You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

UNLIKE A LEVEL-ONE OR LEVEL-TWO STREET STOP, A LEVEL-THREE STREET STOP JUSTIFIES POLICE PURSUIT, EVEN IF THE REASON FOR THE STOP, HERE AN APPARENT IMPENDING ASSAULT, WAS DISSIPATED BY THE SUSPECT’S FLIGHT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the appellate division, determined the police were justified in pursuing the defendant after a level three street stop, even though, at the time of the pursuit, the initial reason for the stop, an apparent impending attack on a pedestrian, had dissipated:

We have previously held that an individual’s flight from a level one or two police encounter, without more, does not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to pursue them (see People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1058 [1993]; People v May, 81 NY2d 725, 728 [1992]; see generally People v De Bour 40 NY2d 210 [1976]). We now hold that when a suspect flees during a lawful level three stop founded on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police may pursue the suspect.

… At the suppression hearing, Officer Kyle Eisenhauer of the Rochester Police Department testified that, on the night of the arrest, he was in uniform in an unmarked patrol vehicle with his partner, Officer Jeremy Nellist. The two were driving behind a sedan when a woman on the sidewalk threw a glass bottle at the sedan, which then came to a stop in the middle of the street. Defendant exited the driver’s door of the sedan and “in a very aggressive manner” began yelling at the woman and approached her with clenched fists. According to Eisenhauer, “[i]t appeared [that defendant] was . . . about to attack” the woman. Eisenhauer and Nellist exited their patrol car and told defendant to stop, and defendant “stopped and looked in [their] direction.” The uniformed officers were about 25 feet away from defendant without their guns drawn. Defendant “began to back away, and then quickly turned and began digging in the front of his waistband and running” away from the officers, leaving his car in the middle of the street with the driver’s door open. The officers followed in pursuit. * * *

We reject the notion that a suspect can legally flee a level three stop so long as their flight dissipates the reasonable suspicion of the crime that initially gave rise to the stop. People v Cleveland, 2025 NY Slip Op 02144, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: If the police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time of a level three street stop, they may pursue the fleeing suspect, even if the initial reason for the stop (here an apparent impending assault) is dissipated by the flight. In contrast, flight from a level one or level two street stop does not justify pursuit.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED AND FELL WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A LARGE CRACK, ASSUMED THE RISK OF PLAYING CRICKET ON A CITY-OWNED TENNIS COURT WITH AN IRREGULAR SURFACE; COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED; STRONG DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal of the complaint, determined plaintiff assumed the risk of playing cricket on a city tennis court with a cracked surface. Judge Rivera, in an extensive dissenting opinion, argued that there is a question of fact whether the city failed to maintain the tennis court in a reasonably safe condition:

Plaintiff was injured while playing cricket on a tennis court in a park owned by the City of New York when he ran to catch a batted ball and stepped into a large crack in the asphalt. The Appellate Division correctly held that the risks of tripping and falling while playing on an irregular surface are inherent in the game of cricket … . There is no evidence in the record that the irregularity in the playing field—the cracked and uneven surface of the tennis court—unreasonably enhanced the ordinary risk of playing cricket on an irregular surface … . Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the primary assumption of risk doctrine precludes liability on the part of defendants.

From the dissent:

The primary assumption of risk doctrine does not completely displace a landowner’s traditional duty of care to maintain their premises in a safe condition. Tripping on a fissure that is allegedly the result of years of neglect is not a risk inherent to cricket, or any other sport, and defendants were therefore not entitled to summary judgment on the theory that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by playing on a deteriorated surface. The majority empowers defendants to escape all accountability for their alleged negligence, which put plaintiff and other park users at risk of serious injury. Maharaj v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02143, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: Here the assumption of the risk doctrine was deemed to outweigh any obligation on the city’s part to maintain the surface of a tennis court in a safe condition.

 

, ,

THE CITY CANNOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDED TO A DISABLED FIREFIGHTER WHERE THE FIREFIGHTER RECEIVED BENEFITS FROM MORE THAN ONE SOURCE WHICH, IN TOTAL, EXCEEDED THE FIREFIGHTER’S FORMER SALARY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the city (Newburgh) could not recoup payments made to a disabled firefighter (Mr. Schulze) from workers’ compensation awards. The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:

​Pursuant to a complicated statutory scheme, paid firefighters outside New York City who become disabled at work may receive benefits from different sources: their local governmental employer, New York State, and the Workers’ Compensation System. Adam Schulze is a retired paid firefighter who, when employed by the City of Newburgh, was disabled in the performance of duty. He received benefits from all three sources. This case concerns whether the City can compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to pay Mr. Schulze’s workers’ compensation benefits to the City, as a way to allow it to recoup an overpayment it claims to have made to Mr. Schulze. Based on the clear language of the relevant statutes, the City cannot do so. * * *

Neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) nor Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (2) allows reimbursement from workers’ compensation awards for payments made under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). The provision that prevents Mr. Schulze and other firefighters like him from receiving duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a). The City of Newburgh Fire Department is therefore not entitled to reimbursement directly from Mr. Schulze’s workers’ compensation award for its prior payments to him under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Matter of Schulze v City of Newburgh Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 02101, CtApp 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a breakdown of the sources of disability payments available to an injured firefighter who was employed outside New York City.​

 

, ,

THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH “FAILURE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUSTENANCE” FOR A DOG, AN A MISDEMEANOR, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NONHEARSAY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS; INSTRUMENT DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the accusatory instrument charging defendant with “failure to provide necessary sustenance” for a dog was facially insufficient because no nonhearsay factual allegations supporting the charge were provided: The statute at issue is Agriculture and Markets Laws (AML) section 353:

“A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution” … . We evaluate the accusatory instrument here under the standard applicable to a misdemeanor information. In accordance with CPL 100.40, “[a] misdemeanor information must set forth ‘nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged’ ” … . This requirement is jurisdictional, and an accusatory instrument that falls short must be dismissed … . “[T]he test for whether a flaw in an accusatory instrument is jurisdictional is. . . whether the accusatory instrument failed to supply defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy” … . * * *

… [A]n accusatory instrument charging a violation of section 353 need not include documentation from a veterinarian, especially in those cases where the conditions are visible or palpable. The investigator did not allege any facts in support of [an alleged failure to provide veterinary care]. The investigator also failed to describe the conditions under which he first observed [the dog]—splayed in the middle of a traffic lane and barely able to move—which might have allowed for an inference that the dog was mistreated or neglected to the point of being in extremis.

In sum, the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from the accusatory instrument are insufficient to “establish every element of the offense charged” … , that defendant deprived [the dog] of sustenance in violation of AML section 353. People v Farrell, 2025 NY Slip Op 02100 CtApp 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for some insight into the nature of the nonhearsay factual allegations which must be included in an accusatory instrument charging an A misdemeanor, here a violation of the Agriculture and Markets Law section 353 (failure to provide necessary sustenance for a dog).​

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the fact that the resentencing court in 2016 found defendant’s 2006 conviction by guilty plea “constitutionally infirm” for purposes of sentencing did not require the SORA court to ignore the 2006 conviction. Defendant had never directly attacked the constitutionality of the 2006 conviction:

Defendant’s reliance on the resentencing court’s collateral determination that his 2006 conviction cannot be used as a predicate to impose an enhanced sentence is misplaced. As the resentencing court explained, it lacked authority to vacate the 2006 conviction and instead properly stressed that its determination governed only the question of whether the People could use the conviction to establish defendant’s status as a second child sexual assault felony offender for purposes of sentencing. Furthermore, at the resentencing hearing, defendant bore the burden of offering substantial evidence that the 2006 conviction is constitutionally infirm … . If defendant directly challenged the conviction’s constitutionality, however, he would face a higher burden of proof … . No court has determined that defendant’s 2006 conviction is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid under that more demanding standard. Nor have the People had an opportunity to be heard in opposition to defendant’s attempt to make such a showing. Against this backdrop, it is logical for the Guidelines to require an offender with a prior felony sex offense conviction to satisfy the higher evidentiary burden that they must meet to vacate or reverse that conviction, if they wish to avoid the override’s application.

Given that defendant failed to pursue any procedural pathway to vacate the 2006 conviction, we see no reason to depart from the Guidelines’ text stating that the override is triggered if “[t]he offender has a prior felony conviction for a sex crime” (Guidelines, override 1). We therefore apply the Guidelines and hold that the override was properly implemented … . People v Moss, 2025 NY Slip Op 01673, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The fact that a sentencing court found a prior conviction “constitutionally infirm” such that the conviction was not used to enhance defendant’s sentence did not require that the SORA court ignore the prior conviction. The SORA court properly relied upon the prior conviction here.

 

, ,

THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION TO AMEND PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS TO PERMANENTLY EXEMPT AN APARTMENT FROM RENT STABILIZATION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR); ONLY MINISTERIAL AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, SUCH AS CLERICAL ERRORS AND MISSPELLINGS, ARE ALLOWED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) properly rejected petitioner-landlord’s application to amend two prior annual registration statements to permanently exempt an apartment from rent stabilization. The ability to amend the annual registration statements extends only to ministerial issues such as clerical errors, misspellings, incorrect lease terms, etc.:

DHCR’s chosen limiting principle—that amendments may correct only “ministerial” issues—does not permit amendments that seek to remove a housing accommodation’s rent-stabilized status.  The application of that rule to this case was clearly rational. Matter of LL 410 E. 78th St. LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01672, CtApp 3-20-25

 

, , ,

IN ORDER TO SEEK COURT REVIEW OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY AN EMPLOYER AND/OR A UNION, AN EMPLOYEE MUST BRING A PLENARY ACTION, NOT AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, affirming the dismissal of appellant-employee’s Article 78 petition, determined an employee who has exhausted the contractual grievance process and alleges the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement must bring a plenary action, not an Article 78 proceeding, for any further review:

… [W]hen a claim arises under a collective bargaining agreement that creates a mandatory grievance process, the employee “may not sue the employer directly for breach of that agreement but must proceed, through the union, in accordance with the contract. Unless the contract provides otherwise, only when the union fails in its duty of fair representation can the employee go beyond the agreed procedure and litigate a contract issue directly against the employer” … . Allegations that an employer has breached the collective bargaining agreement are contract claims that may not be resolved in an article 78 proceeding … . Thus, when an employee alleges that an employer has breached a term in a collective bargaining agreement, the proper mechanism is a plenary action alleging both breach of contract by the employer and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union … . * * *

The procedure applicable to an employee’s claim depends on the source of the right or benefit the employee asserts. Statutory or constitutional claims are appropriately brought in an article 78 proceeding … . Claims arising exclusively from an alleged breach of a term in a collective bargaining agreement must be brought through a civil action for breach of contract … and must meet the requirements set out in Ambach (70 NY2d at 508). Matter of Dourdounas v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01671, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: An employee who, after exhausting the grievance mechanism in a collective bargaining agreement, seeks court review of whether the employer and/or the union breached the collective bargaining agreement must bring a plenary action, not an Article 78 proceeding.

 

,

UNBEKNOWNST TO ALL DURING THE 1992 SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEEDING, THE DECEDENT’S BROTHER WAS STILL ALIVE; DECEDENT’S NEPHEW TOOK POSSESSION OF DECEDENT’S PROPERTY, A THREE-STORY BUILDING, IN 1993; THE NEPHEW FIRST BECAME AWARE OF DECEDENT’S BROTHER’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN 2019; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE NEPHEW ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a dissenting opinion, determined respondent (Mr. Golobe), who “inherited” the building after his aunt (Dorothy) died, was entitled to the building through adverse possession after it became known that Dorothy’s brother, Yale, was still alive. During the Surrogate’s Court proceeding a family friend testified that Yale  predeceased Dorothy by six or seven years:

Mr. Golobe. Mr. Golobe took possession of the Premises in October 1992 and has maintained possession since then. He has negotiated leases, collected and retained rent, paid property taxes, executed a construction mortgage, and made substantial renovations to the Premises. Those renovations include a complete structural support overhaul, an interior gut renovation, the replacement of the front entrance and door, the replacement of the second and third floor windows, and the replacement of the roof.

Yale actually died the year after Dorothy, in 1993. His estate passed to his wife Helen, then to Helen’s sister Beatrice, then to Beatrice’s husband Emil Kraus. Upon Mr. Kraus’s death, his estate passed to the Trust, the defendant-appellant in this case. * * *

The question—whether a cotenant may adversely possess property when neither cotenant is aware of the existence of the co-tenancy—is an issue of first impression in New York. We hold that a cotenant may obtain full ownership of jointly owned property even when neither party is aware of the other cotenant’s interest. Mr. Golobe did so.

“To establish a claim of adverse possession, the occupation of the property must be (1) hostile and under a claim of right (i.e., a reasonable basis for the belief that the subject property belongs to a particular party), (2) actual, (3) open and notorious, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period (at least 10 years)” … . The parties agree that Mr. Golobe actually, exclusively and continuously occupied the Premises for over 20 years, beginning in October 1992. We must determine whether Mr. Golobe’s possession was hostile, under a claim of right, and open and notorious. It was all three. Golobe v Mielnicki, 2025 NY Slip Op 01670, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals determined a cotenant may adversely possess property even when neither cotenant is aware of the existence of the co-tenancy.

 

, , ,

TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE FOUR-YEAR LOOKBACK FOR A “FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO INFLATE RENTS” ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF NEED NOT ALLEGE RELIANCE ON A FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION; IT IS ENOUGH TO ALLEGE SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF FRAUD OR A COLORABLE CLAIM OF FRAUD (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined that to sufficiently allege the applicability of the fraud exception to the four-year statute of limitations (“lookback” period) in a “fraudulent scheme to inflate rents” action, a plaintiff need not allege satisfaction of each element of common-law fraud (including reliance), rather the plaintiff need only allege “sufficient indicia” of fraud:

… [T]he fraud exception serves a far different purpose than an allegation of common law fraud. The fraud exception, applicable only to an overcharge claim, simply allows for review of the rental history outside the four-year lookback period and then … “solely to ascertain whether fraud occurred—not to furnish evidence for calculation of the base date rent or permit recovery for years of overcharges barred by the statute of limitations” … . The exception operates to protect not only current tenants, who may or may not have relied on a fraudulent representation, but future tenants and the overall rent regulatory system. Requiring that a tenant show reliance on a landlord’s fraudulent representation would exempt an “unscrupulous landlord in collusion with a tenant” from the consequences of engaging in a scheme to evade the law’s protection … . Given the narrow purpose and scope of the fraud exception, there is no basis for imposing the pleading requirements of a common law fraud claim. Instead, we require plaintiffs to put forth “sufficient indicia of fraud” or a “colorable claim” of a fraudulent scheme but do not impose a burden to establish each element of a common law fraud claim.

… [T]o invoke the fraud exception, a plaintiff must allege sufficient indicia of fraud, or a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme to evade the protections of the rent stabilization laws, to withstand a motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Such allegations must include more than an assertion that a tenant was overcharged—a mere allegation of a high rent increase is insufficient for the fraud exception to apply … We address only the reliance issue here. On remittal the Appellate Division should apply our established standard—assessing whether plaintiffs’ complaint alleges sufficient indicia of fraud or a colorable claim of a fraudulent scheme “to remove tenants’ apartment from the protections of rent stabilization” … . Burrows v 75-25 153rd St., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01669, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into what the complaint must allege to invoke the fraud exception to the four-year lookback period for a “fraudulent scheme to inflate rents” action.

 

, ,

NEW YORK CITY LOCAL LAW 11, WHICH ALLOWS NON-CITIZENS TO VOTE, VIOLATES THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined New York City Local Law 11, which allowed non-citizens to vote, violates the New York Constitution:

Local Law 11 allows “municipal voters” to vote in New York City elections for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President and City Council Member (New York City Charter §§ 1057-aa, 1057-bb). The law defines a municipal voter as “a person who is not a United States citizen on the date of the election on which he or she is voting,” and who: (1) “is either a lawful permanent resident or authorized to work in the United States”; (2) “is a resident of New York city and will have been such a resident for 30 consecutive days or longer by the date of such election”; and (3) “meets all qualifications for registering or preregistering to vote under the election law, except for possessing United States citizenship, and who has registered or preregistered to vote with the board of elections in the city of New York under this chapter” … . * * *

Whatever the future may bring, the New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens. Fossella v Adams, 2025 NY Slip Op 01668, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The NYS Constitution restricts the right to vote to citizens.

 

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