You are here: / THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO...

Search Results

/0 Comments/ ,

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO A TOWN’S ONLINE ALERT SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AS AN UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the disclosure of the names and email addresses of subscribers to the Town’s online news alert system would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy:

The Town uses a notification system called “E-news” to send subscribers email alerts regarding news, updates, or announcements relating to the Town. Petitioner James Russell submitted a FOIL request to the Town seeking disclosure of the names and email addresses of all residents of the Town who subscribe to E-news. Petitioner’s FOIL request relied on the Appellate Division’s decision in Matter of Livson v Town of Greenburgh, which held that a neighboring town was required under FOIL to disclose a similar email subscriber list for its electronic news service because the town had failed to “articulate any privacy interest that would be at stake” (see 141 AD3d 658, 661 [2d Dept 2016]). Petitioner’s request also stated that he would not reproduce, redistribute, or circulate the names or email addresses or use the information contained therein for solicitation, fundraising, or any commercial purpose—the same conditions that the court imposed in Livson … .  * * *

On one side of the scales, the subscribers have a strong privacy interest in keeping their names and email addresses confidential to avoid unwanted and unwelcome communications, and to minimize the risk of cybersecurity threats resulting from disclosure of such information. An email address, and the corresponding holder’s name, are commonly treated as personally identifying information (PII). For example, New York’s Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act includes email addresses, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account, as an example of protected information which—if accessed or acquired without valid authorization—triggers notification to the affected persons … . …

Generally, individuals share their email address with people they know, or in exchange for a particular benefit or information that they consent to receive. They assume and rely on a common understanding that those with whom they share their email address will maintain that information private from third parties and the public at large, unless otherwise agreed or implied. * * *

The subscribers’ privacy concerns also reflect the ubiquitous use of email as a means of communicating highly sensitive private information. One’s email account generally contains a large amount of personal data. For example, medical records, job applications, consumer purchase histories, tax returns, and credit card, bank account, and social security numbers are often embedded in emails, or in documents attached to emails. In addition, people often use their email addresses as a username or user ID to log in to many different websites or access online services … . * * *

On the other side of the scales, there is no public interest served by disclosure here. Petitioner argues only that disclosure will increase public engagement on issues of community concern. Matter of Russell v Town of Mount Pleasant, N.Y., 2026 NY Slip Op 00966, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the privacy concerns raised by the publication of one’s name and email address.

 

/0 Comments/ , ,

THE JUDGE COMMITTED A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR BY FAILING TO ACCURATELY AND FULLY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by not fully explaining the contents of a jury note. The defendant testified that he was sitting in his parked car, with the engine running for heat, listening to music because he didn’t want to disturb his family in a nearby house. The police noticed the car running and found the defendant asleep with an open beer in his hand. Defendant was charged with DWI and other offenses. The jury sent out notes seeking clarification of the term “operate” asking whether “operation” requires an intent to drive the vehicle or whether merely having the engine running constitutes “”operation:”

The court … read the note into the record as follows:

“We the jury would like clarification on the law regarding the first three charges. There is a portion that states the operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was, however, another segment. That segment, stated that operation is if the engine is running.”

When it read the note to the parties it omitted a question from the jury … . The full note stated:

“We would like clarification on the law regarding the first 3 charges. There is a portion that states that operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was however another segment that segment that stated that operation is if the engine is running. Are both correct?” … .

When the court read [another] portion of the note aloud, the court again altered the jury language. The court stated:

“And, then they also said the law for consumption of alcohol beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain a section that includes solely the engine running, which is also correct, and I will just read them that charge. Is that acceptable?”

But the note read:

“Also, the law for [Consumption] of Alcoholic Beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain the section that includes solely the engine is running. Is this also correct?. * * *

The court’s failure to read the jury note verbatim, or otherwise create a record demonstrating that the parties had received a copy of the note, deprived Mr. Galindo [defendant] of meaningful notice of the precise contents of the substantive jury note. By omitting the question “Are both correct?”, the court obscured the nature of the jury’s inquiry with respect to the “operates” element shared by the three counts of intoxication and the unlicensed operation charge. The jury’s question strongly suggests it wanted to know whether the “operates” instruction contained two distinct conditions either one of which could satisfy the “operates” element. Put differently, the jury’s question crystallizes its inquiry: whether intent to move the vehicle was necessary or a running engine was sufficient to meet the definition of operation. Had Mr. Galindo been accurately apprised of the contents of the jury note, he would have had the opportunity to provide input into how the court resolved the jury’s inquiry. Instead, Mr. Galindo was deprived of meaningful notice, and rereading the original CJI instruction responsible for the jury’s initial confusion did not adequately address the jury’s question. People v Galindo, 2026 NY Slip Op 00965, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to read out the jury note verbatim constituted a  mode of proceedings error.

 

/0 Comments/ ,

THE INVOLVEMENT OF A VAN IN A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE TRAFFIC STOP AND AN INCIDENT WHERE A TRAFFIC AGENT WAS NEARLY STRUCK BY THE VAN 24 HOURS BEFORE THE STOP PROVIDED “REASONABLE SUSPICION” THAT THE DRIVER OF THE VAN AT THE TIME OF THE STOP WAS THE DRIVER DURING THE ROAD-RAGE AND TRAFFIC-AGENT INCIDENTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined “reasonable suspicion” supported a traffic stop of a van which had been involved in a road rage shooting three weeks before and had sped away from a traffic agent, nearly striking the agent, 24 hours before the stop. The driver who was involved in the road-rage and ticket-agent incidents had not been identified at the time of the stop:

Although police must have individualized suspicion that the driver or occupant of a vehicle has committed a crime to conduct a traffic stop, information about a car’s involvement in prior criminal activity may support a finding of reasonable suspicion … . Such prior activity contributes to a determination of reasonable suspicion when it occurs with sufficient temporal and geographic proximity to the stop to infer that the person who was driving the car during the prior crime is also driving at the time of the stop … . …

The officers who stopped the defendant on May 18th had information from a license plate search indicating that a white Dodge Caravan with a license plate number matching the defendant’s vehicle was involved in a road rage shooting in Washington Heights on April 28th. Although that information was nearly three weeks old, the officers also knew from their conversation with the traffic agent that less than 24 hours before the stop and in the same neighborhood, someone driving the same car had evaded a parking ticket and nearly hit the traffic agent as they drove away. Because the driver during the traffic infraction sped away, almost hitting the traffic agent, the officers could have reasonably inferred that the driver during the parking violation was also the driver during the shooting and fled to avoid repercussions from the shooting. Thus, in addition to inferring that there was a connection between the vehicle and the two incidents, they also reasonably inferred that the same person was driving that vehicle during both incidents. Moreover, the officers knew from the vehicle’s registration that it was privately owned, which significantly narrowed the universe of potential drivers … . People v Zubidi, 2026 NY Slip Op 00964, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here circumstantial evidence that the same driver of an identified van was involved in a road-rage shooting and in nearly striking a traffic agent was deemed to provide “reasonable suspicion” supporting a traffic stop of the van three weeks after the road-rage incident and 24 hours after the traffic-agent incident.

 

/0 Comments/ ,

IF A DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA CASTS DOUBT UPON DEFENDANT’S GUILT OR THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA, THE JUDGE MUST “INQUIRE FURTHER;” THIS ISSUE CAN BE APPEALED IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION BY A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OR VACATE THE CONVICTION; HOWEVER THIS EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY IF A DEFENDANT FIRST RAISES A QUESTION ABOUT HIS GUILT AT SENTENCING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge concurring opinion, resolving a split of Appellate Division authority, determined that a defendant who pleads guilty but subsequently claims innocence at sentencing must, to preserve the issue for appeal, make a motion to withdraw his plea of vacate his judgment of conviction:

In People v Lopez (71 NY2d 662 [1988]), we articulated a narrow exception to the rule that defendants must move before the trial court—either to withdraw their plea or vacate their judgment of conviction—to preserve their challenge to the factual sufficiency of their plea allocution. The Lopez exception applies “where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” … . If that occurs, and the trial court accepts the plea without inquiring further, “the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal, notwithstanding that a formal postallocution motion was not made” … .

Defendant now asks us to resolve a question that has divided the Appellate Division: does the Lopez exception apply where, as here, defendant has merely claimed at sentencing that he is not guilty of the crime to which he had previously pleaded guilty? We now clarify that, because the Lopez exception arises from a court’s duty to inquire further where a defendant’s statements prior to entry of the plea cast serious doubt on its validity, the exception does not apply to defendant’s postplea statements made at sentencing. As a result, defendant’s argument that his plea was not knowing and voluntary is unpreserved for our review because defendant did not first move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment of conviction. * * *

… [W]e hold that statements made at sentencing challenging the factual basis of a plea do not trigger the [judge’s] duty to inquire. … [T]he Lopez exception to the preservation doctrine does not apply. The Lopez exception is based on the trial court’s constitutional duty to ensure, prior to accepting a plea, that a defendant’s plea is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent … . Inasmuch as the Lopez exception … arises from a trial court’s failure to perform its mandatory “duty to inquire further” prior to accepting a questionable plea… , it does not apply here. People v Rios, 2026 NY Slip Op 00963, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: There is no exception to the preservation requirement when a defendant first raises doubts about his guilt or the voluntariness of his plea at sentencing, as opposed to at the time of the plea. The issue must be preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the conviction.

 

/0 Comments/

THE HOTEL, IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM FAMILY MEMBERS, ASSUMED A DUTY TO CHECK ON A GUEST WHO HAD THREATENED SUICIDE; THE HOTEL FULFILLED THAT DUTY; THE HOTEL, HOWEVER, DID NOT ASSUME A DUTY TO IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE; THE HOTEL WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE GUEST’S SUICIDE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the defendant hotel, after a request from a guest’s family, had assumed a duty to check on the guest who had threatened suicide in text messages to family members. The hotel fulfilled the assumed duty to check on the guest. However the hotel did not assume a duty to immediately call for emergency assistance after a subsequent request from the family. The hotel, sometime after the family’s request, did procure emergency assistance. The guest was on the window ledge when police officers entered his room. He jumped from the ledge:

Plaintiffs concede that defendants did not have an underlying legal duty to prevent decedent, a hotel guest, from taking his own life. It is undisputed that defendants, as the owner and operator of the premises, are not insurers of a visitor’s safety. Rather, plaintiffs’ theory of liability is one of assumed duty. “[E]ven when no original duty is owed to the plaintiff to undertake affirmative action, once it is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care” … . …

… [T]o be held liable under an assumed duty theory, it is not enough that defendants undertook to perform a service and did so negligently, but their “conduct in undertaking the service [must have] somehow placed [decedent] in a more vulnerable position than he would have been in had [defendants] never taken any action at all” … . * * *

Recognizing an assumed duty in these circumstances would create a specter of liability that discourages rather than encourages hotels from offering assistance to guests contemplating suicide. Because hotels owe no inherent duty to provide such aid, the most rational and likely way for them to avoid liability would be to implement formal policies against their employees involving themselves in efforts to render potentially life-saving aid to guests. In keeping with the State’s “interest[] in preserving life and preventing suicide” … , the better rule is one that incentivizes both hotels and concerned parties to do all they reasonably can in these difficult and emotionally charged situations. Beadell v Eros Mgt. Realty LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00962, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an explanation of the circumstances under which a party which does not ordinarily owe a duty of care to another party can “assume” a duty of care in response to a request.

 

/0 Comments/ , ,

THE MISTRIAL, GRANTED AFTER THE JURY WAS SWORN, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY BAR TO FURTHER PROSECUTION BECAUSE THE JUDGE’S INQUIRY REVEALED THAT A JUROR’S COMMENTS, AND THE OTHER JURORS’ REACTIONS TO THOSE COMMENTS, IRREPARABLY TAINTED THE JURY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, dismissing the defendant’s (respondent’s) prohibition petition, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined that the mistrial granted after the jury had been sworn did trigger the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution because the trial judge (the respondent) properly found “there was manifest necessity for the mistrial.” Comments made by juror No. 5, and other jurors reactions to the comments, irreparably tainted the jury:

… CPL 280.10 authorizes the court to declare a mistrial “[u]pon motion of the people, when there occurs during the trial, either inside or outside the courtroom, gross misconduct by . . . a juror, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the people’s case” … . * * *

… [J]uror No. 5’s comments and flagrant disregard for respondent’s admonitions resulted in “substantial and irreparable prejudice” to the People’s case (CPL 280.10 [2]). Although each juror averred that they could nevertheless remain fair and impartial, the record supports respondent’s contrary conclusion in light of the hesitation of many jurors to disclose juror No. 5’s conduct, the denial of others as to having heard any of the subject comments at all and another juror who gave contradictory answers about what he had heard, notwithstanding respondent’s instructions to report improper attempts to influence the jury. Matter of Guiden v Jose-Decker, 2026 NY Slip Op 00942, Third Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the procedure to be followed by the judge before granting a mistrial after the jury has been sworn. To avoid the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution, the record must demonstrate “a manifest necessity for a mistrial.”

 

/0 Comments/ ,

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PROTECTION ACT (FAPA) DOES NOT VIOLATE THE TAKINGS CLAUSE OF THE US AND NY CONSTITUTIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) does not violate the Takings Clause of the US and NY Constitutions. The Court of Appeals has already ruled that retroactive application of FAPA does not violate due process or the Contract Clause:

“Those who do business in [a] regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative end” … Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Marshall, 2026 NY Slip Op 00946, Third Dept 2-19-26

 

/0 Comments/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the court should not have delegated its authority to determine parental access by conditional parental access on the consent of the children:

… “[A] court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . Here, the Family Court improperly delegated its authority to determine the father’s and the mother’s parental access with Destinee A. and Kaylee A. to those children. … [W]e remit the matter to the Family Court … for a new determination as to the father’s and the mother’s parental access with Destinee A. and Kaylee A. in accordance with the best interests of those children … . Matter of Destinee A. (Jacquelyn M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: A Family Court judge cannot delegate his/her/their authority to determine parental access to the parties or the children.

 

/0 Comments/ , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED A ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC ADRENALECTOMY; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON WHO WAS EXPERIENCED IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, BUT NOT ROBOTIC SURGERY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING; THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC SURGERY WENT TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the medical malpractice complaint, determined the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon, should not have been precluded on the ground he was not qualified to testify about robotic surgery. The complaint alleged the defendant negligently performed a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy:

“A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field, but the witness should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge, or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Here, the plaintiff’s expert, a board certified general surgeon, testified that he had knowledge of adrenalectomies and the splenic vein based on his education and training, had performed surgeries involving the adrenal gland, and had extensive experience performing laparoscopic surgeries, and he opined that the principles of good surgical practice with respect to the isolation, preservation, and protection of adjacent organs were the same regardless of whether a surgery was performed openly, laparoscopically, or robotically. This testimony was sufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s expert was qualified to render an opinion regarding the standard of care for a robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy … . The expert’s lack of experience in performing robotic assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomies goes to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility … . Lynch v Wang, 2026 NY Slip Op 00887, Second Dept 2-28-26

Practice Point: A medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field to testify about accepted practices in that field. Here the plaintiff alleged defendant negligently performed robotic surgery. Plaintiff’s expert, a general surgeon who was not experienced in robotic surgery, should not have been precluded from testifying.

 

/0 Comments/

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS FOR VACATING THE JUDGMENT, HE WAIVED ANY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES BY PARTICIPATING IN AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH BEFORE MOVING TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant had waived any jurisdictional (improper service and notice) issues by participating in an examination under oath in connection with the underlying renewal-judgment enforcement proceeding. Defendant had defaulted in the renewal-judgment proceeding and summary judgment had been awarded to plaintiff. After participating in the examination under oath, the defendant moved to vacate the renewal judgment, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to render the judgment. Supreme Court granted the motion:

“‘[I]mproper service of a motion provides a complete excuse for default on a motion and deprives the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion'” … , and “‘the failure to provide a defendant with proper notice of a motion renders the resulting order and judgment entered upon that order nullities, warranting vacatur pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4)'” … .

However, “‘[w]hen a defendant participates in a lawsuit on the merits, he or she indicates an intention to submit to the court’s jurisdiction over the action, and by appearing informally in this manner, the defendant confers in personam jurisdiction on the court'” … .

Here, the defendant made an informal appearance in the action by appearing for the examination under oath in connection with the enforcement of the renewal judgment, which went to the merits of this action. Bharath v Sitaram, 2026 NY Slip Op 00872, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: Here defendant waived any jurisdictional issues related to improper service and notice by participating in an examination under oath.

 

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