New York Court of Appeals

The court answered two certified questions concerning public-works employees' third-party beneficiary claims for prevailing wages. It held that Labor Law § 220 implicitly inserts a prevailing-wage promise into every covered public-works contract, regardless of the contract's wording, and that a contractual provision…

The Court of Appeals answered all three certified questions concerning New York's Hateful Conduct Law. It held that a social media network may satisfy the reporting-mechanism and policy-disclosure requirements without expressly using the statutory definition of hateful conduct, so long as the mechanism can receive…

The New York Court of Appeals answered a certified question from the Second Circuit, holding that neither the State Civil Rights Law § 79‑p nor the City Administrative Code § 14‑189 grants a private right to record police activity inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of defendant's post-conviction motion, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to further investigate defendant's mental health and substance abuse history.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order permitting testimony about a destroyed surveillance video. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting secondary evidence under the best‑evidence rule because the parties explained the video’s unavailability and the…

The court held that the warrantless-search probation condition imposed on Jarelle Brazeal was an abuse of sentencing discretion because it was not individually tailored to his offense, history, or rehabilitative needs, and it struck that condition while otherwise affirming.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s orders dismissing Matthews’s and Harris’s criminal appeals and remitted both cases for further proceedings. It concluded that, under the circumstances—including the People’s concession—the dismissals were an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order upholding defendant's convictions for attempted murder, assault, and weapon possession. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a missing witness instruction because the available deposition and trial evidence showed the missing witness's testimony…

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remanded the case, holding that a valid appeal waiver does not bar review of a claim that a guilty plea was not voluntary and that waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting Diego Guerra a new trial because defense counsel's stipulation effectively conceded the knowing-possession and knowledge elements central to the defense, without any strategic justification.

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a challenge asserting that New York's 2024 Equal Rights Amendment implicitly repealed the constitutional mandatory retirement and certification provisions for certain judges.

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Freeport Plaza West's counterclaim because it failed to file the notice of claim required for contract claims against a village. The Court held that the Village's participation in litigation and delayed motion did not constitute the wrongful or misleading conduct necessary to…

The Court of Appeals affirmed the determination assigning defendant SORA risk level two after an upward departure from the presumptive level one classification. It held that defendant's atypical prior criminal history, including three sex offenses and a violent felony committed over a relatively short period, was an…

The Court of Appeals affirmed both defendants' SORA risk-level designations, holding that young age at the time of a first sex offense cannot support a downward departure because the Risk Assessment Instrument treats that circumstance as an aggravating factor and assigns points for it.

The Court of Appeals held that a contractual grant of sole discretion does not categorically eliminate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint plausibly alleged that the lender used its assignment discretion as part of a scheme to strip the plaintiff of the benefit of its equity investment…

The court held that strong family support and gainful employment may qualify as mitigating circumstances supporting a downward departure from a presumptive sex-offender risk level, even when the offender received zero points for the related risk factor.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's affirmance of Joseph Meyers's convictions despite substantial failures in the trial transcript. It held that Meyers did not establish that reconstruction of the record would be futile or that the reconstructed record prevented meaningful appellate review, and it…

The Court of Appeals held that the murder prosecution was not barred by CPL 40.40 (2) after defendant previously pleaded guilty to simple firearm possession. The possession offense and the murder were not part of the same criminal transaction because possession was complete upon defendant's exercise of dominion and…

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that resentencing before a different judge was not warranted because the negotiated probation sentence was illegal, the conflicted district attorney lacked authority to make a sentencing recommendation, and the authorized special prosecutor accepted shock probation…

The Court of Appeals held that New York may reimburse itself from a recipient's retroactive Supplemental Security Income award for interim assistance provided during the pendency of the application, even when the assistance was conditioned on work-experience activities.

The Court of Appeals held that Industrial Code section 23-4.2 (k) is not sufficiently specific to support vicarious liability under Labor Law § 241 (6). The provision broadly prohibits allowing people to work where excavation equipment may strike or endanger them but does not prescribe a concrete action, distance…

The Court of Appeals held that petitioners had standing to challenge OCFS's Host Family Home program because they were uniquely positioned to vindicate children's statutory right to counsel.

The Court of Appeals held that an attorney for the child may appeal a Family Court custody determination on behalf of an aggrieved child, even when neither parent has filed an appeal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and held that the Justice For Injured Workers Act prohibited Supreme Court, after the Act's effective date, from giving collateral estoppel effect to a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, except as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

The court held that federal law preempts New York's requirement that rental car companies provide primary liability insurance coverage to renters for damages caused solely by renters' negligence.

The Court held that a defendant may not waive a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing as a condition of a negotiated plea agreement. Reading the DVSJA's statutory structure and legislative purpose together, the Court concluded that permitting waiver would undermine the Legislature's effort to ensure judicial consideration of…

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term’s affirmation, vacated Warren Burgess’s guilty plea, and remanded the case for further proceedings because the misdemeanor information he pleaded to was jurisdictionally deficient for failing to allege firearm operability.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court judgment, holding that the Town of Thompson Planning Board did not err in granting site‑plan approval and a special‑use permit limited to warehouse use, nor in its SEQRA environmental review.

The court held that the prosecution violated defendant's constitutional speedy-trial right by delaying more than three years before a fourth trial after three prior mistrials, and it directed dismissal of the murder and weapon-possession charges.

The New York Court of Appeals held that the appellant’s CPL 30.30 speedy‑trial motion was timely and gave proper notice, reversing the Appellate Division’s denial and remanding for further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the People failed to prove that the arresting officers received and relied on the detective’s probable‑cause I‑card, so the defendant’s statement was obtained from an unlawful arrest and must be suppressed.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order dismissing Mega Beverage Redemption Center’s complaint against the City of Mount Vernon. The Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate that its appeal did not present questions of fact and that the Appellate Division did not satisfy the…

The New York Court of Appeals, on its own motion, suspended Justice Walter W. Jones with pay, effective immediately, pending review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Court relied on New York Constitution article VI, § 22 and Judiciary Law § 44(8) as the authority for the suspension.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court unlawfully imposed consecutive sentences because the record did not establish that the manslaughter and attempted-assault offenses arose from separate and distinct acts.

The Court held that defendant knowingly waived his right to effective assistance of counsel through repeated obstructive conduct, including refusing substitute counsel, refusing self-representation, directing counsel not to participate, and repeatedly leaving the courtroom despite warnings.

The Court of Appeals held that the 14-month period between the alleged assault and indictment did not violate defendant's constitutional right to prompt prosecution after balancing the five relevant factors.

The Court held that the parole investigators’ pursuit and arrest of Jones was unlawful because the record did not support a reasonable mistaken belief that he was the parole absconder, and therefore the seized firearms and narcotics must be suppressed and the indictment dismissed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, concluding that defendant had not shown counsel lacked a strategic or other legitimate reason for failing to object that the jury’s verdict was repugnant.

The Court affirmed the conviction for first‑degree reckless endangerment, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish depraved indifference and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding late psychiatric testimony under CPL 250.10.

The Court of Appeals held that Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) does not authorize the Board to approve attorney fees calculated from late-payment charges imposed under § 25 (1) (e) and (3) (f).