Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Respondent was an inmate in the custody of the State Department of Corrections and Correctional Services (DOCCS). In 2010, Respondent undertook a month-long hunger strike, contending that he had ceased eating in order to secure transfer to another DOCCS facility and to bring attention to certain claims of mistreatment. After Respondent had lost 11.6 percent of his body weight, DOCCS commenced this proceeding requesting a court order permitting medical personnel to insert a nasogastric tube and take other reasonable steps necessary to provide hydration and nutrition to Respondent. Supreme Court granted DOCCS' motion. Respondent subsequently resumed eating solid food but nevertheless appealed. The Appellate Division concluded the case was moot except for the issue of whether the State violated Respondent's rights by securing the force-feeding order. On that issue, the Appellate Division ruled in favor of DOCCS, concluding that the force-feeding order did not violate Respondent's right to refuse medical treatment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Respondent's rights were not violated by the judicial order permitting the State to feed him by nasogastric tube after his health devolved to the point that his condition became life-threatening. View "Bezio v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree robbery pursuant to a plea agreement. Defendant subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging, among other things, that the sentence promise was deficient because the judge did not explain to him at the time of the plea that a violation of post release supervision could result in his being incarcerated for up to five additional years of imprisonment, "over and above the ten years promised by the court." The county court denied the motion, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the ramifications of a defendant's violations of the conditions of postrelease supervision are collateral consequences of a criminal conviction, are speculative at the time of the guilty plea, and are not a core component of the sentence imposed on the defendant by the judge. View "People v. Monk" on Justia Law

This appeal involved three defendants, who were charged with multiple counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance. In each case, the trial court concluded that the courtroom should be closed to the general public during the testimony of two undercover officers on the ground that closure was necessary to protect the officers' safety and ongoing investigations. After jury trials, Defendants were convicted as charged. At issue on appeal was whether the trial court properly closed the courtroom to the general public during the testimony of the undercover officers. The Court of Appeals held that the limited closures comported with Sixth Amendment public trial principles but that a new trial was required in one case based on an erroneous jury charge on the agency defense. View "People v. Echevarria" on Justia Law

Father was an inmate in New York's correctional system. Father, who had acknowledged paternity of a child prior to his imprisonment, sought visitation with the child, who was then three years old, after Mother refused to bring the child to the prison. The family court granted Father's petition for visitation and awarded Father periodic four-hour visits at the prison with the child. The appellate division affirmed. Mother appealed, arguing that the lower courts employed an incorrect legal standard in reviewing the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the lower courts used the appropriate legal standard, applying the presumption in favor of visitation and considering whether Mother rebutted the presumption through showing that visitation would be harmful to the child. View "Granger v. Misercola" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marina Islands obtained two tax judgments in the U.S. district court against the Millars for unpaid taxes. The Millards, who previously resided in the Commonwealth, relocated before the Commonwealth was able to obtain the judgments. The Commonwealth commenced proceedings as a judgment creditor asseking a turnover order against garnishees holding assets of the Millars. The Commonwealth named a Canadian bank (Bank) headquartered in Toronto, with a branch in New York, as a garnishee under the theory that the Millards maintained accounts in a foreign subsidiary of Bank. The district court denied the Commonwealth's motion for a turnover order against Bank. The Court of Appeals accepted certification to answer questions of law, holding (1) for a court to issue a post-judgment turnover order pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5225(b) against a banking entity, the entity itself must have actual, not merely constructive, possession or custody of the assets sought; and (2) therefore, it is not enough that the banking entity's subsidiary might have possession or custody of a judgment debtor's assets. View "Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce" on Justia Law