Latest news with #AppellateDivision
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Google, Meta escape Buffalo shooter lawsuit
Several social media companies should not be held liable for helping an avowed white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in 2022 at a Buffalo, New York grocery store, a divided New York state appeals court ruled on Friday, reported Reuters. Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Appellate Division in Rochester said defendants including Meta Platforms' Facebook and Instagram, Google's YouTube, and Reddit were entitled to immunity under a federal law that protects online platforms from liability over user content. The case arose from Payton Gendron's racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14, 2022. Relatives and representatives of victims, as well as store employees and customers who witnessed the attack, claimed the defendants' platforms were defective because they were designed to addict and radicalise users like Gendron. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other defendants included Alphabet, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, all of which Gendron used, the mid-level state appeals court said. Writing for a 3-2 majority, Justice Stephen Lindley said holding social media companies liable would undermine the intent behind Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, to promote development of and competition on the internet while keeping government interference to a minimum. While condemning Gendron's conduct and "the vile content that motivated him to assassinate Black people simply because of the color of their skin," Lindley said a liability finding would "result in the end of the Internet as we know it." "Because social media companies that sort and display content would be subject to liability for every untruthful statement made on their platforms, the Internet would over time devolve into mere message boards," he wrote. Justices Tracey Bannister and Henry Nowak dissented, saying the defendants force-fed targeted content to keep users engaged, be it videos about cooking or puppies, or white nationalist vitriol.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules
Several social media companies should not be held liable for helping an avowed white supremacist who killed 10 Black people in 2022 at a Buffalo, New York grocery store, a divided New York state appeals court ruled on Friday. Reversing a lower court ruling, the state Appellate Division in Rochester said defendants including Meta Platforms' Facebook and Instagram, Google's YouTube, and Reddit were entitled to immunity under a federal law that protects online platforms from liability over user content. The case arose from Payton Gendron's racially motivated mass shooting at Tops Friendly Markets on May 14, 2022. Relatives and representatives of victims, as well as store employees and customers who witnessed the attack, claimed the defendants' platforms were defective because they were designed to addict and radicalise users like Gendron. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other defendants included Alphabet, Discord, 4chan, Snap and Twitch, all of which Gendron used, the mid-level state appeals court said. Writing for a 3-2 majority, Justice Stephen Lindley said holding social media companies liable would undermine the intent behind Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, to promote development of and competition on the internet while keeping government interference to a minimum. While condemning Gendron's conduct and "the vile content that motivated him to assassinate Black people simply because of the color of their skin," Lindley said a liability finding would "result in the end of the Internet as we know it." "Because social media companies that sort and display content would be subject to liability for every untruthful statement made on their platforms, the Internet would over time devolve into mere message boards," he wrote. Justices Tracey Bannister and Henry Nowak dissented, saying the defendants force-fed targeted content to keep users engaged, be it videos about cooking or puppies, or white nationalist vitriol. "Such conduct does not maintain the robust nature of Internet communication or preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet contemplated by the protections of immunity," the judges wrote. Gendron pleaded guilty to state charges including murder and terrorism motivated by hate, and was sentenced in February 2023 to life in prison without parole. He faces related federal charges that could lead to the death penalty. Questioning of potential jurors in that case is scheduled to begin in August 2026, court records show.
New York Post
20-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Murder conviction tossed all because killer's sleepy pal was kicked out of NYC courtroom: ruling
A state appeals court tossed out a Queens murder conviction because the killer's buddy was booted from the courtroom for falling asleep — even though the accused was clearly guilty. The state Appellate Division panel said in a bizarre ruling last week that convicted killer Donald White was denied a public trial because Judge Michael Aloise booted his friend from the courtroom before White was found guilty of murder, robbery and weapons possession in 2016. 3 A state appellate court threw out a Queens murder conviction because the killer's friend was booted for falling asleep. Christopher Sadowski Advertisement 'Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence,' according to the decision, which was filed Wednesday. 'Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to a new trial because the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excluding a spectator from the courtroom, thereby violating the defendant's right to a public trial,' the judges said. The ruling means White, who is still being held in state prison, gets a new trial in the case. Advertisement Veteran civil rights attorney Ron Kuby, who was not involved in the case, chided Aloise's decision to toss White's pal, who was not identified, from the trial on the first day. 'Judges serve the public, not the other way around,' Kuby told The Post. 'A courtroom is not a judicial fiefdom. Every defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. 3 A state appellate court said Donald White was denied a 'public' trial because his friend was kicked out of court. REUTERS 'Judicial pettiness and peevishness are not reasons to remove spectators,' he added. 'Now a murder case must be retried and the victim's loved ones must go through agony again, all because a judge got pissed at a spectator for napping.' Advertisement White, 36, was charged with killing pot peddler Henry Jenkins in St. Albans in June 2010. At trial, his pal dozed off in court during the first day of testimony. Aloise's decision to kick him out came after the jury left the room, but the Appellate Division judges said he was too hasty, and didn't consider other options — like warning the man not to do it again. Even though the judge reversed his decision the next day, the appeals panel said White's friend may not have known that — and thereby didn't know he was welcome back in the courtroom. Advertisement 3 Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz is reviewing the decision to throw out Donald White's murder conviction. Stephen Yang 'The spectator was not present at the time and had no reason to believe that he could return to the courtroom was insufficient to remedy the court's error,' the ruling said. A spokesperson for the Queens District Attorney's Office said prosecutors were reviewing the ruling. Al Baker, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration, which oversees the Empire State court system, declined to comment on Aloise's decision or the appellate ruling. White's attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.
Miami Herald
09-07-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Legal Dispute Arises Over Satisfied Mortgage in Queens Foreclosure Case
A New York foreclosure case involving a previously satisfied mortgage led to a key Appellate Division ruling. The court upheld the rights of a third-party property owner to intervene and rejected the bank's insufficient evidence. Petroff Amshen LLP, serving as Foreclosure Defense Attorneys, secured a critical procedural victory and defended the integrity of recorded satisfactions. NEW YORK CITY, NY / ACCESS Newswire / July 8, 2025 / Imagine transferring a property years after a mortgage is officially marked "satisfied"-only to be pulled back into court when a bank claims it was all a mistake. That's the legal trap a New York buyer faced in a recent foreclosure dispute, one where Petroff Amshen LLP stepped in to defend ownership, title integrity, and consumer protection. The Mortgage That Shouldn't Have Been There In 2003, a home equity line of credit was issued for a residential property in Queens Village. Over a decade later, the bank-the successor to the original lender-recorded a satisfaction of mortgage, formally signaling that the debt was resolved. But in 2016, the bank initiated a foreclosure action against the property, claiming that the satisfaction had been filed in error. By that point, the home had already been transferred to a third party who purchased it in good faith, relying on the public record. What The Court Actually Said In a recent decision from the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the court addressed multiple core issues, ruling in favor of the current owner and affirming the legal boundaries banks must follow when disputing satisfied mortgages. The decision also underscores the role of experienced Foreclosure Defense Attorneys in protecting property owners when procedural errors or unsubstantiated claims threaten their legal rights. Key rulings included: The third-party buyer had the right to intervene in the foreclosure case as the current legal bank failed to submit sufficient admissible evidence to override the public court raised factual issues regarding residency status, leaving the door open for consumer protections under RPAPL bank could not establish standing to bypass standard foreclosure notice requirements. Why This Case Matters To Property Owners And Buyers If a mortgage can be "un-discharged" years after being marked satisfied, without concrete proof, any homeowner or property investor is at risk. The court's position highlights the importance of trusting recorded satisfactions and ensuring that banks meet their legal burden. "A satisfaction of mortgage is more than paperwork-it's the legal conclusion of a debt," said Steven Amshen, Founding Partner of Petroff Amshen LLP. "We fought to ensure that banks cannot undo their own filings just because they changed their minds years later." Petroff Amshen LLP: Defending The Finality Of Title Petroff Amshen LLP represented the third-party buyer in the appeal, challenging the foreclosure and preserving title rights that had been lawfully acquired. As Foreclosure Defense Attorneys, the firm emphasized: The legal presumption created by recorded mortgage satisfactionsThe lender's failure to present verifiable factsThe importance of statutory compliance in foreclosure proceedings The case affirms the right of consumers and buyers to rely on official public filings-and the power of legal intervention when those records are contested. Legal Closure Means Legal Peace This decision reinforces the role of Foreclosure Defense Attorneys not only in stopping sales, but in upholding ownership rights and legal certainty in cases involving administrative errors or record conflicts. Petroff Amshen LLP advises homeowners and buyers to seek legal counsel immediately if they receive notice of foreclosure involving a previously satisfied mortgage. Stay connected with Petroff Amshen LLP for legal alerts and victories: Instagram: @petroffamshen Facebook: Petroff Amshen LLP LinkedIn: Petroff Amshen LLP | New York SOURCE: Petroff Amshen LLP press release
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kenneth Chesebro, ‘architect' of pro-Trump 2020 fake elector scheme, disbarred in N.Y.
The Republican efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election were multifaceted, but among the strikingly partisan tactics was the fake electors scheme: GOP officials and operatives in key states created forged election materials and sent the documents to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Archivist (among others) as if the materials were legitimate. They were not. Though the relevant players didn't know it at the time, the controversy has become one of the most consequential political scandals in a generation, racking up indictment totals unseen since Watergate and Iran-Contra. The man widely credited as the 'architect' of that scheme is still confronting the consequences of his misjudgment. The Hill reported: Ex-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who helped devise President Trump's alternate electors strategy in 2020, has been disbarred in New York. A panel of judges on the Appellate Division — New York's midlevel appeals court — ruled Thursday that Chesebro's guilty plea in Georgia's probe of efforts to subvert the state's 2020 election results qualifies as a 'serious crime,' a finding that begets disciplinary action. The judicial panel didn't pull any punches, concluding that Chesebro's guilty plea on one felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents was 'unquestionably serious' and reflected on his 'integrity and fitness to continue engaging in the practice of law in New York.' They added that the Republican's misconduct undercut 'the very notion of our constitutional democracy that he, as an attorney, swore an oath to uphold.' It was nearly two years ago when Chesebro, among others, was first indicted in Georgia as part of the Republican effort to overturn the state's election results. It was those charges that led to a plea deal, which in turn has led to his disbarment in New York. But this does not bring an end to his saga: Chesebro is still facing criminal charges in Wisconsin as part of his role in implanting the Badger State's fake electors scheme. Because both the Georgia and Wisconsin cases relate to state charges, a presidential pardon wouldn't help him. Indeed, it's worth appreciating the unusual nature of the broader circumstances: Chesebro is still being punished for trying to overturn the results of a free and fair American election, while Trump — who went even further to try to overturn that same election — was rewarded with the presidency. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
