Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2019, the New York Legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), expanding rent stabilization to all municipalities in the state. The City of Kingston declared a housing emergency on August 1, 2022, opting into the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). Petitioners, a group of landlords, sought to invalidate Kingston's opt-in and two guidelines set by the Kingston New York Rent Guidelines Board (KRGB).The Supreme Court upheld Kingston's emergency declaration, finding the city's survey methodology reasonable. However, it vacated the KRGB guidelines, ruling that the fair market rent guideline required a case-by-case determination and that the rent adjustment guideline lacked statutory authority.The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating the KRGB guidelines. It held that the emergency declaration was based on a good faith study and that the fair market rent guideline did not require a case-by-case assessment. The rent adjustment guideline was also upheld, as the ETPA allows for rent adjustments without specifying that they must be upward.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. It found that the City's 2022 survey was reasonably reliable and relevant, supporting the emergency declaration. The court also upheld the fair market rent guideline, noting that it did not have an impermissibly retroactive effect, as no refunds were issued for periods before August 1, 2020. The challenge to the rent adjustment guideline was deemed unpreserved and not properly before the court. View "Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v City of Kingston" on Justia Law

New York City is legally required to provide health insurance coverage for its retired employees. For over 50 years, the City offered a choice of health insurance plans, including Medicare supplemental plans and Medicare Advantage plans (MAPs). In 2021, to reduce costs, the City decided to discontinue most options, including the popular Senior Care plan, and enroll all retirees in a custom-designed MAP managed by Aetna Life Insurance Company. Petitioners, consisting of nine retirees and one organization, initiated this proceeding to prevent the City from eliminating their existing health insurance plans.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on their promissory estoppel cause of action and their claim under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126 (b) (1). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, concluding that the City had made a clear and unambiguous promise to provide Medicare supplemental coverage for life and that petitioners reasonably relied on this promise.The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed the case and determined that the petitioners were not entitled to judgment on their promissory estoppel cause of action. The court found that the Summary Program Descriptions (SPDs) provided by the City did not constitute a clear and unambiguous promise of lifetime Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. The court also rejected the petitioners' alternative grounds for relief, including their claim under Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1) and the Moratorium Law. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York" on Justia Law

A group of nonpublic schools and organizations representing them challenged regulations issued by the New York State Commissioner of Education. These regulations required nonpublic schools to provide an education substantially equivalent to that of public schools. If a nonpublic school failed to meet this standard, it would no longer be considered a school providing compulsory education under New York law.The Supreme Court of New York upheld most of the regulations but invalidated the specific provisions that deemed noncompliant nonpublic schools as not fulfilling compulsory education requirements. The court found that these provisions exceeded the Commissioner’s authority. The respondents, including the Commissioner, appealed this decision.The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, ruling that the Commissioner had the authority to promulgate the challenged regulations. The court held that the regulations were within the Commissioner’s statutory authority and did not compel parents to unenroll their children from noncompliant schools or authorize school closures. One Justice dissented, arguing that the regulations exceeded the Commissioner’s authority.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The court concluded that the Commissioner lawfully promulgated the regulations, which simply enforced the statutory mandate that nonpublic schools provide substantially equivalent education. The court found that the regulations did not require parents to unenroll their children or authorize school closures but merely stated that noncompliant schools did not meet the statutory requirements for compulsory education. The court also addressed mootness issues related to recent legislative amendments but found that the challenge to the specific regulatory provisions remained a live controversy. View "Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young" on Justia Law

Michael Cavagnolo was arrested and charged with making a terroristic threat after repeatedly calling the Hyde Park Police Department emergency line and threatening to commit violent acts against officers, their families, and Police Department property. The County Court set bail pursuant to CPL 510.10 (4) (a), which makes all violent felony offenses listed in Penal Law § 70.02 bailable, except for two specific exceptions. However, CPL 510.10 (4) (g) makes bailable the felony crimes of terrorism defined in Penal Law article 490 but explicitly excludes the crime of making a terroristic threat.The Appellate Division granted the petition for habeas corpus and ordered Mr. Cavagnolo's release, holding that the authority to set bail for violent felony offenses under CPL 510.10 (4) (a) does not extend to the crime of making a terroristic threat because it is explicitly excluded under paragraph (g). One Justice dissented, arguing that the "specific trumps the general" canon does not apply because both paragraphs (a) and (g) are specific.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that making a terroristic threat is a bail-eligible offense under CPL 510.10 (4) (a). The Court reasoned that the disjunctive structure of CPL 510.10 (4) indicates that each paragraph sets forth a separate and distinct category of offenses qualifying for monetary bail, and one paragraph does not modify another. The Court found that the legislature did not intend to implicitly import paragraph (g)'s exclusion into paragraph (a). Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the habeas corpus proceeding was converted to a declaratory judgment action, with judgment granted in accordance with the opinion. View "People ex rel. Ellis v Imperati" on Justia Law

A defendant was arrested and charged with several felony offenses, including attempted murder, for which bail was set and posted. While out on bail, the defendant was arrested again on charges of theft, larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property. These new charges were not qualifying offenses for bail on their own, but the prosecution requested bail under CPL 510.10 (4) (t), arguing that the defendant committed the new offenses while released on bail for the prior attempted murder charge. The court set bail, citing the defendant's release on bail for a prior violent felony.Defense counsel argued that CPL 510.10 (4) (t) only applies to defendants released on recognizance or non-monetary conditions, not those released on bail. The court rejected this interpretation and denied subsequent bail applications. Defense counsel then sought habeas relief from the Appellate Division, arguing that the statute did not apply to defendants released on bail. The Appellate Division dismissed the writ, holding that "released under conditions" includes bail.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that CPL 510.10 (4) (t) applies to defendants released on any condition, including bail. The court found that the statutory language did not limit its application to non-monetary conditions and that the legislature intended to create a mechanism for assigning bail to repeat offenders. The judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, the habeas corpus proceeding was converted into a declaratory judgment action, and it was declared that a defendant arrested on new charges after being released on bail on a prior charge is "released under conditions" within the meaning of CPL 510.10 (4) (t). View "People ex rel. Welch v Maginley-Liddie" on Justia Law

In 2020, Brenda WW, a domestic violence survivor incarcerated for killing her partner, applied for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). Brenda had been convicted of manslaughter, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon, and was serving a 20-year sentence. The County Court denied her application, finding that she did not meet the criteria for resentencing under the DVSJA. The Appellate Division, however, found that Brenda satisfied the statutory criteria and reduced her sentences, noting that she had already served more time than the DVSJA maximum for her convictions. The court also stated that the excess time should be credited toward her postrelease supervision term, effectively leaving her with no postrelease supervision to serve.The County Court initially denied Brenda's application for resentencing, concluding that the abuse she suffered was neither substantial nor a significant contributing factor to her offense, and that her sentence was not unduly harsh. Brenda appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the County Court's decision, granted Brenda's application for resentencing, and reduced her sentences. The Appellate Division imposed maximum periods of postrelease supervision but credited Brenda's excess time served toward this supervision, effectively eliminating it.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and addressed two main issues. First, the court held that the Appellate Division has plenary review power and can make its own factual findings, rejecting the People's argument that the Appellate Division should have reviewed the County Court's decision for abuse of discretion. Second, the court found that the Appellate Division erred in crediting Brenda's excess time served toward her postrelease supervision term. The DVSJA requires resentencing courts to impose a term of postrelease supervision, and excess time spent incarcerated cannot be credited toward that term. The Court of Appeals remitted the case to the Appellate Division to determine the appropriate period of postrelease supervision. View "People v Brenda WW" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with first-degree manslaughter after fatally stabbing her boyfriend during a violent altercation. She claimed that she acted in self-defense, citing a history of severe physical abuse by the victim, including multiple incidents of strangulation and a recent sexual assault immediately preceding the stabbing. Several witnesses corroborated the defendant’s account of ongoing abuse, and an order of protection had previously been issued against the victim.The case was tried in Supreme Court, Erie County, where the defendant’s counsel pursued a justification defense under Penal Law § 35.15. During summation, the prosecutor misrepresented the defendant’s testimony by stating that she had never claimed to fear for her life, despite clear testimony to the contrary. The prosecutor also repeatedly accused the defendant of lying, using the term “lies” numerous times. Defense counsel did not object to these remarks. The jury convicted the defendant. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the conviction, holding that the issue was unpreserved and that counsel’s failure to object did not constitute ineffective assistance. However, the Appellate Division did grant sentencing relief under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the defendant was denied meaningful representation due to her counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s improper summation remarks. The Court found that the prosecutor’s misstatement of the evidence and repeated personal attacks on the defendant’s credibility exceeded permissible advocacy and undermined the fairness of the trial. The Court concluded that, in the absence of any strategic justification for counsel’s silence, the defendant was deprived of a fair trial. The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and a new trial was ordered. View "People v T.P." on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder for the fatal stabbing of a 20-year-old in August 2007, when he was 16 years old. The prosecution presented police-arranged single photo identifications made the day after the crime. The defendant moved to suppress these identifications, arguing they were conducted in a suggestive manner. The Supreme Court ordered a Rodriguez/Wade hearing to determine the admissibility of the identifications, but the hearing was never held. During the trial, the prosecution called an eyewitness who identified the defendant as the perpetrator, despite earlier stating they would not call this witness. The defense counsel did not object to the witness being called or request a Rodriguez/Wade hearing.The Supreme Court convicted the defendant, and he appealed, arguing that the missing transcript of jury deliberation proceedings constituted a mode of proceedings error and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court summarily denied the defendant's CPL 440.10 motion without an evidentiary hearing and denied his motion for a reconstruction hearing. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing the defendant's sentence but affirmed the order denying the CPL 440.10 motion, rejecting the defendant's claims.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and rejected the defendant's mode of proceedings claim, holding that a missing transcript alone does not entitle a defendant to vacatur of their conviction. The court stated that the proper remedy for a missing transcript is a reconstruction hearing, provided the defendant's conduct shows a good faith effort to obtain prompt and effective reconstruction. The court also held that the Supreme Court abused its discretion by summarily denying the CPL 440.10 motion without an evidentiary hearing, as the defendant's ineffective assistance claim could not be resolved without resolving questions of fact. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for an evidentiary hearing on the CPL 440.10 motion. View "People v Salas" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over whether certain information about deceased individuals, retained and indexed by the New York State Department of Health (DOH), should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The DOH already publishes an online database with limited information for deaths from 1957 to 1972. The petitioner, Reclaim the Records, requested disclosure of the same categories of information and any additional indexed information for deaths from all available years through 2017.The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered DOH to disclose the records, with social security numbers redacted. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition, concluding that the additional fields of information for deaths from 1957 to 1972, and all information from 1973 to 2017, were exempt from disclosure under Public Health Law § 4174 (1) (a) and that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that DOH must disclose the same categories of information it already publishes online for deaths from 1957 to 1972 for all years through 2017. The court held that DOH had not shown that any exemption applies to these categories of information. However, the court also held that disclosure of a decedent's medical history, cause of death, location of interment, and whether they were buried, cremated, or made an anatomical gift would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIL. The court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court to determine whether DOH must disclose additional portions of its death indices containing other fields of information not addressed in the decision. View "Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York State Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

In 2019, New York City enacted Local Law No. 97, requiring significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings, aiming for a 40% reduction by 2030 and an 80% reduction by 2050, relative to 2005 levels. Shortly after, New York State passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), targeting a 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, with an interim goal of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Act tasked the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) with setting statewide emissions limits and established a Climate Action Council to develop a Scoping Plan for achieving these targets.Plaintiffs, representing residential buildings subject to Local Law No. 97, filed a declaratory judgment action claiming the local law was preempted by the Climate Act. The defendants, including the City of New York and its Department of Buildings, moved to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint entirely. However, the Appellate Division modified this decision, denying the motion regarding the preemption claim and affirming the rest. The Appellate Division held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the Climate Act did not preempt Local Law No. 97.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that the Climate Act does not preempt the field of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The Court emphasized that the Climate Act's legislative findings and savings clause indicate an intent to allow complementary local regulations. The Court concluded that the State did not express or imply an intent to preempt local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and thus, Local Law No. 97 is not preempted by the Climate Act. The certified question was answered in the negative, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. View "Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc. v City of New York" on Justia Law