Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notified Bear Stearns & Co. and Bear Stearns Securities Corp. of its intention to charge Bear Stearns with violations of federal securities laws. Bear Stearns agreed to pay $160 million as a disgorgement and $90 million as a civil penalty. Bear Stearns then sought indemnification from its insurers (Insurers), requesting indemnity for the $160 million SEC disgorgement payment. Insurers denied coverage. Bear Stearns subsequently brought this breach of contract and declaratory judgment action against Insurers. Insurers unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that, as a matter of public policy, Bear Stearns could not seek coverage under its policies for any of the SEC disgorgement payment. Bear Stearns appealed, arguing that, while it was reasonable to preclude an insured from obtaining indemnity for the disgorgement of its own illegal gains, Bear Stearns was not unjustly enriched by at least $140 million of the disgorgement payment, the sum attributable to the profits of its customers. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Insurers did not meet their burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Bear Stearns was barred from pursuing insurance coverage under its policies. View "J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This mortgage foreclosure action arose from a failed redevelopment of a hotel complex. The complex consisted of several interconnected properties, including the hotel property, a tower building, and another building. The lender for the redevelopment and numerous mechanic's lienors dispute the priority of their respective claims to the proceeds from the foreclosure sale of the tower building. At issue before the Court of Appeals was N.Y. Lien Law 22, which subordinates a building loan mortgage made pursuant to an unfiled building loan contract to subsequently filed mechanic's liens. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the loan agreement made with the lender was a building loan contract, but the lender's mortgage was not entitled to first priority because the lender never filed the loan agreement; and (2) the lender was entitled to priority with respect to the loan proceeds used to refinance the existing mortgage, as the subordination penalty did not apply in this circumstance. View "Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession in the second degree. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the weapon obtained during a search, arguing that the manner in which a police officer conducted the inventory search of Defendant's vehicle was improper, and thus, the entire search was invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the People met their burden of establishing a valid inventory search of Defendant's vehicle, as (1) the search was in accordance with procedure; (2) the search was not made invalid when the officer conducting the search did not follow the written police procedure by giving some of the contents of the vehicle to a third party without itemizing that property; and (3) the fact that the officer searched in the vehicle's seat panels, knowing that contraband is often hidden by criminals in such places, did not invalidate the search because the officer's intention was to search for items to inventory. View "People v. Padilla " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty-five years to life. Defendant moved to vacate the conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among several other things, failing to obtain Defendant's psychiatric records. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to vacate and remanded for a new trial, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records deprived Defendant of effective representation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records and to pursue a strategy informed by both the available evidence and Defendant's concerns seriously compromised Defendant's right to a fair trial. View "People v. Oliveras" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the constitutionality of the HAIL Act, which regulates medallion taxicabs and livery vehicles. The Act's stated aim is to address certain mobility deficiencies in the City of New York. Plaintiffs, medallion owners and their representatives, challenged the HAIL Act on the ground that the regulation of yellow cab and livery enterprises is a matter of local concern. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the Act violates the State Constitution's Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, and the Exclusive Privileges Clause. Supreme Court entered a judgment nullifying the Act and declaring that it violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the HAIL Act does not violate the Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, or the Exclusive Privileges Clause. View "Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass'n v. State" on Justia Law

The Wicks Law requires public entities seeking bids on construction contracts to obtain separate specifications for three subdivisions of the work to be performed. Until 2008 when the law was amended to raise the threshold, the Wicks Law applied to contracts whose cost exceeded $50,000. The new, higher thresholds, unlike the old one, were not uniform throughout the State. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the amendments violated the Home Rule section of the State Constitution by unjustifiably favoring the eight counties with higher thresholds. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the Home Rule cause of action and that, in any event, the challenged amendments did not violate the Home Rule section because they "were enacted in furtherance of and bear a reasonable relationship to a substantial State-wide concern." The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) at least one plaintiff had standing to assert the Home Rule claim, but that claim failed on the merits; and (2) most of Plaintiffs' other claims failed, but four causes of action challenging the apprenticeship requirements as applied to out-of-state contracts should be reinstated. View "Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2003, School District announced to its faculty and staff, who were represented by Union, that the district's practice of reimbursing Medicare Part B premiums of retirees sixty-five years or older would be terminated. Union filed a contract grievance, alleging that School District violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties by failing to negotiate cancellation of Medicare Part B premium reimbursement. After a hearing, an arbitrator concluded that the district was not contractually obligated to reimburse Medicare Part B premiums. The Union also filed an improper practice charge with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). An ALJ concluded that School District had violated N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 209-a(1) because the district promised in the past to reimburse current employees' post-retirement Medicare Part B premiums. PERB denied the district's exceptions and affirmed the ALJ. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) it was reasonable for PERB not to defer to the arbitrator's findings relating to past practice; (2) PERB's decision in regard to past practice was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the continued Medicare Part B premium reimbursement was not unconstitutional. View "Chenango Forks Cent. Sch. Dist. v. State Pub. Employee Relations Bd." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with sex-related crimes. In his summation, defense counsel argued that parts of Complainant's testimony were incredible because a statement Complainant gave to a police officer who responded to her 911 call omitted a number of details that were in Complainant's later testimony and that the People should have called the officer to testify. The trial court directed the jury to disregard counsel's missing witness argument. After summations, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the basis of this ruling. The court denied the motion, stating that counsel should have asked for a missing witness instruction if he wanted to make a missing witness argument. Defendant was then convicted of criminal sexual act, criminal contempt, and assault. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that there was no "good faith basis" for comment by defense counsel on the People's failure to call the officer. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in prohibiting Defendant from making a missing witness argument but that the error was harmless. View "People v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for robbery. An attorney from the Legal Aid Society represented Defendant at trial. Prior to opening statements, defense counsel alerted the court to a possible conflict of interest arising from counsel's previous representation of Franklin DeJesus, whom it was rumored to have committed the robbery. After internal discussions with the trial judge, defense counsel proceeded with the case. The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree robbery. After Defendant's conviction, Legal Aid moved to set aside the verdict based on newly discovered evidence consisting of DeJesus' alleged jailhouse confession to Defendant. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, determining that Defendant had not been deprived of his right to effective legal assistnce due to Legal Aid's dual representation of Defendant and DeJesus because there was no conflict between their interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant did not adequately demonstrate that he received less than meaningful representation, as the record did not establish that the potential conflict actually affected the presentation of the defense or otherwise impaired counsel's performance. View "People v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with intentional murder and second-degree weapon possession. Defendant's first trial resulted in a hung jury and mistrial. Defendant was re-tried, and the jury convicted Defendant as charged. After the jury verdict was handed down, the presiding judge, Justice Carter, issued an order recusing himself because of his discovery that he knew the uncle of the victim. In the meantime, Defendant filed a motion seeking an order granting his prior applications for a trial order of dismissal. Justice Palmieri, the judge to whom the case was reassigned, denied Defendant's motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his guilt and that N.Y. Judiciary Law 21 barred any other judge than Justice Carter from deciding his motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) legally sufficient evidence supported Defendant's convictions; and (2) Judiciary Law 21 did not bar Justice Palmieri from ruling on the motion at issue. View "People v. Hampton" on Justia Law