You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, , ,

A LETTER FROM AN ATTORNEY THREATENING LITIGATION CAN CONSTITUTE “RETALIATION” AGAINST THOSE WHO MAKE HOUSING DICSRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PURSUANT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a letter sent by an attorney for the landlord, Pine Ridge, to the respondent CityVision, a not-for-profit corporation which tests whether housing facilities engage in discrimination, constituted “retaliation” against those who make discrimination complaints. Here a CityVision employee, Renner, posed as a prospective tenant and allegedly was steered to a different apartment complex because she had children (discrimination based on familial status). CityVision’s complaint to the NYS Division of Human Rights (DHR) was dismissed. An attorney for Pine Ridge then sent a letter to CityVision which mentioned seeking damages. CityVision then filed a second complaint alleging the letter constituted “retaliation:” Although the matter was remitted to DHR because it was CityVision’s, not Pine Ridge;s, burden to show it was engaged in a protected activity, the Court of Appeals held that the threat of litigation can constitute “retaliation” in this context.

… [A] plaintiff bears the burden to establish a prima facie retaliation claim … . To meet that burden, the plaintiff must show that (1) they have “engaged in protected activity,” (2) the defendant “was aware that” the plaintiff “participated in” the protected activity, (3) the plaintiff suffered adverse action based upon the activity, and (4) “there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” (id.). Only the first and third elements of CityVision’s retaliation claim are at issue here. ***

… [T]he record established that [the attorney’s] letter “shocked” CityVision’s employees and forced CityVision to expend resources and “scramble . . . to locate counsel” to address the threat. … [I]t was rational for DHR to conclude that the threatening letter caused CityVision to divert resources and could have dissuaded a person from pursuing a discrimination claim to protect their rights under the Human Rights Law. Indeed, a potential plaintiff might be chilled from filing a discrimination complaint when weighing the harm caused by the threat of retaliatory litigation, let alone the injury potentially occasioned by actual retaliatory litigation. DHR’s determination that the litigation threat amounted to adverse action in this case was rational and, thus, supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2024 NY Slip Op 00793, CtApp 2-15-24

Practice Point: Here a not-for-profit filed a complaint against a landlord alleging housing discrimination. After the complaint was dismissed, an attorney for the landlord sent a letter to the not-for-profit arguably threatening litigation. The letter constituted “retaliation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE DECK OF HER APRARTMENT; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE; THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON FILE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-landlord did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck which plaintiff fell through. In addition there was a question of fact whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied:

Defendants testified that they inspected the deck before purchasing the property and also obtained the services of an unidentified inspector. However, they failed to produce the inspection report or any evidence of its contents, nor did they establish that the defect in the deck could not have been discovered upon a diligent inspection … . In light of defendants’ failure to show lack of actual or constructive notice, it is of no moment that they did not create the defective condition of the deck.

… Plaintiff’s expert engineer opined that the lack of a certificate of occupancy for the property, including the deck, should have put defendants on notice that the deck was not compliant with applicable building codes and that an inspection would have uncovered weakened plywood under the deck’s tile surface.

… The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence to be drawn where (1) the event is of a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence, (2) it was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendants, and (3) plaintiff’s actions did not contribute in any way to the occurrence … . The first and third elements are established here because “a deck being put to its regular and intended use does not ordinarily collapse in the absence of negligence,” and there is no claim that any contributory negligence by plaintiff caused the collapse … . The second element of exclusive control may be established to the extent that plaintiff’s claim is based on defendants’ failure to maintain the deck since their acquisition of the property, rather than on the illegal construction of the deck at some earlier date … . Rosario v Cao, 2024 NY Slip Op 00154, First Dept 1-11-24

Practice Point: Here the deck of plaintiff’s apartment collapsed and she fell through it. There was no certificate of occupancy on file. The elements of res ipsa loquitur were present. Defendants therefore did not demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice of the condition of the deck.

 

,

THE DRUGS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN “PLAIN VIEW” IF THE POLICE HAD NOT ILLEGALLY DETAINED DEFENDANT OUTSIDE THE CAR BEFORE LOOKING INSIDE THE CAR; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing the indictment, over a three-judge dissent, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his car should have been granted. The proof at the suppression hearing demonstrated the police observed innocent behavior in a parking lot which which was interpreted to be a drug transaction. As an officer approached, defendant got out of his car and walked toward the officer. The officer frisked the defendant and had him stand at the back of the car. The officer then looked in the car and saw cocaine on the seat. The car was then searched. The Fourth Department, over a two-judge dissent, held that the cocaine was in plain view and would have been seen had the officer simply walked up to the car without detaining the defendant. But the Court of Appeals held that the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement only applies if the police are acting lawfully at the time the observation was made. Here the police had illegally detained defendant before the observation:

The Appellate Division reasoned that, even if [Officer] Young had not detained defendant, he could have observed the contraband in plain view simply by walking up to the driver’s seat and looking into the vehicle … . However, this conclusion is unsupported because, had the officers not unlawfully detained defendant behind the car, defendant could have walked back, opened the car door and sat on the driver’s seat—actions that, contrary to the dissent’s unsupported assertions … , would have blocked Young’s view of the contraband….  Therefore, the prosecution failed to meet its burden to establish at the suppression hearing that the unlawful detention of defendant was not the reason that Young had an “unobstructed view of the driver’s seat” … . People v Messano, 2024 NY Slip Op 00097, CtApp 1-11-24

Practice Point: The “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement only applies if the police are acting lawfully at the time the observation is made—not the case here.

 

​ALL AGREED A MULTIPLICITOUS COUNT SHOULD BE DISMISSED; THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PROSECUTION HERE WAS UNNECESSARY AND A RESTORATIVE-JUSTICE APPROACH WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals dismissed a multiplicitous count of the indictment. The concurrence by Judge Wilson argued that the underlying prosecution would have been better replaced by a restorative-justice approach. The grand larceny and perjury charges stemmed from what all parties agreed was a “dumb argument” on the street:

A multiplicitous indictment “creates the risk that a defendant will be punished for, or stigmatized with a conviction of, more crimes than [they] actually committed” … . Even when the multiplicitous convictions do not increase the defendant’s sentence, the stigma of impermissible convictions endures and must be remedied. Thus, when a defendant is convicted of multiplicitous charges, the proper remedy is vacatur of all but one of the multiplicitous convictions and dismissal of those counts of the indictment, regardless of whether that corrective action has any effect on the defendant’s sentence. Here, there is no dispute regarding the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the two counts of perjury of which defendant was ultimately convicted were multiplicitous. As the People concede, the proper remedy is therefore dismissal of one of the convictions. People v Greene, 2024 NY Slip Op 00096, CtApp 1-11-24

Practice Point: It is entirely proper to dismiss a multiplicitous indictment-count after trial.

Practice Point: Here Judge Wilson, in a concurrence, argued that this prosecution, which arose from a “dumb argument” on the street, was unnecessary. The case should have been handled with a restorative-justice approach.

 

, , ,

A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined that a canine sniff of a person to detect drugs is a search. The Fourth Department had reversed County Court and held that the canine sniff constituted a search. But the Fourth Department went on to apply the “reasonable suspicion” standard to whether the search was justified and found that standard had been met by the facts. Because County Count had not ruled on the correct standard for a sniff-search (County Court held the sniff was not a search), the Fourth Department did not have the authority rule against the defendant on that issue. The matter was sent back to County Court for rulings on what the correct standard is and whether that standard was met by the events preceding the sniff-search in this case:

… [W]e conclude that the canine sniff of defendant’s person qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment. * * *

The second question presented by this appeal is whether the Appellate Division could decide that a canine sniff search of a person requires reasonable suspicion and was justified in this case. We conclude that the Appellate Division lacked jurisdiction to resolve those issues because County Court did not decide them adversely to defendant (see LaFontaine, 92 NY2d at 473-474). * * *

County Court held that the canine sniff of defendant’s person did not qualify as a search. The court did not decide the standard that would govern if the canine sniff did so qualify, much less whether that standard was met. Those questions present “separate” and “analytically distinct” issues from the threshold question of whether the sniff implicated constitutional protections or prohibitions … . The Appellate Division therefore erred in deciding those questions adversely to defendant…. . People v Butler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06468, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A canine sniff for drugs on a person is a search. The correct standard justifying such a search has not been determined.

Practice Point: If an issue has not been addressed by the lower court, the appellate court is powerless to rule adversely to the defendant on that issue. Here County Court had held that a canine sniff is not a search and therefore never ruled on the correct standard for such a search. The Appellate Division (which reversed County Court on whether the sniff is a search) could not decide what the correct standard for the search was and then rule that the standard had been met, because that ruling was adverse to the defendant. The matter was sent back to the County Court for a ruling.

 

,

LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT COVER INJURY TO A MECHANIC REPAIRING A VEHICLE, EVEN IF THE EVENT IS “GRAVITY-RELATED;” HERE AN ELEVATED TRAILER FELL ON PLAINTIFF (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined that injury to a mechanic repairing a vehicle is not covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff was repairing a trailer which had been lifted up five feet by a backhoe. The backhoe rolled backward and the trailer fell on the plaintiff, causing serious injuries:

Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to workers “employed” in the “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” … . The statute’s “central concern is the dangers that beset workers in the construction industry” (id. at 525). If an employee is engaged in an activity covered by section 240 (1), “contractors and owners” must “furnish or erect” enumerated safety devices “to give proper protection” to the employee. “Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recovery under [section] 240 (1) requires a determination of whether the injury sustained is the type of elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies” … . To make this determination, a court must examine the “type of work the plaintiff was performing at the time of injury” … . * * *

Employing a holistic view of the statute, we conclude that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged, ordinary vehicle repair, is not an activity covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). Such work is analogous to that of a factory worker engaged in the normal manufacturing process. Plaintiff is a mechanic who was fixing the brakes on a trailer, a “[v]ehicle” as that term is defined in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 159. Expanding the statute’s scope to cover a mechanic engaged in ordinary vehicle repair would “extend the statute . . . far beyond the purposes it was designed to serve” … . Stoneham v Joseph Barsuk, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06467, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 240(1) does not cover injuries to a mechanic who is repairing a vehicle. Here the elevated trailer plaintiff was repairing fell on him.

 

, ,

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PAROLE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the FOIL requests made to the Board of Parole of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) were properly denied. The documents were protected by attorney-client privilege:

… (DOCCS) properly withheld 11 documents prepared by counsel for the Board of Parole as privileged communications exempt from Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) disclosure. Counsel prepared the documents to train and advise Board of Parole commissioners on how to comply with their legal duties and obligations. The documents reflect counsel’s legal analysis of statutory, regulatory and decisional law and they therefore constitute attorney-client communications that were prepared “for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship,” specifically, to provide guidance on matters relevant to the Commissioners’ exercise of their discretionary authority … . Accordingly, DOCCS properly invoked the statutory FOIL exemption for privileged matters (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]; CPLR 4503 [a]). Matter of Appellate Advocates v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2023 NY Slip Op 06466, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A FOIL request for documents protected by attorney-client privilege is properly denied.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN PROVIDING DISCOVERY; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS INVALID AND DID NOT STOP THE SPEEDY-TRIAL CLOCK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the People did not exercise due diligence in providing discovery to the defense. Therefore the certificate of compliance (COC) was invalid and did not stop the speedy trial clock. The prosecution was time-barred:

In 2019, the New York State Legislature enacted sweeping reforms that expanded and restructured disclosure obligations in criminal cases, effective at the start of 2020 (see L 2019, ch 59, § 1, pt LLL). This appeal concerns a new requirement set forth in CPL article 245 that the People file a certificate of compliance (COC) with their statutory disclosure obligations (see CPL 245.50 [1], [3]). * * *

Due diligence is a mixed question of fact and law, and thus we consider whether the fact finder’s conclusions are supported by the record … . Viewed under the proper legal standard, there is no record support for the conclusion of the courts below that prior to filing the initial COC, the People exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries to identify mandatory discovery items relating to this case.

The belated disclosure here consisted of routinely produced disclosure materials—the creation of at least one of which was mandated by law … . The absence of such significant items of disclosure was readily noticed by the defense, which then brought it to the attention of the People and the court. The prosecution had two opportunities to establish that they had exercised due diligence, but failed to do so. At the appearance on May 26th, in which defense counsel first called attention to the missing items, the prosecutor simply asserted that he had “checked” without any elaboration as to what efforts were made to verify whether there was any outstanding discovery or whether the disclosure requested by the defense—which was in the possession of the People (see CPL 245.20 [2])—actually existed. The prosecutor speculated that such disclosure items did not exist and had not been created, and otherwise stated in a cursory fashion that all discovery had been turned over. When the parties appeared on July 6th following Bay’s CPL 30.30 motion, the People again made no mention of any efforts taken to ascertain the existence of discovery materials before the COC was filed, nor did they explain why some discovery was initially missing or how it came into their possession. People v Bay, 2023 NY Slip Op 06407, CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: Here the People did not exercise due diligence in complying with their discovery obligations. Therefore the certificate of compliance (COC) was invalid and did not stop the speedy trial clock. If the People can demonstrate they exercised due diligence in providing discovery, the COC will not be deemed improper.

 

,

THE COUNTY, UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL), HAD THE POWER TO CONDEMN AN AREA ADJACENT TO AN OFFICE BULIDING FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT; THE ALLOWED PURPOSE UNDER THE EDPL WAS “COMMERCIAL:” THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PURPOSE WAS “HEALTHCARE,” NOT “COMMERCIAL,” BECAUSE THE BUILDING WOULD HOUSE DOCTORS’ OFFICES WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) properly exercised its power under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) to obtain property be used for as parking for an office building, as well as public parking. The the fact that the building would be used for doctor’s offices did not negate the “commercial” purpose of the building within the meaning of the EDPL. Petitioner’s argued the building served a “healthcare,” not a “commercial” purpose and therefore was not subject to the condemnation power of the OCICA:

General Municipal Law § 858 (4) grants industrial development agencies the power to “acquire by purchase, grant, lease, gift, pursuant to the provisions of the [EDPL], or otherwise and to use, real property or rights or easements therein necessary for its corporate purposes.” “The purposes of [an industrial development] agency are to promote, develop, encourage[,] and assist in the acquiring, constructing, reconstructing, improving, maintaining, equipping[,] and furnishing industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, commercial, research, renewable energy[,] and recreation facilities” … . The question here is whether OCIDA appropriately determined that taking the property was necessary for a “commercial” purpose.

As a general matter, a parking facility used by the customers of a profit-making business plainly has a “commercial” purpose. Matter of Bowers Dev., LLC v Oneida County Indus. Dev. Agency, 2023 NY Slip Op 06406. CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: The Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) allows land to be condemned by a county industrial development agency for “commercial” but not “healthcare” purposes. Here the county properly condemned land next to an office building for parking, despite the fact that doctors would be tenants in the office building.

 

,

PETITIONER PATHOLOGIST IS BEING SUED BY AN INMATE WHO ALLEGES MISDIAGNOSIS OF A BIOPSY; BECAUSE THE REQUEST FOR THE BIOPSY CAME FROM A DOCTOR WHO WAS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS), AND NOT DIRECTLY FROM DOCCS, THE STATE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY THE PATHOLOGIST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the state did not have an obligation to defend or indemnify the petitioner, a pathologist, who concluded the lump under an inmate’s arm was benign. Dr. Cotie, a physician who provided services to inmates under a contract with the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), had taken a biopsy and had sent it to petitioner for analysis. One year after the “benign” finding, the inmate was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Because the request for the biopsy analysis did not come directly from DOCCS, pursuant to the language in the Correction Law, the state was not required to defend or indemnify the petitioner pathologist:

Under Correction Law § 24-a, the provisions of Public Officers Law § 17 are made applicable to “any person holding a license to practice a profession. . . who is rendering or has rendered professional services authorized under such license while acting at the request of the department or a facility of the department in providing health care and treatment or professional consultation to incarcerated individuals of state correctional facilities” … . The Attorney General has interpreted this language to mean that the State’s obligation to defend and indemnify applies only where there has been an express request by DOCCS for the services of a particular provider—i.e., a formal arrangement or understanding made in advance between DOCCS and the healthcare professional. * * *

Petitioner performed pathology services on the biopsy sample as a result of his contract with the hospital, not because he was acting at DOCCS’ request or executing any public responsibility associated with the care or treatment of incarcerated individuals. Matter of Jun Wang v James, 2023 NY Slip Op 06405, CtApp 12-14-23

Practice Point: Unless DOCCS directly and expressly requests that a doctor provide a service for an inmate, the state will not indemnify or defend the doctor in a lawsuit by an  inmate. A request from a doctor under contract with DOCCS will not trigger indemnification or defense.

 

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