Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Verizon attached a box to a building that plaintiffs owned and used the box to transmit telephone communications to and from Verizon's customers in other buildings. Plaintiffs claimed that Verizon took their property without paying them just compensation and deceived them into believing that no compensation was owed. The court held that plaintiffs have stated a valid "inverse condemnation" claim for just compensation, and that the claim was not time-barred. However, their claim for an alleged violation of General Business Law 349 was barred by the statute of limitations, and their unjust enrichment claim was legally insufficient. The court also held that the courts below properly denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. View "Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an auto parts distributor with operations in multiple states, secured general liability, automotive liability, and workers' compensation policies from defendants for annual coverage periods between September 1992 and September 2003. At issue was whether the six-year statue of limitations applicable to the insurers' breach of contract counterclaims began to run when they possessed the legal right to demand payment from the insured or years later after they issued invoices. Under the terms of the insurance contracts in this case, the court concluded that the counterclaims accrued when the insurers had the right to demand payment. View "Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v American Zurich Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff represented psychiatrists who treated patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid and defendants were responsible for administering Medicaid in New York and for implementing and enforcing medicaid reimbursement rates. At issue was whether the 2006 amendment to the Social Services law found in a budget bill implementing a coinsurance enhancement for the benefit of psychiatrists who treat patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid was intended to be permanent or whether the amendment was intended only to provide a limited one-year enhancement. The court concluded that the Legislature only intended to provide for a one-time coinsurance enhancement, limited to the 2006-2007 fiscal year. View "New York State Psychiatric Assn., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

Defendant, who worked as a teacher's assistant, was alleged to have sexually abused a four-year-old boy left in her care. Defendant was convicted of all counts charged and she subsequently appealed. At issue was the admissibility of expert testimony proffered on the issue of reliability of a confession. While in a proper case, expert testimony on the phenomenon of false confessions should be admitted, the expert here did not propose testimony relevant to this defendant or her interrogation. As a result, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he declined to hold a Frye hearing to assess whether any principles about which the expert proposed to testify were generally accepted in the scientific community, or to permit the expert to testify. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v Bedessie" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former member of the New York City Police Department, was charged with twelve counts of perjury in the first degree. The charges arose after defendant falsely answered questions posed to him on cross-examination during the criminal trial of Erik Crespo. Defendant was found guilty of three counts of perjury in the first degree and one count of perjury in the third degree. The court granted the People and defendant leave to appeal. The court agreed with the Appellate Division that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the statement made by defendant that he never questioned Crespo was material to the Crespo trial. More specifically, it was relevant to the jury's determination on whether Crespo's statement to his mother was truly spontaneous and voluntary or whether it was triggered by police conduct that could reasonably have been anticipated to evoke such a statement. Defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent was not preserved for review and his further assertion that the statements were a result of a perjury trap was without merit. On defendant's appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The People's appeal should be dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division modification was not "on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to... modification." View "People v Perino" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced a putative class action against Bloomberg alleging a violation of General Obligations Law 5-901 and 5-903; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; violation of General Business Law 349; and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Appellate Division subsequently granted Bloomberg's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The court affirmed, holding that, even affording plaintiff every favorable inference, when reviewing the pleadings and factual allegations of his complaint, plaintiff's failure to identify a cognizable injury proved fatal to his action against Bloomberg. View "Ovitz v Bloomberg L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his former employer alleging causes of action for failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law 190-198 and breach of contract. The employer subsequently appealed the Appellate Division's order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict because statements in the employment application and employee handbook negated plaintiff's alleged expectation of, or entitlement to, a guarantee or non-discretionary bonus and that the oral agreements respecting the bonus, if, in fact, entered into by the parties, were unenforceable. The court concluded that plaintiff's bonus was "expressly link[ed]" to his "labor or services personally rendered." Further, plaintiff's bonus had been earned and was vested before he left his job; its payment was guaranteed and non-discretionary as a term and condition of his employment. Since plaintiff's bonus therefore constituted "wages" within the meaning of Labor Law 190, the employer's neglect to pay him the bonus violated Labor Law 193, and entitled plaintiff to an award of attorney's fees under Labor Law 198(a-1). The court considered the employer's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Ryan v Kellogg Partners Inst. Servs." on Justia Law

This action arose from practices employed in connection with the handling of claims made under retrocessional reinsurance treaties providing what was known as "non-life" coverage. At issue was the sufficiency and extra-territorial reach of plaintiff's claim under New York State's antitrust statute (Donnelly Act), General Business Law 340 et seq. Plaintiff, a New York branch of a German reinsurance corporation, sued defendants, English based entities engaged in the business of providing retrocessionary reinsurance. The Appellate Division found that the complaint adequately pled a worldwide market. And, while acknowledging that the crucial allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the amended pleading did not separately allege market power, the allegations read together and liberally construed were adequate to that purpose. The Appellate Division granted plaintiff leave to appeal, certifying to the court the question of whether its order reversing the order of Supreme Court was properly made. The court answered in the negative and reversed. Even if the pleading deficiency at issue could be cured and the court perceived no reason to suppose that the formidable hurdle of alleging market power could be surmounted by plaintiff there would remain as an immovable obstacle to the action's maintenance, the circumstance that the Donnelly Act could not be understood to extend to the foreign conspiracy plaintiff purported to described. View "Global Reins. Corp.-U.S. Branch v Equitas Ltd." on Justia Law

In a workers' compensation action, the court was asked to determine whether the future medical benefits that a compensation carrier had been relieved of paying due to a claimant's successful prosecution of a third-party action were "so speculative that it would be improper to estimate and assess litigation costs against [that] benefit to the carrier." The court concluded that they were, and held that the carrier need only pay its equitable share of attorneys' fees and costs incurred by a claimant once the claimant incurred and paid each medical expense. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Matter of Bissell v Town of Amherst" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for several crimes after he drove a pickup truck into a police officer, injuring her seriously. After defendant was convicted of second degree assault, defendant wanted the jury to consider one of the offenses for which defendant was indicted. The People argued that they have discretion to withdraw such a count, not a lesser included offense. The court held that a prosecutor did not have the unilateral power to dismiss a count of a grand jury indictment over a defendant's objection. Whether such a count should be dismissed at the prosecutor's request was an issue to be decided by the court in its discretion. View "People v Extale" on Justia Law