You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

Hotel Room Occupancy Tax On Online Hotel Reservations Okay

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, held that a New York City hotel room occupancy tax (Local Law 43), applicable to online travel companies through which customers make hotel reservations, was constitutional (reversing the Appellate Division):

Online travel companies like the plaintiffs have successfully reshaped the way people book travel.  Now, a customer can conveniently and efficiently search the plaintiffs’ websites for a hotel room and reserve it with the click of a button.  While it may no longer seem novel to reserve a hotel room online, this innovation revamped the industry, and the industry players have reaped considerable profits.  However, this innovation has not changed the main purpose of a hotel reservation process: selecting and paying for a room for future occupancy.  Local Law 43 adheres to its enabling purpose, the taxation of hotel occupancy rent and charges, by taxing everything a hotel occupant actually pays for occupancy when booking online. * * *

Local Law 43 is not unconstitutional because the State Legislature granted the City broad authority to impose a tax on hotel occupants, and Local Law 43 taxes only payments for the occupancy of a hotel room.  Expedia Inc … v City of New York Department of Finance…, 180, CtApp 11-21-13

 

Depraved Indifference Murder Convictions Stemming from Outrageously Reckless Driving While Intoxicated Upheld

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined that the unusually egregious circumstances of the three cases before them, all resulting in convictions for depraved indifference murder stemming from outrageously reckless driving while intoxicated, supported the depraved-indifference-murder verdicts.  Because of the fact-specific nature of the analysis, the relevant facts of one of the three cases are provided here:

When viewed in the light most favorable to the People, there was legally sufficient evidence to support Heidgen’s convictions for depraved indifference murder.  The jury could have determined that defendant was unhappy and self-destructive. Defendant’s friends who observed him at the party thought that he was intoxicated but not so intoxicated that he was incoherent, unsteady on his feet or slurring his speech.  Heidgen drove the wrong way on the highway for over two miles without reacting to other drivers coming at him, car horns, or wrong way signage. Perhaps most significantly, more than one witness testified that defendant appeared to follow, or track, the headlights of oncoming vehicles.  In addition, the toxicologist testified that defendant’s blood alcohol level would have caused delayed reaction time, but that it would not have rendered him incapable of reacting at all.  Based on this evidence, the jury could have found that, despite defendant’s intoxication, he perceived his surroundings.  The jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant drove, knowing that he was on the wrong side of the road and with an appreciation of the grave risks involved in that behavior.   One who engages in what amounts to a high speed game of chicken, with complete disregard for the value of the lives that are thereby endangered, is undoubtedly an individual whose culpability is the equivalent of an intentional murderer.  People v Heidgen…, 174, 175, 176, CtApp 11-21-13

 

Good Time Credit Should Be Deducted From the Two-Year Sentence Cap Imposed Under Penal Law 70.30 (2) (b), Not from the Longer Aggregate Term to Which the Two-Year Statutory Cap Was Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, the Court of Appeals determined that where aggregate one-year consecutive sentences are capped at 2 years pursuant to Penal Law section 70.30 (2) (b), jail time and good time credits should be applied to the two-year period, not the longer aggregate term on which the two-year cap was imposed:

Having determined that Penal Law § 70.30 (2) (b) imposes a two-year aggregate term of imprisonment, we turn to whether this two-year aggregate term may be reduced by jail time and good time credit a prisoner has earned while incarcerated.  Penal Law § 70.30 (3) (b) and (4) (b) provide that, where a prisoner is serving consecutive definite sentences, jail time and good time credit must be applied against the prisoner’s aggregate term of imprisonment (see Penal Law § 70.30 [3] [b]; [4] [b] [emphasis added]), although good time credit may not exceed one third of that aggregate term (see id. at [4] [b]; Correction Law § 804 [1]).

Considering these directives together with section 70.30 (2) (b), it follows that, in cases where the two-year limit on consecutive definite sentences applies, jail time and good time credit must be applied against the two-year aggregate term rather than the aggregate term imposed by the sentencing court. Under such circumstances, correctional authorities should calculate the time to be served under the sentences by reducing the two-year aggregate term by the available jail time credit and any good time credit that does not exceed 243 days (or one-third of the two-year aggregate term) (see Penal Law § 70.30 [3] [b]; [4] [b]).  People ex rel Ryan… v Cheverko…, 183, CtApp 11-21-13

 

People Should Not Have Been Allowed to Reopen Pretrial Suppression Hearing

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined the People should not have been allowed to reopen a suppression hearing and present additional evidence after the hearing officer had ruled the seized evidence, including a handgun, must be suppressed.  The key inquiry is whether the People had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence of the dispositive issues at the hearing.  If so, the hearing cannot be reopened, either after trial (on remand after an appeal) or, as in this case, at the pretrial stage:

In People v Havelka (45 NY2d 636 [1978]), we held that the People, if afforded a full and fair opportunity to present evidence of the dispositive issues at a suppression hearing, are not entitled to a remand after appeal for a reopened hearing.  We hold that the principles underlying Havelka have equivalent force in the pretrial setting, and preclude a trial judge from reopening a suppression hearing to give the People an opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position absent a showing that they were deprived of a full and fair opportunity to be heard. People v Kevin W, 187, CtApp 11-21-13

 

,

Plea Allocution Negated Essential Element of Offense/Error, though Unpreserved, Required Reversal

The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction because the plea colloquy negated an essential element of the offense.  The defendant pled guilty to rape 3rd (Penal Law 130.25(3)), the so-called “date rape” statute. The statute requires a lack of consent by the victim, not a lack of capacity to consent (caused by drugs, for example). The plea allocution indicated only a lack of capacity to consent.  Even though the error was not preserved, the Court of Appeals determined the case fell within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement recognized in Lopez (71 NY2d at 666) where the court fails to ensure the guilty plea is knowing and voluntary:

Penal Law § 130.25 (3) addresses “so-called date rape or acquaintance rape situations [where] there [might] be consent to various acts leading up to the sexual act, but at the time of the act, the victim clearly says no or otherwise expresses a lack of consent” … .  Accordingly, the statutory provision requires the victim to have “clearly expresse[d] an unwillingness to engage in the sexual act in such a way that a neutral observer would have understood that the victim was not consenting” … .

Despite the statute’s plain terms, questions posed by the prosecutor during the brief colloquy indicate an intention to elicit from defendant that the complainant was unable to consent because she was incapacitated.  Moreover, the court’s single query during the factual allocution suggests that the court similarly misunderstood that key element of the crime.  In an apparent attempt to establish a causal relationship between thr complainant’s incapacity and her lack of consent, the court asked defendant, “[a]nd [the complainant] didn’t give you consent because she took too much medication and she has a mental illness, correct?”  By answering in the affirmative, defendant unequivocally negated an element of the crime to which he was pleading guilty.  People v Worden, 203, CtApp 11-21-13

 

,

No Private Right of Action Against Bank for Failure to Comply with Exempt Income Protection Act (CPLR Article 52)

In answering certified questions from the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined a judgment debtor does not have a private right of action against a bank which, when served with a restraining notice by a judgment creditor, fails to forward the appropriate forms to the judgment debtor as required by the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA).  The forms alert the judgment debtor to the restraining notice, describe funds which are exempt from restraint, and provide information about seeking vacatur of the money judgment.  The court wrote:

…[A] private right to bring a plenary action for injunctive relief and money damages cannot be implied from the EIPA — and we therefore answer the first certified question in the negative.  As for the second certified question, a judgment debtor can secure relief from a bank arising from a violation of the EIPA in a CPLR Article 52 special proceeding… .  And our determination that the legislation created no private right of action compels the conclusion that the statutory mechanisms for relief are exclusive.  Banks had no obligation under the common law to forward notices of exemption and exemption claim forms to judgment debtors.  It therefore follows that any right debtors have to enforce that obligation, among others imposed under CPLR 5222-a, arises from the statute and, since the EIPA does not give rise to a private right of action, the only relief available is that provided in CPLR Article 52 … . Cruz v TD Bank NA…, 191, CtApp 11-21-13

 

Worker’s Compensation Carrier Was Entitled to Credit for Amount Claimant Recovered in Civil Suit against Employer and Co-employees

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the worker’s compensation carrier, the NYS Insurance Fund (SIF), was entitled to a credit against the claimant’s future worker’s compensation benefits in the amount of her recovery in a lawsuit against her employee and a co-employee:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1) provides that an employee injured by “the negligence or wrong of another not in the same employ” may commence an action against “such other.”  If the employee has received workers’ compensation benefits, SIF or the other entity or person liable for the payment of these benefits

“shall have a lien on the proceeds of any recovery from such other, whether by judgment, settlement or otherwise, after the deduction of the reasonable and necessary expenditures, including attorney’s fees, incurred in effecting such recovery, to the extent of the total amount of compensation awarded under or provided or estimated . . . for such case and the expenses for medical treatment paid or to be paid by it and to such extent such recovery shall be deemed for the benefit of”

SIF or the other entity or person liable for the payment of compensation benefits (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [1]). Concomitantly, section 29 (4) specifies that “[i]f such injured employee . . . [shall] proceed against such other,” SIF or the other entity or person liable for the payment of compensation benefits “shall contribute only the deficiency, if any, between the amount of the recovery against such person actually collected, and the compensation provided or estimated . . . for such case” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [4]).

Section 29 (4) is referred to as the carrier’s credit against or right to offset the proceeds of a lawsuit brought pursuant to section 29 (1).  The lien and offset provisions in sections 29 (1) and (4), respectively, “cushion[] the inflationary impact of the cost of compensation insurance and avoid double recovery by the claimant for the same predicate injury”… . Matter of Beth V v NYS Office of Children & Family Services…, 202, CtApp 11-19-13

 

,

Village Properly Withdrew Its Defense and Indemnification of Officials When Officials Refused a Reasonable Settlement Offer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman (with a dissent), determined “that a municipality, consistent with its obligations under Public Officers Law, may withdraw its defense and indemnification of current and former municipal officials and officers in a civil action for their failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer, and that First Amendment concerns with respect to the settlement’s nondisclosure clause do not warrant a different conclusion:”

The Freeport Village Code § 130-6 adopts Public Officers Law § 18 (3)(a), which provides that “public entity shall provide for the defense of [an] employee in any civil action or proceeding, state or federal, arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or allegedly occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment or duties.”  The Village’s duty to defend and indemnify “shall be conditioned upon: . . . the full cooperation of the employee in the defense of such action or proceeding against the Village based upon the same act or omission” (Freeport Vil. Code § 130-6 [A][1] [emphasis added]; Public Officers Law § 18 [5][ii]). * * *

A municipal employer’s statutory duty to defend a public officer under Public Officers Law § 18 is similar to an insurance company’s contractual duty to defend an insured (Matter of Dreyer v City of Saratoga Springs, 43 AD3d 586, 588 [3d Dept 2007]).  As in the insurance context, petitioners were obligated to cooperate in the defense of the action as a condition of their defense and indemnification (Public Officers Law § 18 [5][ii]; Freeport Vil. Code § 130-6 [A][1]).

“In order to disclaim coverage on the ground of an insured’s lack of cooperation, the carrier must demonstrate that (1) it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) the efforts employed by the carrier were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) the attitude of the insured, after cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction”… . Matter of Lancaster v Incorporated Village of Freeport…, 181, CtApp 11-19-13

 

, ,

Experts’ Use of Unreliable Hearsay in Article 10 Trial Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera (with a concurring opinion) determined the use of unreliable hearsay by the People ‘s experts in an Article 10 civil commitment trial of a convicted sex offender violated the offender’s right to due process of law.  The court explained that hearsay related to convictions was reliable, hearsay supported by admissions is reliable, hearsay related to acquittals and otherwise unsupported uncharged accusations is unreliable, and hearsay about criminal charges that result in neither acquittal nor conviction require close scrutiny (probative value versus prejudicial effect):

Due process requires any hearsay basis evidence to meet minimum requirements of reliability and relevance before it can be admitted at an article 10 proceeding.  In article 10 trials, hearsay basis evidence is admissible if it satisfies two criteria.  First, the proponent must demonstrate through evidence that the hearsay is reliable.  Second, the court must determine that “the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the [expert’s] opinion substantially outweighs [its] prejudicial effect” (cf. Fed Rules Evid rule 703).  These reliability and substantial relevance requirements provide a necessary counterweight to the deference juries may accord hearsay evidence simply because an expert has propounded it.  The requirements prevent an expert from serving as a passive conduit for hearsay, yet allow the jury to evaluate expert opinions by considering reliable and probative evidence.  This rule gives the judge an active role in managing the article 10 proceeding and preserving its integrity.  Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y, 182, CtApp 11-19-13

 

Statute Which Elevates Criminal Possession of a Weapon to a C Felony, Even When Possession is in the Home, Does Not Violate the Second Amendment

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined that the statute which elevates possession of a weapon when previously convicted of a crime to a class C felony, even if possession is in the home, did not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms:

Intermediate scrutiny requires us to ask whether a challenged statute bears a substantial relationship to the achievement of an important governmental objective (Clark v Jeter, 486 US 456, 461 [1988]).  Penal Law § 265.03 (3), making it a class C felony for anyone previously convicted of any crime to possess an unlicensed, loaded firearm in his home or elsewhere, easily passes this test.  The statute does not, it must be remembered, forbid anyone convicted of any misdemeanor from possessing a gun on pain of class C felony punishment; most misdemeanants — including the present defendant, assuming that resisting arrest was his only prior crime — are eligible for licenses to have guns in their homes.

It is beyond dispute that preventing the criminal use of firearms is an important government objective; and keeping guns away from people who have shown they cannot be trusted to obey the law is a means substantially related to that end.  More specifically, to punish severely a convicted criminal who, though eligible for a license, again violates the law by obtaining an unlicensed gun is a means well-suited to the end of assuring that lawbreakers do not have firearms.  People v Hughes, 184, CtApp 11-19-13

 

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