Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Several firefighter plaintiffs sued the City of Buffalo, alleging that the City engaged in reverse, disparate treatment racial discrimination as to civil service lists for Buffalo firefighters. The City moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211 due to Plaintiffs’ undisputed failure to file a N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 50-i notice of claim. Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that dismissal was not warranted based on Plaintiffs’ failure to file a notice of claim and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to summary judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently issued its decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. This case was returned to Supreme Court, which granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the City had failed to meet the strong basis in evidence standard set forth in Ricci. The Court of Appeals remitted this case for further proceedings, holding (1) a notice of claim need not be filed for a Human Rights Law claim against a municipality; and (2) Plaintiffs should not have been granted summary judgment on the issue of liability. View "Margerum v. City of Buffalo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of a sex crime and, upon his release from custody, was classified a level one sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. Defendant was later charged with a violation of Nassau County Local Law 4, codified in Nassau County Administrative Code 8-130.6. That provision establishes residency restrictions on a “registered sex offender.” The code defines “registered sex offender” as a person who has been classified as a level one, level two, or level three sex offender and is required to register pursuant to the Act, regardless of whether the sex offender has actually registered. The district court dismissed the charge, determining that Local Law 4 is preempted by New York’s comprehensive statutory scheme for sex offenders. The Appellate Term reversed, concluding that the Legislature did not intend to occupy the entire field so as to prohibit the enactment of local laws imposing residency restrictions for sex offenders who are no longer on probation, parole supervision, or subject to a conditional discharge. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the unmistakable intent of the State to preempt the field prohibits the enactment of local residency restriction laws. View "People v. Diack" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for burglary and, in an attempt to obtain leniency, told the police that a friend of his admitted that he stabbed a man at the supermarket. Defendant was represented by his lawyer at the meeting. After Defendant was released from jail, he discussed the supermarket stabbing with the police outside of the presence of his lawyer. Defendant was later charged with and convicted of attempted murder and assault. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the police officers were not barred from questioning Defendant about the stabbing despite the fact that he was represented by counsel on the pending burglary charge, as the two charges were unrelated. The Court of Appeals reversed, suppressed Defendant’s statements, and ordered a new trial, holding (1) Defendant’s right to counsel encompassed his conversations with the police about the stabbing, as long as those conversations were part of an effort to obtain leniency in the burglary case in which his lawyer represented him; and (2) Defendant did not waive his right to be represented by counsel at the second meeting with law enforcement officers. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped the car Defendant was driving due to traffic violations. After observing that Defendant appeared to be intoxicated, the officer asked Defendant to step out of the car and then patted him down. The officer found a switchblade knife in Defendant’s pocket and arrested him. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the knife. The motion was denied on the ground that the pat-down was justified as a search incident to arrest. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the police officer’s search of Defendant was not incident to Defendant’s arrest because, although there was probable cause to arrest Defendant before the search, Defendant would not have been arrested if the search had not produced evidence of a crime. View "People v. Reid" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Workers’ Compensation Board (“Board”) adopted Medical Treatment Guidelines, which include a list of pre-authorized medical procedures and set forth limitations on the scope and duration of each procedure. The Guidelines also set forth a variance procedure, under which the medical treatment provider requesting a variance must demonstrate that the requested treatment is medically necessary. In 2009, Claimant received authorization from the Special Fund for Reopened Cases (“the carrier”) for acupuncture for chronic neck and back pain that she suffered as a result of work-related injuries. In 2010, a doctor recommended that Claimant receive additional acupuncture treatment and requested two variances under the newly-created Guidelines. The carrier denied the variance requests. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that Claimant’s medical provider failed to show that the additional acupuncture treatments were medically necessary, and the Board affirmed. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Board did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating the regulations; (2) the variance procedure does not improperly shift the burden to the claimant’s treating physician to prove medical necessity; and (3) the Guidelines do not deny injured workers due process. View "Matter of Kigin v. State Workers' Comp. Bd." on Justia Law

In 2008, Defendant pleaded guilty pro se in Town Court to a misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated. Defendant took no appeal. In 2010, Defendant was charged with a felony under N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 1193(1)(c)(k), which is applicable to persons who drive while intoxicated after having been convicted of such a crime within the preceding ten years. Defendant moved to withdraw his 2008 guilty plea, arguing that he was deprived of his right to counsel in the 2008 proceedings. The Town Court granted the motion. The Appellate Term reversed, concluding that Defendant was barred from raising his right to counsel claim in a motion under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 440.10 by failing to raise it on direct appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Defendant was not barred from raising his right to counsel claim. View "People v. Grubstein" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Queens County District Attorney implemented a central booking pre-arraignment interview program consisting of a structured, videotaped interview conducted by members of the District Attorney’s staff with a suspect immediately prior to arraignment. During these interviews, a detective investigator delivered a scripted “preamble” to the Miranda warnings informing suspects that “this is your opportunity to tell us your story” and “your only opportunity” to speak with the District Attorney staff before going to court. Defendants here made statements in their respective videotaped interviews that they unsuccessfully sought to suppress. The Appellate Divisions reversed and ordered suppression of the statements, concluding that the preamble prevented the Miranda warnings from effectively conveying to suspects their rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the preamble undercut the subsequently-communicated Miranda warnings to the extent that Defendants were not adequately and effectively advised of their rights safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before they agreed to speak with law enforcement authorities. View "People v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

Defendant testified at a grand jury proceeding against his brother and received transactional immunity but subsequently refused to testify at his brother's trial. The court cited Defendant for contempt and ordered him to be taken into custody. Defendant’s brother’s trial ended in an acquittal, and Defendant was released from custody. Thereafter, the People charged Defendant with two counts of criminal attempt in the second degree for his refusal to testify at his brother’s trial. City Court dismissed the charges on double jeopardy grounds. County Court affirmed, concluding that the prior contempt proceedings were criminal in nature because the court ordered Defendant’s confinement, and in so doing relied on language in the criminal contempt provisions of the Judiciary Law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that where a court subjects a defendant to conditional imprisonment in an attempt to compel the defendant to testify and does not otherwise adjudicate the defendant to be in criminal contempt or impose punishment that is criminal in nature, double jeopardy will not bar a subsequent prosecution for contempt under the Penal Law. View "People v. Sweat" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with attempted murder in the second degree with the understanding that the county court would impose a fifteen-year term of imprisonment. The county court imposed the sentence promised at the plea, plus five years of postrelease supervision (PRS). The court failed to mention the period of PRS at the plea hearing but did mention the period of PRS during the sentencing proceeding. Defendant appealed, arguing that her plea was involuntary. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that because Defendant had the opportunity to object to the imposition of PRS but failed to do so before sentencing was imposed, her challenge was unpreserved. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the plea, holding (1) a trial court must notify a defendant of a term of PRS sufficiently in advance of its imposition that the defendant has the opportunity to object to the deficiency in the plea proceeding; and (2) in the absence of a sufficient opportunity to object, preservation is unnecessary. View "People v. Turner" on Justia Law

Defendant retained attorney Martineau to represent him on several criminal charges. When Martineau’s health declined, Defendant’s file was delivered to attorney Bruno. A week before trial was due to begin, Bruno moved, unsuccessfully, to adjourn the trial date. Bruno renewed his motion one day before trial, again without success. Defendant was found guilty of all charges. Defendant moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that the county court’s denial of the motions for adjournment violated his right to the retained attorney of his choice. The county court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that when Defendant moved, through counsel, for adjournment, the county court was not obliged to inquire of Defendant whether he was in fact seeking new counsel. View "People v. O'Daniel" on Justia Law