Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of attempted second degree murder, two counts of first degree assault, assault in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and related counts. Defendant appealed, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a charge permitting, but not requiring, the jury to infer that the content of a tape from a video surveillance camera trained upon the location of the altercation would not have been favorable to the prosecution. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was not a reasonable probability that the jury, if offered the opportunity, would have chosen to draw an inference adverse to the prosecution as to what the missing video would have shown, and therefore, Defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice attributable to counsel’s inadequacy. View "People v. Blake" on Justia Law

Defendant was serving a sentence for his robbery conviction when he was interviewed in the absence of counsel regarding a murder. Before Defendant was interviewed about the murder, the lawyer who represented Defendant in the robbery indicated to law enforcement officers that he no longer represented Defendant. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to the murder. Defendant moved to set aside his conviction, arguing that the interview violated his right to counsel because he gave his statement outside the presence of his counsel. The county court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the officers’ questioning of Defendant did not violate the rule that, once an attorney has entered the proceeding, the defendant cannot be questioned in the absence of counsel unless he waives his right to counsel in the attorney’s presence, because the police reasonably concluded, after talking to the lawyer at issue, that he was no longer Defendant’s counsel. View "People v. McLean" on Justia Law

After hearing gunshots in an apartment building, police officers pursued Defendant into an apartment, searched the apartment, and located Defendant and his cohort hiding under a bed. Defendant was placed under placed in handcuffs, after which one officer entered another bedroom in the apartment and found a silver box on the floor. The officer opened the box and discovered a gun. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence from the warrantless search of the box. The suppression court concluded that the search of the box was improper because the exigent circumstances that justified the officers’ entry into the apartment had abated once Defendant was handcuffed and secured. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the warrantless search for the gun was justified. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the People failed to meet the burden of establishing that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless search. View "People v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

Appellants retained Mary Dorman to represent them in a lawsuit. During the litigation, Dorman and Appellants entered into three separate retainer agreements pertaining to Dorman’s work on the trial, on the appeal to the Appellate Division, and on the appeal to the Court of Appeals. A jury ruled in Appellants’ favor, awarding them $986,671 in damages. Dorman was awarded $296,826 for her trial work. The verdict and trial fee awards were upheld on appeal. Dorman subsequently requested fees for her appellate work, and Supreme Court awarded Dorman $233,966. After a monetary dispute arose between Dorman and Appellants, Dorman sought a declaratory judgment to enforce the three retainer agreements. Supreme Court granted Dorman’s motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Dorman correctly interpreted the fee calculation. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division order with regard to the trial agreement and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the trial agreement entitled Dorman to one third of the jury award; and (2) because the trial agreement did not address the treatment of statutory counsel fees, Dorman was entitled to the more generous alternative of either one third of the jury verdict or the statutory award for her trial work.View "Albunio v. City of New York" on Justia Law

These four cases involved criminal appeals that were not pursued for more than a decade after the filing of a notice of appeal. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in each case. The Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the dismissals in three of the cases, as the procedure followed in these cases did not deny the defendants of any constitutional right, nor did the Appellate Division abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeals; and (2) remitted the fourth case to the Appellate Division so that counsel could be appointed to represent the defendant in opposing the dismissal of his appeal, as the Appellate Division erred in denying this defendant’s appeal before assigning him counsel on that appeal and giving counsel a chance to review the record.View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) adopted amendments to regulations pertaining to the protection of endangered and threatened species. The amendments established a formal process through which individuals could obtain a permit to allow for the incidental taking of a threatened or endangered species. Before the agency implemented the regulations at issue, the Town of Riverhead and Twon of Riverhead Community Development Agency (collectively, Riverhead) challenged the amendments. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, finding that Petitioners did not have standing. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Petitioners lacked standing based on their failure to allege an injury in fact and that Petitioners’ substantive challenges were not yet ripe. The Court of Appeals held that Petitioners could proceed with three of their procedural claims, as they alleged a sufficient injury regarding these claims, but Petitioners lacked standing with respect to the substantive causes of action, as those claims were not yet ripe. View "In re Ass’n for a Better Long Island" on Justia Law

In 1979, Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), where he was eventually promoted to health facilities planner. In 2005, Plaintiff was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, an occupational lung disease. In 2007, Defendant terminated Plaintiff. In 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, among other claims, that HHC had unlawfully discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the City Human Rights Law (City HRL). Supreme Court granted summary judgment for HHC, concluding that Plaintiff could not, even with a reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of his job. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding that HHC was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s State HRL and City HRL claims, as (1) both statutes generally preclude summary judgment in favor of an employer where the employer has failed to demonstrate that it responded to a disabled employee’s request for a particular accommodation by engaging in a good faith interactive process regarding the feasibility of that accommodation; and (2) under the facts of this case, Plaintiff presented colorable claims of disability discrimination under the City HRL and State HRL.View "Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2001, Defendant was found guilty of robbery and other crimes and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Supreme Court later ordered that Defendant be resentenced, determining that Defendant’s sentence was illegal because it did not include a mandatory term of post-release supervision (PRS). After Defendant was conditionally released, Supreme Court resentenced Defendant by imposing a term of PRS. In 2009, the maximum term of Defendant’s prison sentence passed. In 2010, Defendant filed a motion to set aside his second sentence, arguing that the imposition of PRS constituted double jeopardy because he was out of prison on conditional release when it was imposed. Supreme Court granted the motion and resentenced Defendant, reimposing the terms of his completed initial sentence. The Appellate Division dismissed the People’s appeal, concluding that imposing PRS in this case would constitute double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Defendant had not acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence because the direct appeal of the sentence Defendant served was not over; and (2) therefore, the prohibition against double jeopardy was not implicated in this case.View "People v. Cintron" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree for suffocating her stepdaughter. The Appellate Division found the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence and modified the County Court’s judgment by reducing the murder conviction to a conviction of second-degree manslaughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s confession to the police following the child’s death was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence at trial to support Defendant’s conviction; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain letters into evidence, as they were sufficiently redacted; and (3) Defendant was not denied effective assistance of trial counsel.View "People v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Upon responding to a burglary report at an apartment building, police officers observed Defendant in the building’s stairwell. When the officers arrested Defendant for trespassing, one of the officers opened Defendant’s shoulder purse, which contained a loaded handgun. Defendant was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a gun in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the gun, and, after a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the counts charged. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the People bear the burden of demonstrating the presence of exigent circumstances in order to conduct a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest; and (2) in this case, the People failed to meet that burden as a matter of law.View "People v. Jimenez" on Justia Law