Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Upon responding to a burglary report at an apartment building, police officers observed Defendant in the building’s stairwell. When the officers arrested Defendant for trespassing, one of the officers opened Defendant’s shoulder purse, which contained a loaded handgun. Defendant was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a gun in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the gun, and, after a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the counts charged. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the People bear the burden of demonstrating the presence of exigent circumstances in order to conduct a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest; and (2) in this case, the People failed to meet that burden as a matter of law.View "People v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with attempted murder and other crimes. During voir dire, a number of bench conferences were at held at which prospective jurors’ qualifications were discussed. Defendant did not attend, or ask to attend, any of these conferences. Defendant was convicted, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant validly his right under People v. Antommarchi to be present during bench conferences at which prospective jurors are questioned on voir dire. Specifically, Defendant waived his Antommarchi right, both implicitly and explicitly, when (1) after hearing the trial judge say Defendant was “welcome to attend” the bench conferences, Defendant chose not do to so, and (2) Defendant's lawyer stated that Defendant waived his Antommarchi right.View "People v. Flinn" on Justia Law

In 2012, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation executed a written license agreement with Chef Driven Market, LLC (CDM), which permitted CDM to operate a seasonal restaurant in the Union Square Park pavilion. Plaintiffs, Union Square Park Community Coalition, Inc. and several individuals, brought an action against the Department, its commissioner, the City, and CDM (collectively, the Department), seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief restraining the Department from altering the park pavilion to accommodate the restaurant under the public trust doctrine. The Appellate Division denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the seasonal restaurant did not violate the public trust doctrine. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Department’s grant of a license to CDM to operate the restaurant in the pavilion was lawful.View "Union Square Park Cmty. Coal., Inc. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Parks & Recreation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants, a construction company and the owner of a building, after he was injured when a heavy conduit pipe fell on his hand while he was working at the building, alleging that Defendants violated N.Y. Lab. Law 240(1). Supreme Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability, concluding that the conduit, being attached to the ceiling by a compression coupling that failed, was not properly secured so as to give proper protection to Plaintiff. The Appellate Division modified the order of the Supreme Court by denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants’ failure to provide a protective device, i.e., a set-screw coupling rather than the purportedly inadequate compression coupling, was a proximate of his accident. The Court of Appeals accepted certification and held that the order of Supreme Court as modified by the Appellate Court was not property made, as Defendants’ failure to use a set screw couple was not a violation of section 240(1). View "Fabrizi v. 1095 Ave. of the Ams., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Defendants, the construction manager and owner of a building at a construction site, after a large, flat object fell and injured his hand. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, a violation of N.Y. Lab. Law 241(6). Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s section 241(6) claim, arguing the form that injured Plaintiff’s hand was not subject to the safety requirements of Industrial Code N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 12,23-2.2(a). The Court of Appeals remitted the matter for further proceedings for a hearing on whether the object as issue was a “form” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. After a hearing, Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff’s section 241(6) claim, concluding that the form at issue did not come within the coverage of the regulation or section 241(6). The Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment to Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals accepted certification and concluded that the Appellate Division’s order should be affirmed, holding that the language of N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 12,23-2.2(a) could sensibly be applied to the form that fell on Plaintiff’s hand.View "Morris v. Pavarini Constr." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder for murdering his infant son. The Appellate Division affirmed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and directed a new trial, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Defendant, with depraved indifference to human life, recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of serious physical injury to the four-month-old, thereby causing the child’s death; but (2) Defendant’s previously denied motion to suppress inculpating statements he made to interrogators was in error because the statements were not demonstrably voluntary, and Defendant’s confession should not have been placed before the jury.View "People v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested on suspicion of murder. At a second grand jury proceeding, Defendant vigorously urged the grand jury to have the People call a particular witness, Jane Doe, to testify. The grand jurors rejected Defendant’s request for the witness’s testimony and, thereafter, indicted Defendant on various charges, including second-degree murder. Defendant was subsequently tried and convicted of second-degree murder by a jury. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutors’ commentary to the grand jury on his request to call Jane Doe compelled the grand jury to surrender all independent discretion in the matter and thus impaired the integrity of the proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, although the prosecutors should have shown greater sensitivity to Defendant’s request and the grand jurors’ concerns, in light of the totality of the circumstances that arose in the second grand jury proceeding, the prosecutors’ actions did not impair the integrity of that proceeding or warrant dismissal of Defendant’s conviction. View "People v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Petitioner purchased an apartment building on Staten Island. Petitioner’s parents lived in the building, and Petitioner stayed in their apartment on occasion to attend to their medical needs. Petitioner leased the other two apartments in the building to tenants. For the tax years in question, Petitioner filed nonresident income tax returns in New York. The Department of Taxation and Finance later issued a notice of deficiency, determining that Petitioner owed additional New York income taxes because he maintained a “permanent place of abode” at the Staten Island property during the relevant years. The Tax Appeals Tribunal sustained the deficiency, concluding that in order to qualify as a statutory resident under the Tax Law, a taxpayer need not actually dwell in the permanent place of abode but need only maintain it. Petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s determination, contending that the standard to be applied when determining whether a person “maintains a permanent place of abode” in New York should turn on whether he maintained living arrangements for himself to reside at the dwelling. The Court of Appeals agreed with Petitioner, holding that in order for an individual to qualify as a statutory resident, there must be some basis to conclude that the dwelling was utilized as the taxpayer’s residence.View "Gaied v. N.Y. State Tax Appeals Tribunal" on Justia Law

In 2010, Nassau County passed Local Law 18, which shifted the obligation to pay real property tax refunds from the County to its individual taxing districts. Various interested parties filed three actions seeking a declaration that Local Law 18 was null, void and unenforceable because its violated the Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL) provisions limiting the powers of local government and the State Constitution’s home rule and taxation articles. Supreme Court effectively granted summary judgment to the County in all three actions. The Appellate Division reversed, entering a declaratory judgment that Local Law 18 violated the Constitution and the MHRL. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the County exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority in its attempt to supersede a special State tax law.View "Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist. v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants were convicted of attempted robbery. On appeal, Defendants argued that the trial judge abused his discretion when he declined to deliver an adverse inference charge regarding the loss of a handwritten complaint report prepared by a police officer who responded to a 911 call reporting the robbery that led to Defendant’s conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding (1) Defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing that they were prejudiced by the loss of the report, and therefore, no sanction was warranted; and (2) Defendants’ respective robbery convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence.View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law