Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

On February 9, 2017, a bus owned and operated by New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) allegedly struck and injured Jeffrey Colt in Manhattan. Colt and his wife, Betsy Tsai, filed a lawsuit on September 18, 2017, claiming negligence, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium. NJT and its employee, Ana Hernandez, who was driving the bus, denied many of the allegations and asserted various defenses, including a lack of jurisdiction and immunity from suit. In 2020, NJT moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was protected by sovereign immunity as an arm of the State of New Jersey.The Supreme Court of New York County denied NJT's motion, ruling that NJT had waived its right to assert sovereign immunity by waiting three years to raise the defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision but on different grounds, concluding that NJT was an arm of the State of New Jersey and entitled to sovereign immunity. However, it held that dismissing the case would be unjust since the plaintiffs could not sue in New Jersey due to venue rules.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division's order but on different grounds. The Court of Appeals held that NJT is not entitled to invoke sovereign immunity in New York courts. The court considered factors such as how New Jersey defines NJT and its functions, the state's power to direct NJT's conduct, and the effect of a judgment against NJT on the state's dignity. The court concluded that allowing the suit to proceed would not offend New Jersey's sovereign dignity because NJT operates with significant independence and New Jersey would not be liable for a judgment against NJT. Therefore, NJT and the other defendants could not claim sovereign immunity. View "Colt v. New Jersey Tr. Corp." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, the decedent's son and Administrator of her estate, filed a negligence, medical malpractice, and wrongful death lawsuit in the Supreme Court, New York County, against Dewitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center and other defendants. The decedent was a resident at Dewitt in February and March 2019. Dewitt moved to transfer the venue to Nassau County based on a forum selection clause in two electronically signed admission agreements. Dewitt supported its motion with the agreements and an affidavit from its director of admissions, Francesca Trimarchi. The plaintiff contested the authenticity of the agreements, claiming the signatures were forged and provided an exemplar of the decedent's handwritten signature for comparison.The Supreme Court granted Dewitt's motion, finding that Dewitt met its initial burden to show the forum selection clause was applicable and enforceable, and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the alleged forgery. The case was ordered to be transferred to Supreme Court, Nassau County. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Dewitt failed to adequately authenticate the admission agreements as Trimarchi did not witness the signing, and thus the forum selection clause was unenforceable. The dissent argued that the burden should be on the plaintiff to prove the clause should not be enforced.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division's decision, reinstating the Supreme Court's order. The court held that Dewitt met its burden of establishing the authenticity of the agreements through circumstantial evidence, including Trimarchi's affidavit and the agreements themselves. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the authenticity of the signatures. The court also clarified that CPLR 4539(b) was inapplicable as the documents were originally created in electronic form. The certified question was answered in the negative. View "Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp." on Justia Law

In July 2020, the plaintiff used Uber's app to request a ride. Upon being dropped off in the middle of a roadway, she was struck by another vehicle and sustained injuries. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against Uber in November 2020, serving the complaint via the New York Secretary of State. Uber did not respond within the required 30 days, allegedly due to mail processing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.In January 2021, Uber updated its terms of use, including an arbitration agreement, and notified users via email. The plaintiff received and opened this email. When she next logged into the Uber app, she was presented with a pop-up screen requiring her to agree to the updated terms to continue using the service. She checked a box and clicked "Confirm," thereby agreeing to the terms, which included a clause delegating the authority to resolve disputes about the agreement's applicability and enforceability to an arbitrator.The plaintiff moved for a default judgment in March 2021, and Uber responded by asserting that she had agreed to arbitrate her claims. Uber then sent a Notice of Intent to Arbitrate. The plaintiff moved to stay Uber's arbitration demand, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and violated ethical rules. Uber cross-moved to compel arbitration.The Supreme Court granted Uber's motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff was on inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement and had assented to it. The Appellate Division affirmed, stating that the plaintiff's challenges to the agreement's validity must be decided by an arbitrator due to the delegation provision.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the clickwrap process used by Uber resulted in a valid agreement to arbitrate. The court also held that the delegation provision was valid and that the plaintiff's challenges to the arbitration agreement's enforceability should be resolved by an arbitrator. The court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's decision not to sanction Uber for the alleged ethical violation. View "Wu v. Uber Tech., Inc." on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon after police recovered a handgun from him following a report of shots fired. Before being read his Miranda rights, the defendant made an incriminating statement to the police. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress both the handgun and his statement. Subsequently, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, and the defendant accepted a plea deal. During the plea colloquy, the defendant, representing himself, expressed his desire to appeal the suppression ruling. The court accepted the plea and imposed the agreed-upon sentence. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, agreed that the defendant's statement should have been suppressed but deemed the error harmless, concluding that the gun's admissibility at trial meant there was no reasonable possibility the error influenced the defendant's decision to plead guilty.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that the erroneous suppression ruling could have contributed to the defendant's decision to plead guilty. The court emphasized that harmless error analysis in the context of guilty pleas is challenging and requires evaluating whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error influenced the plea decision. The court found the record ambiguous regarding the defendant's motivation for pleading guilty and noted the defendant's concern about appealing the suppression ruling. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, vacated the defendant's guilty plea, and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment. View "People v Robles" on Justia Law

The case involves a shooting that occurred during a dispute over a drug transaction at a barbershop in the Bronx. The barbershop owner and the victim had several confrontations, including a fistfight and threats from the victim. The victim returned to the shop, and the owner called the defendant, a friend. When the defendant arrived, the victim confronted him with a razor blade, and the defendant shot and killed the victim. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and second-degree criminal weapon possession. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on the defense of justification.During the trial, the court heard testimony from an eyewitness and the medical examiner. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a justification charge, concluding it was not appropriate based on the evidence. The jury convicted the defendant on both counts. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the defendant was not justified in firing additional shots into the victim's back after stepping back and not being cut by the victim.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in not providing a justification instruction for the second-degree murder charge. The court found that there was a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant was justified in his actions, given the rapid unfolding of events and the imminent threat posed by the victim. The court also noted that the failure to provide the justification instruction could have affected the jury's verdict on the possession count, as the jury might have concluded that the defendant lacked the intent to use the weapon unlawfully if they found the shooting justified. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and ordered a new trial. View "People v. Castillo" on Justia Law

Jorge Baque's five-month-old daughter was found unresponsive in her crib on July 30, 2016, and was later declared dead. An autopsy revealed injuries consistent with abusive head trauma and violent shaking. Baque was charged with manslaughter in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. At trial, the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence, including testimony that Baque was the last person with the victim and that the injuries would have caused death within minutes. The jury was instructed on circumstantial evidence and convicted Baque of criminally negligent homicide and endangering the welfare of a child.Baque appealed, arguing that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the conviction, referencing weight of the evidence precedent and concluding that the jury's inference of guilt was reasonable. A Judge of the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether the Appellate Division properly conducted a weight of the evidence review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, noting that the lower court had applied the correct legal principles. The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the jury must ensure that the inference of guilt is the only reasonable conclusion and that all other hypotheses of innocence are excluded beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found no basis for reversal, as the Appellate Division had appropriately considered the circumstantial evidence and the jury's inferences. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v. Baque" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to sell and possession of cocaine after police recovered drugs and paraphernalia during a search of an apartment where he and others were arrested. Defense counsel sought to suppress the seized items, arguing the warrant was inaccurate and unreliable but did not claim the warrant was executed without notice, violating CPL 690.50 (1). Defendant argued on appeal that this omission constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the case and rejected the ineffective assistance claim, noting that the record did not conclusively show a knock-and-announce violation. The court found that the defendant's argument was speculative and unsupported by the record, which was silent on whether the officers announced themselves before entry. The Appellate Division concluded that the defendant failed to establish a no-knock violation.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that defense counsel's failure to raise the knock-and-announce issue did not constitute ineffective assistance because the argument was not so clear-cut and dispositive that no reasonable defense attorney would have failed to assert it. The court noted that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. Michigan, which held that a knock-and-announce violation does not require the exclusion of evidence, had not been contradicted by any New York appellate decision. Therefore, the issue was not sufficiently clear to mandate its assertion by defense counsel. The court also found that the defendant's legal sufficiency contention was unpreserved for appellate review and upheld the trial court's admission of evidence regarding an uncharged drug sale. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "People v Hayward" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of third-degree larceny and second-degree forgery after a jury trial. The case involved a scheme where the defendant falsely represented himself as Joe Basil Jr. to steal tires from Exxpress Tire Delivery Company. The defendant instructed the delivery driver to bring the tires to a location adjacent to the Basil Ford Truck Center, where he falsely signed an invoice as Joe Basil Jr. The real Joe Basil Jr. testified that he did not authorize the purchase and that the signature was not his.The trial court sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms of 3½ to 7 years for the larceny and forgery convictions, explaining that the crimes were separate and distinct acts. The court noted that the forgery occurred during the larceny but constituted a successive act. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction, and a Judge of the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that consecutive sentences were permissible because the larceny and forgery were not committed through a single act or omission, nor was one offense a material element of the other. The court explained that the larceny was completed when the tires were loaded onto the defendant's trailer, which occurred before the forgery of the invoice. Additionally, the statutory definitions of the crimes did not overlap in a way that would require concurrent sentences under Penal Law § 70.25 (2). Therefore, the consecutive sentences were lawful. View "People v McGovern" on Justia Law

In 2006, an individual was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and later subjected to civil management under New York's Mental Hygiene Law due to a "mental abnormality." Initially confined, he was released to a strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) program in 2016. In 2019, he violated SIST conditions by tampering with an alcohol monitoring bracelet, leading to his temporary confinement based on a psychologist's evaluation and a probable cause finding by the court.The Supreme Court initially found probable cause to believe he was a "dangerous sex offender requiring confinement" and ordered his detention pending a final hearing. He filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the statutory scheme violated procedural due process by not providing an opportunity to be heard at the probable cause stage. The Supreme Court denied the petition, and the Appellate Division converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action, ultimately declaring the statute constitutional.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court held that the statutory scheme under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 (d) (4) appropriately balances individual and state interests. It concluded that the statute provides sufficient procedural safeguards, including a prompt judicial probable cause determination and a full hearing within 30 days, to mitigate the risk of erroneous confinement. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to him. The order of the Appellate Division was affirmed without costs. View "People ex rel. Neville v Toulon" on Justia Law

A couple used marital funds to enhance the husband's Foreign Service pension by buying back credits for his pre-marriage military service. The key issue was whether the portion of the pension related to the pre-marriage military service should be considered separate or marital property.The Supreme Court initially ruled that the value of the Foreign Service pension related to the husband's pre-marriage Navy service was marital property because marital funds were used to buy back the credits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the Navy pension credits were the husband's separate property since they were the result of his sole efforts and not due to the wife's contributions. However, the Appellate Division remitted the case to the Supreme Court to calculate the equitable distribution of the marital funds used to purchase the credits. The Supreme Court adjusted the award accordingly, and the wife appealed.The New York Court of Appeals held that the portion of the Foreign Service pension related to the pre-marriage military service is entirely marital property. The court reasoned that the use of marital funds to buy back the Navy service credits transformed them into marital property. The court emphasized that separate property commingled with marital property presumptively becomes marital property. The court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, allowing the husband to claim the value of his separate property contribution. The court also noted that marital property need not be distributed equally and that the trial court must consider various factors in making an equitable distribution. View "Szypula v Szypula" on Justia Law