Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sued defendant asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and breach of contract where the gravamen of the complaint was that defendant mismanaged the portfolio of an entity whose obligations plaintiff guaranteed. At issue was whether the Martin Act, General Business Law art 23-A, preempted plaintiff's common-law causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence. The court agreed with plaintiff that the Martin Act did not preclude a private litigant from bringing a nonfraud common-law cause of action where the Martin Act did not expressly mention or otherwise contemplate the elimination of common-law claims. View "Assured Guar. (UK) Ltd. v J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgt. Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendants after he was injured while engaging in demolition work at an apartment building owned by defendant. Plaintiff claimed violations of Labor Law 200, 240(1), and 241. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his section 240(1) cause of action and the denial of his cross-motion on that claim. The court concluded that it could not say as a matter of law that equipment of the kind enumerated in section 240(1) was not necessary to guard plaintiff from the risk of falling from the top of the dumpster. Consequently, defendants have not demonstrated entitlement to summary judgment. The court agreed, however, that plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was properly denied because genuine issues of fact remained. View "Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Superfund Coalition commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action to challenge certain regulations promulgated by the Department with respect to remedial programs implemented to clean "inactive hazardous waste disposal sites." The Superfund Coalition asserted that the regulations were ultra vires and impermissibly allowed the Department to order expansive remedial programs that contravened the limited legislative goal of article 27, title 13 of the Environmental Conservation Law to identify and remove only "significant threats." The court held that the Department did not exceed its authority or act contrary to law in enacting the subject regulations. View "Matter of New York State Superfund Coalition, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation" on Justia Law

This case involved the regulations of the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, limiting rates that could be charged by owners of taxicabs who leased those cabs to drivers. Owners challenged a Commission regulation that prohibited owners from collecting sales tax in addition to the maximum permitted lease rates. The court held that the regulation must be annulled because the Commission had not shown any rational basis for it. View "Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v NYC Taxi & Limousine Commn." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of second-degree kidnapping, second-degree burglary, and other offenses against his former girlfriend. The court held that County Court abused its discretion as a matter of law when it denied defendant's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror who had personal and professional relationships with several of the witnesses expected to testify at defendant's trial. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and a new trial ordered. View "People v Furey" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to first-degree rape in exchange for a promised determinate sentence of nine years imprisonment followed by five years of postrelease supervision. At issue was the enforceability of the appeal waiver. Applying the standard in People v. Lopez, the court held that the record failed to establish that defendant validly waived his right to appeal because the trial court failed to ensure that defendant grasped the minimal information pertaining to the appeal waiver it provided during the plea colloquy. The court agreed with the Appellate Division that testimony concerning complainant's identification of defendant in a lineup should have been suppressed since the People did not meet their burden in establishing probable cause for defendant's arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the judgment of conviction and sentence. View "People v Bradshaw" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs commenced an action and moved for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants, the board of trustees, from demolishing a certain church building. At issue was whether section 5 of the Religious Corporations Law granted plaintiffs, former parishioners of the church incorporated as a religious corporation, the authority to challenge the board of trustees' decision to demolish the church. The court held that plaintiffs have no basis to challenge the actions properly voted upon by the board of trustees and sanctioned by the archbishop. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Blaudziunas v Egan" on Justia Law

Exum, an employer of Elrac, served a notice of intention to arbitrate on Elrac, seeking uninsured motorist benefits. Elrace petitioned to stay the arbitration. Supreme Court granted the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, permitting the arbitration to proceed. The court affirmed and held that a self-insured employer whose employee was involved in an automobile accident could not be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. View "Matter of Elrac, Inc. v Exum" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of petit larceny. At issue on appeal was whether defendant's swipe of an unlimited MetroCard in return for a fee, although decidedly criminal in nature, constituted larceny. The court held that it did not where there was no basis upon which the petit larceny charge in the accusatory instrument could be upheld. Defendant was not prosecuted under, and the court did not address the applicability of, the theft of services statute. View "People v Hightower" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and promoting prison contraband in the first degree. On appeal, defendant argued that County Court had failed to articulate a reasonable basis on the record for its determination to restrain him in shackles during the trial. The People appealed County Court's order dismissing the charge of attempted-first degree rape. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the use of shackles was reversible error and further held that the trial court had properly dismissed the attempted rape charge. The court held that harmless error analysis was applicable when a trial court had ordered the use of visible shackles without adequate justification articulated on the record under Deck v Missouri. Here, the court held that defendant's shackling during trial was harmless, as was an evidentiary error committed by the trial court. The court also agreed with the People that the count of defendant's indictment charging him with attempted rape should not have been dismissed. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and the case remitted for sentencing. View "People v Clyde" on Justia Law