You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A DIVORCE DOES NOT RENDER ONE FORMER SPOUSE THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF THE OTHER, THEREFORE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO DOCKETS A JUDGMENT DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITY PURSUANT TO CPLR 5203 OVER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the 2015 judgment of divorce which awarded the wife, Andrea, a percentage of marital property, a home worth $5 million, did not make Andrea a judgment creditor such that the failure to docket the judgment of divorce gave priority to a judgment debtor, Pangea, who had docketed a 2016 judgment:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified the following question to us: “If an entered divorce judgment grants a spouse an interest in real property pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236, and the spouse does not docket the divorce judgment in the county where the property is located, is the spouse’s interest subject to attachment by a subsequent judgment creditor that has docketed its judgment and seeks to execute against the property?” We answer that question in the negative. * * *

Pangea’s conception of Andrea as judgment creditor is utterly incompatible with our legislature’s dramatic revision of the Domestic Relations Law in 1980. By incorporating the concept of “marital property” into Domestic Relations Law § 236, “the New York Legislature deliberately went beyond traditional property concepts when it formulated the Equitable Distribution Law” … . … Marital assets are not owned by one spouse or another, and the dissolution of a marriage involving the division of marital assets does not render one ex-spouse the creditor of another. Courts are empowered “not only to make an equitable disposition of marital property between [the spouses], but also to make a distributive award in lieu of or to supplement, facilitate or effectuate the division or distribution of property where authorized in a matrimonial action, and payable in a lump sum or over a period of time” … . …

Andrea therefore cannot properly be considered a judgment creditor of John [her ex-husband]. Thus, CPLR 5203 (a), by its plain terms, has no application here, and Pangea can claim no priority. Pangea Capital Mgt., LLC v Lakian, 2019 NY Slip Op 05059, CtApp 6-25-19

 

, ,

BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY DEREGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that “plaintiffs’ apartments, which are located in buildings receiving tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g, are [not] subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL … .”:

The legislature’s intention, as reflected in the language of the statute at issue here, is clear and inescapable. During “the entire period for which the eligible multiple dwelling is receiving” RPTL 421-g benefits, it “shall be fully subject to control” under the RSL, “notwithstanding the provisions of” that regime or any other “local law” that would remove those dwelling units from such control, “unless exempt under such local law from control by reason of the cooperative or condominium status of the dwelling unit” (RPTL 421-g [6] …) … . The statute does not say that eligible units shall be fully subject to “the provisions of” any local law for the stabilization of rents. Put differently, the notwithstanding clause of the statute evinces the legislature’s intent that any “local law for the stabilization of rents” that would exempt the unit from “control under such local law” does not apply to buildings receiving RPTL 421-g benefits, with the sole exception being for cooperatives and condominiums … . Kuzmich v 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05057, CtApp 6-25-19

 

, ,

THE RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, A POST-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDING MIGHT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LEFT OPEN BY THE TRIAL RECORD; ANY ERROR IN ADMITTING DNA EVIDENCE WHERE CONSENT, NOT IDENTITY, IS THE ISSUE IS HARMLESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a dissent, determined (1) the record was insufficient to demonstrate defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel and (2) because the DNA evidence was not offered to identify the defendant any error in introducing it was harmless. The defendant argued that defense counsel did not review the surveillance video the People provided and pursued a theory at trial that was at odds with the video evidence. In addition, defense counsel told the jury in his opening statement that defendant would testify (he did not testify), The defendant, who worked at a hotel, unlocked a hotel-room door for a couple who were drunk. At some point defendant had sexual contact with the woman while the man slept. Defendant said the sexual contact was consensual. The video evidence contradicted the time-line the defendant had described. The majority concluded the record evidence was not sufficient to conclude that defense counsel did not review or did not understand the significance of the video evidence, and the failure to call the defendant as a witness did not prove ineffective assistance as a matter of law. To make a sufficient record, a 440 motion would be necessary:

Mr. Lopez-Mendoza argues that his attorney’s opening statement undermined his case by promising the defendant would take the stand and making arguments contradicted by video evidence, then failing to call defendant to the stand and closing with a new version of events. The ineffective assistance, he argues, was caused by either his attorney’s failure to review the video evidence or his failure to understand its importance. Either way, Mr. Lopez-Mendoza contends, that failure proved disastrous.

The defendant “bears the ultimate burden of showing . . . the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s challenged actions” … . The record here is insufficient to make that showing. Although “[i]t simply cannot be said that a total failure to investigate the facts of a case, or review pertinent records, constitutes a trial strategy resulting in meaningful representation”… , the limited record in this case does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective. On its own, the decision not to call a witness after promising to do so does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law … . * * *

“[T]he lack of an adequate record bars review on direct appeal . . . wherever the record falls short of establishing conclusively the merit of the defendant’s claim” … . Here, it is “essential[] that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel be bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or post-conviction proceeding brought under CPL 440.10” … . Such a proceeding could answer the questions left open on this record, including whether counsel reviewed the video evidence at all, or whether he may have misunderstood that the evidence was flatly inconsistent with his opening argument. People v Lopez-Mendoza, 2019 NY Slip Op 04759, CtApp 6-13-19

 

,

IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY CONCEDED GUILT AND URGED JURY NULLIFICATION ON THE BURGLARY CHARGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BREAK-IN AND THE STOLEN ITEMS WERE NOT WORTH MUCH, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT DEFENDANT RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel because counsel effectively conceded defendant stole items from the lobby of an apartment building. Defense counsel argued defendant was overcharged (burglary) because, although defendant had no right to be in the lobby, there was no break-in and the stolen items were of minimal value. The Court of Appeals noted that it has held that a defendant cannot argue jury nullification to the jury:

… [I]n People v Weinberg, we concluded that defendant’s argument that “he should have been permitted by the trial court to present the concept of jury nullification during summation is foreclosed by our holding in People v Goetz” (83 NY2d 262, 268 [1994]). Relying on Goetz, we explained that “[p]ermitting defense counsel instead [to en]courage the jury to abdicate its primary function would directly contravene the trial court’s authority, recognized [in] Goetz, to instruct the jury that they must follow and properly apply the law” (id.).

We cannot say that, on this record when viewed in totality, defendant was provided with less than meaningful representation. Here, defense counsel was eminently familiar with the facts of the case and the evidence elicited, including the details of the surveillance video and the photographic exhibits. Given the truly overwhelming evidence against his client on all the charges, and constrained by the limited legitimate defense strategies available, counsel raised what he reasonably perceived could be factual issues in the case, such as the method of defendant’s entry into the building. Counsel’s performance included cogent opening and closing arguments, a motion to dismiss after the People’s case-in-chief, and thorough cross-examinations of the People’s witnesses. Moreover, the trial court did not curb counsel’s jury nullification summation arguments. As a result, the whole record of counsel’s performance demonstrates that defendant has failed to sustain his burden that he was deprived of meaningful representation … . People v Mendoza, 2019 NY Slip Op 04758. CtApp 6-13-19

 

,

ELECTION LAW 3-222 WHICH PROHIBITS DISCLOSURE OF VOTED BALLOTS FOR TWO YEARS AFTER AN ELECTION APPLIES BOTH TO PAPER BALLOTS AND ELECTRONIC BALLOTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeal, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions (three dissenting judges), reversing the Appellate Division, determined that Election Law 3-222 (2), which prohibits, for two years, the disclosure of “voted ballots” absent a court order of legislative committee direction, prohibits the disclosure of the electronic form of the ballots:

Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a), the FOIL exemption at issue, provides that an agency may deny access to records that are “specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute.” While an applicable “state or federal statute” need not “expressly state it is intended to establish a FOIL exemption, we have required a showing of clear legislative intent to establish and preserve that confidentiality which one resisting a FOIL disclosure claims as protection” … . Respondents assert that Election Law § 3-222 creates such an exemption. To determine whether Election Law § 3-222 reflects the requisite legislative interest in confidentiality, we must interpret the statute. * * *

… . [T]he rule in Election Law § 3-222(2) that “voted ballots” are protected from examination during the first two years after an election absent court order or direction from a relevant legislative committee extends to electronic copies of those ballots. The same is true of absentee and military ballots, which are “voted ballots” under subsection (2) and, along with their envelopes, are also specifically protected in subsection (3). Matter of Kosmider v Whitney, 2019 NY Slip Op 04757, CtApp 6-13-19

 

,

‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AFTER A YEAR’S ABSENCE DUE TO ON THE JOB INJURY, CIVIL SERVICE LAW 71 DOES NOT APPLY TO ‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined section 71 of the Civil Service Law, which provides for the reinstatement of an employee after a one-year absence from work due to an injury, did not apply to petitioner (Jordan), a so-called “labor class” employee of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA):

Petitioners argue, as they did below, that “employee” is unqualified in the statute and so we should apply that term broadly, consistent with its plain meaning. NYCHA counters that, although “employee” is undefined in the Civil Service Law, section 71 uses terms of art normally not associated with the labor class, including “preferred eligible list” and “grade.” Both are fair points, and therefore to resolve any ambiguity, we turn to the history and the purpose of the statute in resolving this issue.

Our task here is made easier by the fact that we have already articulated section 71’s purpose. Twenty-five years ago, in Allen v Howe, we said that section 71 “w[as] adopted to address the difficult situation created by the prolonged absence of a civil service employee” due to injury (84 NY2d 665, 671 [1994]). Under Civil Service Law § 75, delineated groups of employees “shall not be removed . . . except for incompetency or misconduct after a hearing.” This section left a governmental employer unable to fill a vacancy created by an extended absence due to injury without a “resignation” or the “institut[ion] of disciplinary hearings” (id.). Section 71 was designed to remove the procedural hurdle imposed by section 75 by allowing a “State governmental employer” to terminate an employee without “resort to a disciplinary proceeding” and providing the injured employee a mechanism for later reinstatement (id.).

Including Jordan within the coverage of section 71 would not serve that legislative purpose. As a labor class employee, Jordan was not entitled to a disciplinary hearing before she was terminated and NYCHA did not face the dilemma that led to passage of section 71. Moreover, even if NYCHA was forced to rehire Jordan, she could have been lawfully terminated the next day—”an absurd result that would frustrate the statutory purpose” … . Therefore, we hold that NYCHA did not violate Section 71 when it refused to reinstate Jordan. Matter of Jordan v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 04756, CtApp 5-13-19

 

, , ,

INSURERS MAY PROPERLY REFUSE NO-FAULT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY NONPHYSICIANS, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FRAUDULENT INTENT OR CONDUCT TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR NONPARTY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH THE NONPARTIES REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that the defendant insurers properly refused to make no-fault insurance payments to plaintiff professional corporation because the corporation was owned and controlled by nonphysicians. The court specifically held that fraudulent intent or conduct “tantamount to fraud” need not be demonstrated. The court noted that allowing in evidence the deposition testimony of two nonparties (nonphysicians who allegedly controlled the professional corporation), in which the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was repeatedly asserted, if it was error (not determined), was harmless:

… [A]n insurance carrier, seeking to demonstrate that a professional service corporation engaged in corporate practices that violate Business Corporation Law § 1507, Business Corporation Law § 1508, or Education Law § 6507 (4) (c), [need not] show that the professional service corporation or its managers engaged in common-law fraud. … A corporate practice that shows “willful and material failure to abide by” licensing and incorporation statutes … may support a finding that the provider is not an eligible recipient of reimbursement under 11 NYCRR 65-3.16 (a) (12) without meeting the traditional elements of common-law fraud. * * *

While the Fifth Amendment accords an individual the privilege not to answer questions in a civil proceeding if the answers might incriminate the person in future criminal proceedings … , a witness who asserts this Fifth Amendment privilege in a civil trial is not necessarily protected from consequences in the same manner as in a criminal trial. This Court has held that, in a civil case, failure to answer questions by a witness who is a party “may be considered by a jury in assessing the strength of evidence offered by the opposite party on the issue which the witness was in a position to controvert” … . In a civil trial, “an unfavorable inference may be drawn against a party from the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination” … . We have not previously decided whether a nonparty’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment may trigger an adverse inference instruction against a party in a civil case, and we have no occasion to do so here because any error by the trial court was harmless … . Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 04643, CtApp 6-11-19

 

,

ANY BRADY VIOLATIONS WERE NOT “MATERIAL” IN THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE JURY’S VERDICT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon the People’s failure to turn over Brady material relevant to the impeachment of a key prosecution witness (JA), and the prosecutor’s failure to correct that witness’s testimony, should not have been granted. The opinion includes a detailed recitation of the evidence which can not be fairly summarized here. In a nutshell, the Court of Appeals held that any Brady violation that might have occurred, in light of the extensive impeachment evidence forcefully used by defense counsel, the violation was not “material” in that it could not have affected the verdict:

… [D]efendant brought [a] CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction … . … [D]efendant asserted that the People had violated their Brady obligation by failing to turn over evidence that there was an agreement to confer a benefit on JA in exchange for his testimony at defendant’s murder trial. In addition, defendant asserted that the trial prosecutor personally intervened in JA’s burglary case by procuring his release without bail during the June 13th drug court appearance, failed to correct JA’s trial testimony to specify that she was the “DA” who participated on June 13th, and failed to correct his characterization of his performance as ‘good’ in the drug treatment program … . * * *

“To make out a successful Brady claim, a defendant must show that (1) the evidence is favorable to the defendant because it is either exculpatory or impeaching in nature; (2) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution; and (3) prejudice arose because the suppressed evidence was material” … . In New York, where a defendant made a specific discovery request for a document, and the information was not disclosed, we measure the third prong of the materiality of the suppressed Brady material by considering whether there is a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the evidence would have changed the result of the proceedings … . In the absence of a specific request by defendant, materiality is established if there is a “reasonable probability” that the result would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed — meaning ” a probability sufficient to undermine the court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial’ ” … . * * *

In determining that a Brady violation occurred, the Appellate Division failed to do the required materiality analysis as to the suppressed information. * * *

… [T]o say that there was ample impeachment evidence at trial against the witness on multiple levels is an understatement. … [T]here is no reasonable possibility that the knowledge that the trial prosecutor was the specific ADA who stood up for the People at the June 13th appearance and that JA was still in a drug program despite additional program violations — leaving treatment and bringing cigarettes into a facility — would have changed the jury’s verdict. People v Giuca, 2019 NY Slip Op 04642, CtApp 6-11-19

 

THE STATUTORY TIMELY-DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT OF INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE RISK RETENTION GROUPS (RRG’S), DEFENDANT RRG, WHICH DID NOT ISSUE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, IS NOT BARRED FROM PRESENTING DEFENSES TO COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that the statutory timely disclaimer requirement of Insurance Law  3420 (d) (2) does not apply to defendant PCIC, an out-of-state risk retention group (RRG). Therefore PCIC’s failure to make a timely disclaimer of coverage in the underlying personal injury action did not bar PCIC’s coverage defenses. The central issue was one of statutory interpretation. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Insurance Law 2601 (a) (6), which applies to RRG’s and requires prompt “disclosure” of coverage, also requires timely “disclaimer” of coverage:

Whether PCIC’s disclaimer is regulated by the Insurance Law turns on whether the reference to an insurer’s failure “to promptly disclose coverage” in section 2601 (a) (6) includes the timely disclaimer requirement of section 3420 (d) (2). Nadkos [plaintiff] argues that section 2601 (a) (6) cites to section 3420 (d) without limitation, and thus encompasses both paragraphs (d) (1) and (d) (2). According to Nadkos, if the Legislature intended to limit section 2601 (a) (6) to a specific subparagraph of section 3420 (d), it knew how to do so … .

We reject the interpretation advocated by Nadkos, and adopted by the dissent, because the prohibition on an unfair claim settlement practice based on a failure to promptly disclose coverage encompasses the mandates of section 3420 (d) (1), not (d) (2). Nadkos, Inc. v Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04641, CtApp 6-11-18

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL WERE NOT PRODUCTS TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO WARN OF THE HAZARDS OF BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM THE OVENS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant (Wilputte), which sold coke ovens for steel production, did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, the ovens were not “products” triggering the duty to warn. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted (by the Appellate Division). Plaintiff’s decedent worked on top of the coke ovens and alleged breathing the toxic substances caused lung cancer. Plaintiffs alleged defendant had a duty to warn plaintiff’s decedent to use a respirator when working on the ovens. The Appellate Division had determined the coke ovens, housed in so-called “batteries,” were akin to buildings and construction of the buildings was a service, not a product:

… [D]efendant has not met its burden in showing that the coke ovens at issue are not products as a matter of law. Regardless of the alterations Bethlehem [the steel manufacturer] may have made to the scale and specifications of the battery at large, the ovens themselves served one function: the production of coke. This process was standard across all variations of coke ovens that Wilputte sold, ultimately placing the hazardous thing at issue squarely within the category of products to which liability has attached in the failure-to-warn context. …

… Wilputte was responsible for placing the ovens into the stream of commerce and that it derived financial benefit from its role in the production process. Indeed, by the time decedent began working for Bethlehem, Wilputte had sold hundreds of coke ovens to plants … . Wilputte also marketed its ovens with informational brochures showing the completed ovens and their functionality, indicating that Wilputte, not Bethlehem, was the commercial source of the product. … Although the ovens were largely assembled and completed on-site, that merely speaks to the logistical realties of the market of which Wilputte had a considerable share. …

… [T]he record supports Supreme Court’s conclusion that Wilputte was in the best position to assess the safety of the coke ovens because of its superior knowledge regarding the ovens’ intended functionality … . “A major determinant of the existence of a duty to warn” is an assessment of “whether the manufacturer is in a superior position to know of and warn against those hazards” inherent to its product … . Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 04640, CtApp 6-11-19

 

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