You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

PURSUANT TO THE LOFT LAW AND THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE TENANCY AND REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE LOFT IN A HOLDOVER PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the the Loft Law did not prohibit the landlord, Aurora, from terminating the tenancy and regaining possession of the loft by a holdover proceeding. The opinion and the dissenting opinion are comprehensive and cannot be fairly summarized here:

Aurora Associates LLC, the owner of Loft 3B at 78 Reade Street in Manhattan, commenced this holdover proceeding to recover possession and terminate the tenancy of the current occupant. Summary judgment was granted to the tenant on the ground that Aurora could not terminate his tenancy because the loft unit was subject to rent stabilization. We must decide whether a loft unit located in an interim multiple dwelling covered by the provisions of the Loft Law but exempt from the rent regulation provisions of that statute by operation of a sale of the prior tenant’s rights and improvements is otherwise subject to rent stabilization. We hold that it is not … . * * *

As the Housing Court Judge explained, “[T]he core of the parties’ dispute is the rent regulatory status of the subject premises” because “[I]f the subject premises is unregulated, termination of a tenancy pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a is a remedy available to Petitioner,” and “[i]f the subject premises is rent-stabilized, RPL … 232-a is not a remedy available to Petitioner.” * * *

Here, the prior owner purchased rights and improvements in a particular unit in this Loft Law-eligible building, removing that unit from the Loft Law’s rent regulation provisions, entitling Aurora to charge a market rent and, pursuant to Real Property Law … 232-a, to regain possession of the apartment by means of a holdover proceeding. Matter of Aurora Assoc. LLC v Locatelli, 2022 NY Slip Op 00958, CtApp 2-15-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT “I WOULD LOVE TO GO PRO SE” WAS NOT A DEFINITIVE REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A SEARCHING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s statement “I would love to go pro se” was not a definitive commitment to self-representation and therefore did not trigger an inquiry by the judge:

… [D]efendant did not clearly and unequivocally request to proceed pro se. During a colloquy with the trial court, defendant referenced the unsuccessful application to relieve his assigned counsel made at his prior appearance, and he renewed that application, claiming that counsel was “ineffective.” The court denied the application and rejected defendant’s renewed attempt to read aloud from what defendant had previously referred to as “my testimony.” Upon review of the record as a whole, defendant’s retort, “I would love to go pro se,” immediately after the court’s denial of his applications “d[id] not reflect a definitive commitment to self-representation” that would trigger a searching inquiry by the trial court … . People v Duarte, 2022 NY Slip Op 00960, Ct App 2-15-22

 

, , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

,

LABOR LAW 198-B, WHICH PROHIBITS WAGE KICKBACKS, DOES NOT PROVIDE A FREESTANDING PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined Labor Law 198-b, which prohibits wage kickbacks, does not provide a freestanding private right of action:

Labor Law § 198-b prohibits “kickbacks” by making it unlawful for any person to “request, demand, or receive” part of an employee’s wages or salary on the condition that “failure to comply with such request or demand will prevent such employee from procuring or retaining employment.” Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor offense (see Labor Law § 198-b [5]). Labor Law § 218 also provides for administrative enforcement of section 198-b by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor. The statute empowers the Commissioner to grant affected employees restitution and liquidated damages in addition to imposing civil penalties. * * *

… [W]e apply a three-factor test to determine whether the legislative intent favors an implied right: “‘(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme'” … . * * *

The statutory scheme … expressly provides two robust enforcement mechanisms, “indicating that the legislature considered how best to effectuate its intent and provided the avenues for relief it deemed warranted” … . Konkur v Utica Academy of Science Charter Sch., 2022 NY Slip Op 00911, CtApp 2-10-22

 

,

ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (CBA’S) DID NOT PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A VESTED RIGHT SUCH THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AWARDED AT RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSEQUENT CBA’S (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, addressing certified questions from the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, determined the relevant provisions of the civil-service collective bargaining agreements (CBA’s) did not create a vested right in the health insurance benefits afforded retirees. In other words, the CBA’s did not provide that the coverage of health insurance premiums vested at retirement such that reductions in coverage in subsequent CBA’s would not apply:

… [N]one of the CBA provisions identified by the Second Circuit in the first certified question establish a vested right to lifetime fixed premium contributions, either singly or in combination. Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, CtApp 2-10-22

,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE PLEA COURT CONFLATED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITH THE RIGHTS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; CASE REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SUPPRESSION CLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and remitting the case for consideration of the suppression claim, upon the People’s concession, determined the waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [O]rder reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings. Under the totality of the circumstances and upon the People’s concession that the appeal waiver was invalid because the plea court conflated the right to appeal with those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, defendant’s appeal waiver did not foreclose consideration of his suppression claim … . People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00909, CtApp 2-10-22

 

,

AFTER MAKING THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR 15 YEARS ON THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (JANUARY 14), PAYMENT WAS NOT TIMELY MADE IN 2018 AND DECEDENT DIED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2018, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 31-DAY GRACE PERIOD; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE POLICY WAS AMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SUCH THAT THE GRACE PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF DEATH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent, determined the decedent’s life insurance policy was unambiguous about the date premiums were due–January 14 or at the end of the 31-day grace period thereafter. After paying the premiums by January 14 for 15 years, the premium was not paid on time in 2018. The insured died on February 26, 2018, just days after the grace period expired. The insurer denied the claim arguing the coverage had lapsed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer. The dissent argued the policy was ambiguous because it also stated the term of the policy was annual and the very first payment was made on January 31, which would place the decedent’s death within the grace period:

Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits under the policy. The terms of the policy clearly and unambiguously tie the due date of the annual premium to the date of issue, January 14, 2002, and expressly state that January 14 is the premium due date. That the insurance policy uses the term “annual” but the premium payment period—which runs from January 14th, the “Date of Issue” and “premium due date”—may not cover a full year creates no ambiguity in light of the clear policy language identifying January 14th as the “premium due date” … . Furthermore, any claimed ambiguity in the definition of “policy date” is irrelevant inasmuch as the policy does not tie the premium due date to the “policy date” but, rather, the date of issue, which is January 14th. Because the insured failed to pay the 2018 premium by January 14, 2018 or within the 31-day grace period, the policy lapsed prior to the insured’s death. Bonem v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 00908. CtApp 2-10-22

 

,

THE TOWN LAW STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “FIREARMS” DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “BOWS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the Town Law does not authorize the Town of Smithtown to regulate the discharge of “bows” pursuant to its authority to regulate “firearms:”

Town Law § 130 (27) specifically authorizes certain towns to prohibit the discharge of “firearms” through ordinances that may be more restrictive than other laws where such discharge may be hazardous to the general public, and requires that notice be provided to the Department of Environmental Conservation of any ordinance “changing the five hundred foot [setback] rule” (Town Law § 130 [27]; see Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0931 [4] [a] [2]). While the term “firearm” is undefined in the Town Law, construing it in accordance with its “usual and commonly understood meaning” … , the term “firearm” does not encompass a “bow” … and we are unpersuaded that the Legislature intended otherwise when it used the term in the Town Law. Accordingly, Town Law § 130 (27) does not authorize Smithtown to regulate the discharge of bows. Hunters for Deer, Inc. v Town of Smithtown, 2022 NY Slip Op 00907, CtApp 2-10-22

 

,

A JUDGMENT DEBTOR CANNOT BRING AN ACTION IN TORT AGAINST THE CREDITOR OR THE MARSHAL ALLEGING DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY TO BE APPLIED TO THE DEBT; THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S REMEDIES ARE CONFINED TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN CPLR 5239 AND 5240 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissent, and an additional single-judge dissent, determined a judgment debtor cannot bring a action in tort against the creditor or the marshal stemming from the seizure of the judgment debtor’s property. Any such claim must be made pursuant to CPLR 5239, 5240:

“[G]eneral provisions that permit ‘any interested person’—including a judgment debtor—to secure remedies for wrongs arising under the statutory scheme” are set out in CPLR 5239 and 5240 … . CPLR 5239 provides that “[p]rior to the application of property or debt by a sheriff or receiver to the satisfaction of a judgment, any interested person may commence a special proceeding against the judgment creditor or other person with whom a dispute exists to determine rights in the property or debt.” In such a proceeding, “[t]he court may vacate the execution or order, void the levy, direct the disposition of the property or debt, or direct that damages be awarded” … . Section 5240 in turn lays out the court’s power to, “at any time, on its own initiative or the motion of any interested person, and upon such notice as it may require, make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure.” … CPLR 5240 grants the courts broad discretionary power to control and regulate the enforcement of a money judgment under article 52 to prevent ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts'” … . … CPLR 5240 provides courts with the ability to craft flexible and equitable responses to claims that arise with respect to enforcement of valid money judgments. Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v GTR Source, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 07055, CtApp 12-16-21

 

, ,

CASE 1: THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES ON A NUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SIMULTANEOUS, WITH THE SIGNING; HERE A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY WAS TOO LONG; CASE 2: A DEFECT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, HERE THE LAWYERS’ FAILURE TO STATE THE SIGNERS WERE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THEM, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE AGREEEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined: (1) Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law (DRL) 236 (B) (3), the acknowledgment of signatures on a nuptial agreement must be contemporaneous, but not necessarily simultaneous, with the signing: and (2) if the signing is contemporaneous, but the acknowledgment is defective, the nuptial agreement remains enforceable. Here, in the Anderson case, the husband’s signature was not acknowledged until seven years after the signing (shortly before filing for divorce). In that circumstance the agreement would have to be reaffirmed to be enforceable. In the Koegel case, the lawyers’ acknowledgments failed indicate the undisputed fact that the signers were personally known to them. The defect in the acknowledgments did not affect the validity of the agreement and there was no need for reaffirmation:

[Re: Anderson:] A document that depends on an untimely acknowledgment is the legal and functional equivalent of an unacknowledged document. However, in a case involving such a document, the parties are not without a remedy. When there is an excessive delay rendering an acknowledgment ineffective and the agreement therefore unenforceable, the parties are free to reaffirm their agreement, again based on the information available to them at that time. To comply with DRL § 236 (B) (3), reaffirmation would require that both parties must again sign and acknowledge the agreement. The rule thus places the parties on a fair and equal footing in deciding whether to be bound by the agreement—either initially or at some future date if the agreement is unenforceable because of the delay. * * *

[Re: Koegel:] We … hold that the defect … presented in this appeal may be overcome with adequate evidence that the statutory requirements were met, even if the acknowledgment is not properly documented in the first instance. This limited remedy avoids invalidating a nuptial agreement when the parties have done all that the DRL requires of them. In other words, the signature and acknowledgment may satisfy the statutory mandates if extrinsic evidence supports “that the acknowledgment was properly made in the first instance” even if the certificate fails to “include the proper language” due to the notary’s or other official’s error … . Anderson v Anderson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07058, CtApp 12-16-21

 

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