Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of New York

June 30, 2015, 1:17 pm

≫ Next: People v. Wright

≪ Previous: Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass’n v. N.Y. City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n

$

0

0

Plaintiffs in this case were law firms in debt collection. Plaintiffs brought this action in federal district court seeking to invalidate certain amendments to the New York City Administrative Code (Local Law) pertaining to debt collection activities. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part, concluding (1) the Local Law was in direct conflict with the Judiciary Law and invalid to the extent that it purported to regulate the conduct of attorneys; and (2) the Local Law violated the New York City Charter insofar as it gave the DCA Commissioner authority to license or regulate attorneys. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions for the review of the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that the Local Law is not preempted by the State’s statutory authority to regulate the conduct of attorneys, and in the absence of such conflict, the City should not be prevented from taking permissible steps to curb abusive debt collection practices. View "Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The post Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of New York appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

---

People v. Wright

July 2, 2015, 9:15 am

≫ Next: Burton v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin.

≪ Previous: Eric M. Berman, P.C. v. City of New York

$

0

0

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree intentional murder. Defendant was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the evidence was legally sufficient, that Defendant was not denied meaningful representation, and that Defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct committed during summation was unpreserved. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor misrepresented to the jury critical DNA evidence as proof of Defendant’s guilt in contradiction of the People’s expert testimony; and (2) Defendant was denied a fair trial as a result. View "People v. Wright" on Justia Law

The post People v. Wright appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

Burton v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin.

July 2, 2015, 9:34 am

≫ Next: Caprio v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.

≪ Previous: People v. Wright

$

0

0

Plaintiffs, several nonresident former owners and shareholders in an S corporation, filed the instant declaratory judgment action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, challenging a tax imposed on their pro rata share of gains from the sale of the corporation’s stock. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that N.Y. Const. art. XVI, 3 absolutely precluded taxation of gains from the sale of a nonresident’s intangible personal property - in this case, the corporation’s stock. Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and declared that the statute is constitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there is no constitutional bar to taxation of a nonresident’s New York-source income earned from a stock sale. View "Burton v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin." on Justia Law

The post Burton v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin. appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

Caprio v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.

July 2, 2015, 9:52 am

≫ Next: People v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

≪ Previous: Burton v. New York State Dep’t of Taxation & Fin.

$

0

0

At issue in this case was whether the three-and-a-half year retroactive application of the 2010 amendments to N.Y. Tax Law 632(a)(2) were unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs under the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Plaintiffs, Florida residents, brought this action claiming that the 2010 amendments retroactively imposed a tax on the 2007 sale of the stock of their subchapter S corporation in a deemed asset sale, for which they utilized the installment method of accounting for federal tax purposes, and seeking a declaration that the application of the amendments was unconstitutional as applied to them. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendants, determining that the amendments were curative and, because Plaintiffs failed to show reasonable reliance on any relevant pre-amendment law, retroactive application of the statute was justified. The Appellate Division reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that retroactive application of the 2010 amendments did not violate Plaintiffs’ due process rights. View "Caprio v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin." on Justia Law

The post Caprio v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

October 20, 2015, 8:18 pm

≫ Next: People v. Barksdale

≪ Previous: Caprio v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin.

$

0

0

In 2012, the Attorney General (AG) filed a complaint resulting in a civil enforcement action by the AG, alleging that Sprint knowingly violated the New York Tax Law, engaged in fraudulent or illegal acts, and submitted false documents to the State pursuant to the New York False Claims Act (FCA). Sprint moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Supreme Court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the New York Tax Law imposes sales tax on interstate voice service sold by a mobile provider along with other services for a fixed monthly charge; (2) the statute is unambiguous; (3) the statute is not preempted by federal law; (4) the AG’s complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action under the FCA; and (5) the damages recoverable under the FCA are not barred by the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. View "People v. Sprint Nextel Corp." on Justia Law

The post People v. Sprint Nextel Corp. appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Barksdale

October 22, 2015, 2:14 pm

≫ Next: Texeira v. Fischer

≪ Previous: People v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

$

0

0

Defendant was arrested in the lobby of an apartment building that was enrolled in the trespass affidavit program. Upon his arrest, officers frisked Defendant and found a razor blade in one of his pants pockets. Defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the razor blade. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the combination of Defendant’s presence in the building with the private and protected nature of that location supported the lower courts’ determination that the police officers had an objective credible reason to approach and request information from Defendant and thus to begin the encounter that culminated in Defendant’s arrest and the seizure of the razor blade. View "People v. Barksdale" on Justia Law

The post People v. Barksdale appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

Texeira v. Fischer

October 27, 2015, 10:49 am

≫ Next: People v. Hardy

≪ Previous: People v. Barksdale

$

0

0

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report for violating prison disciplinary rules. At the disciplinary hearing, Petitioner pleaded not guilty and requested another inmate be called as a witness. When the inmate reversed to testify, Petitioner asked the hearing officer to re-contact the witness. When the hearing reconvened, the hearing officer did not state whether the inmate had been re-contacted. The hearing officer subsequently found Petitioner guilty of all charges. Thereafter, Petitioner commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding asserting that the hearing officer violated his constitutional right to call witnesses for failing to make reasonable efforts to contact the witness. Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter for a new hearing. Petitioner appealed, arguing that expungement was the proper remedy for violation of an inmate’s right to call a witness at a prison disciplinary hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, a rehearing was properly ordered. View "Texeira v. Fischer" on Justia Law

The post Texeira v. Fischer appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Hardy

November 18, 2015, 1:06 pm

≫ Next: Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post

≪ Previous: Texeira v. Fischer

$

0

0

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of grand larceny in the first degree and one count of petit larceny. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) properly declined to give a circumstantial evidence charge, and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s requests for a mistrial after the jurors indicated during deliberations that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in refusing to grant Defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Defendant’s requests for a mistrial, and the court’s procedure did not coerce the jury into delivering a verdict. View "People v. Hardy" on Justia Law

The post People v. Hardy appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

---

Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post

November 19, 2015, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: People v. Wragg

≪ Previous: People v. Hardy

$

0

0

Petitioners, including individual residents of the Village of Painted Post, commenced this N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding against the Village and others (collectively, Respondents), asserting that the Village failed to comply with the strict procedural mandates of the State Environmental Quality Review Act by entering into a bulk water sale agreement with a subsidiary of Shell Oil Co. providing for the sale of 314 million gallons of water from the village water system and by approving a lease agreement with a railroad for the construction of a water transloading facility. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that Petitioners lacked standing and failed to state a cause of action. Supreme Court denied Respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing after finding that one of the individual petitions had standing. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the petition on the ground that the individual petitioner lacked standing. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Appellate Division, in concluding that the individual petitioner at issue lacked standing, applied an overly restrictive analysis of the requirement to show harm “different from that of the public at large.” View "Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post" on Justia Law

The post Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Wragg

November 19, 2015, 1:18 pm

≫ Next: People v. Harris

≪ Previous: Sierra Club v. Village of Painted Post

$

0

0

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a second child sexual assault felony offender to a determinate term of fifteen years with five years of post-release supervision. The Appellate Division affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a fair trial was violated because of alleged critical mistakes by his trial counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to establish that defense counsel made the type of missteps that establish a performance so lacking in competence and strategic purpose that it failed to meet the constitutional minimum standard of professionalism recognized by the Court. View "People v. Wragg" on Justia Law

The post People v. Wragg appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Harris

November 23, 2015, 6:23 pm

≫ Next: People v. Ambers

≪ Previous: People v. Wragg

$

0

0

Defendant was indicted for burglary in the second degree and petit larceny. The burglary charge was timely interposed but the petit larceny charge was not, as the applicable statutory period ran approximately one and one-half years before the filing of the accusatory instrument. Defendant’s counsel never obtained the time-barred count’s dismissal, and Defendant was convicted of both indicted offenses. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his for-cause challenge to a prospective juror and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by vacating Defendant’s conviction on the charge of petit larceny and dismissing that charge in the indictment, holding that the failure of Defendant’s counsel to have the time-barred petit larceny count dismissed constituted ineffective assistance. View "People v. Harris" on Justia Law

The post People v. Harris appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Ambers

November 23, 2015, 6:35 pm

≫ Next: People v. Rosario

≪ Previous: People v. Harris

$

0

0

Defendant was convicted of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, rape in the second degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to seek the dismissal of time-barred charges against him and by failing to object to certain statements by the prosecutor during her summation. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) given the presence of a plausible and reasonable strategy that could explain counsel’s action, defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of the time-barred charges; and (2) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to certain statements made during the prosecutor’s summation. View "People v. Ambers" on Justia Law

The post People v. Ambers appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Rosario

December 16, 2015, 12:53 pm

≫ Next: People v. Pavone

≪ Previous: People v. Ambers

$

0

0

The two defendants in these cases accepted pleas to criminal offenses. Defendants later petitioned for writs of error coram nobis, each alleging that counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to advise Defendants of their right to appeal. Defendants also alleged had they known about their right to appeal, they would have requested one. In each case, the Appellate Division denied the defendant’s writ of error coram nobis. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of these two cases, Defendants failed to meet their burden on their coram nobis applications, as the records as a whole revealed that Defendants knew about their right to appeal. View "People v. Rosario" on Justia Law

The post People v. Rosario appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Pavone

December 17, 2015, 1:48 pm

≫ Next: People v. Gross

≪ Previous: People v. Rosario

$

0

0

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the People improperly used his silence, in the immediate aftermath of his arrest, against him in violation of his constitutional rights and that he was denied a fair trial due to defense counsel’s ineffectiveness. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the People’s use of Defendant’s silence constituted a violation of his state constitutional rights, but the error was harmless; and (2) Defendant failed to establish that his attorney failed to provide meaningful representation that compromised his right to a fair trial. View "People v. Pavone" on Justia Law

The post People v. Pavone appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Gross

February 18, 2016, 2:26 pm

≫ Next: People v. Jin Cheng Lin

≪ Previous: People v. Pavone

$

0

0

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by (1) failing to oppose the admission and use of prior consistent statements of the child victim, which bolstered her credibility, and (2) failing to consult or present testimony from a qualified independent medical expert to support his argument that no sexual abuse occurred. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record clearly indicated that Defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective in this case. View "People v. Gross" on Justia Law

The post People v. Gross appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

---

People v. Jin Cheng Lin

February 18, 2016, 2:36 pm

≫ Next: People v. Sanders

≪ Previous: People v. Gross

$

0

0

After a jury trial, Defendant, a Chinese immigrant, was found guilty of murder, burglary and attempted robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his confession to law enforcement officers was an involuntary product of untoward psychological pressure and fatigue, and (2) due to his limited English language proficiency, he did not understand the import of the Miranda warnings given to him, and therefore, he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the totality of the circumstances did not establish that Defendant’s will was so overborne as to make his confession involuntary; and (2) there was record support for the lower courts’ determinations that Defendant understood the import of his Miranda rights. View "People v. Jin Cheng Lin" on Justia Law

The post People v. Jin Cheng Lin appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Sanders

February 23, 2016, 6:27 pm

≫ Next: People v. King

≪ Previous: People v. Jin Cheng Lin

$

0

0

Defendant was treated at Hospital for a gunshot wounds. Hospital reported the shooting to the police. By the time Defendant spoke to an officer, Defendant was wearing hospital clothing. The officer subsequently seized the bag containing the clothing that Defendant wore when he came to Hospital. After the officer inspected the garments, authorities came to believe the Defendant had accidentally shot himself with a gun he carried in his waistband. Defendant was charged with, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Defendant sought to suppress the clothes based on the “unlawful warrantless seizure of those items.” Supreme Court denied suppression. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the seizure was illegal and that the items seized were improperly admitted into evidence at trial. View "People v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The post People v. Sanders appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. King

March 29, 2016, 11:47 am

≫ Next: People v. Cedeno

≪ Previous: People v. Sanders

$

0

0

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit a mode of proceedings error when it allowed prospective jurors to opt out of serving on the jury due to hardship; (2) the trial court did not err in precluding third-party culpability evidence proferred by the defense; and (3) Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to object to certain inflammatory statements made by the prosecutor during summation. View "People v. King" on Justia Law

The post People v. King appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Cedeno

March 29, 2016, 12:07 pm

≫ Next: People v. Johnson

≪ Previous: People v. King

$

0

0

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree gang assault and fourth-degree weapons possession and sentenced to an aggregate term of sixteen years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s redacted statement to law enforcement officers violated Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the redacted statement was facially incriminating, the admission of the statement violated Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause, as discussed in Bruton v. United States, and the error was not harmless. View "People v. Cedeno" on Justia Law

The post People v. Cedeno appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.

People v. Johnson

March 29, 2016, 12:17 pm

≫ Next: People v. Berry

≪ Previous: People v. Cedeno

$

0

0

After a joint trial, Defendant was found guilty of robbery in the second degree, petit larceny, menacing in the second degree, and possession or use of an imitation pistol or revolver. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting a non-testifying codefendant’s grand jury testimony under Bruton v. United States because the statements were facially incriminating as to Defendant. The Appellate Division agreed with Defendant and reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s admission of the codefendant’s statements, which were incriminating as to Defendant in the constitutional sense, was error, and the error was not harmless. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The post People v. Johnson appeared first on Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.