Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a contract with the State of New York, defendant agreed to provide various courier services via air and ground transportation. Plaintiffs own a trucking company and served as an independent contractor to defendant, providing ground shipping services to defendant within the state. In this qui tam action, the court was asked to consider whether plaintiffs' claims on behalf of the State of New York, pursuant to the New York False Claims Act (FCA), State Finance Law 187 et seq., were federally preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), 49 U.S.C 47173[b][1]. The court held that they were and that the market participant doctrine was inapplicable. Plaintiffs' remaining contentions were deemed without merit. View "State of New York v DHL Express (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree assault, a violent felony offense. At issue was whether "a determinate sentence of imprisonment actually imposed" included the mandatory period of postrelease supervision (PRS) for purposes of calculating the duration of an order of protection issued at sentencing. After reviewing revisions of the Penal Law, the court held that it did and affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. View "People v Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and conspiracy in the second degree. On appeal, defendant raised several issues, including the contentions that he should have been granted a suppression hearing in regard to the eavesdropping warrant issue, that his postrelease supervision team had been illegally imposed in his absence, and that his prison sentence was harsh and excessive. The Appellate Division rejected all of defendant's claims, except the challenge to his postrelease supervision sentence, which the People conceded. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's holding that suppression of wiretap evidence based on the prosecution's violation of CPL 700.50(3) was not warranted without a showing of prejudice, and found that defendant failed to allege any prejudice and had a full opportunity to challenge the legality of the warrant when he received notice of it at his arraignment. That court modified and, as modified, affirmed Supreme Court's judgment, remitting the matter for the sole purpose of the imposition of a postrelease supervision term in defendant's presence. Defendant's remaining arguments were without merit. View "People v Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Petitioners provide protection and advocacy services to individuals with developmental disabilities. After receiving a complaint regarding the discharge practices of respondent, petitioners requested access to the clinical records of all individuals residing at two respondent facilities to investigate whether they were being denied the opportunity to live in less restrictive settings. Relying on Mental Hygiene Law 45.09(b) and 33.13(c)(4), petitioners asserted that they were entitled to unrestricted access to the clinical records. Answering a certified question, the court concluded that section 45.09(b) and section 33.13(c)(4) must be read in accord with federal law and that actively-involved family members could possess sufficient decision-making authority to qualify as legal representatives under the pertinent regime. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion and, as so modified, affirmed. View "Matter of Albany Law School v New York State Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a dispute over the ownership of the land upon which a boardwalk and dock was constructed by the deceased. At issue was whether plaintiff estate established that its decedent acquired title to a certain parcel of land by adverse possession. The court held that the evidence that the deceased possessed, used, and controlled the disputed land for the 21 years prior to and including 1984 was sufficient to establish title by adverse possession and grant summary judgment in plaintiff estate's favor. The court need not determine whether it acquired title to the disputed property pursuant to the doctrine of practical location. Accordingly, the judgment should be reversed. View "Estate of Becker v Murtagh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced this CPLR 78 proceeding to compel the District Attorney and the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law 84, et seq., to comply with his records requests regarding Avrohom Mondrowitz. Mondrowitz was convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse involving young boys in 1984 and fled from the United States to Isreal. Plaintiff, an attorney and author, became interested in the case and made requests for information under FOIL. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's conclusion that the District Attorney had established that the materials requested by plaintiff were covered in their entirety by section 87(2)(3)(i) because it was related to an ongoing prosecution. View "Matter of Lesher v Hynes" on Justia Law

This case arose from a contract between the school district and DJH to perform heating, ventilation, and air condition work. The contract required DJH to obtain a performance bond which DJH secured from Nova, a compensated surety. At issue was whether Nova was discharged from it surety obligation to the school district on the bases that the school district allegedly violated New York's Lien Law 70[1] by improperly diverting construction contract payments constituting trust fund assets to a non-beneficiary and breached the terms of the parties' performance bond. The court held that under the facts, Nova had not demonstrated that discharge of its surety obligation was warranted. The court also considered whether the school district was entitled to attorneys' fees expended in the prosecution of the litigation and concluded that the request for attorneys' fees was properly denied. View "Mount Vernon City School Dist. v Nova Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of criminal charges related to an underlying dispute regarding cab fare. On appeal, the court addressed the relation between a claim of right defense and a mistake of fact defense in the second-degree robbery context. The court concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, the two defenses were equivalent. The jury heard evidence that defendant had negotiated a $4 cab fare even though she carried $21; tried to pay the cabdriver the agreed fare from money he had given her as change, after retrieving from him the money she had paid him; scratched and bit the cabdriver in an effort to take money from him; and produced a knife while continuing to demand money. Considering the facts in the light most favorable to the People, the jury could have rationally concluded that defendant had no good faith belief that the bills she tried to take were hers, but was instead trying to take money she knew was another's. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "People v Pagan" on Justia Law

Husband and wife divorced after almost 30 years of marriage and their settlement agreement set forth a comprehensive division of marital property. At issue was whether husband had presented facts sufficient to support the reformation or setting aside of the agreement based on a claim of mutual mistake pertaining to an investment account. The court concluded that husband failed to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 and therefore dismissed the amended complaint. View "Simkin v Blank" on Justia Law