You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

Appeal Should Not Have Been Dismissed as Moot Because the Underlying Order of Protection Had Expired—There Are Significant Negative Consequences of the Issuance of an Order of Protection Which May Affect Appellant in the Future

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the appeal by respondent, who had been found to have committed a Family Offense and against whom an order of protection had been issued, should not have been dismissed as moot because the order of protection had expired.  The Court of Appeals explained that the issuance of the order of protection could have significant negative future consequences for the respondent:

“[i]n general an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” …. The ability of an appellate decision to directly and immediately impact the parties’ rights and interests is among the most important aspects of the mootness analysis, for otherwise the analysis might turn on inchoate or speculative matters, making mootness an unwieldy doctrine of a thousand “what ifs.” On the other hand, even where the resolution of an appeal may not immediately relieve a party from a currently ongoing court-ordered penalty or obligation to pay a judgment, the appeal is not moot if an appellate decision will eliminate readily ascertainable and legally significant enduring consequences that befall a party as a result of the order which the party seeks to appeal … .

In this case, the expiration of the order of protection does not moot the appeal because the order still imposes significant enduring consequences upon respondent, who may receive relief from those consequences upon a favorable appellate decision. Because the order of protection on its face strongly suggests that respondent committed a family offense, the court in a future criminal case or Family Court proceeding would likely rely on the order to enhance a sentence or adverse civil adjudication against respondent. ** * *In the face of the substantial probability that the order of protection will prompt severely deleterious future legal rulings against respondent, an appellate decision in his favor will directly vindicate his interest in avoiding that consequence of the order.

The order of protection has other potential legal consequences that render it susceptible to appellate review. For example, in a future legal matter, an opposing party might be permitted to use the order of protection to impeach respondent’s credibility …. . Furthermore, since the order of protection remains in a police computer database, albeit not in an active file (see Executive Law §§ 221-a [1]; 221-a [6]; see also 9 NYCRR 486.2 [g]), respondent may face additional law enforcement scrutiny and an increased likelihood of arrest in certain encounters with the police (see 9 NYCRR 486.3 [n] [declaring information obtained from the database to be relevant to the decision to arrest an individual]).[FN2]

Beyond its legal consequences, the order of protection places a severe stigma on respondent, and he can escape that stigma by prevailing on appeal … . Matter of Veronica P v Radcliff A, 2015 NY Slip Op 01300, CtApp 2-13-15

 

,

Violation of Labor Law Can Serve as a Basis for a Damages Action by a Police Officer Against the City Re: Injuries Suffered on the Job

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined that a violation of Labor Law 27-a can serve as the basis of a damages action by a police officer injured while on the job.  Plaintiff officer was injured when she fell off a truck while loading wooden barricades:

With [the] understanding of the legislative intent to give broad application to GML § 205-e, we turn to defendants' challenge to plaintiff's cause of action for damages. To succeed on their summary judgment motion, defendants must establish “a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” … . For the reasons we discuss, defendants have failed to meet their burden.

In order to assert a claim under GML § 205-e, a plaintiff “must [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the [police officer] was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant's negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm” … . Defendants allege plaintiff cannot satisfy the first requirement because the Labor Law may not serve as a basis for her cause of action. We disagree.

As a predicate to her GML damages cause of action plaintiff relies specifically on Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1), which provides that “[e]very employer shall: (1) furnish to each of its employees, employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees.”

Defendants counter that because [Labor Law 27-a] lacks a private right of action plaintiff cannot base her GML § 205-e claim on section 27-a. However, that is exactly what GML § 205-e permits and what the Legislature intended. While it is true that [the Labor Law]  does not contain an express private right of action …, GML § 205-e does not require that the predicate for a police officer's action contain an existing right to sue. Gammons v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08869, CtApp 12-18-14

 

,

Rule Allowing Testing of Horses for Speed-Enhancing Drugs at Times Other than Just Before a Race Is a Valid Exercise of Racing & Wagering Board’s Authority

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that the NYS Racing & Wagering Board did not exceed its authority when it promulgated rules allowing testing horses for the presence of speed-enhancing drugs at times other than immediately preceding a race:

While it is true that an administrative agency within the executive branch may not under the guise of rule-making engage in basic policy determinations reserved to the Legislature …, it is also true that the Legislature “has considerable latitude in determining the reasonable and practicable point of generality in adopting a standard for administrative action and, thus, [that] a reasonable amount of discretion may be delegated to . . . administrative officials” … . Here, the Legislature, in drafting Racing Law § 301 (2), was at pains to be explicit that that subsection was not to be construed as a limitation upon respondent's powers “to supervise generally all harness race meetings in this state at which pari-mutuel betting is conducted” and in that connection to “adopt rules and regulations . . . to carry into effect its [respondent's] purposes and provisions and to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof” (Racing Law § 301 [1]). Thus, not only does section 301 when read in its entirety make plain that the Legislature had no purpose of restricting respondent's general supervisory power over pari-mutuel harness race meetings, but it specifically authorizes regulatory action to prevent the circumvention or evasion of existing rules, necessarily including those whose object, sensibly understood, is “effectually” to prevent horses from racing under the influence of speed-enhancing doping agents. Out-of-competition drug testing, which, as noted, has as its raison d'etre the plugging of a loophole created in the pre-existing regulatory regimen by the introduction of doping agents capable of affecting competitive performance while eluding race day detection, is precisely the sort of measure contemplated by section 301 (1). As for section 902 (1), it too has no apparent limiting purpose — its designation of a laboratory to perform equine drug testing at race meetings does not reasonably signify that such testing may be required by respondent only at race meetings. Matter of Ford v NYS Racing & Wagering Board, 2014 NY Slip Op 08870, CtApp 12-18-14

 

CPL 330.30 Motions Based Upon Matters Outside the Record Properly Denied/Although Not the Case Here, Such Motions Might Be Deemed Premature CPL 440.10 Motions and, As Such, Considered by the Trial Court/Concurring/Dissenting Opinions Disagreed About Whether the Persistent Felony Offender Statute, Which Allows the Judge to Exercise Discretion in Applying the Statute, Violates Apprendi v New Jersey (Requiring Facts Upon Which an Enhanced Sentence May Be Based to Be Decided by the Jury Under a Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard)

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, determined that motions to set aside the verdict (Criminal Procedure Law [CPL] 330.30) made in two the cases before the court were properly denied because they raised issues which were outside the record. The court further determined that the persistent felony offender statute (PFO) at issue in one of the cases was properly applied. The court noted that, in some situations, 330.30 motions might be deemed (premature) motions to vacate the conviction (CPL 440.10) and considered by the trial court in that context, but no attempt to invoke CPL 440.10 was made here.  Concurring and dissenting opinions dealt with whether the persistent felony offender statute (PFO) violated Apprendi v New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000), because factual findings supporting an enhanced sentence are made by the judge, not the jury, and whether the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the courtroom was closed to the public for part of the trial should have been considered as a (premature) CPL 440.10 motion to set aside the conviction. People v Giles, 2014 NY Slip Op 08871, CtApp 12-18-14

 

,

Although the Landlord Can Sue Pursuant to the Accelerated Rent Clause and Is Not Under a Duty to Mitigate, the Out-of-Possession Tenant Should Be Afforded a Hearing On Whether the Accelerated Rent/Liquidated Damages Clause, Under the Facts, Constitutes an Unenforceable Penalty Because It Results In Recovery Grossly Disproportionate to the Landlord’s Actual Damages

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that, where the tenant has breached the lease and left the premises, the landlord can sue to enforce the rent acceleration clause and is under no duty to mitigate.  However, under the facts here, the tenant was entitled to a hearing to address whether the acceleration clause allows liquidated damages which are grossly disproportionate to the actual losses, and therefore constitutes an unenforceable penalty:

As a general matter parties are free to agree to a liquidated damages clause “provided that the clause is neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy” … . Liquidated damages that constitute a penalty, however, violate public policy, and are unenforceable … . A provision which requires damages “grossly disproportionate to the amount of actual damages provides for a penalty and is unenforceable” … .

Whether a provision in an agreement is “an enforceable liquidation of damages or an unenforceable penalty is a question of law, giving due consideration to the nature of the contract and the circumstances” … . “The burden is on the party seeking to avoid liquidated damages[] to show that the stated liquidated damages are, in fact a penalty” … . Where a party establishes a penalty, the proper recovery is the amount of actual damages established by the party … .

Defendants claim that because the acceleration clause permits [the landlord] to hold possession and immediately collect all rent due, the damages are grossly disproportionate to the landowner's actual damages. They contend this is a windfall that allows [the landlord] to double dip—–get the full rent now and hold the property. On its face this argument is compelling because arguably the ability to obtain all future rent due in one lump sum, undiscounted to present-day value, and also enjoy uninterrupted possession of the property provides the landowner with more than the compensation attendant to the losses flowing from the breach—–even though such compensation is the recognized purpose of a liquidated damages provision … . 172 Van Duzer Realty Corp v Globe Alumni Student Assistance Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08872, CtApp 12-18-14

 

,

Where Defendant Is Represented on a Pending Charge and Seeks Leniency by Cooperation with Police in the Investigation of An Unrelated Offense, the Police Cannot Question the Defendant About the Unrelated Offense in the Absence of Counsel Unless Defendant Affirmatively Waives His Right to Counsel In Counsel’s Presence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that defendant, who was represented by counsel in a pending criminal matter, should not have been questioned in the absence of counsel about another crime.  Defendant, in an attempt to gain leniency, told the police he knew that a friend had committed a stabbing. The police met with the defendant to “wire him up” for a meeting with his friend.  Defendant's attorney, Schwarz, knew defendant was meeting with the police for that purpose.  During the meeting, the defendant was questioned about the stabbing and eventually he admitted he had committed that crime.  He was then read his Miranda rights, which he waived.  The Court of Appeals held that none of the questioning about defendant's involvement with the stabbing should have be done without defendant's affirmative waiver of his right to counsel, in the presence of defendant's attorney:

Defendant relies on the rule, long established in New York, that “[o]nce an attorney enters the proceeding, the police may not question the defendant in the absence of counsel unless there is an affirmative waiver, in the presence of the attorney, of the defendant's right to counsel” … . The People respond that this rule does not apply here because the “proceeding” in which the police questioned defendant on …—their investigation of the supermarket stabbing ——was one that no attorney had entered. Schwarz, in the People's view, represented defendant only in the burglary case, about which he was not questioned.

We do not find this a viable distinction. The stabbing investigation cannot be neatly separated from Schwarz's representation of defendant in the burglary case. Defendant had pinned his hopes for a favorable result in the burglary case on his cooperation with the police investigation of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, Schwarz's duty to his client required him to concern himself with both cases.

Schwarz was not, of course, retained to defend the stabbing case: before the April 19 meeting, defendant had not been charged with the stabbing, and no such charge seemed likely. But Schwarz's obligation in defending the burglary case included an obligation to be alert to, and to avert if he could, the possibility that defendant's cooperation would hurt rather than help him. No responsible lawyer in Schwarz's situation would concern himself with the burglary case alone, indifferent to the disaster that might strike defendant if he incriminated himself in the stabbing.

We therefore conclude that defendant's right to counsel encompassed his conversations with police about the stabbing, as long as those conversations were part of an effort to obtain leniency in the burglary case in which Schwarz represented him. Thus, unless the right to counsel was waived, the police should not have questioned defendant about the stabbing in his lawyer's absence. People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08787, CtApp 12-17-14

 

, , , , ,

Privatization of a Mitchell-Lama Cooperative Housing Corporation Is Not a Taxable Conveyance Subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the reconstitution of a cooperative housing corporation [Trump Village], changing from a Mitchell-Lama corporation pursuant to the Private Housing Finance Law [PHFL] to a corporation pursuant to the Business Corporation Law, was not a conveyance of real property subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax [RPTT]. The NYC Department of Finance characterized the change as a taxable conveyance and was seeking over $21,000,000 in tax and penalties.  The Court of Appeals held that the amendment to the certificate of incorporation did not create a new corporation and that the amended certificate did not constitute a deed:

In support of their position that the privatization of Trump Village is a taxable event, defendants argue that an amendment to a certificate of incorporation is a “deed.” Defendants also assert that Trump Village is a new corporation and that there was actually a conveyance of real property to a different corporation, with Trump Village being both the grantor and grantee. However, defendants’ construction of the RPTT cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, even if there were any ambiguities regarding the application of the RPTT to this situation, “doubts concerning [a taxing statute’s] scope and application are to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer”… . Thus, we reject defendants’ strained interpretation of section 11-2102(a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. …

Trump Village …, is the same corporation that was named in the original certificate of incorporation. The Business Corporation Law distinguishes between amending a certificate of incorporation (§ 801 et seq.) and formation of a corporation (§ 401 et seq.). Section 801 (14) provides that a certificate of incorporation may be amended “to strike out, change or add any provision . . . relating to the business of the corporation, its affairs, its right or powers . . . .”…

The PHFL provides that a Mitchell-Lama corporation “may be voluntarily dissolved” and “[t]hat upon dissolution, title to the project may be conveyed in fee to the owner or owners of its capital stock or to any corporation designated by it or them for that purpose, or the company may be reconstituted pursuant to appropriate laws relating to the formation and conduct of corporations”(PHFL § 35 [3][emphasis added]). Accordingly, there are two options for the process of privatization, and plaintiff chose the second option – – reconstitution through amendment of its certificate of incorporation [FN1]. Defendants posit that the legislature intended the word “reconstitute” to mean the same thing as “reincorporate.” However, as long ago as 1857, it was recognized that reincorporation “cannot be deemed the formation of a new corporation, but should be regarded as the continuation of the existing one”… . Trump Vil Section 3 v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08788, CtApp 12-17-14

 

,

Sex Offender Who Has Difficulty Controlling Sexual Urges, As Opposed to a Sex Offender Who Is Unable to Control Sexual Urges, Should Be Placed Under Strict and Intensive Supervision, Not Confined

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that respondent sex offender should not be confined in a mental health facility after serving his prison sentence, but rather should be placed under “strict and intensive supervision.”  After finding the “least restrictive alternative doctrine” does not apply to Article 10 (Mental Hygiene Law) proceedings, the Court of Appeals determined the evidence did not support the conclusion respondent was a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement.”  The evidence demonstrated respondent had, with difficultly, been able to control his sexual urges, but did not demonstrate that he was unable to control them (the requirement for confinement):

The Mental Hygiene Law defines “mental abnormality” as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (MHL § 10.03 [i] [emphasis added]). By contrast, a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined in the Mental Hygiene Law as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (MHL § 10.03 [e] [emphasis added]). The statute — which goes on to describe a “sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision” as a “detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality but is not a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (MHL § 10.03 [r]) — clearly envisages a distinction between sex offenders who have difficulty controlling their sexual conduct and those who are unable to control it. The former are to be supervised and treated as “outpatients” and only the latter may be confined. Matter of State of New York v Michael M, 2014 NY Slip Op 08789, CtApp 12-17-14

 

,

Code Provision Prohibiting the Placement of Signs on Public Property Is a Constitutional, Content-Neutral Restriction of Speech Which Was Severable from the Rest of the Code Chapter—There Was, Therefore, No Need to Assess the Constitutionality of the Entire Chapter (As the Appellate Division Had)

Reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined that section 57A-11 of the Town Code, which prohibited the placement of signs on public property, could be severed from the rest of chapter and was a valid, content-neutral regulation of speech.  The Appellate Division had held that section 57A-11, which was valid standing on its own, could not be severed from the rest of the chapter and that the chapter as a whole was unconstitutional because it favored commercial over noncommercial speech. The defendant here had pled guilty to violating section 57A-11:

“In a statutory context, our test for severability has been whether the Legislature would have wished the statute to be enforced with the invalid part exscinded, or rejected altogether” … . In Superfund Coalition, for example, the unconstitutional portion was at the “core” of the statute, and “interwoven inextricably through the entire regulatory scheme” (id.). By contrast, section 57A-11 deals only with signs posted on public property, a discrete regulatory topic and regime. This is reinforced by section 57A-11 (A), which explains the provision’s purpose and focuses entirely on the unique problems posed by signs on public right-of-ways. In light of section 57A-11’s independent legislative purpose, this provision can be severed from any unconstitutional portions of chapter 57A. We therefore need not and do not consider the constitutionality of any part of chapter 57A except section 57A-11. * * *

Section 57A-11 of the Town Code * * * imposes a content- neutral ban on all signs on public property, and applies to both commercial and non-commercial signs without consideration of their content. Further, it directly serves the Town’s valid interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, as expressly articulated in section 57A-11 (A). People v On Sight Mobile Opticians, 2014 NY Slip Op 08761, CtApp 12-16-14

 

,

Overruling Long-Standing Precedent, The Court of Appeals Determined It Has the Power to Review the Summary Denial of a 440 Motion for Abuse of Discretion/The Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in this Case/The Matter Was Sent Back for a Hearing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, overruling long-standing precedent, held that the Court of Appeals has the power to review the summary denial of a motion to vacate a conviction based upon newly discovered evidence [Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10(1)(g)]. The defendant had already completed his sentence for rape when he had trial evidence—hairs and fingernail scrapings—subjected to DNA analysis.  The DNA results excluded the defendant.  The trial court summarily denied the motion to vacate and the Appellate Division affirmed.  The Court of Appeals reversed and sent the matter back for a hearing:

…[T]his Court is empowered to conduct a review of the lower courts’ summary denial of a defendant’s CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion, and to determine whether that denial constituted an abuse of discretion as a matter of law without running afoul of the jurisdictional limitations set forth in NY Constitution, article VI, § 3 (a). Although we are prohibited from weighing facts and evidence in noncapital cases, we are not precluded from exercising our “power to determine whether in a particular judgmental and factual setting there has been an abuse of discretion as a matter of law” because, in so doing, we are not “passing on facts as such, but rather considering them to the extent that they are a foundation for the application of law” … . * * *

On this record, there is a dispute between defendant and the People concerning the reliability of the mtDNA testing, what the results of such testing actually mean and the weight to be given those results in light of the eyewitness identification. As such, defendant should have been afforded a hearing so he could have at the very least an opportunity of “proving by a preponderance of the evidence every fact essential to support [his] motion” (CPL 440.30 [6]), including his assertion that had such DNA evidence been presented at trial, he would have received a more favorable verdict. We reach this conclusion not by weighing the facts or the inferences drawn therefrom, but by examining the parties’ submissions and concluding that the People failed to counter defendant’s prima facie showing that he was entitled to a hearing. Not every CPL 440.10 motion brought by a defendant will warrant a hearing, nor will every summary denial of such a motion constitute an abuse of discretion, but where, as here, there is significant DNA evidence favorable to the defendant and the People proffer no admissible evidence in opposition to that evidence, defendant is, at the very least, entitled to a hearing on his motion. People v Jones, 2014 NY Slip Op 08760, CtApp 12-16-14

 

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