New York Court of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, holding that the defendant's appeal waiver does not preclude appellate review of his facial Second Amendment challenge to the state's firearm licensing scheme, that he has standing to bring the challenge despite never having applied for a license…

The New York Court of Appeals held that personal jurisdiction exists over the Spanish winery under CPLR 302(a)(1) because the defendant transacted business in New York and the plaintiff's claim arises from that activity, and that exercising jurisdiction satisfies federal due process; the Appellate Division's…

The Court held that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel's strategy of using the victim's delayed outcry testimony was a permissible tactical choice. Accordingly, the conviction for first-degree sexual conduct against a child was affirmed.

The Court held that the additional‑insured endorsement’s phrase “caused, in whole or in part, by” requires proximate causation by the named insured, so coverage does not extend to NYCTA and MTA where the named insured BSI was not the proximate cause of the employee’s injury.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement claim, holding that the complaint failed to allege any out‑of‑pocket pecuniary loss and therefore did not state a viable cause of action.

The New York Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because genuine issues of fact existed regarding the adequacy of the temporary staircase safety device.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s summary‑judgment order that the builder’s risk policy does not cover the damaged tower crane because the contractor’s tools exclusion applies, and held that whether the crane qualifies as a temporary work is a factual issue.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed that the City of New York acted in a proprietary capacity with respect to roadway design and safety, so no special duty needed to be proved; the jury’s finding that the City’s negligence was a proximate cause of the injury was supported by a rational evidentiary line; and the…

The Court held that an off‑calendar statement of readiness is presumed truthful and accurate, placing the burden on a defendant to show it was illusory, while the People must explain any subsequent change in readiness; it affirmed the People v Young decision, reversed and remanded People v Canady and People v Brown…

The New York Court of Appeals held that Pictet & Cie’s repeated use of New York correspondent bank accounts to launder bribe money constituted purposeful transacting of business under CPLR 302(a)(1), establishing personal jurisdiction and satisfying the nexus requirement; the Appellate Division’s dismissal was…

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s 2012 order and remanded for a new trial, holding that the lower court failed to apply the proper “utterly irrational” test when it set aside the jury’s verdict and concluded the defendant was the initial aggressor.

The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order granting defendant Dru Allard’s motion to dismiss the indictment under CPL 30.30. It held that the defendant’s speedy‑trial arguments were properly preserved because he raised them at a hearing, even though he did not file a reply.

The Court affirmed the Appellate Division orders finding that the State met its clear‑and‑convincing‑evidence burden on both prongs of the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 mental abnormality test for Dennis K., Anthony N., and Richard TT., and rejected the respondents' challenges to the sufficiency of the diagnoses and…

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a consent order concerning the defendant's misconduct with other patients, which was unduly prejudicial.

The New York Court of Appeals answered two certified questions: (1) FAA/DOT drug‑testing regulations do not create a New York negligence duty of care for laboratories or program administrators beyond professional‑standard testing, and (2) third‑party reliance on a defendant’s false statements does not satisfy the…

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that the SORA court did not err in assessing points under risk factors 1, 5, and 9, nor did it abuse its discretion in declining a downward departure from a presumptive level‑three risk classification.

The Court held that trial courts may not categorically bar cross‑examination of police witnesses about prior misconduct alleged in unrelated federal lawsuits when the allegations are relevant to credibility, and applied an abuse‑of‑discretion standard. It affirmed the Appellate Division’s orders in People v.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed that Crane Co. owed a duty to warn users of its valves about the asbestos hazards inherent in the combined use with third‑party gaskets, packing and insulation, articulated a test requiring that the third‑party product be necessary for the valve to function as intended, and held…

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's denial of the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, holding that the lower courts did not abuse their discretion because the hospital records did not evince actual knowledge of injury.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and held that the common‑interest doctrine is limited to communications made in furtherance of a common legal interest in pending or reasonably anticipated litigation; therefore the privileged communications between Bank of America and Countrywide related…

The Court held that a trial court's failure to provide a meaningful response to a jury's substantive note, when counsel had meaningful notice of the note's content, does not constitute a mode of proceedings error and therefore requires preservation; the Appellate Division erred in reversing without such preservation…

The New York Court of Appeals answered two certified questions from the Delaware Supreme Court, holding that (1) all‑sums allocation applies when excess policies contain non‑cumulation or prior‑insurance provisions, and (2) vertical exhaustion, not horizontal exhaustion, governs the attachment of higher‑layer excess…

The Court held that the DNA laboratory reports introduced at trial were testimonial statements, violating the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, and therefore reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial.

The Court held that the defendant failed to preserve his claim challenging the validity of his guilty plea, so the appellate division's reversal was procedurally improper; the order is reversed and the case remanded for further consideration.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that the drug factory presumption under Penal Law § 220.25(2) was properly applied to the facts and that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed because the decision not to testify before the grand jury was a strategic…

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the appellate court acted within its statutory authority in reviewing the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, that the rebuttal testimony on the defense witness’s bias was admissible, that expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse…

The Court held that the defendant's prior Washington, D.C. conviction for attempted robbery does not satisfy New York's predicate felony requirement for a second felony offender designation, that the defendant did not waive his right to challenge that determination, and that the challenge is preserved for review in…

The New York Court of Appeals held that a medical provider who administers medication that may impair a patient’s ability to drive has a duty to warn the patient for the benefit of foreseeable third‑party motorists, and therefore denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that the misdemeanor information alleging the defendant possessed burnt drug residue was facially sufficient to constitute a prima facie case of seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance.

The New York Court of Appeals held that a contract choice‑of‑law clause that designates New York law applies only to New York substantive law and does not incorporate New York’s statutory choice‑of‑law directive EPTL § 3‑5.1(b)(2), answering the first certified question in the negative and declining to answer the…

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Term orders, holding that the defendants' plea allocutions were sufficient to establish a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea, that preservation issues did not bar review, and that a trial judge need not enumerate every constitutional right waived during the colloquy.

The Court reversed the Appellate Term, reinstating the defendant's conviction for forcible touching because the accusatory instrument contained sufficient factual allegations to establish all elements of the crime and the defendant did not implicitly waive his right to be prosecuted by information.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed Willie L. Wragg's conviction for first‑degree sexual abuse and the sentencing as a second child sexual assault felony offender. The court held that Wragg did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecutor's filing of a predicate offender statement after…

The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the surveillance video was direct evidence of larceny, that the defendant's statement was only circumstantial evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a mistrial.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Raymond Denson for attempted kidnapping in the second degree, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Denson's prior sex crime conviction to prove intent and that the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Court held that a trial court's failure to discuss a substantive jury note with counsel before recalling the jury, while reading the note verbatim into the record, does not constitute a mode of proceedings error; therefore, the error is subject to the preservation rule and the conviction was reversed and remanded.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and ordered a new trial, holding that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s misrepresentations of DNA evidence during closing argument, and that such prosecutorial misconduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

The New York Court of Appeals held that the statute of frauds does not bar quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims for five of the nine advisory service project groups, and therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss those portions of the amended complaint, affirming the modified order of the Appellate Division.

The New York Court of Appeals held that a sentencing court must make a record determination of youthful offender eligibility for any defendant convicted of an armed felony (or enumerated sex offense) by evaluating the CPL 720.10(3) factors, even when the defendant does not request such treatment or waives it.

The New York Court of Appeals held that the County Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to adjourn the defendant's SORA reclassification hearing, and affirmed that a petitioner is entitled to access the Board's documents in a reclassification proceeding.