You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, with a concurring opinion and over a dissenting opinion, determined the 2005 case which invalidated guilty pleas accepted without express notice of the period of postrelase supervision (PRS) (People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242) should not be applied retroactively. In both cases before the court, the pre-Catu convictions by guilty plea were challenged to prohibit their consideration as predicate crimes for sentencing in post-Catu offenses. The analysis, which encompasses federal and state constitutional law, is too complex to fairly summarize here:

… [N]either [defendant’s] conviction was obtained in violation of the law as it existed at the time of their respective convictions. Both state and federal law required that a defendant demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known about a mandatory term of his sentence. It was not until our 2005 decision in Catu that a defendant was entitled to automatic vacatur. * * *

Our Catu “automatic vacatur” rule did not constitute ,,, a “watershed rule”… . Catu was not necessary to prevent an impermissibly large risk of an inaccurate conviction, and it is doubtful that the failure of the courts to apprise defendants … of the PRS component resulted in them pleading guilty to crimes that they did not commit. Indeed, when presented with their prior convictions, defendants … acknowledged that they were the individuals mentioned in the predicate felony statements filed by the People, and that they did not wish to challenge any of the allegations contained within their respective statements. People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 07106, CtApp 11-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY).CATU, PEOPLE V (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)/GUILTY PLEAS (PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTLY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY)

EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissent, determined the accusatory instrument sufficiently alleged the illegal possession of a “billy.”  The accusatory instrument stated that a police officer observed defendant with a “rubber gripped, metal, extendable baton (billy club)” in his rear pants pocket. Based upon his training and experience, the officer stated that “said baton device is designed primarily as a weapon, consisting of a tubular, metal body with a rubber grip and extendable feature and used to inflict serious injury upon a person by striking or choking.” The term “billy” is not defined in the Penal Law. When the law was enacted a billy club was a fixed wooden baton. The question before the court was whether a metal, expandable baton constituted a “billy” within the meaning of the statute:

In our view, ,,, the only plausible interpretation of the term “billy” encompasses a collapsible metal baton … . Our conclusion in this regard does not rest — as the dissent suggests — on whether or not law enforcement personnel has chosen to use this particular type of instrument. Rather, our determination follows from the common understanding of the term “billy” and our view that the baton at issue here fits comfortably within the definition thereof. Therefore, we hold that the accusatory instrument alleging that defendant possessed a metal, extendable striking weapon with a handle grip, was sufficient to charge him with possessing a “billy” under Penal Law § 265.01 (1) so as to provide sufficient notice for him to prepare a defense and to protect him from multiple prosecutions. People v Ocasio, 2016 NY Slip Op 07105, CtApp 11-1-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW)/BILLY (EXPANDABLE, METAL BATON IS A “BILLY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW)

, ,

STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined Section 61 of the Executive Budget Law, which cut-off counties’ ability to seek Medicaid “overburden expenses” as of January 1, 2006, is constitutional. The State Executive Budget Memorandum explained that the purpose of Section 61 was to “to clarify that local governments cannot claim for overburden expenses incurred prior to January 1, 2006 when the ‘local cap’ statute that limited local contributions to Medicaid expenditures took effect. This is necessary to address adverse court decisions that have resulted in State costs paid to local districts for pre-cap periods, which conflict with the original intent of the local cap statute:”

Once the State complied with its statutory obligation under Social Services Law § 368-a (1) (h) (i) to pay the counties for overburden reimbursements, it was fully consistent with the prior mandatory reimbursement scheme for the Legislature to impose a deadline on claims for unpaid funds. That deadline was neither in conflict with a fundamental law nor our constitutional principles. Just as the Counties cannot be heard to complain that the Legislature replaced one Medicaid allocation scheme with another, thus redefining the counties’ expense burden, so too are the counties without recourse when the Legislature imposes a deadline on the counties’ submission of claims for overburden reimbursements, thereby closing the door on pre-2006 claims. Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 2016 NY Slip Op 07043, CtApp 10-27-16

 

MEDICAID (STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL)/MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTIES, MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT, STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL)/COUNTIES (MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT, STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL)

, ,

SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a three-judge dissent, determined the search of a juvenile’s shoe at the police station was reasonable. Therefore, the weapon found in the shoe was admissible. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the dissent below did not present a question of law, but rather a mixed question of law and fact:

Respondent initially told police on the street that he was 16 years old. Because he lacked identification, the police transported him to the precinct, where, nearly an hour later, he told them that he was only 15 years old. Thereafter, the officers treated respondent as a juvenile, placing him in a juvenile room and making him remove his belt, shoelaces and shoes as a protective measure until his parents were notified and he could be picked up from the precinct. Based on respondent’s representation that he was 16 years old and the officers’ observations of him in the street, the officers had probable cause to arrest respondent for disorderly conduct.

We also conclude that the limited search of respondent’s shoes was reasonable. The majority found no fault with the request that respondent remove his belt and shoelaces as a safety precaution; rather it was the request to remove his shoes that the majority held to be “far more intrusive than a frisk or patdown” … . However, the officers were not first required to suspect that respondent either possessed contraband or posed a danger to himself or officers before being directed to remove his shoes. In that regard, the limited search of respondent’s shoes while he was temporarily detained and awaiting the notification of his parents was a reasonable protective measure employed by police to ensure both the safety of respondent and the officers, and the intrusion was minimal … . Matter of Jamal S., 2016 NY Slip Op 07045, CtApp 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/FAMILY LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff Jusitian Capital’s purchase of notes from DPAG was champertous (purchased for the primary purpose of bringing a lawsuit), and further determined Justinian was not entitled to the “safe harbor” provision of the champerty statute (which exempts securities purchased for “an aggregate purchase price of at least five hundred thousand dollars”):

… DPAG and Justinian entered into a sale and purchase agreement (the Agreement). Pursuant to the Agreement, DPAG would assign the Notes to Justinian and Justinian would agree to pay DPAG a base purchase price of $1,000,000 … . The Notes were assigned to Justinian shortly after execution of the Agreement. The assignment, however, was not contingent on Justinian’s payment of the $1,000,000. Nor did Justinian’s failure to pay the $1,000,000 constitute an Event of Default under section 9 of the Agreement. * * *

…[T]he impetus for the assignment of the Notes to Justinian was DPAG’s desire to sue [defendant] for causing the Notes’ decline in value and not be named as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Justinian’s business plan, in turn, was acquiring investments that suffered major losses in order to sue on them, and it did so here within days after it was assigned the Notes. … [T]here was no evidence, even following completion of champerty-related discovery, that Justinian’s acquisition of the Notes was for any purpose other than the lawsuit it commenced almost immediately after acquiring the Notes … . * * *

The record establishes, and we conclude as a matter of law, that the $1,000,000 base purchase price listed in the Agreement was not a binding and bona fide obligation to pay the purchase price other than from the proceeds of the lawsuit. The Agreement was structured so that Justinian did not have to pay the purchase price unless the lawsuit was successful, in litigation or in settlement. Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, 2016 NY Slip Op 07047, CtApp 10-27-16

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE))/CHAMPERTY (PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE))

ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined defendants’ challenges to the procedure by which he was indicted were not jurisdictional in nature and, therefore, did not survive his guilty plea. A so-called “DNA indictment” named a John Doe because the DNA from the perpetrator could not be matched to anyone in the DNA database. Years later, DNA taken from the defendant was matched to that in the “John Doe” DNA indictment. The People then moved to add defendant’s name to the indictment based upon hearsay statements in the motion papers. The motion was granted. Defendant argues that he was deprived of his right to indictment by grand jury because his name was added to the “John Doe” indictment in the absence of any additional proceedings in front of a grand jury:

A jurisdictional defect in an indictment may not be waived by a guilty plea and can be raised for the first time on appeal … . “[A]n indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime, by, for example, failing to allege every material element of the crime charged, or alleging acts that do not equal a crime at all” … . * * *

Insufficiency of an indictment’s factual allegations … does not constitute a jurisdictional defect that is reviewable by this Court … , and, once a guilty plea has been entered, “the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury cannot be challenged” … . Thus, “‘[a] guilty plea generally results in a forfeiture of the right to appellate review of any nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings'”

Here, the DNA indictment properly charged a person with acts that constitute a crime, albeit identifying the individual by a unique DNA profile rather than by his name. As such, it avoided … jurisdictional infirmities … . Defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the DNA indictment is based on the failure to identify him as the perpetrator by name, but this alleged defect is not a jurisdictional one, and therefore, does not survive his guilty plea. By pleading guilty, defendant acknowledged that he was the person who committed the offense. Defendant therefore forfeited his challenge and is foreclosed from raising the issue on appeal. Once defendant pleaded guilty, his “‘conviction rest[ed] directly on the sufficiency of the plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any proceedings which might have led to a conviction after trial'”… . People v Guerrero, 2016 NY Slip Op 07044, CtApp 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)/INDICTMENT (ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)/DNA INDICTMENT (ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)/GRAND JURY (DNA INDICTMENT, ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA)

,

APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the Appellate Division used the wrong test when it reversed a civil assault verdict and ordered a new trial. The central issue was whether defendant was the initial aggressor. In the first trial, the jury found that the defendant had acted in self-defense. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as a matter of law and, alternatively, to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, applying a weight of the evidence test, reversed and held ” ‘no fair interpretation of the evidence’ supported ‘the verdict finding that defendant acted in self-defense’ inasmuch as it was predicated upon ‘a conclusion that defendant was not the initial aggressor in the encounter’ .” Based on the Appellate Division’s ruling, at the second trial, the defendant was deemed the initial aggressor as a matter of law and the jury found for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the test the Appellate Division should have applied on its review of the first trial was the “utterly irrational (matter of law)” test, not the “weight of the evidence” test. Applying the correct test, the Court of Appeals found that the jury’s conclusion the defendant acted in self-defense was not “utterly irrational.” Therefore the Appellate Division should not have set aside defendant’s verdict and then precluded him from presenting the “initial aggressor/self-defense” question to the jury in the second trial:

The question before us is whether the Appellate Division’s legal conclusion in its 2012 order was reached under the proper test. When the Appellate Division reviews a jury determination, it may either examine the facts to determine whether the weight of the evidence comports with the verdict, or the court may determine that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law, rendering the verdict utterly irrational … . Defendant argues that the Appellate Division erred by setting aside the jury verdict in his favor and improperly determining as a matter of law that a justification defense was unavailable to him, without finding the verdict to be utterly irrational. We agree. * * *

In its 2012 order, although the Appellate Division examined the facts and determined that “the jury’s conclusion that defendant was not the first to threaten the immediate use of physical force [wa]s unreachable on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (98 AD3d 830) — ostensibly a weight of the evidence review — the effect of that order was to hold as a matter of law that defendant was the initial aggressor to whom the defense of justification was not available — a determination that could only be reached by concluding that the verdict was “utterly irrational.” Yet, the Appellate Division did not use the utterly irrational test. The Appellate Division’s error in not applying the proper test resulted in defendant being improperly precluded from raising a justification defense on the retrial. Defendant should have been afforded a new trial on all the issues in the case, including consideration of his justification defense by the jury. Despite this error, reversal is only required if we find that the jury verdict was not utterly irrational.

Because determining whether a jury verdict was utterly irrational involves a pure question of law, this Court may look at the trial evidence and make that determination … . We must consider the jury charge as to initial aggressor and self-defense that was given during the first trial because the instruction, submitted without objection, is the law of the case … . Based on that instruction, … we hold that the jury’s determination that defendant acted in self-defense was not utterly irrational. * * *

Accordingly, the order appealed from and the … Appellate Division order insofar as brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial in accordance with the opinion herein. Killon v Parrotta, 2016 NY Slip Op 07048, CtApp 10-27-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED TO WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/APPEALS (CIVIL, MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED TO WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED TO WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

,

FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined defense counsel’s failure to argue, in a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, that the People did not act with due diligence in seeking DNA test results was not demonstrated to constitute ineffective assistance:

On this record, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the argument that the People were not acting with due diligence, as there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the People were not diligent in requesting DNA testing on the evidence or that the manner in which the DNA testing was conducted by [the medical examiner] was inconsistent with standard laboratory protocols. In addition, at the time of defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion, there already was Appellate Division authority holding that the period of time needed to obtain the results of DNA testing could be excluded from speedy trial computation as an exceptional circumstance … . People v Henderson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06938, CtApp 10-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/DNA TESTING (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SPEEDY TRIAL (FAILURE TO ARGUE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING DNA TEST RESULTS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

YOGA INSTRUCTORS NOT EMPLOYEES.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent, determined the non-staff yoga instructors who worked for Yoga Vida were not employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The non-staff instructors make their own schedules and choose how they are paid (either hourly or on a percentage basis). Unlike staff instructors, who are paid regardless of whether anyone attends a class, the non-staff instructors are paid only if a certain number of students attend their classes. Additionally, in contrast to the staff instructors, who cannot work for competitor studios within certain geographical areas, the studio does not place any restrictions on where the non-staff teachers can teach, and the instructors are free to inform Yoga Vida students of classes they will teach at other locations so the students can follow them to another studio. Furthermore, only staff instructors, as distinct from non-staff instructors, are required to attend meetings or receive training. The proof of incidental control relied upon by the Board, including that Yoga Vida inquired if the instructors had proper licenses, published the master schedule on its web site, and provided the space for the classes, does not support the conclusion that the instructors are employees. Similarly, in this context, the evidence cited by the dissent, including that Yoga Vida generally determines what fee is charged and collects the fee directly from the students, and provides a substitute instructor if the non-staff instructor is unable to teach a class and cannot find a substitute, does not supply sufficient indicia of control over the instructors. Furthermore, that Yoga Vida received feedback about the instructors from the students does not support the Board’s conclusion. “The requirement that the work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either” … . Matter of Yoga Vida NYC (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 06940, CtApp 10-25-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (YOGA INSTRUCTORS NOT EMPLOYEES)

CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGENT.

The Court of Appeals determined defendant youth hockey association could not be held liable for an assault by one spectator on another spectator after the hockey game:

On this record, the criminal assault on plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable result of any failure to take preventive measures. While defendant owed a duty to protect spectators from foreseeable criminal conduct, the scope of that duty is defined by the likelihood that the aggressive behavior would lead to a criminal assault. Defendant took measures to address player and spectator conduct. The behavior of the fans, however inappropriate, certainly did not create the risk that failure to eject any specific spectator would result in a criminal assault, particularly since such an assault had never happened before … .

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s failure to enforce the Zero-Tolerance policy by ejecting spectators constitutes independent evidence of negligence. The policy provides that “the on-ice official” will remove spectators using “obscene, racial or vulgar language” from the game. However, the “[v]iolation of a[n] [organization]’s internal rules is not negligence in and of itself” … , and where an internal policy exceeds “the standard of ordinary care,” it “cannot serve as a basis for imposing liability” … . Pink v Rome Youth Hockey Assn., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 06946, CtApp 10-25-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGEN/ASSAULT (NEGLIGENCE, CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGENT)/SPECTATORS (HOCKEY GAME, (CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGENT)

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