Cleveland v. Destiny Ventures, L.L.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Cleveland v. Destiny Ventures, L.L.C., 2010-Ohio-3056.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91018 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DESTINY VENTURES, LLC DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED Criminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2007 CRB 42411 BEFORE: RELEASED: Cooney, P.J., Rocco, J., and Jones, J. July 1, 2010 JOURNALIZED: 2 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Michael A. Poklar 34950 Chardon Road, Suite 210 Willoughby Hills, Ohio 44094-9162 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert J. Triozzi, Esq. Law Director Karyn J. Lynn Assistant Law Director City of Cleveland 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court s decision. See App.R. 22(B) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(C) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief per App.R. 26(A), or a motion for consideration en banc with supporting brief per Loc.App.R. 25.1(B)(2), is filed within ten days of the announcement of the court s decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court s announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(C). See, also, S.Ct. Prac.R. 2.2(A)(1). 3 COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J.: {¶ 1} Our decision has been reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court in Cleveland v. Destiny Ventures, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2320. Pursuant to the Supreme Court s holding in Cleveland v. Washington Mut. Bank, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2219, the trial court s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cleveland Municipal Housing Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with Cleveland v. Washington Mut. Bank.1 ___________________________________________________ COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, PRESIDING JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and LARRY A. JONES, J., CONCUR 1 The syllabus provides, R.C. 2941.47 does not authorize a trial of a corporation in absentia in a criminal proceeding that is initiated by affidavit or complaint in a municipal court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.