Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

These four cases involved criminal appeals that were not pursued for more than a decade after the filing of a notice of appeal. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in each case. The Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the dismissals in three of the cases, as the procedure followed in these cases did not deny the defendants of any constitutional right, nor did the Appellate Division abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeals; and (2) remitted the fourth case to the Appellate Division so that counsel could be appointed to represent the defendant in opposing the dismissal of his appeal, as the Appellate Division erred in denying this defendant’s appeal before assigning him counsel on that appeal and giving counsel a chance to review the record. View "People v. Perez" on Justia Law

Appellants retained Mary Dorman to represent them in a lawsuit. During the litigation, Dorman and Appellants entered into three separate retainer agreements pertaining to Dorman’s work on the trial, on the appeal to the Appellate Division, and on the appeal to the Court of Appeals. A jury ruled in Appellants’ favor, awarding them $986,671 in damages. Dorman was awarded $296,826 for her trial work. The verdict and trial fee awards were upheld on appeal. Dorman subsequently requested fees for her appellate work, and Supreme Court awarded Dorman $233,966. After a monetary dispute arose between Dorman and Appellants, Dorman sought a declaratory judgment to enforce the three retainer agreements. Supreme Court granted Dorman’s motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Dorman correctly interpreted the fee calculation. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division order with regard to the trial agreement and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the trial agreement entitled Dorman to one third of the jury award; and (2) because the trial agreement did not address the treatment of statutory counsel fees, Dorman was entitled to the more generous alternative of either one third of the jury verdict or the statutory award for her trial work. View "Albunio v. City of New York" on Justia Law

In 2001, Defendant was found guilty of robbery and other crimes and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Supreme Court later ordered that Defendant be resentenced, determining that Defendant’s sentence was illegal because it did not include a mandatory term of post-release supervision (PRS). After Defendant was conditionally released, Supreme Court resentenced Defendant by imposing a term of PRS. In 2009, the maximum term of Defendant’s prison sentence passed. In 2010, Defendant filed a motion to set aside his second sentence, arguing that the imposition of PRS constituted double jeopardy because he was out of prison on conditional release when it was imposed. Supreme Court granted the motion and resentenced Defendant, reimposing the terms of his completed initial sentence. The Appellate Division dismissed the People’s appeal, concluding that imposing PRS in this case would constitute double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Defendant had not acquired a legitimate expectation of finality in his sentence because the direct appeal of the sentence Defendant served was not over; and (2) therefore, the prohibition against double jeopardy was not implicated in this case. View "People v. Cintron" on Justia Law

In 1979, Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), where he was eventually promoted to health facilities planner. In 2005, Plaintiff was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, an occupational lung disease. In 2007, Defendant terminated Plaintiff. In 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, among other claims, that HHC had unlawfully discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the City Human Rights Law (City HRL). Supreme Court granted summary judgment for HHC, concluding that Plaintiff could not, even with a reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of his job. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, holding that HHC was not entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s State HRL and City HRL claims, as (1) both statutes generally preclude summary judgment in favor of an employer where the employer has failed to demonstrate that it responded to a disabled employee’s request for a particular accommodation by engaging in a good faith interactive process regarding the feasibility of that accommodation; and (2) under the facts of this case, Plaintiff presented colorable claims of disability discrimination under the City HRL and State HRL. View "Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree for suffocating her stepdaughter. The Appellate Division found the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence and modified the County Court’s judgment by reducing the murder conviction to a conviction of second-degree manslaughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s confession to the police following the child’s death was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence at trial to support Defendant’s conviction; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain letters into evidence, as they were sufficiently redacted; and (3) Defendant was not denied effective assistance of trial counsel. View "People v. Santiago" on Justia Law

Upon responding to a burglary report at an apartment building, police officers observed Defendant in the building’s stairwell. When the officers arrested Defendant for trespassing, one of the officers opened Defendant’s shoulder purse, which contained a loaded handgun. Defendant was subsequently indicted for criminal possession of a gun in the second degree and criminal trespass in the second degree. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the gun, and, after a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the counts charged. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the People bear the burden of demonstrating the presence of exigent circumstances in order to conduct a warrantless search of a closed container incident to arrest; and (2) in this case, the People failed to meet that burden as a matter of law. View "People v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of depraved indifference murder for murdering his infant son. The Appellate Division affirmed Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and directed a new trial, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Defendant, with depraved indifference to human life, recklessly engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of serious physical injury to the four-month-old, thereby causing the child’s death; but (2) Defendant’s previously denied motion to suppress inculpating statements he made to interrogators was in error because the statements were not demonstrably voluntary, and Defendant’s confession should not have been placed before the jury. View "People v. Thomas" on Justia Law

After a nonjury trial, Defendant was convicted of unlawful surveillance in the second degree for standing outside the front door of his neighbor’s townhouse and filming the complainant while she was naked in her second floor bathroom. Defendant appealed, arguing that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the evidence established that Defendant had surreptitiously recorded the complainant for his own amusement at a time and place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that each element of the offense of unlawful surveillance in the second degree was established beyond a reasonable doubt. View "People v. Schreier" on Justia Law

In 2000, Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty-three years incarceration. After Defendant’s incarceration, the Department of Correctional Services added a five-year PRS term to her certificate of commitment. In 2009, Defendant filed a pro se motion claiming that her plea was defective and her sentence illegal because she was not informed before she was incarcerated that she would be required to serve an additional term of PRS. Defendant was resentenced to the original sentence of twenty-three years without a term of PRS. Defendant appealed the resentence. Defendant’s counsel filed a motion under People v. Crawford asking to be relieved as counsel because there were no non-frivolous issues to be raised on Defendant’s behalf. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing, inter alia, that the sentence was illegal. The appellate division granted counsel’s motion and affirmed the resentence without addressing Defendant’s pro se contentions. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the appellate division erred in granting the Crawford motion, and therefore, remittal for a de novo appeal was warranted. View "People v. Beaty" on Justia Law

In the first case involved in this appeal, Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana. Defendant appealed, asserting that his plea was invalid because the record did not affirmatively demonstrate the waiver of his Boykin rights. The Appellate Term affirmed. In the second case, Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of marihuana. Defendant appealed, arguing, as in the first case, that the waiver of his Boykin rights was nonexistent. The Appellate Term affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed in both cases, holding that because the records in both cases were silent as to Defendant's waiver of his Boykin rights, the pleas must be vacated. View "People v. Tyrell" on Justia Law