The Empire Zones Program Act offered state tax incentives designed to enhance business development in the state. In 2009, the program was amended to introduce two new criteria businesses must meet to retain their certificates for the program. Plaintiffs were five businesses which were certified under the program prior to 2008. In 2009, Plaintiffs were decertified from the program for failing to meet the new criteria. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the James Square plaintiffs, concluding that the state defendants acted without legal authority when they applied the new criteria for the program retroactively. The legislature subsequently clarified its intention, stating that the 2009 amendments to the program were to be applied retroactively to January 1, 2008. Supreme Court adhered to its prior determination, declaring that the legislature's clarification as applied was unconstitutional. The Appellate Division affirmed. Regarding the additional plaintiffs, the Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's holding to the extent of granting Plaintiff's petitions seeking a declaration that the 2009 amendments could not be applied retroactively to January 1, 2008. The State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's determinations in all five cases that the 2009 amendments should not be applied retroactively. View "James Square Assocs. LP v. Mullen" on Justia Law
James Square Assocs. LP v. Mullen
↧
↧
People v. Guilford
After a trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. Defendant appealed, challenging his custodial interrogation that lasted almost fifty hours. Defendant's previously filed motion to suppress was granted to the extent of excluding the statements Defendant made during the "marathon interrogation." On appeal, Defendant argued that his suppression motion should have been granted not only to the statements made during the interrogation itself but to the further extent of suppressing his subsequent inculpatory statements. The appellate division held that Defendant's subsequent statements, which were made approximately ten hours after the lengthy interrogation were sufficiently attenuated from the prior interrogation to conclude that they were not the product of official compulsion. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding that, as a matter of law, the taint of the wrongful police action was not attenuated. View "People v. Guilford" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Hampton
Defendant was charged with intentional murder and second-degree weapon possession. Defendant's first trial resulted in a hung jury and mistrial. Defendant was re-tried, and the jury convicted Defendant as charged. After the jury verdict was handed down, the presiding judge, Justice Carter, issued an order recusing himself because of his discovery that he knew the uncle of the victim. In the meantime, Defendant filed a motion seeking an order granting his prior applications for a trial order of dismissal. Justice Palmieri, the judge to whom the case was reassigned, denied Defendant's motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his guilt and that N.Y. Judiciary Law 21 barred any other judge than Justice Carter from deciding his motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) legally sufficient evidence supported Defendant's convictions; and (2) Judiciary Law 21 did not bar Justice Palmieri from ruling on the motion at issue. View "People v. Hampton" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Sanchez
Defendant was arrested for robbery. An attorney from the Legal Aid Society represented Defendant at trial. Prior to opening statements, defense counsel alerted the court to a possible conflict of interest arising from counsel's previous representation of Franklin DeJesus, whom it was rumored to have committed the robbery. After internal discussions with the trial judge, defense counsel proceeded with the case. The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree robbery. After Defendant's conviction, Legal Aid moved to set aside the verdict based on newly discovered evidence consisting of DeJesus' alleged jailhouse confession to Defendant. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, determining that Defendant had not been deprived of his right to effective legal assistnce due to Legal Aid's dual representation of Defendant and DeJesus because there was no conflict between their interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant did not adequately demonstrate that he received less than meaningful representation, as the record did not establish that the potential conflict actually affected the presentation of the defense or otherwise impaired counsel's performance. View "People v. Sanchez" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Thomas
Defendant was charged with sex-related crimes. In his summation, defense counsel argued that parts of Complainant's testimony were incredible because a statement Complainant gave to a police officer who responded to her 911 call omitted a number of details that were in Complainant's later testimony and that the People should have called the officer to testify. The trial court directed the jury to disregard counsel's missing witness argument. After summations, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the basis of this ruling. The court denied the motion, stating that counsel should have asked for a missing witness instruction if he wanted to make a missing witness argument. Defendant was then convicted of criminal sexual act, criminal contempt, and assault. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that there was no "good faith basis" for comment by defense counsel on the People's failure to call the officer. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in prohibiting Defendant from making a missing witness argument but that the error was harmless. View "People v. Thomas" on Justia Law
↧
↧
Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors v. Smith
The Wicks Law requires public entities seeking bids on construction contracts to obtain separate specifications for three subdivisions of the work to be performed. Until 2008 when the law was amended to raise the threshold, the Wicks Law applied to contracts whose cost exceeded $50,000. The new, higher thresholds, unlike the old one, were not uniform throughout the State. Plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the amendments violated the Home Rule section of the State Constitution by unjustifiably favoring the eight counties with higher thresholds. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the Home Rule cause of action and that, in any event, the challenged amendments did not violate the Home Rule section because they "were enacted in furtherance of and bear a reasonable relationship to a substantial State-wide concern." The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding (1) at least one plaintiff had standing to assert the Home Rule claim, but that claim failed on the merits; and (2) most of Plaintiffs' other claims failed, but four causes of action challenging the apprenticeship requirements as applied to out-of-state contracts should be reinstated. View "Empire State Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors v. Smith" on Justia Law
Continue reading
↧
Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass’n v. State
At issue in this case was the constitutionality of the HAIL Act, which regulates medallion taxicabs and livery vehicles. The Act's stated aim is to address certain mobility deficiencies in the City of New York. Plaintiffs, medallion owners and their representatives, challenged the HAIL Act on the ground that the regulation of yellow cab and livery enterprises is a matter of local concern. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that the Act violates the State Constitution's Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, and the Exclusive Privileges Clause. Supreme Court entered a judgment nullifying the Act and declaring that it violated the Constitution. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the HAIL Act does not violate the Municipal Home Rule Clause, the Double Enactment Clause, or the Exclusive Privileges Clause. View "Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass'n v. State" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Oliveras
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty-five years to life. Defendant moved to vacate the conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for, among several other things, failing to obtain Defendant's psychiatric records. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to vacate and remanded for a new trial, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records deprived Defendant of effective representation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that trial counsel's failure to obtain and review Defendant's psychiatric records and to pursue a strategy informed by both the available evidence and Defendant's concerns seriously compromised Defendant's right to a fair trial. View "People v. Oliveras" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Padilla
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession in the second degree. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the weapon obtained during a search, arguing that the manner in which a police officer conducted the inventory search of Defendant's vehicle was improper, and thus, the entire search was invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the People met their burden of establishing a valid inventory search of Defendant's vehicle, as (1) the search was in accordance with procedure; (2) the search was not made invalid when the officer conducting the search did not follow the written police procedure by giving some of the contents of the vehicle to a third party without itemizing that property; and (3) the fact that the officer searched in the vehicle's seat panels, knowing that contraband is often hidden by criminals in such places, did not invalidate the search because the officer's intention was to search for items to inventory. View "People v. Padilla " on Justia Law
↧
↧
People v. Barboni
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder of a child and manslaughter in the first degree. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant's state of mind during the crime was one of utter indifference to the value of human life, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction of depraved indifference murder; (2) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant consciously disregarded the substantial and unjustifiable risk that death or serious injury would result from his actions; (3) the evidence of first-degree manslaughter was sufficient; and (4) Defendant's counsel offered effective assistance. View "People v. Barboni" on Justia Law
↧
Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc.
Twelve-year-old Tiffany had a seizure followed by cardiac arrest. Two emergency medical technicians (EMTs) employed by New York City arrived in response to Tiffany's mother's 911 call and began performing CPR on Tiffany until paramedics from a private hospital arrived in an advanced life support ambulance. Tiffany suffered serious brain damages from the ordeal. Tiffany and her mother filed this negligence action against the City and its emergency medical services. Under State law, when a municipality provides ambulance service by emergency medical technicians in response to a 911 call, it performs a governmental function and cannot be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party. Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the City did not owe Plaintiffs a special duty or that the municipal defendants were the proximate cause of the harm. The Appellate Division reversed, determining that Plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to whether the City assumed a special duty to Plaintiffs and whether it proximately caused their injuries. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs adequately established questions of fact on the applicability of the special duty doctrine. View "Applewhite v. Accuhealth, Inc. " on Justia Law
↧
People v. Cantave
Defendant was charged with second-degree assault based on a confrontation with Complainant. After a Sandoval hearing, the People received permission to cross-examine Defendant about his recent rape conviction, still pending on direct appeal. Defendant was convicted of third-degree assault. Subsequently, Defendants conviction for rape was reversed, and he was retried and acquitted. The Appellate Division affirmed the assault conviction, holding that the Sandoval issue was unpreserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, holding (1) the Sandoval issue was properly preserved; (2) the prosecution may not cross-examine about the underlying facts of an unrelated criminal conviction on appeal for the purpose of impeaching his credibility; and (3) accordingly, the trial court's ruling allowing admission of the underlying facts of Defendant's rape conviction was in error, as it violated Defendant's privilege against self incrimination. View "People v. Cantave" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Jones
Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that his arrest was illegal, and therefore, his subsequent lineup identification as the perpetrator of the crime was the fruit of an illegal arrest. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding (1) the officer who arrested Defendant lacked probable cause to stop and arrest Defendant; but (2) an "intervening event" attenuated the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the lineup identification. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the initial arrest of Defendant was without probable cause and therefore illegal; but (2) at the time of the lineup identification, any taint of the illegal arrest had been attenuated. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law
↧
↧
People v. Brinson
In these two unrelated cases, Defendants were resentenced because the sentencing court failed to impose mandatory postrelease supervision (PRS) as part of the original sentence. Defendants appealed, concluding that the imposition of PRS to their determinate sentences at resentencing violated Double Jeopardy Clause. The Appellate Division affirmed the resentences, concluding that Defendants did not have a legitimate expectation of finality in their respective determinate sentences because they had not completed their aggregated sentences prior to resentencing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants' respective resentences did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because Defendants did not have a legitimate expectation of finality until they had completed their aggregated sentences under N.Y. Penal Law 70.30. View "People v. Brinson" on Justia Law
↧
Cunningham v. State Dep’t of Labor
Petitioner was a State employee. Suspecting that Petitioner was submitting false time reports, the State attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to Petitioner's car. After a report by the Inspector General based on evidence obtained from the GPS device, the Commissioner of Labor terminated Petitioner's employment. The appellate division confirmed the Commissioner's determination and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones, the State's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions; (2) the search in this case did not require a warrant; but (3) the State failed to demonstrate that the search was reasonable. Remanded. View "Cunningham v. State Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Alcide
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional murder and second-degree weapon possession. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge committed mode of proceedings errors by departing from the protocol for handling jury notes set forth in People v. O'Rama. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence, determining that Defendant's unpreserved claims did not implicate O'Rama or constitute mode of proceedings errors and declining to reach them in the interest of justice. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's claims were unpreserved and unreviewable and did not constitute mode of proceedings errors. View "People v. Alcide" on Justia Law
↧
People v. Daryl H.
Defendant, a patient in the psychiatric ward of a medical center, was convicted of assault in the first and second degree based on an incident in which he assaulted and severely injured another psychiatric patient. The Appellate Division modified by vacating the second degree assault conviction and, as modified, affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Supreme Court did not deny Defendant his constitutional right to present a defense, to confront witnesses, and to a fair trial by limiting Defendant's examination of two witnesses - a doctor who evaluated Defendant after the assault and the assault victim's father. View "People v. Daryl H." on Justia Law
↧
↧
People v. Thompson
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the offense of manslaughter. The Appellate Division affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who was a long-time friend of the prosecuting attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that counsel's decision not to use a peremptory challenge on the juror was questionable, but the mistake, if it was one, was not the sort of egregious and prejudicial error that rendered counsel's representation of Defendant as a whole ineffective, and thus, Defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to counsel. View "People v. Thompson" on Justia Law
↧
Brightonian Nursing Home v. Daines
Plaintiffs challenged the facial constitutionality of N.Y. Pub. Health Law 2808(5)(c), which prohibits the withdrawal or transfer of residential health care facility equity or assets in amount exceeding three percent of the facility's most recently reported annual revenue from patient care services without the prior approval of the State Commissioner of Health. Plaintiffs in this case were concerned that the challenged provision would negatively impact nursing homes. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs, concluding that the statute impermissibly ceded legislative policymaking power to a regulatory agency situated in the executive branch and infringed on the substantive due process property interests of facility owners. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in concluding that the statute was offensive to substantive due process; and (2) the statute does not improperly delegate legislative policy-making power.
View "Brightonian Nursing Home v. Daines" on Justia Law
↧
Osterweil v. Bartlett
Appellant owned a part-time residence in New York but intended to make Louisiana his primary residence. Appellant applied for a New York State pistol/revolver license pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law 400.00 and inquired whether he would still be eligible for a handgun license. The county court judge denied Appellant's application for a handgun license, concluding that the term "residence" was equivalent to "domicile," and therefore, because Appellant was not domiciled in New York, he was ineligible for the license. Appellant commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the judge had violated his right to keep and bear arms and his right to equal protection by denying his license application on the ground of his domicile. The district court granted the judge summary judgment. Upon Appellant's appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the N.Y. Court of Appeals. The Court answered by holding that an applicant who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile elsewhere is eligible for a New York handgun license in the city or county where his part-time residence is located. View "Osterweil v. Bartlett" on Justia Law
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
