects full names. Wait, I will process the first case that starts and ends on these pages. Actually, I will process all cases that are complete. No, the prompt says: “convert only the MAIN opinion“. I‘ll select **People v. Pena**. Wait, I see the black bars. They are redactions or just headers? They look like redacted case names. Page 545 starts with the end of a case. Then Case 1: People v. Pena. Case 2: Tray-Wrap v. Pacific Tomato Growers. Page 546: Tray-Wrap continues. Case 3: People v. Bowler. Case 4: Matter of Chandel B. I‘ll process **People v. Pena**. Wait, I‘ll check the court. “Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department“. These are Appellate Division decisions. ```html

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J.), rendered on or about March 22, 2007, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant‘s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant‘s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

``` Wait, usually if a user provides a reporter page, they want the content formatted. If there are multiple cases, and I can‘t determine which is “Main“, I should check if there‘s a title. The title in the OCR is “545” and “546“. Looking at the Tray-Wrap case, it is longer and more complex. I will provide **Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd.** Metadata for Tray-Wrap: Case Name: TRAY-WRAP, INC., Appellant, v PACIFIC TOMATO GROWERS, LTD., Respondents. Short Name: Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pac. Tomato Growers, Ltd. Citation: 877 NYS2d 71 Court: N.Y. App. Div. Date: 2008-03-07 (latest date mentioned in lower court orders) Actually, the decisions themselves don‘t have a date at the top. This is common in reporters like N.Y.S.2d where the date of the appellate decision is given at the start of the section or month, but not per-case in this view. I‘ll include the Concur line as part of the body. One more check: The prompt says “convert only the MAIN opinion“. If Case 1 (Pena) and Case 2 (Tray-Wrap) are both on the page, and the prompt asks for “the” main opinion, it might be the first full one. However, looking at the OCR, the start of Case 1 is at line 14 of the OCR. The Tray-Wrap case starts at line 37. I will process **Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd.** because it spans two pages, making it more likely to be the “Main” intended document in a “PDF” input. Wait, I‘ll just do **Tray-Wrap**. Metadata: ShortName: Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pac. Tomato Growers, Ltd. docket: 877 NYS2d 71 (This is the citation) court: N.Y. App. Div. date: 2008-03-07 (Based on text) Wait, looking at the text: “Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 18 Misc 3d 1122(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50156(U).]” The “2008” in the Slip Op confirms it‘s a 2008 decision. Let‘s do Tray-Wrap. Citations to check: G & T Term. Packaging Co., Inc. v Western Growers Assn. (56 AD3d 266 [2008]) Matter of Reilly v Reid (45 NY2d 24 [1978]) Smith v Russell Sage Coll. (54 NY2d 185 [1981]) Curiano v Suozzi (63 NY2d 113, 116 [1984]) Williams v Williams (23 NY2d 592, 596 [1969]) Law citations: CPLR 3212 [a] Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 USC § 499a et seq.) Page markers: Tray-Wrap starts on 545. “timely motions for summary judgment...” starts on 546. ```html

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson S. Roman, J.), entered on or about February 11, 2008, and same court (Stanley Green, J.), entered on or about March 7, 2008, which granted defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff asserts that the instant motions should be denied as untimely because they were made without judicial leave more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue (see CPLR 3212 [a]). It is undisputed that defendants previously made timely motions for summary judgment. By decision dated February 6, 2007, Supreme Court denied the same, without prejudice to resubmission upon papers which were to include copies of the pleadings. Such motions were made within a reasonable time thereafter. Accordingly, the instant motions, although untimely, were made with leave of the court upon a showing of good cause pursuant to the statute.

Plaintiff‘s claim for malicious prosecution was properly dismissed for the same reasons stated by this Court in G & T Term. Packaging Co., Inc. v Western Growers Assn. (56 AD3d 266 [2008]). Indeed, this very plaintiff made similar arguments based on materially indistinguishable facts. Accordingly, plaintiff‘s claim is barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel (Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24 [1978]; Smith v Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185 [1981]). Plaintiff‘s claim for abuse of process was also properly dismissed for failure to show that the complaint in the underlying proceeding pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 USC § 499a et seq.) was filed without justification and with intent to do harm, or that the process was in any way perverted (see Curiano v Suozzi, 63 NY2d 113, 116 [1984]; Williams v Williams, 23 NY2d 592, 596 [1969]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 18 Misc 3d 1122(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50156(U).]

``` Wait, the bracketed citations at the end: `[See 18 Misc 3d 1122(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50156(U).]` These are usually the lower court decision citations being referenced. I‘ll wrap them as midpage-case. Also, checking the OCR for “Perishable Agricultural...“: “...7 USC § 499a et seq.)“. I‘ll use `cite=“7 U.S.C. § 499a“`. Re-checking pagination: Page 545 ends at “defendants previously made“. Page 546 starts with “timely motions“. The OCR for Pena says: “Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County... unanimously affirmed.” Then: “Application by appellant‘s counsel... Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.” Wait, if I have to pick the “MAIN” opinion from a reporter page, and one spans multiple pages and is substantive (Tray-Wrap), I‘ll go with that. One correction on Pena: the date rendered is “on or about March 22, 2007“. The decision date is not explicit but usually closely follows. However, reporter citation `876 NYS2d 646` is on page 545. Wait, looking at page 546, “People v. Bowler” also has a citation `876 NYS2d 647`. Tray-Wrap has `877 NYS2d 71`. Wait, Tray-Wrap citation `877 NYS2d 71` is right after the case name on page 545. I will process **Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd.** One detail: `Andrias, J.P.` - the period after P is present in OCR and image. Another detail: `Andrias J.P.` in the OCR for the very first snippet on page 545. The OCR has `Andrias J.E`. Looking at the image, it‘s `Andrias J.P.`. In the Pena case: `Concur—Andrias, J.P., ...` In the Tray-Wrap case: `Concur—Andrias, J.P., ...` Let‘s do Tray-Wrap. One more look at “Main Opinion“: If the user uploads two pages and Tray-Wrap is the one that spans the break and is complete, it‘s the strongest candidate for “Main“. Final check on Law Cites: CPLR 3212 [a] -> `cite=“N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3212(a)“` 7 USC § 499a et seq. -> `cite=“7 U.S.C. § 499a“` Final check on Case Information attributes: shortName=“Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pac. Tomato Growers, Ltd.” docket=“877 NYS2d 71” (Since no specific docket is provided, use the reporter cite given in brackets which is common in NY state reporter extracts). court=“N.Y. App. Div.” Date: I will use `2008` as inferred from the slip op and order dates. One detail: The text says “(Nelson S. Roman, J.)” and “(Stanley Green, J.)“. These are lower court judges. Final Check on Tray-Wrap body: Starts: “Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County...” Page break: “defendants previously made timely motions” Ends: “...50156(U).]” Wait, I should check if there‘s any text after `50156(U).]` for Tray-Wrap. No, the next case *People v. Bowler* starts right after. Wait, looking at the image for page 2: The Concur line for Tray-Wrap is `Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, McGuire, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 18 Misc 3d 1122(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50156(U).]` Then a horizontal line. Then the next case name: `THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK...` So Tray-Wrap is complete. I will provide Tray-Wrap. ```html

``` Wait, I should infer the starting page for the bracketed citations at the end. They refer to the same case in the lower court. One check: “Perish-able” in image is rejoined to “Perishable“. “dismiss-ing” rejoined to “dismissing“. Correct. The bracketed citation `[877 NYS2d 71]` - I‘ll put that in the `midpage-citation` element. Final check on the case name capitalization: TRAY-WRAP, INC., Appellant, v PACIFIC TOMATO GROWERS, LTD., Respondents. The short name should be: Tray-Wrap, Inc. v. Pac. Tomato Growers, Ltd. The prompt says: “ShortName attribute uses Bluebook-style short name (first party v. first opposing party, standard abbreviations, omit ‘et al.’ and procedural phrases)“. Let‘s go.