Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division and reinstated the original award for workers' compensation benefits in this case to the decedent's minor son, holding that N.Y. Work. Comp. Law (WCL) 15(3)(w) does not provide for any unaccrued portion of a nonschedule award to remain payable following an injured employee's death.After he sustained an injury in a work-related accident Eric Watson was classified as having a nonscheduled permanent partial disability and received a weekly award for 350 weeks. After 311 weeks Watson died due to unrelated causes. Claimant, Watson's son, sought accrued unpaid amounts of Watson's award, including benefits for the weeks remaining before Watson's award was expected to reach the statutory durational cap. A workers' compensation law judge award unpaid amounts for the 311 weeks precedent Watson's death but denied Claimant the award for the remaining weeks. The Workers' compensation Board affirmed. The appellate division modified the award by ruling that Claimant was entitled to an additional posthumous award for the remaining cap weeks. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that WCL 15(3)(w) does not provide for any unaccrued portion of a nonscheduled award to remain payable following an injured employee's death. View "Green v. Dutchess County BOCES" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to out-of-state, noncustodial parents seeking custody of their children who are not in custody of New York social services agencies.ICPC is an interstate agreement to follow certain procedures in connection with sending children across state borders "for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption." In 2012, Suffolk County Department of Social Services (DSS) removed Child from the custody of Mother, a New York resident, and placed Child in foster care. In 2013, an application was made under the ICPC to North Carolina, where Father was a resident, for the approval of Father's home as a suitable placement for Child. The North Carolina authority denied the request. In 2017, Father commenced these custody proceedings arguing that it was in Child's best interests to award him sole custody. Family Court dismissed the petitions without a hearing, concluding that the ICPC's requirements did not apply to placement of Child with Father because Child was in the custody of DSS in New York. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state noncustodial parents seeking custody of their children. View "Matter of D.L. v S.B." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the Taylor Law, N.Y. Civ. Serv. 200 et seq., requires a municipality to engage in collective bargaining over the procedures for terminating municipal employees after they have been absent from work for more than one year due to an injury sustained in the line of duty.Plaintiff, a professional firefighter, sustained injuries in the line of duty that were determined to be compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law. One year later, the City of Long Beach notified Plaintiff that it was evaluating whether to exercise its right to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff's union (Union) responded by sending a demand to negotiate the City's procedures for terminating its members covered by the protections of N.Y. Civ. Serv. 71. The City refused, resulting in the Union filing an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB determined that the City had an obligation to engage in collective bargaining prior to imposing procedures for terminating employees covered by section 71. Supreme Court dismissed the City's subsequent petition seeking to annul PERB's decision. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Taylor Law requires public employers to bargain over the predetermination procedures used in implementing Civil Service Law 71. View "City of Long Beach v. New York State Public Employees Relations Bd." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed, as modified in accordance with this opinion, the order of the appellate division vacating Defendant's conviction of promoting prostitution in the second degree and otherwise affirming his convictions, holding that Defendant did not make a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel.Defendant was indicted on several sex trafficking and related counts. Defendant represented himself, with varying levels of assistance from his legal advisors, through pretrial motion practice and during a pretrial suppression hearing. The appellate division vacated Defendant's conviction of second-degree promoting prostitution and otherwise affirmed, thus rejecting Defendant's argument that he was deprived of his right to counsel when he was allowed to proceed pro se at pretrial hearings. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) Defendant's waiver of the right to counsel was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; and (2) Defendant was entitled to remittal to Supreme Court for an opportunity to make whatever pretrial motions were, or could have been, made during that period. View "People v. Baines" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division reversing the judgment of Supreme Court concluding that Petitioners did not establish that the recently amended Insurance Regulation 187, 11 N.Y.C.R.R. part 224, which provides protections to consumers engaging in life insurance and annuity transactions, was invalid, holding that there was no basis to invalidate the regulation.Petitioners commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding alleging that the amended regulation was unconstitutionally vague because certain terms did not satisfy the test for constitutional vagueness and that the Department of Financial Services (DFS) exceeded its authority in promulgating the amendment. Supreme Court held that the amendment was a proper exercise of the powers granted to DFS. The appellate division reversed, ruling that the amended regulation was unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that DFS appropriately exercised its authority "to create a carefully considered and clear regulation." View "Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of N.Y., Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Financial Services" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division in this case, holding that an indemnification provision in the partnership agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant lacked express language or indicia of the parties' "unmistakably clear" intent to indemnify each other for attorney's fees in an action between them concerning the contract.After Defendant unsuccessfully brought a partnership dissolution action Plaintiff commenced this action seeking attorney's fees and costs incurred defending the dissolution action, claiming that Defendant waived the benefit of the American Rule, under which a prevailing party in litigation generally may not recover attorney's fees from the losing party, by agreeing to the indemnification provision in the parties' partnership agreement. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendant, and appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that nothing in the agreement made "unmistakably clear" that the partners intended to permit recovery for attorney's fees in an action between them on the contract. View "Sage Systems, Inc. v. Liss" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the appellate decision affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, holding that the trial judge erred in replacing a trial juror with an alternate following that discharge from service.Prior to the start of deliberations at trial, the court discharged the alternate jurors. Thereafter, a trial juror was removed for alleged misconduct. The trial court decided to recall and seat one of the discharged alternates, after which Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) once the court has clearly stated on the record that an alternate juror has no further responsibilities in the case, the alternate juror is discharged; (2) where the alternate jurors have been discharged, the court's sole remedy is to declare a mistrial; and (3) the alternate jurors were discharged in this case, and therefore, the trial judge erred in reseating the alternate juror. View "People v. Murray" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Tern affirming Defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in satisfaction of the accusatory instrument, holding that the accusatory instrument failed to give Defendant sufficient notice of the charged crime.Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree for possessing an illegal synthetic cannabinoid. On appeal, Defendant argued that the misdemeanor complaint was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to allege that he possessed one of the synthetic cannabinoid substances listed in N.Y. Public Health Law 3306 (g). The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the misdemeanor to which Defendant pleaded guilty failed to allege a sufficient factual basis to conclude that the substance Defendant possessed was illegal; and (2) dismissal of the remaining count was appropriate. View "People v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that a grievance complaint filed with the assessor or board of assessment review at the administrative level by a net lessee who is contractually obligated to pay real estate taxes on the property at issue satisfies N.Y. Real Prop. Law (RPTL) 524(3) such that the net lessee may properly commence an article 7 proceeding upon rejection of its grievance.DCH Auto leased a parcel of property in the Town of Mamaroneck upon which it operated a car dealership. DCH's lease with the owner was a net lease requiring DCH to pay the real estate taxes associated with the property, in addition to the rent. DCH challenged certain tax assessments by filing grievance complaints with the town's board of review. The board denied the challenges, after which DCH petitioned for judicial review. Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that only an owner may file the initial grievance complaints under RPTL 524(3). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that DCH was included within the meaning of "the person whose property is assessed" under RPTL 524(3). View "DCH Auto v. Town of Mamaroneck" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Term insofar as appealed from in this criminal case, holding that the court mistakenly relied on amended language in granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument.Defendant was charged in a single accusatory instrument with three misdemeanor counts and three traffic infractions. Defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds under N.Y. Crim. Proc. (CPL) 30.30. The court denied the motion, and a jury convicted Defendant. During the pendency of Defendant's appeal, the legislature amended CPL 30.30 to add 30.30(1)(e), which states that the term "offense" includes traffic infractions for the purpose of section 30.30(1). The Appellate Term granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that CPL 30.30(1)(e) had no application to Defendant's direct appeal from his judgment of conviction because the legislature did not mandate retroactive application of the newly-worded CPL 30.30. View "People v. Galindo" on Justia Law