Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (NYC OTB) was a public benefit corporation charged with operating an off-track pari-mutuel betting system within the City. Later, NYC OTB filed for bankruptcy and shut down. The City's Corporation Counsel then announced that NYC OTB retirees would lose coverage under the City's health insurance and welfare benefit plans because the Corporation was no longer able to reimburse the City. A union representing NYC OTB employees and retirees and others (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought suit against the State and City, seeking a judgment declaring that the failure of the State and City to fund, and the termination of retiree health insurance and supplemental benefits, violated the City Administrative Code and other express and implied obligations. Supreme Court rejected the four theories advanced by Plaintiffs to support State or City liability for NYC OTB retiree health benefits. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim against the City; and (2) because NYC OTB had a legal identity separate from the State, Plaintiffs stated no viable theory under which the State could be held liable in this case. View "Roberts v. Paterson" on Justia Law

In these two cases, Defendants were convicted of violent felonies. Their sentences were required by law to include a period of post-release supervision (PRS), but in each case the court failed to impose a PRS term. In both cases, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCS) sent notices to the sentencing courts and to Defendants pursuant to New York Correct. Law 601-d, which provides a procedure for resentencing defendants in cases where the original sentence illegally omitted a term of PRS. In both cases, the resentencings were delayed, and the courts that resentenced Defendants did not meet the deadline contained in section 601-d. Defendants therefore claimed their resentencings under section 601-d were untimely and therefore invalid. Defendant Jessie Velez also complaint that his resentencing took place after his original sentence had expired and thus violated constitutional prohibitions on double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals held (1) the failure to meet the statutory deadline did not impair the validity of the resentencing in these cases; but (2) Velez's sentence was barred by double jeopardy under the Court's decision in People v. Williams. View "People v. Velez" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted for stealing copper pipes. A few months before trial, however, the pipes were returned to their rightful owner without the notice to Defendant required by N.Y. Penal Law 450.10. Defendant appealed, arguing that the defense team was prejudiced because they were deprived of an opportunity to examine the pipes and independently assess their value and that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to impose a sanction. The appellate division modified on the basis of an unpreserved error. The People appealed, arguing that the appellate court abused its discretion, as the alleged error was unpreserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the People's appeal, holding that the unpreserved issue in this case was beyond its review. View "People v. Riley" on Justia Law

In this action, a real estate company that prepared due diligence reports for a developer in connection with the potential purchase of commercial properties alleged that a rival brokerage firm was unjustly enriched when it acquired the material from the developer and later obtained a commission on the ultimate sale of the properties. Supreme Court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim against the rival brokerage firm, and the appellate division affirmed. At issue before the Court of Appeals was whether a sufficient relationship existed between the two real estate firms to provide a basis for an unjust enrichment cause of action. Based on the allegations presented in the complaint, the Court of Appeals held that the relationship between the two parties was too attenuated and affirmed. View "Georgia Malone & Co. v. Rieder" on Justia Law

After a non-jury trial, Claimant was convicted of having committed various sex offenses. The appellate division reversed and ordered a new trial. The reversal was premised upon the manner in which certain exculpatory evidence had been dealt with, both by the prosecutor and defense counsel. Later, the indictment was dismissed on the People's motion. Following his release from prison, Claimant commenced this action to recover for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Ct. Cl. Act 8-b. The State moved to dismiss on the ground that Claimant's wrongful conviction had not been found to have been actionably eventuated. Claimant cross-moved for summary judgment as to liability. The court of claims denied both motions. The appellate division affirmed the denial of the State's motion but reversed the denial of Claimant's cross motion, finding that the reversal of conviction was premised, at least in part, upon prosecutorial misconduct amounting to fraud, and awarding Claimant summary judgment upon the issue of liability. The Court of Appeals modified to deny Claimant's motion for summary judgment as to liability and otherwise affirmed, holding that the appellate court erred in finding that Claimant clearly and convincingly proved the elements of his fraud claim. View "Baba-Ali v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several charges stemming from relationships she allegedly had with two underage students who attended a school where Defendant was a teacher. Defendant moved to vacate her conviction on the grounds that the People had violated their disclosure obligation by belatedly disclosing several emails and by failing to disclose certain other information that might have been used to impeach one of the alleged victims. The appellate division modified by reversing the conviction of bribing a witness, remanded that charge for a new trial, and otherwise affirmed the judgment of Supreme Court, holding that the prosecution failed to fulfill basic disclosure obligations essential to a fair trial but that failure did not affect the remaining counts of Defendant's conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of this case, reversal was not required on the remaining counts as there was no reasonable possibility that the evidence supporting the alleged tainted count had a spillover effect on the other convictions. View "People v. Sinha" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on one count of grand larceny in the second degree and four counts of forgery in the second degree for stealing money from her employer. Defendant pleaded guilty to the entire indictment, and the court advised Defendant she should come up with one-half of the restitution owed by the time of sentencing. However, the court did not state that Defendant would go to prison if she failed to make any payments. Defendant subsequently appeared at sentencing without having made any restitution payments. Appellant was sentenced to the maximum term on each count of the indictment. The appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that although Defendant waived her right to appeal the conviction, she never expressly waived her right to appeal the sentence, as, during the plea colloquy in this case, the court did not explain that the appeal waiver would bar Defendant from not only challenging the sentence she hoped to receive - five years probation - but also any sentence the court would impose in the event Defendant failed to meet the court's condition of paying the restitution by the date of sentencing. View "People v. Maracle" on Justia Law

The common issue presented by these two consolidated appeals was whether an appeal lies from an oral order issued by a criminal court on a pre-trial matter. In People v. Elmer, the People appealed from an oral decision by the trial court that granted, in part, defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. In People v. Cooper, Defendant sought review of an oral order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search attendant to his arrest. In both cases, the appellate division ruled adversely to the appellants, finding that the failure to obtain a written order precluded appellate review. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that an appeal does lie from an oral order of a criminal court that finally disposes of the pre-trial matter at issue. View "People v. Elmer" on Justia Law

Following the collapse of two investment vehicles known as SIV-Lites, Oddo Asset Management (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, Barclays), and The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., claiming aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The appellate division affirmed, concluding (1) the collateral managers of the SIV-Lites did not have a contract or relationship with Plaintiff such as would give rise to an underlying fiduciary duty, and (2) Plaintiff's tortious interference claim failed because Plaintiff did not allege an actual breach of the underlying contract. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the collateral managers appointed to oversee the assets of the SIV-Lites did not owe a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, and (2) Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for tortious interference with contract. View "Oddo Asset Mgmt. v. Barclays Bank PLC" on Justia Law

Nicole Tausend, the beneficiary of a trust together with her father, Ronald, commenced a N.Y.C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding against Ronald and the partnership (NJR) formed by Ronald for the purpose of acquiring and selling property. Nicole commenced the proceeding in order to obtain access to the partnership documents and an accounting of its finances. In response, NJR issued a demand for arbitration. Supreme Court ordered the parties to arbitration, and the appellate division affirmed. Nicole appeared in the arbitration and asserted several counterclaims, which lead to NJR's commencement of this court proceeding seeking to stay arbitration of the counterclaims on the basis of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Supreme Court granted the petition and stayed arbitration of the counterclaims. The appellate division modified by dismissing NJR's petition to stay arbitration of the counterclaims, reasoning that the partnership was precluded from obtaining a stay because it had initiated and participated in the arbitration. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because NJR initiated and participated in the arbitration of issues stemming from the dispute, its timeliness challenge to the counterclaims must be decided by an arbitrator. View "N.J.R. Assocs. v. Tausend" on Justia Law