You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

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

 

,

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

 

,

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

 

Failure to Make a Finding of Necessity Re: Restraining Defendant at Trial with a Stun Belt Is Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Error Must Be Preserved by Objection (No Objection Here)

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s failure to make a finding of necessity re: the defendant’s wearing a stun belt (a restraint device) at trial was not a mode of proceedings error.  Therefore the error must be preserved by objection.  Here the defendant consented to the restraint.  People v Cooke, 2015 NY Slip Op 01557, CtApp 2-24-15

 

, , ,

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

 

,

Defendant’s Having Unprotected Sex with Partner After Defendant’s HIV-Positive Diagnosis Did Not Constitute “Depraved Indifference”

The Court of Appeals determined that the “depraved indifference” standard in the first degree reckless endangerment statute was not met by the facts.  Defendant had (consensual) unprotected sex with his partner after the defendant was diagnosed as HIV positive.  The defendant’s partner was subsequently diagnosed as HIV positive:

Depraved indifference is a culpable mental state which means the same thing in the murder and reckless endangerment statutes … . As we explained in People v Suarez (6 NY3d 202, 212 [2005]), “[a] defendant may be convicted of [a depraved indifference crime] when but a single person is endangered in only a few rare circumstances”; specifically, where the defendant exhibits “wanton cruelty, brutality or callousness directed against a particularly vulnerable victim, combined with utter indifference to the life or safety of the helpless target of the perpetrator’s inexcusable acts” (id. at 213). Here, there is no evidence that defendant exposed the victim to the risk of HIV infection out of any malevolent desire for the victim to contract the virus, or that he was utterly indifferent to the victim’s fate .. . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 01485, CtApp 2-19-15

 

,

“Ensuing Loss” Exception to Coverage Exclusion for Water Damage Did Not Apply to Water Damage Stemming from an “Explosion” of a Water Main Outside Plaintiffs’ Home—The “Ensuing Loss” Exception in the Policy Referred Only to Water Damage which Stemmed from a Covered Peril (Like a Fire)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, with a concurring opinion, determined the water-damage exclusion in the homeowner’s policy precluded recovery for water entering plaintiffs’ basement when a water main burst outside the home.  Plaintiffs argued that an exception in the policy for water damage resulting from an “explosion” allowed recovery.  The Court of Appeals held that the “explosion” exception was part of an “ensuing loss” exception referring to water damage which necessarily followed a covered event, like an explosion or fire, and did not cover water damage stemming from an “explosion” of a water main outside the home:

First, “[i]n determining a dispute over insurance coverage, we first look to the language of the policy” … . Concomitantly, we “construe the policy in a way that affords a fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties in the contract and leaves no provision without force and effect” … .

Second, although the insurer has the burden of proving the applicability of an exclusion …, it is the insured’s burden to establish the existence of coverage … . Thus, “[where] the existence of coverage depends entirely on the applicability of [an] [*5]exception to the exclusion, the insured has the duty of demonstrating that it has been satisfied” … .

And finally, “[w]here a property insurance policy contains an exclusion with an exception for ensuing loss, courts have sought to assure that the exception does not supersede the exclusion by disallowing coverage for ensuing loss directly related to the original excluded risk” …

In this case, plaintiffs’ loss occurred when water from a burst water main flowed onto their property, flooding the basement of their home. Accordingly, their loss clearly falls within item 4 of the water loss exclusion, which bars coverage for “loss to the property . . . consisting of or caused by . . . 4. Water . . . on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source . . .[, including] water . . . which exerts pressure on, or flows, seeps or leaks through any part of the residence premises” … .

Turning … to the sudden and accidental exception, this clause is properly characterized as an ensuing loss provision, which “provide[s] coverage when, as a result of an excluded peril, a covered peril arises and causes damage” … . Platek v Town of Hamburg, 2015 NY Slip Op 01483, CtApp 2-19-15

 

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