People v. Abraham, 192, November 26, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
A factual inconsistency in a jury verdict acquitting defendant of one count of arson but convicting him of insurance fraud does not render the record evidence legally insufficient to support the insurance fraud conviction.
The Council of the City of New York v. The Department of Homeless Services of the City of New York, 193, November 26, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
In a declaratory judgment action challenging defendant’s new eligibility procedure for the homeless, the lower court’s judgment for plaintiff-city concluding that the provision is unenforceable, is affirmed, where defendant failed to comply with the notice and hearing provisions in the City Administrative Procedure Act.
People v. McPherson, 177, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
Defendants’ convictions of depraved indifference murder, arising out of driving in an outrageously reckless manner while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs and causing the death of at least one other person, are affirmed, where although intoxicated driving cases that present circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life are likely to be few and far between, we find that the evidence in each of these unusually egregious cases was legally sufficient to support the convictions.
People v. Heidgen, 175, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
Defendant’s argument that his Alford plea should not have been accepted because the record does not contain strong evidence of his actual guilt is unpreserved for review as he has neither moved to withdraw his plea nor to vacate the judgment of conviction.
Expedia, Inc. v. The City of New York Department of Finance, 180, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
The Appellate Division erred in holding that Local Law 43, a hotel room occupancy tax, applicable to online travel companies, is unconstitutional, where: 1) defendant-city had the authority to enact the tax; and 2) Local Law 43 is not unconstitutional because the State Legislature granted defendant-city broad authority to impose a tax on hotel occupants, and Local Law 43 taxes only payments for the occupancy of a hotel room.
People v. Cheverko, 183, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
When Penal Law section 70.30(2)(b) limits consecutive definite sentences to an aggregate term of two years imprisonment, jail time credit and good time credit should be deducted from that two-year aggregate term rather than the aggregate term imposed by the sentencing court.
People v. Kevin W., 187, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
The principles of People v. Havelka apply in the pretrial setting, such that a trial judge is precluded from reopening a suppression hearing to give the People an opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position absent a showing that they were deprived of a full and fair opportunity to be heard.
Cruz v. TD Bank, 191, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
In two putative class actions brought by plaintiff-judgment debtors seeking injunctive relief and money damages against their banks based on allegations that accounts they held at New York branches were restrained in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act of 2008 (EIPA), the certified questions are answered as follows: 1) a private right to bring a plenary action for injunctive relief and money damages cannot be implied from the EIPA; 2) a judgment debtor can secure relief from a bank arising from a violation of the EIPA in a CPLR Article 52 special proceeding, and the statutory mechanisms for relief are exclusive.
People v. Worden, 203, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
Defendant’s conviction for third degree rape following his guilty plea is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the factual recitation negated an element of third-degree rape under Penal Law section 130.25 (3) as to lack of consent, as opposed to lack of capacity; and thus, 2) the plea’s factual allocution was not sufficient to support the conviction.
People v. Feliciano, 255 SSM 28, November 21, 2013 - NY Court of Appeals | FindLaw -
Defendant’s contention that he completed the terms of his original plea agreement and was therefore entitled to dismissal of the indictment is not preserved for review, where upon his discharge, defendant did not move for dismissal following the events that he now says constituted performance of the agreement.