You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined that a damages award in a negligence suit brought by a police officer receiving accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits must be offset by those benefits as a collateral source pursuant to CPLR 4545:

The … question presented … is whether a retired New York City police officer’s accident disability retirement (ADR) benefits are a collateral source that a court must offset against the injured retiree’s jury award for future lost earnings and pension. We hold that ADR benefits operate to replace earnings during the period when the retiree could have been employed, absent the disabling injury, and then serve as pension allotments, and so a court must offset a retiree’s projected ADR benefits against the jury award for both categories of economic loss. * * *

The statutory and regulatory scheme governing ADR benefits, and the text and legislative intent of CPLR 4545 … provide the basis for our conclusion that ADR benefits operate sequentially as payment for future lost earnings and pension benefits. Accordingly, on a motion pursuant to CPLR 4545, a court must apply ADR benefits, dollar-for-dollar, to offset the jury award for future lost earnings during the period they represent lost earnings, and future lost pension during the period they represent lost pension. Andino v Mills, 2018 NY Slip Op 04273, CtApp, 6-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEGLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE,  DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/DAMAGES (COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/COLLATERAL SOURCE (DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/CPLR 4545 (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE,  DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))/POLICE OFFICERS  (DAMAGES, COLLATERAL SOURCE, DAMAGES AWARD IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICE OFFICER RECEIVING ACCIDENTAL RETIREMENT DISABILITY BENEFITS MUST BE OFFSET BY THOSE BENEFITS AS A COLLATERAL SOURCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 (CT APP))

,

BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP).

In a brief memorandum, reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined brief questioning of defendant on a matter on which defendant was represented by counsel was separable as a matter of law from the interrogation on an unrepresented matter. There was no discussion of the facts of the case:

… [T]he impermissible questioning of defendant on a represented matter was so brief, flippant, and minimal that it was discrete and fairly separable as a matter of law from the interrogation of defendant on an unrepresented matter (see People v Cohen , 90 NY2d 632, 641 [1997]). People v Silvagnoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 04276, CtApp 6-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (BRIEF QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT ON A REPRESENTED MATTER WAS SEPARABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE QUESTIONING ON AN UNREPRESENTED MATTER (CT APP))

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s right to counsel was not violated when he was questioned about a murder while he was represented on an unrelated marijuana charge. Defendant was stopped for traffic violations and arrested when marijuana was found in the car he was driving, a black Hyundai with tinted windows.  An attorney was assigned for the marijuana charge.  A BlackBerry found in the car was subsequently traced to a robbery where a black Hyundai with tinted windows was seen. According to a witness to a shooting, unrelated to the robbery, the shooter arrived and sped away in a black Hyundai with tinted windows. Defendant, when he was represented only on the marijuana charge, was questioned about the robbery and the murder and admitted to being the get-away driver. Supreme Court allowed defendant’s statement about the murder in evidence and defendant was convicted of murder. The Appellate Division held that the statement about the murder should have been suppressed because the robbery and the marijuana charge were related and Supreme Court had suppressed the statement about the robbery. The Court of Appeals held that the proper analysis required looking at the marijuana charge and the murder, not the marijuana charge and the robbery. Because the marijuana charge was completely unrelated to the murder, questioning about the murder did not violate defendant’s right to counsel:

​Under Cohen [90 NY2d 632] the relevant comparison is between the unrepresented and the represented charges. The first category concerns whether “questioning on the unrepresented matter would all but inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel”… . The purpose of the rule is to protect the right to counsel once it has attached; if the questioning on the unrepresented charge will inevitably lead to statements about the represented charge, the statements should be suppressed. However, if the relationship between the unrepresented and the represented charges is insufficient, then “discrete questioning [on the unrepresented charge] by a police officer mindful and respectful of the indelible attachment of defendant’s right to counsel [on the represented charge] would not [] create[] any serious risk of incriminating responses as to the latter crime[]” … . Thus, the question the Appellate Division should have considered is whether the murder charge was sufficiently related to the marijuana charge. No evidence in the record would support that claim; indeed, even [defendant] does not press it. People v Henry, 2018 NY Slip Op 04275, CtApp 6-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL ( ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STATEMENTS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, LTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED ON A MARIJUANA CHARGE, QUESTIONING ABOUT AN UNRELATED MURDER DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE SUPPRESSED DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MURDER (CT APP))

,

NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined New York’s borrowing statute, CPLR 202, applied to a contract with a Canadian company in which the parties agreed the contract would be “enforced” according to New York law. The borrowing statute required that Ontario’s two-year statute of limitations controlled and the action was untimely:

The [agreement] contained the following choice-of-law provision: “This Agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.” * * *

​CPLR 202 provides: “An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply.” * * *

​Plaintiff argues that because the contract in this case specified that it would be “enforced” according to New York law, the parties intended to apply New York’s procedural law except for its statutory choice-of-law provisions, which, plaintiff alleges, includes CPLR 202. We conclude, however, that the mere addition of the word “enforced” to the [agreement’s] choice-of-law provision does not demonstrate the intent of the contracting parties to apply solely New York’s six-year statute of limitations in CPLR 213 (2) to the exclusion of CPLR 202. Rather, the parties have agreed that the use of the word “enforced” evinces the parties’ intent to apply New York’s procedural law. CPLR 202 is part of that procedural law, and the statute therefore applies here. 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v Samsung C&T Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04274, CtApp 6-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/CPLR 202 (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/CONTRACT (CHOICE OF LAW, NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/CHOICE OF LAW (CONTRACT LAW, (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/BORROWING STATUTE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (NEW YORK’S  BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP))

, ,

THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive two-judge concurring opinion and an extensive dissent, determined that some of the claims in this deceptive-practices/fraud action involving residential mortgage backed securities may not be time-barred. The Appellate Division had held both the General Business Law (Martin Act) and Executive Law claims were subject to the three-year statute of limitations for statutory violations and were therefore untimely. The Court of Appeals agreed the Martin Act claims were time-barred but ruled the Executive Law claims may not be time-barred if they are based entirely on the elements of common law fraud subject to a six-year statute of limitations:

… [T]he Martin Act imposes numerous obligations — or “liabilities” — that did not exist at common law, justifying the imposition of a three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214(2). The broad definition of “fraudulent practices,” as repeatedly amended by the Legislature and interpreted by the courts, encompasses “wrongs” not cognizable under the common law and dispenses, among other things, with any requirement that the Attorney General prove scienter or justifiable reliance on the part of investors. * * *

… [W]hile the lower courts concluded that a six-year statute of limitations applied to defendants’ Executive Law § 63(12) claim — regardless of whether the specific elements of common law fraud had been made out — that holding was not correct. Rather, it is necessary to examine whether the conduct underlying the Executive Law § 63(12) claim amounts to a type of fraud recognized in the common law and, if so, the action will be governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . Although the parties raised various arguments with respect to this question, not all the issues were addressed or resolved by the lower courts. A remittal — which permits consideration of the question in the current procedural posture — is therefore appropriate. If it is determined that the prima facie elements of a common law cause of action were made out in this case, the Attorney General will be obliged to demonstrate each such element at the proof stage or the claim will be subject to dismissal as time-barred. People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04272, Ct App 6-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))FRAUD (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/CPLR 213  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/CPLR 214 (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (MARTIN ACT, THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/EXECUTIVE LAW (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/MARTIN ACT  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))

,

REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the requirement that retailers on Indian lands collect and remit taxes on cigarettes sold to non-Indian consumers did not violate the Indian Law or the Buffalo Creek Treaty of 1842:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking (1) a declaration that Tax Law § 471 is unconstitutional and invalid and (2) a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from enforcing the law against them. The complaint alleged that the tax law conflicts with the Buffalo Creek Treaty of 1842 and Indian Law § 6. * * *

… “[I]t is the legal burden of a tax—as opposed to its practical economic burden—that a state is categorically barred by federal law from imposing on tribes or tribal members” … . The express language of New York’s tax law provides that “the ultimate incidence of and liability for the tax shall be upon the consumer,” and mandates that the tax money advanced by any “agent or dealer” be paid back by the consumer … . * * *

Tax Law § 471 does not constitute a tax on an Indian retailer, and therefore it does not run afoul of the plain language of the Treaty or Indian Law § 6. White v Schneiderman, 2018 NY Slip Op 04028, CtApp 6-7-18

​TAX LAW (CIGARETTES, REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))/INDIAN LAW CIGARETTES, REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))/TREATIES (INDIAN LAW, CIGARETTES, REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))/CIGARETTES (INDIAN LAW,  REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP))

,

STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the state was properly held 100% liable in this fatal motorcycle-truck collision case. The truck driver testified that he looked both ways and didn’t see the motorcycle before pulling out into the motorcycle’s lane of traffic. There had been 14 right-angle collisions at this intersection. The state started but never finished an investigation into whether safety measures should be implemented. The Court of Appeals held the plaintiff need not demonstrate the state could have timely made effective safety improvements, i.e., a four-way stop and/or a reduction of the speed limit. The fact that the truck driver violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law did not require the apportionment of some liability to the truck driver:

The State agrees it cannot invoke qualified immunity because it did not complete the safety study; therefore, ordinary rules of negligence apply … . The State has a nondelegable duty to keep its roads reasonably safe … , and the State breaches that duty “when [it] is made aware of a dangerous highway condition and does not take action to remedy it”… . A breach proximately causes harm if it is a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s injury … . * * *

We have never required accident victims to identify a specific remedy and prove it would have been timely implemented and prevented the accident. * * *

Here, there is record support for the finding that the State’s breach was a proximate cause of the accident. * * *

Once on notice of the dangerous condition, it was the State’s burden to take reasonable steps in a reasonable amount of time. Instead, it did nothing. That right-angle collisions would continue to occur absent the adoption of some safety measure is hardly surprising. “[T]he most significant inquiry in the proximate cause analysis is often that of foreseeability”… . Where, as here, the risk of harm created by the defendant corresponds to the harm that actually resulted, we cannot say that proximate cause is lacking as a matter of law. Brown v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 04029, CtApp 6-7-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/COURT OF CLAIMS (INTERSECTION SAFETY, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/INTERSECTIONS  (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/HIGHWAYS AND ROADS (INTERSECTIONS, TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INTERSECTIONS, STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INTERSECTIONS,  STATE’S FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS TO ADDRESS SAFETY PROBLEMS AT AN INTERSECTION WHICH WAS THE SITE OF FOURTEEN RIGHT-ANGLE COLLISIONS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FATAL COLLISION, STATE WAS 100% LIABLE DESPITE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DRIVERS (CT APP))

DEFENDANT PROPERLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A SWITCHBLADE, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, affirmed defendant’s conviction for attempted possession of a weapon, i.e., a switchblade. The dissent argued that the proof at the non-jury trial and the allegations in the accusatory instrument did not demonstrate the knife met the statutory definition of a switchblade:

From the dissent:  … [T]he narrow issue presented on this appeal is whether the knife described in the accusatory instrument and at trial meets the statutory description for a per se weapon, one which is outlawed regardless of the defendant’s reasons for possession. The majority holds that the accusatory instrument is jurisdictionally sound because the knife as described meets the statutory definition of a switchblade… . I disagree. Moreover, even if the majority were correct, the evidence at trial established that the knife in question was not a switchblade within the meaning of the Penal Law. People v Berrezueta, 2018 NY Slip Op 04032, CtApp 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A SWITCHBLADE, DISSENTING OPINION DISAGREED (CT APP))/SWITCHBLADES (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT PROPERLY ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED POSSESSION OF A SWITCHBLADE, DISSENTING OPINION DISAGREED (CT APP))

, ,

AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, reversed the Appellate Division and sent the matter back to the Appellate Division for a factual determination whether the trial judge’s credibility assessment of a spectator who claimed to have overheard jurors speaking about the defendant in derogatory terms was supported by the weight of the evidence. After questioning the spectator the trial judge determined no further inquiry was required. The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s conviction over a dissent:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it chose not to conduct an inquiry of two sworn jurors pursuant to People v Buford (69 NY2d 290 [1987]). Alerted to a complaint by a courtroom spectator that during a break in the trial the spectator allegedly overheard the jurors refer to defendant by a derogatory term, the trial court immediately called the spectator to the stand and elicited sworn testimony regarding her allegation. At the conclusion of the examination, the judge determined that a Buford inquiry was not required based on the testimony provided. We conclude on this record that the trial court made an implied credibility finding that the spectator was not worthy of belief and therefore a Buford inquiry was not warranted. This determination by the trial court was not reviewed by the Appellate Division. It was error for the Appellate Division to opine as to what remedy was warranted in response to the content of the spectator’s allegation, without determining whether the allegation was credible in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Division order and remit the case to that Court to exercise its own fact-finding power to consider and determine whether the trial court’s finding as to the spectator’s credibility was supported by the weight of the evidence. * * *

If, on remittal, the Appellate Division finds, upon its own factual review, that the record supports the trial court’s determination that the spectator lacked credibility, no further action was required. If the Appellate Division finds that the credibility determination was not supported, it must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in not taking further action … . … [A] credible allegation that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve or engaged in substantial misconduct within the meaning of CPL 270.35 cannot be ignored by the trial court, and failure to appropriately remedy the matter is reversible error. People v Kuzdzal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03304, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BIAS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))

,

EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a concurring opinion, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that a statement heard in the background of a 911 call should not have been admitted as an excited utterance. The statement ostensibly identified the defendant as the man who had just shot three people. Other than the defendant’s fingerprint found on the van the shooter got into, there was no evidence identifying the defendant as the shooter. Two trial judges had ruled the 911 statement inadmissible before a third trial judge allowed it to come in. The Court of Appeals held that the law of the case doctrine did not prohibit the third judge from ruling on the admissibility of the statement, but the statement was inadmissible because there was no evidence the declarant observed the shooting:

The decision to admit hearsay as an excited utterance is an evidentiary decision, “left to the sound judgment of the trial court”… , and thus may be reconsidered on retrial … . There is no reason to apply a different rule to a successor judge within the same trial and we, therefore, have no basis to adopt a per se rule prohibiting a substitute judge from exercising independent discretion concerning an evidentiary trial ruling.  * **

A “spontaneous declaration or excited utterance — made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event — which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant” is an exception to the prohibition on hearsay … . “The admission of a hearsay statement under any exception deprives the defendant of the right to test the accuracy and trustworthiness of the statement by cross-examination”… . Although hearsay, excited utterances may be admissible because, “as the impulsive and unreflecting responses of the declarant to the injury or other startling event, they possess a high degree of trustworthiness, and, as thus expressing the real tenor of said declarant’s belief as to the facts just observed by him, may be received as testimony of those facts”… . … “[I]t must be inferable that the declarant had an opportunity to observe personally the event described in the [spontaneous] declaration” … . Direct observation by the person making the excited utterance ensures that the declarant is in fact reacting to and “assert[ing] the circumstances of” the event causing the excitement … . People v Cummings, 2018 NY Slip Op 03306, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCITED UTTERANCE, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/EXCITED UTTERANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))/LAW OF THE CASE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENTIARY RULING BY A TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE CASE AND WAS PROPERLY RECONSIDERED PRIOR TO TRIAL BY A NEW TRIAL JUDGE, STATEMENT HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND OF A 911 CALL IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, NO EVIDENCE THE DECLARANT SAW THE SHOOTING (CT APP))

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