Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The owner commenced tax certiorari proceedings against the City of Rye, challenging assessments for tax years 2002-2010. for Lot 9 and Lot 10. Lot 10 is within the Rye City School District. Lot 9, which the owner believed to be within that district, actually lies within Rye Neck Union School District. Under RPTL 708, within 10 days of service of the notice and petition on a municipality in a tax certiorari proceeding, a petitioner must mail a copy of those documents to the superintendent of schools of any district within which the assessed property is located. The owner did not comply with that requirements before reaching an agreement with the City. Before that tentative settlement was finalized, the owner recognized its error, notified the Rye District, mailed the petition and notice, and sought the Rye District's consent to settle. The District instead intervened. The court dismissed the petitions with prejudice for failure to comply with RPTL 708. The Appellate Division clarified that dismissal pertained to Lot 9, noting that the action may not be recommenced under CPLR 205(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed. A petitioner who ignores the RPTL 708 mailing requirements and denies a school district the opportunity to economically address a tax certiorari proceeding is not permitted to recommence a proceeding dismissed based upon such noncompliance; to do so would undermine the goals that prompted amendments to RPTL 708. View "Westchester Joint Water Works v Assessor of City of Rye" on Justia Law

Ambac guaranteed payments on residential mortgage-backed securities issued by Countrywide. When those securities failed during the financial crisis, Ambac sued, alleging fraud. Ambac named Bank of America (BoA) as a defendant, based on its merger with Countrywide. Discovery ensued, and in 2012, Ambac challenged BoA's withholding of approximately 400 communications between BoA and Countrywide after the signing of the merger plan in January 2008 but before its closing in July. BoA claimed they were protected by the attorney-client privilege because they pertained to legal issues the companies needed to resolve jointly in anticipation of the closing. Although the parties were represented by separate counsel, the merger agreement directed them to share privileged information and purported to protect the information from outside disclosure. A Referee concluded that the exchange of privileged communications waives the attorney-client privilege and that the communications would be entitled to protection only if BoA could establish an exception, such as the common interest doctrine, which permits limited disclosure of confidential communications to parties who share a common legal (as opposed to business or commercial) interest in pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. The court held that the doctrine applies only if there is "reasonable anticipation of litigation." The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the trial court order holding that privilege did not apply because the communication did not relate to pending or anticipated litigation. View "Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was born prematurely by emergency cesarean section at New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. (HHC) in June 2005. He was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit and discharged in stable condition in August 2005. In January 2007, more than 90 days after the claim arose, without first obtaining leave of court as required by General Municipal Law 50-e (5), plaintiff served a notice of claim against HHC alleging negligence and malpractice arising out of failure to properly treat and manage his mother's prenatal care and failure to obtain informed consent with regard to plaintiff's care. The notice claimed that plaintiff sustained brain damage, cognitive defects, developmental, speech and psychomotor delays, fetal and respiratory distress and seizure disorder. Plaintiff filed suit in August 2008, but waited until December 2010, to seek permission to serve late notice of claim. The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal, finding unreasonable an excuse that counsel waited because he needed to receive medical records from HHC. The court held that plaintiff failed to establish "that the medical records put HHC on notice that the alleged malpractice would subsequently give rise to brain damage as a result of birth trauma and hypoxia," The New York Court of Appeals affirmed. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the medical records must do more than "suggest" that an injury occurred as a result of malpractice in order for the medical provider to have actual knowledge of essential facts. View "Wally G. v NY City Health & Hosps. Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and two counts of assault in the first degree. Defendant, who was fifteen years old at the time of the crime, challenged the judgment of conviction on direct appeal, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by withholding information from an expert in child and adolescent psychiatry. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Defendant received meaningful and effective representation; and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged shortcomings. View "People v. Henderson" on Justia Law

In IRB-Brasil Resseguros, S.A. v. Inepar Invs., S.A., the Court of Appeals held that, where parties include a New York choice-of-law clause in a contract, such a provision demonstrates the parties’ intent that courts not conduct a conflict-of-laws analysis. In the instant case, Plaintiff was a New York not-for-profit corporation that administered a retirement plan and a death benefit plan. Decedent was enrolled in both plans. Decedent named Appellants as beneficiaries. Both plans stated that they shall be governed by and construed in accordance with New York law. After Decedent died, a Colorado court admitted his will to probate. Plaintiff was unsure to whom the plan benefits should be paid after Decedent’s death and commenced a federal interpleader action against Decedent’s Estate, the personal representative (PR) of the Estate, and Appellants. A federal district court directed Plaintiff to pay the disputed funds to the PR, concluding that Colorado’s revocation law terminated any claims to the plans by Appellants. On appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals answered by extending the holding in IRB to contracts that do not fall under Gen. Oblig. Law 5-1401 and clarifying that this rule obviates the application and both common-law and conflict-of-laws principles and statutory choice-of-law directives, unless the parties expressly indicate otherwise. View "Ministers & Missionaries Benefit Bd. v. Snow" on Justia Law

Petitioners, including individual residents of the Village of Painted Post, commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding against the Village and others (collectively, Respondents), asserting that the Village failed to comply with the strict procedural mandates of the State Environmental Quality Review Act by entering into a bulk water sale agreement with a subsidiary of Shell Oil Co. providing for the sale of 314 million gallons of water from the village water system and by approving a lease agreement with a railroad for the construction of a water transloading facility. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that Petitioners lacked standing and failed to state a cause of action. Supreme Court denied Respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing after finding that one of the individual petitions had standing. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition on the ground that the individual petitioner lacked standing. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division, in concluding that the individual petitioner at issue lacked standing, applied an overly restrictive analysis of the requirement to show harm “different from that of the public at large.” View "Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post" on Justia Law

Two certificateholders in ACE Securities Corp., Home Equity Loan Trust sued DB Structured Products (DBSP) for failure to repurchase loans that purportedly did not conform to the representations and warranties of DBSP, which sponsored the transaction. The Trust later sought to substitute itself as plaintiff in place of the certificateholders. DBSP moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, arguing that the Trust’s claims accrued as of March 28, 2006, more than six years before the Trust filed its complaint. DBSP further contended that the certificateholders did not validly commence this action and lacked standing to sue. Supreme Court denied DBSP’s motion to dismiss and held the Trust’s action to be timely.The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Trust’s cause of action against DBSP for breach of representations and warranties accrued at the point of contract execution on March 28, 2006; and (2) even assuming that the certificateholders possessed standing to sue, the two certificateholders did not validly commence this action because they failed to comply with the contractual condition precedent to suit. View "ACE Sec. Corp. v DB Structured Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

In June 2008, Plaintiff brought an action in a federal district court alleging violations of her federal and state constitutional rights and asserting common law negligence claims. The district dismissed several of Plaintiff’s claims. On September 30, 2011, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining federal claims. Plaintiff appealed. Because Plaintiff failed to file her brief and appendix by an extended deadline, the Second Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal by mandate issued on August 28, 2012, effective July 10, 2012. On June 25, 2012, Plaintiff commenced the instant action in Supreme Court. Defendants moved to dismiss the state action as untimely, contending that the six-month tolling period provided by N.Y. C.P.L.R. 205(a) had already expired. Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff’s federal action terminated on September 30, 2011, thus rejecting Plaintiff’s contention that her federal action terminated with the Second Circuit’s dismissal of her appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, where an appeal is taken as of right, the prior action terminates for purposes of section 205(a) when the nondiscretionary appeal is “exhausted,” either by a determination on the merits or by dismissal of the appeal. View "Malay v. City of Syracuse" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of Alberta, Canada, commenced an action against Defendants in a New York federal court asserting various RICO claims stemming from a dispute over control of an oil field in Siberia. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals eventually dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that a United States federal court could not provide relief. Within six months of the federal action’s termination, Plaintiff refiled in Supreme Court claims arising from the same transaction. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was untimely because Plaintiff’s injuries accrued in Alberta, and Plaintiff’s claim was untimely under Alberta law. Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred, concluding that New York’s borrowing statute required her to apply Alberta's shorter limitations period to determine if Plaintiff’s state court action was timely. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that New York’s savings statute permitted the “new” state court action because its “prior” federal court action was timely under the borrowing statute. View "Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a transaction between a bank located in United Arab Emirates and a partnership which had its headquarters in Saudi Arabia. The bank sued the partnership to collect an alleged debt and chose to do so in New York Supreme Court. The partnership filed a third-party complaint against a citizen of Saudi Arabia (“citizen”) and a bank headquartered in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The citizen moved to dismiss the third-party complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens. After the issue was briefed and argued at Supreme Court, the court dismissed both the complaint and the third-party complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that VSL Corp. v. Dunes Hotels & Casinos, Inc. prohibited the dismissal of the main action on forum non conveniens grounds in the absence of a motion seeking that relief and that the dismissal of the third-party complaint was an abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) VSL did not bar Supreme Court from dismissing the complaint under the circumstances of this case; and (2) Supreme Court was correct as a matter of law in dismissing both the complaint and the third-party complaint. View "Mashreqbank PSC v. Ahmed Hamad A1 Gosaibi & Bros. Co." on Justia Law