Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff claimed that, while he was being held at the Erie County Correctional Facility, he was sexually assaulted twice by an inmate. Plaintiff filed this action alleging that the Erie County Sheriff breached a duty to protect him from a reasonably foreseeable hazard of sexual assault. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that (1) no notice of claim was served pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 50-e because Erie County was statutorily obligated to indemnify Defendant, and (2) the allegedly negligent acts were “inherently discretionary,” and Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant owed him a duty of care in the first instance. The Appellate Division modified, concluding (1) Plaintiff was not required to serve a notice of claim prior to commencing this action because the County had no statutory obligation to indemnify the Sheriff, and (2) the Sheriff had a duty to safely keep prisoners in the county jail, and Defendant’s argument that he was entitled to governmental immunity could not be determined at the pleading stage. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Appellate Division correctly ruled that service of a notice of claim was not required under N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law 50-e; and (2) the complaint was otherwise sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. View "Villar v. Howard" on Justia Law

A hearing officer found Petitioner, a prison inmate, guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules and imposed penalty of twelve months’ punitive confinement in a special housing unit. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision affirmed. Petitioner commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the lower courts erred in dismissing Petitioner’s article 78 petition because a violation of Petitioner’s right to call witnesses occurred at the administrative hearing where the hearing officer failed to undertake a meaningful inquiry into a requested witness’s allegation that the witness had been coerced into refusing to testify. View "Cortorreal v. Annucci" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, attempted murder in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed the part of the judgment convicting Defendant of attempted murder in the second degree, dismissed one burglary count, revised the sentences, and otherwise affirmed, concluding that County Court did not err in determining that Defendant’s statements he made to the police during a brief exchange after he refused to waive his Miranda rights were voluntary and thus admissible for impeachment purposes. Defendant appealed, arguing that the Court of Appeals should adopt a bright-line rule that would preclude the People from utilizing on cross-examination or rebuttal any statement made by the defendant to the police after the defendant refuses to waive his Miranda rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed after declining Defendant’s invitation to adopt such a rule, holding that County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to preclude the People from utilizing the statements Defendant made to police after he had invoked his Miranda rights on cross-examination or rebuttal. View "People v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Three Amigos SJL Restaurant Inc., a strip club, brought a defamation action against CBS Broadcasting Inc. and several of its reporters for broadcasting and publishing allegedly false stories about the club’s connection to the mafia. Independent entities that provided management and talent services to the club and employees of those entities were also plaintiffs in the action. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims by the independent entities and their employees pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(1) and (7) on the grounds that the news reports were not “of and concerning” them. Supreme Court granted Defendants’ motion with respect to those plaintiffs. The Appellate Division affirmed. The individual plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of defamation because the challenged statements were not of and concerning them. View "Three Amigos SJL Restaurant, Inc. v CBS News Inc." on Justia Law

Almost nine months after Defendant’s indictment, the People began a DNA analysis of an object three of their witnesses claimed Defendant possessed. Defendant later moved to dismiss the indictment under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) 30.30, arguing that a period in excess of six months had elapsed in violation of Defendant’s right to a speedy trial and that the period of delay attributable to the DNA testing was without justification. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that a relevant portion of the period at issue was excludable under CPL 30.30(4)(g). Thereafter, Defendant was convicted of, among other crimes, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed, granted Defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion, and dismissed the indictment, concluding that the period of delay between when Defendant consented to the DNA swab and when the People produced the DNA results was chargeable to the People for failing to exercise due diligence in obtaining Defendant’s DNA sample. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 161-day period of delay to test the DNA and to produce the DNA report was not excludable from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance. View "People v. Clarke" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree. Defendant filed a pre-trial motion under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion after excluding the periods of delay for the DNA testing process as exceptional circumstances under CPL 30.30(4)(g). Defendant appealed, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because because counsel’s motion to dismiss the indictment on CPL 30.30 grounds failed to argue that the People should be charged for certain periods of delay due to the testing of the DNA evidence in successive stages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant’s assumptions as to the protocols for successive DNA testing were beyond review on this appeal. View "People v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct sustained six charges of misconduct against Petitioner and recommended that he be removed from his judicial offices. Petitioner sought review, conceding his misconduct but challenging the Commission’s recommendation that he be removed. Petitioner specifically argued that the Court of Appeals direct that he be censured and restored to his judicial offices. The Court of Appeals rejected Petitioner’s contention and accepted the determined sanction of removal, holding that Petitioner’s conduct was “truly egregious” and could not be viewed as acceptable conduct by one holding judicial office. View "In re Simon" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) 30.30, alleging that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. Supreme Court denied Defendant’s motion without holding a hearing. The Appellate Division remitted to Supreme Court for a hearing on the motion. Supreme Court thereafter conducted a hearing on Defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion and concluded that the People exceeded their six-month speedy trial period. The Appellate Division agreed and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. On appeal, the People contended that the Appellate Division erred in finding that Defendant’s claim was properly preserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals affirmed, as Defendant adequately preserved his challenges to the People’s claimed exclusions, and the merits of Defendant’s motion were not challenged on appeal. View "People v. Allard" on Justia Law

At issue before the Court of Appeals in these two consolidated cases was the continued validity of the rule promulgated in Alison D. v. Virginia M., which states that, in an unmarried couple, a partner without a biological or adoptive relation to a child is not that child’s parent for purposes of standing to seek visitation or custody under N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law 70(a), despite their “established relationship with the child.” The Court of Appeals overruled Alison D., holding that, where a non-biologiccal, non-adoptive partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has agreed with the biological parent or the child to conceive a child and to raise the child as co-parents, the partner has standing to seek visitation and custody under section 70. View "Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C." on Justia Law

Steven Glickman, a candidate for the office of New York State Senator, filed a petition seeking an order validating designating petitions naming him as a candidate in the September 13, 2016 Primary Election. Three objectors filed a petition seeking an order invalidating the designating petitions. Supreme Court invalidated the petitions, concluding that Glickman did not meet New York’s five-year constitutional residency requirement as a matter of law. The Appellate Division reversed and validated the petitions. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Glickman could not claim New York residency for the past five years as required by the New York Constitution, and therefore, Supreme Court properly invalidated the designating petitions on that basis. View "Glickman v. Laffin" on Justia Law