Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial courts in these two cases convicting Defendants of violating Administrative Code of the City of New York 19-190, known as the "Right of Way Law," holding that the statute is not unconstitutional.The Right of Way Law makes it a misdemeanor for a driver, while failing to exercise due care, to make contact with a pedestrian or bicyclist who has the right of way and thereby cause physical injury. Both defendants in these cases were charged with violating the Right of Way Law, a misdemeanor. Defendants argued that the law's ordinary negligence mens rea violated due process because the standard was impermissibly vague and legally insufficient. Defendants also made two preemption arguments. Both defendants were convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Right of Way Law does not violate due process and is not preempted by state law. View "People v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division reversing the orders of Supreme Court denying Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(8) on the ground that New York courts lacked personal jurisdiction, holding that that New York courts lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.At issue was whether a foreign corporation consents to the exercise of general jurisdiction by New York courts by registering to do business in the state and designating a local agent for service of process. Plaintiffs were the estates of three passengers who died in and the surviving passengers of an accident caused by a New York resident, who was operating a Ford Explorer on an interstate highway in Virginia and the vehicle's Goodyear tire allegedly failed. Ford and Goodyear moved to dismiss the complaint against them under section 3211(a)(8). Supreme Court denied the motions. The appellate division reversed, concluding that a corporation's compliance with the existing business registration statutes does not by itself constitute consent to the general jurisdiction of New York courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendants' motions to dismiss were properly granted. View "Aybar v. Aybar" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and remanded with directions to grant Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment against him insofar as it sought to dismiss the count in the indictment charging manslaughter in the second degree, holding that this count required dismissal.Defendant was indicted on charges of manslaughter in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on grounds that the evidence presented to the jury was legally insufficient. County Court granted the motion in part and dismissed the charge of manslaughter in the second degree. The Appellate Division reversed and denied Defendant's motion in its entirety. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for second-degree manslaughter or the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide. View "People v. Gaworecki" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment of the suppression court denying Defendant's motion to suppress certain eavesdropping evidence, holding that eavesdropping warrants are executed in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are intentionally intercepted by authorized law enforcement officers within the meaning of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 700.At issue was whether a Kings County Supreme Court justice had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for Defendant's cell phones for the purpose of gathering evidence in an investigation of enterprise corruption and gambling offenses in Kings County. The cell phones were not physically present in New York. The suppression court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that since the crimes were allegedly committed in Kings County, the county had jurisdiction to prosecute the crimes and there was a sufficient nexus of the issuance of the eavesdropping warrants in that county. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Kings County Supreme Court Justice presiding in the jurisdiction where Defendant's communications were overheard and accessed and therefore intercepted by authorized law enforcement agents had the authority to issue the warrants. View "People v. Schneider" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division affirming Supreme Court's judgment ordering the suppression of physical evidence seized from two vehicles, holding that the search warrant materials failed to provide probable cause to search the vehicles.The court issued a search warrant authorizing a search of Defendant's "person" and the "entire premises." Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the factual allegations did not support a search of the vehicles located outside the residence. Supreme Court granted the motion to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because the search warrant contained no references to the vehicles to be searched, the record supported the finding that there was no probable cause to search the vehicles. View "People v. Gordon" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims that sought to hold Michael Bloomberg vicariously liable for Nicholas Ferris's offending conduct, holding that Bloomberg was not an "employer" within the meaning of the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL).Plaintiff brought this action against her employer Bloomberg L.P., her supervisor Ferris, and Michael Bloomberg, bringing several claims arising from her alleged discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. At issue was whether Bloomberg, in addition to Bloomberg L.P., could be held vicariously liable based on his status as owner and officer of the company. Supreme Court denied Bloomberg's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the causes of action against Bloomberg. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to allege that Bloomberg was her employer for purposes of liability under the City HRL. View "Doe v. Bloomberg, L.P." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division upholding the denial of Defendant's suppression motion, holding that the search warrant in this case was facially valid and that Defendant's challenge to the execution of the search warrant was unpreserved for appellate review.Police officers searched Defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant and recovered, among other things, a handgun and ammunition. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the warrant was invalid because it did not meet the constitutional requirements of particularity. The motion court denied Defendant's suppression motion. Defendant then pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the motion court did not abuse its discretion in denying suppression without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "People v. Duval" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division affirming County Court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a stop of the vehicle in which Defendant was a front seat passenger, holding that the People failed to meet their burden of coming forward with evidence sufficient to establish that the stop was lawful.A police officer stopped a vehicle when his patrol car's mobile data terminal notified him that something was similar about the registered owner of the vehicle and a person with an outstanding warrant, known as a "similarity hit." The officer arrested Defendant after observing a handgun on the floor of the front passenger seat where Defendant was sitting. Defendant was neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor the person with the warrant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop. County Court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that where the People presented no evidence about the content of the similarity hit, the suppression court could not independently evaluate whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the stop. View "People v. Balkman" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division reversing Defendant's conviction of manslaughter in the first degree and denied Defendant's motion to suppress DNA evidence from a Defendant's body by buccal swab, holding that there was no violation of Defendant's constitutional rights in this case.After the victim was shot, the People obtained a warrant to obtain a saliva sample for DNA testing from Defendant. Defendant moved to suppress the DNA evidence, asserting that the search warrant application failed to set forth probable cause that he committed the homicide and failed to articulate how the DNA profile related to the homicide investigation. The court denied the suppression motion. Defendant was subsequently convicted. The Appellate Division reversed and granted Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that Supreme Court erred in precluding defense counsel from reviewing the search warrant application and in denying counsel the opportunity to be heard on the issuance of probable cause. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the requirement set forth in Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288 (1982), of notice and an opportunity to be heard in the pre-execution stage of a warrant authorizing the seizure of evidence by bodily intrusion was satisfied in this case. View "People v. McIver" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division affirming Defendant's conviction of second-degree assault, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the jury a curative instruction and forgoing a Buford inquiry of a sworn juror after her exclamation during trial that she was very offended by the repetitive use of a racial slur by Defendant's counsel while cross-examining the victim.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law in its response to the juror's disruption of the trial. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding (1) the court's curative instruction was a "thorough and sensible approach" that addressed each of the concerns raised by counsel and reached the same result that would have been afforded by a Buford inquiry of the single juror; and (2) therefore, the court's remedy was not an abuse of its discretion. View "People v. Batticks" on Justia Law