Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

At issue in this criminal case was the prosecution’s references in its case-in-chief to Defendant’s selective silence during custodial interrogation, after Defendant had waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak to the police. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the third degree, and criminal impersonation in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed as modified, holding that the comments by the prosecutor during opening and closing statements concerning Defendant’s post-arrest silence were improper, and the county court erred in admitting into evidence a portion of a law enforcement officer’s testimony concerning Defendant’s selective silence, but any errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) as a matter of state evidentiary law, evidence of a defendant’s selective silence generally may not be used by the People as part of their case-in-chief either to allow the jury to infer the defendant’s admission of guilt or to impeach the credibility of the defendant’s version of events when the defendant has not testified; and (2) the error in this case was not harmless. View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder, intentional murder on a transferred intent theory, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The convictions arose from a single homicide where Defendant killed one victim in the course of attempting to kill someone else. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court violated his due process rights when it submitted to the jury depraved indifference murder and intentional murder on a “transferred intent” theory in the conjunctive with respect to the same victim. The Court of Appeals modified the order of the Appellate Division and ordered a new trial on the intentional murder, depraved indifference murder, and attempted murder counts, holding (1) a defendant cannot be convicted of depraved indifference murder and intentional murder on a transferred intent theory in a case involving the death of the same person, and therefore, the trial court erred in submitting to the jury both charged in the conjunctive rather than in the alternative; and (2) the trial court violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting into evidence certain grand jury statements of a non-testifying witness. View "People v. Dubarry" on Justia Law

Joseph Saint suffered work-related injuries while he was engaged in the installation and removal of a billboard advertisement. Joseph and his wife, Sheila Saint (together, Plaintiffs), brought this complaint against the owner of the property where the billboard was located, alleging violations of N.Y. Labor Law 240(1) and (2) and 241(6), among other claims. Defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, asserting that Joseph was not engaged in a covered activity under the Labor Law. Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that Labor Law 240 and 241 applied to Joseph’s claim. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the complaint, determining that Plaintiff’s work on the billboard did not constitute altering the building or structure for purposes of section 240 and that Plaintiff was not engaged in construction work within the meaning of section 241(6). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff was engaged in alteration of the structure within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1); and (2) Plaintiff properly asserted claims for unprotected construction work under Labor Law 240(2) and 241(6) based on the lack of a guardrail on the billboard platform. View "Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a construction worker, slipped on ice and fell to the floor while using stilts to install insulation in a ceiling. Plaintiff commenced this action, asserting common-law negligence and N.Y. Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the owner of the premises upon which Plaintiff was working, as well as the general contractor for the construction project. Supreme Court granted Plaintiff summary judgment with regard to liability on the Labor Law 240(1) claim as against the owner of the premises and the contractor, determining that section 240(1) applied because Plaintiff’s accident resulted from an elevation-related risk as contemplated by the statute. The Appellate Court affirmed as modified. The Court of Appeals modified the order of the Appellate Division, holding that Plaintiff’s accident did not fit within the ambit of section 240(1) because Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from a slip on ice, which was a separate hazard unrelated to the elevation risk. View "Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC" on Justia Law

After David Powers had completed three semesters as a part-time law school student at St. John’s University School of Law, the law school discovered that Powers had made material misrepresentations and omissions in his law school application regarding his criminal history. St. John’s subsequently rescinded Powers’s admission based on the application’s material omissions and misrepresentations. Powers subsequently brought this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 28 proceeding against the law school. The Appellate Division concluded that St. John’s determination to rescind Petitioner’s admission was not arbitrary and capricious and did not warrant judicial intervention. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the law school’s penalty of rescission for Powers’s failure to truthfully and fully disclose his record was not excessive. View "Powers v. St. John's Univ. Sch. of Law" on Justia Law

Two codefendants (Defendants) were convicted of second-degree murder for acting in concert with three others to kill Matharr Cham. When the People’s main witness failed to appear twice during trial, the court held an in camera, off-the-record discussion with the witness to ascertain the witness's mental and physical ability to testify. The proceeding was held without counsel present. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Defendants’ right to counsel was not violated. The Court of Appeals reversed the orders in each case and remitted for new trials, holding that the trial court violated Defendants’ right to counsel by denying defense counsel access to the proceeding because, under the facts of this case, the witness's mental and physical health were inextricably tied to his credibility, a nonministerial issue for trial. View "People v. Carr" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, various landowners, entered into separate oil and gas leases with Victory Energy Corporation whereby Plaintiffs leased drilling rights to Victory. Victory shared its leasehold interests with Megaenergy, Inc. Inflection Energy, LLC subsequently assumed from Megaenergy the operational rights and responsibilities under most of the leases. Each of the leases contained a force majeure clause, which provided that nonperformance may be excused under certain circumstances, and a habendum clause, which established the primary and definite period during which the energy companies could exercise the drilling rights granted by the leases. After the primary term of the leases had expired with no operations having been conducted upon the leaseholds, Plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action against Inflection, Victory, and Megaenergy, seeking a declaration that the leases had expired by their own terms. The energy companies counterclaimed for a declaration that each lease was extended by operation of the force majeure clause, arguing that New York’s moratorium on the use of horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing triggered the force majeure clause. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs. On appeal, the Second Circuit certified to the New York Court of Appeals certain questions. The Court of Appeals answered that the force majeure clause did not modify the habendum clause. Therefore, the leases terminated at the conclusion of their primary terms. View "Beardslee v. Inflection Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of rape in the third degree, criminal sexual act in the third degree, sexual abuse in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial or to strike the complainant’s prompt outcry testimony elicited by the People in disregard of the prosecutor’s pre-trial representation that no such testimony would be offered. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding that Supreme Court erred by denying Defendant a remedy for the unfair and prejudicial surprise. View "People v. Shaulov" on Justia Law

After two separate jury trials in two unrelated cases, Defendants were convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and murder in the second degree, respectively. Defendants appealed, arguing that the introduction of purported “background and narrative” evidence through the testimony of police detectives violated their right to confrontation. The Appellate Division in both cases affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in one case and reversed in the other, holding (1) the trial court in the first case erred in admitting the testimony because it exceeded the permissible bounds of providing background information, and the error was not harmless where there was no proper curative or limiting charge given to temper the testimonial evidence; and (2) the statement made in the second case was not testimonial, and therefore, there was no merit to Defendant’s contention that his confrontation rights were violated. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident who was admitted to the practice of law in New York, maintained her only law office in New Jersey. When Plaintiff learned of the statutory requirement that nonresident attorneys must maintain an office within New York in order to practice in the State under N.Y. Jud. Law 470, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that Judiciary Law 470 violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit asked the New York Court of Appeals to set forth the minimum requirements necessary to satisfy the mandate that nonresident attorneys maintain an office within the State “for the transaction of law business” under Judiciary Law 470. The Court of Appeals answered by holding that the statute requires nonresident attorneys to maintain a physical office in New York. View "Schoenefeld v. State" on Justia Law