Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

On July 22, Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to invalidate a designating petition filed on July 8, 2015 by the Niagara County Board of Elections naming Respondent as a Democratic Party candidate for the office of Niagara County Legislator and to enjoin the Board from placing Respondent’s name on the ballot. In serving Respondent, Petitioner nailed the papers to the door of Respondent’s residence on July 22 and mailed the papers to that residence by express mail on July 23. July 23 was the last day of the statutory period authorized by the Election Law. Respondent answered, arguing that the action was not timely commenced. Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the Board to strike Respondent’s name from the ballot. The Appellate Division affirmed. Respondent appealed, arguing that mailing on the last day of the statutory period was jurisdictionally defective since delivery inevitably would occur outside of the statutory period. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the instrument of notice had been properly delivered prior to the deadline, and this proceeding was properly commenced in a timely manner. View "Angletti v. Morreale" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held in Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Amato that N.Y. Ins. Law 3420(f), which provides that all motor vehicle insurance policies must contain uninsured motorist coverage, has no application to police vehicles. Here, Respondent, a police officer, was injured when the driver of an underinsured vehicle struck the police car in which Respondent was a passenger and Michael Knauss was the driver. Knauss maintained an automobile liability insurance policy issued by State Farm that included a supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement. Respondent made a demand upon State Farm for underinsured motorist arbitration under the SUM endorsement of Knauss’s policy. State Farm refused payment, asserting that a police vehicle was not a covered “motor vehicle” within the meaning of the SUM endorsement. Supreme Court concluded that Knauss’s policy did not cover Respondent. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Amato was inapplicable to SUM coverage mandated by section 3420(f)(2) and defining “motor vehicle” for purposes of statutorily required SUM coverage as inclusive of police vehicles. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) a police vehicle is not a “motor vehicle” covered by a SUM endorsement under section 3420(f)(2)(a); and (2) Amato remains binding precedent in this matter of statutory interpretation. View "Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the three-and-a-half year retroactive application of the 2010 amendments to N.Y. Tax Law 632(a)(2) were unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Plaintiffs, Florida residents, brought this action claiming that the 2010 amendments retroactively imposed a tax on the 2007 sale of the stock of their subchapter S corporation in a deemed asset sale, for which they utilized the installment method of accounting for federal tax purposes, and seeking a declaration that the application of the amendments was unconstitutional as applied to them. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendants, determining that the amendments were curative and, because Plaintiffs failed to show reasonable reliance on any relevant pre-amendment law, retroactive application of the statute was justified. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that retroactive application of the 2010 amendments did not violate Plaintiffs’ due process rights. View "Caprio v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, several nonresident former owners and shareholders in an S corporation, filed the instant declaratory judgment action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, challenging a tax imposed on their pro rata share of gains from the sale of the corporation’s stock. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that N.Y. Const. art. XVI, 3 absolutely precluded taxation of gains from the sale of a nonresident’s intangible personal property - in this case, the corporation’s stock. Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and declared that the statute is constitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there is no constitutional bar to taxation of a nonresident’s New York-source income earned from a stock sale. View "Burton v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint claiming to have rendered to Defendants financial advisory services for nine project groups of investment opportunities. Plaintiff sought recovery based on theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, contending that the claims for compensation for the advisory services Plaintiff allegedly performed were subject to the statute of frauds. Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint in part. The Appellate Division modified by granting the motion in its entirety and dismissing the amended complaint. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order by denying those parts of Defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss the amended complaint with respect to five of the nine project groups, holding that the statute of frauds does not bar the causes of action with respect to those groups. View "JF Capital Advisors, LLC v. Lightstone Group, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree intentional murder. Defendant was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient, that Defendant was not denied meaningful representation, and that Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct committed during summation was unpreserved. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor misrepresented to the jury critical DNA evidence as proof of Defendant’s guilt in contradiction of the People’s expert testimony; and (2) Defendant was denied a fair trial as a result. View "People v. Wright" on Justia Law

Petitioner owned and operated five commercial parking facilities for the purpose of furthering the goal of its sole member, a not-for-profit corporation, to revitalize downtown Jamaica, Queens. New York City Tax Commission revoked Petitioner’s real property tax exemption pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law 420-a(1)(a), determining that the use of the parking facilities, even for economic development of an underdeveloped area, did not constitute a “charitable” use and that the parking facilities were “not incidental to another recognized charitable purpose but [were] the very purpose for which the property [was] being used.” Supreme Court upheld the City’s revocation of the tax exemption. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Petitioner’s ownership and operation of the parking facilities was not incidental to a tax-exempt purpose, it was not entitled to a real property tax exemption under that statute. View "Greater Jamaica Dev. Corp. v. New York City Tax Comm’n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants - a licensed chiropractor and a licensed physician - were found guilty of, among other counts, enterprise corruption, scheme to defraud in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and money laundering in the first degree. Defendants challenged their enterprise corruption convictions on the ground that the continuity of existence element was not demonstrated. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the People proved the existence of a criminal enterprise as a matter of law because the prosecution in an enterprise corruption case may prove that a defendant was a member of a criminal enterprise, with a continuity beyond the scope of individual criminal incidents, without showing that the enterprise would have survived the removal of a key participant; (2) Defendants’ challenges to the trial court’s instructions on accomplice liability were not preserved; and (3) Defendants received effective assistance of counsel. View "People v. Keschner" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the People to to introduce identification testimony of a police officer who had previously identified him during a pretrial procedure without notifying him, within fifteen days of his arraignment, of the officer’s prospective testimony. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the officer’s identification of Defendant was confirmatory in nature and thus did not require notice under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 710.30. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the People were required to serve their notice concerning the officer’s observations, but the error was harmless. View "People v. Pacquette" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs in this case were law firms in debt collection. Plaintiffs brought this action in federal district court seeking to invalidate certain amendments to the New York City Administrative Code (Local Law) pertaining to debt collection activities. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part, concluding (1) the Local Law was in direct conflict with the Judiciary Law and invalid to the extent that it purported to regulate the conduct of attorneys; and (2) the Local Law violated the New York City Charter insofar as it gave the DCA Commissioner authority to license or regulate attorneys. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions for the review of the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that the Local Law is not preempted by the State’s statutory authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys, and in the absence of such conflict, the City should not be prevented from taking permissible steps to curb abusive debt collection practices. View "Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of New York" on Justia Law