Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2015, the defendant robbed a Manhattan convenience store at gunpoint and assaulted the proprietor. A jury convicted him of the robbery in 2017. Before sentencing, the prosecution filed a predicate felony statement listing two prior violent felony convictions and the relevant dates of incarceration that extended the ten-year period described in Penal Law § 70.04. The first qualifying felony was a 1997 conviction for first-degree robbery and burglary, and the second was a 1990 conviction for second-degree robbery. The defendant argued that the time he spent in presentence incarceration for the 1990 felony should not be excluded from the ten-year lookback period.The Supreme Court held that under the plain language of Penal Law § 70.04, the period of presentence incarceration must be excluded, and the relevant lookback period tolled. Consequently, the defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender. The court imposed the minimum available sentence of 20 years to life in prison. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that the period of presentence incarceration on the 1990 conviction tolled the ten-year lookback period.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the plain text of Penal Law § 70.04 requires that the ten-year lookback period be extended by any period of incarceration between the time of commission of the previous felony and the time of commission of the present felony, including any period of presentence incarceration for the prior crime. The court found no ambiguity in the statute and rejected the defendant's argument to rewrite the statute's reference to "commission of the previous felony" to read "sentence imposed" for that crime. The court also noted that the defendant's argument regarding the constitutionality of the recidivist sentencing regime was unpreserved. View "People v Hernandez" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former foster child, filed a lawsuit under the Child Victims Act against Cayuga County and other unnamed defendants, alleging negligence. The plaintiff claimed that the County placed her in a foster home where she suffered severe sexual and physical abuse from her foster parent over several years. She argued that the County had a duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting, retaining, and supervising her foster placement and breached this duty by failing to ensure her safety.The Supreme Court denied the County's motion to dismiss the complaint, recognizing that the plaintiff was asserting a common-law negligence claim rather than a statutory claim. The court distinguished this case from previous cases by noting that the plaintiff was in the County's custody. However, the Appellate Division reversed the decision, granting the County's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that the County owed her a special duty under the three recognized categories of the special duty doctrine.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court of Appeals held that municipalities owe a duty of care to children placed in foster homes because they have assumed custody of those children. The court determined that the special duty doctrine did not apply in this case, as the County had a common-law duty to safeguard the plaintiff from foreseeable risks of harm due to its custodial relationship. The court emphasized that this duty arises from the government's assumption of custody, which limits the child's avenues for self-protection. The Court of Appeals concluded that the County's motion to dismiss should be denied, and the case should proceed. View "Weisbrod-Moore v Cayuga County" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022, which established the New York State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government. The plaintiff, Andrew M. Cuomo, argued that the Act unconstitutionally vests executive power in the Commission without sufficient oversight by the Governor, violating the separation of powers doctrine. The Act was designed to address issues of public trust in government by creating an independent body to enforce ethics and lobbying laws, particularly to mitigate the risk of self-regulation by the Executive Branch.In the lower courts, the Supreme Court of Albany County declared the investigation and enforcement provisions of the Act unconstitutional and enjoined proceedings against Cuomo. The Appellate Division stayed the order pending appeal but ultimately affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Act violated the separation of powers by expanding legislative power at the expense of the Executive Branch. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and concluded that the Act does not unconstitutionally encroach upon the powers of the Executive Branch. The court held that the Act is not unconstitutional in every conceivable application, emphasizing the flexible nature of the separation of powers doctrine in New York. The court noted that the Governor does not have exclusive powers of appointment and removal under the state constitution and that the Act's structure is consistent with the state's constitutional tradition. The court also found that the Act addresses a paramount state interest in maintaining public trust in government by ensuring impartial enforcement of ethics laws. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, with costs, and declared the Act constitutional. View "Cuomo v New York State Commn. on Ethics & Lobbying in Govt." on Justia Law

Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc., an adult home licensed by the New York State Department of Health (DOH), challenged regulations that limit the admission of residents with serious mental illness if the facility has a capacity of 80 or more beds and its resident population is over 25% persons with serious mental illness. Oceanview claimed these regulations violated the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA), which protect persons with disabilities from discrimination.The Supreme Court held that the regulations violated the Fair Housing Act, applying a standard that allows discrimination if it is narrowly tailored to benefit the protected class. The court concluded that the regulations were not narrowly tailored and that alternative approaches were available. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the regulations were adopted to implement the integration mandate from the Olmstead decision and were narrowly tailored to benefit persons with serious mental illness. The Appellate Division upheld the regulations, finding them necessary for the recovery of people with serious mental illness.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the regulations do not "deny" or "make unavailable" housing on the basis of disability under the FHAA. The court found that the regulations reflect a professional judgment about the appropriate settings for persons with serious mental illness and further the goal of ending unnecessary exclusion of persons with disabilities. The court also noted that the regulations are consistent with other disability services that are subject to conditions and limitations based on medical judgment. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs. View "Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two long-time friends and business associates, where the plaintiff invested $3 million in Digipac LLC, controlled by the defendant, based on an oral agreement. The agreement promised the plaintiff an exit opportunity from the investment either if Remark Holdings, Inc.'s share price hit $50 or after five years based on the value of Digipac's Remark holdings. The plaintiff made the investment in two installments in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, the defendant unilaterally amended the LLC agreement, which included a merger clause stating that it superseded all prior agreements.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, seeking $11.6 million. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the oral agreement was superseded by the amended LLC agreement. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding the oral agreement unenforceable and the promissory estoppel claim unreasonable. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was bound by the amended LLC agreement and its merger clause, which nullified the oral agreement. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, noting that it was duplicative of the breach of contract claim.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the amended LLC agreement, governed by Delaware law, unambiguously nullified the prior oral agreement through its merger clause. The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the defendant acted in a personal capacity and that the agreements involved different subject matters. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, as the amended LLC agreement governed the promise at issue. The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing LLC agreements and protecting contractual rights in closely held LLCs. View "Behler v Kai-Shing Tao" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Hobish Irrevocable Trust purchased a universal life insurance policy from AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company to insure Toby Hobish. The policy provided a $2 million death benefit and allowed flexible premium payments into a Policy Account, from which monthly cost of insurance (COI) charges were deducted. In 2015, AXA announced an increase in COI charges for certain policies, including the Trust's, leading to a significant rise in the monthly COI charge. The Trust surrendered the policy in 2016, receiving the remaining account balance minus a surrender fee.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court, alleging breach of contract and violation of General Business Law § 349. They claimed the COI rate increase was not equitable to all policyholders of a given class and that AXA had misled elderly consumers about the likelihood of such increases. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on liability, finding the term "a given class" ambiguous and requiring further examination of extrinsic evidence. The court also dismissed several of plaintiffs' damages theories, including claims for the full value of the death benefit and restitutionary damages.The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's rulings, agreeing that the term "a given class" was ambiguous and that the extrinsic evidence did not resolve this ambiguity. The court also upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' damages claims, including compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, and limited punitive damages under General Business Law § 349 to three times the actual damages.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, agreeing that the term "a given class" was ambiguous and that the extrinsic evidence did not resolve this ambiguity. The court also upheld the dismissal of plaintiffs' damages claims and confirmed that punitive damages under General Business Law § 349 are limited to the statutory treble damages. View "Hobish v AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

While incarcerated for manslaughter, the defendant engaged in a fight with another inmate, resulting in the defendant cutting his finger and the opponent sustaining a face wound. Correction officers found a bloody, sharpened porcelain shard near the defendant. The defendant was convicted of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and sentenced as a second felony offender to 3½ to 7 years in prison.The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting the defendant's challenge to the severity of his sentence. The court stated that there were no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the Appellate Division applied an erroneous standard by requiring extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion for a sentence reduction. The Court of Appeals clarified that the intermediate appellate courts have broad, plenary power to reduce a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe without deference to the sentencing court. The Court of Appeals reversed the order and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for consideration of the defendant's excessive sentence claim under the proper standard. View "People v Brisman" on Justia Law

Edward Mero was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of tampering with physical evidence. The first murder involved his roommate, who was found dead in their apartment after a fire in 2013. The second murder involved a woman he hired for a date in December 2014, whose body was found in a shallow grave in May 2015. Mero was arrested in 2017 and charged with both murders and related tampering charges.The trial court joined the charges in a single indictment and denied Mero's motion to sever them, reasoning that the distinct evidence for each murder would allow the jury to consider each charge separately. During the trial, a juror was dismissed after overhearing derogatory comments made by defense counsel. Mero later moved to vacate his convictions, arguing that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest due to an undisclosed business relationship with an Assistant District Attorney (ADA). The trial court denied the motion, finding that the potential conflict did not affect the defense.The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decisions, including the denial of the severance motion and the motion to vacate. The court found that the evidence for each murder was distinct enough for the jury to consider separately and that the potential conflict of interest did not impact the defense. Two Justices dissented, arguing that the proof for the second murder was significantly stronger and that the jury would likely be prejudiced by the joinder.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sever, as the jury was capable of considering the evidence for each charge separately. The court also found that the potential conflict of interest did not operate on the defense, and Mero's other claims were either without merit or unreviewable. View "People v Mero" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3) after being stopped by state troopers for crossing the fog line three times within a short distance. The defendant argued that the stop was unlawful and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. During the suppression hearing, the troopers testified that they observed the defendant's vehicle crossing the fog line multiple times, and upon stopping him, noted signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, and bloodshot eyes. The defendant failed several sobriety tests and admitted to drinking.The suppression court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, finding that the troopers had probable cause to stop the vehicle based on the observed traffic violation. At the bench trial, the troopers' testimonies were consistent with their earlier statements, and the court admitted the police report of the defendant's refusal to take a chemical test. The court found the defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated and sentenced him accordingly.The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, concluding that the troopers had probable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle for violating VTL § 1128 (a) by crossing the fog line multiple times. The majority rejected the defendant's claims, while the dissenting justices argued that there was no evidence of unsafe driving. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the troopers had probable cause for the stop and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction. The court also found that the weight of the evidence claim was unreviewable. View "People v Rufus" on Justia Law

A property owner sought to deregulate certain Manhattan apartments under the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) issued deregulation orders for these apartments, but the leases did not expire until after the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) repealed luxury deregulation. The property owner argued that the apartments should still be deregulated despite the repeal.The Supreme Court dismissed the property owner's proceeding, holding that DHCR's interpretation of the HSTPA was reasonable. The court found that the apartments did not become deregulated because their leases had not expired before the HSTPA took effect. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, agreeing that DHCR's interpretation was correct and that there was no improper delay by DHCR in processing the deregulation applications.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that DHCR properly interpreted the HSTPA as eliminating luxury deregulation for apartments whose leases expired after the statute's effective date. The court found that the statutory language and legislative intent supported DHCR's interpretation. Additionally, the court rejected the property owner's argument that DHCR caused undue delay in processing the deregulation applications, finding no evidence of negligence or willfulness by DHCR. The court concluded that the apartments remained subject to rent stabilization under the HSTPA. View "Matter of 160 E. 84th St. Assoc. LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal" on Justia Law