Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals held that N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 205-b does not authorize a claim against a fire district for the negligence of a volunteer firefighter when the firefighter's actions are otherwise privileged and subject to a heightened recklessness standard under N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 1104.Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against the Commack Fire District after her vehicle collided with a fire truck owned by the district and operated by a volunteer firefighter. The trial court granted summary judgment to the firefighter on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to establish that the firefighter acted with reckless disregard but concluded that the District was not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's vicarious liability claim. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that when a volunteer firefighter's actions satisfy the conditions set forth in N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 1104(e) and are thus privileged, there is no breach of duty or negligence that can be imputed to a fire district under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 205-b. View "Anderson v. Commack Fire District" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate division affirming the summary denial of Defendant's N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) 440 motion, holding that the district court's summary denial of Defendant's motion to vacate his conviction was not an abuse of discretion.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape and sexual abuse and sentenced to fifty-four years in prison. Several years later, Defendant moved to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the discovery of new evidence. County Court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion without a hearing. View "People v. Hartle" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division affirming the decision of Supreme Court granting summary judgment against Plaintiff and dismissing its complaint alleging that Saratoga County erroneously failed to serve upon it a tax foreclosure petition, holding that Plaintiff was permitted to raise a question of fact regarding whether the taxing authority complied with the statutory notice requirements contained in N.Y. Real Prop. Law (RPTL) 1125(1)(b).The County allegedly mailed, via certified and first class mail, a notice of foreclosure and notice of commencement of the tax foreclosure proceeding to Plaintiff's address. Later, a default judgment entered in favor of the County. The County sold the property at auction. Plaintiff brought this action seeking vacatur of the default judgment and the deeds conveying the property, alleging that the County failed to serve upon it the tax foreclosure petition, in violation of RPTL 1125. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the County, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an interested party is permitted to establish that a taxing authority failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in RPTL 1125(1)(b) even when proof is submitted that notice that was allegedly sent by both certified and first class mail is not returned. View "James B. Nutter & Co. v. County of Saratoga" on Justia Law

In this personal injury action, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal brought by defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation and driver Renaud Pierrelouis (collectively, NJT), holding that NJT failed to preserve its interstate sovereign immunity defense by raising it before the trial court, and no exception to the general reservation rule applied.Plaintiff was injured while riding on a bus that collided with another vehicle. Plaintiff brought this action seeking damages. A jury found in favor of Plaintiff. Thereafter, NJT moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on damages. Supreme Court denied the motion. NJT appealed, arguing for the first time that dismissal was required under the doctrine of interstate sovereign immunity. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals dismissed NJT's ensuing appeal, holding that because NJT's sovereign immunity argument was unpreserved and did not qualify for any exception to the preservation requirement, an appeal as of right did not lie under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5601(b)(1). View "Henry v. New Jersey Transit Corp." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the appellate division affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of rape in the first degree, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to prompt prosecution under the due process clause of the New York Constitution was violated in this case.The complainant reported to the police that she had been raped a few hours earlier by Defendant, whom she identified. The complainant submitted to a sexual assault examination, but Defendant, who was questioned by the police the same day, but refused to provide a DNA sample. Years later, a sample of Defendant's DNA sample was obtained via a buccal swab, which disproved Defendant's claim that he and the complainant had not had sex. More than four years after the complainant reported the assault, the People filed an indictment against Defendant. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the excessive preindictment delay violated his due process right to prompt prosecution. County Court denied the motion, and Defendant was convicted. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the indictment, holding that the delay of the police and prosecutors violated Defendant's constitutional right to a prompt prosecution. View "People v. Regan" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the Department of Civil Service's (DCS) unilateral implementation of application fees for promotional and transitional civil service exams was not a term and condition of employment, as defined in N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 201(4), and therefore, the State had no obligation to negotiate those fees under the Taylor Law, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 200 et seq.The State offers the subject exams to provide qualified State employees an opportunity to seek other public employment. For at least ten years, DCS waived the application fees for employees represented by Respondents to take the exams. In 2009, DCS began assessing fees for the exams but did not collectively bargain with Respondents regarding the imposition of the fees prior to taking the action at issue. Respondents filed improper practices charges with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that by unilaterally imposing the fees the State violated Civil Service Law 209-a(1). PERB determined that the subject was mandatorily negotiable and that the State's past practice of not charging such fees was enforceable. The Appellate Division dismissed the State's ensuing petition seeking to annul PERB's determinations. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that PERB's determination conflicted with Civil Service Law 201(4) and this Court's precedent. View "State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the inclusion of concise and relevant additional information does not void an otherwise proper notice to borrowers sent pursuant to N.Y. Real. Prop. Acts. Law (RPAPL) 1304 and thus does not bar a subsequently filed foreclosure action.Borrower obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on his home and later defaulted on the loan. Bank sent Borrower notice of default pursuant to RPAPL 1304 and then brought this foreclosure action. Borrower filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the inclusion of two paragraphs in his notice not found in RPAPL 1304 violated the statute. Supreme Court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. The appellate division affirmed, determining that including in the envelop sent to the borrower any language not required by the statute violates the statute's separate envelope provision. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) section 1304 does not prohibit the inclusion of additional information that may help borrowers avoid foreclosure and is not false or misleading; and (2) the additional information in this case was not false or misleading and should not render the notice void. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Kessler" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division affirming as modified the judgment of supreme court in favor of Plaintiff on her claim that Defendants had violated her due process rights during foreclosure proceedings, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on appeal.Defendants commenced an in rem tax foreclosure proceeding and mailed notice to the publicly-listed owners of the property and publicized the notice in the press. Further, defendant County Treasurer personally contacted the only business located on the property to try to identify any person to inform of the pending foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that the in rem proceeding was a nullity and that Defendants had violated her due process rights. Supreme Court granted judgment for Plaintiff. The appellate division modified the judgment by vacating the portion declaring the foreclosure proceeding a nullity and granted Plaintiff relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants' efforts to identify and inform those persons with interests in the property were sufficient. View "Hetelekides v. County of Ontario" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the appellate division affirming the judgment of Supreme Court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss this breach of contract action for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that jurisdiction was proper under New York's long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302(a)(1).Defendant, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Michigan, designed and manufactured unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Defendant sold two UAVs to the State University of New York at Stony Brook for delivery in Madagascar. The State commenced this action on behalf of the university following a dispute regarding the operability of the UAVs, alleging breach of contract and other claims. Supreme Court granted the motion, and the appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to the "transacts any business" clause of New York's long-arm statute. View "State v. Vayu, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction of one count each of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree and two counts of criminal contempt, holding that the trial judge committed constitutional error by ordering Defendant handcuffed without placing the special need for such restraints on the record and that the error was not harmless.The trial judge ordered Defendant to be handcuffed when the jury returned to announce its verdict. The judge, however, did not provide an on-the-record, individualized explanation for the restraints. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that any error in Defendant's being handcuffed without any explanation on the record was harmless. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) until the jury returns to the courtroom, publicly announces the verdict and confirms the verdict, the defendant is still presumed innocent and the constitutional prohibition on restraining a defendant without explanation remains in force; and (2) the constitutional error in this case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a new trial. View "People v. Sanders" on Justia Law