You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO CONDUCT A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ANALYSIS OF DNA EVIDENCE USING THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL WAS ERROR, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR BECAUSE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIALLY CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE GUN FOUND BY THE POLICE; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ON WHETHER THE ADMISSION OF THE DNA EVIDENVE CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE GUN WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, held the acknowledged DNA-evidence error was harmless. All the judges agreed that a Frye hearing should have been held to determine the admissibility of the DNA analysis using the Forensic Statistical Tool. The issue was whether the defendant or others at the scene of the assault (a deli store) possessed a gun which was found on a display shelf by a police officer. DNA evidence connected the gun to the defendant. The majority concluded the video footage which showed defendant placing an item on the shelf where the gun was found rendered the DNA-evidence error harmless:​

It was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to admit the results of DNA analysis conducted using the Forensic Statistical Tool without first holding a Frye hearing … . Here, however, this error was harmless. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Video footage from a security camera inside the store was entered into evidence at trial, including footage from one camera trained on a display shelf which captured a group of men holding defendant against the shelf. The other men then scatter, leaving the video frame, at which point defendant places an item on the shelf directly in front of him before he too runs out of the frame. After approximately two minutes and fifteen seconds, during which no one approaches the shelf or the area where defendant placed the item, a police officer looks at the space on the shelf where the item was placed, walks over, and removes a gun. Rather than “mere physical proximity,” the video shows that only defendant could have placed the item—the gun recovered minutes later—on the shelf, not “any of the several others in the same area” (dissenting op at 8). Therefore, there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for this error … . People v Easley, 2022 NY Slip Op 02770 CtApp 4-26-22

Practice Point: All the judges at the Court of Appeals agreed the admissibility of DNA evidence gathered using the Forensic Statistical Tool should have been determined in a Frye hearing. But the judges disagreed on whether the error in admitting the DNA evidence was harmless. The DNA evidence apparently connected the defendant to a gun found by the police. The majority concluded video evidence which demonstrated defendant placed an object in the area where the gun was found rendered the DNA error harmless. Three judges disagreed in an extensive opinion.

 

,

THE OVER $3,000,000 VERDICT IN THIS TOXIC TORT CASE REVERSED; THE PROOF THAT DEFENDANT’S TALCUM POWDER, WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTAINED ASBESTOS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S LUNG CANCER WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT; THE STANDARD FOR PROOF OF CAUSATION IN TOXIC TORT CASES DISCUSSED IN DEPTH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined the proof of plaintiff’s decedent’s exposure to asbestos in defendant’s talcum powder was not sufficient to demonstrate the powder caused decedent’s mesothelioma (lung cancer). The opinion reviews the toxic-tort caselaw with respect to the sufficiency of proof of causation. That discussion is too comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

Although we have recognized that in any given case it may be “difficult, if not impossible, to quantify a plaintiff’s past exposure” to a toxin … , our standard itself is not “impossible” for plaintiffs to meet … . We must, as always, strike a balance between the need to exclude “unreliable or speculative information” as to causation with our obligation to ensure that we have not set “an insurmountable standard that would effectively deprive toxic tort plaintiffs of their day in court” … . The requirement that plaintiff establish, using expert testimony based on generally accepted methodologies, sufficient exposure to a toxin to cause the claimed illness strikes the appropriate balance … . The fault here is not in our standard, but in plaintiff’s proof. Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am.. 2022 NY Slip Op 02769, CtApp 4-26, 2022

Practice Point: This Court of Appeals opinion reviews and analyzes the causation proof-requirements for toxic tort cases. Here the proof that asbestos in talcum powder caused plaintiff’s decedent’s lung cancer was deemed insufficient.

 

A SUBSEQUENT INJURY TO THE SAME BODY “MEMBER” WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) AWARD NEED NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PERCENTAGE LOSS OF THE PRIOR AWARD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion addressing two cases by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissent in each case, determined that, under Workers’ Compensation Law section 15, a subsequent injury to the same body “member” may be fully compensable, notwithstanding a prior injury involving the same body “member:”

The common issue in these appeals is whether, under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15, a claimant’s schedule loss of use (SLU) award must always be reduced by the percentage loss determined for a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same body “member” enumerated in section 15. We hold that separate SLU awards for different injuries to the same statutory member are contemplated by section 15 and, when a claimant proves that the second injury, “considered by itself and not in conjunction with the previous disability” (WCL § 15 [7]), has caused an increased loss of use, the claimant is entitled to an SLU award commensurate with that increased loss of use. .Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 02579, CtApp 4-21-22

​Practice Point: A schedule loss of use (SLU) award for injury to a body “member” need not be reduced based on a prior SLU award for injury to the same body “member” if the claimant proves the second injury has caused an increased loss of use.

 

,

BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PLACEMENT OPTIONS, A CHILD REMOVED FROM SCHOOL WHEN SHE BECAME UNMANAGEABLE REMAINED IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM FOR WEEKS; THE PETITION SOUGHT HER RELEASE FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM; THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT BECAUSE THE NYS OFFICE OF PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES HAD FOUND SUITABLE PLACEMENT AND INSTITUTED A PROGRAM TO ENSURE THE PROBLEM WOULD NOT RECUR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, dismissing the appeal as moot, over an extensive dissent, determined the exception to the mootness doctrine should not be applied because the problem at the heart of the petition had been adequately addressed by the NYS Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). The subject child had been removed from school and sent to a hospital emergency room because she had become unmanageable. The child ended up staying in the emergency room for weeks because suitable placement was not available. The habeas corpus petition sough her release from the emergency room. During the weeks the child was in the emergency room programs were instituted to facilitate prompt suitable placement of children facing similar circumstances:

… [D]uring the pendency of petitioner’s appeal to this Court, OPWDD developed a new program, Crisis Services for Individuals with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities ([CSIDD] 14 NYCRR 635-16.1 et seq.), aimed at preventing persons with developmental disabilities from experiencing a crisis that may result in hospitalization and thereby reducing the likelihood of these issues recurring. At oral argument before this Court, counsel for OPWDD and DOH represented that the services provided by CSIDD are now available throughout the entirety of the State of New York, and particularly in the region where the child resided. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Delaney, 2022 NY Slip Op 02578, CtApp 4-21-22

Practice Point: An appeal may be dismissed as moot if the appellate court is presented with evidence the underlying issue has been adequately addressed while the appeal was pending. Here a child removed from school because she became unmanageable had been held in a hospital emergency room for weeks because suitable placement was not available. At the time of oral argument, the child had been placed and a program to prevent recurrence of the problem had been instituted.

 

,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), PROHIIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, APPLIES TO SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE UNDER POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS); THE DISSENT ARGUED SARA, BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE ON PAROLE OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the residency requirement of the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) is a mandatory condition of postrelease supervision (PRS) for sex offenders subject to SARA. The dissent argued the applicable statutes do not mention postrelease supervision (PRS) and, by their terms, apply only to defendants who are on parole or conditionally released:

In 1998, the legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act, amending the Penal Law to largely “abolish parole” for most felony offenses, including serious sexual offenses, and institute determinate terms of imprisonment to be followed by periods of postrelease supervision … . …[T]the legislature added Penal Law § 70.45 (3)—entitled “[c]onditions of post-release supervision”—which provides that the Board of Parole “shall establish and impose conditions of post-release supervision in the same manner and to the same extent as it may establish and impose conditions in accordance with the executive law upon persons who are granted parole or conditional release.” Further, Penal Law § 70.40 was amended to add references to postrelease supervision; namely Penal Law § 70.40 (1) (b) provides that “conditions of release including those governing postrelease supervision, shall be such as may be imposed by the [Parole Board] in accordance with the provisions of the executive law.” … . …

The SARA residency restriction bars offenders convicted of certain sex offenses from residing within 1,000 feet of a school (see Executive Law § 259-c [14] …). Specifically, it provides that, when certain offenders are “released on parole or conditionally released pursuant to subdivision one or two of this section,” the Parole Board “shall require, as a mandatory condition of such release, that such sentenced offender shall refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds … . …

Penal Law §§ 70.45 (3) and 70.40 (1) (b), when read together with SARA, mandate that the SARA residency restriction be applied equally to offenders released on parole, conditional release, or subject to a period of postrelease supervision. Matter of Alvarez v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 01957 Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits certain sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school, does not apply to those under postrelease supervision (PRS).

 

,

DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, AGREED TO A SENTENCE OF 20 DAYS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE; AT SENTENCING, AFTER DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED THE COMMUNITY SERVICE, THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE BARGAINED-FOR SENTENCE WAS A ONE-YEAR CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE; ON APPEAL DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER AGREED TO THE CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DeFiore, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined defendant’s argument that his plea was invalid because he was not informed that a one-year conditional discharge (CD) would be imposed, was not preserved for appeal. Defendant argued only the community-service sentence was agreed to at the time of the plea and the subsequent imposition of the conditional discharge rendered the plea involuntary:

Defendant challenges the voluntariness of his guilty plea, asserting that the court in its plea colloquy failed to advise him that the 20 days of community service to be imposed would be a condition of a sentence of a one-year conditional discharge. At the outset of the sentencing proceeding, the defense counsel and prosecutor affirmatively acknowledged to the court that the bargained-for sentence to be imposed was a conditional discharge. Prior to imposition of that sentence, defendant who had the practical ability to do so, failed to protest or otherwise seek to withdraw his guilty plea. As a result, defendant’s claim that the court’s imposition of an alleged new sentence rendered his guilty plea involuntary is unpreserved for our review. * * *

From the dissent:

Defendant … pleaded guilty to a reduced charge in exchange for a noncarceral sentence of 20 days of community service, along with a mandatory surcharge and temporary suspension of his driver’s license. When defendant appeared after completing his community service and without further criminal incident, the sentencing should have been in accord with the prosecutor and defendant’s agreement. Instead, the court imposed additional year-long conditions that were not agreed to and never mentioned during the plea colloquy or prior to sentencing. As a consequence, defendant’s plea is invalid … . People v Bush, 2022 NY Slip Op 01956, Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: Here defense counsel, at the outset of sentencing, acknowledged that the bargained-for sentence was a one-year conditional discharge. On appeal, the defendant argued that, at the time of the plea, he agreed only to a sentence of 20 days of community service, rendering his guilty plea involuntary. The majority held the issue was not preserved for appeal because defendant was alerted to the conditional-discharge sentence at the time of sentencing and did not move to withdraw his plea. The three-judge dissent agreed with defendant’s argument that his plea was involuntary.

 

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT POWER BUGGIES BE OPERATED BY TRAINED, COMPETENT, DESIGNATED PERSONNEL DOES NOT SET FORTH A SPECIFIC STANDARD OF CONDUCT SUCH THAT IT GIVES RISE TO A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY UNDER LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNTRAINED OPERATOR LOST CONTROL OF A POWER BUGGY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Industrial Code provision which provides “[n]o person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy” was not a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law 241(6). Plaintiff was injured when a worker who was not designated or trained to operate a power buggy lost control. A power buggy is a small self-powered vehicle operated by one person and used to move material on construction sites:

… [W]e have repeatedly reaffirmed the rule that to state a claim under section 241 (6), plaintiff must allege that defendant violated an Industrial Code regulation “that sets forth a specific standard of conduct and [is] not simply a recitation of common-law safety principles” … . …

The regulation relied on by plaintiff provides that “[n]o person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy” (12 NYCRR 23-9.9 [a]). In assessing whether that regulation is specific enough to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, we examine the text without reference to the underlying facts … . With respect to 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), we agree with the majority and dissent below that the “trained and competent operator” requirement “is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct” … . We disagree, however, with the Appellate Division majority’s conclusion that the additional direction that “trained and competent” individuals must also be “designated” somehow transforms the provision from a general standard of conduct to a “specific, positive command” … . Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 01955, Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: If an Industrial Code provision does not set forth a specific standard of conduct, it does not give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law 241(6). Here the Industrial Code provision which required that power buggies be operated only by “trained,” “competent,” “designated” personnel was not actionable. Plaintiff was struck by a power buggy when an untrained operator lost control.

 

“INTERACTIVE FANTASY SPORT” (IFS) IS NOT “GAMBLING;” THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING AND REGULATING IFS ARE NOT, THEREFORE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a comprehensive three-judge dissent, determined the 2016 statutes authorizing and regulating “interactive fantasy sport” (IFS) do not violate the New York Constitution’s prohibition of “gambling:”

… IFS contests are not prohibited gambling activities because contestants use significant skill to select their rosters, creating fantasy teams, and therefore have influence over the outcome of the fantasy contests between IFS participants. … [T]he historic prohibition on “gambling” in article I, § 9 does not encompass skill-based competitions in which participants who exercise substantial influence over the outcome of the contest are awarded predetermined fixed prizes by a neutral operator. * * *

… [T]he prohibition on “gambling” in article I, § 9 [of the NYS Constitution] encompasses either the staking of value on a game in which the element of chance predominates over the element of skill or the risking of value through bets or wagers on contests of skill where the pool of wagered value is awarded upon some future event outside the wagerer’s influence or control. However, games in which skill predominates over chance and skill-based competitions for predetermined prizes in which the participants have influence over the outcome do not constitute “gambling.” … .

From the dissent:

Since 1894, New York’s Constitution has prohibited “lotter[ies] . . . poolselling, bookmaking, or any other kind of gambling.” Everyone knows that sports betting is gambling. Betting on how many touchdowns a particular player will score is gambling. … Aggregating several bets involving different players into a point total that is pitted against point totals of other bettors does not transform gambling into something else. White v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 01954, Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: Statutes authorizing “interactive fantasy sport” IFS are not unconstitutional because such skill-based competitions do not constitute “gambling” in which the element of chance, as opposed to skill, predominates.

 

,

​ THE TARGETS OF A NO-KNOCK WARRANT ARE OWED A “SPECIAL DUTY” SUCH THAT A MUNICIPALITY MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS EXECUTING THE WARRANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Singas, over a two-judge dissent, determined the police owe a “special duty” to those targeted by a no-knock warrant such that liability may be imposed on a municipality for the negligence of the police during execution of the warrant.. Here plaintiff alleged he was shot by a police officer who entered the apartment where he was sleeping.. The certified question from the Second Circuit asked if the “special duty” requirement applies in this situation, or whether it is triggered only when the municipality fails to protect the plaintiff from injury by a third party who is not a municipal employee. The opinion lays out the confusing interplay between the “special duty” requirement and the “governmental-function immunity” affirmative defense, which can defeat a plaintiff’s action even if a “special duty” is deemed to exist. The dissent argued the “special duty” requirement itself is invalid and the “ordinary negligence” standard should apply to governmental actors:

Our precedent dictates that a plaintiff must establish a special duty when suing a municipality in negligence. However, because the underlying premise of the certified question appears to be that a special duty could not be established in a scenario like the one presented, we take this opportunity to clarify that this is not the case: a special duty may be established where the police plan and execute a no-knock search warrant on a targeted residence. Although we have not yet had an occasion to address application of the special duty rule to the execution of no-knock search warrants, that situation fits within the existing parameters of our special duty precedent.

From the dissent:

The majority’s principal error, which infects its entire analysis, is embodied in the following statement: “Consistent with our precedent and the purpose of the special duty rule, we reiterate that plaintiffs must establish that a municipality owed them a special duty when they assert a negligence claim based on actions taken by a municipality acting in a governmental capacity” … . That statement: (1) is not consistent with our precedent, in which we have repeatedly evaluated negligence claims against governmental actors by asking whether an ordinary duty exists; and (2) improperly incorporates the governmental/proprietary distinction from immunity law into negligence law … . Ferreira v City of Binghamton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01953, CtApp 3-22-22

Practice Point: This opinion lays out in detail the confusing interplay between the “special duty” requirement for a negligence suit against a municipality and the “governmental-function immunity” affirmative defense which can defeat a negligence suit even where a special duty is deemed to exist. Here the Court of Appeals determined those targeted by a no-knock warrant are owed a special duty such that a party injured in the warrant-execution may sue the municipality for the negligence of a police officer. The dissent argued the “special duty” requirement is itself invalid and an ordinary negligence standard should apply.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE APPELLATE DIVISION PROPERLY REFUSED TO HEAR APPELLANT FATHER’S APPEAL IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING BECAUSE FATHER WAS IN DEFAULT (NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT); THE DISSENT ARGUED FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT BECAUSE HE APPEARED BY COUNSEL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a strong dissent, determined the Appellate Division properly concluded it could not hear the appellant father’s appeal in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding because he was in default (no appeal lies from a default judgment). The dissent argued father appeared by counsel and therefore was not in default:

Before this Court, appellant does not dispute the Appellate Division’s determination that his failure to appear constituted a default.

From the dissent:

The only reviewable issue before us is whether the Appellate Division properly dismissed appellant father’s appeal from a Family Court order terminating his parental rights on the ground that appellant defaulted. That decision was in error because appellant appeared through counsel during the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, as acknowledged by Family Court, and in accordance with the Family Court Act and the CPLR (see Family Ct Act § 165; CPLR 3215 [a]). Matter of Irelynn S., 2022 NY Slip Op 01869, Ct App 3-17-22

Practice Point: No appeal lies from a default judgment. The dissent argued: A party who appears by counsel, as appellant father did in these termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, is not in default.

 

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