Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves two defendants, Matthew Corr and Bryan McDonald, who were convicted of sex offenses in other states and were required to register as sex offenders under the laws of those states. After relocating to New York, they were required to register as level-one risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Both defendants requested that the Supreme Court order them registered nunc pro tunc to the date when they registered as sex offenders in the state where they were convicted, effectively giving them credit for the time registered in the foreign jurisdiction against the 20-year registration period.The Supreme Court denied their requests, and the Appellate Division affirmed the decisions. The defendants argued that the phrase "initial date of registration" in SORA refers to the date they initially registered in the state of conviction, not the date of subsequent registration in New York. The People countered that SORA's use of the phrase "initial date of registration" refers to the date when an offender first registers under SORA.The Court of Appeals of New York held that the phrase "initial date of registration" refers to the date when an offender first registers under SORA, not the date an offender is required to register under the laws of another jurisdiction. The court found that the defendants' interpretation of the statute would award sex offenders credit for time spent registered under the laws of another state, which is not provided for in SORA. The court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, ruling that the defendants were not entitled to credit for their time registered as sex offenders under the laws of other states. View "People v Corr" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, K.E. Liggett, is a tenant in a Manhattan apartment building owned by the defendant, Lew Realty LLC. Liggett filed a lawsuit when Lew Realty attempted to increase her rent in 2021, arguing that her apartment is rent-stabilized and she is entitled to a rent-stabilized lease, overcharges, and attorney's fees. Liggett's claim is based on a stipulation from 2000 between Lew Realty and a previous tenant, Edward McKinney, which required McKinney to waive his right to file a Fair Market Rent Appeal (FMRA). Liggett argues that this stipulation is void as it goes against public policy, and because it led to the deregulation of the apartment, the deregulation is invalid and the apartment remains rent-stabilized.The Supreme Court initially denied Lew Realty's motion to dismiss, agreeing with Liggett that the stipulation is unenforceable as it waives the protections of the rent laws. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division concluded that the protection against waiving the benefits of rent control law did not apply to McKinney as he was not an established tenant when he signed the stipulation. The Appellate Division also concluded that Liggett's claim was akin to an FMRA and therefore barred by the statute of limitations.The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division. The court held that the stipulation is void as it waives a benefit of the rent laws, regardless of McKinney's status as a tenant. The court also held that the statute of limitations does not bar Liggett's claim that the apartment is subject to rent stabilization. The court remanded the case, allowing Lew Realty to establish other reasons for why the apartment was not rent-stabilized when Liggett took tenancy. The court did not address any issues related to Liggett's rent overcharge claims. View "Liggett v Lew Realty LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of petitioners, including parents with children in nonpublic schools, who sought to compel a local school district to transport children to their private schools on days when the public schools were closed. The petitioners requested that the Washingtonville Central School District provide transportation for children attending nonpublic schools on 20 days when public schools were closed. The District denied these requests, citing its policy that it is not required to provide transportation to nonpublic schools on days when the District's schools are not in session. This policy aligns with guidance published by the State Education Department. The petitioners then initiated a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that the District must transport students to nonpublic schools on all days those schools are open and that the State Education Department's contrary guidance is invalid.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, concluding that the language of Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) required the District to transport nonpublic school students on all days their schools were open. The court granted the petitioners' motion for summary judgment on their request for declaratory relief, issued a permanent injunction, and denied the State Education Department's cross motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the language in Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) was ambiguous. After reviewing the provision's legislative history, the Appellate Division held that the law "permits, but does not require, school districts outside New York City to transport nonpublic school students to and from school on days when the public schools are closed."The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division. The court held that Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) does not require school districts to provide transportation to nonpublic schools on days when public schools are closed. The court found that the phrase "sufficient transportation facilities" in the statute is ambiguous and could be interpreted in various ways. After examining the legislative history of the statute, the court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to require school districts to provide transportation to nonpublic schools on days when public schools are closed. The court also rejected the petitioners' arguments that the District's policy and the State Education Department's interpretation of Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) denied nonpublic school students equal protection of the law and that the State Education Department exceeded its statutory authority under Education Law § 3635 (1) (a). View "Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between MAK Technology Holdings Inc. (plaintiff) and Anyvision Interactive Technologies Ltd. (defendant). The defendant, an Israeli company selling facial-recognition software, engaged the plaintiff in 2017 to arrange introductions with potential customers in exchange for referral payments based on revenues generated from any resulting product-license agreements. The parties formalized their agreement in a written Referral Agreement with a defined "Effective Date" of November 23, 2017, and a term of three years. The agreement was amended twice in 2018 to include a compensation arrangement for equity investments in the defendant, separate from their arrangement with respect to product licenses.The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit to recover compensation allegedly owed under the amended Referral Agreement, claiming that a nonparty made an investment in the defendant in July 2021 for which the plaintiff is owed a $1.25 million fee under the Second Amendment. The defendant moved to dismiss this claim on the ground that the transaction occurred eight months after the Term of the Referral Agreement expired in November 2020. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed, both concluding that the error-infected language in section 2 of the Second Amendment creates an ambiguity with respect to the length of the Term.The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a $1.25 million fee for a transaction consummated eight months after the "Term" of the parties' agreement expired. The court found that minor syntactic and spelling errors in the preamble of an amendment to the contract cannot reasonably be read as modifying the length of the Term. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the amendment is a separate agreement with a distinct term. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the Appellate Division, granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause of action for breach of contract to the extent based on the July 2021 transaction, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "MAK Tech. Holdings Inc. v Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant who was charged with attempted second-degree murder, second-degree assault, and other charges. The defendant threatened his children with a knife and stabbed his pregnant wife multiple times. In 2019, the defendant was indicted, and the prosecution declared readiness for trial. However, on January 1, 2020, amendments to New York's discovery and statutory speedy trial rules went into effect. On the first day of trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds, arguing that the prosecution had become unready for trial when the amendments came into effect and had failed to file a certificate of compliance with the new discovery rules.The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that the amendments do not apply to cases arraigned before January 1, 2020. The jury acquitted the defendant of attempted second-degree murder but convicted him of the remaining counts. The Appellate Division, however, reversed the judgment, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the indictment. The Appellate Division held that the prosecution was placed in a state of unreadiness on January 1, 2020, and were required to file a certificate of compliance to become ready thereafter.The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order. The court held that the amendments did not vitiate the prosecution's prior readiness statement. The court found that the amendments specifically tie the certificate of compliance requirement to the prosecution's ability to state ready and be deemed ready. Because the legislature established the certificate of compliance requirement as a condition precedent to declaring ready for trial and did not indicate an intent to undo the prosecution's prior readiness statements, there is no basis to apply that requirement prospectively to a case where the prosecution was in a trial-ready posture when it went into effect. Therefore, the prosecution is not chargeable for any delay after January 1, 2020, and thus remained within the applicable 181-day statutory speedy trial limit. View "People v King" on Justia Law

On March 26, 2017, two men robbed a restaurant in Queens. One of the robbers, a Black man wearing a red hoodie, black jacket, and a bandana over his face, approached the Assistant Manager, Sumintra Ramsahoye, and demanded she open the safe. When she couldn't, she handed over the contents of the cash register drawers. Meanwhile, the other perpetrator stood next to another employee, Jordan Guzman. After the robbers fled, Guzman called the police. Police Officer Bryce Blake and his partner arrived at the restaurant within minutes and observed the defendant, Freddie T. Wright, standing in the parking lot dressed in a black jacket and red hoodie. Wright fled upon seeing the patrol car, but was eventually arrested. Guzman and Ramsahoye were brought to the house where Wright was arrested to identify him.Wright moved to suppress the identification testimony, arguing that the identification procedures were unduly suggestive. The court denied the motion, finding that the identifications were not "overly suggestive and improper" because they were made in a "very short spatial and temporal time between the incident and arrest." During jury selection, Wright raised a Batson challenge to the People's use of peremptory strikes on two prospective jurors—C.C. and K.C. The court found that the reasons proffered by the People for their strike of C.C. and K.C. were not pretextual. Wright was ultimately convicted of second-degree robbery and second-degree criminal trespass.The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that Wright had "failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating, under the third prong of the Batson test, that the facially race-neutral explanation given by the prosecutor was a pretext for racial discrimination." The Court of Appeals granted Wright leave to appeal.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that there was record support for the determinations that the People had valid, race-neutral reasons for striking the two prospective jurors. The court also found record support for the conclusions of the courts below that the show-up procedure used by police was not unduly suggestive. The court concluded that the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. View "People v Wright" on Justia Law

The defendant, Kevin L. Thomas, was on lifetime parole for prior narcotics offenses. An off-duty police officer, familiar with Thomas, observed him driving outside his county of residence, which was a violation of his parole conditions. The officer contacted an on-duty officer who initiated a traffic stop after observing Thomas commit a traffic infraction. During the stop, Thomas provided inconsistent responses and refused to consent to a search of his vehicle. The police contacted Thomas's parole officer, who arrived at the scene and conducted a warrantless search of Thomas's vehicle, discovering a large quantity of heroin.The County Court denied Thomas's motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the initial stop was justified and that the police had a founded suspicion of criminality justifying the continued detention of Thomas to contact his parole officer. The court also found that the parole officer's search was rationally and reasonably related to his parole duties. Thomas was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, with two Justices dissenting, arguing that Thomas was detained beyond what was reasonable under the circumstances.The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that the lower courts applied an incorrect legal standard in analyzing whether the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged. The court held that the proper standard for detaining an individual beyond the time reasonably required to complete a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion. The court found that the traffic stop was justified at its inception, but the courts below evaluated whether the traffic stop was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required for its completion under the founded suspicion standard, a lesser standard than the reasonable suspicion necessary to prolong a traffic stop. The case was remitted to the County Court for further proceedings under the correct standard. View "People v Thomas" on Justia Law

In October 2016, 65-year-old David Pena was assaulted by a stranger on the street. Pena, who did not see his attacker's face during the assault, later identified Mark Watkins as the assailant. Watkins was subsequently convicted of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The only identification evidence presented at trial was Pena's testimony, who identified Watkins as his attacker and the person depicted in surveillance footage of the attack. The surveillance video, however, was too blurry to clearly depict the assailant's face.Watkins appealed his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a cross-racial identification instruction. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding that Watkins' ineffective assistance of counsel claim was unreviewable on direct appeal because it involved matters not fully explained by the record. The panel also concluded that Watkins received effective assistance under the state and federal standards because he had not shown that it was objectively unreasonable for counsel to refrain from requesting a jury charge on cross-racial identification.The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that at the time of Watkins' trial in July 2017, there was no clear entitlement to a cross-racial identification charge. The court noted that while a cross-racial identification charge had been recommended by both the American Bar Association and the New York State Justice Task Force, the court's precedent had long vested the trial court with discretion over the content of an eyewitness identification charge. Therefore, the court concluded that the decision to forgo a request for the cross-racial identification charge was not the kind of "egregious" single error that rises to the level of ineffective assistance. View "People v Watkins" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute concerning a 2018 merger between FanDuel Ltd. and the U.S. assets of nonparty Paddy Power Betfair plc. The plaintiffs, founders and shareholders of FanDuel, alleged that the defendants, including FanDuel's board of directors and certain shareholders, deliberately undervalued FanDuel's assets during the merger negotiations, resulting in the preferred shareholders receiving all the benefits of the merger while the common shareholders received nothing. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain a fair valuation of the merger consideration and by promoting their own interests at the expense of the common shareholders.The Supreme Court of New York County partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The court held that New York law applied to the plaintiffs' claims because the internal affairs doctrine was inapplicable where the defendants were not current officers, directors, and shareholders at the time of the lawsuit. The court further held that the plaintiffs adequately stated their claims for breach of fiduciary duty under New York law.The Appellate Division reversed the order of the Supreme Court, holding that Scots law applied to the plaintiffs' claims under the internal affairs doctrine. The court stated that the directors of a company generally owe duties only to the company as a whole rather than to the shareholders, except in special factual circumstances not present in this case. Therefore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under Scots law.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the order of the Appellate Division, holding that while Scots law applied to the plaintiffs' claims, the plaintiffs' allegations could give rise to a possible inference that special circumstances were present, which could give rise to a cognizable fiduciary duty claim under Scots law. Therefore, the court held that the Appellate Division erroneously granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the first, second, and fourth causes of action. View "Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC" on Justia Law

Michele Rawlins, a former school principal and member of the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York (TRS), was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a series of incidents involving a disgruntled food-service worker. The worker's behavior left Rawlins feeling threatened and harassed, leading to her inability to perform her job responsibilities. The final incident occurred in April 2019, when the worker, who had been transferred to another location, entered the school and demanded to speak with Rawlins, insisting she had his "belt and wallet." Rawlins interpreted the worker's remarks as having "sexual overtones" and felt she was being stalked. She left the school building and never returned to work following the incident.Rawlins applied for accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR) from the TRS, but her application was denied. The TRS Medical Board determined that she did not sustain an accident in the work setting and that "purposeful conduct by coworkers giving rise to a disabling injury is not an accident within the meaning of the pension statute." Rawlins reapplied for ADR, but the Board maintained its previous determination. Rawlins then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the Board's determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, stating that the Board's determination had a rational basis. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, and Rawlins was granted leave to appeal.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Rawlins' injury was not caused by an "accident" within the meaning of the statutory scheme. The court declined to adopt a rule that "purposeful conduct by coworkers" can never be the basis for an award of ADR. Instead, the court stated that when a member's disability is alleged to have resulted from the intentional acts of any third party, the relevant question continues to be whether the injury-causing event was sudden, unexpected, and outside the risks inherent in the work performed. View "Matter of Rawlins v Teachers' Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y." on Justia Law