Jonathan Lippman

The Town of Waterford, which draws drinking water from the Hudson River, filed a FOIL request with the DEC seeking records about the EPA-led PCB dredging project, including alternative water supply options, permissible PCB levels, and responses to General Electric’s water supply analysis. The DEC withheld hundreds of documents exchanged with the EPA, invoking the exemption for inter-agency or intra-agency deliberative materials under Public Officers Law § 87(2)(g). The Court of Appeals held that this exemption does not apply to communications with the EPA. The court reasoned that the statutory terms “inter-agency” and “intra-agency” refer to New York State agencies, and that the EPA—a federal lead agency in a joint but independent remediation effort—cannot be treated as the functional equivalent of a retained outside consultant whose advice is protected to safeguard internal state deliberations. The court therefore modified the lower courts’ rulings and directed disclosure of the withheld records.

environmentprocedurefederal power

In the appeal of Matter of Smith v. Tormey, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a motion seeking leave to submit an amicus curiae brief. The court granted the motion and accepted the proposed brief for filing, directing the association to serve two copies on the parties and file nineteen copies within seven days. Chief Judge Lippman took no part in the matter.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether an excess insurance policy issued by Federal Insurance to IBM covered settlement payments IBM made in a class-action lawsuit alleging that its 1995 and 1999 amendments to employee pension plans violated ERISA's age-discrimination rules. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment to Federal, declaring that the policy provided no coverage for the amounts IBM sought to recover. The Court held that the policy's definition of a covered "Wrongful Act" was limited to breaches of fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA or related laws, and that IBM had acted solely as a plan settlor or sponsor when it amended the plans, not as a fiduciary. Because the underlying Zurich policy (which the Federal policy followed) was unambiguous on its face and did not extend to non-fiduciary conduct, no duty to indemnify arose.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Vega v. Restani Construction Corp., a New York City park maintenance worker sued several contractors, including subcontractor General Fence Corporation (GFC), after she suffered a torn rotator cuff while trying to move a garbage barrel containing heavy construction debris in a Bronx park. She alleged that GFC negligently placed concrete chunks in the public trash can during a park renovation project. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of GFC’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the case must proceed to trial. The court reasoned that GFC failed to meet its burden of showing the absence of material factual issues, as its principal’s affidavit did not conclusively establish that the company performed no concrete work or disposed of no debris at the site, and the plaintiff’s evidence—including a coworker’s observation of the debris and the timing of the work—created triable questions when viewed in the light most favorable to her.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether defendant Gilberto Sosa was eligible to seek resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 (CPL 440.46) for his 2003 conviction on class B drug felonies. The key dispute was the starting point for the statute’s 10-year “look-back” period used to determine if a prior violent felony conviction (here, from 1995) qualified as an “exclusion offense” that would bar relief; the People argued the period ran from the date of the original drug crimes, while Sosa contended it ran from the date of the resentencing application. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling that Sosa was eligible, holding that the statutory text measures the look-back from the application date and that any periods of incarceration are excluded from the calculation. The court reasoned that the Legislature had not categorically barred all defendants with prior violent felonies and that the People’s interpretation would improperly extend the exclusion beyond the language of the provision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought in New York by the SPCA of Upstate New York and its director against an Ohio-based collie welfare organization and its Vermont president. The claims arose from critical statements posted on the defendants' website about the care of rescued collies that had been placed with the New York SPCA. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the action, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants under CPLR 302(a)(1). The court reasoned that, although the defendants had some contacts with New York—including brief visits, donations, and volunteer assistance—those activities did not constitute the purposeful business transactions with a substantial nexus to the allegedly defamatory statements that the long-arm statute requires, particularly given New York's narrow approach to jurisdiction in defamation cases.

proceduretorts & liability

The case arose after police stopped defendant David Holland on the street near a housing project, retained his ID after initial questioning, and then detained him further; when a third officer approached, Holland pushed or punched one officer while trying to leave, leading to his arrest and the discovery of drugs. The trial court suppressed the drugs, finding an unlawful continued detention that was not attenuated by Holland’s conduct, but the Appellate Division reversed without deciding whether the initial stop was illegal, holding that Holland’s aggressive act itself attenuated any prior illegality. The New York Court of Appeals dismissed Holland’s appeal, ruling that the Appellate Division’s decision turned on the mixed question of law and fact of attenuation rather than on the law alone, so it fell outside the statutory limits for further review under CPL 450.90(2)(a). The majority relied on prior precedent treating attenuation determinations as unreviewable mixed questions in this posture.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim brought by Anthony P. Messina against his employer, Hudson News Company, and related parties, which had been reviewed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The matter reached the New York Court of Appeals on appeal from a lower court decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on its own motion without costs. It did so because the appeal did not directly present a substantial constitutional question, which is a prerequisite for the court's review in this context.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether a prosecutor could resubmit drug-sale charges against defendant Dondi Credle to a second grand jury without court permission after the first grand jury, having heard all the evidence, took two inconclusive votes and chose “no affirmative action” rather than indicting or dismissing. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of Credle’s conviction, holding that the prosecutor’s unilateral withdrawal of the fully presented case was tantamount to a dismissal under CPL 190.75(3) and the precedent of People v Wilkins. The core reasoning was that allowing such withdrawals without judicial oversight would let prosecutors bypass the statute’s limit on repeated presentations until a favorable panel is found, undermining the grand jury’s role as a check on prosecutorial power; the court rejected the argument that an actual 12-vote dismissal was required before the resubmission rules applied.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Bjorn Holubar against Karen O'Connor and other respondents in the New York Court of Appeals. The court dismissed the appeal without costs on its own initiative. It did so because the appeal did not directly present a substantial constitutional question requiring review. Chief Judge Lippman did not participate in the decision. The ruling ended the appellate proceedings at that level.

procedure

The case involved two defendants, Acevedo and Collado, who had prior felony convictions with sentences that omitted mandatory post-release supervision (PRS) terms. After being sentenced as predicate felons for later crimes, they sought resentencing on the priors under People v. Sparber to add the PRS terms, arguing that the new resentence dates (post-dating the later crimes) disqualified the priors as predicates for enhanced sentencing under Penal Law § 70.06. The Court of Appeals held that the original sentence dates control for determining predicate felony status, reversing the Appellate Division. The core reasoning was that Sparber resentencing is a limited procedure solely to pronounce the omitted PRS, without vacating the original sentence or altering the conviction's validity as a prior felony for enhancement purposes.

criminal lawprocedure

In L&M Bus Corp. v. New York City Department of Education, transportation vendors challenged DOE bid specifications for Pre-K and Early Intervention school bus contracts, including Employee Protection Provisions requiring new and existing contractors to give priority hiring from a master seniority list of prior employees, per-rider-per-day pricing with variable ridership risks, a 2% prompt-payment discount for DOE, and limited price adjustments only for ridership drops over 30%. The court applied heightened scrutiny to the EPPs and held them invalid because DOE did not prove they would save public funds, encourage competition, or prevent favoritism. It applied rational basis review to the pricing and discount provisions and upheld them as rational business judgments within DOE's discretion that allocate contract risks without violating public bidding laws.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved a dispute over whether Allstate Indemnity Corp. was obligated to provide coverage under a homeowner's insurance policy for a wrongful death claim brought by the non-insured father of a child who drowned in the insured grandparents' pool. The child and her mother were insured persons under the policy, and Allstate disclaimed coverage based on an exclusion for bodily injury to an insured where any benefit would accrue to an insured. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' rulings in favor of Allstate, holding that the exclusion was ambiguous and did not clearly bar coverage for the father's independent wrongful death claim, as "benefit" refers to policy proceeds rather than defense and indemnification itself.

torts & liability

The case concerned whether the prosecution could appeal a trial court's dismissal of indictments in a Medicaid fraud prosecution after finding a Brady violation involving undisclosed exculpatory evidence. The trial court dismissed the indictments with prejudice under its authority to address discovery violations, but the Appellate Division dismissed the People's appeal for lack of statutory authorization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the power to dismiss an indictment arises from CPL 210.20 rather than solely from the discovery sanctions provision in CPL 240.70, which made the order appealable under CPL 450.20 and required the Appellate Division to consider the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a juvenile charged with escape in the second degree under Penal Law § 205.10(1) after running out the door of a nonsecure detention facility where he had been remanded pending adjudication of a delinquency petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the escape petition. The core reasoning was that, following People v. Ortega, a nonsecure facility does not qualify as a "detention facility" under Penal Law § 205.00(1), given the Family Court Act's distinction between secure and nonsecure facilities and the rehabilitative purposes of the latter.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In People v. Ortega and the consolidated case People v. Benston, the defendants challenged the admission of certain statements from victims' medical records at their criminal trials for assault and related offenses, arguing they constituted inadmissible hearsay. The New York Court of Appeals held that limited references in the records to domestic violence, the perpetrator's relationship to the complainant, the weapon used, and a safety plan were properly admitted under the business records exception because they were relevant to diagnosis and treatment. The court affirmed both convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial courts' evidentiary rulings on the medical records. The decisions emphasized that such information can aid medical personnel in determining appropriate care.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the validity of a tax deed issued after a tax lien purchaser failed to serve notice of redemption on a mortgagee's foreclosure attorney and the court-appointed referee in a related foreclosure action, as required by Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and Supreme Court rulings that had voided the tax deed for defective notice. It held that the mortgagee's attorney was not a "legal representative" entitled to notice under the statute, which instead refers to executors or administrators of estates, and that the referee lacked any independent interest in the property requiring notice. The decision rested on statutory interpretation comparing the term "legal representative" with surrounding language like "heirs" and "assigns," as well as references to "attorney" elsewhere in the code, and on the referee's limited ministerial role under CPLR 4301.

propertytaxesprocedure

This case concerned two trust accounting proceedings in which certain beneficiaries (the Whitneys) filed objections to the trustees' conduct, seeking to surcharge them and deny commissions, while other beneficiaries (the Renzes) did not participate and invoked the Pro Tanto Rule to avoid sharing in any potential recovery. The Surrogate's Court dismissed the objections but, following precedent from Matter of Dillon, directed that the trustees' substantial attorney's fees be paid from the trusts' corpus generally, thereby charging non-objecting beneficiaries' shares. The Court of Appeals held that Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 2110 grants trial courts discretion to allocate responsibility for such fees either from the estate as a whole or from individual beneficiaries' interests, expressly overruling Dillon. It therefore modified the Appellate Division's affirmance and remitted the matter to the Surrogate’s Court for fresh consideration of fee allocation under the statute's text.

propertyprocedure

This case concerned whether a 1999 out-of-state conviction could be used under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(8) to elevate a 2007 New York driving while intoxicated charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. The Court of Appeals held that it could not, affirming the Appellate Division's reversal of the felony indictment. The core reasoning was that the enabling language of the 2006 amendment to the statute explicitly provides that the amended provisions apply only to convictions occurring on or after November 1, 2006, and that this refers to the prior out-of-state convictions themselves rather than the current New York offense. The court reached this conclusion through analysis of the statute's text, legislative history, and evolution from its 1985 origins.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a French court money judgment for unpaid royalties and related expenses under a licensing agreement should be recognized and enforced in New York against Stallion, Inc. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision to recognize the judgment under New York's Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act (CPLR article 53). The core reasoning was that Stallion had contractually agreed to French court jurisdiction via the agreement's forum selection clause, satisfying CPLR 5305(a)(3) and waiving objections to personal jurisdiction, and that the French court had properly determined service and notice requirements were met under the Hague Convention before entering judgment in Stallion's absence. The court held that any issues with the French-language documents did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair or deficient in notice for purposes of CPLR 5304.

procedurebusiness & regulatory