You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

THE NYC ZONING RESOLUTION WHICH ALLOWS “JOINT LIVING-WORK QUARTERS FOR ARTISTS” TO BE CONVERTED TO UNRESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL USE UPON PAYMENT OF A $100 PER-SQUARE-FOOT FEE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE “TAKINGS CLAUSE” OF THE US CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a concurrence and a dissent. determined that a New York City Zoning Resolution which allows “Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists” units in SoHo and NoHo to be converted to unrestricted residential use upon payment of $100 per square foot did not violate the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. The 1971 “Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists” (JLWQA) designation allowed certified artists to affordably reside and work in buildings formally used for manufacturing which were not zoned for residential use. Over the decades the areas have been gentrified and became predominately occupied by non-artists. The challenged 2021 zoning resolution essentially allows any JLWQA unit to be converted to unrestricted residential unit by paying a fee. The petitioners argued the fee violates the Takings Clause:

We conclude that petitioners do not have a compensable property interest within the meaning of the Takings Clause, as the United States Supreme Court has interpreted it, and that the fee therefore does not constitute a taking. The Takings Clause protects property owners against exploitative governmental conduct that seeks to take property without paying for it … . The newly granted opportunity to transform the essential nature of a restricted JLWQA unit into a different, unrestricted interest is not in itself a property interest. Rather, it is the restricted JLWQA unit itself, and the concomitant bundle of property rights resulting from the City’s designation as such, that constitutes the property that the government cannot take without just compensation. The creation of an optional pathway to convert to unrestricted residential use upon payment of the fee has not extinguished or diminished petitioners’ property rights in their JLWQA units. The City gains no interest in the units upon conversion, and even if petitioners held a constitutionally protected property interest in converting their property, the rezoning plan does not subject petitioners to any governmental coercion to transfer property that they would otherwise retain.

Furthermore, a typical Takings Clause case involves the government’s physical acquisition or use of private land without compensation, or its monetary exaction from a property owner in lieu of a transfer of their private property interest. By contrast, a standalone monetary fee such as the one in this case does not implicate the Takings Clause merely because it is levied upon a property owner. Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 00076, CtApp 1-13-26

 

, ,

THE SIX-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S SEXUAL-MISCONDUCT GUILTY PLEA AND THE SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge concurrence, determined that the six-year delay between defendant’s guilty plea to sexual misconduct and the SORA risk-level assessment hearing did not deprive defendant of his right to due process of law:

Defendant pled guilty to one count of sexual misconduct, a sex offense requiring registration under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Nevertheless, defendant was not notified of his SORA registration requirements, and approximately six years passed from the time of his plea before this mistake was brought to the attention of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. After a full, albeit delayed, SORA proceeding, defendant was designated a level one sex offender, the least restrictive designation available, with the required twenty-year registration period ordered nunc pro tunc from the date of his release. Defendant claims that the delay between his plea and his SORA hearing violated his substantive due process rights. We disagree and hold that defendant failed to make the required showing that the delay prejudiced his ability to present his case to the SORA court and for that reason, we affirm. People v Collier, 2026 NY Slip Op 00074, CtApp 1-8-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the substantive and procedural due process protections raised by a six-year delay in holding a SORA risk-level assessment hearing.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY, PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THE BB GUN DISPLAYED DURING THE ROBBERY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY; THEREFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE “DISPLAYED-WEAPON-COULD-NOT-CAUSE-DEATH-OR-SERIOUS-INJURY” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT DEFENDANT DISPLAYED A BB GUN, SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHARGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division on different grounds, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense that the weapon displayed by defendant during the robbery was not capable of causing death or serious injury. Defendant had displayed BB gun during the robbery and was charged with first degree robbery. The dissent argued that, because it was uncontroverted that defendant displayed a BB gun, second degree robbery is the only available charge. Penal Law 160.15(4) provides “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when he forcibly steals property and when, in the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:* * * [d]isplays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that such pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged. Nothing contained in this subdivision shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, robbery in the second degree … .”:

​​… [T]he court properly denied [defendant’s] request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense. “When a defense declared by statute to be an ‘affirmative defense’ is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of establishing such defense by a preponderance of the evidence” (Penal Law § 25.00 [2]). The court must charge the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is “sufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of the defense are satisfied, i.e., that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon [readily] capable of producing death or other serious physical injury” … . BB guns are capable of producing injury, including but not limited to protracted impairment of vision … . Whether a particular BB gun is “readily capable” of doing so is not a question that we can decide as a matter of law … .

Here, although defendant made a prima facie showing that the object he displayed during the robbery was a BB gun that the police recovered from his home, he presented no evidence concerning the capabilities of that particular gun. Given the absence of such evidence, “the members of the jury could do no more than speculate that defendant’s gun was not [readily] capable of causing death or other serious physical injury, and thus the court properly denied defendant’s request to submit the issue to them” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 07082, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: When a defendant seeks a jury instruction on an affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Here the defendant argued the BB gun he displayed during the robbery could not cause death or serious injury and he was therefore entitled to a jury instruction on the “displayed weapon could not cause death or serious injury” affirmative-defense to first degree robbery. But because defendant presented no evidence on the capabilities of the BB gun, the Court of Appeals held the defendant did not meet his burden of proof and the trial judge properly denied the request for the affirmative-defense jury instruction.​

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED THE RELEASE TO APPLY TO A PENDING FALSE ARREST ACTION, THE PENDING ACTION WAS NOT LISTED IN THE RELEASE AS AN EXCLUSION AND IS THEREFORE PRECLUDED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined that, even if plaintiff did not intend to release the city from the second false arrest action when he signed a release for the first false arrest action, the release must be enforced according to its plain language. The release had a section where any actions not intended to be encompassed by the release must be specifically identified and listed. Plaintiff, with counsel present, signed the release without listing the second false arrest action as an exclusion, so the release precluded the second action:

This Court has repeatedly made clear that “[i]f ‘the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a “jural act” binding on the parties’ ” … . “As with contracts generally, the courts must look to the language of a release—the words used by the parties—to determine their intent, resorting to extrinsic evidence only when the court concludes as a matter of law that the contract is ambiguous” … , or where such evidence establishes one of the ” ‘traditional bases for setting aside written agreements, namely, duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake’ ” … . With respect to mutual mistake, a “high order of evidence is required” to overcome the ” ‘heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument [manifests] the true intention of the parties’ ” … .

Here, the City established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the clear language of the release, and plaintiff failed to raise any triable question of fact in opposition. The City’s intent to secure a release from plaintiff of “any and all” claims is evidenced by the plain text of the document it transmitted for plaintiff’s signature. As the Appellate Division correctly held, there was nothing “surreptitious” about the way the release was drafted or transmitted … . Although plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, could have excluded this action from the release by the simple act of listing it in the space provided for that purpose, he signed the release without doing so, an objective manifestation of assent that is binding upon him notwithstanding any unilateral mistake or subsequent regret on his part … . Smith v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 07081, CtApp 12-18-24

Practice Point: A release is strictly enforced according to its plain language. If a release includes a section where any exclusions from its reach must be listed, and that section is left blank, the release will preclude any other pending action, even where the failure to list a pending action was unintentional.

 

, , , ,

A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a three-judge concurrence, determined that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which purported to bind current and future municipal officials to plaintiff’s rezoning request for a real estate development project violated the term limits doctrine and was unenforceable:​

“The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so” … . It recognizes that “[e]lected officials must be free to exercise legislative and governmental powers in accordance with their own discretion and ordinarily may not do so in a manner that limits the same discretionary right of their successors” … . The doctrine thus instructs “that where a contract ‘involves a matter of discretion to be exercised by the [municipal body,] unless the statute conferring power to contract clearly authorizes th[at body] to make a contract extending beyond its own term, no power . . . so to do exists’ ” … . The term limits doctrine reaches only “matters relating to governmental or legislative functions” … and does not apply where the municipality is “acting in its proprietary capacity” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that by entering into the MOU, the Town Board violated the term limits doctrine by purporting to “limit” a “discretionary right of [its] successors,” rendering the MOU invalid and unenforceable … . Absent an enforceable agreement, plaintiff’s contractual claims fail as a matter of law. Hudson View Park Co. v Town of Fishkill, 2025 NY Slip Op 07080, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Here an attempt to bind current and future municipal officials to a rezoning request for a real estate development project was deemed unenforceable because it violated the “term limits doctrine.” Consult this opinion for insight into how the “term limits doctrine” is applied.​

 

, ,

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development had a rational basis for finding that petitioner did not use his brother’s apartment as his primary residence for one year prior to his brother’s death and therefore was not entitled to succession rights to the Mitchell-Lama apartment:

The administrative hearing officer found that petitioner failed to establish co-residency during the relevant one-year period. Initially, the hearing officer found petitioner’s claim that the subject apartment had been his primary residence since August 2018 was contradicted by documents addressed to him at a North Miami, Florida address during that timeframe—specifically, a February 2019 letter from the Social Security Administration and bank statements from petitioner’s Wells Fargo account for the period from October 2018 through January 2019. In addition, the hearing officer considered undated documents, documents dated outside of the one-year period and documents that did not include an address but determined such documents did not prove the requisite co-residency. The hearing officer likewise concluded that the statements from 2018 through 2020 for tenant’s bank account, listing petitioner as power of attorney, were not “credible, sufficient and reliable proof” that petitioner resided in the apartment as his primary residence. The hearing officer observed that the only documents that reflected petitioner’s address as the subject apartment during the required co-residency period were the April and May 2019 letters regarding SNAP benefits. Further, the hearing officer noted that petitioner had maintained his connection to Florida, as he had kept his Florida driver’s license throughout the co-residency period [FN2]. Based on these findings, the hearing officer denied the appeal, concluding that petitioner failed to meet the eligibility requirements. The opinion made no mention of petitioner’s failure to submit tax returns. Matter of Mantilla v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 2025 NY Slip Op 07079, CtApp 12-18-25

 

,

TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL THE PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE (1) THE OWNERS EXERCISED COMPLETE DOMINATION OF THE CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE AND (2) THE DOMINATION WAS USED TO COMMIT A FRAUD OR WRONG AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF; HERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE TRANSACTION AT ISSUE WAS FRAUDULENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the complaint in this “pierce the corporate veil” action was properly dismissed because there was no evidence the recapitalization at issue was done to commit a fraud:

From the concurrence:

A court will disregard the corporate form and pierce the corporate veil when there is a showing by plaintiffs that: “(1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . Because the use of the corporate form to limit liability of owners is a legal and beneficial principle of corporations, those who seek to pierce the corporate veil bear a heavy burden … .

Here, [the] attempts to pierce the corporate veil fail to raise a triable issue on prong two. The … defendants met their initial burden on summary judgment to demonstrate that they did not abuse the privilege of doing business in the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice, and [plaintiff] failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition. [Plaintiff] points to no evidence in the record that supports its claim that the 2006 recapitalization at issue was fraudulent. Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 2025 NY Slip Op 07078, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: This decision illustrates the two prongs of proof required to pierce the corporate veil: the owners must completely dominate the corporation with respect to the transaction at issue; and the transaction at issue must be fraudulent or wrongful with respect to the plaintiff.

 

,

SUBCONTRACTOR DAL HAD ENTERED CONTRACTS FOR THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, JRM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROCKEFELLER; PLAINTIFF, WHO DID NOT WORK FOR DAL, WITHOUT DAL’S PERMISSION, KNOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, USED A DEFECTIVE LADDER OWNED BY DAL; THE LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSES IN DAL’S CONTRACTS WITH JRM AND ROCKEFELLER DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined that DAL, a subcontractor, was not contractually required to indemnify the general contractor, JRM, and the property owner, Rockefeller, for plaintiff’s injuries from a ladder-fall. The plaintiff, Dibrino, a carpenter working for a nonparty subcontractor, Jacobsen, had already completed his measurements using his employer’s A-frame ladder and a scaffold, which he had moved to his next work-area, when he was asked to redo the measurements. Plaintiff, knowing it was defective, used an A-frame ladder owned by DAL when he remeasured. The ladder wobbled, plaintiff fell; a tool on his belt impaled his abdomen. The ruling that DAL was not obligated to indemnify the general contractor (JAM) and the owner (Rockefeller) for plaintiff’s injuries is based on the contractual language:

Mr. Dibrino’s unauthorized use of an unattended ladder (which he knew was not furnished by his employer and knew he was not supposed to use) instead of using the scaffold and ladder supplied by Jacobson that he had used earlier that day in that same spot, to perform work squarely outside the scope of the agreement between DAL and JRM, is not reasonably construed as arising from performance DAL’s work. JRM and Rockefeller’s reading would mean DAL’s contractual duty to indemnify would be triggered by any event that could be traced to DAL through any path—even, for example, had DAL disposed of the defective ladder in a dumpster and Mr. Dibrino retrieved it. Such an expansive reading of these indemnity provisions is implausibly broad, … an indemnification provision “must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … . Dibrino v Rockefeller Ctr. N., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07077, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how indemnification clauses in contracts among a subcontractor, the general contractor and the owner should be interpreted under the Labor Law. Here the clauses did not apply to injuries suffered by a worker who (1) did not work for the subcontractor and (2) used the subcontractor’s ladder without the subcontractor’s permission, knowing that the ladder was defective.

 

, ,

AN ARCH-SHAPED BOLLARD (A BARRIER TO PROTECT A TREE FROM VEHICLES USING A PARKING LOT) IS SUBJECT TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; HERE THE BOLLARD, WHICH FELL OVER WHEN A CHILD TRIED TO SWING ON IT, WAS INSTALLED 14 YEARS AGO; BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN-NOTICE AND BECAUSE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT WHEN THE BOLLARD WAS INSTALLED, THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined an arch-shaped bollard (a barrier to protect a tree from damage by vehicles using a parking lot), which fell over when a child attempted to swing on it, was subject to the written-notice requirement in the General Municipal Law. Because the city did not have written notice of the dangerous condition it cannot be held not liable. The Court of Appeals noted that a parking lot is a “highway” within the meaning of the General Municipal Law section 50-e “written notice” requirement:

Prior written notice is not required “where the locality created the defect or hazard through an affirmative act of negligence” which “immediately results in the existence of a dangerous condition” … . The exception is meant to “address[] situations where a hazard was foreseeable, insofar as the municipality created it” as opposed to situations where there is “difficulty in determining, after the passage of time,” whether the municipality was initially negligent … .

Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the City caused or created an immediately dangerous condition through an act of affirmative negligence … . Nor did the affidavit from plaintiffs’ expert create a triable issue of fact as to the City’s affirmative negligence because, among other things, it did not tend to establish that the City left behind an unsafe condition at the time it installed the bollard 14 years prior to the accident. Although the expert opined that the bollard was unsafe from “the moment” it was installed, they failed to explain this conclusory opinion through reliance on industry standards or empirical data, nor did they explain how their “professional experience in construction” supported their conclusion … . Rather, the summary judgment record suggests that, to the extent the installation method created a defect, any such defect resulted from the effects of environmental conditions over time. Gurbanova v City of Ithaca, 2025 NY Slip Op 07076, CtApp 12-18-25

Practice Point: A parking lot is a “highway” for purposes of the General Municipal Law 50-e “written notice” requirement.

Practice Point: A bollard (a post which serves as a vehicle-barrier in a parking lot) is subject to the “highway” “written-notice” requirement in the General Municipal Law.

 

, , ,

THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THE DRIVER FOR DWI; THE DRIVER’S ARGUMENT HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OFFICERS WAS REJECTED; THE DRIVER HAD SUBPOENAED THE OFFICERS BUT CHOSE NOT TO USE THE CPLR 2308 PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS; THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE WAS DEEMED “SUFFICIENT PROCESS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined a driver, Monaghan, whose license was automatically suspended when he refused to submit to a chemical test at the time he was arrested for DWI, was not denied due process rights when the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) revoked his license despite the arresting officers’ failure to appear at the revocation hearing. Monaghan had subpoenaed the officers and argued he was denied his right to cross-examine them. The Court of Appeal noted that Monaghan could have sought to enforce the subpoenas but chose not to. The Court found that the procedure for enforcement of subpoenas is not unduly burdensome. Therefore requiring Monaghan to use that procedure to exercise his right to cross-examine the officers does not amount to a denial of due process:

… [W]e reject the contention that Mr. Monaghan’s was deprived of his due process right to cross-examine the Troopers. His private interest in retaining his driver’s license and the government’s interest in public safety are both significant. The due process analysis, here, turns on the benefit and burden of requiring a motorist to seek judicial enforcement of a subpoena. Mr. Monaghan chose not to avail himself of the process set forth in CPLR 2308 (b). The process of applying to enforce a nonjudicial subpoena is not so unduly burdensome as to constitute a deprivation of due process of law. Our holding is consistent with appellate courts’ decisions rejecting due process challenges in other types of administrative proceedings where the petitioner has not attempted to enforce a subpoena … . It is undisputed that Mr. Monaghan did not seek enforcement, nor did he request an adjournment to do so. Matter of Monaghan v Schroeder, 2025 NY Slip Op 06959, CtApp 12-16-25

Practice Point: Here the officers who arrested the driver for DWI did not appear at the license revocation hearing. The driver argued his inability to cross-examine the officers deprived him of due process of law. However, the driver had subpoenaed the officers. He could have used the CPLR 2308 (b) procedure for enforcing the subpoenas but chose not to. The availability of the enforcement procedure was deemed sufficient process.

 

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