Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree. On appeal, defendant argued that the accusatory instrument charging him with that crime was jurisdictionally deficient because it failed to adequately allege that he was in a "public place" and that the marijuana was "open to public view" - two elements of the fifth degree possession offense. The court concluded that the allegations were jurisdictionally sufficient and affirmed the judgment. View "People v Jackson" on Justia Law

Abacus commenced this action against ADT and Diebold to recover damages under tort and contract theories for losses incurred during a burglary of the bank. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with one exception. The court concluded that Abacus had adequately stated a cause of action for breach of contract against ADT for its alleged losses other than losses allegedly sustained by its safe deposit box customers. View "Abacus Fed. Sav. Bank v ADT Sec. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when the superintendent of the school district preferred eight charges of misconduct and/or incompetence against petitioner, then the business manager for the school district. At issue was whether persons who have testified in a Civil Service 75 disciplinary hearing were required to disqualify themselves from subsequently acting upon any of the charges related to that hearing. The court held that, because the testimony of the testifying witnesses, concerning the charges levied pursuant to section 75, rendered them personally involved in the disciplinary process, disqualification was necessary. View "Matter of Baker v Poughkeepsie City School Dist." on Justia Law

The Town commenced this proceeding to challenge the DEC's denial of portions of its request for information under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law 87[2][g]. Specifically, the Town, a municipality that obtained its drinking water from the Hudson River, sought information relating to the Hudson River dredging project and the availability of alternative water supplies for local residents. The DEC denied access to certain records exchanged with the EPA by invoking the FOIL exception for inter-agency or intra-agency materials. The court agreed with the Town that this exemption was not applicable under the circumstances presented and therefore modified the determinations. View "Matter of Town of Waterford v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation" on Justia Law

Petitioner was on parole in January 2009 when he was arrested for arson in the third degree and related offenses stemming from two separate incidents involving the same victim. Petitioner subsequently commenced a CPLR 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition was dismissed under CPL 520.10(2) where the judge concluded that the statute did not preclude a judge from setting a single form of bail. The Appellate Division affirmed. The court reversed and held that CPL 520.10(2)(b) prohibited a court from fixing only one form of bail. View "People ex rel. McManus v Horn" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial, holding that there was a violation of CPL 310.20(2) and that harmless error analysis could not be applied. The court has held that it was reversible error, not subject to harmless error analysis, to provide a jury in a criminal case with a verdict sheet that contained annotations not authorized by CPL 310.20(2). The Legislature, responding to these decisions, amended the statute to expand what was permitted in the verdict sheet, but it left the basic principle unchanged: Nothing of substance could be included that the statute did not authorize. Because that rule was violated in this case, the court's previous holdings required that defendant's conviction be set aside. View "People v Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the first degree. At issue was whether CPL 430.10 precluded the Appellate Division from remitting a case for resentencing after concluding that the trial court imposed unlawful consecutive sentences on two of the counts. The court held that, the Appellate Division, having found that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, possessed the authority to remit the matter to the trial courts for resentencing. By choosing to remit this matter to Supreme Court, the Appellate Division left the determination of the proper resentence to the discretion of Supreme Court. The court also concluded that defendant's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims were without merit where, viewing the record as a whole, defendant received meaningful representation. View "People v Rodriguez" on Justia Law