Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in the first degree. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five-year and five-year terms of imprisonment, to be served consecutively. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction and set aside his sentence on the ground that the five-year sentence was illegal. In support of his motion, Defendant enclosed a letter from a prison official indicating that Defendant's minimum legal sentence for this count of first-degree robbery was ten years. The county court denied the motion. The Appellate Division vacated Defendant's sentence and remitted the matter. Defendant was subsequently resentenced to concurrent determinate prison terms of twenty-five years and ten years. Defendant appealed, arguing that the county court could not legally resentence him to ten years in prison for robbery in the first degree because he originally pleaded guilty to this crime in exchange for a five-year incarceratory term. The Appellate Division disagreed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the judge's modification of Defendant's sentence was proper.View "People v. Collier" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree for causing the death of a man by holding him in a headlock. Defendant appealed, arguing that several of the trial court's rulings in admitting and excluding evidence related to the issue of the duration of the headlock were in error. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant as to one of the trial court's contested rulings, reversed the conviction, and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court's refusal to permit Defendant to refresh his witness's recollection with a statement the witness had previously given was was reversible error.View "People v. Oddone" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of a school district (District), were members of a collective bargaining unit. One plaintiff retired while the 1999-2003 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was in effect, and the other plaintiffs retired under the 2003-2007 CBA. In 2009, the District informed Plaintiffs that their co-pays would be governed under the terms of the 2007-2012 CBA, resulting in an increase from their previous co-pay charges. Plaintiffs filed this action for breach of contract, alleging that by increasing their co-pays, the District violated the terms of the CBAs in effect when Plaintiffs retired. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the contract did not specify that an equivalent level of coverage would continue during retirement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division as modified, holding (1) the plain meaning of the contract unambiguously established that Plaintiffs had a vested right to the "same coverage" during retirement as they had when they retired; and (2) because an issue of fact remained as to whether the parties intended for the right to the "same coverage" to preclude any modifications to prescription co-pays, it was necessary to remit the case for a hearing on the issue.View "Kolbe v. Tibbetts" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with multiple counts of murder and other offenses arising from a mass shooting at a screening of "Batman" at a movie theater in Colorado. The Colorado state court presiding over the criminal charges issued an order limiting pretrial publicity in the case by either side, including the police. Law subsequently took possession of a notebook that Petitioner had mailed to a psychiatrist before the shootings. Respondent, a New York-based reporter, published an article describing the contents of the notebook. Petitioner filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that law enforcement had violated the pretrial publicity orders by communicating with Respondent. Thereafter, Petitioner successfully sought in the Colorado court a certificate to compel Winter to testify or otherwise provide evidence regarding the identity of the sources that supplied Respondent with the information about Petitioner's notebook. The New York Supreme Court then granted Petitioner's request for the issuance of a subpoena compelling Respondent to testify in Colorado. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, based on the New York Constitution, the Shield Law, and existing case law, a New York court could not compel Respondent to reveal the identity of the sources. View "Holmes v. Winter" on Justia Law

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct brought two charges against Petitioner Glen George, a non-lawyer justice of the Middletown Town Court. Each charge involved allegations of misconduct while Petitioner was acting in his judicial capacity. Specifically, Petitioner was investigated for deciding to hear a case involving a friend and former employer without disclosing the existence of the personal relationship and for having ex parte communications with a prospective litigant and then expressing his views concerning the outcome of the proceeding. After a hearing, the Commission issued a determination finding that Petitioner's conduct violated the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and determined that he should be removed from office. The Court of Appeals sustained the finding of misconduct and concluded that removal was the appropriate sanction.View "In re George" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three robbery counts and one assault count. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain her convictions because, inter alia, the stolen items were not recovered from her possession, and therefore, the jury could not reasonably infer that she threatened or used force to retain possession of the property. The Appellate Division agreed with Defendant reduced her robbery convictions to petit larceny. The Court of Appeals reinstated Defendant’s robbery convictions, holding that there was ample evidence to support a reasonable inference that Defendant stole merchandise and threatened or used force to prevent or overcome resistance to her possession of that property. View "People v. Gordon" on Justia Law

A person commits burglary in the second degree if a person unlawfully enters a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein. In this case, Defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary in the second degree for committing a burglary in the non-residential part of a building used partly for residential purposes. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence supported his burglary convictions but that they were third degree, not second degree. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of burglary in the second degree. View "People v. McCray" on Justia Law

In two personal injury actions, Plaintiffs sued property owners (Defendants), alleging that they suffered numerous injuries from exposure to lead-based paint at Defendants’ properties. Prior to the defense medical examinations, Supreme Court ordered Plaintiffs to produce medical reports detailing a diagnosis of each injury alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division affirmed the order. The Court of Appeals, in each case, modified the order of the Appellate Division, holding that Supreme Court exceeded its power in requiring Plaintiffs to provide medical evidence of each alleged injury or otherwise be precluded from offering evidence of the injury at trial. View "Hamilton v. Miller" on Justia Law

In People v. Syville, the Court of Appeals held that coram nobis may be used to assert a claim that appellate rights were extinguished by ineffective assistance. At issue in these three cases was whether Syville entitled defendants to a writ of error coram nobis in order to pursue untimely appeals. The Court of Appeals held that, under Syville, only defendants who could not have reasonably discovered counsel’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal are entitled to utilize the coram nobis procedure, and the common-law recourse is not available to defendants who are in a position to discover the failure to file a timely notice of appeal. View "People v. Andrews" on Justia Law

The Village of Kings Point adopted a proposal to build a facility in Kings Point Park. Plaintiffs filed an action against the Village, its Mayor and its Board of Trustees seeking to enjoin the Village’s proposed project and its current use of a portion of the Park for storage as unlawful uses of parkland in violation of the public trust doctrine. The State then filed an action against the Village seeking relief with respect to the Village’s proposed project. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the State and Plaintiffs, permanently enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the project and from obstructing existing access to the Park and directing the Village to remove the materials being stored in the Park. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the causes of action challenging the proposed project were not barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) the continuing wrong doctrine applied to toll the statute of limitations on Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the ongoing use of parkland alleged to violate the public trust doctrine. View "Capruso v. Village of Kings Point" on Justia Law