Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In the case of a sex offender diagnosed with severe schizophrenia and psychosis, the New York Court of Appeals held that due process does not require a competency examination before a sex offender's risk level can be determined under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The defendant, who was found not mentally fit to stand trial, argued that his risk classification hearing should have been adjourned until he was deemed competent to understand the proceedings. The court disagreed, stating the numerous safeguards already provided under SORA, including the rights to notice, counsel, disclosure of relevant information, and an opportunity to object and present evidence at a hearing, adequately balance the interests involved. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the classification hearing was premature under SORA itself, holding that SORA authorizes risk-level determinations "[30] calendar days prior" to a registrant's release from incarceration, regardless of pending civil commitment proceedings. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to designate the defendant as a level two (moderate risk) sex offender. View "People v Watts" on Justia Law

In 2016, Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), offered a bond swap whereby its noteholders could exchange unsecured notes due in 2017 for new, secured notes due in 2020. PDVSA defaulted in 2019, and the National Assembly of Venezuela passed a resolution declaring the bond swap a "national public contract" requiring its approval under Article 150 of the Venezuelan Constitution. PDVSA, along with its subsidiaries PDVSA Petróleo S.A. and PDV Holding, Inc., initiated a lawsuit seeking a judgment declaring the 2020 Notes and their governing documents "invalid, illegal, null, and void ab initio, and thus unenforceable." The case was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which certified three questions to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals, in answering the first question, ruled that Venezuelan law governs the validity of the notes under Uniform Commercial Code § 8-110 (a) (1), which encompasses plaintiffs' arguments concerning whether the issuance of the notes was duly authorized by the Venezuelan National Assembly under the Venezuelan Constitution. However, New York law governs the transaction in all other respects, including the consequences if a security was "issued with a defect going to its validity." Given the court's answer to the first certified question, it did not answer the remaining questions. View "Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v MUFG Union Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In the case before the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, the defendant was initially charged with a felony, released on bail, and then arrested three more times for additional violent felonies. The People sought to revoke the defendant's bail on the basis that he had allegedly committed additional felonies. The court remanded the defendant, and his counsel sought his release via a habeas proceeding. The Appellate Division decided that before the court could revoke the defendant's bail, it had to follow certain procedural requirements under CPL 530.60 (2) (c) and determine that there was reasonable cause to believe the defendant had committed the additional crimes.The Court of Appeals held that where a defendant is initially charged with a qualifying felony offense, released on bail, and subsequently accused of committing additional violent felonies, the securing order may be modified under either CPL 530.60 (1) or (2) (a), both of which provide a mechanism for revoking a defendant's bail. However, the choice of provision must be supported by the record.Under CPL 530.60 (1), the court must consider relevant factors to assess the defendant's risk of flight and determine how the alleged additional crimes have changed the defendant's risk profile. The court must make clear on the record that its decision is based on consideration of these factors and not merely on the allegation that the defendant committed additional felonies.Under CPL 530.60 (2) (a), the court may consider whether, after observing certain procedural safeguards, there is reasonable cause to believe the additional crimes have been committed such that the defendant poses a danger to the community requiring remand.In this case, the Court of Appeals found that the record did not sufficiently demonstrate that the modification was based on factors informing the defendant's likelihood of returning to court. Therefore, the determination was presumed to rest upon the fact of the subsequent arrest and the danger the defendant posed to the community, and the failure to follow the procedural requirements of subdivision (2) (c) was considered error.The judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, the habeas corpus proceeding was converted into a declaratory judgment action, and judgment was granted in accordance with the opinion. View "People ex rel. Rankin v Brann" on Justia Law

In a dispute involving a fatal stabbing outside a Manhattan bar in 2000, defendant Gonzalo Aguilar appealed his conviction of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and assault in the first degree. Aguilar asserted that the trial court erred by not including a reinstruction on the justification defense in its response to a jury note, and that the court's interested witness charge violated his constitutional right to due process.The Court of Appeals of the State of New York disagreed with Aguilar's claims. The court held that the trial court's response to the jury's note was meaningful and appropriate. It reasoned that the jury's note had specifically requested the definitions of the charges, not a reinstruction on the justification defense. Furthermore, the court noted that the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the jury's request and had significant discretion in determining the scope and nature of its response. The court also pointed out that the jury did not seek further instruction or clarification after the recharge, indicating that the trial court's response was satisfactory.In addition, the court found that Aguilar's argument concerning the interested witness charge was unpreserved as it had not been raised in the trial court and no exception to the preservation rule applied in this case. Thus, the court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division. View "People v Aguilar" on Justia Law

In the case of People v. Ramirez, Fernando Ramirez, the defendant, was convicted of causing a three-car collision while intoxicated, resulting in one death and four serious injuries. During the trial, which took place amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, safety protocols such as social distancing and mask-wearing were implemented. The defendant objected to these measures, claiming they impeded his ability to fully observe the facial expressions of prospective jurors, thereby infringing on his rights to be present at all material stages of his trial and to meaningfully contribute to his defense. The New York Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that neither a defendant's right to be present during jury selection nor due process requires that a defendant have a simultaneous, unobstructed view of the entirety of every prospective juror's face during jury selection. The Court affirmed that the safety protocols did not violate the defendant's right to be present and observe the jury selection process, and there was no violation of due process.The defendant also requested a mistrial after observing the deceased victim's surviving spouse crying in the courtroom. He argued that this could induce undue sympathy from the jury. However, the trial court denied the motion, as the crying was not conspicuous and there was no indication the jury was aware of it. The court further offered a curative instruction to prevent sympathy, which the defense counsel declined. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that there were no grounds for a mistrial. View "People v Ramirez" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Srecko Bazdaric, was injured while painting an escalator during a renovation project. The escalator was covered with a plastic sheet, which Bazdaric slipped on, sustaining injuries that left him unable to work. He and his wife sued the owners of the premises and the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6), which requires employers to provide safe working conditions. The Court of Appeals of New York held that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found that the plastic covering was a slipping hazard that the defendants failed to remove, in violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), making the defendants liable under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court also found that the plastic covering was not integral to the paint job but was a nonessential and inherently slippery plastic that caused Bazdaric's injuries. The court reversed the lower court's conclusion to the contrary. View "Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Clifton Park Apartments, LLC and its attorney (collectively referred to as "Pine Ridge"), CityVision Services, Inc. ("CityVision"), and the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR"). CityVision is a Texas-based not-for-profit corporation that tests whether housing facilities engage in discrimination. In 2016, CityVision placed a test call to Pine Ridge and subsequently filed a discrimination complaint with DHR, alleging familial status discrimination. DHR dismissed the complaint due to lack of probable cause. Following this, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision stating that Pine Ridge considered the allegations in CityVision's complaint to be "false, fraudulent, and libelous" and threatened to seek damages. In response, CityVision filed a second complaint with DHR, alleging that Pine Ridge retaliated against them for filing the first discrimination complaint.The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination of retaliation and the case was brought before the Court of Appeals of New York. The Court of Appeals held that a threat of litigation could constitute the requisite adverse action to support a retaliation claim under New York State Human Rights Law. In this case, DHR rationally concluded that the element of adverse action had been established when Pine Ridge sent the threatening letter to CityVision. However, the Court also held that a remittal was necessary because DHR improperly shifted the burden when analyzing whether CityVision had engaged in protected activity. The Court of Appeals ruled that DHR should have determined whether CityVision reasonably believed that Pine Ridge had engaged in a discriminatory practice during the test call. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to remand to DHR for further proceedings. View "Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Division of Human Rights" on Justia Law

The case involves Consolidated Restaurant Operations (CRO), a company that owns and operates dozens of restaurants, and Westport Insurance Corporation (Westport). CRO had an "all-risk" commercial property insurance policy with Westport, which covered "all risks of direct physical loss or damage to insured property." When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, causing CRO to suspend or substantially curtail its operations due to the presence of the virus in its restaurants and government restrictions on nonessential businesses, CRO sought coverage for the ensuing loss of revenue. Westport denied coverage, stating that the coronavirus did not cause "direct physical loss or damage" to CRO's properties. CRO filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of Westport's obligations under the policy and damages for breach of contract.The Supreme Court of New York dismissed the complaint, declaring that the policy did not cover CRO's alleged losses. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, interpreting "direct physical loss or damage" to require a tangible alteration of the property, which CRO had not demonstrated.The case was then brought to the New York Court of Appeals. The court held that "direct physical loss or damage" requires a material alteration or a complete and persistent dispossession of insured property. The presence of the virus in the restaurants and the resulting cessation of in-person dining services did not meet this requirement. The court thus affirmed the lower courts’ dismissal of the complaint. View "Consolidated Rest. Operations, Inc. v Westport Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

This case revolves around the tragic drowning of a 14-year-old boy at a dam on Buffalo Creek in Erie County. The victim's mother brought a negligence and wrongful death lawsuit against the Joint Board of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation District (the Joint Board), alleging that they owned the dam and were responsible for its maintenance and safety. The dam was initially constructed as part of a federal project under the Flood Control Act of 1944, after which the Joint Board was created as the local "sponsor" of the project. Two agreements between the Joint Board and the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1959 and 1984 stipulated that the Joint Board had ongoing duties to inspect and maintain the dams. The case proceeded to a jury trial on the singular question of whether the Joint Board owned the dams at the time of the accident. Both the plaintiff and the Joint Board moved for directed verdicts. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the Joint Board owned the dams. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision and granted the Joint Board's motion for a directed verdict, ruling that the dams were fixtures that ran with the land and could not have been owned by the Joint Board since the NRCS did not own the underlying land. The Court of Appeals disagreed with both lower courts, stating that neither the plaintiff nor the Joint Board should have been granted a directed verdict as the evidence was not conclusive enough to establish ownership of the dams as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, and affirmed the dismissal of claims against other parties, including the Districts, County, and Town. View "Suzanne P. v Joint Bd. of Directors of Erie-Wyoming County Soil Conservation Dist." on Justia Law

In New York, a man named Joshua Messano was indicted for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon after police officers discovered a loaded handgun in his car. Messano moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that it was found as a result of an unlawful detention and search. The police had initially detained Messano on suspicion of a drug transaction based on their observations of him engaging in a conversation with another man in an empty parking lot. They did not, however, observe any actual exchange of drugs. After detaining Messano, the police saw what they believed to be drug-related contraband in plain view on the driver's seat of his car, which led them to search the car and find the gun.The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Messano based on their observations. The court also held that the drug-related contraband was not in plain view, as the officer only saw it after unlawfully detaining Messano. Therefore, the court concluded that the seizure of the gun was unconstitutional and the evidence should be suppressed. The indictment against Messano was dismissed. View "People v Messano" on Justia Law