You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

Two-Year Time Limit On Bringing Suit Against Insurer for Cost of Replacement of Damaged Property Unreasonable If Replacement Cannot Reasonably Be Done Within Two Years

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals, in answering a question posed by the Second Circuit, determined a two-year time-limit on bringing suit against an insurance company was unreasonable because suit could not be brought until the damaged property was replaced. Therefore, as was true in this case, if the damage-repair takes longer than two years, the insured cannot sue for payment:

“[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable” … . We conclude that the contractual period at issue here — two years from the date of “direct physical loss or damage” (i.e., from the date of the fire) — is not reasonable if, as the Second Circuit's question requires us to assume, the property cannot reasonably be replaced within two years.It is true, as the District Court pointed out, that there is nothing inherently unreasonable about a two-year period of limitation. In fact, we have enforced contractual limitation periods of one year … . The problem with the limitation period in this case is not its duration, but its accrual date. It is neither fair nor reasonable to require a suit within two years from the date of the loss, while imposing a condition precedent to the suit — in this case, completion of replacement of the property — that cannot be met within that two-year period. A “limitation period” that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim. It is true that nothing required defendant to insure plaintiff for replacement cost in excess of actual cash value, but having chosen to do so defendant may not insist on a “limitation period” that renders the coverage valueless when the repairs are time-consuming. Executive Plaza LLC v Peerless Insurance Company, 2, CtApp 2-13-14

 

Defendant Entitled to Jury Charge on Extreme Emotional Disturbance Despite Lack of CPL 250.10 Notice

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant’s request for an “extreme emotional disturbance” jury charge should have been granted, in spite of the defendant’s withdrawing his CPL 250.10 notice re:  offering mental health evidence. At trial the defendant did not introduce any evidence of or cross-examine any witness about the defendant’s mental state. The evidence of defendant’s mental state was contained in defendant’s videotaped confession, which was presented at trial by the People. Because the CPL 250.10 notice concerns only mental-state evidence “offered” by the defendant, the absence of the notice did not preclude the extreme-emotional-disturbance jury charge:

A defendant is entitled to a jury charge on EED where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, is sufficient for the jury “to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of the affirmative defense are satisfied” … . Accordingly, the trial court must grant the defendant's request for an EED charge if the jury could reasonably conclude from the evidence that, at the time of the homicide, the defendant “was affected by an extreme emotional disturbance, and that [the] disturbance was supported by a reasonable explanation or excuse rooted in the situation as he perceived it” … . This is true even if the “[d]efendant did not testify or otherwise present evidence” and the “request for an extreme emotional disturbance charge [i]s based entirely on proof elicited during the People's case” … . * * *

In its present form, CPL 250.10 requires notice when a defendant “inten[ds] to present psychiatric evidence” … , which the statute broadly defines as “[e]vidence of mental disease or defect to be offered by the defendant in connection with the affirmative defense of,” as relevant to this appeal, “extreme emotional disturbance” … . The Legislature did not specify what qualifies as mental health evidence “offered by the defendant”; however, to “offer evidence,” as that legal phrase is traditionally understood, means to put forth evidence and “demand its admission” (Black's Law Dictionary 1081 [6th ed 1991]; see Black's Law Dictionary [9th ed 2009], proffer [“To offer or tender (something, esp. evidence) for immediate acceptance”]). Additionally, the frequently used meaning of “present” is “to bring or introduce into the presence of someone” (MerriamWebster's Collegiate Dictionary 982 [11th ed 2003]). The Legislature's use of these “active” terms suggests that it intended the notice requirement to apply where the defendant affirmatively seeks to admit psychiatric evidence in support of an EED defense. People v Gonzalez, 12, CtApp 2-13-14

 

Proof Sufficient to Support Unlawful Surveillance Conviction/Defendant Was Standing on the Front Door Step Videotaping Woman Inside

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the proof was legally sufficient to support defendant’s “unlawful surveillance” conviction. Defendant videotaped a woman who was in her bathroom with the door open on the second floor of her townhouse. The defendant was standing on the front door step of the woman’s townhouse holding a video camera over his head in front of a small decorative window in the front door. The court determined that defendant’s actions, at 7:30 a.m. on December 24, could be deemed “surreptitious” within the meaning of the statute, even though he was potentially visible to the public while he was videotaping:

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, defendant's conduct was surreptitious in nature. Although he was standing on complainant's front step, potentially exposed to public view, it was at 7:30 a.m. on Christmas Eve. The argument that defendant's conduct was completely out in the open, for anyone who happened by to see, is undermined given the pre-dawn hour.* Moreover, defendant was holding the small black camera in his black-gloved hand. In addition, he apparently had to hold the camera over his head, in the air, in order to get the proper angle and used the zoom function. Under the circumstances, there is legally sufficient evidence that defendant was acting in a furtive or stealthy manner, attempting to obtain the video of complainant without being discovered — in other words, that he was acting surreptitiously. People v Schreier, 4, CtApp 2-13-14

 

, ,

Employer Which Hired Undocumented Workers Who Were Injured On the Job Protected from Suit by the Workers’ Compensation Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined the employer [Microtech] was entitled to the protection of the Workers’ Compensation Law and a suit against the employer by the hospital (which paid out Labor Law claims to the injured workers) was properly dismissed. The employer had hired undocumented workers [the Lemas] who were injured doing demolition work at the hospital. The workers were paid Workers’ Compensation benefits by the employer. The workers sued the hospital under the Labor Law and were awarded a verdict. The hospital then sued the employer which, the Court of Appeals held, was protected from suit by section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law:[Quoting the appellate division, the Court of Appeals wrote:]

…[T]o rule in the hospital's favor would “effectively deny [Microtech] the economic protections it acquired under the Workers' Compensation Law in return for providing [the Lemas] with compensation for their injuries,” as well as “relieve [the hospital] of its responsibility to ensure a safe construction site for workers under the Labor Law”… . New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v Microtech Contracting Corp, 1, CtApp 2-13-14

 

,

Attorney Conflict Waiver Criteria Discussed/Whether Molineux Analysis Should Be Applied to “Prior Bad Thoughts” in Journal Entries Discussed

In two concurring opinions, one by Judge Lippman and the other by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined defendant did not raise an error warranting reversal.

The defendant contended (1) his attorney had personal interests which conflicted with her professional obligations to him, and (2) journal entries which were unrelated to the murder with which defendant was charged should not have been admitted in evidence.

One of defendant’s attorneys was under indictment by the same district attorney’s office for allegedly smuggling drugs to a client in jail. The defendant waived the conflict. The two judges disagreed about what such a conflict waiver should include and agreed the defendant’s conflict waiver was inadequate, but determined reversal was not required because there was an insufficient showing the conflict operated on the defense.

The journal entries were essentially “bad thoughts” about women other than the victim.  Judge Lippman determined that the “prior bad thoughts” should have been analyzed under the Molineux criteria for the admission of evidence of prior crimes and bad acts.  Judge Abdus-Salaam determined that Molineux should not be extended to such “prior bad thoughts,” which should simply be scrutinized under relevancy criteria. Both judges determined the erroneous admission of the “bad thoughts” evidence was harmless error.  People v Cortez, 225, CtApp 1-21-14

 

, , ,

Constitutionality of Statute Allowing Defective Sentence to Be Remedied by a Sentence Without Post Release Supervision (CPL 70.85) Is an Open Issue Which Should Be Decided by the Sentencing Court in the First Instance/Crawford Motion Relieving Counsel of Perfecting an Appeal Because of the Absence of Non-Frivolous Issues Should Not Have Been Granted

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division should not have granted counsel’s motion to withdraw from representing the defendant on appeal on the ground the appeal would be “wholly frivolous.”  There is an issue whether the statute which allows resentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment without post release supervision after post release supervision had been (illegally) administratively imposed is constitutional:

Defendant timely appealed the resentence and was assigned counsel, who reviewed the file and informed defendant of our decision in People v Boyd (12 NY3d 390 [2009]), where this court upheld defendant Boyd's sentence under Penal Law § 70.85, but left open the constitutionality of that statute, stating that it should be decided by the sentencing court in the first instance.  Despite this open issue, counsel filed a motion pursuant to People v Crawford … arguing that there were no non-frivolous issues to be raised on defendant's behalf and asking to be relieved as counsel.  Defendant filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that her sentence was illegal, and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel.  The Appellate Division granted counsel's motion and affirmed the resentence, without addressing defendant's pro se contentions (96 AD3d 1515 [2012]).  * * *

Defendant argues that her appeal was not wholly frivolous because she had two claims: (1) the claim that Penal Law § 70.85 is unconstitutional as applied to her case, and (2) that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel at every level.  We agree with defendant that the Appellate Division erred in granting the Crawford motion.  Without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits, at the time defendant's appellate counsel filed his Crawford motion, the claims to that court were not wholly frivolous and, therefore, the court should have denied appellate counsel's motion.  As a result, a reversal and remittal for a de novo appeal is warranted… . People v Beaty, 84, CtApp 1-16-14

 

, ,

Medical Corporation Not Responsible for Unauthorized Disclosure of Medical Information by Employee Acting Outside the Scope of Employment

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals answered a certified question from the Second Circuit in the negative.  The question was: “Whether, under New York law, the common law right of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information may run directly against medical corporations, even when the employee responsible for the breach is not a physician and acts outside the scope of her employment?”:

… [A] medical corporation's duty of safekeeping a patient's confidential medical information is limited to those risks that are reasonably foreseeable and to actions within the scope of employment.  Doe v Guthrie Clinic Ltd, 224, CtApp 1-9-14

 

“Equitable Medical Monitoring” Cause of Action Rejected; Plaintiffs, Who Had No Signs of Cancer from Heavy Smoking, Were Not Entitled to Bring an Action to Cover the Costs of CT Scans to Periodically Check for Cancer

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, with two dissenting judges, the Court of Appeals determined New York does not recognize a “medical monitoring” cause of action.  The plaintiffs were all heavy smokers.  None of the plaintiffs is currently sick.  The lawsuit sought damages to pay for “medical monitoring” (low dose CT scans “LDCT”) as a way to ensure early diagnosis of cancer:

Plaintiffs do not claim to have suffered physical injury or damage to property.  They assert, rather, that they are at an “increased risk” for developing lung cancer and would benefit from LDCT monitoring, which they claim would allow them to discover the existence of cancers at an earlier stage, leading to earlier treatment.

A threat of future harm is insufficient to impose liability against a defendant in a tort context … .  The requirement that a plaintiff sustain physical harm before being able to recover in tort is a fundamental principle of our state’s tort system … .  The physical harm requirement serves a number of important purposes: it defines the class of persons who actually possess a cause of action, provides a basis for the fact-finder to determine whether a litigant actually possesses a claim, and protects court dockets from being clogged with frivolous and unfounded claims.

Having alleged no physical injury or damage to property in their complaint, plaintiffs’ only potential pathway to relief is for this Court to recognize a new tort, namely, an equitable medical monitoring cause of action. Caronia v Philip Morris USA Inc, 227, CtApp 12-17-13

 

,

Issuer of Excess Policy Was Required (by the Terms of the Policy) to Pay “All Sums,” Including Interest, Over and Above the Policy-Limit Paid Out Under the Primary Policy

In reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined that the issuer of the excess policy (HIC) was obligated to pay all sums, including interest, after the $1,000,000 policy limit was paid out under the primary policy.  The issuer of the primary was insolvent and the $1,000,000 primary policy limit was paid by the liquidator:

Applying the plain meaning of the primary and excess policies to the particular medical malpractice judgment against plaintiff at issue here, it is clear that the primary insurer’s liquidator fulfilled its obligations under the primary policy, thereby triggering HIC’s responsibility to pay the interest in excess of the primary policy’s $1,000,000 liability limit.  Upon entry of the initial judgment against plaintiff, the liquidator paid plaintiff $1,000,000 toward that judgment.  At that point, the liquidator was no longer required to pay interest under the “supplementary payments” provision of the primary policy because that further amount accrued only after the liquidator had already satisfied the liability limit of the primary policy in the manner specified by the “supplementary payments” provision.  Thus, the additional interest on the judgment, as amended, constituted a “sum[ ] in excess of the limits of liability of the Underlying Policy,” which is covered by the excess policy.  Accordingly, HIC had to pay the additional interest.  Ragins… v Hospitals Insurance Company, Inc, 234, CtApp 12-17-13

 

,

Police Officers Properly Allowed to Testify About Victim’s Identification of Defendant Shortly After the Crime/Prior Consistent Statements Not Hearsay

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined that two police officers, as well as the victim, were properly allowed to testify about the victim’s identification of the defendant shortly after the crime, extending the rule announced by the Court of Appeals in People v Huertas (75 NY2d 487):

Velez [the victim] identified defendant at trial as one of the robbers and also testified, without objection, to a description he had given the police on the night of the crime of a black man “about 5’6, short hair, round face, thick eyebrows” and wearing a white shirt.  The description fits defendant, but in the video the man alleged to be defendant is wearing a blueish-gray shirt.  Velez testified that, before he saw the video, he realized that his description of the shirt was in error, and corrected it.

Two police officers also testified, over objection, that Velez had given a description on the night of the crime. The officers’ accounts of the description were brief, and consistent with Velez’s.  One said that Velez had described a man “between 5’6 to 5’7 in height wearing shorts and . . . a white T-shirt.”  The other said only that Velez had described “a short black male, dark skinned.” * * *

Huertas involved a … prior consistent statement: a witness’s description, given shortly after the crime, of the person who committed it.  Huertas held testimony about a description to be admissible not under any exception to the hearsay rule, but because the testimony is not hearsay at all. It is admitted not for the truth or accuracy of the prior description, but as “evidence that assists the jury in evaluating the witness’s opportunity to observe at the time of the crime, and the reliability of her memory at the time of the corporeal identification” (Huertas, 75 NY2d at 493).  * * *

The issue here is whether the rule of Huertas, like CPL 60.30’s hearsay exception for prior eyewitness identifications, is limited to a witness’s account of his or her own previous statement.  We see nothing to justify such a limitation.  A statement that is not hearsay when the declarant testifies to it does not become hearsay when someone else does so. People v Smith, 226, CtApp 12-17-13

 

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