Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of robbery in the first degree, holding that the trial court, in denying Defendant's application under People v. Bedessie, 19 NY3d 147 (2012), did not err in precluding the testimony of Defendant's proffered expert witness on false confessions after holding Frye and Huntley hearings.Defendant was charged with having committed two elevator robberies. Prior to trial, Defendant served a notice of intent to introduce psychiatric evidence for the purpose of demonstrating that he was suffering from psychiatric conditions that adversely affected the reliability and voluntariness of the interrogations conducted. Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion to present expert witness testimony on the phenomenon of false confessions because Defendant failed to demonstrate that the proposed testimony was relevant to his case. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the expert psychological testimony as to false confessions because it was not relevant to the circumstances of the custodial interrogation at issue. View "People v. Powell" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals accepted a question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and answered that no provide cause of action exists for violations of New York Public Health Law 18(2)(e).Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendant, a hospital, violated section 18(2)(3) by charging her $1.50 per page for paper copies of her medical records. The district court concluded that no private right of action existed under section 18(2)(e) and therefore granted Defendant's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Second District concluded that there was insufficient precedent to resolve the issue of whether a private right of action existed. After applying the factors set forth in Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 NY2d 629 (1989), the Court of Appeals concluded that no private cause of action exists for violations of section 18(2)(e). View "Ortiz v. Ciox Health LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals answered in the affirmative two questions certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case involving New York's current usury laws.Specifically, the Court of Appeals held (1) a stock conversion option that permits a lender, in its sole discretion, to convert any outstanding balance to shares of stock at a fixed discount should be treated as interest for the purpose of determining whether the transaction violates the criminal usury law, N.Y. Penal Law 190.40; and (2) if the interest charged on a loan is determined to be criminal usurious under N.Y. Penal Law 190.40, the contract is void ab initio pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-511. View "Adar Bays, LLC v GeneSYS ID, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, holding that Defendant neither forfeited his right to counsel nor validly waived his right to appeal.After several of Defendant's attorneys withdrew from representing Defendant, Defendant was forced to represent himself. The jury found Defendant guilty as charged. At sentencing, pursuant to an agreement, Defendant signed a written waiver of his right to appeal in exchange for a recommendation of time served. County Court sentenced Defendant to time served. On appeal, Defendant argued that the appeal waiver was invalid and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding (1) the lower courts erred in determining that Defendant's conduct with assigned counsel was so egregious as to constitute forfeiture of the right to counsel; and (2) Defendant's appeal waiver was invalid. View "People v. Shanks" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial courts in these two cases convicting Defendants of violating Administrative Code of the City of New York 19-190, known as the "Right of Way Law," holding that the statute is not unconstitutional.The Right of Way Law makes it a misdemeanor for a driver, while failing to exercise due care, to make contact with a pedestrian or bicyclist who has the right of way and thereby cause physical injury. Both defendants in these cases were charged with violating the Right of Way Law, a misdemeanor. Defendants argued that the law's ordinary negligence mens rea violated due process because the standard was impermissibly vague and legally insufficient. Defendants also made two preemption arguments. Both defendants were convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Right of Way Law does not violate due process and is not preempted by state law. View "People v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the appellate division affirming the judgment of Supreme Court dismissing this complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.Plaintiff brought this action alleging that Defendant, his former employers, violated the antidiscrimination statutes by denying his application for employment following the completion of his criminal sentence. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Supreme Court granted the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiff adequately alleged a violation of the antidiscrimination statutes. View "Sassi v. Mobile Life Support Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division reversing the orders of Supreme Court denying Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(8) on the ground that New York courts lacked personal jurisdiction, holding that that New York courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.At issue was whether a foreign corporation consents to the exercise of general jurisdiction by New York courts by registering to do business in the state and designating a local agent for service of process. Plaintiffs were the estates of three passengers who died in and the surviving passengers of an accident caused by a New York resident, who was operating a Ford Explorer on an interstate highway in Virginia and the vehicle's Goodyear tire allegedly failed. Ford and Goodyear moved to dismiss the complaint against them under section 3211(a)(8). Supreme Court denied the motions. The appellate division reversed, concluding that a corporation's compliance with the existing business registration statutes does not by itself constitute consent to the general jurisdiction of New York courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants' motions to dismiss were properly granted. View "Aybar v. Aybar" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remanded with directions to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment against him insofar as it sought to dismiss the count in the indictment charging manslaughter in the second degree, holding that this count required dismissal.Defendant was indicted on charges of manslaughter in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the evidence presented to the jury was legally insufficient. County Court granted the motion in part and dismissed the charge of manslaughter in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed and denied Defendant's motion in its entirety. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for second-degree manslaughter or the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide. View "People v. Gaworecki" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that, under NY City Civ Ct Act 1808, small claims judgments do not have collateral estoppel or issue preclusive effect but that such judgments may have the traditional res judicator or claim preclusive effect in a subsequent action involving a claim between the same parties arising out of the same transaction at issue in a prior small claims court action.Plaintiff brought an action against her former employer in a small claims part of Civil Court seeking damages arising out of the alleged nonpayment of wages. After Defendant satisfied the small claims judgment, Plaintiff commenced this action in the federal district court seeking additional damages based on Defendant's failure to pay her overtime wages. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the federal litigation was barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. In response, Plaintiff argued that NY City Civ Ct Act 1808 rendered small claim preclusion inapplicable to small claims judgments unless the subsequent action raised precisely the same claim or theory as the earlier action. The district court rejected Plaintiff's argument but certified a question to the Court of Appeals asking for an interpretation of section 1808. The Court of Appeals answered the question as set forth above. View "Simmons v. Trans Express Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division affirming the decision of Supreme Court dismissing Plaintiffs' complaint alleging that Defendant engaged in deceptive business practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law (GBL) 349, holding that Plaintiffs' GBL 349 cause of action was properly dismissed.In its motion to dismiss, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to plead the necessary elements of a GBL 349 cause of action. Supreme Court granted Defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Supreme Court erred in determining that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the allegedly deceptive conduct was consumer oriented; but (2) the complaint was properly dismissed because Plaintiffs did not adequately plead the element of the cause of action that Defendant's act or practice was deceptive or misleading in a material way. View "Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc." on Justia Law