New York Law Review

Author: The New York Law Review

  • People v. Jones, 24 N.Y.3d 62 (2014): Overruling Crimmins on Review of Discretion in Newly Discovered Evidence

    24 N.Y.3d 62 (2014)

    The New York Court of Appeals can review lower courts’ discretionary denials of motions to vacate judgments based on newly discovered evidence (CPL 440.10[1][g]) to determine if there was an abuse of discretion, overruling the prior limitations set forth in People v. Crimmins.

    Summary

    Jones, convicted of rape, murder, and attempted robbery in 1981, sought to vacate his conviction based on newly discovered mtDNA evidence that excluded him as the source of hairs found at the crime scene. The lower courts summarily denied his motion without a hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed, explicitly overruling its prior holding in People v. Crimmins, which had held that such discretionary denials were not reviewable by the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Appellate Division abused its discretion by not holding a hearing, given the significant DNA evidence and the People’s failure to present admissible evidence rebutting Jones’s claims.

    Facts

    In 1980, a woman was raped and a man was murdered in an apartment building. The rape victim identified Jones as the perpetrator. At trial, the victim’s testimony was the primary evidence against Jones. In 2008, Jones sought DNA testing of evidence from his trial, including a baseball cap found at the scene. mtDNA testing excluded Jones as the source of three hairs from the cap. DNA testing of fingernail scrapings from the victim also excluded Jones as a contributor. The rape victim was a heroin addict and admitted to using heroin on the day she identified the defendant in the lineup.

    Procedural History

    A jury convicted Jones in 1981. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. In 2008, Jones moved for DNA testing under CPL 440.30(1-a). After receiving mtDNA results, Jones moved to vacate his conviction under CPL 440.10(1)(g). Supreme Court summarily denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that even assuming the reliability of the mtDNA evidence, Jones hadn’t established a legal basis for a new trial. A dissenting Justice of the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Court of Appeals has the power to review the Appellate Division’s summary denial of a motion to vacate a judgment based on newly discovered evidence under CPL 440.10(1)(g)?

    2. Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in affirming the Supreme Court’s summary denial of Jones’s motion to vacate his conviction without a hearing, given the mtDNA evidence excluding him as a contributor?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the Court of Appeals’ power to review discretionary orders extends to determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, which constitutes a reviewable question of law.

    2. Yes, because the significant DNA evidence favorable to Jones, coupled with the People’s failure to proffer admissible evidence in opposition, entitled Jones to a hearing on his motion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court overruled People v. Crimmins, which had held that the Court of Appeals lacked the power to review discretionary denials of CPL 440.10(1)(g) motions. The Court reasoned that CPL 450.90(1) grants the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to review adverse orders from intermediate appellate courts. While the Court cannot weigh facts in non-capital cases, it can determine whether the lower courts abused their discretion as a matter of law, which is a reviewable legal question. The Court emphasized that forensic DNA testing has become a reliable means of connecting individuals to crimes and exonerating the wrongfully convicted. The Court found that Jones presented admissible evidence (the mtDNA report) supporting his claim, while the People’s opposition consisted of inadmissible hearsay. The Court stated: “[W]here… there is significant DNA evidence favorable to the defendant and the People proffer no admissible evidence in opposition to that evidence, defendant is, at the very least, entitled to a hearing on his motion.” In a concurring opinion, Judge Abdus-Salaam argued that CPL 440.30(5) mandates a hearing when the motion alleges a legal basis for relief and the statutory conditions for summary denial are not met.

  • People v. Giles, People v. Hawkins, 24 N.Y.3d 125 (2014): Scope of CPL 330.30(1) and Constitutionality of Persistent Felony Offender Sentencing

    24 N.Y.3d 125 (2014)

    r
    r

    CPL 330.30(1) motions to set aside a verdict must be based on matters already in the trial record, and matters outside the record cannot be introduced for the first time in such motions.

    r
    r

    Summary

    r

    These cases concern the procedural limitations of CPL 330.30(1) motions and the constitutionality of sentencing defendants as persistent felony offenders. The Court of Appeals held that defendants’ motions to set aside the verdict were procedurally improper because they relied on matters outside the existing trial record, which is not permitted under CPL 330.30(1). The court also upheld the constitutionality of the defendant’s sentencing as a persistent felony offender, finding no merit in the challenge. The court did not express an opinion on whether a trial court has the authority to consider a CPL 330.30(1) motion as a premature de facto CPL 440.10 motion in certain cases because the trial court neither deemed the motion to be a premature CPL 440.10 motion nor decided the motion in accordance with the criteria and procedures delineated in CPL 440.30.

    r
    r

    Facts

    r

    In People v. Hawkins, the defendant moved to set aside the verdict, alleging a denial of the right to a public trial based on affirmations from attorneys stating they couldn’t enter the courtroom. This information was not part of the original trial record.

    r

    In People v. Giles, the facts relevant to the CPL 330.30 motion are not explicitly detailed, but the defendant challenged the constitutionality of his sentencing as a persistent felony offender.

    r
    r

    Procedural History

    r

    In People v. Hawkins, the Criminal Court granted the motion to set aside the verdict, but the Appellate Term reversed, reinstating the verdict.

    r

    In People v. Giles, the specific lower court procedural history regarding the CPL 330.30 motion isn’t detailed. The case reached the Court of Appeals concerning the persistent felony offender sentencing.

    r
    r

    Issue(s)

    r

    1. Whether a CPL 330.30(1) motion can be based on matters outside the existing trial record.

    r

    2. Whether sentencing a defendant as a persistent felony offender under New York law violates the constitution.

    r
    r

    Holding

    r

    1. No, because CPL 330.30(1) explicitly states that the motion must be based on grounds that

  • Trump Village Section 3, Inc. v. New York City Department of Finance, 22 N.Y.3d 453 (2013): Real Property Transfer Tax and Mitchell-Lama Cooperative Privatization

    22 N.Y.3d 453 (2013)

    A residential housing cooperative corporation’s termination of participation in the Mitchell-Lama program and amendment of its certificate of incorporation as part of its voluntary dissolution and reconstitution as a cooperative corporation governed by the Business Corporation Law does not constitute a taxable transfer under Tax Law § 1201 (b) and section 11-2102 (a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.

    Summary

    Trump Village, a Mitchell-Lama cooperative, sought a declaratory judgment that its exit from the Mitchell-Lama program and reconstitution as a Business Corporation Law (BCL) corporation did not trigger the New York City Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). The Department of Finance argued that the reconstitution was effectively a conveyance of real property. The Court of Appeals held that amending the certificate of incorporation was not a taxable event because it did not constitute a conveyance of real property from one entity to another. The RPTT applies to deeds transferring real property interests, and the amendment did not meet this definition.

    Facts

    Trump Village Section 3, Inc. was incorporated in 1961 as a Mitchell-Lama cooperative. In 2007, Trump Village, with shareholder approval and state permission, terminated its participation in the Mitchell-Lama program. It amended its certificate of incorporation to reconstitute itself as a corporation under the Business Corporation Law (BCL), removing itself from the restrictions of the Private Housing Finance Law.

    Procedural History

    The New York City Department of Finance issued a Notice of Determination to Trump Village for a tax deficiency exceeding $21 million, asserting that the exit from the Mitchell-Lama program constituted a conveyance subject to RPTT. Trump Village sued, seeking a declaration that the RPTT was inapplicable. The Supreme Court ruled for the Department of Finance. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Trump Village. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a taxable transfer pursuant to Tax Law § 1201 (b) and section 11-2102 (a) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York occurs when a residential housing cooperative corporation terminates its participation in the Mitchell-Lama program and amends its certificate of incorporation as part of its voluntary dissolution and reconstitution as a cooperative corporation governed by the Business Corporation Law?

    Holding

    No, because the amendment of the certificate of incorporation to reconstitute the corporation under the Business Corporation Law does not constitute a conveyance or transfer of real property as required to trigger the Real Property Transfer Tax.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals determined that the RPTT, under section 11-2102 (a) of the Administrative Code, is imposed on each “deed” at the time of delivery. A deed is defined as a document conveying real property or an interest therein. The Court rejected the Department of Finance’s argument that the amendment to the certificate of incorporation qualified as a “deed.” The court emphasized the plain language of the statute requires a conveyance from one entity to another. The court stated that doubts concerning a taxing statute’s scope and application are to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, citing Debevoise & Plimpton v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 80 NY2d 657, 661 (1993).

    Further, the Court reasoned that Trump Village remained the same corporation, merely amending its certificate of incorporation rather than forming a new entity. The Court highlighted that the Private Housing Finance Law provides two options for privatization: conveyance of title or reconstitution via amendment. Trump Village chose the latter. The court dismissed the argument that the amendment radically altered the business, clarifying that the RPTT taxes conveyances, not changes in the corporation’s purpose. The court emphasized that the RPTT would still be collected on the sale of individual apartment shares.

    Finally, the Court distinguished East Midtown Plaza Hous. Co., Inc. v Cuomo, 20 NY3d 161 (2012), noting that it concerned Martin Act disclosure requirements related to shareholder rights and did not support imposing the RPTT in a Mitchell-Lama privatization.

  • Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course, 24 N.Y.3d 558 (2014): Defining “Arm of the Tribe” for Sovereign Immunity

    Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving, Inc. v. Lewiston Golf Course Corp., 24 N.Y.3d 558 (2014)

    A corporation owned by a Native American tribe is not automatically entitled to the tribe’s sovereign immunity; courts must examine various factors, with financial independence being paramount, to determine if the corporation functions as an “arm of the tribe.”

    Summary

    Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving sued Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Seneca Nation of Indians, for breach of contract. Lewiston Golf claimed sovereign immunity. The New York Court of Appeals held that Lewiston Golf was not entitled to the Seneca Nation’s sovereign immunity because, despite being tribally owned and operated, its charter explicitly shielded the Seneca Nation’s assets from Lewiston Golf’s liabilities, making it financially independent and not truly an “arm” of the tribe. This decision emphasizes the importance of financial factors in determining whether a tribal entity qualifies for sovereign immunity.

    Facts

    The Seneca Nation chartered Seneca Gaming Corporation to develop gaming facilities. Seneca Gaming then created Seneca Niagara Falls Gaming Corporation to operate a casino. Seneca Niagara created Lewiston Golf Course Corporation to develop a golf course near the casino. Sue/Perior contracted with Lewiston Golf to build the course. A payment dispute arose, and Sue/Perior filed a mechanic’s lien and a foreclosure action. Lewiston Golf claimed sovereign immunity.

    Procedural History

    Sue/Perior sued Lewiston Golf in New York State Supreme Court. Lewiston Golf moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding Lewiston Golf was not an “arm” of the Seneca Nation. Lewiston Golf appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Lewiston Golf, a corporation indirectly owned by the Seneca Nation, is entitled to the Nation’s sovereign immunity from suit.

    Holding

    1. No, because Lewiston Golf’s charter ensures it cannot obligate the Seneca Nation’s funds, and therefore a lawsuit against Lewiston Golf will not impact the Nation’s fiscal resources. This financial independence indicates that Lewiston Golf is not an “arm” of the tribe for sovereign immunity purposes.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court applied the factors from Matter of Ransom v. St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Community Fund, 86 N.Y.2d 553 (1995), to determine if Lewiston Golf was an “arm” of the Seneca Nation. While Lewiston Golf was organized under tribal law and its governing body consisted of tribal officials, the Court emphasized the importance of financial factors. The Court noted that Lewiston Golf’s charter explicitly stated that its debts would not encumber Seneca Nation assets and that the Nation would not be liable for Lewiston Golf’s obligations. The Court reasoned that this demonstrated a clear intent to keep Lewiston Golf financially separate from the Seneca Nation. The court distinguished the case from *Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.* (523 US 751 [1998]), because Kiowa dealt with suits against tribes themselves, not corporate affiliates. The Court reasoned that because a judgment against Lewiston Golf would not reach the Seneca Nation’s assets, the Nation was not the real party in interest, and Lewiston Golf was not entitled to sovereign immunity. The dissent argued that the majority improperly prioritized financial factors over the purpose and structure of Lewiston Golf, which was created to benefit the Seneca Nation’s gaming operations and its members. The dissent asserted that Lewiston Golf should be treated the same as Seneca Gaming and Seneca Niagara Falls Gaming, which lower courts had found to be arms of the Nation. The majority responded that it was not bound by lower federal court decisions and that the question of whether Seneca Gaming and Seneca Niagara Falls Gaming were entitled to sovereign immunity was not before the court.

  • Kimso Apartments, LLC v. Gandhi, 24 N.Y.3d 403 (2014): Amending Pleadings at Trial When No Prejudice Exists

    24 N.Y.3d 403 (2014)

    A party can amend pleadings, even after trial, if the opposing party isn’t prejudiced, especially when the initial pleadings and trial evidence indicate a clear understanding of the issues and potential liabilities.

    Summary

    Kimso Apartments, LLC v. Gandhi concerns a dispute arising from a real estate partnership dissolution. The corporations (controlled by Filler and Shah) sued Gandhi seeking a declaratory judgment allowing them to offset debt Gandhi owed them (shareholder loans) against payments they owed him under a settlement agreement. Gandhi counterclaimed. The key issue arose when Gandhi sought to amend his pleadings during trial to include a counterclaim for unpaid settlement payments. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the amendment should have been allowed because the corporations weren’t prejudiced, as their own pleadings and trial strategy acknowledged their payment obligations to Gandhi.

    Facts

    Gandhi, Filler, and Shah were equal partners in real estate corporations. After disputes arose, they entered into a settlement agreement where Gandhi sold his shares for installment payments. The corporations later sued Gandhi, seeking to offset the remaining settlement payments against the balance of shareholder loans Gandhi owed the corporations. Gandhi answered and counterclaimed. He sought to amend his pleadings during trial to assert a counterclaim for the unpaid settlement payments.

    Procedural History

    The corporations sued Gandhi in New York State court. Gandhi filed counterclaims. Supreme Court granted Gandhi’s motion to amend his pleadings to include the counterclaim for unpaid settlement payments and entered judgment in his favor. The Appellate Division reversed, finding Gandhi’s request was barred by laches and prejudiced the corporations. The New York Court of Appeals granted Gandhi leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion by reversing the trial court’s decision to allow Gandhi to amend his pleadings at trial to include a counterclaim for unpaid settlement payments.

    Holding

    Yes, because the corporations weren’t prejudiced by the amendment as they acknowledged the debt, and introduced evidence regarding the settlement agreement terms themselves.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that CPLR 3025 allows parties to amend pleadings with leave of the court, and such leave should be “freely given.” Prejudice requires more than just greater liability; it requires hindering the opposing party’s case preparation. The Court found no prejudice to the corporations because (1) their amended complaint admitted liability for payments to Gandhi under the settlement agreement, constituting a judicial admission, and (2) they introduced evidence at trial establishing the settlement agreement terms. The court cited Murray v. City of New York, 43 N.Y.2d 400 (1977), stating, “When a variance develops between a pleading and proof admitted at the instance or with the acquiescence of a party, such party cannot later claim . . . surprise [ ] or prejudice [ ] and the motion to conform should be granted.” Delay alone doesn’t bar amendment if there’s no prejudice. Allowing the amendment was proper since the corporations built their case on the fact of their admitted payment obligations. As such, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order and remitted the case, concluding that “where the corporations admitted that they owed Gandhi the unpaid installments under the settlement agreement and the trial evidence established as much, there was no operative prejudice to the corporations in allowing Gandhi’s amendment to assert the counterclaim for all outstanding payments.”

  • People v. Spears, 24 N.Y.3d 1030 (2014): Trial Court Discretion on Adjournment Requests at Sentencing

    24 N.Y.3d 1030 (2014)

    A trial court has discretion to deny a defendant’s request for an adjournment at sentencing, especially when the defendant has had ample time to confer with counsel and fails to articulate a valid ground for withdrawing a guilty plea.

    Summary

    Kelvin Spears pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the second degree and requested an adjournment at sentencing to explore withdrawing his plea. The trial court denied the request, finding he had sufficient time to consult with counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Spears had ample opportunity to confer with counsel and failed to articulate a ground for plea withdrawal. The dissent argued the trial court’s refusal was an abuse of discretion given the circumstances of the case.

    Facts

    Kelvin Spears was indicted for first-degree sexual abuse. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree sexual abuse and was released on his own recognizance. Over two months later, at sentencing, Spears requested an adjournment to discuss potentially withdrawing his plea. He stated he hadn’t been able to reach his counsel to address certain issues. His counsel had spoken with him the morning of the sentencing and also requested an adjournment.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court denied the adjournment and sentenced Spears per the plea agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the adjournment. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment at sentencing to discuss a potential motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant had more than a fair amount of time to speak with counsel regarding withdrawing his plea and failed to articulate a ground upon which the plea could be withdrawn.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that granting an adjournment is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. The court emphasized that Spears had ample time to consult with counsel after being released and before sentencing. Although he contacted his lawyer the day before sentencing, counsel spoke with him the morning of sentencing. Crucially, neither Spears nor his counsel articulated any specific grounds for withdrawing the plea. The court indicated it would have considered an adjournment if such grounds had been presented. The court found that “absent any indication that defendant had grounds to support a plea withdrawal, Supreme Court refusal to grant the adjournment was not an abuse of discretion.”

    The dissent argued that the court should consider the series of events leading up to the request, including the defendant’s pretrial detention and what the dissent characterized as a one-sided process. The dissent pointed to People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338 (1967), arguing that a sound discretion exercised on an individual basis is better than mandating a uniform procedure. The dissent concluded that a simple adjournment would have harmed no one and demonstrated a more balanced approach.

  • People v. Allen, 25 N.Y.3d 444 (2015): Preservation Required for Duplicity Arguments Based on Trial Evidence

    People v. Allen, 25 N.Y.3d 444 (2015)

    A duplicity argument based on trial evidence, where the count is not duplicitous on the face of the indictment, must be preserved for appeal by timely objection.

    Summary

    Allen was convicted of murder and attempted murder. The attempted murder charge became potentially duplicitous at trial when evidence of two separate incidents involving the defendant pointing a gun at the victim emerged. The New York Court of Appeals held that a duplicity argument based on trial evidence, as opposed to a facially duplicitous indictment, must be preserved with a timely objection to be raised on appeal. Allen’s failure to object during the trial to the potential duplicity of the attempted murder charge waived his right to raise the issue on appeal. The Court also found that the lineup identification, even if improperly admitted, was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

    Facts

    On June 22, 2008, Allen attempted to shoot the victim but the gun misfired. Approximately ten minutes later, Allen shot the victim, resulting in his death. The victim’s wife witnessed some of the events and identified Allen in a police lineup. Ballistics evidence linked the bullet recovered from the scene to the bullet recovered from the victim’s body. Allen was charged with murder and attempted murder. During the trial, evidence of both the initial misfire and the later shooting was presented.

    Procedural History

    Allen was convicted on all counts in Supreme Court. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by directing that all terms of imprisonment run concurrently, and affirmed the conviction as modified, holding that the duplicity argument was unpreserved and that any error in denying the motion to suppress the lineup identification was harmless. Allen appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a duplicity argument based on trial evidence must be preserved for appeal where the count is not duplicitous on the face of the indictment.

    Holding

    No, because issues of non-facial duplicity, like those of facial duplicity, must be preserved for appellate review to prevent unnecessary surprise after the conduct of a complete trial.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that to allow an unpreserved claim of duplicitousness to be raised on appeal would open the door to abuse. Defendants could strategically choose not to object at trial and then raise the issue on appeal if convicted. Quoting People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 651 (2011), the Court stated, “To expand the definition of ‘mode of proceedings’ error too freely would create many such anomalous results.” The Court emphasized that any uncertainty regarding the basis of the attempted murder count could have been easily remedied with an objection during opening statements, witness testimony, or to the jury charge. The Court also held that the admission of the lineup identification, even if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of the “overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt,” including three eyewitnesses, ballistics evidence, a confession, and Allen’s attempts to avoid arrest. Regarding the limitation on cross-examination, the Court noted that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the police reports were inadmissible extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter, because the reports were based on secondhand information and the source of the information was not directly from the victim’s wife. Citing People v. Owens, 74 N.Y.2d 677, 678 (1989), the court stated that the lineup idenfitication must be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when considered in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

  • People v. Argyris, 23 N.Y.3d 177 (2014): Anonymous Tips and Reasonable Suspicion

    People v. Argyris, 23 N.Y.3d 177 (2014)

    An anonymous tip can provide reasonable suspicion for a vehicle stop if it contains sufficient indicia of reliability under the totality of the circumstances or satisfies the Aguilar-Spinelli test.

    Summary

    This case addresses the standard for police stops based on anonymous tips. The Court of Appeals considered three separate cases with similar fact patterns. In Argyris and DiSalvo, the Court upheld the vehicle stops based on a 911 call reporting a gun in a car. In Johnson, the court suppressed evidence from a stop initiated by a 911 call about a possible intoxicated driver. The key issue was whether the anonymous tips provided reasonable suspicion for the stops. The majority found the Argyris/DiSalvo tip reliable but the Johnson tip unreliable, though different justices disagreed on the appropriate standard to apply (totality of the circumstances vs. Aguilar-Spinelli). The decision underscores the complexities of relying on anonymous tips for law enforcement action and the ongoing debate in New York regarding the proper legal framework for assessing the reliability of such tips.

    Facts

    <p>Argyris/DiSalvo: An anonymous 911 caller reported seeing men put a gun in a black Mustang. Police located the car and stopped it, finding weapons. </p>
    <p>Johnson: An anonymous 911 caller reported a possible intoxicated driver in a blue BMW. A deputy stopped the car after observing a minor traffic violation outside his jurisdiction.</p>

    Procedural History

    <p>Argyris/DiSalvo: The trial court initially granted a motion to suppress but reversed itself on reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed.</p>
    <p>Johnson: The Town Court denied a motion to suppress. County Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, granted the suppression motion, and dismissed the accusatory instrument.</p>

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether an anonymous tip can provide reasonable suspicion for a vehicle stop.

    2. What standard should be used to determine the reliability of an anonymous tip: totality of the circumstances or the Aguilar-Spinelli test?

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the tip had sufficient indicia of reliability (Argyris/DiSalvo) but no, because the tip was unreliable (Johnson).

    2. The court did not come to a consensus. Four judges found reasonable suspicion, agreeing that the tip in Argyris/DiSalvo was reliable and the tip in Johnson was not; Smith and Pigott, JJ., favored the totality of the circumstances test and Abdus-Salaam and Graffeo, JJ., favored the Aguilar-Spinelli test. Read, J., dissented (in Argyris/DiSalvo) in an opinion stating, essentially, the anonymous tips must contain “predictive information”. Rivera, J., dissented (in Argyris/DiSalvo) in an opinion emphasizing that predictive information must be provided in the tip.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The majority memorandum opinion stated that regardless of whether they apply a totality of the circumstances test or the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, record support exists for the lower courts’ findings that the stops were lawful in Argyris and DiSalvo. They stated that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendants’ vehicle based on the contents of a 911 call from an anonymous individual and the confirmatory observations of the police. The absence of predictive information in the tip was not fatal to its reliability under these circumstances.

    Smith, J., concurring, argued that the Aguilar-Spinelli test needlessly complicates reasonable suspicion analysis and that a totality-of-the-circumstances approach is preferable.

    Abdus-Salaam, J., concurring, advocated for the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, suggesting that hearsay information cannot provide an officer with probable cause unless the hearsay report reveals a reliable basis for the informant’s knowledge and shows that the informant is generally credible. Furthermore, the determination of whether a tip provides the police with probable cause or reasonable suspicion depends on the quality of the tip’s description of the crime itself, as opposed to its statements regarding the suspect’s physical appearance and non-criminal conduct.

    Read, J., dissenting in Argyris and DiSalvo, emphasized the importance of predictive information in anonymous tips. She stated, “We have held that an anonymous tip supplies reasonable suspicion only if it ‘contains predictive information—such as information suggestive of criminal behavior—so that the police can test the reliability of the tip’ (People v Moore, 6 NY3d 496, 499 [2006]; see generally Rivera dissenting op at 14-18 [discussing Moore]).”

    Rivera, J., dissenting in Argyris and DiSalvo, argued that anonymous tips must contain predictive information to justify forcible stops and that the Aguilar-Spinelli test, requiring the informant is reliable and there is a basis for the knowledge of the informant’s tip, should be used. "[A]n anonymous tip must ‘contain[] predictive information — such as information of criminal behavior — so that the police can test the reliability of the tip’" (

  • Nesmith v. Allstate Insurance Co., 24 N.Y.3d 183 (2014): Interpreting Non-Cumulation Clauses in Insurance Policies

    Nesmith v. Allstate Insurance Co., 24 N.Y.3d 183 (2014)

    When a liability insurance policy contains a non-cumulation clause, successive injuries arising from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions constitute a single accidental loss, limiting the insurer’s liability to one policy limit, regardless of the number of injured parties or claims.

    Summary

    This case addresses the interpretation of a non-cumulation clause in successive liability insurance policies issued to a landlord. Two families, the Youngs and the Nesmiths, lived in the same apartment at different times, and children in both families suffered lead poisoning. Allstate paid the Youngs’ claim but argued that the non-cumulation clause limited total liability to one policy limit, precluding full payment to the Nesmiths. The court held that the injuries resulted from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions, constituting a single accidental loss under the policy. Thus, Allstate’s liability was capped at the single policy limit, consistent with the holding in Hiraldo v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    Facts

    Allstate issued liability insurance to a landlord from September 1991, renewing it annually through September 1993. The policy had a $500,000 limit for each occurrence and contained a non-cumulation clause. The Young family lived in the insured property from November 1992 to September 1993. A child in the Young family was found to have elevated blood lead levels in July 1993, and the Department of Health notified the landlord of lead paint violations. After the Youngs moved out, the Nesmith family moved in. In December 1994, a child in the Nesmith family was also found to have elevated blood lead levels. Both families sued the landlord for personal injuries caused by lead paint exposure.

    Procedural History

    The Youngs’ action was settled for $350,000, paid by Allstate. The Nesmiths settled their claim, reserving the issue of policy limits. Allstate paid $150,000, claiming it was the remaining coverage. Nesmith then sued Allstate for a declaratory judgment, arguing each family’s claim was subject to a separate $500,000 limit. The Supreme Court granted the declaration sought by Nesmith. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that, under Hiraldo, the injuries resulted from continuous exposure to the same general conditions, constituting one accidental loss. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, under the terms of the Allstate insurance policy’s non-cumulation clause, the injuries sustained by the Young children and the Nesmith children, resulting from lead paint exposure in the same apartment at different times, constitute a single "accidental loss," thereby limiting Allstate’s liability to a single policy limit of $500,000.

    Holding

    No, because the injuries sustained by the Young children and the Nesmith children resulted from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions (lead paint) in the same apartment, constituting a single accidental loss under the policy’s non-cumulation clause.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court relied heavily on its prior decision in Hiraldo, which interpreted a similar non-cumulation clause. The court emphasized that the policy language limited Allstate’s total liability to the amount on the declarations page, regardless of the number of injured persons, claims, or policies involved. The court rejected Nesmith’s argument that the injuries were separate losses because they did not result from exposure to the same general conditions. The court reasoned that both families were exposed to the same hazard (lead paint) in the same apartment. The court stated, “Perhaps they were not exposed to exactly the same conditions; but to say that the ‘general conditions’ were not the same would deprive the word ‘general’ of all meaning.” The court dismissed the argument that the landlord’s attempted remediation efforts created new conditions, finding no evidence of a new lead paint hazard. Because the same general conditions persisted, the injuries were part of a single "accidental loss," and only one policy limit applied. The dissenting opinion argued that this interpretation was inconsistent with the reasonable expectations of the insured, who would have expected each renewal to provide additional coverage for lead paint claims.

  • Borden v. 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P., 24 N.Y.3d 382 (2014): Class Action Allowed for Rent Overcharges Despite Treble Damages Provision

    Borden v. 400 E. 55th St. Assoc., L.P., 24 N.Y.3d 382 (2014)

    CPLR 901(b) permits class actions to recover compensatory rent overcharges under Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P., even if the Rent Stabilization Law doesn’t explicitly authorize class actions and imposes treble damages for willful violations, provided the plaintiffs waive the treble damages claim.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether tenants can bring a class action lawsuit to recover rent overcharges resulting from improper deregulation under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) after landlords received J-51 tax benefits. The Court of Appeals held that CPLR 901(b) allows such class actions, even though the RSL doesn’t explicitly allow for class actions and provides for treble damages. The Court reasoned that the base rent overcharge is compensatory, not a penalty, and tenants can unilaterally waive treble damages to proceed with a class action, aligning with the intent of the CPLR and RSL to provide an effective remedy for tenants.

    Facts

    Plaintiffs, current or former tenants, claimed rent overcharges because their apartments were improperly decontrolled while the landlords were receiving J-51 tax abatements. This claim was based on the NY Court of Appeals’ prior holding in Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. Initially, the plaintiffs sought treble damages in their complaints but then waived that demand through attorney affirmation.

    Procedural History

    In Borden, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s grant of class certification. In Gudz, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s grant of class certification. In Downing, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint and reinstated it. Each case reached the Court of Appeals after the Appellate Division certified a question to the Court.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether CPLR 901(b) permits plaintiffs to utilize the class action mechanism to recover compensatory overcharges under Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P. when the Rent Stabilization Law does not specifically authorize class action recovery and imposes treble damages upon a finding of willful violation.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the recovery of the base amount of rent overcharge is actual, compensatory damages, not a penalty, within the meaning of CPLR 901(b), and it does not contravene the letter or the spirit of the RSL or CPLR 901(b) to permit tenants to waive treble damages in these circumstances when done unilaterally and through counsel.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that CPLR 901(b) prohibits class actions for penalties unless specifically authorized by statute, but the statute’s language allows for class-action recovery of actual damages, even when a statute provides for treble damages. The legislative history supports a liberal interpretation of CPLR 901(b), intending to allow plaintiffs to waive penalties to pursue class actions for actual damages. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs sought a refund of overcharges, which constitutes actual damages, and CPLR 901(b) was not meant to bar such actions.

    The Court further addressed policy considerations, noting that class actions address information asymmetry and economies of scale, enabling tenants to pursue claims they might not otherwise bring individually. The Court distinguished the RSL from other statutes, such as General Business Law § 340(5), where treble damages are mandatory and cannot be waived. Because the RSL allows a landlord to disprove willfulness and avoid treble damages, the treble damages provision is not mandatory, allowing for waiver.

    The Court also rejected the argument that unilateral waiver of treble damages violates Section 2520.13 of the Rent Stabilization Code, which prohibits agreements waiving RSL provisions. The Court reasoned that a unilateral waiver, particularly when supported by court order and made with counsel representation, complies with the law’s intent. In Roberts cases, landlords often followed DHCR guidance when deregulating units, making a finding of willfulness unlikely, further justifying the waiver.

    Regarding class certification under CPLR 901(a), the Court found the lower courts’ evaluations adequate, noting the numerosity of class members, the predominance of common legal questions (whether apartments were unlawfully deregulated under Roberts), and the adequacy of class representation, especially given the opt-out provision. The Court referenced the legislative history that contemplated classes involving as few as 18 members “where the members would have difficulty communicating with each other, such as where ‘barriers of distance, cost, language, income, education or lack of information prevent those who are aware of their rights from communicating with others similarly situated’”.

    The Court quoted Mohassel v. Fenwick, stating that the provisions of RSL § 26-516(a) “establish the penalty as the amount of the overcharge plus interest… are designed… to compensate the tenant.”

    In conclusion, the Court held that maintaining the actions as class actions does not contravene the letter or the spirit of the CPLR or Rent Stabilization Law.