You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

New “Medical Treatment Guidelines” Do Not Exceed Statutory Authority of the Workers’ Compensation Board

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that the Workers’ Compensation Board did not exceed its statutory authority when in promulgated its “Medical Treatment Guidelines” ( 12 NYCRR 324.2 [a]-[f]).  The Board had rejected payment for claimant’s acupuncture treatments which exceeded the duration of such treatments allowed by the guidelines:

The Guidelines include the list of pre-authorized medical procedures and set forth limitations on the scope and duration of each procedure. They also set forth a variance procedure, under which medical treatment providers can, on behalf of a claimant, request authorization for medical care not included in the Guidelines or in excess of the scope and/or duration that is pre-authorized (see 12 NYCRR § 324.3 [a] [1]). The medical treatment provider requesting a variance must demonstrate that the requested treatment is appropriate for the claimant and medically necessary … . * * *

The Board is authorized to “adopt reasonable rules consistent with and supplemental to the [Workers’ Compensation Law]” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 117 [1]). Courts will uphold regulations that have “a rational basis and [are] not unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the statute under which [they were] promulgated” … . * * *

Under the regulations, the burden of proof to establish that a variance is appropriate and medically necessary rests on the treating medical provider (12 NYCRR 324.3 [a] [2]). Whether a treating medical provider has met this burden is a threshold determination that must be made whenever a carrier properly and timely articulates an objection to a variance request. Matter of Kigin v State of NY Workers’ Compensation Bd, 2014 NY Slip OP 08052, CtApp 11-20-14

 

,

Evidence of Defendant’s Silence at the Time of Arrest Should Not Have Been Allowed—New Trial Ordered

The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because evidence of defendant’s silence at the time of arrest was erroneously allowed:

Absent “unusual circumstances,” evidence of a defendant’s silence at the time of arrest is generally inadmissible under common-law evidentiary principles … . And the use for impeachment purposes of a defendant’s silence after receiving Miranda warnings has been deemed impermissible as a matter of due process … . Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that defendant did not open the door to evidence of his post-Miranda silence and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in permitting its introduction at trial. Nor can the error be viewed as harmless in this case.  People v Hill, 2014 NY Slip OP 07925, CtApp 11-18-14

 

,

Judge Effectively Rescinded the Initial Declaration of a Mistrial and Left the Decision Whether to Declare a Mistrial Up to the Defendant—Because the Defendant Ultimately Agreed to the Mistrial the Double Jeopardy Prohibition Was Not Triggered

The Court of Appeals determined that, although the trial judge initially declared a mistrial without defense counsel’s consent, the judge effectively rescinded the declaration by leaving it up to the defendant to decide whether a mistrial should be declared (defense counsel had objected to the way the judge was handling the trial).  Because the mistrial was ultimately agreed to by the defendant, a second trial was not precluded by the double jeopardy prohibition:

Until the jury is discharged, a court may rescind its previous declaration of mistrial (see People v Dawkins, 82 NY2d 226 [1993]). Defendant argues that in this case the trial judge never formally rescinded his initial mistrial ruling, and so whether or not she indicated her consent after that ruling is irrelevant. Certainly, the judge never expressly said “I rescind my order declaring a mistrial.” But we have never required any particular language to be used to retract a prior order. Here, the record makes clear that the trial judge was leaving the mistrial decision up to defendant. Because she decided to “go with a mistrial,” and thus consented to it, her double jeopardy claim fails. Matter of Gorman v Rice, 2014 NY Slip Op 07923, CtApp 11-18-14

 

, ,

Defendant Who Pled Guilty Without Counsel and Who Was Not Advised of His Right to Appeal May Raise a “Deprivation of the Right to Counsel” Claim In a Motion to Vacate the Judgment of Conviction, Even Though the Issue Could Have Been Raised on Direct Appeal (No Appeal Was Perfected)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined the defendant should be allowed to raise the argument that he was deprived of his right to counsel in a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10, even though the issue could have been raised on direct appeal.  The defendant had appeared pro se, had pled guilty and did not appeal.  The judge did not advise the defendant of his right to appeal:

It is correct as a general matter that, when the record is sufficient to permit review of an issue on direct appeal, a defendant who either has not appealed his conviction or, having appealed, has failed to raise that issue is barred from later asserting it as a basis for post-conviction relief … .  * * *

But there is an obvious risk of unfairness in applying this procedural bar where the ground that the defendant seeks to raise is that he was deprived of his right to counsel. If he was indeed deprived of that right, that very deprivation may well have led him either not to appeal or not to have presented the issue to an appellate court. A defendant who has wrongly been deprived of a lawyer can hardly be blamed for failing to follow customary legal procedures. * * *

We conclude, in short, that defendant was not barred from raising his right to counsel claim in a CPL 440 motion. We express no opinion on the merits of the claim.  People v Grubstein, 2014 NY Slip Op 07924, CtApp 11-18-14

 

, ,

Although “Zone of Danger” Damages Were Asserted in the Complaint, the Failure to Request a “Zone of Danger” Jury Instruction and the Failure to Object to the Verdict Sheet (Which Did Not Mention “Zone of Danger” Damages) Precluded the Trial Court from Setting Aside the Verdict and Ordering a New Damages Trial

The Court of Appeals determined the trial court should not have set aside the verdict because “zone of danger” damages to loved ones who witnessed the death of plaintiff’s decedent (apparently caused by a collapse of a roof) were not presented to the jury. Although asserted in the complaint, no jury instruction on “zone of danger” damages was requested and no mention of “zone of danger” damages appeared on the verdict sheet.  Plaintiffs did not object to the jury charge or verdict sheet:

The issue of whether plaintiffs Gary Motelson and Evan Motelson had suffered and/or would continue to suffer emotional distress, as a result of being placed in a zone of danger wherein they witnessed the death of Steven Motelson, while asserted in the complaint, was not argued to the jury at trial. Nor was this question addressed in Supreme Court’s charge or submitted to the jury on the verdict sheet. Significantly, the questions on the verdict sheet concerning the roof support system asked the jury about the causation of “Steven Motelson’s injuries and death,” and not about harms to any others. Plaintiffs did not object to the jury charge or verdict sheet. In these circumstances, Supreme Court erred when it set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial on damages. Motelson v Ford Motor Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 07926, CtApp 11-18-14

 

,

Fact that Property Has a Use “Auxiliary or Incidental to the Main Exempt Purpose” Does Not Defeat the Real Property Tax Exemption Under RPTL 420-a

The Court of Appeals, in finding the property owned by a not-for-profit religious corporation exempt from real estate tax, determined that the “exclusive use” clause of Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 420-a should be interpreted broadly:

Under [RPTL 420-a], real property owned by a corporation that is “organized and conducted exclusively” for charitable and/or religious purposes, if “used exclusively” for such purposes, “shall be exempt from taxation” (RPTL 420-a [1] [a]). We have defined the term “exclusively” as used in this context “to connote ‘principal’ or ‘primary,’ such that purposes and uses merely ‘auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose’ and use will not defeat the exemption'” … . Matter of Maetreum of Cybele, Magna Mater Inc v McCoy, 2014 NY Slip Op 07929, CtApp 11-18-14

 

Apartment Buildings Used to House Actors and Staff of a Youth and Summer Theater Entitled to Exemption from Real Property Tax Under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL 420-a)—Property Used to Further “Educational, Moral and Mental Improvement”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, affirmed the appellate division’s finding that two apartment buildings used to house the actors and staff of a not-for-profit theater corporation (Merry-Go-Round Playhouse) were entitled to (real estate) tax-exempt status. The fact that admission is charged for performances did not warrant denial of  the exemption:

Under the Real Property Tax Law, “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for religious, charitable, hospital, educational, or moral or mental improvement of men, women or children purposes . . . and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes . . . shall be exempt from taxation as provided in this section” (RPTL 420-a [1] [a]). The burden of establishing that the property is entitled to a tax exemption rests with the taxpayer … .

Here, it is clear that petitioner is organized exclusively for an exempt purpose, in that it is intended to promote appreciation for the arts/musical theater, thereby providing education to the community and advancing the moral or mental improvement of area residents. The summer stock theater does not have the same educational component as the youth theater, but is similarly geared toward promoting the arts. In addition, although the summer stock theater charges admission, that bare fact cannot nullify petitioner’s tax exempt purpose. We have previously observed that “[a] ‘commercial patina’ alone is not enough to defeat tax-exempt status” … . Merry-Go-Round asserts without contradiction that the theater generally either breaks even or operates at a loss. There is no indication that petitioner is organized for the purpose of making a profit and this limited commercial aspect does not preclude it from receiving a tax exemption.

“The test of entitlement to tax exemption under the used exclusively clause of the statute is whether the particular use is reasonably incidental to the primary or major purpose of the facility. Put differently, the determination of whether the property is used exclusively for the statutory purposes depends upon whether its primary use is in furtherance of the permitted purposes” … . …

…[T]he primary use of the apartment buildings is in furtherance of Merry-Go-Round’s primary purpose. Petitioner established that the housing is used to attract talent that would otherwise look to other theaters for employment, that the living arrangement fosters a sense of community and that the staff spends a significant portion of its off-hours in furtherance of theater-related pursuits. In addition …the record shows that petitioner would have difficulty recruiting qualified staff if it did not provide the housing, which would undermine its primary purpose. Although we have not previously addressed the provision of tax exempt housing in relation to an arts organization, the statute does not elevate one exempt purpose over another. Under these circumstances, the use of the property to provide staff housing is reasonably incidental to petitioner’s primary purpose of encouraging appreciation of the arts through theater. Matter of Merry-Go-Round Playhouse Inc v Assessor of City of Auburn, 2014 NY Slip Op 07928, CtApp 11-18-14

 

 

,

Revised Retainer Agreement, Which Changed the Fee Arrangement from Hourly to a 40% Contingency, Was Not Unconscionable/the Continuing Representation Doctrine Will Not Extend the Statute of Limitations for an Action Seeking the Return of Gifts Made by a Client to Her Attorneys Where the Sole Basis for the “Continuing Representation” Is a Fee Dispute

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that, under the facts, a 40% contingent-fee retainer-agreement was not unconscionable.  The court further determined the six-year statute of limitations for an action seeking the return of gifts given to attorneys by their client was not tolled by the continuing representation doctrine because the doctrine is not applicable if the “continuing representation” is a fee dispute between the attorneys and client.  The underlying action was a suit by the beneficiaries of an estate worth $1 billion against the executor of the estate.  The estate litigation went on for more than 20 years.  The wife of the decedent, Alice Lawrence, after paying some $18 million in attorneys' fees under a retainer agreement, sought and negotiated a new contingent-fee agreement (40% of the amount recovered).  Lawrence was actively involved in the litigation and was apparently very savvy concerning financial affairs.  After the contingent-fee agreement was entered, the case took a sudden turn when the executor agreed to settle for more than $100 million, entitling Lawrence's attorneys to a fee of more than $40 million. Reversing the appellate division, the Court of Appeals determined the contingent-fee retainer agreement must be enforced:

Courts “give particular scrutiny to fee arrangements between attorneys and clients,” placing the burden on attorneys to show the retainer agreement is “fair, reasonable, and fully known and understood by their clients” … . A revised fee agreement entered into after the attorney has already begun to provide legal services is reviewed with even heightened scrutiny, because a confidential relationship has been established and the opportunity for exploitation of the client is enhanced … . …[A]n unconscionable contract is generally defined as “one which is so grossly unreasonable as to be unenforceable according to its literal terms because of an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties [procedural unconscionability] together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party [substantive unconscionability]” … . * * *

Absent incompetence, deception or overreaching, contingent fee agreements that are not void at the time of inception should be enforced as written … . …”[T]he power to invalidate fee agreements with hindsight should be exercised only with great caution” because it is not “unconscionable for an attorney to recover much more than he or she could possibly have earned at an hourly rate” … . * * *

We have never endorsed continuous representation tolling for disputes between professionals and their clients over fees and the like, as opposed to claims of deficient performance where the professional continues to render services to the client with respect to the objected-to matter or transaction. Nor do the rationales underlying continuous representation tolling support its extension beyond current limits. Matter of Lawrence, 2014 NY Slip Op 07291, CtApp 10-28-14

 

,

“Preamble” to Miranda Warnings Used In Queens County Undermined the Effectiveness of the Miranda Warnings—Defendants’ Statements Should Have Been Suppressed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that the “preamble” to the Miranda warnings used by the police and the District Attorney's staff in Queens County undermined the effectiveness of the warnings to the extent that the defendants (Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglass)  were not adequately and effectively advised of their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination:

[The “preamble” was as follows:]

“If you have an alibi, give me as much information as you can, including the names of any people you were with.

“If your version of what happened is different from what we've been told, this is your opportunity to tell us your story.

“If there is something you need us to investigate about this case you have to tell us now so we can look into it.

“Even if you have already spoken to someone else you do not have to talk to us.

“This will be your only opportunity to speak with us before you go to court on these charges.” * * *

Before they were read their Miranda rights, Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglas were warned, for all intents and purposes, that remaining silent or invoking the right to counsel would come at a price —they would be giving up a valuable opportunity to speak with an assistant district attorney, to have their cases investigated or to assert alibi defenses. The statements to “give me as much information as you can,” that “this is your opportunity to tell us your story” and that you “have to tell us now” directly contradicted the later warning that they had the right to remain silent. By advising them that speaking would facilitate an investigation, the interrogators implied that these defendants' words would be used to help them, thus undoing the heart of the warning that anything they said could and would be used against them. And the statement that the prearraignment interrogation was their “only opportunity” to speak falsely suggested that requesting counsel would cause them to lose the chance to talk to an assistant district attorney.

In sum, the issue in these cases is not whether, under the totality of the circumstances, these defendants' waivers were valid, but rather whether or not they were ever “clearly informed” of their Miranda rights in the first place, as is constitutionally required. We agree with the Appellate Division that they were not: the preamble undercut the meaning of all four Miranda warnings, depriving Dunbar and Lloyd-Douglas of an effective explanation of their rights. People v Dunbar, 2014 NY Slip Op 07293, CtApp 10-28-14

 

,

Marriage Between a Half-Uncle and Half-Niece Is Not Prohibited by Domestic Relations Law 5 (3)

The Court of Appeals, in answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined that a marriage between a half-uncle and half-niece is not incestuous under Domestic Relations Law 5 (3).  The husband is the half-brother of the petitioner-wife's mother.  Petitioner is a citizen of Vietnam and the husband is a naturalized American citizen.  An immigration judge had declared the marriage void and ordered petitioner removed from the country. Judge Smith, in one of two concurring opinions, wrote:

Section 5 of the Domestic Relations Law reads in full:

“A marriage is incestuous and void whether the relatives are legitimate or illegitimate between either:

“1. An ancestor and a descendant;

“2. A brother and sister of either the whole or the half blood;

“3. An uncle and niece or an aunt or nephew.

“If a marriage prohibited by the foregoing provisions of this section be solemnized it shall be void, and the parties thereto shall each be fined not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars and may, in the discretion of the court in addition to said fine, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months. Any person who shall knowingly and wilfully solemnize such marriage, or procure or aid in the solemnization of the same, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined or imprisoned in like manner.”

We must decide whether subdivision 3 of this statute should be read to include a half-uncle and half-niece (or half-aunt and half-nephew). There is something to be said on both sides of this question.  * * *

Domestic Relations Law § 5 is in part a criminal statute: it says that the participants in a prohibited marriage may be fined, and may be imprisoned for up to six months. Penal Law § 255.25, using language very similar to that of Domestic Relations Law § 5 (“ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece”), makes entry into a prohibited marriage a class E felony. Where a criminal statute is ambiguous, courts will normally prefer the more lenient interpretation, and the courts of several other states have followed that rule in interpreting their criminal laws not to prohibit relationships between uncles and nieces, or aunts and nephews, of the half blood … .  * * *

We are not geneticists, and the record and the briefs in this case do not contain any scientific analysis; but neither party disputes the intuitively correct-seeming conclusion that the genetic risk in a half-uncle, half-niece relationship is half what it would be if the parties were related by the full blood. Indeed, both parties acknowledged at oral argument that the risk in a half-uncle/half-niece marriage is comparable to the risk in a marriage of first cousins. First cousins are allowed to marry in New York, and I conclude that it was not the Legislature's purpose to avert the similar, relatively small, genetic risk inherent in relationships like this one.  Nguyen v Holder, 2014 NY Slip Op 07290, CtApp 10-28-14

 

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