You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

A REPORT OF A ROAD DEFECT SUBMITTED THROUGH A CITY’S ONLINE REPORTING SYSTEM MAY CONSTITUTE “WRITTEN NOTICE” TRIGGERING MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE DEFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined there was a question of fact whether the online reporting of a road defect constituted “written notice” of the defect such that the municipality may be liable for plaintiff’s motorcycle accident. The Court noted that the plaintiff also raised a question of fact whether the city created the road defect, obviating the need for written notice, and the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to the proprietary function of road repair:

Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of his motorcycle on Lark Street in the City of Albany. He brought this lawsuit claiming that the accident was caused by a road defect that the City knew about and had failed to repair. The primary issue on appeal is whether certain reports submitted to the City through an online reporting system called “SeeClickFix” (SCF) served as “written notice” of that defect and, if so, whether those reports were “actually given” to the official designated by statute to receive such notice. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, based on the implementation and use of the SCF system by the City and its Department of General Services (DGS), we hold that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to prior written notice to the appropriate City official. We further hold that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact regarding the affirmative negligence exception to the prior written notice requirement, and that the City lacks governmental immunity from suit. We therefore affirm. * * *

… [A]t the time of the accident, the City’s prior written notice statute provided:

“No civil action shall be maintained against the City for damages or injuries to person or property sustained in consequence of any street . . . being defective, out of repair, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed unless, previous to the occurrence resulting in such damages or injury, written notice of the defective, unsafe, dangerous or obstructed condition of said street . . . was actually given to the Commissioner of Public Works and there was a failure or neglect within a reasonable time after the receipt of such notice to repair or remove the defect, danger or obstruction complained of” (Albany City Code former § 24-1 …). Calabrese v City of Albany, 2024 NY Slip Op 06289, CtApp 12-17-24

Practice Point: Here a report of a road defect had been submitted through an online reporting system implemented by the city. There was a question of fact whether such a report constituted “written notice” of the road defect, and whether the notice was actually given to the commissioner of public works.

 

, , ,

NYC MUST PAY CITY EMPLOYEES, RETIREES AND DEPENDENTS THE FULL COST, UP TO THE STATUTORY CAP, OF ANY HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN THE CITY OFFERS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined NYC was required to pay city employees, retirees and dependents the full cost, up to the statutory cap, of any health insurance plan the city offers:

At issue on this appeal are the portions of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 12-126 requiring New York City (“City”) to pay, for active employees, retirees and their dependents, “the entire cost of health insurance coverage,” defined as “[a] program of hospital-surgical-medical benefits,” in an amount “not to exceed one hundred percent of the full cost of H.I.P.-H.M.O. on a category basis.” The statute requires that the City’s program includes “hospital[,] surgical [and] medical benefits.” The statute also requires the City to pay the full cost of the program, so long as that cost does not exceed the comparator in the statute. The question in this case is what section 12-126 requires the City to do when it offers more than one health insurance plan to employees and retirees. Petitioners argue that section 12-126 requires the City to pay, up to the statutory cap, for any plan it offers. The City contends that its section 12-126 obligation is satisfied if it pays up to the cap for one health insurance plan providing hospital, surgical and medical benefits. It argues that it may offer additional plans but has no statutory obligation to pay any portion of their cost, and explains that when it has paid for additional plans in the past, it has done so because it agreed to in collective bargaining, not because it was statutorily required to do so. The parties also disagree as to which health insurance plan sets the statutory cap for Medicare-eligible retirees.

We hold that section 12-126 requires the City to pay up to the statutory cap for any plan it offers to employees and retirees. Matter of NYC Org. of Pub. Serv. Retirees, Inc. v Campion, 2024 NY Slip Op 06291, CtApp 12-17-24

 

, , , , ,

AFTER THE DEATH OF THE COOPERATIVE OWNER, THE BOARD REFUSED TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DECEDENT’S “SPOUSE” WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER OF DECEDENT’S LEASE AND SHARES; THE MAJORITY, OVER TWO DISSENTING OPINIONS, DETERMINED THE BOARD’S REFUSAL TO TREAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS NOT MARRIED TO DECEDENT, AS A “SPOUSE” DID NOT CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON “MARITAL STATUS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two dissenting opinions, determined the cooperative board did not discriminate against the petitioner when it declined to treat petitioner as the decedent-cooperative-owner’s “spouse” for the purpose of transferring decedent’s shares to petitioner:

Petitioner Maryanne McCabe resided for 13 years in a New York City cooperative building with her “long-time romantic partner,” David Burrows. Upon Burrows’ death, he willed his real property, including his unit in the building, to petitioner, who then sought to acquire his lease and shares under a lease provision authorizing an automatic transfer to a shareholder’s “spouse.” The cooperative board declined to treat petitioner as a spouse but offered to consider whether she could retain the lease and shares under a clause covering a shareholder’s family member. Petitioner argues that the board’s failure to treat her as a spouse for purposes of the automatic transfer provision violated the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) (see Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-107 [5]). We disagree. * * *

The two were neither married nor in a registered domestic partnership, and petitioner was never added as a shareholder of his unit. Burrows bequeathed his apartment to petitioner when he passed away … . * * *

The NYCHRL does not define “marital status,” but Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as “[t]he condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed” (Black’s Law Dictionary [12th ed 2024], marital status). Along the same lines is the general understanding: “when one is queried about one’s ‘marital status,’ the usual and complete answer would be expected to be a choice among ‘married,’ ‘single,’ etc.” … . A plain reading of the term, then, is that marital status reflects the legal condition of being single, married, legally separated, divorced, or widowed. Marital status turns on whether an individual has “participated or failed to participate in a marriage …”. Matter of McCabe v 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06290, CtApp 12-17-24

Practice Point: The cooperative board’s refusal to treat a “long time romantic partner” of the decedent-cooperative-owner as decedent’s “spouse” for purposes of an automatic transfer of the lease and shares did not constitute discrimination on the basis of “marital status” under the NYC Human Rights Law.

 

,

UNLIKE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT CONSIDER UNPRESERVED ISSUES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN THE TRIAL COURT PRECLUDED REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissent, determined the preservation requirement precluded consideration of the appeal. The underlying question concerned when the period for calculation of prejudgment interest should begin to run:

“As we have many times repeated, this Court with rare exception does not review questions raised for the first time on appeal. Unlike the Appellate Division, we lack jurisdiction to review unpreserved issues in the interest of justice” … . “To demonstrate that a question of law is preserved for this Court’s review, a party must show that it raised the specific argument in [the trial court] and asked the court to conduct that analysis in the first instance” … . …

Among the many salutary reasons for our preservation rule is that “in making and shaping the common law . . . this Court best serves the litigants and the law by limiting its review to issues that have first been presented to and carefully considered by the trial and intermediate appellate courts” … . In considering whether to disturb well-settled Appellate Division precedent, this Court should only act where it has the benefit of a full record, including a reasoned trial court decision

As it relates to the proceedings below, claimant never raised the question of the accrual date of prejudgment interest in the trial court. Further, when a party objects to a provision contained in a judgment, they generally have the ability to seek relief pursuant to CPLR 5015 and 5019, as plaintiff was invited to do here. Had plaintiff made such a motion, arguments in favor of and against earlier accrual of prejudgment interest could have been made, thereby providing a fully developed record for appeal, an essential step for parties seeking review from the Court of Appeals. But, plaintiff did not preserve an objection to the imposition of prejudgment interest on the record before the trial court. As plaintiff had an opportunity to raise his objections in the trial court but failed to do so, the issue is unreviewable on appeal to this Court. Sabine v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 06288, CtApp 12-17-24

Practice Point: Unlike the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals cannot consider an unpreserved issue “in the interest of justice.” If the issue was not raised and preserved in the trial court, the Court of Appeals will not consider it.​

 

, , ,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, WHICH WAS BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S MAKING U-TURNS, AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REARGUE THE MOTION AND PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U-TURNS WERE, IN FACT, ILLEGAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the judge in this DWI prosecution should not have granted the People’s motion to reargue the suppression motion. The court had initially granted defendant’s motion to suppress because the People failed to prove U-turns made by the defendant were illegal. When the suppression motion was reargued, the People presented evidence the U-turns were, in fact, illegal and the court denied suppression:

… [I]f the People have had a full and fair opportunity to oppose suppression, and the suppression court has issued a ruling on the merits, the People may not have an additional “opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position” … . Under the circumstances of this case, where the People were unprepared for the suppression hearing and sought to reargue the legal issue to remedy their lack of preparedness, the same principle should apply.

At a suppression hearing, the People bear the burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . Here, the court granted defendant’s motion for suppression because the People failed to demonstrate that defendant’s U-turns were illegal and therefore that the stop was lawful. Neither the Assistant District Attorney nor the arresting officer could identify any traffic law provision violated by defendant. Moreover, the People did not request a recess or adjournment to determine the statutory basis for the stop, nor did they request permission to furnish a post-hearing submission to identify any relevant provision of law. Instead, the People returned a month after the court granted suppression, offering a different legal theory that they had not raised at the original suppression hearing. On that new legal theory, the court changed course and denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Of course, “[b]efore sentence is imposed, trial courts in criminal cases have the general inherent authority to correct their own mistakes” … , which may include granting leave to reargue. Although the People may be permitted to reargue the legal or factual issues of the suppression proceedings, allowing the suppression court to grant the People’s motion to reargue in these circumstances would run afoul of our “full and fair opportunity” principle and the policies of finality and judicial efficiency underlying it. People v Lawson, 2024 NY Slip Op 06238, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Pont: As a general rule, the People should have only one chance to demonstrate the legality of a traffic stop in the context of a suppression hearing. Once a suppression motion is granted, the People should not be allowed to reopen the hearing to present evidence which could have been presented the first time around.

 

A PATROL OFFICER’S FALLING INTO A HOLE DUG FOR A SEWER LINE WHILE INVESTIGATING, AT NIGHT, A SUSPICIOUS LIGHT FROM A VACANT HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined petitioner, a former police officer, was not injured in an “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits. Petitioner, at night, was investigating a suspicious light in a vacant house which was under construction. Petitioner was aware the house was under construction. He was injured when he fell into a hole which had been dug for a sewer line:

As our caselaw makes clear, an incident caused by “a risk inherent in the petitioner’s regular [job] duties” is not an accident for purposes of ADR benefits … . In determining whether an accident occurred, respondent appropriately considered whether, at the time of the incident, petitioner was “acting within the scope of [his] ‘ordinary employment duties, considered in view of [his] particular employment,’ ” and whether the incident was caused by “an inherent risk of [those] regular duties” … . On this record, respondent “reasonabl[y] and plausibl[y]” determined that petitioner’s risk of being injured by an unseen hazard while investigating a potential crime in the dark was inherent in his ordinary job duties as a patrol officer … . Matter of Compagnone v DiNapoli, 2024 NY Slip Op 06235, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Point: A patrol officer investigating, at night, a suspicious light from a vacant house under construction, could or should have anticipated injury from an unseen hazard at the construction site, here a hole dug for a sewer line. Falling into the hole was not a compensable “accident” within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.​

 

AN INCIDENT WHICH “COULD OR SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY BEEN ANTICIPATED” IS NOT AN “ACCIDENT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, affirming the Appellate Division, determined petitioner, a former police officer, was not entitled to accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits for injuries suffered when a wheel on his desk chair caught in a rut and the chair began to tip over backwards. Petitioner, who was aware of the ruts in the floor, was able to stop the chair from tipping over by grabbing the desk, injuring his shoulder and neck:

An event which is “a risk inherent” in the work performed is not an “accident” for purposes of ADR benefits … . Further, an event that is not a risk inherent in one’s job must be a “sudden, unexpected” occurrence in order to amount to an “accident” … . We held in Matter of Rizzo v DiNapoli that a known danger cannot be the cause of a compensable accident, but we left open whether an event that could or should have reasonably been anticipated by the claimant can result in an accident for purposes of section 363 (see 39 NY3d 991, 992 [2022]). We answer that question today.

We hold that a precipitating event that could or should have reasonably been anticipated by a person in the claimant’s circumstances is not an “accident” for purposes of ADR benefits. It is well established that “an injury which occurs without an unexpected event . . . is not an accidental injury” for purposes of section 363 (Lichtenstein, 57 NY2d at 1012). The unexpected nature of the precipitating event is key to this definition. * * *

… [W]e conclude that substantial evidence supports the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner could or should have reasonably anticipated the near-fall from his desk chair. Matter of Bodenmiller v DiNapoli, 2024 NY Slip Op 06234, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Point: Here petitioner was aware of ruts in the floor in which the wheels on his desk chair could catch. Therefore injuries stemming from a wheel catching in a rut were not the result of a compensable “accident” under the Retirement and Social Security Law.

 

,

A LIENHOLDER NONPARTY TO AN ACTION THAT RESULTED IN A FEE AWARD TO A DEBTOR MAY SUE TO RECOVER THOSE FEES WHERE THE LIENHOLDER WAS NEITHER JOINED NOR REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THAT ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined: “[a] lienholder nonparty to an action that resulted in a fee award against a debtor may challenge the legal basis of the judgment in a separate proceeding to recover those fees. We conclude that because the nonparty was neither joined nor required to intervene in the action against the debtor, it had no prior opportunity to challenge the award and thus is not barred from doing so in this proceeding … “.  Matter of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2024 NY Slip Op 05876, CtApp 11-26-24

 

, ,

IN THIS FIRE-DAMAGE CASE, THE INSURANCE POLICY IMPOSED A TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD; THE ACTION WAS NOT BROUGHT UNTIL SIX YEARS AFTER THE FIRE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY DETAILS DEMONSTRATING WHY THE RESTORATION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined plaintiff’s complaint in this fire-damage case was properly dismissed because the contractual two-year limitation period was exceeded and plaintiff made only conclusory allegations that the repairs could not be made within that two-year period:

On this motion to dismiss, the Tower/AmTrust defendants met their burden of establishing, by reference to the contract’s two-year suit limitation provision, that the action was time-barred because plaintiff did not commence it within two years of the fire, utterly refuting plaintiff’s factual allegations … . Nothing in plaintiff’s response raised any issue as to whether the provision should bar her claims. Plaintiff’s allegation that “[g]iven the massive structural damage wrought by the fire, the restoration of [plaintiff’s] property would have been [a] multi-year process under even the best of circumstances” is a conclusory statement that the suit limitation provision was unreasonable and is not logically inconsistent with the replacement of the property within the two-year limitation period. Here, plaintiff failed to allege actions that she took to complete the repairs within two years; she did not provide any details regarding the extent of the damage, other than that the damage was “massive” and the fire set off four alarms, or why complete restoration within two years was an impossibility. This bare-bones allegation stands in stark contrast to the plaintiff’s factual assertions in [Executive Plaza, LLC v Peerless Ins. Co. (22 NY3d 511)]. There, the plaintiff pleaded the specific remedial actions taken to restore the property, including retaining an architect and construction company, submitting a variance application, and seeking and obtaining building permits, which were not issued until 20 months after the property damage … . Most importantly, that plaintiff provided that these remedial actions were taken within the limitation period. All of this information is notably absent from plaintiff’s pleadings and motion response here. Farage v Associated Ins. Mgt. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05875, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: Here the insurance contract imposed a two-year limitation on claims for the cost of fire-damage repair. Plaintiff did not bring the action until six years after the fire. The complaint was properly dismissed because it did not provide any details explaining why the repairs could not have been made during the two-year limitation period.

 

,

MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR SEXUAL CONDUCT WERE PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY COUNTY COURT IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A SORA RISK-LEVEL REDUCTION TO LEVEL ONE, DESPITE THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS’ STATEMENT IT “WOULD NOT OPPOSE” A LEVEL ONE RISK ASSESSMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined County Court properly reduced defendant’s SORA risk-level from three to two, and properly refused to reduce the risk-level to one. The Court of Appeals concluded the 2003 misdemeanor convictions, which did not involve violence or sexual conduct, were properly considered by County Court in denying the level one assessment:

Defendant served 21 years in prison. At first, he denied responsibility for his criminal conduct and refused to participate in sex offender treatment, but he eventually took responsibility and enrolled in treatment, which he completed. Defendant was released to parole in 1998, and the sentencing court determined him to be a level three risk pursuant to SORA. … In 2003, while still on parole, defendant was convicted of two misdemeanors: attempted auto stripping and attempted possession of burglary tools. He has no other convictions since his 1998 release.

In 2021, defendant petitioned under Correction Law § 168-o (2) to modify his risk level classification to level one. Defendant argued that he posed a low risk of reoffense based on his engagement in one-on-one outpatient sex offender treatment from 1998 to 2008; his steady full-time employment, including his current job, which he had held for 17 years; his stable and loving relationship with his wife, whom he met in 2008; his role as stepfather to his wife’s daughter; and his age of 66 years. Defendant also noted that he had fully complied with his SORA obligations since his release 23 years earlier and, aside from his 2003 misdemeanor conviction, had not reoffended. He submitted letters of support from his counselor, wife, and stepdaughter. In addition, he submitted the report of an expert psychologist who examined him and concluded that his risk of reoffense was low, and that requiring him to register at risk level three was no longer necessary for purposes of public safety. At the court’s request … , the Board submitted an “updated recommendation” stating that it “would not oppose” defendant’s request for a modification to level one. * * *

[The] evidence included the nature of the underlying offense, which defendant committed while on parole for a prior sex crime, defendant’s prior offenses, and defendant’s 2003 misdemeanor conviction of crimes committed while on parole for the underlying offense, for which he received a parole violation. Although the misdemeanors appear to have involved no violence or sexual component, we cannot conclude that the court’s consideration of that factor, along with all the other factors, constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. * * *

… [T]he question is whether his more recent criminal conduct bears on the risk of his committing future sex offenses. Under the dissent’s proposed rule, the SORA court would be prohibited from considering that defendant violated the law and his parole [in 2003] when he was caught with burglary tools after being convicted of raping a young woman during the course of a burglary also committed while defendant was on parole … . We decline to endorse that untenable result. People v Shader, 2024 NY Slip Op 05873, CtApp 11-26-24

Practice Point: Here the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) did not oppose a defendant’s request for a risk-level reduction to level one. The Court of Appeals upheld County Court’s level-two designation, which was based in part of two misdemeanor convictions of nonviolent offenses which did not involve sexual conduct. There was an extensive dissent.

 

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