Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The petitioner, owner of an apartment building in Manhattan, filed an application with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) in 2019 to amend its 2016 and 2017 annual registration statements. The petitioner claimed that the registrations erroneously stated that unit 1B was temporarily exempt from rent stabilization due to owner/employee occupancy, while it should have been permanently exempt due to a high rent vacancy in 2002. The petitioner sought to withdraw the erroneous registrations and submit new ones removing unit 1B from the total of rent-stabilized units.The Rent Administrator denied the application, stating that registration amendments could only correct ministerial issues, not substantive changes like recalculating rental history or removing an apartment from rent-stabilized status. The Deputy Commissioner of DHCR upheld this decision, agreeing that the requested amendments went beyond the scope of an amendment application proceeding. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul DHCR's determination.The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, reasoning that DHCR rationally determined the requested correction was substantive rather than ministerial. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, noting that DHCR's interpretation of the Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) as precluding the requested amendments was rational and reasonable.The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed the case and held that DHCR's interpretation of the RSC, which limits amendments to ministerial issues, was entitled to substantial deference. The court found that DHCR's decision to deny the petitioner's application was rational, as it aimed to protect tenants from fraud, preserve agency resources, and ensure rent stabilization disputes were litigated in the proper forum. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs. View "Matter of LL 410 E. 78th St. LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal" on Justia Law

Mr. Dourdounas, a high school math teacher, was assigned to the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) in 2012. The ATR is a pool of teachers whose positions were eliminated but who were not terminated. In 2017, the DOE and UFT created a voluntary severance package for ATR teachers. Mr. Dourdounas, believing he was still in the ATR pool, applied for the severance package but was denied because the DOE claimed he had been permanently hired at Bronx International High School.Mr. Dourdounas followed the grievance process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the DOE and UFT. After exhausting the grievance process, including an internal appeal within the UFT, he commenced an article 78 proceeding against the City, alleging breach of contract for denying him the retirement incentive. The DOE moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds, including timeliness and failure to state a cause of action.The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, and the Appellate Division affirmed, stating that the statute of limitations began when Mr. Dourdounas was informed of the denial in July 2017. The Appellate Division held that pursuing the grievance process did not toll the statute of limitations.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds. The court held that under the precedent set in Ambach, an employee cannot seek judicial review of a claim arising under a CBA without alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. Since Mr. Dourdounas did not allege such a breach, his claim was dismissed. The court also clarified that claims arising solely from a CBA must be brought as a breach of contract action, not through an article 78 proceeding. View "Matter of Dourdounas v City of New York" on Justia Law

Dorothy Golobe died in 1992, leaving behind a three-story building in New York. Her nephew, John Golobe, became the estate's administrator, believing his father, Zangwill Golobe, was Dorothy's only surviving heir. An attorney testified that Dorothy's other brother, Yale Golobe, had predeceased her. Surrogate's Court found Zangwill to be the sole distributee, and he renounced his interest in favor of John, who maintained the property. However, Yale was actually alive at Dorothy's death and should have inherited half of the estate. John discovered this error in 2018 and claimed sole ownership through adverse possession. Yale's successor, the Emil Kraus Revocable Trust, counterclaimed for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.Supreme Court granted summary judgment to John, declaring him the sole owner and dismissing the Trust's counterclaims. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that John had established adverse possession and dismissing the fraud and fiduciary duty claims due to lack of evidence of scienter or reliance and no extraordinary duty to confirm a distributee's death.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that John had acquired sole ownership through adverse possession, as his possession was hostile, under a claim of right, and open and notorious. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Trust's counterclaims, finding no triable issue of fact regarding fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. The court emphasized that a cotenant may obtain full ownership even when neither party is aware of the co-tenancy, provided the statutory period and other adverse possession requirements are met. View "Golobe v Mielnicki" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, tenants of a building in Queens, alleged that the defendant engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate rents unlawfully. The building participated in the Real Property Tax Law § 421-a program, which required compliance with rent stabilization laws. Plaintiffs claimed that the previous owner registered both a preferential rent and a higher legal regulated rent, allowing for illegal rent increases. This scheme allegedly continued for years, affecting many tenants. Plaintiffs also accused the defendant of concealing this conduct by registering a legal regulated rent that matched the preferential rent.The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient indicia of fraud to invoke the fraud exception to the four-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that plaintiffs' claims were time-barred because they could not have reasonably relied on the inflated rent figures, which were disclosed in the registration statements and leases.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and clarified that to invoke the fraud exception, a plaintiff does not need to demonstrate each element of common-law fraud, including reliance. Instead, the complaint must allege sufficient indicia of fraud. The Court modified the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine if the plaintiffs' complaint met the established standard for alleging a fraudulent scheme. The Court affirmed the dismissal of one plaintiff's overcharge claim based on a rent concession, as the defendant's evidence refuted the allegations. View "Burrows v. 75-25 153rd St., LLC" on Justia Law

On December 9, 2021, the New York City Council passed a bill amending the New York City Charter to allow lawful permanent residents to vote in municipal elections. The bill became effective on January 9, 2022, as Local Law 11, after both outgoing Mayor Bill de Blasio and incoming Mayor Eric Adams neither signed nor vetoed it. Local Law 11 permitted certain noncitizens to vote in elections for New York City offices such as Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council Member.Plaintiffs, including current and former elected officials and New York City registered voters, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Council, Mayor Eric Adams, and the New York City Board of Elections. They sought to declare Local Law 11 null and void, arguing it violated the New York State Constitution, the New York State Election Law, and the Municipal Home Rule Law. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on all grounds, declaring Local Law 11 unconstitutional and enjoining its implementation. The Appellate Division modified the judgment regarding the Election Law claim but otherwise affirmed the decision, with one justice dissenting. The City Council and intervenors appealed to the Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals held that Article II, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution restricts voting to citizens, thus invalidating Local Law 11. The court found that the Constitution's language and historical context clearly limit the right to vote to U.S. citizens. The court rejected arguments that Article IX of the Constitution, which grants home rule powers to local governments, overrides this restriction. Consequently, the Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order and, as modified, affirmed the decision, maintaining the invalidation of Local Law 11. View "Fossella v Adams" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a student at Stony Brook University, challenged the University's determination that he violated the University's Code of Student Responsibility by committing sexual misconduct against another student, S.G. The University conducted an investigation after receiving a report of the incident, during which S.G. provided a written statement detailing the encounter. P.C. declined to meet with the investigator. He was charged with sexual harassment, nonconsensual sexual contact, and nonconsensual sexual intercourse. A hearing was held, and the Review Panel found P.C. responsible for the charges, leading to his suspension.P.C. appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence did not support the findings and that the Review Panel improperly considered his decision to remain silent. The Appeals Committee upheld the Review Panel's determination and the disciplinary penalty. P.C. then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that the determination lacked substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious.The Supreme Court transferred the case to the Appellate Division, which granted the petition, annulled the Appeals Committee's determination, dismissed the charges, and directed the University to expunge the matter from P.C.'s academic record. The Appellate Division majority found that substantial evidence did not support the conclusion that S.G. did not consent to the sexual activity and that the Review Panel improperly relied on P.C.'s decision not to answer questions.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division's order, holding that substantial evidence supported the University's determination that P.C. violated the Code of Student Responsibility. The Court found that S.G.'s testimony and P.C.'s text messages provided sufficient evidence of nonconsensual sexual activity. The Court also rejected P.C.'s argument that the University's determination was arbitrary and capricious, concluding that the University followed its rules and procedures. The petition was dismissed. View "Matter of P.C. v Stony Brook Univ." on Justia Law

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP sought to recover legal fees from Be In, Inc., a New York corporation, and its investors, including George Koukis. After Be In failed to pay, Gibson Dunn obtained a judgment in California and domesticated it in New York. Unable to recover from Be In, Gibson Dunn filed a lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against the D'Annas and Mr. Koukis, asserting fraudulent conveyance and alter ego claims. The defendants, represented by attorney Gil Santamarina, entered a stipulation waiving personal jurisdiction defenses.The New York Supreme Court initially denied Gibson Dunn's motion for default judgment but later granted it upon reargument. Mr. Koukis then moved to strike Mr. Santamarina's appearance, vacate the default judgment, and dismiss the complaint, claiming lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service. The Supreme Court vacated the waiver of personal jurisdiction but found jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (2) and set a traverse hearing to determine proper service.The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, vacating the default judgment and dismissing the complaint against Mr. Koukis for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Mr. Santamarina was not authorized to waive jurisdictional defenses. Two Justices dissented, arguing for a hearing to determine the validity of Mr. Santamarina's representation.The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that there is a material factual dispute regarding whether Mr. Koukis authorized or ratified the waiver of personal jurisdiction. The court emphasized the need for a factual hearing to resolve this issue, citing emails and filings suggesting potential authorization or ratification by Mr. Koukis. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to determine the validity of the waiver. View "Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v Koukis" on Justia Law

Claimant Chi Bartram Wright filed a claim under the Child Victims Act (CVA) alleging that he was sexually abused by numerous men at a state-owned performing arts center in Albany, New York, between 1986 and 1990. Wright sought seventy-five million dollars in damages, asserting various theories of negligence by the State, including negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and direction. The claim described the abuse in general terms but did not provide specific details about the abusers or the exact dates of the incidents.The Court of Claims dismissed Wright's claim, finding that it did not meet the specificity requirements of section 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act, which mandates that claims against the State must include specific details to enable prompt investigation and ascertainment of liability. The court concluded that the CVA did not relax these requirements. Wright appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that the four-year period alleged in Wright's claim was sufficiently specific given the decades that had passed since the abuse occurred.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court of Appeals held that the CVA did not alter the substantive pleading requirements of section 11 (b) of the Court of Claims Act. The court found that Wright's claim lacked the necessary specificity to enable the State to promptly investigate and determine its liability. The claim did not provide sufficient details about the abusers, the context of the abuse, or the State's potential responsibility. As a result, the court granted the State's motion to dismiss the claim and answered the certified question in the affirmative. View "Wright v State of New York" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three counts of burglary in the second degree for unlawfully entering three separate dwellings. During plea negotiations, the court erroneously informed the defendant that he faced a maximum of 45 years in prison if convicted on all counts, although the statutory maximum was actually 20 years. The defendant, who was 23 years old, accepted a plea deal for 6 to 8 years, influenced by the court's incorrect assertion of a much higher potential sentence.The Supreme Court accepted the guilty plea and later imposed an enhanced sentence of 15 years, based on the defendant's statements during a pre-sentencing interview. The defendant appealed, arguing that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent due to the court's misstatement of his potential maximum sentence. The Appellate Division found the challenge unpreserved but reduced the sentence to 10 ½ years.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the defendant's plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The court emphasized that the erroneous information about the maximum sentence significantly influenced the defendant's decision to plead guilty. The court concluded that the defendant did not need to preserve the challenge because the error was clear from the record and the defendant had no practical ability to object. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "People v Scott" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs owned property adjacent to an unpaved road where the Town of Lodi determined that low-hanging branches and dead or dying trees posed a hazard. In 2010, the Town hired a tree service company to cut or remove fifty-five trees on plaintiffs' land, believing the trees were within the right of way. Plaintiffs disagreed and sought treble damages under RPAPL 861 (1). The parties agreed to binding arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded plaintiffs damages, including treble the "stumpage value" of the trees.The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitrator's award, and a divided Appellate Division affirmed. The Appellate Division majority held that treble damages under RPAPL 861 were not punitive but intended to capture elusive compensatory damages. The dissenting justices argued that the treble damages were punitive and could not be awarded against the Town. The Town appealed to the Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that treble damages under RPAPL 861 are punitive in nature. The Court reasoned that the statute's "good faith" provision, which reduces damages from treble to single if the defendant acted in good faith, indicates a punitive intent. The Court also noted that the legislative history and structure of the statute support the conclusion that treble damages are meant to punish and deter wrongful conduct. Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order insofar as appealed from, with costs, and granted the petition to vacate the award in part. View "Matter of Rosbaugh v Town of Lodi" on Justia Law