Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Commission is constitutionally charged with the oversight of all correctional facilities in the state. At issue was the enforceability of a subpoena deuces tecum issued by the Commission commanding Elmhurst, a health care facility operated by HHC, to produce its records respecting its care and treatment of a specified individual, who, at the time of his pre-mortem hospitalization at the Elmhurst facility, was a correctional inmate in the custody of the city. In the proceedings resulting in this appeal, the Commission's subpoena was quashed upon the ground that it sought material shielded from disclosure by the physician-patient privilege. The court held that this was error that the records sought were not properly withheld from the Commission by reason of the asserted privilege and that the subpoena should be enforced. View "Matter of New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v New York State Commn. of Correction" on Justia Law

This case arose when defendant was charged in the state of Washington with raping and kidnapping two teenage girls and subsequently moved to New York. Rulings of administrative agencies could ordinarily be reviewed only in proceedings under CPLR 78. The court held, however, that the unusual features of New York's sex offender registration system justified an exception to that rule: A determination by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders that a person who committed an offense in another state must register in New York was reviewable in a proceeding to determine the offender's risk level. View "People v Liden" on Justia Law

Defendant was acquitted of intentional murder but convicted of, among other things, depraved indifference murder, felony murder, and kidnapping in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction for depraved indifference murder. It also held the merger doctrine inapplicable to the felony murder and kidnapping convictions, concluding that "the acts constituting the kidnapping were discrete." The Appellate Division also rejected defendant's other contentions as either meritless or unpreserved. Defendant appealed. The court modified, by reducing the conviction of depraved indifference murder to manslaughter in the second degree, and otherwise, affirmed. View "People v Bussey" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds. Before defendant pleaded guilty, the trial judge observed to defense counsel that she would accept the plea "on the condition" that defendant withdrew "any and all motions that [were] outstanding," which included a recently filed pro se constitutional speedy trial motion, and waived the right to appeal. During allocution, the judge twice asked defendant if he "under[stood]" that by entering into the guilty plea, all his "outstanding writs and motions" were "being withdrawn," and he responded that he did. The court concluded that the judge's statements, considered in context, did not go against the court's decisions in People v White, People v. Blakley, and People v Sutton. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. View "People v Alexander" on Justia Law

Petitioners commenced this special proceeding seeking a declaration that Chapter 16 of Laws of 2012, insofar as it expanded the size of the New York State Senate from 62 to 63 districts, was unconstitutional. Specifically, petitioners argued that the Legislature's failure to apply a consistent method of calculating the number of Senate seats due to population growth throughout the State was arbitrary and violated article III, section 4 of the New York State Constitution. The court found that petitioners have failed to satisfy their heavy burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of this legislation and therefore affirmed. View "Cohen v Cuomo" on Justia Law

This case involved Baygold's lease with MPH, the owner of the premises, for a ten-year term. Baygold, with the consent of MPH, thereafter subleased the premises to its affiliate, Monsey Park. Monsey Park, with MPH's permission, subsequently sub-leased the premises to a non-affiliate, Orzel. At issue was whether the Appellate Division erred in holding that the out-of-possession tenant, Baygold, was not entitled to equitable relief excusing its failure to timely exercise its option to renew a commercial lease with the landlord, MPH. The court concluded that the Appellate Division properly held that Baygold failed to meet the second prong of the J.N.A. Realty v Cross Bay Chelsea test where, among other things, Baygold nor any of its affiliates was a tenant in possession of the premises at the time of the failure to comply with the lease provision; nor can it be said that Baygold, having proffered from its sublease with Orzel since 1985 while having expended no monies or improvements, would incur a "substantial loss" should the lease not be renewed. Finally, the court rejected Baygold's assertion that it was entitled to equitable relief. View "Baygold Assoc., Inc. v Congregation Yetev Lev of Monsey, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when a real estate developer hired HOD to act as general contractor for the construction of two multi-family residences. HOD entered into a subcontract with Well Built for the masonry work. At issue was whether a general contractor acted as a joint employer of masonry workers, who were employed by one of its subcontractors, thereby owing unpaid wages to the subcontractor's workforce. The court held that the Board erred as a matter of law in relying on the federal six-factor test in Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., Inc. in reaching its determination of joint employment. Because the Board's factual findings indicated nothing more than that the usual contractor/subcontractor relationship existed between HOD and Well Built during the three-month period that Well Built's principal, Martin Bruten, was on the job, the court need not resort to federal precedent to resolve the issue. In any event, even if the court were to apply the Zheng test, the court would hold that HOD was not a joint employer of Well Built's employees. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the matter remitted with directions to remand to the Board for further proceedings. View "Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff worked as a collision shop technician and suffered several injuries on the job. Workers' Compensation Law 15(6) provided that compensation for any disability, partial or total, shall not exceed a fixed maximum per week. At issue was whether the application of the cap when an employee has received several awards for different injuries, at least one of which was a so-called "schedule loss of use" award being paid periodically pursuant to the pre-2009 version of Workers' Compensation Law 25. The court held that in such cases an employee's total weekly payment could not exceed the cap. The schedule award was not nullified by the other awards, but must be deferred until the time comes when the cap would not be exceeded. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted with directions to remand to the Board for further proceedings. View "Matter of Schmidt v Falls Dodge, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when claimant was working as a phlebotomist for New York Neurologic Associates when a computer monitor fell off a shelf and struck her upper back. At issue was whether the Worker's Compensation Board must infer, from the finding that a claimant withdrew from her employment due to an accident at her work place, that her post-accident loss of wages was attributable to physical limitations caused by the accident. The court held that the Board was not required to draw that inference. The Board could, but need not, infer that the claimant could not find a suitable job because of her disability. The court could not weigh the evidence or reject the Board's choice simply because a contrary determination would have been reasonable. Here, the evidence concerning the types of work that claimant had attempted to find and her lack of success in those endeavors, together with the absence of evidence of attempts to find less physically taxing work, constituted relevant proof adequately supporting the Board's determination. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the decision of the Board reinstated. View "Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and the issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Defendant maintained that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to cause serious physical injury when he fired a gun into a crowd of people. The court held that a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant fired his gun with the intent to cause serious physical injury and, as a result, caused the victim's death. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "People v Ramos" on Justia Law