Emily Morales-Minerva

The question: A dispute between Buchman and 117 E. 72nd St. Corp.; the appellate decision found describes the order only in part.

Outcome / stage: The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed her order on May 7, 2026.

The appeal was decided less than six months after her order.

Subsequent history: Unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division on May 7, 2026.

The question: Whether an assistant attorney general should be disqualified from the New York Attorney General's civil investigation of the law firm Abrams Fensterman's debt collection practices.

Outcome / stage: The motion was denied in full.

The firm brought the special proceeding while the Attorney General's investigation of it was under way.

History coverage: Later appellate history was not checked.

The question: Whether to grant a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Starbucks Corp.

Outcome / stage: The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed her order on Apr. 14, 2026.

Because the motion was denied, the complaint was not dismissed at that stage.

Subsequent history: Unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division on Apr. 14, 2026.

The question: An order in the lawsuit between SF Consultants, LLC and 28 W. Group Corp; the appellate decision found describes the order only in part.

Outcome / stage: The Appellate Division unanimously reversed her order on Dec. 18, 2025.

The reversal is the appeals court's ruling on that order alone.

Subsequent history: Unanimously reversed by the Appellate Division on Dec. 18, 2025.

The question: Whether State Farm could have the medical provider's notice of trial vacated, its complaint struck, or the provider ordered to comply with disclosure.

Outcome / stage: Each of State Farm's requests was denied.

State Farm argued the notice of trial wrongly said disclosure was complete and that the provider had not answered its requests.

History coverage: Later appellate history was not checked.

The question: Whether to grant summary judgment to the insurer, Hereford Insurance Company, in a medical provider's suit for insurance benefits, or to the provider instead.

Outcome / stage: Neither side's request for summary judgment was granted.

The provider sued to recover benefits assigned to it for medical services.

History coverage: Later appellate history was not checked.