Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of grand larceny in the first degree and one count of petit larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly declined to give a circumstantial evidence charge, and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s requests for a mistrial after the jurors indicated during deliberations that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Defendant’s requests for a mistrial, and the court’s procedure did not coerce the jury into delivering a verdict. View "People v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in an indictment with murder in the second degree. After a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of second degree murder but found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. During trial, Defendant claimed that he intervened in an ongoing fight that began in his absence in order to shield a third party from an unlawful attack. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and dismissed the indictment, holding (1) the standard criminal jury instruction on the “initial aggressor exception” to the justification defense is misleading unless a supplemental charge is given on the meaning of “initial aggressor” in the defense-of-another scenario; and (2) in the context of this case, the trial court’s failure to give such a supplemental instruction was not harmless. View "People v. Walker" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report for violating prison disciplinary rules. At the disciplinary hearing, Petitioner pleaded not guilty and requested another inmate be called as a witness. When the inmate reversed to testify, Petitioner asked the hearing officer to re-contact the witness. When the hearing reconvened, the hearing officer did not state whether the inmate had been re-contacted. The hearing officer subsequently found Petitioner guilty of all charges. Thereafter, Petitioner commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding asserting that the hearing officer violated his constitutional right to call witnesses for failing to make reasonable efforts to contact the witness. Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter for a new hearing. Petitioner appealed, arguing that expungement was the proper remedy for violation of an inmate’s right to call a witness at a prison disciplinary hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, a rehearing was properly ordered. View "Texeira v. Fischer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, second-degree assault, two counts of second-degree weapons possession, and first-degree reckless endangerment. The Appellate Division affirmed Defendant’s convictions, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when, in response to a request from the deliberating jury, it did not provide the jury with a substantial portion of requested evidence regarding the potential bias of two key prosecution witnesses and then suggested to the jury that there was no other evidence relevant to its inquiry. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law by failing adequately to answer the jurors’ note and creating a false impression of the nature of the evidence. View "People v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the trial court committed a mode of proceedings error when it failed to discuss a substantive jury note with counsel outside the presence of the jury. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the trial court’s departure from the O’Rama procedure in this case was error, but it was not a mode of proceedings error where the court read the note into the record in the presence of the parties, counsel, and the jury before providing a response; and (2) therefore, the preservation rule applied. View "People v. Nealon" on Justia Law

After a nonjury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in allowing the People to introduce evidence of Defendant’s prior conviction of a sex crime committed against a child as evidence of his intent in the present offense; (2) Defendant’s conviction of attempted kidnapping in the second degree was supported by legally sufficient evidence; and (3) Defendant’s remaining contentions did not warrant reversal. View "People v. Denson" on Justia Law

Defendant was thirty-four weeks pregnant when she struck the vehicle of Robert and Mary Kelly, killing them both. Defendant’s baby was born after an emergency cesarean section but died six days later from injuries sustained in the accident. Defendant was indicted on three counts of manslaughter in the second degree, one count of aggravated vehicular homicide, and one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the combined influence of alcohol or drugs. After a second trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Defendant not guilty on all counts except manslaughter in the second degree for the death of her child. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a woman cannot be convicted of manslaughter for conduct with respect to themselves and their unborn fetuses unless such conduct is done intentionally. View "People v. Jorgensen" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff was removed from his position at his place of employment and demoted, he commenced this action pursuant to N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 75-b, the whistleblower statute, alleging that he was retaliated against for reporting improper governmental activity. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to comply with section 75-b by not reporting the allegedly wrongful actions to the appointing authority before contacting the Inspector General’s office. Supreme Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff’s good faith efforts in the manner and filing of his reporting met the requirements of section 75-b(2). After a trial on damages, Supreme Court awarded Plaintiff back pay, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs and directed Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff to his position. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff demonstrated good faith compliance with section 75-b; and (2) Plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest. View "Tipaldo v. Lynn" on Justia Law

Stephen S. was a patient who was involuntarily committed under article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law. Because Stephen had been unlawfully held by a hospital beyond the authorized retention period Mental Hygiene Legal Service commenced this habeas corpus proceeding on behalf of Stephen seeking his immediate release from the hospital. Stephen argued that he was entitled to immediate release upon a writ of habeas corpus under N.Y. C.P.L.R. 70. Supreme Court directed the writ. The Appellate Division concluded that, despite the hospital’s failure to comply with the Mental Hygiene Law, Stephen was not entitled to immediate release because the habeas corpus petition was governed by N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law 33.15, not N.Y. C.P.L.R. 70. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law 33.15 is not the exclusive habeas corpus provision available to article 9 patients and does not govern habeas corpus proceedings for those patients whose detention is challenged for reasons other than the patient’s recovery. View "People ex rel. DeLia v. Munsey" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested in the lobby of an apartment building that was enrolled in the trespass affidavit program. Upon his arrest, officers frisked Defendant and found a razor blade in one of his pants pockets. Defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the razor blade. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the combination of Defendant’s presence in the building with the private and protected nature of that location supported the lower courts’ determination that the police officers had an objective credible reason to approach and request information from Defendant and thus to begin the encounter that culminated in Defendant’s arrest and the seizure of the razor blade. View "People v. Barksdale" on Justia Law