You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, , ,

Public Trust Doctrine Re: Allowing a Restaurant in a Public Park/License and Lease Characteristics Compared

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that a the city’s allowing a restaurant to operate in a public park did not violate the public trust doctrine and the arrangement between the city and the restaurant was a valid license, not a lease (which would have required approval by the legislature):

Under the public trust doctrine, dedicated parkland cannot be converted to a non-park purpose for an extended period of time absent the approval of the State Legislature … . * * * … [A]lthough it is for the courts to determine what is and is not a park purpose, … the Commissioner enjoys broad discretion to choose among alternative valid park purposes. Observing that restaurants have long been operated in public parks, we [in 795 Fifth Ave Corp v City of New York, 15 NY2d 221] rejected plaintiffs' public trust claim, holding that they could show only a “difference of opinion” as to the best way to use the park space and that this “mere difference of opinion [was] not a demonstration of illegality”… . * * *

We have stated that parkland cannot be leased, even for a park purpose, absent legislative approval … . * * *

A document is a lease “if it grants not merely a revocable right to be exercised over the grantor's land without possessing any interest therein but the exclusive right to use and occupy that land” … . It is the conveyance of “absolute control and possession of property at an agreed rental which differentiates a lease from other arrangements dealing with property rights” …. . A license, on the other hand, is a revocable privilege given “to one, without interest in the lands of another, to do one or more acts of a temporary nature upon such lands” … . That a writing refers to itself as a license or lease is not determinative; rather, the true nature of the transaction must be gleaned from the rights and obligations set forth therein. Finally, a broad termination clause reserving to the grantor “the right to cancel whenever it decides in good faith to do so” is strongly indicative of a license as opposed to a lease … . Union Square Park Community Coalition Inc v New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, 17, CtApp 2-20-14

 

Contradictory Information in Disclaimer Letters Did Not Invalidate the Disclaimer of Assault and Battery Coverage

Over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the insurance company, QBE, properly disclaimed coverage for an assault and battery claim against the insured bar, Jinx-Proof, despite contradictory language in the two disclaimer letters:

The courts below properly determined that QBE effectively disclaimed coverage for the assault and battery claims asserted in the underlying action. The first letter sent to Jinx-Proof stated that QBE would not defend or indemnify Jinx-Proof “under the General Liability portion of the policy for assault and battery allegations” and that Jinx-Proof did not have liquor liability coverage. The second letter stated that Jinx-Proof did have liquor liability coverage but that the policy excludes coverage for assault and battery claims. Specifically, the second letter stated:

“[W]e are defending this matter under the Liquor Liability portion of the [general commercial liability] coverage, and under strict reservation of rights for allegations of Assault and Battery. Your policy excludes coverage for assault and battery claims . . . Therefore, should this matter proceed to verdict, any awards by the Court stemming from allegations of Assault and Battery will not be covered under your Commercial General Liability policy.”

Although the letters contain some contradictory and confusing language, the confusion was not relevant to the issue in this case. The letters specifically and consistently stated that Jinx-Proof's insurance policy excludes coverage for assault and battery claims. These statements were sufficient to apprise Jinx-Proof that QBE was disclaiming coverage on the ground of the exclusion for assault and battery, and this disclaimer was effective even though the letters also contained “reservation of rights” language … . QBE Insurance Corporation v Jinx-Proof Inc, 25, CtApp 2-18-14

 

A “Statutory Resident” of New York for Income Tax Purposes Must Actually Reside In New York, Not Merely Maintain Property in New York

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals determined that the residency requirement in the income tax law means the taxpayer must actually reside in the dwelling, not merely maintain it. Here the Tax Tribunal determined the petitioner, who had a business in New York to which he traveled from New Jersey each day, and who owned and maintained an apartment house in New York where his elderly parents lived, was not a “statutory resident” of New York within the meaning of the Tax Law:

The Tax Tribunal has interpreted “maintains a permanent place of abode” to mean that a taxpayer need not “reside” in the dwelling, but only maintain it, to qualify as “statutory resident” under Tax Law § 605 [b][1][B]. Our review is limited to whether that interpretation comports with the meaning and intent of the statutes involved … . We conclude there is no rational basis for that interpretation. Notably, nowhere in the statute does it provide anything other than the “permanent place of abode” must relate to the taxpayer. The legislative history of the statute, to prevent tax evasion by New York residents, as well as the regulations, support the view that in order for a taxpayer to have maintained a permanent place of abode in New York, the taxpayer must, himself, have a residential interest in the property. Matter of Gaied v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 26, CtApp 2-18-14

 

Disclaimer Based Upon Insured’s Non-Cooperation Was Timely—Must Allow Longer Period to Demonstrate Diligence In Seeking Cooperation

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals determined that the insurers disclaimer based upon the insured’s failure to cooperate with the investigation was timely and enforceable:

The question whether an insurer disclaimed as soon as reasonably possible is necessarily case-specific. In some cases, very different from this one, the justification for disclaimer is “readily ascertainable from the face of the complaint in the underlying action” … or “all relevant facts supporting . . . a disclaimer [are] immediately apparent . . . upon . . . receipt of notice of the accident” … . In such cases, a disclaimer must be made rapidly. The present appeal, on the other hand, involves disclaimer for noncooperation by an insured. A determination as to whether such a disclaimer was made within a reasonable time is more complex because “an insured's noncooperative attitude is often not readily apparent”… . We have emphasized that “insurers must be encouraged to disclaim for noncooperation only after it is clear that further reasonable attempts to elicit their insured's cooperation will be futile” … .The primary reason that we allow a longer period for disclaimer for noncooperation lies in a well-established principle of our case law, which is intended to facilitate the full compensation of injured victims suing for damages. This is the requirement that an insurer may not properly disclaim for noncooperation unless it has satisfied its burden, described in the precedent as “a heavy one indeed,” of showing “that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured's co-operation; that the efforts employed by the insurer were reasonably calculated to obtain the insurer's co-operation; and that the attitude of the insured, after his co-operation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction”… . Country-Wide Insurance Company v Preferred Trucking Services Corp, 21, CtApp 2-18-14

 

Reversing Its Prior Decision in this Case, the Court of Appeals Determined the “Servidone” Rule Is to Be Followed in New York/An Insurer Which Has Breached Its Duty to Defend the Insured May Rely On Policy Exclusions to Escape Its Duty to Indemnify the Insured

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals reversed itself on reargument and adhered to precedent—Servidone Const Corp v Security Ins Co of Hartford, 64 NY 2d 419. Under Servidone, an insurer which breached its duty to defend can still rely on policy exclusions to escape the duty to indemnify:

In Servidone — a case in which, as in this one, the insurer was relying on policy exclusions in defending against a suit for indemnification — we stated the question as follows:

“Where an insurer breaches a contractual duty to defend its insured in a personal injury action, and the insured thereafter concludes a reasonable settlement with the injured party, is the insurer liable to indemnify the insured even if coverage is disputed?”… .

We answered the question in Servidone no. In K2-I [the initial ruling in the instant case], we held that “when a liability insurer has breached its duty to defend its insured, the insurer may not later rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify the insured for a judgment against him” …. . The Servidone and K2-I holdings cannot be reconciled. * * *In short, to decide this case we must either overrule Servidone or follow it. We choose to follow it. K2 Investment Group LLC v American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, 6, CtApp 2-18-14

 

, ,

County Could Not Shift Obligation to Pay Property Tax Refunds to Taxing Districts

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, which includes extensive historical, theoretical, constitutional and statutory discussions of the issues involved, the Court of Appeals determined Nassau County could not shift its obligation to pay real property tax refunds from the county to its individual taxing districts. The county’s attempt to supersede a special state tax law exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority:

As limited by the State and Federal Constitutions' protection of individual rights and restriction of State power, the State Constitution establishes the State government as the preeminent sovereign of New York, and the three coordinate branches of the State government may exercise the entire legislative, executive and judicial power of the State, as entrusted to them by the people … .Given that the authority of political subdivisions flows from the State government and is, in a sense, an exception to the State government's otherwise plenary power, the lawmaking power of a county or other political subdivision “can be exercised only to the extent it has been delegated by the State”… .. Furthermore, because the Constitution expressly imbues the State government, rather than any locality, with “[t]he power of taxation” (NY Const art XVI, § 1), State law governs the tax field unless the State Legislature or the Constitution unambiguously delegates certain taxation authority to a political subdivision… . Matter of Baldwin Union Free School District v County of Nassau, 9, CtApp 2-18-14

 

, ,

No Prejudice from Loss of Hand-Written Police Report (Rosario Material)/Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying Request for Adverse Inference Jury Charge

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by failing to give the adverse inference charge with respect to a hand-written police report (“scratch 61”) which could not be located. The opinion explains the history of the sanctions appropriate when Rosario material is not turned over to the defense. With respect to nonwillful loss or destruction of Rosario material, the court explained the defendant must demonstrate prejudice, not demonstrated under the facts here:

…[O]ur rule is clear: nonwillful, negligent loss or destruction of Rosario material does not mandate a sanction unless the defendant establishes prejudice … . If prejudice is shown, the choice of the proper sanction is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, who may consider the degree of prosecutorial fault … . The focus, though, is on the need to eliminate prejudice to the defendant … . Here, defendants did not establish prejudice, as is their burden. Defendants fault the trial judge for not analyzing prejudice when he denied their request for an adverse inference charge, but they did not even mention the word. … The judge essentially (and correctly) ruled that inadvertent loss alone was insufficient to require a sanction. Of course, it is difficult to imagine how defendants might have been prejudiced by the loss of the scratch 61, as the defense attorneys and the judge all no doubt knew. A scratch 61 is a handwritten complaint report that [was] placed in a bin for typing, likely by a civilian employee of the police department. Defendants were provided the typewritten complaint report, which would have differed from the scratch 61 only if the typist made a mistake — i.e., the handwritten scratch 61 is not subject to editing before typing. People v Martinez…, 13, 14, CtApp 2-18-14

 

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

 

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