Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case arose when petitioner formally requested the list of names and addresses of veterinarians licensed by the Department of Schenectady County under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), Public Officers law 87[2][b], 89[2-a]. The Department offered to provide names and cities but refused to provide street addresses because the Department's computerized files were unable to distinguish a licensee's business address from a residential address. The court held that an agency responding to a demand under FOIL could not withhold a record solely because some of the information in that record could be exempted from disclosure. Where it could do so without unreasonable difficulty, the agency must redact the record to take out the exempt information. View "Matter of Schenectady County Socy. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v Mills" on Justia Law

In these criminal proceedings, the Appellate Division dismissed defendants' direct appeals from their judgments of conviction prior to their hearing and disposition. Both defendants filed timely notices of appeal, but were involuntarily deported by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau while their appeals were pending. The common issue presented was whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in dismissing these appeals. The court held that the Appellate Division did abuse its discretion where, inter alia, as a matter of fundamental fairness, all criminal defendants should be permitted to avail themselves of intermediate appellate courts as the State had provided an absolute right to seek review in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the orders should be reversed and the cases remitted for consideration of the merits. View "People v. Ventura" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant alleging violations of Labor Law 240(1) and Labor Law 241(6), the latter pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c) after plaintiff was injured while working on a demolition project on premises owned by defendant. At issue was whether the court's decision in Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co. precluded recovery under labor Law 240(1) where a worker sustained an injury caused by a falling object whose base stood at the same level as the worker. The court held that such a circumstance did not categorically bar the worker from recovery under section 240(1). The court held that, however, in this case, an issue of fact existed as to whether plaintiff's injury resulted from the lack of a statutorily prescribed protective device. View "Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp." on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendants, Corey Becoats and Jason Wright, of second degree (depraved indifference) murder and first degree robbery. The Appellate Division modified by reducing the murder convictions to manslaughter in the second degree, and otherwise confirmed. Defendants subsequently appealed their convictions. The court rejected most of defendants' arguments, but concluded that Wright was entitled to a new trial because of an error in excluding evidence he tried to present in his defense. Accordingly, in Becoats, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed and in Wright, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and the case remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial. View "People v. Becoats; People v. Wright" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living (NYCQAL), a not-for-profit association of members who operate adult homes and assisted living facilities that were regulated pursuant to 18 NYCRR Parts 485 through 48, commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring, among other things, that its guidelines were enforceable and enjoining defendants from violating such guidelines. The court held that the Appellate Division properly concluded that the guidelines impermissibly restricted advocate access to facility residents and violated 18 NYCRR 485.14 and the DOH's interpretation of that regulation. The Appellate Division had a sound basis for concluding that the guidelines, which called for facility representatives to serve as intermediaries between advocates and the residents and prohibited advocates from walking through the facility without the intention of visitng with a particular resident, conflicted with the regulations and the DOH's interpretation of them. Likewise, the Appellate Division properly concluded that the guideline providing that a vistors' failure to comply with any of the guidelines would "constitute reasonable cause to restrict access" conflicts with 18 NYCRR 485.14(g). View "NY Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc. v MFY Legal Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

The primary issue in these appeals was whether the jury verdicts convicting defendants of assault but acquitting them of criminal possession of a weapon were legally repugnant. The court concluded that, based on the instructions that were given to the juries and viewed from a theoretical perspective without regard to the evidence presented at defendants' trials, it was possible for the juries to acquit defendants of weapon possession but convict them of assault because the former crime contained an essential element that the latter did not: possession. Because the repugnancy analysis required the court to review the elements of the offenses as charged to the jury without regard to the proof that was actually presented at trial, the court could not say that the convictions were repugnant. Therefore, under the People v. Tucker test, the court held that, based on the instructions that were used to the juries, the verdicts in these cases need not be invalidated. In Muhammad, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. In Hill, the order of the Appellate Division was modified by remitting to that court for further proceedings. View "People v. Muhammad; People v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment to be followed by 5 years postrelease supervision. In this case, turning on the accuracy of eyewitnesses' recognition of an assailant's partially concealed face, at issue was whether two additional eyewitness identifications sufficiently corroborated the victim's identification of defendant, so as to render expert testimony on eyewitness recognition memory unnecessary. The court held that they did not and that it was error to exclude much of the proposed testimony. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered. View "People v. Santiago" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs commenced a medical malpractice action against defendants. At issue was whether the five-day extension under CPLR 2103(b)(2) applied to the 15-day time period prescribed by CPLR 511(b) to move for change of venue when a defendant served its demand for change of venue by mail. The court held that, in this instance, defendants who served their motion papers by mail 20 days after they served their demand to change venue were entitled to a five-day extension of the 15-day period prescribed in CPLR 511(2). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and the case remitted for further proceedings. View "Simon v. Usher" on Justia Law

In these personal injury actions arising from a single-vehicle bus accident, two questions were presented for the court's review. First, whether plaintiffs' seatbelt claims, seeking to hold defendant liable for failure to install passenger seatbelts on the bus, were preempted by federal regulations promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Second, whether plaintiffs' weight distribution claim, alleging that the negligent modification of the bus' chassis altered the weight balance, steering, and handling of the bus, was supported by legally sufficient evidence. The court held that plaintiffs' seatbelt claims were not preempted by federal regulation and that plaintiffs' weight distribution claim was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. View "Doomes v. Best Tr. Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murdering his father and the attempted murder of his mother while they slept. On appeal, defendant claimed that his federal constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by the admission at his criminal trial of testimony that his gravely injured mother nodded affirmatively when asked by the police if he was her assailant. The court held that, even assuming without deciding, that the testimony about the nod was constitutionally infirm, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where there was overwhelming evidence that placed defendant at the family home when the crimes for which he was convicted were committed there. View "People v. Porco" on Justia Law