Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment of the suppression court denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain eavesdropping evidence, holding that eavesdropping warrants are executed in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are intentionally intercepted by authorized law enforcement officers within the meaning of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 700.At issue was whether a Kings County Supreme Court justice had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for Defendant's cell phones for the purpose of gathering evidence in an investigation of enterprise corruption and gambling offenses in Kings County. The cell phones were not physically present in New York. The suppression court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that since the crimes were allegedly committed in Kings County, the county had jurisdiction to prosecute the crimes and there was a sufficient nexus of the issuance of the eavesdropping warrants in that county. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Kings County Supreme Court Justice presiding in the jurisdiction where Defendant's communications were overheard and accessed and therefore intercepted by authorized law enforcement agents had the authority to issue the warrants. View "People v. Schneider" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Term in these two cases reversing the default judgments entered against them for charges of certain traffic infractions, holding that a Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (TVPA) judicial hearing officer is not authorized under the Vehicle and Traffic Law to render a default judgment against a defendant charged with a traffic infraction who first enters a timely not guilty plea but then fails to appear for trial.Each defendant in this case pleaded not guilty to the traffic infractions charges and demanded a trial. When both defendants failed timely to appear from trial, a judicial hearing officer with the Suffolk County TPVA rendered default judgments against each of them. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the unambiguous language of N.Y. Traf. & Veh. Law 1806-a makes clear that the TPVA - the court having jurisdiction - was prohibited from entering a default judgment against Defendants. View "People v. Iverson" on Justia Law

In these three appeals challenging the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument filed against Defendants, the Court of Appeals held that a certificate of translation is not required to convert a complaint into an information.At issue was whether the participation of a translator in the process of documenting the information from first-party witnesses with limited proficiency in English created a hearsay defect that required dismissal of the instrument. The Court of Appeals held that, as to all three cases, the accusatory instruments were facially sufficient. Specifically, the Court held (1) as to the first two cases, no facial defect was evident within the four corners of the accusatory instrument; and (2) in the third case, while the participation of a translator was documented within the witness's supporting affidavit, no additional layer was created by the use of a translator. View "People v. Slade" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the construction of approximately twenty-seven miles of Class II community connector trails designed for snowmobile use in the Forest Preserve violated the "forever wild" provision of N.Y. Const. art. XIV, 1 and, therefore, could not be accomplished other than by constitutional amendment.The Forest Preserve is located within the Adirondack Park. In 2006, the Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation prepared a plan with the goal of creating a system of snowmobile trails between communities in the Adirondack Park. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that construction of the trails violated article XIV, 1 of the New York Constitution. Supreme Court held that the construction was constitutional. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the planned Class II trails were constitutionally forbidden. View "Protect the Adirondacks! Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division holding that recovery of a claimant's schedule loss of use (SLU) award by his estate is limited to the portion of the award that would have been due to the claimant for the period prior to the claimant's death, holding that the Appellate Court did not err.Claimant in this case died from a cause unrelated to his workplace injury during the pendency of his claim for permanent partial disability benefits. The Court of Appeals held that Claimant's estate was not entitled to a lump sum payment of a posthumous schedule loss of use award issued to Claimant pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Law, holding that the estate may recover only reasonable funeral expenses and the portion of the SLU award that would have been due to Claimant before death. View "Estate of Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corp." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, holding that the Appellate Term lacked authority to adopt a rule of criminal procedure requiring special circumstances for the renewed prosecution of a traffic offense after a previous dismissal for failure to provide a requested supporting disposition that is inconsistent with the courts' authority under the Criminal Procedure Law.Under the disputed rule, the People cannot reprosecute a defendant by filing a new simplified traffic information after the original implied traffic information was dismissed for facial insufficiency for failure to timely provide a requested supporting deposition. Defendant in this case was found guilty of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law 1142(a). The Appellate Term reversed, vacated the order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, and granted the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the People were entitled to prosecute the traffic violation after dismissal of the first simplified traffic information. View "People v. Epakchi" on Justia Law