Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In these personal injury actions arising from a single-vehicle bus accident, two questions were presented for the court's review. First, whether plaintiffs' seatbelt claims, seeking to hold defendant liable for failure to install passenger seatbelts on the bus, were preempted by federal regulations promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Second, whether plaintiffs' weight distribution claim, alleging that the negligent modification of the bus' chassis altered the weight balance, steering, and handling of the bus, was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court held that plaintiffs' seatbelt claims were not preempted by federal regulation and that plaintiffs' weight distribution claim was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. View "Doomes v. Best Tr. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murdering his father and the attempted murder of his mother while they slept. On appeal, defendant claimed that his federal constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by the admission at his criminal trial of testimony that his gravely injured mother nodded affirmatively when asked by the police if he was her assailant. The court held that, even assuming without deciding, that the testimony about the nod was constitutionally infirm, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where there was overwhelming evidence that placed defendant at the family home when the crimes for which he was convicted were committed there. View "People v. Porco" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. At issue was whether the evidence in this case was legally sufficient to convict defendant of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. The court held that the evidence adduced at trial established more than defendant's knowing possession of four forged instruments, it provided a solid basis for the jury to infer that defendant had the requisite intent to defraud, deceive, or injure and for it to conclude rationally that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "People v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with crimes related to the sexual abuse of a minor. At issue was whether prior consistent statements alleging sexual abuse were properly admitted under the prompt outcry rule or, alternatively, in the Rosario case, to rebut a claim of recent fabrication. The court held that, in both appeals, the Appellate Division's decision was affirmed, which concluded that the prior consistent statement was inadmissible in Rosario, and admissible in Parada. View "People v. Rosario; People v. Parada" on Justia Law

After her estranged boyfriend shot her, causing serious injuries, plaintiff sued the City of New York for failing to provide her with adequate police protection to prevent the attack. The primary issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish the existence of a special relationship between plaintiff and the police. The court held that because plaintiff's proof was insufficient to establish a special relationship and demonstrate that the City owed her a special duty of care, the court agreed with the Appellate Division that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the negligence claims for failure to establish a prima facie case. View "Valdez v City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant was the driver of an automobile that struck plaintiff's decedent while she was crossing the street, causing her death. Pursuant to defendant's claim that the accident occurred while he was temporarily blinded by sun glare, the trial court instructed the jury on the emergency doctrine in his favor. The court held that, under these circumstances, it was error to give the jury the emergency instruction and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, the amended complaint reinstated as against defendant and the case remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "Lifson v. City of Syracuse" on Justia Law

In this dispute between a law firm and two banks, the issues presented were (1) the scope of the duty a payor bank owed to a non-customer depositor of a counterfeit check and (2) the scope of the duty a depository bank owed its customer when it acted as a collecting bank during the check collection process. The court held that neither the depository/collecting bank nor the payor bank violated any duty owed to the depositor and that summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. View "Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v. HSBC Bank USA, et al." on Justia Law

The common question in these appeals was whether the courts fulfilled their responsibility to make a "searching inquiry" before allowing defendants to give up the right to a lawyer and conduct their defenses pro se. The court held that, in both cases, the inquiries were deficient because defendants were not adequately advised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. View "The People v. Crampe; The People v. Wingate" on Justia Law

Respondent brought this action against appellant to compel payment of no-fault benefits in the amount of its bill, plus statutory interest and attorney's fees, alleging that it had provided timely notice and proof of claim under 11 NYCRR 65-1.1, which required an insured person's assignee to submit written proof of claim no later than 45 days after the date health care services were rendered. At issue was whether a health care services provider, as assignee of a person injured in a motor vehicle accident, could recover no-fault benefits by timely submitting the required proof of claim after the 30-day period for providing written notice of the accident had expired. The court held that the submission of the proof of claim within 45 days of the date health care services were rendered could not serve as timely written notice of accident after the 30-day period for providing such written notice had expired. View "New York and Presbyterian Hospital v. Country Wide Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Following a nonjury trial, the County Court acquitted defendant of intentional assault in the first degree, but convicted her of second-degree reckless assault and endangering the welfare of a child. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to support her conviction for reckless assault. The court held that the order of the Appellate Division should be modified by reducing defendant's conviction for reckless assault in the second degree to criminally negligent assault in the third degree, and by remitting to the Appellate Division for further proceedings. View "The People v. Brown" on Justia Law