You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

No Probable Cause for Disorderly Conduct Arrest/Defendant Was Standing in Front of a Store with Three Others All of Whom Refused Police Officer’s Request to Move

The Court of Appeals determined the presence of three reputed gang members in front of a store, one of whom was partially blocking the door, was not enough to support a disorderly conduct charge.  Evidence seized as a result of arrest should therefore have been suppressed:

The applicable statute is Penal Law § 240.20 (6), which says:”A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:. . . .”6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;”

We have made clear that evidence of actual or threatened public harm (“inconvenience, annoyance or alarm”) is a necessary element of a valid disorderly conduct charge … . Here, the evidence was insufficient to provide the arresting officer with probable cause to believe that defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or was reckless in creating a risk of those consequences. According to the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing, defendant stood with three other young men, reputed to be gang members, on a street corner, and the four refused to move when asked to do so by the police. The only evidence of any possible impact on the public resulting from their presence was the officer’s testimony that one of defendant’s companions “was partially blocking” the entrance to a store by standing in front of it.  Defendant and the other two men were close to the door, but not in front of it. There is no evidence that anyone trying to enter or leave the store was actually obstructed. This was not sufficient to satisfy the public harm element of the statute.  People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 02217, CtApp 4-1-14

 

, ,

Owners of Land Slated for Development Had Standing to Challenge Procedures Used by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation to Amend Regulations Affecting Endangered Species/The Land In Question Was Home to Two Endangered Species/Therefore the Amendments Affected the Land Owners Differently from the Public at Large

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that the petitioners (land owners) had standing to raise claims that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation failed to adhere to certain procedural requirements before adopting amendments aimed at protecting endangered species.  The land, which was designated for economic development, was home to two endangered species.  The Court explained why the petitioners had alleged a unique “injury,” different from injury to the public at large, which comported standing to raise the procedural claims:

Standing is a threshold determination, resting in part on policy considerations, that a person should be allowed access to the courts to adjudicate the merits of a particular dispute that satisfies the other justiciability criteria” … . Petitioner has the burden of establishing both an injury in fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated … . In land use matters, moreover, petitioner “must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” … . These requirements ensure that the courts are adjudicating actual controversies for parties that have a genuine stake in the litigation … . * * *

Petitioners, governmental entities titled to land for the purpose of redevelopment, whose property is subject to the amended regulations, have alleged a sufficient injury in fact for these purposes. We do not, and need not, decide whether land ownership, by itself, could satisfy the injury requirement. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, a litigant’s ” some day’ intentions -— without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be —- do not support a finding of the actual or imminent’ injury that our cases require” … . Here, however, there is more than an amorphous allegation of potential future injury. Petitioners have asserted a concrete interest in the matter the agency is regulating, and a concrete injury from the agency’s failure to follow procedure. Moreover, in connection with [a] prior proposal to subdivide the land at issue, DEC provided them with an outline for a comprehensive habitat protection plan and indicated its intention to serve as lead agency for the purposes of SEQRA (State Environment Quality Review Act) review. Petitioners’ allegations are sufficient to satisfy the requirements that they have an actual stake in the litigation and suffer a harm that is different from that of the public at large… .

Petitioners further allege that the violation of these procedural statutes deprived them of an adequate “airing” of the relevant issues and impacts of the proposed amendments, as well as an accurate assessment of the projected costs involved. The asserted statutory provisions set forth certain procedural steps to be followed when promulgating rules or regulations. The alleged violations, including the deprivation of an opportunity to be heard, constitute injuries to petitioners within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statutes. Most significantly, to deny petitioners standing in this case would have the effect of insulating these amendments from timely procedural challenge — a result that is contrary to the public interest … . Given the compressed four-month statute of limitations (see SAPA 202 [8]), we would be erecting an “impenetrable barrier” to any review of this facet of the administrative action… .  Matter of Association for a Better Long Is Inc v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation 2014 NY Slip Op 02216, CtApp 4-1-14

 

,

Action for Attorney Deceit Originated in New York Common Law, Not Statutory Law—Six-Year “Catch All” Statute of Limitations Applies

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion Judge Read, determined that an action for attorney deceit (Judiciary Law 487) was governed by the six-year “catch-all” statute of limitations (CPLR 213(1)), not the three-year statute (CPLR 214(2)). The question came down to whether the attorney-deceit action stemmed from a statute or from the common law. The Court noted that the statutory law of England was incorporated into New York’s common law before the first New York statute dealing with attorney deceit was was enacted.  Therefore the “catch-all” six-year statute applied:

A cause of action for attorney deceit … existed as part of New York’s common law before the first New York statute governing attorney deceit was enacted in 1787 … . The 1787 statute enhanced the penalties for attorney deceit by adding an award for treble damages, but did not create the cause of action … .Thus, even if a claim for attorney deceit originated in the first Statute of Westminster rather than preexisting English common law …, liability for attorney deceit existed at New York common law prior to 1787. As a result, claims for attorney deceit are subject to the six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213 (1). Melcher v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 02213, CtApp 4-1-14

 

,

Jury Should Have Been Instructed that It Could Determine Whether Witness Was an Accomplice and Assess the Witness’ Credibility Accordingly/Propriety of Jury Instruction Is Reviewable by the Court of Appeals as a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the trial court committed reversible error by refusing defendant’s request for an “accomplice-in-fact” jury instruction.  The defendant’s conviction for manslaughter for participation in a beating death involving several assailants was based in large part upon the testimony of an eyewitness.  The Court of Appeals found that there was enough evidence of the eyewitness’ participation in the crime to warrant an instruction which would allow the jury to determine if the eyewitness was an accomplice and to assess the eyewitness’ credibility accordingly.  The Court explained the “accomplice as a matter of law” and “accomplice-in-fact” theories:

An accomplice is “a witness in a criminal action who, according to the evidence adduced in such action, may reasonably be considered to have participated in: (a) [t]he offense charged; or (b) [a]n offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2]). Under our criminal law, “[a] defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22 [1]). Testimony of such a witness, marked by obvious self interest, carries the potential for falsification to avoid prosecution … . * * *

Where the court determines on the evidence that a witness comes within the meaning of CPL 60.22 (2), the witness is an accomplice as a matter of law, and the court must instruct the jury that the witness is an accomplice and subject to the statutory corroboration requirement … . * * * In a case where the court concludes that a factual dispute exists as to whether the witness is an accomplice under the statute, the factual question is left for the jury to resolve… . * * *

We have found a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law where, for example, the witness pleads guilty to aiding the defendant in the commission of the crime …, or otherwise confirms participation or assisting in the charged crime … .

In contrast, the witness may be found to be an accomplice in fact where there are factual disputes as to the witness’s participation or intent, such that “different inferences may reasonably be drawn” from the evidence as to the witness’s role as an accomplice … .  * * *  The propriety of a jury instruction is reviewable as a matter of law… .  People v Sage, 2014 NY Slip Op 02214, CtApp 4-1-14

 

,

A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant manufacturer of a post-hole digger did not demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the product liability suit because a plastic safety shield (which would have prevented the injury) had been removed by a third party after the sale (the “substantial modification” defense).  There was evidence that the plastic shield was defective in that it wore out prematurely:

If the defendant establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on substantial modification, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating “the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” …. . The plaintiff may overcome a substantial modification defense by demonstrating that the post-sale modification did not render a “safe product defective” because the product incorporated a defectively designed safety feature at the time of sale … . In other words, the plaintiff must raise a triable issue of fact whether the safety feature “was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury” … . * * *

…[I]f a plaintiff establishes the existence of material issues of fact concerning the defective design of a safety feature, the defendant will not automatically prevail on summary judgment simply because that safety feature was modified post sale. The substantial modification defense is intended to insulate manufacturers and others in the distribution chain from liability for injuries that would never have arisen but for the post-sale modification of a safety feature on an otherwise safe product. [It] does not, however, mandate summary disposal of cases where the plaintiff raises a colorable claim that the product was dangerous because of a defectively designed safety feature and notwithstanding the modification by the third party. We agree with the Appellate Division that, on this record, plaintiff established the existence of material issues of fact sufficient to overcome defendants’ substantial modification defense. Hoover v New Holland N Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02215, CtApp 4-1-14

 

,

Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, under the facts, the imposition of a period of post-release supervision [PRS] after defendant completed his sentence (which was illegal because it did not include a period of post-release supervision) did not violate the Double Jeopardy clause.  Because the resentence was being appealed, the defendant had not yet “acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence:”

Defendant … moved to vacate his conviction under Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.10. Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate the conviction. The court nevertheless noted that defendant's sentence was illegal because it did not include the mandatory term of PRS … and ordered that defendant be resentenced. Defendant was conditionally released in May 2008. One month later, Supreme Court resentenced defendant to the original concurrent terms of imprisonment, as well as a five-year term of PRS. In October 2009, the maximum term of his prison sentence passed.   * * *

The protection against multiple punishments protects defendants from having their sentences increased once they have acquired “legitimate expectations of finality” therein (Williams, 14 NY3d at 214). We explained in Williams that a defendant may acquire a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence only once “the direct appeal has been completed (or the time to appeal has expired)” and the sentence has been served (id. at 217).

In Velez [19 NY3d 642] , we addressed whether a defendant acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in an illegal sentence where a resentencing proceeding had been instituted but the term of PRS had not yet been imposed prior to the expiration of the sentence. We held that the defendant … acquired a legitimate expectation of finality (19 NY3d at 650). In this case, defendant has served his sentence, but the direct appeal of that sentence is not over; it presently is before us. Consequently, defendant has not acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence.  People v Cintron, 35, CtApp 3-27-14

 

,

In Disability Discrimination Suits Brought Under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law, to Prevail on Summary Judgment, the Employer Must Demonstrate It Engaged in a Good Faith Interactive Process to Consider a Proposed Accommodation

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined that to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination action brought under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, the employer must demonstrate it engaged in a good faith interactive process to consider the reasonableness of a proposed accommodation to the disability.  The failure to so demonstrate in this case precluded summary judgment.  The employee had developed a lung condition which required that he not be exposed to construction dust.  His job required that he visit construction sites.  With respect to the consideration of a proposed accommodation in the context of a summary judgment motion, the court wrote:

In light of the importance of the employer's consideration of the employee's proposed accommodation, the employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on a State HRL claim unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation. And, the employer cannot present such a record if the employer has not engaged in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of the employee's request. Consequently, to prevail on a summary judgment motion with respect to a State HRL claim, the employer must show that it “engage[d] in a good faith interactive process that assesse[d] the needs of the disabled individual and the reasonableness of the accommodation requested” … . And, because the City HRL provides broader protections against disability discrimination than the State HRL, the City HRL unquestionably forecloses summary judgment where the employer has not engaged in a good faith interactive process regarding a specifically requested accommodation … .  Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 34, CtApp 3-27-14

 

, ,

Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Statements, to Challenge Search Warrants, to Request Discovery and to Object to the Conduct of the Prosecutor Raised Questions of Effective Assistance

The Court of Appeals determined questions about the effectiveness of defense counsel warranted a hearing on defendant's motion to vacate his conviction.  The court found defense counsel's explanation for failing to move to suppress defendant's statements (he was interrogated for 26 hours), failure to challenge search warrants, failure to make certain discovery requests and failure to object to the conduct of the prosecutor, inadequate:

[Defense counsel's] affirmation did not, however, address why suppression could not have been sought on the basis of: the 26-hour interrogation at a State Police barracks, which occurred in a room that may have been locked at times; the possible use of handcuffs, shackles and a “jail suit” during such questioning; and a purported refusal by the police to contact the lawyer who was representing defendant in a pending criminal case because defendant's request for legal assistance was deemed “too late.” Nor did [defense counsel] provide an explanation for failing to challenge the various search warrants that were issued or the evidence that was obtained by the police. [Defense counsel] also did not attempt to justify several potential trial errors that were noted by the Appellate Division (including the possibility of inadequate discovery requests and the failure to object to prosecutorial conduct that County Court felt compelled to address sua sponte as “grossly improper”). In these particular circumstances, we conclude that there were sufficient questions of fact as to whether [defense counsel]  had an adequate explanation for his alleged deficiencies. Defendant is therefore entitled to an opportunity to establish that he was deprived of meaningful legal representation … . People v Zeh, 33, CtApp 3-27-14

 

Plaintiff’s Lost Profits Deemed “General Damages,” Not “Consequential Damages,” Re: a Distribution Contract in which Plaintiff Agreed to Resell Defendant’s Product

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined that, under the facts, lost profits were “general,” not “consequential” damages.  The distribution contract was for “CoStar stents” (manufactured by defendant) used in medical procedures. The contract called for plaintiff to resell defendant's stents. The resale price was the benchmark for the price of the transfer of the stents to plaintiff for resale. The distribution contract had precluded recovery for consequential damages. Plaintiff sought its lost profits as general damages:

The agreement was not a simple resale contract, whereone party buys a product at a set price to sell at whatever the market may bear. Rather, the price plaintiff paid defendant reflected the actual sales, and sales price, of CoStar stents. The agreement required plaintiff to pay defendant a transfer price calculated as a percentage of plaintiff's net sales of Costar: 61% for direct sales and 75% for indirect sales. Each quarter, the parties would calculate a minimum price based on net sales during the preceding quarter. Plaintiff remained obligated to pay defendant the full transfer price for its sales, even when the actual sales price exceeded the minimum price. Thus, the contract would only operate if plaintiff sold stents, and the payment defendant received bore a direct relationship to the market price plaintiff could obtain.  Indirect sales were sales made by affiliates. * * *

General damages “are the natural and probable consequence of the breach” of a contract … . They include “money that the breaching party agreed to pay under the contract.. . By contrast, consequential, or special, damages do not “directly flow from the breach” … . “The distinction between general and special contract damages is well defined, but its application to specific contracts and controversies is usually more elusive” … . Lost profits may be either general or consequential damages, depending on whether the non-breaching party bargained for such profits and they are “the direct and immediate fruits of the contract” … . Otherwise, where the damages reflect a “loss of profits on collateral business arrangements,” they are only recoverable when “(1) it is demonstrated with certainty that the damages have been caused by the breach, (2) the extent of the loss is capable of proof with reasonable certainty, and (3) it is established that the damages were fairly within the contemplation of the parties”… .  * * *

Here, the agreement used plaintiff's resale price as a benchmark for the transfer price. The contract clearly contemplated that plaintiff would resell defendant's stents. That was the very essence of the contract. Any lost profits resulting from a breach would be the “natural and probable consequence” of that breach …. .

Although the lost profits sought by plaintiff are not specifically identified in the agreement, it cannot be said that defendant did not agree to pay them under the contract, as these profits flow directly from the pricing formula. The purpose of the agreement was to resell. Indeed, defendant … sought to enter a market unavailable to it by capitalizing on plaintiff's distribution network. The fact is that both defendant and plaintiff depended on the product's resale for their respective payments. Biotronik AG v Conor Medsystems Ireland Ltd, 8, CtApp 3-27-14

 

, ,

Cannot Sue Vehicle Owner as Vicariously Liable Under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 Where Driver is Immunized from Suit Under Workers’ Compensation Law 29 (6)

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that “a defendant may [not] pursue a third-party contribution claim under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law [section] 388 against the owner of a vehicle, where the vehicle driver's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is protected from suit by the exclusive remedy provision of New York Workers' Compensation Law [section] 29 (6)…”.  Here the driver, who was determined to be negligent (90%), was using her husband's car to drive a co-worker to a business meeting. The co-worker was injured and his exclusive remedy against the driver was under the Workers' Compensation Law.  The co-worker sued the driver of the other car, who was also determined to be negligent (10%).  The owner of that car (the driver's husband) then sued the owner of the car in which the co-worker was riding (the employee-driver's husband) under Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388 for contribution and indemnification:

In sum, we hold that a defendant may not pursue a third-party contribution claim under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 against a vehicle owner where the driver's negligence was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries, but the driver is insulated from a lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).  Isabella…Hallock… v Koubek, 45, CtApp 3-27-14

 

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