Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder, intentional murder on a transferred intent theory, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The convictions arose from a single homicide where Defendant killed one victim in the course of attempting to kill someone else. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court violated his due process rights when it submitted to the jury depraved indifference murder and intentional murder on a “transferred intent” theory in the conjunctive with respect to the same victim. The Court of Appeals modified the order of the Appellate Division and ordered a new trial on the intentional murder, depraved indifference murder, and attempted murder counts, holding (1) a defendant cannot be convicted of depraved indifference murder and intentional murder on a transferred intent theory in a case involving the death of the same person, and therefore, the trial court erred in submitting to the jury both charged in the conjunctive rather than in the alternative; and (2) the trial court violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting into evidence certain grand jury statements of a non-testifying witness. View "People v. Dubarry" on Justia Law

Two codefendants (Defendants) were convicted of second-degree murder for acting in concert with three others to kill Matharr Cham. When the People’s main witness failed to appear twice during trial, the court held an in camera, off-the-record discussion with the witness to ascertain the witness's mental and physical ability to testify. The proceeding was held without counsel present. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Defendants’ right to counsel was not violated. The Court of Appeals reversed the orders in each case and remitted for new trials, holding that the trial court violated Defendants’ right to counsel by denying defense counsel access to the proceeding because, under the facts of this case, the witness's mental and physical health were inextricably tied to his credibility, a nonministerial issue for trial. View "People v. Carr" on Justia Law

After two separate jury trials in two unrelated cases, Defendants were convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and murder in the second degree, respectively. Defendants appealed, arguing that the introduction of purported “background and narrative” evidence through the testimony of police detectives violated their right to confrontation. The Appellate Division in both cases affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in one case and reversed in the other, holding (1) the trial court in the first case erred in admitting the testimony because it exceeded the permissible bounds of providing background information, and the error was not harmless where there was no proper curative or limiting charge given to temper the testimonial evidence; and (2) the statement made in the second case was not testimonial, and therefore, there was no merit to Defendant’s contention that his confrontation rights were violated. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession in the first degree. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other claims, that his right to counsel was violated when the trial court replaced a sick juror with an alternate juror and failed to object to the replacement of the juror. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Defendant failed to preserve his right to counsel claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s right to counsel claim was not preserved for appellate review; and (2) Defendant’s remaining claims lacked merit. View "People v. Garay" on Justia Law

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