You are here: / PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATORY NON-PROMOTION AND TERMINATION...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATORY NON-PROMOTION AND TERMINATION PURSUANT TO THE NYC AND NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW WERE SUFFICIENT AT THE PLEADING STAGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s claims of discriminatory non-promotion and termination pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law were sufficient for the pleading stage and should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff’s allegation that he, an African American, was terminated from his job by defendant, his employer, after making one mistake while two of his white coworkers who made similar mistakes were neither reprimanded nor terminated was sufficient to state a claim for discriminatory termination under the broad protections of the State and City HRLs … . Plaintiff specifically alleged that one of the white coworkers was an IT Help Desk Technician, the same position he held, and that the coworker performed substantially similar work under similar working conditions. He further alleged that he helped fix some of the mistakes that this coworker had made in the past. These allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage … .

In support of his cause of action for failure to promote, plaintiff alleges that his coworker was promoted to a job that he was already performing, and that the position was not posted prior to it being filled. These allegations are sufficient to meet plaintiff’s pleading burden as this Court has previously held that it is unnecessary for a plaintiff to allege that he applied for a promotion where he has alleged that promotions were typically made unannounced and unsolicited (id.) or where defendant failed to advertise the position … . Altidor v Medical Knowledge Group LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00870, First Dept 2-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the pleading requirements for claims of discriminatory non-promotion and termination pursuant to the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law.

 

/ ,

THE STANDARD FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” IS THE SAME AS FOR “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL” IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW’S DWI SCHEME; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER “INTOXICATION” STANDARD TO “IMPAIRMENT BY ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the standard for “impairment” in the context of “aggravated driving while ability impaired by a combination of drugs and alcohol” is the same as for “impairment by alcohol.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the Fourth Department’s rejection of the Third Department’s application of the higher “intoxication” in the context of impairment by drugs:

After the car he was driving with his fifteen-year-old daughter as a passenger was stopped by police, defendant admitted to drinking “a couple of strong beers” and smoking marijuana. He failed several standard field sobriety tests, and an officer certified as a drug recognition expert determined, based on a 12-step evaluation, that defendant was impaired by the combination of alcohol and cannabis and was unable to safely operate a vehicle. The People presented an indictment to the grand jury charging defendant with aggravated driving while ability impaired by a combination of drugs and alcohol with a child in the vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2-a] [b], [4-a]). For purposes of that charge, the prosecutor defined impaired as follows:

“A person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by the combined influence of alcohol and drugs when that combination of alcohol and drugs has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which such person is expected to possess in order to operate a motor vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.” * * *

… [I]n People v Caden N. [189 AD3d 84, 90-91], the Third Department held that Cruz’s [48 NY2d at 427-428] definition of impairment applied only “in the limited context” of driving while ability impaired by alcohol (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]) and instead defined impairment for drug consumption in accordance with the Cruz standard for alcohol intoxication … . Relying on Caden N., defendant argues that for offenses involving drug use, or drug and alcohol use combined, courts should define impairment using Cruz’s intoxication standard. We disagree with that approach and hold that “impaired” should be interpreted consistently across Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 in accordance with the definition that this Court gave that term in People v Cruz and therefore affirm. People v Dondorfer, 2026 NY Slip Op 00823, CtApp 2-17-26

​Practice Point: The standard  for “impairment” in the context of a Vehicle and Traffic Law violation for “impairment by alcohol and drugs” is the same as for “impairment by alcohol.” The higher “intoxication” standard applied by the Third Department for impairment by drugs was rejected.

 

/ ,

THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH DRIVING WHEN HIS ABILITY WAS IMPAIRED BY MARIJUANA WAS FACIALLY SUFFICIENT; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined that the accusatory instrument charging defendant with driving while his ability was impaired by marijuana was facially sufficient. The court noted that the Report of Refusal (re: a chemical test for drugs) could not be considered and that, because defendant waived prosecution by information, the less demanding standard for a misdemeanor complaint was applied:

In the accusatory instrument, defendant’s arresting officer made the following factual allegations:

“I observed the defendant driving a car . . . (the key was in the ignition, the engine was running, and the defendant was behind the wheel);”I know defendant was under the influence of drugs because I smelled an odor of marijuana coming from the defendant’s clothing. I observed that the defendant had watery and bloodshot eyes, and I observed that the defendant had ash containing marijuana on his pants. The defendant stated, in substance: I had two puffs of marijuana before you stopped me.“I advised the defendant of his rights regarding the taking of a test to determine the presence of drugs in his urine and the defendant refused to take the test.” * * *​

… The arresting officer observed physical manifestations of the effects of marijuana—specifically, that defendant had watery and bloodshot eyes. Additionally, defendant refused a urine test to determine the presence of drugs in his system. Lower courts have consistently held that such refusal, when considered along with the other allegations in the accusatory instrument, is relevant to determining reasonable cause to believe that the defendant drove while intoxicated or impaired … . … [A] defendant’s refusal to take a chemical test evince consciousness of guilt. People v Morel, 2026 NY Slip Op 00822, CtApp 2-17-26

Practice Point: Here the Report of Refusal was not incorporated into the accusatory instrument and therefore could not be considered in determining the sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

Practice Point: Because defendant waived prosecution by information, the less demanding standard for the sufficiency of a misdemeanor complaint was applied.

Practice Point: A refusal to take a chemical test evinces a consciousness of guilt and can be considered in analyzing the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument.

 

/ ,

IN 2024, ERLINGER V US HELD THAT A JURY MUST DETERMINE WHETHER A LOOKBACK PERIOD RELEVANT TO ENHANCED SENTENCING HAS BEEN TOLLED; BECAUSE THE SENTENCING COURT DETERMINED THAT ERLINGER APPLIED, AND BECAUSE THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO EMPANEL A JURY FOR RESENTENCING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER; ON APPEAL THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE ERLINGER ISSUE (I.E. WHETHER ERLINGER APPLIED) WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY EXPRESSLY DECLINED TO ARGUE IT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE HAD BEEN PRESERVED AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a comprehensive dissent, affirming Supreme Court, determined the People did not preserve the argument that the defendant should have been sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender (PFV) because Erlinger v US, 602 US 821, did not apply. The sentencing court determined Erlinger did apply. Because Erlinger held that a jury must determine whether the lookback period for PVF status has been extended by tolling, and because Supreme Court did not have the power to empanel a jury for resentencing, Supreme Court determined defendant could not be sentenced as a PVF. Defendant was sentenced as a second violent felony offender. The dissent agued the People had preserved the Erlinger issue and the First Department should have considered it:

Contrary to the dissent’s conclusion, the purpose of the preservation requirement was not served here. By expressly declining to argue that Erlinger does not apply, the People deprived defendant and the court of the opportunity to “probe [the] relevant. . . legal issues” regarding Erlinger’s applicability … .

From the dissent:

The primary question on this appeal is whether, under the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Erlinger v United States (602 US 821 [2024]), the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ guarantee of a jury trial extends to the calculation of periods of tolling in measuring the lookback period used in determining whether a defendant is subject to enhanced sentencing as a recidivist felon — in this case, as a persistent violent felony (PVF) offender, to whom a 10-year lookback period applies …  If it is constitutionally required that a jury determine the tolling, New York’s procedure for making persistent violent felony offender determinations will be substantially disrupted, as Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) § 400.15(7) … provides that such determinations “must” be made at a hearing “before the court without a jury.” The impact on New York’s criminal justice system — which, according to the amicus curiae, held in custody approximately 13,500 second felony offenders and approximately 1,500 persistent felony offenders as of January 1, 2021, collectively accounting for approximately 43.8% of all state prisoners — would be grave.

In my view … the sentencing court erroneously concluded that Erlinger applied to the tolling determination required to bring one of defendant’s two prior violent felony convictions within the 10-year lookback period. Because the court correctly concluded that it had no power under the CPL to empanel a jury to make a tolling determination, it sentenced defendant as a second violent felony offender, based solely on his more recent violent felony conviction, which was within the lookback period without the need for a tolling determination. The People appeal to us from the court’s application of Erlinger, seeking to have the sentence vacated and the matter remanded so that defendant can be resentenced as a PVF offender. People v Moore, 2026 NY Slip Op 00859, First Dept 2-17-16

Practice Point: The People, as well as a defendant, must preserve issues for appeal. Here the People argued defendant should have been sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender (PVF) because Erlinger, a US Supreme Court ruling that a jury must decide lookback issues for enhanced sentencing, did not apply. The sentencing court applied Erlinger and did not sentence defendant as a PVF because a jury could not be empaneled. The People expressly declined to argue that Erlinger did not apply at resentencing and therefore did not preserve the issue for appeal.

 

/

THE NEW YORK CLASSROOM-SIZE REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE ALTERNATIVES, NOT DISTINCT REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE INDEPENDENTLY FULFILLED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined that the list of classroom options for special classes for students with disabilities in the classroom-size regulations are mutually exclusive. A student’s committee on special education (CSE) need only choose one of the listed alternatives that best meets the student’s needs:

Plaintiff is the mother of O.F., who has cerebral palsy, visual impairment, a seizure disorder, and scoliosis. … … In 2021, the CSE determined during its annual review that a 12:1+(3:1) placement “would be … appropriate” … . The CSE considered and rejected other class options as inappropriate for O.F. * * *​

Plaintiff filed a due process complaint challenging, among other things, the 2021 IEP’s 12:1+(3:1) classroom recommendation. * * *

The Second Circuit certified the following question for our review: “When a student is covered by more than one class size regulation under [8 NYCRR 200.6 (h) (4)], do the varying restrictions serve as distinct requirements that must be independently fulfilled or as a list of class size options from which the DOE may pick?” … . * * *

​​… 8 NYCRR 200.6 (h) (4) provides alternatives. We thus conclude that the regulation requires a CSE to exercise its knowledge and expertise to select the listed alternative that would best serve a student’s individual needs. Cruz v Banks, 2026 NY Slip Op 00821, CtApp 2-17-26

 

/ , , ,

SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BASED UPON A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT AN AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE FOR AN “ABNORMALITY THAT DECREASES THE ABILITY TO CONTROL IMPULSIVE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s risk level assessment from three to two determined (1) the court should not have based a 10-point assessment on a juvenile delinquency adjudication and (2) the evidence did not demonstrate defendant suffered from an abnormality that decreased his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior:

Defendant was assessed 10 points under risk factor 8 for his age at the time of his first sex crime based on a juvenile delinquency adjudication when he was 15 years old, and the court rejected defendant’s challenge to the assessment of points under that risk factor. We have repeatedly held, however, that a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination … . * * *

Defendant also contends that the court erred when it,… adjudicated him a level three risk through application of an automatic override based on “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” … . We agree. It is well settled that “[t]he People bear the burden of proving the applicability of a particular override by clear and convincing evidence” … . … While the record supports the conclusion that defendant suffered from mental illness and that he exhibited impulsive behavior, there was no clinical assessment in the record establishing that his mental illness decreased his ability to control his behavior. Of note, neither the People nor the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders requested that the court apply the automatic override here and, further, defendant never had the opportunity to oppose use of the override before the court decided to apply it. People v Singleton, 2026 NY Slip Op 00756, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: A court cannot assess SORA risk-level points based on a juvenile delinquency adjudication.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the evidence required to apply an automatic override in a SORA risk-assessment proceeding based on “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” … .

 

/ , ,

GRANDMOTHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” SUCH THAT SHE HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT.).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter, determined that grandmother had demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” and she therefore had standing to bring a custody petition:

The evidence here established that, in 2018, the father was arrested and incarcerated until 2022. During that time, the children resided with the mother in the grandmother’s home until October 2021, when the grandmother moved out. The father never saw the children while he was incarcerated, rarely spoke with them, and never sent them cards, letters, or gifts. When the father was released from incarceration, the mother asked him to take custody of the children, which he did starting in July or August 2022; the grandmother visited with the children on the weekends. The mother died less than a year later, and the children lived with the grandmother during the summer of 2023. In September 2023, the parties filed petitions seeking custody of the children, and the court granted the grandmother temporary custody of the children, with the father having visitation. From that time until the conclusion of the hearing in July 2024, the father did not visit with the children and rarely communicated with them.

We conclude that the cumulative effect of the father’s extended incarceration, his failure to maintain contact with the children during that time, the children’s resulting bond with the grandmother, and the father’s failure to maintain contact with the children during the pendency of the hearing, is sufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances … . Matter of Craig v Thomas, 2026 NY Slip Op 00751, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of “extraordinary circumstances” which will confer standing upon a grandparent to seek custody of the grandchildren.

 

/ , , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT ABSENT A WRITTEN MOTION OR A WAIVER BY THE PEOPLE; THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE INTENT DUE TO MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT; ONLY A JURY CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court in this aggravated cruelty to animals case, determined (1) the judge should not have reduced the counts in the indictment absent a written motion and (2) the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the indictment. Defendant put three kittens in a knotted pillowcase left them on a balcony during a snow storm. They were discovered under several feet of snow. Two of the kittens died. The judge apparently concluded the defendant, due to mental disease of defect, was not capable of forming the intent to commit the offense. The Fourth Department noted that only a jury can make that determination:

… County Court erred in reducing the counts without a written motion requesting such relief. “A motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to [CPL] 210.20 must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the people” (CPL 210.45 [1] …). “The procedural requirements of CPL 210.45 must be adhered to even when consideration of the dismissal is upon the court’s own motion” … . Unless those requirements have been waived by the People, “[t]he failure . . . to comply with the statutory mandates requires a reversal” … . * * *

We conclude that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that defendant, with no justifiable purpose, intentionally killed the kittens and that defendant did so with aggravated cruelty inasmuch as defendant killed the kittens in a manner that inflicted extreme pain on the dying animals … or did so in a manner likely to prolong the animals’ suffering … .

To the extent that the court reduced the counts on its own finding that defendant could not form the requisite intent, that was improper weighing of the evidence inasmuch as “consideration of a potential defense of mental disease or defect should rest exclusively with the petit jury” … . People v Taylor, 2026 NY Slip Op 00738, Fourth Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: A judge cannot on the court’s own motion reduce counts of an indictment. There must be a written motion absent a waiver by the People.

Practice Point: A judge cannot, sua sponte, find that defendant could not form the required intent to commit the charged offense due to mental disease or defect. Only a jury can make that determination.

 

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE INITIAL POLICE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AS UNJUSTIFIED; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a suppression hearing, determined defense counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge whether the police were justified in initiating the encounter with the defendant based upon a vague and ambiguous 911 call:

We conclude that the record establishes that defense counsel could have presented a colorable argument that the police officer’s actions were either not justified at the inception of the encounter or otherwise not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances presented (see De Bour, 40 NY2d at 215). Here, the officer’s encounter with defendant was based on a 911 call from a security guard at a nearby restaurant who said that he observed a man who had what “looks like a black phone, but then again . . . looks like a gun.” The security guard provided a description of the individual, and the guard said that he could not be sure, but that he thought the man might have been part of a dispute that had taken place at the restaurant earlier in the day. Notably, County Court held a Huntley hearing at which the arresting officer testified, but the testimony of the officer as well as his body cam footage, which was admitted at the hearing, presented a ” ‘close [question] under [the] complex De Bour jurisprudence’ ” regarding the legality of the police encounter … . People v Wyatt, 2026 NY Slip Op 00720, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: Defense counsel was deemed ineffective for failing to challenge the initial encounter between the defendant and the police. The remedy was remittal for a suppression hearing.​

 

/ ,

THE RESTAURANT’S INSURANCE POLICY COVERED INJURY INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF THE “PREMISES” AND THEREFORE DID NOT COVER INJURY CAUSED BY A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS DELIVERING FOOD BY BICYCLE; IF THE POLICY HAD USED THE WORD “BUSINESS” RATHER THAN “PREMISES,” THE OFF-PREMISES INJURY WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined the restaurant’s insurance policy did not cover an injury cause by a restaurant employee a block away from the restaurant. Plaintiff was struck by a restaurant employee who was on a bicycle returning from a food delivery. The policy limited coverage to injury arising out of use of the restaurant “premises … and operations necessary or incidental to those premises.” The Second Department focused on the word “premises” and concluded an accident a block away from the “premises” was not covered. The court noted that had the coverage limitation used the word “business,” as opposed to “premises,” the injury would have been covered:

There is … a glaring difference between an insurance policy that insures against losses arising from operations necessary or incidental to a business, which would ostensibly include all claims of bodily injury arising from an employee’s negligence while that employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment for the business, and a policy that insures against losses arising from operations necessary or incidental to a premises, which include claims of bodily injury that must have some premises-based connection to the covered premises. Here, the insurance policy at issue covered only those damages that arose from the operations “necessary or incidental” to the premises, which is a narrower category of coverage. Despite the fact that the alleged incident occurred while the restaurant’s employee may have been acting in the scope of his employment, the incident did not occur as a result of any activity that was connected to the operation of the premises. Normile v DB Ins. Co., Ltd., 2026 NY Slip Op 00788, Second Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how a court will interpret a limitation of coverage in an insurance policy.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy