Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, Srecko Bazdaric, was injured while painting an escalator during a renovation project. The escalator was covered with a plastic sheet, which Bazdaric slipped on, sustaining injuries that left him unable to work. He and his wife sued the owners of the premises and the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6), which requires employers to provide safe working conditions. The Court of Appeals of New York held that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found that the plastic covering was a slipping hazard that the defendants failed to remove, in violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), making the defendants liable under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court also found that the plastic covering was not integral to the paint job but was a nonessential and inherently slippery plastic that caused Bazdaric's injuries. The court reversed the lower court's conclusion to the contrary. View "Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Clifton Park Apartments, LLC and its attorney (collectively referred to as "Pine Ridge"), CityVision Services, Inc. ("CityVision"), and the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR"). CityVision is a Texas-based not-for-profit corporation that tests whether housing facilities engage in discrimination. In 2016, CityVision placed a test call to Pine Ridge and subsequently filed a discrimination complaint with DHR, alleging familial status discrimination. DHR dismissed the complaint due to lack of probable cause. Following this, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision stating that Pine Ridge considered the allegations in CityVision's complaint to be "false, fraudulent, and libelous" and threatened to seek damages. In response, CityVision filed a second complaint with DHR, alleging that Pine Ridge retaliated against them for filing the first discrimination complaint.The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination of retaliation and the case was brought before the Court of Appeals of New York. The Court of Appeals held that a threat of litigation could constitute the requisite adverse action to support a retaliation claim under New York State Human Rights Law. In this case, DHR rationally concluded that the element of adverse action had been established when Pine Ridge sent the threatening letter to CityVision. However, the Court also held that a remittal was necessary because DHR improperly shifted the burden when analyzing whether CityVision had engaged in protected activity. The Court of Appeals ruled that DHR should have determined whether CityVision reasonably believed that Pine Ridge had engaged in a discriminatory practice during the test call. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to DHR for further proceedings. View "Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Division of Human Rights" on Justia Law

The case involves Consolidated Restaurant Operations (CRO), a company that owns and operates dozens of restaurants, and Westport Insurance Corporation (Westport). CRO had an "all-risk" commercial property insurance policy with Westport, which covered "all risks of direct physical loss or damage to insured property." When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, causing CRO to suspend or substantially curtail its operations due to the presence of the virus in its restaurants and government restrictions on nonessential businesses, CRO sought coverage for the ensuing loss of revenue. Westport denied coverage, stating that the coronavirus did not cause "direct physical loss or damage" to CRO's properties. CRO filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of Westport's obligations under the policy and damages for breach of contract.The Supreme Court of New York dismissed the complaint, declaring that the policy did not cover CRO's alleged losses. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, interpreting "direct physical loss or damage" to require a tangible alteration of the property, which CRO had not demonstrated.The case was then brought to the New York Court of Appeals. The court held that "direct physical loss or damage" requires a material alteration or a complete and persistent dispossession of insured property. The presence of the virus in the restaurants and the resulting cessation of in-person dining services did not meet this requirement. The court thus affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of the complaint. View "Consolidated Rest. Operations, Inc. v Westport Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

This case revolves around the tragic drowning of a 14-year-old boy at a dam on Buffalo Creek in Erie County. The victim's mother brought a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against the Joint Board of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation District (the Joint Board), alleging that they owned the dam and were responsible for its maintenance and safety. The dam was initially constructed as part of a federal project under the Flood Control Act of 1944, after which the Joint Board was created as the local "sponsor" of the project. Two agreements between the Joint Board and the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1959 and 1984 stipulated that the Joint Board had ongoing duties to inspect and maintain the dams. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the singular question of whether the Joint Board owned the dams at the time of the accident. Both the plaintiff and the Joint Board moved for directed verdicts. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the Joint Board owned the dams. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision and granted the Joint Board's motion for a directed verdict, ruling that the dams were fixtures that ran with the land and could not have been owned by the Joint Board since the NRCS did not own the underlying land. The Court of Appeals disagreed with both lower courts, stating that neither the plaintiff nor the Joint Board should have been granted a directed verdict as the evidence was not conclusive enough to establish ownership of the dams as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, and affirmed the dismissal of claims against other parties, including the Districts, County, and Town. View "Suzanne P. v Joint Bd. of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation Dist." on Justia Law

In New York, a man named Joshua Messano was indicted for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon after police officers discovered a loaded handgun in his car. Messano moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that it was found as a result of an unlawful detention and search. The police had initially detained Messano on suspicion of a drug transaction based on their observations of him engaging in a conversation with another man in an empty parking lot. They did not, however, observe any actual exchange of drugs. After detaining Messano, the police saw what they believed to be drug-related contraband in plain view on the driver's seat of his car, which led them to search the car and find the gun.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Messano based on their observations. The court also held that the drug-related contraband was not in plain view, as the officer only saw it after unlawfully detaining Messano. Therefore, the court concluded that the seizure of the gun was unconstitutional and the evidence should be suppressed. The indictment against Messano was dismissed. View "People v Messano" on Justia Law

In 2017, two police officers observed Devon T. Butler, the appellant, engage in what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction. After observing Butler fail to stop at a stop sign, the officers initiated a traffic stop. When Butler stepped out of his vehicle, the officers noticed a bulge in his pants, which Butler claimed was $1,000 in cash. When Butler refused the officers' request to search his vehicle, an officer used a Belgian Malinois, a narcotics-detection dog, to sniff-test the vehicle for drugs. The canine sniffed Butler's body, indicated the presence of narcotics, and the officers arrested Butler after a pursuit. The officers found a bag containing 76 glassine envelopes of heroin, which Butler admitted belonged to him. Butler moved to suppress evidence of the drugs, arguing that the officers' use of the canine to search his vehicle and person was unlawful. Following a hearing, the County Court denied the motion.On December 19, 2023, the New York Court of Appeals held that the use of a narcotics-detection dog to sniff a defendant's body for evidence of a crime is considered a search and thus falls under the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The court reversed the lower court's decision and remitted the case back to the County Court for further proceedings. The court ruled that the Appellate Division erred in affirming the judgement based on a ground not decided adversely to the defendant by the suppression court. The court also expressed uncertainty on whether the County Court's conclusion that the defendant "abandoned" the narcotics was based on its holding that the canine sniff was not a search and was "perfectly acceptable." As a result, the case was remitted back to the County Court for further proceedings and consideration of whether the abandonment of narcotics was lawful or unlawful. View "People v Butler" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals of the State of New York held that the plaintiff, a certified diesel technician, was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) when he was injured while repairing a trailer. The plaintiff was working beneath a lifted trailer, fixing a faulty air brake system, when the trailer fell on him. He sued on the grounds that the defendant failed to provide him with adequate safety devices, as required by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that the statute was not intended to cover ordinary vehicle repair. The court reasoned that, while the statute protects workers from elevation-related risks in industries like construction, it does not cover every instance where a worker is injured as a result of an elevation differential. The court also noted that extending the statute's coverage to ordinary vehicle repair could lead to an overly broad interpretation that would place undue liability on car owners for injuries sustained by mechanics. Thus, the court affirmed the dismissal of the section 240 (1) cause of action against the defendant. View "Stoneham v Joseph Barsuk, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) withheld 11 documents from a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request by Appellate Advocates, arguing that the documents were privileged attorney-client communications. These documents had been prepared by DOCCS counsel to train and advise Board of Parole commissioners on how to comply with their legal duties and obligations.The New York Court of Appeals had to determine whether these documents were rightly withheld under the FOIL exemption for privileged matters. The court found that the documents reflected counsel's legal analysis of statutory, regulatory, and decisional law, and were therefore protected attorney-client communications, prepared to facilitate the rendition of legal advice or services in a professional relationship. The court rejected Appellate Advocates' arguments that disclosure was required under FOIL, noting that the privilege applied to proactive advice to assist the client in compliance with legal mandates, and was not limited to communications triggered by a client's disclosure of confidential information or a direct request for advice. The court also rejected the argument that documents identified as Commissioner training materials were categorically not exempt from disclosure.The court concluded that the documents were properly withheld under the FOIL exemption for privileged matters as they were privileged attorney-client communications. The court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. View "Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision" on Justia Law

In 2021, Michael Bay was arrested for alleged harassment of his mother. After the prosecution filed a certificate of compliance (COC) indicating readiness for trial, the defense discovered that the prosecution had not provided all required discovery materials. The defense argued that the prosecution's readiness statement was illusory due to the belated disclosure. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of New York held that since the prosecution failed to show they had exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to identify mandatory discovery before filing the COC, the COC was not proper when filed, and the prosecution's declaration of trial readiness was therefore illusory. Consequently, the court reversed the County Court order, granted the defendant's motion for dismissal based on speedy trial rules, and dismissed the accusatory instrument. View "People v Bay" on Justia Law

An incarcerated individual developed a mass under his armpit and was referred to a surgeon who had a contract with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). The surgeon performed a biopsy, which was then sent to the pathology department at the Cortland Regional Medical Center (CRMC) for examination. Dr. Jun Wang, the Medical Director of CRMC's pathology department and a member of Cortland Pathology, examined the specimen and determined that the mass was benign. A year later, the patient was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma.The patient initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against CRMC and others, alleging that they misdiagnosed his condition and failed to promptly diagnose or refer him for treatment. Dr. Wang sought defense and indemnification from the State, claiming that he was entitled to coverage under Public Officers Law § 17 and Correction Law § 24-a because his actions arose from treating an incarcerated individual at the request of DOCCS. The Attorney General rejected Dr. Wang's request, stating that he treated the patient through his employment arrangement with CRMC, not directly at the request of the State, and thus the State had no obligation to provide defense or indemnification.The New York Court of Appeals held that the State is not obligated to indemnify or defend Dr. Wang in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The court ruled that under the Correction Law § 24-a, the State's obligation to defend and indemnify only applies when there has been an explicit request by DOCCS for the services of a specific provider—an arrangement or understanding made in advance between DOCCS and the healthcare professional. In this case, no such express request or direct agreement existed between DOCCS and Dr. Wang, therefore, the State had no obligation to defend or indemnify him. The court also stated that the Attorney General's interpretation of the statute was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Hence, the court affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. View "In re Wang v James" on Justia Law