Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate division reversing Supreme Court's order granting the petition filed by the City of Yorkers pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 75 to permanently stay arbitration of the underlying labor dispute, holding that grievances like the present one are arbitrable so long as no public policy, statutory, or constitutional provisions prohibit them and they are reasonably related to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).The underlying dispute between City of Yonkers and its firefighters concerned whether Yonkers must make certain types of payments to firefighters who were permanently disabled for work-related injuries and who qualified for benefits under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 207-a(2). Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, IAFF, AFL-CIO (the Union) filed a grievance alleging that Yonkers violated the CBA and then served a demand for arbitration. Yonkers responded by filing a petition to permanently stay arbitration. Supreme Court granted the petition. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that this grievance was arbitrable. View "City of Yonkers v. Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, IAFF, AFL-CIO" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals concluded that "regular salary or wages" within the meaning of N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 207-a(2) includes monetary compensation to which current firefighters are contractually entitled based on the performance of their regular job duties but does not include monetary compensation based on the performance of additional responsibilities beyond their regular job duties.In this case stemming from a dispute between the City of Yonkers and dozens of their firefighters who were permanency disabled and retired as a result of work-related injuries the parties disputed whether certain compensation outlined in their collective bargaining agreements constituted "regular salary or wages" for the purpose of calculating the retirees' supplement under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 207-a(2). The Court of Appeals held (1) Yonkers's determination that holiday pay and check-in pay should be not included in the supplement was based on an error of law; and (2) substantial evidence supported Yonkers's conclusion that night differential should not be included when calculating the supplement. View "Matter of Borelli v. City of Yonkers" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that, in accordance with N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law. (CPL) 730, when a defendant is not in custody, a court has only the authority to either order a competency examination on an out-patient basis or to direct that the defendant be confined in a hospital pending completion of the examination upon proper medical recommendation that such confinement is necessary.Relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Wei Li requesting his release after the trial court ordered a CPL article 730 competency examination and remanding Wei Li to the custody of Respondent until completion of the examination. Relator argued that the remand order was unlawful where Wei Li had not been charged with a bail-eligible offense. Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that CPL article 730 provided criminal court authority to hold Wei Li. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals modified the order by converting the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action and granting judgment declaring judgment in accordance with this opinion, holding that the law does not permit remanding a defendant otherwise entitled to release under the law solely because a CPL article 730 competency examination has been ordered. View "People ex rel. Molinaro v. Warden, Rikers Island" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division affirming the conclusion of County Court that N.Y. Corr. Law 168-a(3)(b) required it to designate Defendant a sexually violent offender because he was convicted in Michigan of a felony that required him to register as a sex offender in that state, holding that County Court did not err.Under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), N.Y. Corr. Law 168 et seq., a person convicted of an offense in another jurisdiction must register as a sex offender if the offense satisfies an "essential elements" test or if the offense falls within SORA's foreign registration requirements. At issue was whether section 168-a(3)(b) requires a person subject to SORA's foreign registration requirements to be designated a sexually violent offender regardless of whether the offense in another jurisdiction is violent in nature. The Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative, holding that County Court properly determined that it was required by law to designate Defendant a sexually violent offender because he was convicted of a felony in another jurisdiction that required him to register as a sex offender. View "People v. Talluto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate term holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support Defendant's conviction of harassment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.At issue on appeal was whether Defendant's statements to the victim that her children "were going to get a bullet in their heads" and that he was going to firebomb her home and kill her and her family were serious and unequivocal threats of physical harm. The appellate term concluded that Defendant's speech did not constitute a violation of the second-degree harassment statute. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Defendant threatened the victim with physical contact of a serious nature, with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm her. View "People v. Lagano" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that, for purposes of New York's Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) 9-406, an "assignee" includes the holder of a presently exercisable security interest in an assignor's receivables.New Style Contractors, Inc. engaged Checkmate Communications LLC as a subcontractor. Pursuant to a promissory note and security agreement, Checkmate could borrow up to $3 million from Worthy Lending LLC. Checkmate granted Worthy a security interest in its assets, and Worthy filed a UCC-1 financing statement against Checkmate perfecting its secured position regarding Checkmate's assets. Worthy then sent New Style a notice of its security interest and collateral assignment in the New Style accounts. When Checkmate defaulted on the note and filed for bankruptcy. Worthy brought this action against New Style pursuant to UCC 9-607, alleging that Worthy was entitled to recover all amounts New Style owed to Checkmate after New Style's receipt of the notice of assignment. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Worthy did not have an independent cause of action against New Style pursuant to UCC 9-607 because the statute does not authorized a secured creditor as distinct from an assigned, to recover from a nonparty debtor like New Style. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the language of the statute required reversal. View "Worthy Lending LLC v. New Style Contractors, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals declined to expand the Court of Appeals' special duty doctrine to the facts in this case in which the victim's mother and brother, now serving prison terms, sexually assaulted, abused, and murdered her in her home, holding that "government employees took no action that could have induced justifiable reliance."The public administrator of the victim's estate brought these actions against the County of Erie and the Erie County Sheriff alleging, inter alia, that caseworkers from Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services and Sheriff's deputies were negligent in the performance of their duties, leading the victim's death. Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the order denying Defendants' motion and granted summary judgment to Defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to amend the common law special duty rule in this case; and (2) therefore, the orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. View "Maldovan v. County of Erie" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division reversing the judgment of Supreme Court dismissing the indictment against Defendant under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 210.35(5), holding that the prosecutor was not obligated to instruct the grand jury on the "choice of evils" defense under N.Y. Penal Law 35.05(2).Defendant was charged with second-degree criminal mischief and other offenses for striking and severely injuring a small dog. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the grand jury proceeding was defective because the prosecutor failed to instruct the jury on exculpatory defenses under CPL 210.35(5). Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the indictment based on the prosecutor's failure to instruct on justification under section 35.05(2). The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the indictment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the prosecutor did not err in not charging the grand jury on justification under section 35.05(2), the "choice of evils" defense. View "People v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division affirming Defendant's conviction for second-degree rape in satisfaction of the indictment against him, holding that the Appellate Division misinterpreted the test in People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 422, (1975), for deciding whether pretrial delays rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation of the right to a speedy trial.Defendant's convictions stemmed from the sexual assault of a fourteen-year-old girl. The time between the crime and Defendant's indictment was almost eight years. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the delay in prosecution deprived him of his state and federal constitutional right to due process. County Court denied the motion to dismiss, and Defendant pled guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division misinterpreted the Tranovich framework and that remand was required for a factual and legal review made under the proper framework. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs' original complaint alleging that Defendant breached the parties' written insurance policy and that Plaintiffs had fully complied with the requirements contained in the policy failed to give Defendant the requisite notice of the "transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved" in support of Plaintiff's reformation claim, as required under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 203(f).Defendant, an insurance company, issued Plaintiffs, two limited liability companies, a multi-million dollar, written insurance policy covering many of Plaintiffs' vacant commercial properties. Plaintiffs later brought this action for breach of contract seeking damages based on Defendant's failure to cover damages incurred after a fire on the premises. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs on the reformation claim, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiffs' complaint failed to give notice to Defendant of the transactions or occurrences on which Plaintiffs based their reformation claim. View "34-06 73, LLC v. Seneca Insurance Co." on Justia Law