Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Twelve-year-old Tiffany had a seizure followed by cardiac arrest. Two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) employed by New York City arrived in response to Tiffany's mother's 911 call and began performing CPR on Tiffany until paramedics from a private hospital arrived in an advanced life support ambulance. Tiffany suffered serious brain damages from the ordeal. Tiffany and her mother filed this negligence action against the City and its emergency medical services. Under State law, when a municipality provides ambulance service by emergency medical technicians in response to a 911 call, it performs a governmental function and cannot be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party. Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City did not owe Plaintiffs a special duty or that the municipal defendants were the proximate cause of the harm. The Appellate Division reversed, determining that Plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the City assumed a special duty to Plaintiffs and whether it proximately caused their injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs adequately established questions of fact on the applicability of the special duty doctrine. View "Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc. " on Justia Law

Petitioner commenced a N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law 7 proceeding challenging the valuation by the City of Syracuse's Board of Assessment Review of five houses near Syracuse University used as rental housing for college students. Petitioner claimed that the property valuations, which took place over a four-year period, did not account for the adverse effect the presence of lead paint would have on market value. Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish that the properties were overvalued or that the assessments were incorrect. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to proffer substantial evidence demonstrating that the presence of lead paint resulted in devaluation in the market value of the five properties for the years at issue. View "Roth v. City of Syracuse" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder of a child and manslaughter in the first degree. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant's state of mind during the crime was one of utter indifference to the value of human life, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of depraved indifference murder; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant consciously disregarded the substantial and unjustifiable risk that death or serious injury would result from his actions; (3) the evidence of first-degree manslaughter was sufficient; and (4) Defendant's counsel offered effective assistance. View "People v. Barboni" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were two limited liability companies that made loans to Goldan, LLC. Goldan failed to repay the loans. Plaintiffs later discovered that their mortgages had not been recorded as agreed upon. Plaintiffs sued Goldan and its two principals, Mark Goldman and Jeffrey Daniels, alleging a number of claims. One claim was asserted against Daniels, a lawyer, for legal malpractice for failing to record the mortgages. Daniels' malpractice carrier, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (American) refused to provide defense or indemnity coverage. Daniels defaulted in Plaintiffs' action against him. Daniels assigned to Plaintiffs his rights against American. Plaintiffs subsequently brought an action against American for breach of contract and bad faith failure to settle the underlying lawsuit. Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs' motions as to the breach of contract claims and dismissed the bad faith claims. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) by breaching its duty to defend Daniels, American lost its right to rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify; and (2) the lower courts properly dismissed Plaintiffs' bad faith claims. View "K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified Bear Stearns & Co. and Bear Stearns Securities Corp. of its intention to charge Bear Stearns with violations of federal securities laws. Bear Stearns agreed to pay $160 million as a disgorgement and $90 million as a civil penalty. Bear Stearns then sought indemnification from its insurers (Insurers), requesting indemnity for the $160 million SEC disgorgement payment. Insurers denied coverage. Bear Stearns subsequently brought this breach of contract and declaratory judgment action against Insurers. Insurers unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that, as a matter of public policy, Bear Stearns could not seek coverage under its policies for any of the SEC disgorgement payment. Bear Stearns appealed, arguing that, while it was reasonable to preclude an insured from obtaining indemnity for the disgorgement of its own illegal gains, Bear Stearns was not unjustly enriched by at least $140 million of the disgorgement payment, the sum attributable to the profits of its customers. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Insurers did not meet their burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Bear Stearns was barred from pursuing insurance coverage under its policies. View "J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This mortgage foreclosure action arose from a failed redevelopment of a hotel complex. The complex consisted of several interconnected properties, including the hotel property, a tower building, and another building. The lender for the redevelopment and numerous mechanic's lienors dispute the priority of their respective claims to the proceeds from the foreclosure sale of the tower building. At issue before the Court of Appeals was N.Y. Lien Law 22, which subordinates a building loan mortgage made pursuant to an unfiled building loan contract to subsequently filed mechanic's liens. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the loan agreement made with the lender was a building loan contract, but the lender's mortgage was not entitled to first priority because the lender never filed the loan agreement; and (2) the lender was entitled to priority with respect to the loan proceeds used to refinance the existing mortgage, as the subordination penalty did not apply in this circumstance. View "Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession in the second degree. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the weapon obtained during a search, arguing that the manner in which a police officer conducted the inventory search of Defendant's vehicle was improper, and thus, the entire search was invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the People met their burden of establishing a valid inventory search of Defendant's vehicle, as (1) the search was in accordance with procedure; (2) the search was not made invalid when the officer conducting the search did not follow the written police procedure by giving some of the contents of the vehicle to a third party without itemizing that property; and (3) the fact that the officer searched in the vehicle's seat panels, knowing that contraband is often hidden by criminals in such places, did not invalidate the search because the officer's intention was to search for items to inventory. View "People v. Padilla " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty-five years to life. Defendant moved to vacate the conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among several other things, failing to obtain Defendant's psychiatric records. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to vacate and remanded for a new trial, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records deprived Defendant of effective representation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records and to pursue a strategy informed by both the available evidence and Defendant's concerns seriously compromised Defendant's right to a fair trial. View "People v. Oliveras" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the constitutionality of the HAIL Act, which regulates medallion taxicabs and livery vehicles. The Act's stated aim is to address certain mobility deficiencies in the City of New York. Plaintiffs, medallion owners and their representatives, challenged the HAIL Act on the ground that the regulation of yellow cab and livery enterprises is a matter of local concern. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the Act violates the State Constitution's Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, and the Exclusive Privileges Clause. Supreme Court entered a judgment nullifying the Act and declaring that it violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the HAIL Act does not violate the Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, or the Exclusive Privileges Clause. View "Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass'n v. State" on Justia Law

The Wicks Law requires public entities seeking bids on construction contracts to obtain separate specifications for three subdivisions of the work to be performed. Until 2008 when the law was amended to raise the threshold, the Wicks Law applied to contracts whose cost exceeded $50,000. The new, higher thresholds, unlike the old one, were not uniform throughout the State. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the amendments violated the Home Rule section of the State Constitution by unjustifiably favoring the eight counties with higher thresholds. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the Home Rule cause of action and that, in any event, the challenged amendments did not violate the Home Rule section because they "were enacted in furtherance of and bear a reasonable relationship to a substantial State-wide concern." The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) at least one plaintiff had standing to assert the Home Rule claim, but that claim failed on the merits; and (2) most of Plaintiffs' other claims failed, but four causes of action challenging the apprenticeship requirements as applied to out-of-state contracts should be reinstated. View "Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors v. Smith" on Justia Law