You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

Non-Resident Attorneys Must Maintain a Physical Office in New York State to Practice in New York

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the requirement that, in order to practice in New York, non-resident attorneys maintain a physical office in New York State is constitutional:

Here, the statute appears to presuppose a residency requirement for the practice of law in New York State. It then makes an exception, by allowing nonresident attorneys to practice law if they keep an “office for the transaction of law business” in this State. By its plain terms, then, the statute requires nonresident attorneys practicing in New York to maintain a physical law office here. Schoenefeld v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02674, CtApp 3-31-15

 

,

Line Between Inadmissible Testimonial (Hearsay) Statements and Admissible Non-Testimonial Information Clarified

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, with a concurring opinion, determined the defendant’s right to confrontation was violated in one case and not violated in another. (Ostensibly) the hearsay was not admitted for the truth of the matters asserted, but rather to explain police actions.  In one case, the hearsay was deemed testimonial (and inadmissible) because it was substantive enough to have effectively replaced the declarant’s testimony.  In the other case, the information was not deemed testimonial, because any connection with the information and an out-of-court declarant was speculative . The relevant law was described as follows:

…[T]he federal Confrontation Clause bars “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial,” unless that witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him or her (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54 [2004]…). “[A] statement will be treated as testimonial only if it was ‘procured with a primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony’ ” … and, “[i]f a different purpose underlies its creation, the issue of admissibility of the statement is subject to federal or state rules of evidence” … . Our precedent teaches that “two factors . . . are ‘especially important’ in resolving whether to designate a statement as testimonial—-‘first, whether the statement was prepared in a manner resembling ex parte examination and second, whether the statement accuses defendant of criminal wrongdoing’ ” … . “[T]he ‘purpose of making or generating the statement, and the declarant’s motive for doing so,’ also ‘inform [those] two interrelated touchstones’ ” … .

But this is not to say that testimonial statements are invariably intolerable at trial. The federal Confrontation Clause “does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted” … . Moreover, subject to the exercise of a court’s discretion, otherwise inadmissible evidence that “provide[s] background information as to how and why the police pursued and confronted [a] defendant” … may be admitted to help a jury understand a case in context “if the evidence’s probative value in explaining the [pursuit] outweighs any undue prejudice to the defendant,” and if the evidence is accompanied by a ” proper limiting instruction[]’ “… . People v Garcia, 2015 NY Slip Op 02675, CtApp 3-31-15

 

,

Introduction of “Prompt Outcry” Evidence in a Rape Trial, After the People, Pre-Trial, Had Informed Defense Counsel and the Court There Would Be No Evidence of a “Prompt Outcry,” Required Reversal

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversed defendant’s conviction in a rape case because the People, prior to trial, indicated there would be no “prompt outcry” evidence and, at trial, “prompt outcry” evidence was introduced.  Because defense counsel had formulated trial strategy and conducted voir dire with the understanding the first time the victim told anyone about the alleged offense was six months after the incident, the prejudice resulting from the “surprise” evidence was substantial:

Based on this record, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial or to strike a portion of complainant’s testimony. Undisputedly, complainant’s testimony that she told her friend “what happened” conveyed to the jury that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with defendant that evening. Although this testimony was relevant, we have observed that relevancy, alone, does not render evidence admissible because “‘it may be rejected if its probative value is outweighed by the danger that its admission would . . . unfairly surprise a party[] or create substantial danger of undue prejudice to one of the parties'” … .

Relying on the People’s pre-trial representation, defense counsel shaped his trial strategy — from voir dire to his opening statement — based on his founded belief that complainant did not disclose the alleged rapes until months after they occurred. Complainant’s testimony that she disclosed her accusations against defendant — even partially — the same night as the alleged assaults, took defendant by surprise because it was inconsistent with the People’s earlier position and with complainant’s grand jury testimony. Despite the People’s admission that they “expected” complainant to testify in such a manner, the prosecutor inexplicably failed to convey this information to defense counsel. As a result, the surprise testimony eviscerated counsel’s credibility with the jury and irreparably undermined his trial strategy. People v Shaulov, 2015 NY Slip Op 02676, CtApp 3-31-15

 

 

,

Felony Convictions in Other Jurisdictions Need Not Have a New-York-Felony Counterpart to Be Considered Under the Persistent Felony Offender Statute

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined the persistent-felony-offender statute does not require that felonies committed in other jurisdictions have a felony-counterpart in New York in order to be considered re:  persistent-felony-offender status:

New York’s persistent felony offender statute, by its plain terms, does not require that, in order to classify someone as a persistent felony offender, an out-of-state predicate felony must have a New York counterpart. Section 70.10’s silence with regard to New York equivalency is dispositive. As the Second Circuit explained in Griffin, when holding that section 70.10 was rational as applied to the defendant in that case, “[s]ection 70.10 (1) (b) does not distinguish among felony convictions that arise under federal, New York State, or out-of-state law. Thus, if the acts constitute a felony under federal or another state’s law, they will be deemed a felony for purposes of persistent offender status under [s]ection 70.10 even if there is no counterpart felony in New York law” (Griffin, 156 F3d at 290 [emphasis added]…). People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 02553, CtApp 3-26-15

 

,

Whether Arresting Officers Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop and Detain Is a Mixed Question of Law and Fact Which Cannot Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, over a strong dissent, determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the police had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and detention of the defendant, a mixed question of law and fact:

Whether the circumstances of a particular case rise to the level of reasonable suspicion presents a mixed question of law and fact … . Because the Appellate Division’s reversals were thus not “on the law alone or upon the law and such facts which, but for the determination of law, would not have led to reversal” (CPL 450.90 [2] [a]), these appeals are not authorized to be taken.

While acknowledging that “determinations as to reasonable suspicion typically present a mixed question of law and fact,” the dissent cites People v McRay (51 NY2d 594 [1980]) for the proposition that these cases instead involve a straight-up question of law — namely, “the minimum showing necessary to establish reasonable suspicion” … . In McRay, though, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court on the ground that the People’s proof was insufficient as a matter of law to support probable cause to arrest (id. at 605). When we disagreed and reversed, we therefore remitted to the Appellate Division for factual review, emphasizing that an inference of probable cause was permitted, but not required, on the facts established (id. at 605, 606). Here, by contrast, the Appellate Division reversed the suppression court because, when exercising its independent fact-finding powers, it drew a different inference from the established facts, thus deciding a mixed question of law and fact. The dissenting Judge strongly disagrees with the Appellate Division. But the views of individual Judges of this Court on the merits of defendants’ suppression motions are beside the point because the Criminal Procedure Law simply does not vest us with jurisdiction to entertain these appeals… . People v Brown, 2015 NY Slip Op 02552, CtApp 3-26-15

 

Defendant’s Inability to Participate in the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Program Based Upon His Disciplinary Record Should Not Have Been Deemed a “Refusal” to Participate in the Program

The Court of Appeals determined Supreme Court erred when it assessed points against the defendant in a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceeding for “refusal to participate” in a prison sex offender treatment program.  Defendant was not eligible for participation in the treatment program because of his disciplinary record.  He did not “refuse” to participate:

Whether a defendant’s prison disciplinary violations which prevent him or her from attending treatment can trigger an assessment of points under risk factor 12 has not been addressed by this Court. We hold that defendant’s inability to participate in sex offender treatment due to his disciplinary violations was not tantamount to a refusal to participate in treatment under the SORA Guidelines. Refusal contemplates an intentional explicit rejection of what is being offered. There is no indication here that defendant explicitly refused treatment. Conduct that places a defendant in a position where he or she could not receive treatment is not equal to refusal to participate in treatment. Inferring refusal from a defendant’s disciplinary record is not supported by the Guidelines, which state that points should be assessed where a defendant refuses treatment or is expelled from treatment. People v Ford, 2015 NY Slip Op 02554, CtApp 3-26-15

 

, , ,

Because the Landlord Engaged in Fraud, the Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Runs Back Four Years from When the Rent Overcharge Action Was Brought/Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Not Met Here)/Question of Fact Re: Piercing Corporate Veil

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that the four-year statute of limitations in rent-overcharge actions, where the landlord engaged in fraud, does not begin to run when the first overcharge payment is made, but rather extends back four years from when the overcharge action is brought.  Here there was evidence the landlord used a fictitious tenant and rent to justify the rent charged the tenants.  The landlord argued the tenants’ action was time-barred because it was brought more than four years after the first overcharge payment was made. In addition to the statute-of-limitations ruling, the Court of Appeals held the collateral estoppel doctrine was not correctly applied by the courts below and there was a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced due to the principal’s control over the corporate-landlord and the principal’s fraudulent acts:

Julie Conason (Conason) and Geoffrey Bryant (Bryant) (collectively, tenants) are the rent-stabilized tenants of an apartment in a residential building in Manhattan. Megan Holding LLC (Megan) is the building’s owner and tenants’ landlord. … Conason asserted an overcharge claim against Megan in April 2009, almost five and one-half years after she occupied the apartment under a vacancy lease. The principal issue on this appeal is whether CPLR 213-a’s four-year statute of limitations completely bars this claim. Because of the unrefuted proof of fraud in the record, we conclude that section 213-a merely limits tenants’ recovery to those overcharges occurring during the four-year period immediately preceding Conason’s rent challenge, and that the lawful rent on the base date must be determined by using the default formula devised by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR or the agency) … . * * *

CPLR 213-a fixes a four-year statute of limitations for claims of residential rent overcharge; specifically, this provision states that

“[a]n action on a residential rent overcharge shall be commenced within four years of the first overcharge alleged and no determination of an overcharge and no award or calculation of an award of the amount of any overcharge may be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the action is commenced. This section shall preclude examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the action” (emphasis added) (CPLR 213-a; see also Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516 [a] [2]; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR 2520.6 [f]; 2526.1 [a] [2]). * * *

Collateral estoppel comes into play when four conditions are fulfilled:

“(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits” … . … . …

Civil Court’s findings of fraud are not entitled to preclusive effect because two of the four prerequisites for collateral estoppel are unmet: the issues in Civil Court (breach of the warranty of habitability) and Supreme Court (evidence of fraud sufficient to render the rent on the base date unreliable) are not identical (the first condition), and findings of fraud were not necessary to support the judgment entered on the April 8th order, which awarded tenants rent abatement on account of Megan’s breach of the warranty of habitability and directed Megan to remedy code violations (the fourth condition). Conason v Megan Holding LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01553, CtApp 2-24-15

 

Property Occupied by Owner’s Relative Living Rent-Free Does Not Qualify as “Owner-Occupied” for Purpose of a Tax Assessment Review Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law 730

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined petitioners’ property did not qualify as “owner-occupied” within the meaning of Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 730(1)(b)(i).  Petitioners, the owners of a single family home, did not live there but an owner’s mother lived there rent-free.  Petitioners filed a “small claims assessment review” petition seeking a tax assessment review (SCAR) under RPTL 730.  The Court of Appeals held that the meaning of “owner-occupied” could not be stretched to include a relative of an owner living rent free in the property:

The history of the SCAR program establishes that its purpose is to address the plight of small homeowners. Limiting access to the SCAR program to owners who occupy their property reasonably restricts the program to those most likely to have limited resources and who are most economically in need of the SCAR program’s expeditious and inexpensive procedures. Hence, interpreting “owner-occupied” to mean what it says, namely a property occupied by its owner, is not such a “literal and narrow interpretation[]” as to thwart the statutory purpose … . Matter of Manouel v Board of Assessors, 2015 NY Slip Op 01555, CtApp 2-24-15

 

,

Findings in a Sanctions Proceeding Against an Attorney Should Not Have Been Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in an Attorney-Disciplinary Proceeding

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division finding that sanctions imposed upon an attorney, stemming from the attorney’s representation of a client in a civil matter, should not have been given collateral estoppel effect in an attorney-disciplinary proceeding:

This case is distinguishable from Matter of Levy (37 NY2d 279, 281 [1975]), where we determined that it was neither unreasonable nor unfair to impose collateral estoppel in a disciplinary proceeding after the attorney had been convicted of a criminal offense. There, we held that the attorney would not be permitted to relitigate the issue of guilt after he was convicted following a criminal trial, at “which rigorous safeguards were imposed to insure against an unjust conviction” … .

By contrast, the determination here was made on papers — without cross-examination or the opportunity to call witnesses. … While the issue of whether [the attorney] had made false statements in her written declaration concerning her prior knowledge of [an annuity] agreement may have been relevant, it was certainly not the focus of the hearing … . The cursory nature of the sanctions proceeding itself failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Matter of Dunn, 2015 NY Slip Op 01556, CtApp 2-24-15

 

, ,

Pre-Litigation Statements Made by an Attorney (Here In a Cease and Desist Letter) Are Protected by Qualified, Not Absolute, Privilege—Such Statements Are Privileged If Not Motivated by Malice and If Pertinent to Anticipated Litigation

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that statements made by an attorney prior to the commencement of litigation are protected by a qualified, not absolute privilege.  A qualified privilege will not protect statements motivated by malice.  Here statements made by an attorney in a cease and desist letter were made in good faith and were pertinent to anticipated litigation, and therefore protected by qualified privilege:

… “[A]s a matter of policy, the courts confine absolute privilege to a very few situations” … . We recognize that extending privileged status to communication made prior to anticipated litigation has the potential to be abused. Thus, applying an absolute privilege to statements made during a phase prior to litigation would be problematic and unnecessary to advance the goals of encouraging communication prior to the commencement of litigation. To ensure that such communications are afforded sufficient protection the privilege should be qualified. Rather than applying the general malice standard to this pre-litigation stage, the privilege should only be applied to statements pertinent to a good-faith anticipated litigation. This requirement ensures that privilege does not protect attorneys who are seeking to bully, harass, or intimidate their client’s adversaries by threatening baseless litigation or by asserting wholly unmeritorious claims, unsupported in law and fact, in violation of counsel’s ethical obligations … . Therefore, we hold that statements made prior to the commencement of an anticipated litigation are privileged, and that the privilege is lost where a defendant proves that the statements were not pertinent to a good-faith anticipated litigation … . Front Inc v Khalil, 2015 NY Slip Op 01554, CtApp 2-24-15

 

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