Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs commenced an action and moved for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants, the board of trustees, from demolishing a certain church building. At issue was whether section 5 of the Religious Corporations Law granted plaintiffs, former parishioners of the church incorporated as a religious corporation, the authority to challenge the board of trustees' decision to demolish the church. The court held that plaintiffs have no basis to challenge the actions properly voted upon by the board of trustees and sanctioned by the archbishop. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Blaudziunas v Egan" on Justia Law

Exum, an employer of Elrac, served a notice of intention to arbitrate on Elrac, seeking uninsured motorist benefits. Elrace petitioned to stay the arbitration. Supreme Court granted the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, permitting the arbitration to proceed. The court affirmed and held that a self-insured employer whose employee was involved in an automobile accident could not be liable to that employee for uninsured motorist benefits, notwithstanding the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. View "Matter of Elrac, Inc. v Exum" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of petit larceny. At issue on appeal was whether defendant's swipe of an unlimited MetroCard in return for a fee, although decidedly criminal in nature, constituted larceny. The court held that it did not where there was no basis upon which the petit larceny charge in the accusatory instrument could be upheld. Defendant was not prosecuted under, and the court did not address the applicability of, the theft of services statute. View "People v Hightower" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and promoting prison contraband in the first degree. On appeal, defendant argued that County Court had failed to articulate a reasonable basis on the record for its determination to restrain him in shackles during the trial. The People appealed County Court's order dismissing the charge of attempted-first degree rape. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the use of shackles was reversible error and further held that the trial court had properly dismissed the attempted rape charge. The court held that harmless error analysis was applicable when a trial court had ordered the use of visible shackles without adequate justification articulated on the record under Deck v Missouri. Here, the court held that defendant's shackling during trial was harmless, as was an evidentiary error committed by the trial court. The court also agreed with the People that the count of defendant's indictment charging him with attempted rape should not have been dismissed. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and the case remitted for sentencing. View "People v Clyde" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of burglary in the second degree. On appeal, defendant argued, among other things, that the use of leg irons (shackles) on his ankles violated his constitutional rights. The court held that the use of leg irons was a violation of defendant's constitutional rights under Deck v Missouri where the court could not conclude that the shackles were not visible to the jury, or that the jury, seeing the bunting around the defense table and not the prosecutor's, would not have inferred that it was there to hide shackles on defendant's legs. The court also held that the People could not meet their burden of showing that any constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the People conceded that the evidence against defendant was not overwhelming. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and a new trial ordered. View "People v Cruz" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of an action commenced by the New York State Attorney General against defendants, seeking injunctive and monetary relief as well as civil penalties for violations of New York's Executive Law and Consumer Protection Act, Executive Law 63(12) and General Business Law 349, as well as the common law. The primary issue on appeal was whether federal law preempted these claims alleging fraud and violations of real estate appraisal independence rules. The court held that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) governed the regulation of appraisal management companies and explicitly envisioned a cooperative effort between federal and state authorities to ensure that real estate appraisal reports comport with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The court perceived no basis to conclude that the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) itself or federal regulations promulgated under HOLA preempted the Attorney General from asserting both common law and statutory state law claims against defendants pursuant to its authority under Executive Law 63(12)and General Business Law 349. Thus, defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds of federal preemption was properly denied. The court also agreed with the Appellate Division that the Attorney General had adequately pleaded a cause of action under General Business Law 349 and that the statute provided him with standing. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v First Am. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant violated several terms of the youthful offender agreement and, at the subsequent sentencing proceeding, Supreme Court imposed a determinate prison sentence of three and one-half years plus five years of post-release supervision. On appeal, defendant contended that reversal was required under People v Catu. The court held that, having elected to advise defendant of the consequences that might flow from the violation of the youthful offender agreement, Supreme Court referenced only a prison term, omitting any mention of the possibility of post-release supervision, thereby giving defendant an inaccurate impression concerning the sentencing options. Accordingly, the court concluded that reversal and vacatur of the plea was appropriate. View "People v McAlpin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of arson in the first degree, one count relating to a fire set on May 25, 2004 (expectation of pecuniary profit), and the other two counts relating to a fire set on May 30, 2004 (expectation of pecuniary profit and use of an incendiary device). On appeal, defendant argued that the prosecutor repeatedly violated the trial court's Molineux rulings by eliciting evidence of an uncharged arson attempt and of his prior bad acts and associations. Defendant further argued that the elicited expert testimony concerning the origins of the fires was inadmissible under People v. Grutz. The court held that, although the People conceded that certain questions asked by the prosecutor at trial clearly violated the trial court's Molineux rulings, the contested testimony elicited, on the whole, was not significant; the trial court also took steps to minimize the impact of arguably improper testimony or prosecutorial statements during the trial; and in any event, to the extent any evidence subject to the trial court's Molineux rulings was improperly admitted, such error was harmless. The court also held that because the evidence adduced at trial conclusively established, apart from the expert testimony, that the subject fires were intentionally set, it could be argued that the admission of expert testimony was largely unnecessary. In any event, any error was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "People v Rivers" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought lawsuits for personal injuries allegedly resulting from automobile accidents. Here, the court confronted three cases in which the Appellate Division rejected allegations of serious injury as a matter of law. The court concluded that it must reverse Perl v Meher and Adler v Bayer because the evidence of serious injury plaintiffs have put forward was legally sufficient. The court, however, affirmed Travis v Batchi where the court could not tell from the record what Travis's alleged permanent impairment was. View "Perl v Meher; Adler v Bayer; Travis v. Batchi" on Justia Law

Claimant and his wife (collectively, claimants) filed a claim for damages, alleging that the State negligently failed to maintain Colgate Lake and Colgate Lake Dam in a reasonably safe condition. Claimants theorized that the State was liable for claimant's injuries because the water level at Colgate Lake was prone to drop due to leaks in the dam and the State took no steps to warn visitors who swam and dived into the lake about the danger of lowered water levels caused by the leak. The Appellate Division agreed with the Court of Claims that the sole legal cause of claimant's injuries was his own reckless conduct in diving into the water, which he knew or should have known was too shallow for diving. The court agreed and affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. View "Tkeshelashvili v State" on Justia Law