Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated while his conditional license was in effect. At issue was whether the offense in section 1196(7)(f), regarding traffic infractions for conditional license-holders, and section 511, regarding the aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law may be prosecuted at the same time. The court held that a driver whose license had been revoked, but who had not received a conditional license and failed to comply with its conditions, may be prosecuted only for the traffic infraction of driving for a use not authorized by his license, not for the crime of driving while his license was revoked.

In September 2002, an accounting firm hired by plaintiff discovered irregularities in plaintiff's financial records. An audit revealed that the assistant superintendent had stolen over $200,000 from plaintiff's accounts. The Roslyn Union Free School District Board ("Board") was notified of the misconduct and decided to allow the assistant superintendent time to repay misappropriated funds and retire. Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in 2005 against former and current members of the Board, including defendant who was on the Board for a year starting in 2000, for the Board's allegedly lax management during the years the funds disappeared and their attempt to keep the illegal activities under wraps. At issue was whether a three or six year statute of limitations applied to causes of action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty by a school district against a former member of the school board. The court held that a six year statute of limitations period under CPLR 213(7) was applicable and therefore, the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and declaratory judgment should be reinstated as timely.

Defendants, six individuals, sought relief upon resentencing from their statutory obligation to serve postrelease supervision ("PRS"). At issue was whether Double Jeopardy barred their resentencing to PRS; whether substantive due process barred their resentencing to PRS; whether a resentencing court may reconsider a defendant's sentence at a resentencing to correct a People v. Sparber error; and whether the appellate division may reduce a defendant's sentence on appeal from a resentencing to correct a Sparber error. The court rejected defendants' Double Jeopardy argument and held that after it handed down People v. Sparber, the legislature promptly adopted legislation to allow resentencing as many defendants as possible to sentences that include PRS. The court also rejected defendants' substantive due process argument where defendants did not give reason for the court to interpret substantive due process more broadly in these circumstances as a matter of state constitutional law. The court also held that resentencing to set right the flawed imposition of PRS at the original sentencing was not a plenary proceeding. The court further held that the Appellate Division could not reduce the prison sentence on appeal in the interest of justice when a trial court lacked discretion to reconsider the incarceratory component of a defendant's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's order except People v. Sharlow, where the the order should be reversed and the resentence imposed by the Supreme Court reinstated.