Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a warrant executed in May 2009, law enforcement found a single pornographic image of a child on Defendant's computer. In September 2009, Defendant pled guilty to possessing a sexual performance of a child. In January 2010, the forensic examination of a memory card and other media devices seized pursuant to the warrant was performed and resulted in the discovery of hundreds of still-frame digital images depicting Defendant engaged in a sexual act with a child. Defendant subsequently entered a plea to predatory sexual assault in the first degree. Defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion, concluding that by the time of the forensic examination yielding the inculpatory still-frame images took place, the authority provided by the warrant had lapsed, and therefore the search was illegal and the evidence obtained from it inadmissible. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant had no relevant expectation of privacy in the seized items to ground a Fourth Amendment-based suppression claim; and (2) even so, the claim would not be viable in light of the warrant's continued validity. View "People v. DeProspero" on Justia Law

M&T Real Estate Trust foreclosed on commercial mortgages executed by Defendant. After a public auction, the referee sold M&T the property. M&T's attorney twice declined to accept or retain physical possession of the referee's deed dated May 11, 2010. As a result, the referee took back the deed and other closing documents and ultimately executed a deed on August 9, 2010 when M&T's attorney accepted it on behalf of MAT Properties, Inc. The deed was recorded on August 17, 2010. M&T subsequently filed a motion seeking to confirm the referee's report of sale and enter a deficiency judgment. Defendants argued that M&T's request for a deficiency judgment was untimely. The county court granted M&T's motion, determining that it was timely under the relevant ninety-day period because the consummation of the sale occurred on August 9, 2010 and was recorded on August 17, 2010. The appellate division reversed, concluding that the ninety-day period commenced in May 2010 upon the delivery of the referee's deed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that M&T's motion was timely because it was brought within ninety days after the date of the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the deed to the purchaser on August 9, 2010. View "M&T Real Estate Trust v. Doyle" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant formed a partnership by oral agreement. Defendant later withdrew from the venture after Plaintiff refused his demand for majority ownership of the partnership. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract, claiming that Defendant could not unilaterally terminate his obligations under the agreement. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the complaint failed to allege that the partnership agreement provided for a definite term or a defined objective, and therefore, dissolution was permissible under N.Y. P'ship Law 62(1)(b). The Appellate Division modified by reinstating the breach of contract cause of action, reasoning that the complaint adequately described a definite term and alleged a particular undertaking. The Court of Appeals reversed with directions that the breach of contract cause of action of the complaint be dismissed, holding (1) the complaint did not satisfy the "definite term" element of section 62(1)(b) because it did not set forth a specific or a reasonably certain termination date; and (2) the alleged scheme of anticipated partnership events detailed in the complaint were too amorphous to meet the statutory "particular undertaking" standard for precluding unilateral dissolution of a partnership. View "Gelman v. Buehler" on Justia Law

The Whites signed a contract to buy the Farrells' property and tendered a $25,000 deposit. The Whites later terminated the contract due to a faulty "drainage situation." The Whites subsequently sued the Farrells to recover their down payment, alleging, inter alia, fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation. The Farrells counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court concluded (1) the Whites had breached the contract and were not entitled to a return of their down payment; and (2) the measure of the Farrells' actual damages was the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the breach, and thus, the Farrells did not suffer damages on account of the Whites' breach. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the measure of damages for the Whites' breach was the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach; and (2) there was conflicting evidence as to the property's fair market value when the Whites default, which precluded summary judgment. Remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "White v. Farrell" on Justia Law

After a joint trial with his co-defendant, Defendant was convicted on an accomplice theory of reckless endangerment in the first degree and attempted murder in the first degree. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the conviction; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to a reversal of his conviction and a new trial based on the ineffective assistance of trial counsel, as (i) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the sufficiency arguments identified on appeal because they were not fairly characterized as dispositive in Defendant's favor, and (ii) Defendant's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel contentions were similarly unavailing. View "People v. McGee" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Defendant were adjoining landowners. Defendant sought to develop a residential subdivision on his land. The Town approved a plan that required water from the west side of the development to flow into a storm sewer and then into a ditch that was located on Plaintiff's property. Defendant used the ditch without Plaintiff's permission. Because the ditch did not have the capacity to contain the water Defendant diverted, Defendant installed two drainage pipes and routed the water onto Plaintiff's land without Plaintiff's permission, resulting in more than thirty acres of flooded wetland. Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant and the Town, alleging trespass and nuisance and seeking damages for the alleged intentional diversion of water onto his property. The trial court returned a verdict for Plaintiff for compensatory damages and awarded punitive damages against Defendant. The appellate division affirmed the punitive damages award. The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the part of the judgment awarding punitive damages, holding that Defendant's behavior did not rise to the level of purposefully causing injury or of moral turpitude. View "Marinaccio v. Town of Clarence" on Justia Law

Claimant sustained a back injury while employed by Respondent. Claimant applied for and received workers' compensation benefits. Later, Claimant entered a plea of guilty to insurance fraud in the fourth degree by entering an Alford plea. At a subsequent workers' compensation hearing, Respondent's workers' compensation carrier sought to preclude Claimant from further benefits based on the guilty plea. The Workers' Compensation Board gave preclusive effect to Claimant's guilty plea and found Claimant violated the Workers' Compensation Law. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that it was impossible to conclude that Claimant's conviction was based upon the same circumstances alleged to be fraudulent in the workers' compensation proceeding, and therefore, the plea did not prohibit Claimant from challenging the workers' compensation violation alleged. View "Howard v. Stature Elec., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted robbery, menacing, and possession of a weapon. Defendant appealed, arguing that the People violated N.Y. Crim. Proc. 710.30, which Defendant argued entitled him to the suppression of testimony about the victim's post-arrest identification. Defendant also argued that trial counsel's failure to raise that issue deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, assuming there was a section 710.30, if defense counsel did make a mistake in failing to object to the evidence, the mistake was not so egregious and prejudicial as to deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "People v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

After his vehicle was stopped by a police officer, Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated, and a breathalyzer test computed his blood alcohol content at close to twice the legal limit. Defendant was subsequently indicted for felony DWI. During the jury trial, the People offered into evidence documents pertaining to the routine calibration and maintenance of the breathalyzer machine used in Defendant's breath test to demonstrate it was in proper working order at the time Defendant was tested. Defendant raised a Confrontation Clause challenge to the documents, contending that he was entitled to cross-examine the authors of the records. The county court allowed the documents to be received in evidence, and Defendant was convicted of felony DWI. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that documents pertaining to the routine inspection, maintenance, and calibration of breathalyzer machines are nontestimonial, and consequently, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated in this case, and the trial judge did not err in declining Defendant's request to cross-examine the authors of the testing records before the court ruled on their admissibility. View "People v. Pealer" on Justia Law

The Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), a not-for-profit fire corporation, obtained its own financing for the construction of a new firehouse and hired Petitioner as the general contractor. The Department of Labor subsequently concluded that the firehouse project was a public work subject to the prevailing wage law. BVFD agreed to indemnify Petitioner and its subcontractors against any liability resulting from their failure to pay the prevailing wages, and thereafter, the project was completed. The Appellate Division confirmed the determination that the project was subject to the prevailing wage law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because no public agency, as contemplated by N.Y. Labor Law 220, was a party to the contract, the prevailing wage law did not apply. View "M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v. Gardner" on Justia Law