Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Excess Line Association of New York (ELANY), a legislatively created advisory association under the supervision of the Department of Financial Services (DFS), does not have capacity to sue its members to recover fees that it is statutorily authorized to receive and does not have capacity to sue to compel an accounting to determine amounts allegedly owed.ELANY commenced this action against Defendants - a third-generation, family-owned and operated insurance brokerage firm and consortium - seeking, inter alia, to recover stamping fees for excess line policies allegedly procured from 1989 through 2011 and to enforce its purported right to conduct an examination and accounting pursuant to the Insurance Law. Supreme Court dismissed the action, determining that ELANY lacked capacity to sue. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the courts below correctly concluded that ELANY does not have capacity to sue for the relief sought. View "Excess Line Ass’n of New York v. Waldorf & Associates" on Justia Law

The trial court’s introduction of DNA evidence through the testimony of a witness who had not performed, witness or supervised the generation of DNA profiles to prove an essential fact for a finding of guilt violated Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.Defendant was charged with three burglaries and several related offenses in connection with two separate incidents in June 2009 and September 2009. During trial, a criminalist was permitted to testify, over Defendant’s hearsay objections, and without having conducted, witnessed or supervised the generation of the DNA profiles, that the DNA profile generated from Defendant’s buccal swab was a match to the DNA profile generated from evidence found at the crime scenes. The jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree relating to the June 2009 burglaries and acquitted Defendant of the counts relating to the September 2009 burglary. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the introduction of the hearsay DNA evidence through surrogate testimony to prove that Defendant was the perpetrator of the burglaries at issue violated Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. View "People v. Austin" on Justia Law

Under the circumstances of this case, the mere commencement of an action seeking “rescission and/or reformation” of a contract does not constitute an anticipatory breach of such agreement.Plaintiff agreed to purchase certain property from Defendants. The contract was subsequently amended. Plaintiff later commenced this action seeking specific performance absent the amendments on the ground that the amendments were executed based on Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations. Defendants asserted various counterclaims. Plaintiffs’ causes of action were eventually dismissed. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on their counterclaims, concluding that the contract had “expired by its terms” and that Plaintiff” materially breached the contract.” The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that a rescission action unequivocally evinces a plaintiff’s intent to disavow its contractual obligations, and therefore, the commencement of such an action before the date of performance constitutes an anticipatory breach. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the commencement of this action did not reflect a repudiation of the contract. View "Princes Point LLC v. Muss Development LLC" on Justia Law

Certain records compiled by Respondent, New York State Education Department, relating to municipalities’ plans for auditing special education preschool provider costs, as redacted, are exempt from disclosure under N.Y. Pub. Off. Law 87(2)(e)(i).Petitioner submitted a request to Respondent pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law seeking disclosure of documents relating to municipalities’ plans for auditing special education preschool provider costs. The Department initially denied the request but, after Petitioner commenced this proceeding directing the Department to provide her with the records sought, eventually released fifty-five pages. Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition to the limited extent of requiring the Department to disclose two previously redacted pages, upheld the remainder of the redactions, and otherwise dismissed the proceeding, concluding that the majority of the Department’s redactions were appropriate under section 87(2)(e). The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) the redactions at issue fit within the exemption permitting an agency to deny access to records compiled for law enforcement purposes where their disclosure would interfere with an investigation; and (2) the Appellate Division erred in denying Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees. View "Madeiros v. New York State Education Department" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division, granted the petition of the City of Schenecatdy, and annulled the determination of the New York State Public Employment Relations Board, which determined that the City committed an improper employer practice by enacting General Order 0-43. The general order adopted new police disciplinary procedures that differed from those contained in the parties’ expired collective bargaining agreement. Supreme Court dismissed the City’s petition, concluding that N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 14 (the Taylor Law) superseded the provisions of the Second Class Cities Law regarding police discipline. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower courts, holding that the relevant provisions of the Second Class Cities Law were not superseded by the enactment of the Taylor Law, and therefore, police discipline is a prohibited subject of bargaining in the City of Schenectady. View "City of Schenectady v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals sustained the findings of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding Petitioner, a non-lawyer Justice of the Conklin Town Court, Broome County, sustaining charges of misconduct and accepted the determined sanction of removal from the office of justice of the town court.The Commission issued a formal written complaint containing two charges. The Commission ultimately concluded that Petitioner’s actions violated the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and removed Petitioner from office. Petitioner commenced this proceeding to review the Commission’s determination. The Court of Appeals accepted the determined sanction of removal, without costs, and ordered that Petitioner be removed from office. View "In re Ayres" on Justia Law

Sections 8-102(16)(c) and 8-107(1)(a) of the New York City Administrative Code preclude a plaintiff from bringing a disability discrimination claim based solely on a perception of untreated alcoholism.Plaintiffs, officers with the New York City Police Department, were referred to the internal counseling services unit of that police force (CSU) for assistance with their purported alcohol abuse. The CSU determined that each plaintiff suffered from alcoholism. The parties now agree that Plaintiffs were not actually alcoholics. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendants discriminated against them by subjecting them to adverse employment actions based on the mistakenly perceived disability of alcoholism. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Defendants appealed. In answer to a question certified to it by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals held that the Administrative Code does not consider a mistaken perception of alcoholism to be a disability covered by the NYCHRL. View "Makinen v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that an individual has a fundamental constitutional right to aid-in-dying as defined by Plaintiffs and also rejected Plaintiffs’ assertion that the State’s prohibition on assisted suicide is not rationally related to legitimate state interests.Plaintiffs filed this action requesting declaratory and injunctive relief to permit “aid-in-dying,” which would allow a mentally competent, terminally ill patient to obtain a prescription from a physician to cause death. The Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action and did not present a justiciable controversy. Supreme Court granted the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed as modified, declaring that the assisted suicide statutes provide a valid statutory basis to prosecute physicians who provide aid-in-dying and that the statutes do not violate the New York Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the State Constitution’s Due Process Clause does not encompass a fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide; and (2) the State’s prohibition is rationally related to a number of legitimate state interests, and heightened scrutiny is unwarranted. View "Myers v. Schneiderman" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of New York’s discretionary persistent felony offender sentencing scheme, holding that, in light of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. __ (2013), this sentencing scheme does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), nor does it violate Defendant’s due process and Sixth Amendment rights.Defendant argued New York’s persistent felony offender statute, N.Y. Penal Law 70.10(1)(a), increased the sentencing floor for persistent felony offenders. The Court of Appeals held that even if Defendant was correct in his characterization, the increase to the sentencing floor would not be the result of impermissible judicial fact-finding. The court further held that the statute falls squarely within the exception afforded by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), because it exposes defendants to an enhanced sentencing range based only on the existence of two prior felony convictions. View "People v. Prindle" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division affirming Surrogate’s Court’s grant of summary judgment to Petitioners, holding that Petitioners’ claim against the decedent’s estate seeking to enforce an oral promise was barred by the statute of frauds.Surrogate’s Court concluded that promissory estoppel should be applied to Petitioners’ claim to remedy a potential injustice. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the elements of promissory estoppel were met and that application of the statute of frauds would be unconscionable under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Petitioners could not invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel because application of the statute of frauds would not inflict an unconscionable injury upon Petitioners. View "In re Hennel" on Justia Law