Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, 23 transportation vendors, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to prevent the Department of Education ("DOE") from implementing allegedly illegal bid solicitations related to a school transportation contract. At issue was whether certain specifications in the bid solicitations of the DOE comported with the public bidding laws. The court held that the "Employee Protection Provisions" ("EPPs") contained in the solicitation were subject to heightened scrutiny and held that the DOE had not proven that the EPPs were designed to save the public money, encourage robust competition, or prevent favoritism. The court, however, applied the rational basis review to the remaining disputed bid specifications and held that the DOE's actions regarding pricing of school transportation and discounted payment arrangements were rational business judgments that lie within the DOE's discretion. View "In the Matter of L&M Bus Corp. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action for defamation and unfair competition by disparagement against defendants, alleging that defendants published defamatory statements about plaintiff on a website. At issue was whether plaintiff's claim against the website operator arising out of allegedly defamatory comments posted to the website was barred by the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. 230. The court held that defendants' added headings and illustrations did not materially contribute to the defamatory nature of the third-party statements and therefore, plaintiff failed to state a viable cause of action against defendants, as his claims were clearly barred by the CDA. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was affirmed. View "Shiamili v. The Real Estate Group of New York, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second degree manslaughter and first degree reckless endangerment for her role in the events leading to the death of her son. At issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support her convictions. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for manslaughter in the second degree where defendant knew of the substantial and unjustifiable risk that her boyfriend would injure her son fatally and where the jury was also justified in finding that she consciously disregarded the risk. The court held, however, that the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction of reckless endangerment where evidence that defendant not only knew of, but tried to conceal her boyfriend's abuse of her son, did not prove indifference. Accordingly, the court upheld the conviction of manslaughter and vacated the conviction of reckless endangerment. View "The People v. Lewie" on Justia Law

The Family Court terminated Stephen K.'s parental rights due to his persistent failure to comply with court-mandated conditions and the lack of evidence evincing efforts to adequately provide for his family. At issue was whether Stephen K.'s application to represent himself was unequivocal and timely. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's unanimous holding that his application was not unequivocal and timely where counsel proffered no compelling circumstances to justify the need to grant the application and where there was nothing in the record to indicate that a compelling factor had arisen to warrant particular consideration by the court. View "In the Matter of Kathleen K." on Justia Law

Appellant filed a petition, pursuant to CPLR article 78, to set aside the award of a contract to a third party and to direct the Town of Southeast to award the contract to appellant. At issue was whether the Town Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of law in awarding the public bidding contract to a bidder other than the lowest responsible bidder. The court held that General Municipal Law 103 and Town Law 122 precluded a town, in an open bidding process, from choosing a higher bid merely because it subjectively believed that a higher bid was preferable and more responsible than a lower bidder based on criteria not set forth in the bidding proposal. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal, Inc. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the father of decedent, commenced an action seeking to recover from defendants, decedent's grandparents, for decedent's wrongful death and for her conscious pain and suffering where she accidentally drowned in defendants' pool. At issue was an exclusion in defendants' homeowner's insurance policy excluding coverage for bodily injury to an insured where an insured would receive "any benefit" under the policy. The court held that judgment should have been granted in plaintiff's favor where the exclusion did not operate to bar coverage for the noninsured plaintiff's wrongful death claim for the death of the insured decedent. Accordingly, the court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cragg v. Allstate Indemnity Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed they were fraudulently induced to sell their ownership interests in a company they co-owned with one of the defendants, and fraudulently induced to release defendants from claims arising out of that ownership. At issue was whether the appellate court erred in finding that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the general release they granted defendants in connection with the sale of their interest. The court held that the release was intended to bar the very claims that plaintiffs have brought and that plaintiffs failed to allege that the release was induced by any fraud beyond that contemplated in the release. The court also held that the fraudulent statements plaintiffs point to could not support a conclusion that the release was fraudulently induced, since plaintiffs alleged that they released defendants from claims relating to the sale of their Telmex Wireless Ecuador LLC units without conducting minimal diligence to determine the true value of what they were selling. The court further held that the appellate division majority was therefore correct in concluding that, fully crediting plaintiffs' allegations, they would not be able to prevail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the order of the appellate division was affirmed. View "Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs executed a general agreement with defendant regarding management of their real estate business which contained a general release. At issue was whether the appellate court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' fraud cause of action. The court held that plaintiffs have failed to allege that the release was induced by separate fraud and failed to allege that they justifiably relied on defendant's fraudulent misstatements in executing the release. The court also held that plaintiffs, by their own admission, who were sophisticated parties, had ample indication prior to June 2005 that defendant was not trustworthy, yet they elected to release him from the very claims they now bring without investigating the extent of his alleged misconduct. Accordingly, dismissal of plaintiffs' fraud cause of action was therefore appropriate. View "Arfa, et al. v. Zamir, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for second degree murder, second degree assault, and second degree weapon possession in connection with a shooting. Defendant had also been arrested for a drug crime in Manhattan where he was represented by counsel for the drug charge. Counsel for his drug charge told detectives that defendant "was represented by counsel and that they should not question him." In defendant's view, if counsel made this assertion and gave this direction, the right to counsel had attached, and the statements subsequently given by defendant in the absence of counsel must be suppressed even though counsel was not, in fact, representing defendant in the murder case. Thus, at issue was whether the appellate court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress inculpatory statements that he made to the police, after defendant was arraigned and released on his own recognizance for the drug charge and the detective arrested him for the "homicide," on the ground that they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel. The court concluded that it had never held that an attorney could unilaterally create an attorney-client relationship in a criminal proceeding in this fashion, and declined to do so now. The court also concluded that counsel made no statements during the arraignment on the drug crime even arguably related to the homicide and there was no ambiguity about whether defendant could have intended to invoke his right to counsel before making the inculpatory statements. Therefore, the court affirmed the order of the appellate court and held that nothing about defendant's conduct suggested that he meant to invoke his right to counsel before he made the statements and counsel had not already conspicuously represented defendant in an aspect of the homicide matter, causing the indelible right to attach. View "The People v. Pacquette" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and other crimes for the shooting of an individual in 2002. Defendant's principal argument on appeal was that his trial counsel's failure to object to certain remarks made by the prosecutor in summation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and deprived him of a fair trial. Defendant also challenged the lineup in which he was identified by two witnesses as unduly suggestive. The court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a lack of strategic or other legitimate reasons for his defense lawyer's failure to object in a single instance. The court also held that it was entirely plausible that counsel chose not to object because the prosecutor's remarks impugned the People's witnesses as well as defendant and therefore were consistent with his own theory that the People's witnesses were simply not credible. The court further held that the fact that the witnesses knew that the suspect whom they had tentatively identified from a photographic array would be in a lineup did not, under the circumstances of the case, "present a serious risk of influencing the victim's identification of defendant from the lineup." View "The People v. Brown" on Justia Law