You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

MARKETING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO INDIVIDUAL CLIENTS WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY INCLUDED IN REPORTS SOLD TO OTHERS IS SUBJECT TO SALES TAX (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a comprehensive two-judge dissent, affirming the appellate division, determined the Tax Appeals Tribunal properly held that petitioner’s (Dynamic’s) information service was subject to sales tax:

Dynamic markets products to help clients measure the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns. At issue here is one such product, AdIndex, which Dynamic describes as using “a control/exposed methodology to measure the effectiveness of digital advertising at communicating brand messaging.” To create an AdIndex report, Dynamic identifies individuals who have been exposed to a client’s advertisements and then surveys them along with a control group. The survey questions are largely standardized but may contain a small number of campaign-specific questions. The results are compared to broader market data contained in MarketNorms, a database maintained by Dynamic that is also available to clients as a standalone subscription service. Dynamic then generates a report for the client which includes the survey data collected, an analysis of the “story” the data tells, as well as client-specific “insights,” “implications,” “next steps” and “recommendations” gleaned from the data. The data gathered in each AdIndex report is later incorporated into the MarketNorms database for use in reports prepared for future clients. * * *

… [T]he Tribunal’s determination that the inclusion of the information originally generated for individual clients into products eventually sold to others meets the level of substantiality under section [Tax Law] 1105 (c) (1) is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Dynamic Logic, Inc. v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02262, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: Marketing information initially provided to individual clients but subsequently included in reports sold to others is subject to sales tax.

 

,

OVERRULING A 2006 OPINION, A PLAINTIFF IN A DOG-BITE ACTION CAN NOW SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division in this dog-bite case, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reinstating the strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action, overruled the 2006 Court of Appeals case holding that there is no common-law liability for injury caused by a domestic animal:

Plaintiff Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence. She commenced this action to recover damages for her injuries, asserting causes of action sounding in strict liability and negligence. Both causes of action were dismissed, and Flanders asks us to reinstate them.

Under settled law, an owner of a domestic animal who has actual or constructive knowledge of their animal’s vicious propensities will be held strictly liable for harm caused as a result of those propensities. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Goodfellows had constructive knowledge of their dog’s vicious propensities, and so summary judgment should not have been granted to them on the strict liability cause of action.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair. Continued adherence to Bard therefore would not achieve the stability, predictability, and uniformity in the application of the law that the doctrine of stare decisis seeks to promote. Accordingly, we overrule Bard to the extent that it bars negligence liability for harm caused by domestic animals, and reinstate Flanders’s negligence cause of action. * * *

Our decision today means that there is a two-pronged approach to liability for harms caused by animals … .. A plaintiff who suffers an animal-induced injury therefore has a choice. If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may seek to hold them strictly liable. Or they can rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the defendant failed to exercise due care under the circumstances that caused their injury. Of course, a plaintiff might also assert both theories of liability … .  Flanders v Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: A plaintiff in a dog-bite case can now assert both strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action.

 

IN LAWSUITS AGAINST THE GOLF-COURSE OWNERS, A GOLFER COMPETING IN A TOURNAMENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A GOLF BALL WHILE RIDIING IN A GOLF CART ON THE COURSE, BUT A GOLFER DRIVING A GOLF CART TO HER CAR IN THE COURSE PARKING LOT DID NOT ASSUME THE RISK OF A COLLISION WITH A CAR EXITING THE PARKING LOT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming one assumption-of-the-risk case and reversing the other, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined, in lawsuits against the owners of the golf courses, a golfer assumes the risk of being struck with a golf ball, but does not assume the risk of injury in a collision while driving a golf cart in the course parking lot:

This Court recently reaffirmed that the primary assumption of risk doctrine must be carefully circumscribed so as not to undermine the legislative comparative fault regime applicable to personal injury actions … . In these appeals, we clarify the scope of two important limitations on the doctrine: its inapplicability to unreasonably enhanced risks and its confinement to cases involving participation in athletics and recreation.

On the same day in June 2020, plaintiffs were injured in separate and very different accidents related to the sport of golf. Plaintiff David Katleski was struck by an errant golf ball while competing in a golf tournament. Plaintiff Mary E. Galante was struck by a car in the parking lot of a golf course before she began to play the course. For the reasons that follow, the primary assumption of risk doctrine precludes Katleski’s negligence claim because the risk of being struck by a mishit ball while golfing is inherent in the game and there is no evidence that the design of the course unreasonably enhanced that risk. Galante’s claim must be reinstated, however, because the primary assumption of risk doctrine has no application to a person who was not participating in a protected athletic or recreative activity at the time of their injury. Katleski v Cazenovia Golf Club, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 02178, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: In lawsuits against the owners of golf courses: a golfer assumes the risk of being struck by an errant ball while riding in a golf cart on the course; but a golfer does not assume the risk of being struck by a car while driving a golf cart to her car in the course parking lot.

 

,

UNLIKE A LEVEL-ONE OR LEVEL-TWO STREET STOP, A LEVEL-THREE STREET STOP JUSTIFIES POLICE PURSUIT, EVEN IF THE REASON FOR THE STOP, HERE AN APPARENT IMPENDING ASSAULT, WAS DISSIPATED BY THE SUSPECT’S FLIGHT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, affirming the appellate division, determined the police were justified in pursuing the defendant after a level three street stop, even though, at the time of the pursuit, the initial reason for the stop, an apparent impending attack on a pedestrian, had dissipated:

We have previously held that an individual’s flight from a level one or two police encounter, without more, does not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to pursue them (see People v Holmes, 81 NY2d 1056, 1058 [1993]; People v May, 81 NY2d 725, 728 [1992]; see generally People v De Bour 40 NY2d 210 [1976]). We now hold that when a suspect flees during a lawful level three stop founded on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police may pursue the suspect.

… At the suppression hearing, Officer Kyle Eisenhauer of the Rochester Police Department testified that, on the night of the arrest, he was in uniform in an unmarked patrol vehicle with his partner, Officer Jeremy Nellist. The two were driving behind a sedan when a woman on the sidewalk threw a glass bottle at the sedan, which then came to a stop in the middle of the street. Defendant exited the driver’s door of the sedan and “in a very aggressive manner” began yelling at the woman and approached her with clenched fists. According to Eisenhauer, “[i]t appeared [that defendant] was . . . about to attack” the woman. Eisenhauer and Nellist exited their patrol car and told defendant to stop, and defendant “stopped and looked in [their] direction.” The uniformed officers were about 25 feet away from defendant without their guns drawn. Defendant “began to back away, and then quickly turned and began digging in the front of his waistband and running” away from the officers, leaving his car in the middle of the street with the driver’s door open. The officers followed in pursuit. * * *

We reject the notion that a suspect can legally flee a level three stop so long as their flight dissipates the reasonable suspicion of the crime that initially gave rise to the stop. People v Cleveland, 2025 NY Slip Op 02144, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: If the police have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the time of a level three street stop, they may pursue the fleeing suspect, even if the initial reason for the stop (here an apparent impending assault) is dissipated by the flight. In contrast, flight from a level one or level two street stop does not justify pursuit.

 

,

PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED AND FELL WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A LARGE CRACK, ASSUMED THE RISK OF PLAYING CRICKET ON A CITY-OWNED TENNIS COURT WITH AN IRREGULAR SURFACE; COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED; STRONG DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal of the complaint, determined plaintiff assumed the risk of playing cricket on a city tennis court with a cracked surface. Judge Rivera, in an extensive dissenting opinion, argued that there is a question of fact whether the city failed to maintain the tennis court in a reasonably safe condition:

Plaintiff was injured while playing cricket on a tennis court in a park owned by the City of New York when he ran to catch a batted ball and stepped into a large crack in the asphalt. The Appellate Division correctly held that the risks of tripping and falling while playing on an irregular surface are inherent in the game of cricket … . There is no evidence in the record that the irregularity in the playing field—the cracked and uneven surface of the tennis court—unreasonably enhanced the ordinary risk of playing cricket on an irregular surface … . Defendants were therefore entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the primary assumption of risk doctrine precludes liability on the part of defendants.

From the dissent:

The primary assumption of risk doctrine does not completely displace a landowner’s traditional duty of care to maintain their premises in a safe condition. Tripping on a fissure that is allegedly the result of years of neglect is not a risk inherent to cricket, or any other sport, and defendants were therefore not entitled to summary judgment on the theory that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by playing on a deteriorated surface. The majority empowers defendants to escape all accountability for their alleged negligence, which put plaintiff and other park users at risk of serious injury. Maharaj v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 02143, CtApp 4-15-25

Practice Point: Here the assumption of the risk doctrine was deemed to outweigh any obligation on the city’s part to maintain the surface of a tennis court in a safe condition.

 

, ,

THE CITY CANNOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDED TO A DISABLED FIREFIGHTER WHERE THE FIREFIGHTER RECEIVED BENEFITS FROM MORE THAN ONE SOURCE WHICH, IN TOTAL, EXCEEDED THE FIREFIGHTER’S FORMER SALARY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the city (Newburgh) could not recoup payments made to a disabled firefighter (Mr. Schulze) from workers’ compensation awards. The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:

​Pursuant to a complicated statutory scheme, paid firefighters outside New York City who become disabled at work may receive benefits from different sources: their local governmental employer, New York State, and the Workers’ Compensation System. Adam Schulze is a retired paid firefighter who, when employed by the City of Newburgh, was disabled in the performance of duty. He received benefits from all three sources. This case concerns whether the City can compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to pay Mr. Schulze’s workers’ compensation benefits to the City, as a way to allow it to recoup an overpayment it claims to have made to Mr. Schulze. Based on the clear language of the relevant statutes, the City cannot do so. * * *

Neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (a) nor Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (2) allows reimbursement from workers’ compensation awards for payments made under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). The provision that prevents Mr. Schulze and other firefighters like him from receiving duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a). The City of Newburgh Fire Department is therefore not entitled to reimbursement directly from Mr. Schulze’s workers’ compensation award for its prior payments to him under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Matter of Schulze v City of Newburgh Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 02101, CtApp 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a breakdown of the sources of disability payments available to an injured firefighter who was employed outside New York City.​

 

, ,

THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH “FAILURE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUSTENANCE” FOR A DOG, AN A MISDEMEANOR, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NONHEARSAY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS; INSTRUMENT DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the accusatory instrument charging defendant with “failure to provide necessary sustenance” for a dog was facially insufficient because no nonhearsay factual allegations supporting the charge were provided: The statute at issue is Agriculture and Markets Laws (AML) section 353:

“A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution” … . We evaluate the accusatory instrument here under the standard applicable to a misdemeanor information. In accordance with CPL 100.40, “[a] misdemeanor information must set forth ‘nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged’ ” … . This requirement is jurisdictional, and an accusatory instrument that falls short must be dismissed … . “[T]he test for whether a flaw in an accusatory instrument is jurisdictional is. . . whether the accusatory instrument failed to supply defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy” … . * * *

… [A]n accusatory instrument charging a violation of section 353 need not include documentation from a veterinarian, especially in those cases where the conditions are visible or palpable. The investigator did not allege any facts in support of [an alleged failure to provide veterinary care]. The investigator also failed to describe the conditions under which he first observed [the dog]—splayed in the middle of a traffic lane and barely able to move—which might have allowed for an inference that the dog was mistreated or neglected to the point of being in extremis.

In sum, the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from the accusatory instrument are insufficient to “establish every element of the offense charged” … , that defendant deprived [the dog] of sustenance in violation of AML section 353. People v Farrell, 2025 NY Slip Op 02100 CtApp 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for some insight into the nature of the nonhearsay factual allegations which must be included in an accusatory instrument charging an A misdemeanor, here a violation of the Agriculture and Markets Law section 353 (failure to provide necessary sustenance for a dog).​

 

,

THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the fact that the resentencing court in 2016 found defendant’s 2006 conviction by guilty plea “constitutionally infirm” for purposes of sentencing did not require the SORA court to ignore the 2006 conviction. Defendant had never directly attacked the constitutionality of the 2006 conviction:

Defendant’s reliance on the resentencing court’s collateral determination that his 2006 conviction cannot be used as a predicate to impose an enhanced sentence is misplaced. As the resentencing court explained, it lacked authority to vacate the 2006 conviction and instead properly stressed that its determination governed only the question of whether the People could use the conviction to establish defendant’s status as a second child sexual assault felony offender for purposes of sentencing. Furthermore, at the resentencing hearing, defendant bore the burden of offering substantial evidence that the 2006 conviction is constitutionally infirm … . If defendant directly challenged the conviction’s constitutionality, however, he would face a higher burden of proof … . No court has determined that defendant’s 2006 conviction is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid under that more demanding standard. Nor have the People had an opportunity to be heard in opposition to defendant’s attempt to make such a showing. Against this backdrop, it is logical for the Guidelines to require an offender with a prior felony sex offense conviction to satisfy the higher evidentiary burden that they must meet to vacate or reverse that conviction, if they wish to avoid the override’s application.

Given that defendant failed to pursue any procedural pathway to vacate the 2006 conviction, we see no reason to depart from the Guidelines’ text stating that the override is triggered if “[t]he offender has a prior felony conviction for a sex crime” (Guidelines, override 1). We therefore apply the Guidelines and hold that the override was properly implemented … . People v Moss, 2025 NY Slip Op 01673, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The fact that a sentencing court found a prior conviction “constitutionally infirm” such that the conviction was not used to enhance defendant’s sentence did not require that the SORA court ignore the prior conviction. The SORA court properly relied upon the prior conviction here.

 

, ,

THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION TO AMEND PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS TO PERMANENTLY EXEMPT AN APARTMENT FROM RENT STABILIZATION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR); ONLY MINISTERIAL AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, SUCH AS CLERICAL ERRORS AND MISSPELLINGS, ARE ALLOWED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) properly rejected petitioner-landlord’s application to amend two prior annual registration statements to permanently exempt an apartment from rent stabilization. The ability to amend the annual registration statements extends only to ministerial issues such as clerical errors, misspellings, incorrect lease terms, etc.:

DHCR’s chosen limiting principle—that amendments may correct only “ministerial” issues—does not permit amendments that seek to remove a housing accommodation’s rent-stabilized status.  The application of that rule to this case was clearly rational. Matter of LL 410 E. 78th St. LLC v Division of Hous. & Community Renewal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01672, CtApp 3-20-25

 

, , ,

IN ORDER TO SEEK COURT REVIEW OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BY AN EMPLOYER AND/OR A UNION, AN EMPLOYEE MUST BRING A PLENARY ACTION, NOT AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, affirming the dismissal of appellant-employee’s Article 78 petition, determined an employee who has exhausted the contractual grievance process and alleges the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement must bring a plenary action, not an Article 78 proceeding, for any further review:

… [W]hen a claim arises under a collective bargaining agreement that creates a mandatory grievance process, the employee “may not sue the employer directly for breach of that agreement but must proceed, through the union, in accordance with the contract. Unless the contract provides otherwise, only when the union fails in its duty of fair representation can the employee go beyond the agreed procedure and litigate a contract issue directly against the employer” … . Allegations that an employer has breached the collective bargaining agreement are contract claims that may not be resolved in an article 78 proceeding … . Thus, when an employee alleges that an employer has breached a term in a collective bargaining agreement, the proper mechanism is a plenary action alleging both breach of contract by the employer and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union … . * * *

The procedure applicable to an employee’s claim depends on the source of the right or benefit the employee asserts. Statutory or constitutional claims are appropriately brought in an article 78 proceeding … . Claims arising exclusively from an alleged breach of a term in a collective bargaining agreement must be brought through a civil action for breach of contract … and must meet the requirements set out in Ambach (70 NY2d at 508). Matter of Dourdounas v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01671, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: An employee who, after exhausting the grievance mechanism in a collective bargaining agreement, seeks court review of whether the employer and/or the union breached the collective bargaining agreement must bring a plenary action, not an Article 78 proceeding.

 

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