Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A child was removed from his parents’ care shortly after birth due to concerns about the mother’s mental health, and placed in foster care under the supervision of Good Shepherd Services. The father, a Chinese immigrant whose primary language is Fuzhou, faced significant linguistic and economic barriers throughout the agency’s involvement. The agency did not provide interpretation services during family visits or at medical appointments, failed to expose the child to the parents’ language or culture, and did not assist the father in overcoming obstacles such as his work schedule, housing needs, or understanding of the mother’s mental illness. Despite the father’s efforts to maintain contact and participate in services when available, the agency’s actions and omissions hindered reunification.The New York County Family Court found that both parents had permanently neglected the child, concluding that the agency’s “minimal” efforts were nonetheless reasonable and sufficient under the law. The court determined that the child’s best interests were served by freeing him for adoption. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, holding that the agency had made diligent efforts, particularly in addressing the language barrier and providing services in Mandarin, and that the father had failed to maintain consistent contact or plan for the child’s future.The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court held that the agency failed, as a matter of law, to establish by clear and convincing evidence that it undertook diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. The agency’s minimal and inadequate actions did not satisfy its statutory burden, particularly given the father’s linguistic and economic challenges. The Court ordered dismissal of the petition to terminate the father’s parental rights. View "In re K.Y.Z. (W.Z.)" on Justia Law

After her pregnancy extended past her due date, a woman was admitted to a hospital and came under the care of a physician who, along with hospital staff, induced labor. When a vacuum extraction delivery attempt failed, the physician performed an emergency cesarean section, delivering a baby who was born alive but in critical condition. The infant died eight days later after being treated in neonatal intensive care and ultimately removed from life support.The woman brought suit against the physician, the hospital, and a nurse-midwife, asserting several claims, including medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, both on behalf of her deceased son’s estate and on her own behalf. As relevant here, she sought damages for her own emotional distress based on an alleged lack of informed consent for the vacuum extraction procedure. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment dismissing her direct medical malpractice claim but denied summary judgment on her lack of informed consent claim, finding factual disputes. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed, holding that precedent barring recovery for purely emotional damages in prenatal torts did not apply to lack of informed consent claims, and alternatively invited the Court of Appeals to revisit its precedent.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether its prior decision in Sheppard-Mobley v King, which bars recovery for purely emotional damages by a birthing parent when medical malpractice causes in utero injury to a fetus born alive, also applies to lack of informed consent claims. The Court held that it does, reasoning that lack of informed consent is a form of medical malpractice and that no legal or logical basis exists to treat such claims differently for purposes of emotional damages. The Court declined to overrule its precedent, reversed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissed the lack of informed consent claim for emotional damages, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "SanMiguel v. Grimaldi" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged in Orleans County with multiple counts of larceny, stemming from allegations that he sold a vehicle entrusted to him for repairs and kept the proceeds. The Orleans County District Attorney sought to be disqualified due to a personal relationship with the alleged victim. The County Court granted the disqualification and appointed a special district attorney under County Law § 701(1)(a). However, the appointed special district attorney neither resided in nor had an office in Orleans County or any adjoining county, as required by the statute.After conviction, the defendant raised the issue of the special district attorney’s ineligibility for the first time on direct appeal. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, found that the County Court exceeded its authority by appointing a special district attorney who did not meet the residency requirement and dismissed the indictment on that basis. The People were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals held that the residency requirement in County Law § 701(1)(a) is a non-waivable jurisdictional prerequisite. The court reasoned that strict adherence to the statute is necessary due to the separation of powers concerns involved when the judiciary appoints a substitute for an elected district attorney. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving assistant district attorneys appointed by a sitting district attorney, where residency requirements may be waivable. Because the County Court lacked authority to appoint a special district attorney who did not satisfy the statutory residency requirement, the indictment must be dismissed. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Callara" on Justia Law

In July 2019, the defendant, his codefendant, and a third individual drove to a park, where both the defendant and codefendant fired guns from a vehicle into a crowd, resulting in the death of a victim. The shooting was allegedly in retaliation for a prior incident in which the codefendant had been shot. Both were charged under a single indictment with second-degree murder and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon, based on an acting-in-concert theory. At trial, a witness implicated both as shooters, and the defendant’s former girlfriend testified about his possession of guns and a statement he made about the killing. Surveillance footage and ballistics evidence supported the prosecution’s case, but the actual shooting was not captured on video.Before trial, the defendant moved for severance, arguing that the codefendant’s counsel intended to blame him for the shooting, which would be irreconcilable with his own defense. The Erie County Court denied the motion, finding the argument speculative and noting it would address any conflict if it arose during trial. During summation, the codefendant’s counsel argued that the evidence pointed to the defendant as one of the shooters. The defendant’s counsel renewed the severance motion, claiming the codefendant’s closing argument unfairly prejudiced the defendant. The court denied the renewed motion, emphasizing its instructions to the jury that attorneys’ arguments were not evidence and that the evidence should be considered separately for each defendant. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts.The Appellate Division affirmed, rejecting the claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, finding no undue prejudice from the codefendant’s summation and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the verdict. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Everson" on Justia Law

In 2023, the New York Legislature enacted the Even Year Election Law (EYEL), which consolidated certain county and town elections with even-year state and federal elections. The law amended various statutes to move local elections to even-numbered years and adjusted the terms of office for officials elected in odd-numbered years. Several counties and towns with charter provisions setting local elections in odd years, along with individual voters, challenged the EYEL, arguing that it violated the home rule provisions of article IX of the New York State Constitution and other constitutional rights.The Supreme Court, Onondaga County, consolidated the complaints and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It declared the EYEL unconstitutional, holding that counties have a constitutional right to set their own terms of office and that the EYEL was neither a valid general law nor a valid special law under article IX. The court enjoined enforcement of the EYEL. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the EYEL did not violate the New York or United States Constitutions. The Appellate Division held that the EYEL was a general law, applied rationally to similarly situated counties, and served the legitimate state interest of increasing voter turnout.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court held that article IX does not expressly or implicitly limit the Legislature’s authority to mandate the timing of local elections. The EYEL was found to be a valid general law, and the constitutional “bill of rights” for local governments did not bar the Legislature from enacting such a statute. The Court also dismissed the individual voter plaintiffs’ claims, finding any alleged injury minor compared to the State’s substantial interest. The order was affirmed without costs. View "County of Onondaga v State of New York" on Justia Law

In 2019, the New York Legislature enacted the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), expanding rent stabilization to all municipalities in the state. The City of Kingston declared a housing emergency on August 1, 2022, opting into the Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA). Petitioners, a group of landlords, sought to invalidate Kingston's opt-in and two guidelines set by the Kingston New York Rent Guidelines Board (KRGB).The Supreme Court upheld Kingston's emergency declaration, finding the city's survey methodology reasonable. However, it vacated the KRGB guidelines, ruling that the fair market rent guideline required a case-by-case determination and that the rent adjustment guideline lacked statutory authority.The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating the KRGB guidelines. It held that the emergency declaration was based on a good faith study and that the fair market rent guideline did not require a case-by-case assessment. The rent adjustment guideline was also upheld, as the ETPA allows for rent adjustments without specifying that they must be upward.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. It found that the City's 2022 survey was reasonably reliable and relevant, supporting the emergency declaration. The court also upheld the fair market rent guideline, noting that it did not have an impermissibly retroactive effect, as no refunds were issued for periods before August 1, 2020. The challenge to the rent adjustment guideline was deemed unpreserved and not properly before the court. View "Matter of Hudson Val. Prop. Owners Assn. Inc. v City of Kingston" on Justia Law

New York City is legally required to provide health insurance coverage for its retired employees. For over 50 years, the City offered a choice of health insurance plans, including Medicare supplemental plans and Medicare Advantage plans (MAPs). In 2021, to reduce costs, the City decided to discontinue most options, including the popular Senior Care plan, and enroll all retirees in a custom-designed MAP managed by Aetna Life Insurance Company. Petitioners, consisting of nine retirees and one organization, initiated this proceeding to prevent the City from eliminating their existing health insurance plans.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on their promissory estoppel cause of action and their claim under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126 (b) (1). The Appellate Division affirmed the decision, concluding that the City had made a clear and unambiguous promise to provide Medicare supplemental coverage for life and that petitioners reasonably relied on this promise.The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed the case and determined that the petitioners were not entitled to judgment on their promissory estoppel cause of action. The court found that the Summary Program Descriptions (SPDs) provided by the City did not constitute a clear and unambiguous promise of lifetime Medicare supplemental insurance coverage. The court also rejected the petitioners' alternative grounds for relief, including their claim under Administrative Code § 12-126 (b) (1) and the Moratorium Law. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings. View "Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York" on Justia Law

A group of nonpublic schools and organizations representing them challenged regulations issued by the New York State Commissioner of Education. These regulations required nonpublic schools to provide an education substantially equivalent to that of public schools. If a nonpublic school failed to meet this standard, it would no longer be considered a school providing compulsory education under New York law.The Supreme Court of New York upheld most of the regulations but invalidated the specific provisions that deemed noncompliant nonpublic schools as not fulfilling compulsory education requirements. The court found that these provisions exceeded the Commissioner’s authority. The respondents, including the Commissioner, appealed this decision.The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, ruling that the Commissioner had the authority to promulgate the challenged regulations. The court held that the regulations were within the Commissioner’s statutory authority and did not compel parents to unenroll their children from noncompliant schools or authorize school closures. One Justice dissented, arguing that the regulations exceeded the Commissioner’s authority.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. The court concluded that the Commissioner lawfully promulgated the regulations, which simply enforced the statutory mandate that nonpublic schools provide substantially equivalent education. The court found that the regulations did not require parents to unenroll their children or authorize school closures but merely stated that noncompliant schools did not meet the statutory requirements for compulsory education. The court also addressed mootness issues related to recent legislative amendments but found that the challenge to the specific regulatory provisions remained a live controversy. View "Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young" on Justia Law

Michael Cavagnolo was arrested and charged with making a terroristic threat after repeatedly calling the Hyde Park Police Department emergency line and threatening to commit violent acts against officers, their families, and Police Department property. The County Court set bail pursuant to CPL 510.10 (4) (a), which makes all violent felony offenses listed in Penal Law § 70.02 bailable, except for two specific exceptions. However, CPL 510.10 (4) (g) makes bailable the felony crimes of terrorism defined in Penal Law article 490 but explicitly excludes the crime of making a terroristic threat.The Appellate Division granted the petition for habeas corpus and ordered Mr. Cavagnolo's release, holding that the authority to set bail for violent felony offenses under CPL 510.10 (4) (a) does not extend to the crime of making a terroristic threat because it is explicitly excluded under paragraph (g). One Justice dissented, arguing that the "specific trumps the general" canon does not apply because both paragraphs (a) and (g) are specific.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that making a terroristic threat is a bail-eligible offense under CPL 510.10 (4) (a). The Court reasoned that the disjunctive structure of CPL 510.10 (4) indicates that each paragraph sets forth a separate and distinct category of offenses qualifying for monetary bail, and one paragraph does not modify another. The Court found that the legislature did not intend to implicitly import paragraph (g)'s exclusion into paragraph (a). Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the habeas corpus proceeding was converted to a declaratory judgment action, with judgment granted in accordance with the opinion. View "People ex rel. Ellis v Imperati" on Justia Law

A defendant was arrested and charged with several felony offenses, including attempted murder, for which bail was set and posted. While out on bail, the defendant was arrested again on charges of theft, larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property. These new charges were not qualifying offenses for bail on their own, but the prosecution requested bail under CPL 510.10 (4) (t), arguing that the defendant committed the new offenses while released on bail for the prior attempted murder charge. The court set bail, citing the defendant's release on bail for a prior violent felony.Defense counsel argued that CPL 510.10 (4) (t) only applies to defendants released on recognizance or non-monetary conditions, not those released on bail. The court rejected this interpretation and denied subsequent bail applications. Defense counsel then sought habeas relief from the Appellate Division, arguing that the statute did not apply to defendants released on bail. The Appellate Division dismissed the writ, holding that "released under conditions" includes bail.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that CPL 510.10 (4) (t) applies to defendants released on any condition, including bail. The court found that the statutory language did not limit its application to non-monetary conditions and that the legislature intended to create a mechanism for assigning bail to repeat offenders. The judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, the habeas corpus proceeding was converted into a declaratory judgment action, and it was declared that a defendant arrested on new charges after being released on bail on a prior charge is "released under conditions" within the meaning of CPL 510.10 (4) (t). View "People ex rel. Welch v Maginley-Liddie" on Justia Law