Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals held that separate schedule loss of use (SLU) awards for different injuries to the same statutory member are contemplated by N.Y. Work. Comp. Law **(WCL) 15 and that, when a complainant proves that the second injury, considered by itself without consideration of the first injury, has caused an increased loss of use, the claimant is entitled to an SLU award commensurate with that increased loss of use.At issue in these consolidated appeals was whether, under WCL 15, a claimant's SLU award must be reduced by the percentage loss determined for a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same body member enumerated in section 15. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment below, holding that separate SLU awards for a member's subparts are authorized by statute. View "Johnson v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division modifying the order of Supreme Court by granting Plaintiff summary judgment on his claim brought under N.Y. Labor Law 241(6), holding that the section 241(6) claim must be dismissed.Plaintiff was struck by a power buggy while working at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub construction site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority). Plaintiff filed this action against the Port Authority, bringing claims under N.Y. Labor Law 241(6) and N.Y. Labor Law 200(1). Supreme Court granted the Port Authority summary judgment on the section 200(1) claim but denied summary judgment on the section 241(6) claim. The Appellate Division modified by granting Plaintiff summary judgment on the section 241(6) claim. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) does not set forth a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under section 241(6). View "Toussaint v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, to the class A misdemeanor of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, holding that Defendant's claim on appeal was unpreserved for review.On appeal, Defendant challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea, asserting that the court, in its plea colloquy, failed to advise him that the twenty days of community service to be imposed would be a condition of a one-year conditional discharge sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the determination of the appellate division that Defendant's claim was unpreserved, holding that because Defendant failed to protest or otherwise seek to withdraw his guilty plea prior to the imposition of his sentence his claim on appeal was unpreserved for the Court of Appeals' review. View "People v. Bush" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reiterated that plaintiffs must establish that a municipality owed them a special duty when they assert a negligence claim based on actions taken by the municipality acting in a governmental capacity and that plaintiffs may establish a special duty when a municipality's police force plans and executes a no-knock search warrant at a person's residence.Plaintiff bought this action in federal court against the City of Binghamton and its police department, arguing that the City breached a special duty and was liable under a respondent superior theory for a police officer's negligence in shooting Plaintiff. The jury determined that the City was liable under a respondeat superior theory. The City moved for judgment as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion, determining that the City did not owe Plaintiff a special duty. On appeal, the federal circuit court certified a question of law to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals answered that a special duty arises when the police plan and execute a no-knock search warrant at an identified residence, running to the individuals within the targeted premises at the time the warrant is executed. View "Ferreira v. City of Binghamton" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the appellate division modifying and affirming the judgment of Supreme Court declaring that article 14 of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and breeding Law violates the constitutional prohibition on gambling to the extent it authorizes interactive fantasy sport (IFS) contests, holding that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that article 14 is unconstitutional.In 2016, the legislature enacted article 14, which authorizes and regulates IFS contests, upon determining that IFS contests are not unconstitutional gambling activities because they are skill-based competitions in which contestants have some influence over the outcome of the fantasy contests. At issue was whether the legislature properly determined that IFS contests authorized in article 14 are not unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals held that the legislature's conclusion that IFS contests are not "gambling" is consistent with precedent delineating the parameters of that term. View "White v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of four counts of assault in the first degree for his participation in an attack involving two victims, holding that Defendant's allegations of error were unavailing.On appeal, the appellate division considered together Defendant's direct appeal from the judgment and his appeal by permission from Supreme Court's order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. The appellate division denied all relief, concluding that Defendant failed to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Defendant argued that his retained attorney's suspension from practice by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit rendered the attorney "constructively suspended" from the practice of law in New York and that, alternatively, his attorney's failure to inform him of of the suspension and pending reciprocal disciplinary proceedings in New York deprived him of his constitutionally-protected right to choice of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant was not deprived of the attorney of his choice solely due to the imposition of foreign discipline. View "People v. Burgos" on Justia Law

In this residential mortgage-backed securities case, the Court of Appeals held that the contractual "sole remedy repurchase protocol" required that a trustee (Plaintiff) provide loan-specific pre-suit notice in order to invoke a sponsor's (Defendant) repurchase obligation and satisfy the contractual prerequisite to suit. Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims, arguing that the trustee could not pursue recovery for loans not specifically identified in pre-suit letters to the extent the trustee relied on a notice rather than an independent discovery theory. Defendant further sought summary judgment with respect to the method of calculation of the repurchase price. Supreme Court denied the motion, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff could not seek recovery on the subject loans to the extent it asserted that Defendant's repurchase obligation was triggered by notice; (2) Plaintiff could not rely on the relation back doctrine to avoid the consequences of its failure to comply with the contractual condition precedent with respect to the loans in question before commencing this action; and (3) interest recoverable on liquidated loans was limited to interest that accrued prior to liquidation. View "U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that a loft unit located in an interim multiple dwelling covered by the provisions of the Loft Law but exempt from the rent regulations of the Loft Law, Multiple Dwelling Law article 7-C, by operation of a sale of the prior tenant's rights and improvements is not otherwise subject to rent stabilization.The Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the Housing Court granting summary judgment to Tenant in this holdover proceeding to recover possession and terminate Tenant's occupancy, determining that the loft unit at issue remained subject to rent regulation. On appeal, Landlord argued that the loft unit was not subject to rent regulation due to the prior owner's purchase of the protected tenant's Loft Law rights. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that a unit covered by the Loft Law, exempted from that statute's rent stabilization regime by operation of a sale of a prior tenant's rights and improvements is not subject to the rent stabilization provisions of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act. View "Aurora Associates LLC v. Locatelli" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the two-hour rule in N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 1194(2)(a)(1) authorizing a chemical test to be taken from a motorist based upon deemed consent is not applicable to a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) license revocation hearing held pursuant to N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 1194(2)(c) after a motorist's refusal to submit to a chemical test.Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated and refused to submit to a chemical test. An administrative law judge revoked Petitioner's driver's license, and the DMV appeals board affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding seeking to annul the DMV's determination. Supreme Court denied the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Petitioner's refusal to submit to the chemical test was properly used in the administrative license revocation hearing, even thought the refusal occurred more than two hours after the arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the DMV's determination was not irrational or affected by an error of law. View "Endara-Caicedo v. Vehicles" on Justia Law

In response to questions certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals held that inferences of vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) are inconsistent with New York's established contract interpretation principles.In Kolbe v. Tibbetts, the Court of Appeals left open the question of whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Supreme Court rejected such inferences as incompatible with ordinary contract principles under federal law, thus repudiating International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agriculture Implement Workers of America v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F2d 1476 (6th Cir 1983). In answering the questions certified to it in this case, the Court of Appeals (1) held that it maintains its traditional contract interpretation principles, including those set forth in Kolbe; but (2) clarified that New York's contract law does not recognize Yard-Man-type inferences. View "Donohue v. Cuomo" on Justia Law