Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a parolee, Eugene L. Lively, who was searched by parole officers during a home visit in February 2021. The officers were looking for a parole absconder they believed might be at Lively's residence. During the search, an officer found a small case used for headphones in Lively's pocket, which contained heroin. Lively was subsequently charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.Lively moved to suppress the physical evidence obtained from him. The suppression court denied his motion, ruling that the search was lawful as the parole officers were performing their duties. Lively was convicted of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance after a bench trial. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment in a split decision. The majority held that the search was substantially related to the parole officers' duties. Two dissenting justices argued that the search was unlawful as there was no evidence that it was related to Lively's status as a parolee or that he had violated his parole conditions.The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the People failed to establish at the suppression hearing that the search of Lively's pocket was substantially related to the parole officers' duties. The court found that the People did not provide evidence that Lively was aware of the absconder's parole status, that he was harboring an absconder, or that he was violating his parole conditions. The court concluded that the search of Lively's pocket was not substantially related to the parole officers' duties under the circumstances, and thus, the evidence obtained should have been suppressed. The court ordered the reversal of the Appellate Division's order and the dismissal of the indictment. View "People v Lively" on Justia Law

In May 2017, police officers stopped a vehicle driven by the defendant, Jason Brown. The officers claimed they stopped the vehicle because they observed the passenger side door open and close quickly while the car was in motion, leading them to believe someone inside might need assistance. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officers smelled marijuana and subsequently discovered ecstasy in the defendant's possession. The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.The defendant moved to suppress his statement and the physical evidence recovered, arguing that the stop was unlawful. The suppression court disagreed, concluding that the officers' concern for the safety of the passenger justified the stop, despite the absence of a traffic infraction or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Appellate Term affirmed the judgment, holding that the stop was justified based on considerations of public safety.The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court recognized a "community caretaking" function, which allows police to stop a moving vehicle under certain circumstances. However, the court held that the police may only stop a vehicle under this function if they can point to specific, objective, and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that an occupant of the vehicle is in need of assistance, and the police intrusion must be narrowly tailored to address the perceived need for assistance. In this case, the court found that the officers' observation of the car door opening and closing once while the vehicle was in motion did not meet this standard. Therefore, the stop of the defendant's vehicle was unlawful, and the order of the Appellate Term was reversed. View "People v Brown" on Justia Law

The case involves the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other entities, who provide medical insurance plans to their employees. They challenged a regulation by the Department of Financial Services, which requires New York employer health insurance policies that provide hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage to include coverage for medically necessary abortion services. The plaintiffs argued that the exemption for "religious employers" was too narrow, violating the First Amendment rights of certain types of religiously affiliated employers who do not meet the terms of the exemption.The case began in 2016, raising a federal Free Exercise Claim that was similar to a previous case, Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v Serio. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints based on the principle of stare decisis, and the Appellate Division affirmed on the same ground. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which remanded the case to the Appellate Division to reconsider in light of a recent decision, Fulton v Philadelphia.On remand, the Appellate Division held that Serio was still good law and affirmed its previous decision that neither the medically necessary abortion regulation nor the "religious employer" exemption as defined violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that under Fulton, both the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a "religious employer" for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The court concluded that the "religious employer" exemption survives the general applicability tests delineated in Fulton, and therefore, the Appellate Division order should be affirmed. View "Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo" on Justia Law

The defendant, Samual Nektalov, was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by NYPD Detective Gregory Fortunato due to "excessively tinted windows." Upon approaching the vehicle, the detective observed marijuana in plain view and subsequently arrested and searched Nektalov, finding two bags of cocaine. Nektalov moved to suppress the drugs, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to stop the vehicle based on a traffic violation.The Criminal Court denied Nektalov's motion to suppress the drugs, ruling that the vehicle was properly stopped due to a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law for having excessively tinted windows. Nektalov pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. The Appellate Term affirmed the decision, with one Justice dissenting, holding that the detective's testimony sufficiently established probable cause to lawfully stop the vehicle due to an apparent violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.The Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court noted that the Vehicle and Traffic Law generally prohibits operating a vehicle with windows that have a light transmittance of less than 70%. The court found that the detective's testimony that the windows were "excessively tinted" was effectively a legal conclusion that the tint violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law. However, the prosecution failed to elicit any factual basis for this conclusion. The detective did not testify that the windows were so dark that he could not see into the vehicle, that he had training and experience in identifying illegally tinted windows, or that he measured the tint after stopping the vehicle and the results confirmed that the tint level violated the law. As a result, the court concluded that the Criminal Court should have granted Nektalov's motion to suppress. The court reversed the order of the Appellate Term and dismissed the accusatory instrument. View "People v Nektalov" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on June 30, 2017, when Henry Bello, a former employee of Bronx-Lebanon Hospital (BLH), entered the hospital armed with a rifle and opened fire, killing one doctor and wounding five members of the medical staff, including Justin Timperio, a first-year resident. Bello and Timperio were strangers prior to the shooting; they never worked at BLH at the same time and had no other prior contact. Following the incident, BLH notified the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) of Timperio's injuries. Timperio also filed a negligence action in federal court against BLH and the store that sold Bello the rifle.The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that Timperio's injuries were compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law (WCL). Timperio appealed to the WCB, which affirmed the decision. However, the Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that the lack of record evidence establishing any employment-related animus was sufficient to rebut the presumption in WCL § 21 (1) and concluded that the claim was therefore not compensable.The New York Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division. The court clarified the operation of the rebuttable presumption set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1), which provides that when an injury arises in the course of a worker's employment, it is presumed to arise out of that worker's employment and therefore is compensable, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The court held that in cases involving assaults that occur at work, a lack of evidence as to the motivation for the assault does not rebut that presumption. The court concluded that the presumption applied and was unrebutted in this case, and the Appellate Division's contrary conclusion was error. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was reinstated. View "In re Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hospital" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant, Cid Franklin, who was arrested following a road rage incident that involved a firearm. The police searched the basement of Franklin's home, which he shared with his son and stepmother, and found a gun in a closet containing items belonging to both Franklin and his stepmother. Franklin was interviewed by an employee of the Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) while in Queens central booking prior to arraignment. The CJA employee recorded Franklin's address as the basement of his home. This information was central to the prosecution's case at trial, as no DNA or fingerprints were discernable on the gun, and no other direct proof was provided that Franklin lived in the basement.The trial court admitted the CJA form as either "a public document" or "a business record," rejecting the defense's objections that it was hearsay and violated Franklin's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Franklin was convicted of one count of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that the introduction of the report violated Franklin's Confrontation Clause rights.The Court of Appeals of New York, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that the primary purpose of the CJA interview report was administrative, not to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony, and thus it was not testimonial. The court noted that the CJA report was introduced as a business or public record, and the pedigree information collected, including the defendant's address, was pertinent to establishing community ties; it was only incidentally relevant in this case. Therefore, the introduction of the CJA interview report did not violate the defendant's right of confrontation. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court. View "People v Franklin" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at New York University (NYU), experienced offensive and demeaning conduct from her colleagues, including unsolicited offensive mail and online impersonation. She reported these incidents to NYU, which conducted investigations and took measures to limit the impact on her. However, dissatisfied with NYU's response, she filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against NYU and certain administrators, as well as the individuals she claimed were responsible for the conduct against her. The lawsuit alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The federal court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that NYU responded negligently or that her termination was a pretext for discrimination. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL), dismissing those claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed.While her appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a nearly identical suit in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging violations of the State and City HRLs, renewing her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, adding another NYU administrator as a defendant, and asserting a new protected category of disability. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as barred by collateral estoppel and for failing to state a claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and the plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on the findings of the federal district court. The court also held that the individual defendants, who were the plaintiff's co-workers rather than her supervisors, could not be held liable under the City HRL. The court noted that while the City HRL provides for individual liability, it does so only for those who have a role in administering the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment. View "Russell v New York Univ." on Justia Law

The defendant, Melvin Baez, was convicted of possessing a quantity of cocaine after a nonjury trial. The conviction was based on evidence obtained during a traffic stop when NYPD officers observed Baez using his cell phone while driving. Upon stopping Baez, the officers noticed his bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of marijuana in his car. During a search, a clear plastic bag containing a white substance fell from Baez's jacket pocket. The bag was retrieved, placed in a latex glove for safekeeping, and later stored in a narcotics envelope at the police station.The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the cocaine was inadmissible because the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of custody and there were no reasonable assurances that the substance examined at trial was authentic. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion and found him guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the decision, holding that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the chain of custody of the cocaine and provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the prosecution had laid a legally sufficient foundation for the admission of the drugs into evidence. The court noted that the prosecution had established a legally adequate chain of custody and provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence. The court also noted that the discrepancies in the record regarding the condition, appearance, or handling of the cocaine were not significant enough to render the drugs inadmissible. The court concluded that the evidence was properly admitted and the defendant's conviction was upheld. View "People v Baez" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of convicted sex offenders who were confined in the Fishkill Residential Treatment Facility (RTF) while on post-release supervision (PRS). The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) used the Fishkill RTF to confine these offenders past their maximum sentence expiration dates because they were unable to find housing that complied with the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA). The plaintiffs initiated a proceeding in 2016, seeking injunctions, declaratory relief, and class certification, arguing that DOCCS's operation of the Fishkill RTF failed to comply with the statutes governing RTFs because it did not offer adequate programming or employment opportunities.The Supreme Court dismissed part of the proceeding and converted the remaining into an action seeking a declaration that DOCCS's operation of the Fishkill RTF was non-compliant with the statutes governing RTFs. The court denied class certification, reasoning that the converted declaratory judgment action would adequately protect the interests of similarly situated offenders. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment and a declaration in their favor. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion in part, concluding that the internal programming was minimally adequate to satisfy DOCCS's statutory obligations. However, the court agreed with plaintiffs that DOCCS failed to provide adequate community-based opportunities.The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reversing the part that granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and granted defendants' motion in its entirety. The Court concluded that while the statute requires DOCCS to locate RTFs near a community with employment, training, and educational opportunities, there was no mandate that DOCCS offer such opportunities outside the facility.The Court of Appeals held that DOCCS's wholesale refusal to secure community-based opportunities for Fishkill RTF residents constitutes a violation of the statute. The Court concluded that DOCCS, at a minimum, must undertake reasonable efforts to secure community-based opportunities for those persons subject to its RTF programming. However, the Court agreed with the Appellate Division that the internal programming at the Fishkill RTF was at least minimally adequate. View "Alcantara v Annucci" on Justia Law

A real estate developer, Audthan LLC, and property owner, Nick & Duke, LLC (N & D), entered into a 40-year lease agreement in 2013 to replace a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) hotel with a mixed-use residential and commercial building. The agreement required approval from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) due to a previous harassment finding against the property. The lease required Audthan to obtain a "cure" agreement from HPD and develop low-income housing on the site. However, disagreements arose over the terms of the cure agreement and the parties disputed who was at fault for the termination of the ground lease.The Supreme Court dismissed parts of Audthan's complaint, including a claim for anticipatory repudiation based on N & D's refusal to sign any cure agreement, and rejected N & D's motion to dismiss the remaining portions of the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that Audthan could not seek separate redress for anticipatory repudiation based on the same conduct that allegedly breached the contract in 2015.The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed with the lower courts' dismissal of Audthan's claim for anticipatory repudiation. The court held that a claim for breach and a claim for anticipatory repudiation could both be stated based on the facts at the pleading stage. The court found that N & D's refusal to sign the 2015 cure agreement could be seen as falling short of its contractual requirements without amounting to a total breach. However, N & D's 2021 statement that it would never sign any agreement could be seen as a clear and unequivocal statement that N & D would never perform its obligations, constituting a repudiation of the contract. The court modified the Appellate Division's order by denying N & D's motion to dismiss in part, affirmed the order as modified, and answered the certified question in the negative. View "Audthan LLC v Nick & Duke, LLC" on Justia Law