Villalba v. City of Auburn
This text of Villalba v. City of Auburn (Villalba v. City of Auburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Villalba v City of Auburn
2026 NY Slip Op 02747
May 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
LESSIE VILLALBA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v
CITY OF AUBURN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on May 1, 2026
168 CA 24-01818
Present: Bannister, J.P., Montour, Greenwood, Nowak, And Hannah, JJ.
GROSS SHUMAN P.C., BUFFALO (D. CHARLES ROBERTS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HUFFMAN LAW FIRM, P.C., AUBURN (JUSTIN T. HUFFMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered October 4, 2024. The order and judgment, inter alia, reserved decision on that part of defendants' motion seeking to dismiss the complaint against defendant City of Auburn on the ground that plaintiff failed to properly serve that defendant.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action sounding in negligence, negligent training, and excessive force against, among others, defendant City of Auburn (City). According to plaintiff, during a traffic stop, City police officers dragged plaintiff to the hood of her vehicle and slammed her head into the hood. Plaintiff alleges that she was denied medical treatment at the police station. In lieu of answering, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Supreme Court, inter alia, reserved decision on the motion insofar as it was based on the ground that plaintiff failed to properly serve the City and held that a traverse hearing was required, but otherwise denied the motion on the other grounds raised. The City appeals from the order and judgment to the extent that it denied the motion on those other grounds.
The court should have first conducted the traverse hearing and determined the jurisdictional issue before making a determination on the other grounds raised on the motion (see Elm Mgt. Corp. v Sprung, 33 AD3d 753, 755 [2d Dept 2006]; 77 Commercial Holding, LLC v Central Plastic, Inc., 46 Misc 3d 80, 83 [App Term, 2d Dept, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2014]). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit
the matter to Supreme Court to conduct a traverse hearing and thereafter make a determination on the motion.
Entered: May 1, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Villalba v. City of Auburn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villalba-v-city-of-auburn-nyappdiv-2026.