Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a contract between the school district and DJH to perform heating, ventilation, and air condition work. The contract required DJH to obtain a performance bond which DJH secured from Nova, a compensated surety. At issue was whether Nova was discharged from it surety obligation to the school district on the bases that the school district allegedly violated New York's Lien Law 70[1] by improperly diverting construction contract payments constituting trust fund assets to a non-beneficiary and breached the terms of the parties' performance bond. The court held that under the facts, Nova had not demonstrated that discharge of its surety obligation was warranted. The court also considered whether the school district was entitled to attorneys' fees expended in the prosecution of the litigation and concluded that the request for attorneys' fees was properly denied. View "Mount Vernon City School Dist. v Nova Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of criminal charges related to an underlying dispute regarding cab fare. On appeal, the court addressed the relation between a claim of right defense and a mistake of fact defense in the second-degree robbery context. The court concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, the two defenses were equivalent. The jury heard evidence that defendant had negotiated a $4 cab fare even though she carried $21; tried to pay the cabdriver the agreed fare from money he had given her as change, after retrieving from him the money she had paid him; scratched and bit the cabdriver in an effort to take money from him; and produced a knife while continuing to demand money. Considering the facts in the light most favorable to the People, the jury could have rationally concluded that defendant had no good faith belief that the bills she tried to take were hers, but was instead trying to take money she knew was another's. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "People v Pagan" on Justia Law

Husband and wife divorced after almost 30 years of marriage and their settlement agreement set forth a comprehensive division of marital property. At issue was whether husband had presented facts sufficient to support the reformation or setting aside of the agreement based on a claim of mutual mistake pertaining to an investment account. The court concluded that husband failed to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 and therefore dismissed the amended complaint. View "Simkin v Blank" on Justia Law

Verizon attached a box to a building that plaintiffs owned and used the box to transmit telephone communications to and from Verizon's customers in other buildings. Plaintiffs claimed that Verizon took their property without paying them just compensation and deceived them into believing that no compensation was owed. The court held that plaintiffs have stated a valid "inverse condemnation" claim for just compensation, and that the claim was not time-barred. However, their claim for an alleged violation of General Business Law 349 was barred by the statute of limitations, and their unjust enrichment claim was legally insufficient. The court also held that the courts below properly denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. View "Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an auto parts distributor with operations in multiple states, secured general liability, automotive liability, and workers' compensation policies from defendants for annual coverage periods between September 1992 and September 2003. At issue was whether the six-year statue of limitations applicable to the insurers' breach of contract counterclaims began to run when they possessed the legal right to demand payment from the insured or years later after they issued invoices. Under the terms of the insurance contracts in this case, the court concluded that the counterclaims accrued when the insurers had the right to demand payment. View "Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. v American Zurich Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff represented psychiatrists who treated patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid and defendants were responsible for administering Medicaid in New York and for implementing and enforcing medicaid reimbursement rates. At issue was whether the 2006 amendment to the Social Services law found in a budget bill implementing a coinsurance enhancement for the benefit of psychiatrists who treat patients eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid was intended to be permanent or whether the amendment was intended only to provide a limited one-year enhancement. The court concluded that the Legislature only intended to provide for a one-time coinsurance enhancement, limited to the 2006-2007 fiscal year. View "New York State Psychiatric Assn., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

Defendant, who worked as a teacher's assistant, was alleged to have sexually abused a four-year-old boy left in her care. Defendant was convicted of all counts charged and she subsequently appealed. At issue was the admissibility of expert testimony proffered on the issue of reliability of a confession. While in a proper case, expert testimony on the phenomenon of false confessions should be admitted, the expert here did not propose testimony relevant to this defendant or her interrogation. As a result, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he declined to hold a Frye hearing to assess whether any principles about which the expert proposed to testify were generally accepted in the scientific community, or to permit the expert to testify. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v Bedessie" on Justia Law

Defendant, a former member of the New York City Police Department, was charged with twelve counts of perjury in the first degree. The charges arose after defendant falsely answered questions posed to him on cross-examination during the criminal trial of Erik Crespo. Defendant was found guilty of three counts of perjury in the first degree and one count of perjury in the third degree. The court granted the People and defendant leave to appeal. The court agreed with the Appellate Division that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the statement made by defendant that he never questioned Crespo was material to the Crespo trial. More specifically, it was relevant to the jury's determination on whether Crespo's statement to his mother was truly spontaneous and voluntary or whether it was triggered by police conduct that could reasonably have been anticipated to evoke such a statement. Defendant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent was not preserved for review and his further assertion that the statements were a result of a perjury trap was without merit. On defendant's appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The People's appeal should be dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division modification was not "on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to... modification." View "People v Perino" on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced a putative class action against Bloomberg alleging a violation of General Obligations Law 5-901 and 5-903; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation; violation of General Business Law 349; and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Appellate Division subsequently granted Bloomberg's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The court affirmed, holding that, even affording plaintiff every favorable inference, when reviewing the pleadings and factual allegations of his complaint, plaintiff's failure to identify a cognizable injury proved fatal to his action against Bloomberg. View "Ovitz v Bloomberg L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his former employer alleging causes of action for failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law 190-198 and breach of contract. The employer subsequently appealed the Appellate Division's order, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict because statements in the employment application and employee handbook negated plaintiff's alleged expectation of, or entitlement to, a guarantee or non-discretionary bonus and that the oral agreements respecting the bonus, if, in fact, entered into by the parties, were unenforceable. The court concluded that plaintiff's bonus was "expressly link[ed]" to his "labor or services personally rendered." Further, plaintiff's bonus had been earned and was vested before he left his job; its payment was guaranteed and non-discretionary as a term and condition of his employment. Since plaintiff's bonus therefore constituted "wages" within the meaning of Labor Law 190, the employer's neglect to pay him the bonus violated Labor Law 193, and entitled plaintiff to an award of attorney's fees under Labor Law 198(a-1). The court considered the employer's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Ryan v Kellogg Partners Inst. Servs." on Justia Law