New York Law Review

Author: The New York Law Review

  • Sierra v. 4401 Sunset Park, LLC, 22 N.Y.3d 108 (2013): Notice of Disclaimer Must Be Sent Directly to Insured

    Sierra v. 4401 Sunset Park, LLC, 22 N.Y.3d 108 (2013)

    Under New York Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2), when an insurer disclaims liability, it must provide written notice of the disclaimer directly to the insured party, even if that party is an additional insured under a policy obtained by a contractor, and notice to the insured’s own insurance carrier is insufficient.

    Summary

    4401 Sunset Park, LLC, and Sierra Realty Corp. (collectively, “Sunset Park”) contracted with LM Interiors Contracting, LLC (“LM”). Their contract required LM to obtain liability insurance naming Sunset Park as additional insureds, which LM did through Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”). Sunset Park also had their own insurance with Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”). After an LM employee was injured, he sued Sunset Park, who then notified GNY. GNY notified Scottsdale, who disclaimed coverage but only notified GNY, not Sunset Park. The court held that Scottsdale’s disclaimer was ineffective because it failed to notify Sunset Park directly, as required by Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2).

    Facts

    Sunset Park owned and managed an apartment building and contracted with LM for renovations.
    The contract mandated LM to maintain liability insurance naming Sunset Park as additional insureds; LM obtained a policy from Scottsdale.
    Sunset Park also had their own liability insurance policy with GNY.
    An LM employee, Juan Sierra, was injured at the worksite on August 18, 2008.
    Sunset Park did not notify either GNY or Scottsdale of the accident immediately.
    Juan Sierra sued Sunset Park on November 30, 2008, prompting Sunset Park to notify GNY.
    GNY then notified Scottsdale of the claim on January 6, 2009, requesting a response regarding defense and indemnification.
    Scottsdale disclaimed liability on February 2, 2009, citing a failure to provide timely notice of the occurrence, but only notified GNY, not Sunset Park.

    Procedural History

    Sunset Park filed a third-party claim against LM and Scottsdale, asserting Scottsdale’s duty to defend and indemnify them.
    The Supreme Court granted summary judgment against Scottsdale.
    The Appellate Division affirmed, finding Scottsdale failed to comply with Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) by not notifying the additional insureds.
    The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, under Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2), an insurer’s disclaimer of liability is effective when notice is provided to the additional insured’s own insurance carrier but not directly to the additional insured themselves.

    Holding

    No, because Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) requires an insurer to provide written notice of a disclaimer of liability directly to the insured, and notice to the insured’s own insurance carrier does not satisfy this requirement.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized the explicit language of Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2), which mandates written notice of disclaimer “to the insured.” The court reasoned that GNY, as another insurer, was not an insured under Scottsdale’s policy, and therefore, notice to GNY was insufficient. It stated that while GNY notified Scottsdale on behalf of Sunset Park, this didn’t make GNY Sunset Park’s agent for receiving a disclaimer notice. The court noted the potential for conflicting interests between GNY and Sunset Park, especially regarding coverage disputes or policy limits. Because Sunset Park had their own interests at stake, they were entitled to direct notice. The court cited Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 105 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2013], stating that the obligation is “to give timely notice of disclaimer to the mutual insureds . . . not to . . . another insurer.” The court distinguished cases cited by Scottsdale, such as Excelsior Ins. Co. v Antretter Contr. Corp., 262 AD2d 124 [1st Dept 1999], noting that where those cases suggest notice to an additional insured’s carrier is sufficient, they should not be followed, as they undermine the statute’s clear requirement of direct notice to the insured.

  • Coleson v. City of New York, 20 N.Y.3d 455 (2013): Limits of Municipal Liability Based on Police Assurances

    Coleson v. City of New York, 20 N.Y.3d 455 (2013)

    A municipality can be held liable for negligence in performing a governmental function only where there is an affirmative undertaking by the municipality, which creates justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; vague assurances of protection, without specific details, are insufficient to establish such reliance.

    Summary

    This case addresses the circumstances under which a municipality can be held liable for the negligent performance of a governmental function, specifically police protection. The plaintiff, a victim of domestic violence, sued the City of New York, alleging that police assurances of protection led her to justifiably rely on them, resulting in her subsequent injury by her husband. The New York Court of Appeals held that the vague assurances provided by the police did not create a special relationship sufficient to impose liability on the City. The court emphasized the need for specific assurances and justifiable reliance for municipal liability to attach.

    Facts

    The plaintiff, Coleson, had a history of domestic violence with her husband, Samuel Coleson. Police arrested Samuel, and the court issued an order of protection for the plaintiff. After Samuel’s arrest, a police officer allegedly told the plaintiff that Samuel would be “in prison for a while, not to worry, [she] was going to be given protection.” The officer also contacted the plaintiff later that night, stating that Samuel was being sentenced and that police would “keep in contact.” Subsequently, Samuel was released, and he harmed the plaintiff.

    Procedural History

    The plaintiff sued the City of New York, alleging negligence. The trial court dismissed the claim. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a triable issue of fact regarding justifiable reliance. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified a question from the Second Circuit regarding municipal liability. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the vague assurances were insufficient to establish justifiable reliance and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for consideration of other issues.

    Issue(s)

    Whether vague assurances of protection made by a police officer to a victim of domestic violence, without specific details as to the type or extent of protection, can create a special relationship sufficient to impose liability on the municipality for the victim’s subsequent injury.

    Holding

    No, because the plaintiff’s reliance on the vague assurances of protection was not justifiable in the absence of a specific undertaking by the police. Liability requires an “affirmative undertaking” that creates justifiable reliance (Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 260 [1987]).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the police officer’s statement that the plaintiff would be given “protection” was too vague to create justifiable reliance. The court emphasized that there was no indication as to the type of protection to be provided, and the plaintiff did not inquire about the specifics. The court distinguished the case from situations where police made specific assurances, such as remaining in the vicinity or providing immediate assistance. The court cautioned against imposing liability based on vague promises, as it could deter police from communicating with victims. The dissent argued that the majority opinion discourages police from making any meaningful communication or action that could be construed as creating a special relationship. Quoting the dissent, statements such as, “It’s going to be okay,” or “We’ll send him away so he doesn’t hurt you again” will undoubtedly be utilized in potential civil suits as examples of assurances that the police made that had no “actual basis.” The court cited Dinardo v City of New York, 13 NY3d 872 (2009), reiterating that only an “affirmative undertaking” that creates justifiable reliance can justify holding a municipality liable for negligence in performing a governmental function. The court distinguished this case from De Long v. County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296 (1983), where a 911 operator’s assurance that help would be there “right away” played a role in the victim’s decision to remain home. The court effectively narrowed the scope of potential municipal liability in domestic violence cases, requiring specific and concrete assurances of protection before a special relationship can be established.

  • People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294 (2014): Duty to Respond to Jury Notes During Deliberations

    People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294 (2014)

    r
    r

    A trial court commits a mode of proceedings error when it accepts a verdict without acknowledging or responding to a substantive jury request for information during deliberations, thereby requiring a new trial.

    r
    r

    Summary

    r

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a mode of proceedings error occurred when trial courts accepted verdicts without acknowledging or responding to substantive jury requests for information during deliberations in two separate cases, People v. Silva and People v. Hanson. In both cases, the juries sent notes requesting evidence or clarification, but the records did not show that the court acknowledged or responded to these requests before the juries returned their verdicts. The Court of Appeals held that the trial courts’ failure to address the jury notes constituted a mode of proceedings error, requiring new trials, because it violated the court’s core responsibility to provide meaningful notice to counsel and a meaningful response to the jury, as established in People v. O’Rama.

    r
    r

    Facts

    r

    In People v. Silva, the jury requested “the wire transcript mentioning the gun” and “the judges [sic] instructions on count #3 – weapon possession.” Shortly after, the jury indicated it reached a verdict, convicting Silva. The record lacked proof the court addressed the jury’s request. In People v. Hanson, the jury requested the “First Det. Statement” and to hear a detective’s direct examination. A short time later, the jury reached a verdict, convicting Hanson. As with Silva, the record did not show the court addressed the jury’s requests.

    r
    r

    Procedural History

    r

    In People v. Silva, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, rejecting Silva’s claim that the court’s handling of the jury note was a mode of proceedings error. Leave to appeal was granted. In People v. Hanson, the Appellate Division also affirmed, and leave to appeal was granted.

    r
    r

    Issue(s)

    r

    Whether a trial court commits a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal when it accepts a verdict without acknowledging or responding to a substantive jury request for information during deliberations, thereby violating CPL 310.30 and the principles established in People v. O’Rama?

    r
    r

    Holding

    r

    Yes, because a trial court’s failure to apprise counsel of the specific contents of a substantive note from a deliberating jury violates the fundamental tenets of CPL 310.30 and qualifies as a mode of proceedings error under People v. O’Rama, requiring a new trial.

    r
    r

    Court’s Reasoning

    r

    The Court of Appeals relied on CPL 310.30, which mandates that trial courts notify both the prosecution and defense counsel before responding to a jury’s request for information. It emphasized the “core responsibility” outlined in People v. O’Rama, requiring courts to provide meaningful notice to counsel regarding the specific content of the jury’s request and to offer a meaningful response to the jury. The Court explained that O’Rama wasn’t designed as a rigid set of procedures, but rather as guidelines to maximize counsel’s participation when their input is most valuable. A failure to inform counsel about a substantive jury note violates the fundamental tenets of CPL 310.30, constituting a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from the preservation rule. The Court rejected the People’s argument that the presumption of regularity could salvage the error, reiterating that reviewing courts

  • Matter of Metropolitan Opera Assoc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 25 N.Y.3d 586 (2015): Interpreting Insurance Contract Language for Additional Insured Status

    Matter of Metropolitan Opera Assoc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 25 N.Y.3d 586 (2015)

    When interpreting insurance contracts, courts must consider the specific language used in the context of the entire agreement and the realities of the insurance marketplace to determine the parties’ intent regarding additional insured status and the scope of coverage.

    Summary

    This case concerns a dispute over whether the Metropolitan Opera Association (the Met) was an additional insured under a contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy with Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. The contract between the Met and Strauss Painting, Inc. contained an insurance requirement provision that was at the heart of the dispute. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Met was not an additional insured, interpreting the contract language as not explicitly requiring the contractor to name the Met as an additional insured on its CGL policy. The dissent argued that the contract language, when considered in the context of standard insurance practices, clearly obligated Strauss to include the Met as an additional insured on its CGL policy, particularly given the specific types of coverage required.

    Facts

    The Metropolitan Opera Association (the Met) contracted with Strauss Painting, Inc. for construction work. The contract included an “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS” provision. A worker, Mayo, was allegedly injured during the project. The Met sought coverage under Strauss’s insurance policies for the injury claim, asserting it was an additional insured. The relevant contract language required “Owners and contractors protective liability insurance…Liability should add the Metropolitan Opera Association as an additional insured and should include contractual liability and completed operations coverage.” Mt. Hawley insured Strauss under a CGL policy.

    Procedural History

    The dispute was initially brought before the lower courts. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the Met, finding that the contract required Strauss to include the Met as an additional insured on its CGL policy. Mt. Hawley appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the Met was not an additional insured under the CGL policy. The court certified a question from the Second Circuit about the interpretation of the insurance contract.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the contract between the Metropolitan Opera Association and Strauss Painting, Inc. required Strauss to include the Met as an additional insured on its Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy with Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, specifically regarding contractual liability and completed operations coverage.

    Holding

    No, because the contract language regarding additional insured status was ambiguous and did not explicitly require Strauss to name the Met as an additional insured on its CGL policy. The court interpreted the insurance requirements as potentially satisfied by other means, such as an Owners and Contractors Protective Liability (OCP) policy.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the contract language, while requiring the Met to be added as an additional insured, did not specify which policy (OCP or CGL) should provide that coverage. The court emphasized that contracts must be read as a whole to determine their purpose and intent. The court noted that the contract also required “Owners and contractors protective liability insurance,” which could be interpreted as fulfilling the additional insured requirement. The court also observed that because the contract required both an OCP policy and that the Met be named an additional insured, it was ambiguous, and the court therefore would not find that the CGL policy was required to name the Met. The dissent argued that the explicit mention of “contractual liability and completed operations coverage” in conjunction with the additional insured requirement demonstrated that the parties intended for the Met to be covered under Strauss’s CGL policy, as these coverages are typically associated with CGL policies, not OCP policies. The dissent also noted that the “belt and suspenders” approach is common where the indemnitee is both named an additional insured and receives OCP coverage. The dissent further argued that Mt. Hawley failed to provide timely notice of disclaimer, thus waiving its late notice defense.

  • People v. DeLee, 24 N.Y.3d 603 (2014): Repugnant Verdicts and the Remedy of Retrial

    People v. DeLee, 24 N.Y.3d 603 (2014)

    When a jury renders a repugnant verdict by convicting a defendant of a crime containing all the elements of another crime for which the defendant was acquitted, the prosecution may retry the defendant on the repugnant charge.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime but acquitted of first-degree manslaughter. The New York Court of Appeals held that the verdict was repugnant because the elements of first-degree manslaughter are included in the elements of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime. The Court modified the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the People could resubmit the charge of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime to a new grand jury, rather than dismissing the charge altogether. This decision clarifies the remedy for repugnant verdicts in New York, allowing for retrial on the repugnant charge rather than automatic dismissal, balancing the need to avoid convictions where the jury found an element lacking with the jury’s prerogative to show leniency.

    Facts

    Dwight DeLee was indicted for second-degree murder as a hate crime, second-degree murder, and third-degree criminal weapon possession. At trial, the jury convicted him of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime and weapon possession, but acquitted him of first-degree manslaughter. Defense counsel argued that the verdict was inconsistent, but the trial judge initially dismissed the jury. The judge later recalled the jury to confirm their acquittal on second-degree manslaughter before finally dismissing them.

    Procedural History

    Prior to sentencing, DeLee moved to set aside the verdict as repugnant, which the trial court denied. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reversing the conviction for first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime and dismissing that count. The Appellate Division reasoned that the acquittal of first-degree manslaughter meant the jury found at least one element of that crime unproven, making the hate crime conviction logically inconsistent. The dissenting Justice argued the verdict was not repugnant. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by permission of the dissenting Justice.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a jury verdict convicting a defendant of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime, while acquitting him of first-degree manslaughter, is repugnant.

    Whether the remedy for a repugnant verdict is dismissal of the repugnant conviction or whether the People may resubmit the charge to a new grand jury.

    Holding

    Yes, because all of the elements of first-degree manslaughter are included in the elements of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime, making the verdict inconsistent.

    The People may resubmit the charge of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime to a new grand jury because there is no constitutional or statutory provision that mandates dismissal for a repugnancy error.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals applied the established principles of People v. Tucker and People v. Muhammad, stating that a verdict is repugnant when it is legally impossible for the jury to have convicted on one count but not the other. The court emphasized that repugnancy depends on the jury’s instructions and the essential elements of the crimes charged, not on the evidence presented at trial. The court reasoned that in this case, the jury’s acquittal of first-degree manslaughter necessarily meant that they found at least one element of that crime unproven, which is inconsistent with the conviction for first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime, which requires all the elements of the former. The court stated, “All of the elements of first-degree manslaughter are included in the elements of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime. Thus, to find the defendant not guilty of first-degree manslaughter necessarily means that at least one of the elements of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Regarding the remedy, the Court acknowledged its prior statement in Muhammad that the remedy for a repugnant verdict was dismissal of the repugnant conviction. However, the court clarified that this statement was dictum and that there is no constitutional or statutory provision mandating dismissal. The Court reasoned that allowing a retrial on the repugnant charge strikes a reasonable balance because a reviewing court can never know the reason for the repugnancy and because juries may freely reject evidence and exercise its mercy function. The court cautioned trial courts that when “a trial court finds that an announced verdict is repugnant, it may explain the inconsistency to the jurors and direct them to reconsider their decision”.

  • Kigin v. State of New York Workers’ Compensation Board, 24 N.Y.3d 459 (2014): Authority to Limit Medical Treatment

    24 N.Y.3d 459 (2014)

    The Workers’ Compensation Board has the authority to create medical treatment guidelines that limit the scope and duration of pre-authorized medical procedures, provided a variance procedure exists for cases falling outside the guidelines.

    Summary

    This case addresses the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s authority to regulate medical treatments for injured workers. The claimant, Maureen Kigin, sought additional acupuncture treatments beyond what was pre-authorized under the Board’s Medical Treatment Guidelines. The Board denied her request, and Kigin challenged the Board’s authority to create such guidelines. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Board’s authority, finding that the guidelines were a reasonable exercise of its regulatory power and did not unduly shift the burden of proof to claimants or violate due process, given the availability of a variance procedure.

    Facts

    Maureen Kigin, a hearing reporter for the Workers’ Compensation Board, sustained neck and back injuries in a 1996 work-related car accident. Her claim was accepted, and she received wage replacement benefits and medical treatment. In 2006, her case was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. In 2011, her physician, Dr. Coladner, recommended additional acupuncture treatments beyond the limits set by the Board’s newly implemented Medical Treatment Guidelines. The carrier denied the request for a variance based on an independent medical examination by Dr. Chiu who found the treatments medically unnecessary.

    Procedural History

    A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that Kigin’s medical provider failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the additional acupuncture. The Workers’ Compensation Board panel affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. Kigin appealed, arguing the Board lacked authority, the variance procedure shifted the burden of proof, and the guidelines violated due process. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Board exceeded its statutory authority by using Medical Treatment Guidelines to effectively “pre-deny” medical treatment.

    2. Whether the variance procedure improperly shifts the burden of proof to the claimant’s physician to prove the medical necessity of a proposed treatment.

    3. Whether the Medical Treatment Guidelines violate the claimant’s due process right to a meaningful hearing.

    Holding

    1. No, because the guidelines reasonably supplement Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 and promote the statutory framework by providing appropriate medical care to injured workers, and a variance procedure exists.

    2. No, because the regulations reasonably require the treating medical provider to demonstrate that a variance is appropriate and medically necessary.

    3. No, because the Guidelines provide claimants with a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the denial of any variance request.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the Board’s guidelines were a valid exercise of its authority under Workers’ Compensation Law § 117 (1), which allows the Board to “adopt reasonable rules consistent with and supplemental to the [Workers’ Compensation Law].” The court reasoned that the guidelines reasonably supplement Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 and promote the provision of appropriate medical care to injured workers. The court emphasized that the possibility of obtaining a variance means that treatments not on the pre-authorized list are not “pre-denied.”

    Regarding the burden of proof, the Court found that requiring the treating medical provider to demonstrate the medical necessity of a variance request is consistent with the claimant’s general burden of proving facts sufficient to support a claim for compensation. The court also stated that Worker’s Compensation Law § 21 (5), which creates a presumption in favor of the claimant’s medical reports, does not preclude the Board from requiring proof of medical necessity.

    Finally, the court rejected the due process argument, noting that the variance procedure provides a process for requesting review of a denial, including the option of a hearing. The court highlighted that Kigin had the opportunity to present testimony and cross-examine the carrier’s expert. The court quoted Matthews v Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976), stating, “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”

  • Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Rochester v. Nyquist, 24 N.Y.3d 505 (2014): Employee’s Right to Elect Disciplinary Procedures

    Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Rochester v. Nyquist, 24 N.Y.3d 505 (2014)

    When a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is renegotiated or becomes effective on or after September 1, 1994, Education Law § 3020(l) requires that tenured employees must be given the option to elect the disciplinary procedures outlined in Education Law § 3020-a, regardless of any alternative disciplinary procedures detailed in the CBA.

    Summary

    A tenured school social worker was suspended without pay and denied a hearing under Education Law § 3020-a, with the School District insisting she could only challenge the discipline through the CBA’s grievance procedure. The CBA, while containing an alternative disciplinary procedure, was renegotiated after September 1, 1994. The Court of Appeals held that Education Law § 3020(l) mandates that any CBA effective after that date must allow tenured employees to choose between the CBA’s procedure and the statutory § 3020-a process, thus affirming the employee’s right to elect the statutory procedure.

    Facts

    The petitioner, a tenured school social worker, was suspended for 30 days without pay by the respondent School District for alleged misconduct. The School District informed the petitioner that she was required to challenge her suspension using the grievance procedures outlined in the CBA. The petitioner was denied a hearing under Education Law § 3020-a despite her request. The CBA, originally negotiated before September 1, 1994, had been renegotiated in 2006 and stated that disciplinary actions “may” be processed as a grievance. The CBA also stipulated that tenured teachers could not be discharged without Education Law §3020 and §3020-a process.

    Procedural History

    The petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the disciplinary action, arguing she was entitled to the protections of Education Law § 3020-a. Supreme Court initially ruled against the petitioner. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, granting the petition and holding that the petitioner had the right to choose the statutory review process. The School District appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether Education Law § 3020(l) requires that all CBAs becoming effective on or after September 1, 1994, afford tenured employees facing discipline the right to elect the review process provided by Education Law § 3020-a, even if the CBA contains an unaltered alternative grievance procedure agreed upon before September 1, 1994, but the CBA itself was altered after that date.

    Holding

    Yes, because Education Law § 3020(l) mandates that CBAs altered by renegotiation or becoming effective on or after September 1, 1994, must provide tenured employees with the option to choose the disciplinary procedures outlined in Education Law § 3020-a, irrespective of any alternative procedures in the CBA. The purpose of the 1994 amendment was to “secure the right of tenured employees to avail themselves of the process set forth in Education Law § 3020-a.”

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the 1994 amendment to Education Law § 3020(l) was to ensure that tenured educators facing disciplinary charges could choose the procedural protections of Education Law § 3020-a. While the statute grandfathers pre-September 1, 1994, CBA discipline review procedures in unaltered CBAs, its dominant purpose was to secure the right of tenured employees to use § 3020-a. The court stated, “the statute unambiguously provides that when a CBA is altered by renegotiation or takes effect on or after September 1, 1994, it must permit tenured employees to elect section 3020-a’s discipline review procedures.” The Court rejected the School District’s argument that only renegotiation of the *discipline procedures* themselves triggers the employee’s option, finding this interpretation grammatically incorrect and at odds with the statute’s purpose. The Court noted the legislature’s recognized the importance of tenure in the educational context and its intention to preserve the process by which tenured educators are disciplined. The Court also noted that the CBA stated that a disciplinary action “may,” not that it “must,” be processed in accordance with the agreement’s grievance and arbitration provisions, making it statutorily inoffensive.

  • In re Santiago-Monteverde, 27 N.Y.3d 286 (2016): Rent-Stabilized Lease as Exempt ‘Local Public Assistance Benefit’ in Bankruptcy

    In re Santiago-Monteverde, 27 N.Y.3d 286 (2016)

    A debtor-tenant’s interest in a rent-stabilized lease may be exempted from the bankruptcy estate under New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 282(2) as a ‘local public assistance benefit’.

    Summary

    Mary Santiago-Monteverde, a long-time resident of a rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after her husband’s death left her with substantial credit card debt. Initially, she listed her lease as an unexpired lease, but after the landlord offered to buy out her interest, she amended her filing to claim the lease as exempt property under New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 282(2), arguing it was a ‘local public assistance benefit.’ The bankruptcy trustee challenged this exemption. The New York Court of Appeals held that a rent-stabilized lease qualifies as a local public assistance benefit, considering the crucial role rent stabilization plays in preserving affordable housing in New York City, thereby allowing the debtor to exempt the lease from her bankruptcy estate. This decision underscores the importance of construing exemption statutes liberally in favor of debtors, particularly concerning essential needs like affordable housing.

    Facts

    Mary Santiago-Monteverde resided in a rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan for over 40 years. Following her husband’s death, she accumulated approximately $23,000 in credit card debt and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The apartment owner offered to purchase her interest in the rent-stabilized lease. Santiago-Monteverde then amended her bankruptcy filing to list the lease as personal property exempt from the bankruptcy estate, claiming it as a ‘local public assistance benefit’ under Debtor and Creditor Law § 282(2).

    Procedural History

    The Bankruptcy Court granted the trustee’s motion to strike the claimed exemption, reasoning that the lease’s value did not qualify as an exempt ‘local public assistance benefit.’ The District Court affirmed this decision. Santiago-Monteverde appealed to the Second Circuit, arguing that the lease’s value was derived from the protections afforded under the Rent Stabilization Code. The Second Circuit certified the question of whether a rent-stabilized lease can be considered a ‘local public assistance benefit’ to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a debtor-tenant possesses a property interest in the protected value of her rent-stabilized lease that may be exempted from her bankruptcy estate pursuant to New York State Debtor and Creditor Law Section 282(2) as a ‘local public assistance benefit’?

    Holding

    Yes, because the rent stabilization regulatory scheme plays a crucial role in preserving affordable housing for low-income, working poor, and middle-class residents in New York City, thus a tenant’s rights under a rent-stabilized lease constitute a local public assistance benefit.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that rent stabilization has the characteristics of a ‘local public assistance benefit’. It is ‘local’ as it depends on local authorities’ determinations of a housing emergency. It is ‘public’ because it was enacted by the New York Legislature and implemented by state and local bodies. It provides ‘assistance’ to those who cannot afford to live in New York City without rent regulation. The court dismissed the trustee’s argument that benefits must involve periodic payments, noting that many social programs, like food stamps, do not. The court stated that “[w]hen the legislature meant to refer only to ‘payments’ in the Debtor and Creditor Law, it used that term.” Further, the court emphasized the legislative intent behind rent stabilization, stating that the regulatory scheme reflects the intent to create a benefit for individuals below certain income or rent thresholds, concluding there is a continuing housing emergency. The Court also compared rent stabilization to Medicare, stating, “Medicare… is a public assistance benefit that regulates what doctors can charge for services, while rent stabilization is a public assistance benefit that regulates the rents property owners can charge protected tenants.” Finally, the Court emphasized the importance of exemptions in protecting a debtor’s essential needs, and affordable housing clearly qualifies as such, quoting Clark v. Rameker, 573 U.S. —, —, 134 S.Ct. 2242, 2247 (2014), stating that exemptions serve the important purpose of protect[ing] the debtor’s essential needs”.

  • Frezzell v. City of New York, 23 N.Y.3d 213 (2014): Defining “Reckless Disregard” for Emergency Vehicle Exemption

    Frezzell v. City of New York, 23 N.Y.3d 213 (2014)

    To establish liability against the driver of an emergency vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the driver acted with “reckless disregard for the safety of others,” requiring proof that the driver intentionally committed an unreasonable act disregarding a known risk with conscious indifference to the outcome.

    Summary

    Police officer Frezzell sued the City of New York and officer Tompos after a collision between their patrol vehicles while responding to the same emergency call. Tompos was driving against traffic on a one-way street. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ grant of summary judgment to the defendants, holding that Tompos’s actions did not constitute “reckless disregard” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The Court emphasized that Tompos slowed down, his lights and siren were activated, and he attempted to avoid the collision, and that the plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact that would meet the heightened “reckless disregard” standard.

    Facts

    On September 20, 2006, Officers Tompos and Brunjes responded to a radio call about a foot pursuit of an armed suspect. Tompos drove their patrol car against the flow of traffic on a one-way street with lights and siren activated. Officer Frezzell, responding to the same call, drove his patrol car in the opposite direction on the same street. The two vehicles collided, resulting in injuries to both officers. Frezzell then sued Tompos and the City of New York.

    Procedural History

    Frezzell sued Tompos and the City of New York, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Frezzell had only alleged negligence, which was insufficient under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e). The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted Frezzell leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether, in operating his patrol vehicle, officer Tompos acted with “reckless disregard for the safety of others” as required for liability under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e)?

    Holding

    No, because the evidence demonstrated that officer Tompos slowed down as he turned onto the one-way street, his vehicle’s emergency lights and siren were activated, and he took evasive action to avoid the collision. Therefore, his conduct did not amount to reckless disregard of a highly probable risk of harm “with conscious indifference to the outcome”.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 grants emergency vehicles certain privileges but does not protect drivers from the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others. The Court reasoned that “reckless disregard” demands more than a lack of due care. Liability requires evidence that “ ‘the actor has intentionally done an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome” (quoting Saarinen v Kerr, 84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]). The Court considered the precautions taken by Tompos against his duty to respond to the emergency situation. The evidence showed Tompos slowed down, was driving below the speed limit, and attempted to avoid the collision. The Court found no material question of fact regarding whether Tompos’s emergency lights and siren were activated. Regarding the plaintiff’s argument that an ESU vehicle obstructed Tompos’s view, the court determined that this amounted, at most, to negligence. Finally, the court stated that whether Tompos should have responded at all is an issue beyond the scope of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The court concluded that because the plaintiff failed to prove reckless disregard the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

  • Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute, 24 N.Y.3d 370 (2014): Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Medical Providers

    Paterno v. Laser Spine Institute, 24 N.Y.3d 370 (2014)

    A non-domiciliary medical provider is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York under CPLR 302(a)(1) based solely on responsive communications with a New York resident who sought out the provider’s services in another state, or under CPLR 302(a)(3) where the injury occurred outside of New York.

    Summary

    Frank Paterno, a New York resident, sought medical treatment from Laser Spine Institute (LSI) in Florida after seeing their advertisement online. Following surgeries in Florida, Paterno sued LSI in New York, alleging medical malpractice. The New York Court of Appeals held that New York courts lacked personal jurisdiction over LSI under CPLR 302(a)(1) because LSI’s contacts with New York were primarily responsive to Paterno’s initial contact and did not constitute transacting business in New York. The court further held that CPLR 302(a)(3) was inapplicable because the injury occurred in Florida, not New York. The decision emphasizes that merely responding to a patient’s inquiries does not equate to purposefully availing oneself of the privilege of conducting business in New York.

    Facts

    Frank Paterno, a New York resident, saw an online advertisement for LSI, a Florida-based surgical facility, and contacted them about his back pain. He sent MRI films to LSI in Florida for evaluation. LSI sent Paterno a letter outlining preliminary treatment recommendations. Paterno scheduled surgery at LSI in Florida after being offered a discounted rate. He exchanged emails with LSI regarding registration, payment, and travel arrangements. Paterno had blood work done in New York and attempted to arrange a conference call between his New York doctor and an LSI doctor. Following surgeries in Florida, Paterno experienced pain and contacted LSI physicians, who called in prescriptions to New York pharmacies. After further issues, he eventually had another surgery in New York with a different doctor.

    Procedural History

    Paterno sued LSI and its doctors in New York, alleging medical malpractice. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8). The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the case. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that LSI was not transacting business in New York under CPLR 302(a)(1) and that CPLR 302(a)(3) was inapplicable because the injury did not occur in New York. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether LSI’s contacts with New York constituted transacting business within the state under CPLR 302(a)(1), thus conferring personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

    2. Whether LSI committed a tortious act outside New York causing injury within the state under CPLR 302(a)(3), thus conferring personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

    Holding

    1. No, because LSI’s activities were primarily responsive to the plaintiff’s initial contact and did not demonstrate a purposeful availment of conducting business in New York.

    2. No, because the injury occurred in Florida where the surgeries took place, not in New York where the plaintiff experienced the consequences of the injury.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that under CPLR 302(a)(1), a non-domiciliary transacts business when they purposefully avail themselves of conducting activities within New York, establishing a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim. The court emphasized that the "overriding criterion" is whether the non-domiciliary "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York]." Paterno initiated contact with LSI after seeing their online advertisement, which the court deemed a passive website. The court stated, "[i]t is not the quantity but the quality of the contacts that matters under our long-arm jurisdiction analysis." LSI’s subsequent communications were responsive to Paterno’s inquiries and facilitated his decision to undergo surgery in Florida. Contacts after the surgeries cannot form the basis of jurisdiction because "there [must be] a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted." Citing Etra v. Matta, the court noted that even sending an experimental drug to New York and acting as a consultant to a New York doctor was insufficient to constitute a transaction of business. Extending jurisdiction in this case would set a precedent for almost limitless jurisdiction over out-of-state medical providers. Regarding CPLR 302(a)(3), the court determined that the injury occurred in Florida, where the surgeries were performed, not in New York, where Paterno experienced the pain and consequences of the alleged malpractice. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.