You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

2016 REGULATIONS RESTRICTING ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR CLAIMS MADE TO THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES (OVS) ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE (EXECUTIVE LAW) AND RATIONAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent and a concurrence, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the Office of Victim Services (OVS) regulations limiting attorney’s fees for crime victim claimants were consistent with the statutory language and rational:

OVS regulations formerly provided that claimants had a “right to be represented . . . at all stages of a claim” … and, “[w]henever an award [was] made to a claimant who [was] represented by an attorney, [OVS was required to] approve a reasonable fee commensurate with the services rendered, up to $1,000,” unless the request for attorneys’ fees was premised on a claim “submitted without legal or factual basis” … . OVS acknowledges that this meant that attorneys’ fees, if reasonable, were available at all stages of a claim. However, effective January 13, 2016, OVS amended 9 NYCRR § 525.9 to provide that “[a]ny claimant . . . may choose to be represented before [OVS], at any stages of a claim, by an attorney-at-law . . . and/or before the Appellate Division upon judicial review of the office’s final determination,” but “only those fees incurred by a claimant during: (1) the administrative review for reconsideration of such decision . . . ; and/or (2) the judicial review of the final decision of [OVS] . . . may be considered for reimbursement” … .

OVS issued a regulatory impact statement indicating that the “purpose of th[e] rule change [wa]s to limit attorneys’ fees pursuant to article 22 of the Executive Law.” OVS stated that the amendments were “designed to conform the regulations to the enacting statute,” explaining that the prior regulations permitted claimants to recover attorneys’ fees that “far exceed[ed]” the “reasonable expenses” specified under Executive Law § 626 (1). OVS indicates that Victim Assistance Programs (VAPs) are federally funded with a state match, and it emphasized in its regulatory impact statement that it “fund[ed] 228 [VAPs] across New York State, distributing in excess of $35 million to these programs to assist and advocate on behalf of victims and claimants.” The required services provided by the VAPs include, among other things, “assist[ing] victims and/or claimants in completing and submitting OVS applications and assist[ing] claimants through the claim process.” OVS determined that the legislature did not intend that attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to assistance within the scope of services provided by VAPs would be considered reasonable under the statute. Matter of Juarez v New York State Off. of Victim Servs., 2021 NY Slip Op 01091, CtApp 2-18-21

 

, ,

WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissent, determined Michael Bloomberg, in his status as “owner” and officer of the company, Bloomberg L.P., is not an “employer” within the meaning of the NYC Human Rights Law, and therefore cannot be liable for harassment of the plaintiff (Doe) by her supervisor, Ferris. Bloomberg L.P. can be vicariously liable as the employer, but Michael Bloomberg cannot:

Plaintiff, an employee of Bloomberg L.P. using the pseudonym “Margaret Doe,” brought suit against defendants Bloomberg L.P., her supervisor Nicholas Ferris, and Michael Bloomberg, asserting several causes of action arising from alleged discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. The question before us is whether Bloomberg, in addition to Bloomberg L.P., may be held vicariously liable as an employer under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY, title 8 [City HRL]) based on his status as “owner” and officer of the company. We hold that Bloomberg is not an “employer” within the meaning of the City HRL and accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that seek to hold Bloomberg vicariously liable for Ferris’s offending conduct. * * *

The language in the City HRL … requires no external limiting principle exempting employees from individual suit as employers. … [W]here a plaintiff’s employer is a business entity, the shareholders, agents, limited partners, and employees of that entity are not employers within the meaning of the City HRL. … [T]hose individuals may incur liability only for their own discriminatory conduct, for aiding and abetting such conduct by others, or for retaliation against protected conduct (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [1], [6], [7]). This rule [is] consistent with the principles of vicarious and limited liability governing certain business structures (see e.g. Partnership Law §§ 26, 121-303; Limited Liability Company Law § 609; Business Corporation Law § 719). Doe v Bloomberg, L.P., 2021 NY Slip Op 00898, CtApp, 2-11-21

 

,

USING ANOTHER’S CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT NUMBER TO MAKE PURCHASES, WITHOUT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE CARD, SUPPORTS A GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined that using a credit card number without physically possessing the credit card itself supported the grand larceny conviction:

The primary question presented by this appeal is whether the definition of credit card for purposes of Penal Law § 155.00 (7) includes the credit card account number, such that the People need not prove that a defendant physically possessed the tangible credit card in order to support a conviction of grand larceny based upon credit card theft. Here, defendant’s conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree was based on defendant’s theft of the victim’s credit card account number to purchase goods, although there was no evidence that defendant possessed the physical card itself. We conclude that the definition of credit card in General Business Law § 511 (1), as supplemented by General Business Law § 511-a, is the controlling definition as designated by Penal Law § 155.00 (7) and, as a result, the evidence is legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of grand larceny for stealing an intangible credit card account number. People v Badji, 2021 NY Slip Op 00897, CtApp 2-11-21

 

,

THE WARRANT CORRECTLY DESCRIBED THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE POLICE; DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION THE RESIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY THREE SEPARATE APARTMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SWORN AFFIDAVITS; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the defendant’s motion to suppress, alleging the premises to be searched was not adequately described in the warrant, was properly denied without a hearing. The warrant described a single family residence. Defendant alleged each of the three floors was a separate apartment. The Court of Appeals looked only at the evidence supporting the warrant and held the evidence available to the police established the building was a single residence. The defendant did not submit any sworn affidavits in support of the “three apartments” argument, so the motion court properly denied the motion without holding a hearing:

The warrant’s description of the place to be searched as “a private residence,” located at a unique, specified street address, was not facially deficient; given a commonsense reading, the warrant clearly commanded a search of “a” single residence, not a multi-unit building, at the marked street address. Because the warrant was facially sufficient, the case does not implicate the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Groh v Ramirez that courts may not rely on documents not incorporated and attached to the warrant in order to provide particularity that the warrant, on its face, lacks (see 540 US at 557-558). The motion court did not rely on the unincorporated warrant application materials to cure a facial deficiency in the warrant, which Groh forbids. Rather, the court considered those materials for a different purpose—to determine whether the warrant’s description of the place to be searched as a single private residence was supported by the information available to the detective who applied for the warrant and the court that issued the warrant. * * *

In People v Mendoza, we held that a suppression motion’s “factual sufficiency should be determined with reference to the face of the pleadings, the context of the motion and defendant’s access to information” (82 NY2d at 422; see also People v Jones, 95 NY2d 721, 729 [2001]). Although [defendant] lacked access to the materials that were before the warrant court, he had ready access to information about the actual conditions of the premises at the time of the search, but failed to provide it in support of his suppression motion. For example, he, his mother, or any other resident of the premises could have provided sworn affidavits or other evidence as to the separateness of the alleged residences on the three floors; the existence of unrelated tenants on the second floor; the obviousness to a visitor that the building contained separate residences—such as allegations that each unit had separate locking entry doors—or a variety of other types of evidence plainly known to residents of the house. People v Duval, 2021 NY Slip Op 00896, CtApp 2-11-21

 

,

THE OMISSION OF NON-ELEMENTAL FACTUAL INFORMATION, HERE THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, FROM THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT FORM WAS A DEFECT WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the omission of the time of the incident from the waiver of indictment form was a defect waived by the guilty plea:

Shortly after the Appellate Division rendered its decision, we held in People v Lang (34 NY3d 545, 567 [2019]) that any “omission from the indictment waiver form of non-elemental factual information that is not necessary for a jurisdictionally-sound indictment is [] forfeited by a guilty plea” and “must be raised in the trial court” … . The time of incident is not an element of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.03 [2]), and defendant was on notice of the crime charged. Therefore, Lang controls. People v Zaquan Walley, 2020 NY Slip Op 07691, CtApp 12-22-20

 

,

THE COUNTY MUST REIMBURSE THE TOWNS FOR UNPAID PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION CHARGES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, determined Monroe County was required to credit unpaid property maintenance and demolition charges assessed by the Town of Irondequoit and the Town of Brighton. The county is required to deduct the unpaid town charges from the sales tax owed by the towns to the county:

Requiring that these charges be credited pursuant to section [RPTL] 936 accords with the overall structure for the enforcement of property tax liens, including the legislative grant of exclusive authority to counties in RPTL 1123 to commence in rem proceedings to foreclose on real property to “enforce the payment of delinquent taxes or other lawful charges which have accumulated and become liens against certain property” … , permitting counties—but not towns—to initiate proceedings to enforce the types of liens at issue here. Indeed, Town Law § 64 (5-a) directs that these charges “levied” on “real property” are to “be collected in the same manner and at the same time as other town charges” by virtue of the normal process of levying and collecting town property taxes, in which towns make the first attempt at collection and after which enforcement shifts to the county … . It appears that the Legislature, recognizing that towns have little power to recoup their costs for unpaid real property tax liens, has shifted the risk of loss to counties, which are in the best position to recover the funds through in rem foreclosure proceedings. The same considerations apply to blighted properties, where the Legislature may have presumed that counties are in a better position to recover charges imposed on real property pursuant to the Town Law … . Thus, the County was required to credit the maintenance and demolition charges, and its determination to the contrary should have been annulled. Matter of Town of Irondequoit v County of Monroe, 2020 NY Slip Op 07689, CtApp 12-22-20

 

, , ,

UPWARD DEPARTURE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED RAPE TO TAKE REVENGE UPON SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE VICTIM; THE FACT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN DEPORTED DID NOT RENDER THE APPEAL MOOT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, upheld the Appellate Division’s finding that the upward departure was justified because it was based on a risk factor not addressed the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) Guidelines. The court noted that the fact defendant had been deported did not render the appeal moot:

Under the circumstances presented here, we reject the People’s argument that defendant’s appeal is rendered moot by his deportation … . On the merits, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the Appellate Division to sustain the upward departure based on the People’s proof that defendant raped the victim in order to take revenge upon someone other than the victim—a risk factor not adequately captured by the Guidelines. People v Rosario, 2020 NY Slip Op 07688, CtApp 12-22-20

 

, ,

THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IN THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE PUBLIC POLICY RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IMPOSES REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY OR REMEDIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a partial dissent, held that the sole remedy provision in the Representations and Warranties Agreement (RWA) in this residential mortgage-backed securities (RBMS) case was valid and enforceable. Plaintiff unsuccessfully tried to avoid the sole remedy provision by arguing the defendants breached the contract with gross negligence:

… [W]e … conclude that the parties’ contract, as written, means what it says. In this RMBS put-back action, plaintiff seeks to avoid a provision in the contract … that sets out a sole remedy for a breach by alleging that defendants breached the contract with gross negligence. This sole remedy provision purports to limit, but not eliminate, the remedies available to the plaintiff in the event of a breach. We conclude that, in a breach of contract action, the public policy rule prohibiting parties from insulating themselves from damages caused by grossly negligent conduct applies only to exculpatory clauses or provisions that limit liability to a nominal sum. The rule does not apply to contractual limitations on remedies that do not immunize the breaching party from liability for its conduct. The sole remedy provision is not an exculpatory or nominal damages clause. Plaintiff cannot render it unenforceable through allegations of gross negligence. * * *

We have previously considered the application of the gross negligence public policy rule only in cases where the contract provision at issue was an exculpatory clause, purporting to wholly immunize a party from liability, or a nominal damages clause limiting damages to, at most, $250 … . We have not yet determined whether grossly negligent conduct may render unenforceable contractual provisions that do not wholly insulate a party from liability for its breach, but instead impose reasonable limitations on either liability or the remedies available to the non-breaching party. We conclude that, in a breach of contract case, grossly negligent conduct will render unenforceable only exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, and the public policy rule does not extend to limitations on the remedies available to the non-breaching party. Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 2020 NY Slip Op 07687, CtApp 12-22-20

 

,

DEFENDANT, WHO ACCEPTED POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON FROM HIS FRIEND, DID SO IN ANTICIPATION OF A POSSIBLE CONFRONTATION; DURING THE CONFRONTATION DEFENDANT SHOT TWO PEOPLE; THE ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE DID NOT RENDER DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two concurring opinions, determined defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on temporary and lawful possession of a firearm. Defendant was leaving a friend’s apartment building when he saw a man, Carson, pull a gun out of his pocket. Defendant and Carson had a history of violent confrontations, including shootings. Defendant went back to his friend’s (Foe’s) apartment. Foe picked up a loaded gun and offered to walk defendant out of the building. When they got to the lobby Foe handed defendant the gun. When defendant saw Carson he believed Carson was about to shoot him and defendant shot Carson and a bystander:

… “[A] defendant may not be guilty of unlawful possession if the jury finds that [the defendant] found the weapon shortly before [the defendant’s] possession of it was discovered and [the defendant] intended to turn it over to the authorities” … . We have also indicated that temporary and lawful possession may result where a defendant “took [the firearm] from an assailant in the course of a fight” … and the circumstances do not otherwise evince an intent to maintain unlawful possession of the weapon . In such scenarios, “[t]he innocent nature of the possession negates . . . the criminal act of possession” … . Ultimately, whether the weapon is found fortuitously or obtained by disarming an attacker, “the underlying purpose of the charge is to foster a civic duty on the part of citizens to surrender dangerous weapons to the police” … . …

… [D]efendant’s possession did not “result temporarily and incidentally from the performance of some lawful act, [such] as disarming a wrongful possessor” or unexpected discovery … . Rather, under the circumstances presented here, defendant’s contention that his possession should be legally excused on the grounds of self-defense amounts to a claim that he was entitled to possess the weapon for his protection. Even crediting defendant’s testimony that he had been confronted by Carson at the building’s exit earlier and that Carson had displayed a firearm at that time, defendant testified that he then safely retreated to Foe’s apartment. There was no evidence suggesting that Carson chased after defendant when he re-entered the building, or that Carson had any awareness of defendant’s location in the building. Further, defendant admitted that he accepted possession of the firearm from Foe in the stairwell, at a time when he was unaware of Carson’s whereabouts and was not facing any imminent threat to his safety. Defendant then chose to retain possession of the firearm and to enter the lobby with the weapon in his hand. Under these circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that defendant armed himself in anticipation of a potential confrontation; however, the law is clear that defendant “may not avoid the criminal [possession] charge by claiming that he possessed the weapon for his protection” … . People v Williams, 2020 NY Slip Op 07664, CtApp 12-17-20

 

,

EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON FOUND IN ANOTHER’S HOUSE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE “INVOLUNTARY POSSESSION” JURY INSTRUCTION; POSSESSION, EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, IS NOT VOLUNTARY IF IT IS FOR SO BRIEF A PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE TERMINATED POSSESSION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined there was a reasonable view of the evidence which supported a jury instruction on voluntary (involuntary) possession of a weapon. In addition to actual and constructive possession, there is the concept of involuntary possession. Both actual and constructive possession can be involuntary if it is so fleeting that the defendant was not able to terminate possession. Defendant argued he was a guest for the night in the house where the weapon was found and did not possess it all, either actually or constructively. The Court of Appeals noted that “involuntary possession” conflicted with “no possession at all,” but the jury still should have been instructed on involuntary possession because there was evidence to support the instruction:

The distinction among constructive, knowing, and voluntary possession that defendant emphasizes is reflected in the Criminal Jury Instructions’ model charge on voluntary possession, which provides that “[p]ossession . . . is voluntary when the possessor was aware of [their] physical possession or control . . . for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate the possession” (CJI2d [NY] Voluntary Possession § 15.00 [2] … . * * *

… [T]he trial court denied the charge here, not because the requested charge lacked evidentiary support, but because the court considered the proposed language more confusing than helpful. … . This determination was in error because the requested charge did not inject confusion into the instructions. Rather, it addressed an entirely different aspect of the charged possessory crime: the temporal requirement of voluntary possession. Indeed, the requested charge would have clarified the law because the charge, as erroneously given, allowed the jury to conclude that if defendant had control over the area where the gun was found—i.e., the bedroom—then he had constructive possession of the gun, regardless of how long he was actually aware of its presence. This is not an accurate statement of the relevant law where, as here, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the possession may not have been voluntary. People v J.L., 2020 NY Slip Op 07663, CtApp 12-17-20

 

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