Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division reversed and granted Defendant a new trial, holding that the court’s colloquy with a single juror in the presence of the attorneys but not in the presence of Defendant, during which the court repeated to the juror a substantive instruction previously given to the entire jury, constituted a mode of proceedings error. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a mode of proceedings error occurred in this case, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to a new trial. View "People v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued several defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery for alleged wrongdoing related to notes purchased by Plaintiff and issued by one of the defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by a no-action clause contained in the indenture agreement governing Plaintiff’s notes. The Delaware Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Chancery for consideration of the issues under New York law. On remand, the Court of Chancery concluded that the majority of Plaintiff’s claims were not barred under the no-action clause and that dismissal and partial dismissal were warranted with respect to the remaining claims because only those claims arose under the indenture. In response to certified questions from the Delaware Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals concluded (1) a trust indenture’s no-action clause that specifically precludes enforcement of contractual claims arising under the indenture, but omits reference to “the Securities,” does not bar a securityholder’s independent common law or statutory claims; and (2) the Court of Chancery correctly found that the no-action clause in this case, which referred only to “this Indenture,” precluded enforcement only of contractual claims arising under the Indenture. View "Quadrant Structured Prods. Co., Ltd. v. Vertin" on Justia Law

The Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts entered an order relieving a district attorney from an investigation and appointing a special district attorney to conduct the investigation in Donovan’s place. After the special prosecutor issued a grand jury subpoena to Petitioner, Petitioner sought a writ of prohibition to vacate the special prosecutor's appointment. The Appellate Division denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, concluding that relief by prohibition was not the appropriate remedy. The Court of Appeals affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) relief by prohibition was a appropriate in this case; but (2) the special prosecutor was validly appointed. View "Matter of Working Families Party v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Appellant-attorney was criminally prosecuted along with Judge Doe on violations of the campaign finance law. The criminal proceeding was eventually terminated, and the records were sealed. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct subsequently began an investigation into possible judicial misconduct by Judge Doe in the underlying criminal proceeding. Supreme Court granted the Commission’s motion to release the sealed records from the underlying criminal proceeding for use in the investigation. Appellant filed an application to vacate the release order, which Supreme Court denied. Appellant appealed. Meanwhile, the Commission censured Judge Doe for misconduct arising from her judicial election campaign. The Appellate Division dismissed Appellant’s appeal as moot and ordered that the records be resealed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order dismissing the appeal as moot and upheld the Commission’s authority to request and receive Appellant’s sealed records, holding that the Commission is authorized to request and receive records sealed under N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 160.50 for its use in investigations. View "State Comm’n on Judicial Conduct v. Rubenstein" on Justia Law

Defendants issued excess insurance policies to Plaintiff that required, as a threshold condition for coverage, Plaintiff to provide timely notice of any occurrence that potentially implicated Defendants’ duty of indemnification. This case concerned the investigation and remediation of environmental damage at manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites owned by Plaintiff. When Defendants denied coverage, Plaintiff commenced a declaratory judgment action. The Appellate Division concluded that Plaintiff failed to provide timely notice under the policies of environmental contamination at the MGP sites but denied summary judgment to Defendants, determining that material issues of fact remained as to whether Defendants waived their right to disclaim coverage of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division erred in considering the waiver issue under N.Y. Ins. Law 3420(d)(2) because Plaintiff never relied on the statute and instead asserted a common-law waiver defense. View "KeySpan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was riding her bike on a roadway that was closed to vehicular traffic for repairs. Plaintiff received permission from Donald Bowles, a supervisor with the Department of Transportation for the City of New York to enter the closed portion and was subsequently injured after falling into a depression in the road. Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against the City of New York. The jury apportioned fault at forty percent to Plaintiff and sixty percent to the City, concluding that Bowles was negligent in permitting Plaintiff to enter the closed roadway. The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that Bowles was engaged in a governmental function when he closed the roadway, and therefore, the City was immune from liability. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, although the City was not held liable for its failure to repair the defect in the road, the jury was not foreclosed from finding that Bowles was negligent in carrying out the proprietary function of road maintenance. View "Wittorf v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Defendant was prosecuted for driving while intoxicated (DWI). During trial, a defense expert opined that Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time she was stopped was between .03% and .04%, which was below the statutory threshold. Defendant requested an instruction that the expert’s opinion that her BAC was below the statutory threshold was “prima facie evidence” that Defendant was not intoxicated. The jury acquitted Defendant of per se DWI but convicted of her common law DWI. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to the “prima facie” evidence instruction but only to an instruction that that if the jury found Defendant’s BAC was as the expert testified, “it may find” Defendant was not intoxicated. View "People v. Fratangelo" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to obstructing governmental administration in the second degree by preventing a police officer from patrolling the neighborhood. Defendant appealed, arguing that he did not waive prosecution by information, and consequently, the information was subject to the legal standards applicable to a misdemeanor information. Thus, Defendant argued, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally defective because the charge was supported only by conclusory statements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Defendant waived prosecution by information, and the accusatory instrument met the factual sufficiency requirements of a misdemeanor complaint. View "People v. Dumay" on Justia Law

After the Town of Islip discontinued the practice of permanently assigning Town-owned vehicles, or “take home” vehicles, to certain employees, the union representing the employees declared that employee use of a Town-owned vehicle for personal purposes was a mandatory subject of bargaining and filed an improper practice charge with the New York State Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB determined that the Town violated N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 209-a(1)(d) by canceling “take home” vehicle assignments without negotiation. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding that PERB reasonably determined that the Town engaged in an improper practice when it unilaterally discontinued the permanent assignment of “take home” vehicles to employees. View "Town of Islip v. State Pub. Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

When Respondent was fifteen, he was charged with unlawful possession of weapons by persons under sixteen in violation of N.Y. Penal Law 265.05. The charges stemmed from a police officer’s recovery of a machete from Respondent. The Appellate Division found the petition facially insufficient because it did not contain allegations that would have established that the knife Respondent possessed was a “dangerous knife” under section 265.05. Rather, the Appellate Court found that the knife was “utilitarian.” The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, “while a machete has utilitarian purposes, it would be unreasonable to infer from the statement supporting the petition that Respondent was using the machete for cutting plants.” View "In re Antwaine T." on Justia Law