Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Superfund Coalition commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action to challenge certain regulations promulgated by the Department with respect to remedial programs implemented to clean "inactive hazardous waste disposal sites." The Superfund Coalition asserted that the regulations were ultra vires and impermissibly allowed the Department to order expansive remedial programs that contravened the limited legislative goal of article 27, title 13 of the Environmental Conservation Law to identify and remove only "significant threats." The court held that the Department did not exceed its authority or act contrary to law in enacting the subject regulations. View "Matter of New York State Superfund Coalition, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation" on Justia Law

This case involved the regulations of the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, limiting rates that could be charged by owners of taxicabs who leased those cabs to drivers. Owners challenged a Commission regulation that prohibited owners from collecting sales tax in addition to the maximum permitted lease rates. The court held that the regulation must be annulled because the Commission had not shown any rational basis for it. View "Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v NYC Taxi & Limousine Commn." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of second-degree kidnapping, second-degree burglary, and other offenses against his former girlfriend. The court held that County Court abused its discretion as a matter of law when it denied defendant's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror who had personal and professional relationships with several of the witnesses expected to testify at defendant's trial. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed and a new trial ordered. View "People v Furey" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to first-degree rape in exchange for a promised determinate sentence of nine years imprisonment followed by five years of postrelease supervision. At issue was the enforceability of the appeal waiver. Applying the standard in People v. Lopez, the court held that the record failed to establish that defendant validly waived his right to appeal because the trial court failed to ensure that defendant grasped the minimal information pertaining to the appeal waiver it provided during the plea colloquy. The court agreed with the Appellate Division that testimony concerning complainant's identification of defendant in a lineup should have been suppressed since the People did not meet their burden in establishing probable cause for defendant's arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the judgment of conviction and sentence. View "People v Bradshaw" on Justia Law

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