Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case arose when a tower crane operated by Joy collapsed during construction of a high-rise condominium, killing seven people and injuring dozens, damaging several buildings and destroying one. At issue was the dispute in coverage under the excess policy for "additional insureds" within the meaning of the comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy. The court concluded that there were material issues of fact in this case as to whether the high-rise building under construction was residential or mixed-use; Admiral's other claims related to Joy's alleged misrepresentations in its underwriting submission were properly interposed against Reliance and the owners/developers as well as Joy; the LLC exclusion did not foreclose coverage of those owners/developers that were limited liability companies; and defendants' remaining arguments were without merit. Accordingly, the court held that the order of the Supreme Court, as modified by the Appellate Division, was not properly made. View "Admiral Ins. Co. v Joy Contrs., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction for aggravated assault upon a police officer or a peace officer, an element of which is the assailant's use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. Defendant was charged with that offense by a grand jury based on evidence that he bit a police officer on the finger as the officer attempted to arrest him and defendant was HIV positive. The court concluded that defendant's saliva "came with him" and could not qualify as a dangerous instrument. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified by dismissing the count of the indictment charging aggravated assault upon a police officer or peace officer, remitting to county court for resentencing. View "People v Plunkett" on Justia Law

Defendant and co-defendant were convicted of first-degree robbery. At issue was whether the Supreme Court's error in denying defendant's request for a severance based on the improper joinder of certain counts relating only to co-defendant was harmless. The court held that Supreme Court's conceded error was not harmless because the improper joinder arguably tainted the proceedings by creating a strong risk that the voluminous evidence, unrelated to defendant, colored the jury's evaluation of defendant's case and thereby prejudiced defendant. Further, the trial court's curative instructions did not cure the prejudice to defendant. View "People v Chestnut" on Justia Law

In a parental rights case, at issue was whether the Family Court could direct continuing contact between parent and child once parental rights have been terminated pursuant to Social Security Law 384-b. The court concluded that, absent legislative warrant, the Family Court was not authorized to include any such condition in a dispositional order pursuant to Section 384-b. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. View "Matter of Hailey ZZ. (Ricky ZZ.)" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, owner of a New York City loft, brought an action in ejection against defendant because she occupied an apartment in the loft for which she had not paid any rent since 2003. The court held that the landlord had not complied with Multiple Dwelling Law 302 because the loft did not have a residential certificate of occupancy. The landlord had not received an extension of time to comply and thus could not maintain an ejectment action based on non-payment of rent. View "Chazon, LLC v Maugenest" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the intentional killing of one victim, accompanied by the killing of another victim with the intent to cause her serious injury or death, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. At issue was whether Penal Law 70.25(2) precluded the imposition of consecutive sentences for defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court held that under the circumstances presented, because the offense of possessing a gun with unlawful intent was only completed upon defendant's commission of the ensuing substantive crime of shooting the victims, consecutive sentencing was prohibitive. View "People v Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. At issue was whether defendant could open the door to the admission of testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. The court held that he could and in this case, he did. If evidence barred under the Confrontation Clause were inadmissible irrespective of a defendant's actions at trial, then a defendant could attempt to delude a jury "by selectively revealing only those details of a testimonial statement that are potentially helpful to the defense, while concealing from the jury other details that would tend to explain the portions introduced and placed them in context[.]" View "People v Reid" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. At issue was whether defendant could appeal an order modifying the conditions of a sentence of probation. The court concluded that such an appeal was not authorized by the Criminal Procedure Law. Instead, judicial review must be sought in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. View "People v Pagan" on Justia Law

In this case, where defendant's conviction for depraved indifference murder was reversed on appeal, the issue before the court was whether, in accord with the principles of double jeopardy, defendant was impliedly acquitted of intentional murder when the jury was instructed to consider intentional murder and depraved indifference murder in the alternative, but that it could return a verdict on only one of the offenses. Because the jury had a full opportunity to return a verdict on both inconsistent charges, defendant was impliedly acquitted of the other count when the jury convicted defendant of the depraved indifference murder and his second trial for intentional murder twice placed defendant in jeopardy for the same offense. View "People v Gause" on Justia Law

This case arose when a mid-twentieth century historian sought disclosure of unredacted transcripts of interviews from a New York City Board of Education investigation, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers Law 87 and 89, with people who were promised confidentiality and asked to provide the names of those who had been in the Communist Party with them. The court concluded that petitioner's constitutional arguments lacked substance and therefore dismissed the appeal as of right. The court granted the motion for permission to appeal, and modified the Appellate Division order, permitting the City to redact only names and other identifying details related to informants who were promised confidentiality. View "Matter of Harbatkin v New York City Dept. of Records & Info. Servs." on Justia Law