Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
People v. Bueno
New York Court of Appeals · 2011-11-21 · cited 58×
The case involved whether the evidence was legally sufficient to convict defendant Christian Bueno of second-degree assault under Penal Law § 120.05(3) for attacking an on-duty EMT with intent to prevent him from performing a lawful duty. After EMT William Spinelli and his partner treated an injured woman at a Brooklyn apartment and were returning to their marked ambulance, Bueno struck Spinelli from behind, threw him to the ground, and repeatedly punched him in the face and head. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution presented a prima facie case by showing that Bueno attacked someone he had reason to know was an EMT performing duties at the time, based on the uniform, ambulance markings, and the circumstances of the assault immediately after the EMTs left the scene. The majority reasoned that a jury could infer the required intent from the natural and probable consequences of the attack in that context, without needing direct proof of Bueno's subjective motive.
criminal law
People v. Concepcion
New York Court of Appeals · 2011-06-14 · cited 281×
This case involved defendant Reynaldo Concepcion's appeal from convictions for weapon possession, drug possession, and assault after a jury trial. The trial court denied his motion to suppress cocaine found in his minivan, ruling that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied even though consent was not proven. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of suppression by instead finding that defendant had consented to the search, a ground the trial court had rejected. The Court of Appeals held that this violated CPL 470.15(1) and its prior decision in People v. LaFontaine, which bars the Appellate Division from affirming on a ground not decided adversely to the defendant below. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division's order as to the suppression ruling, remitted the matter for further proceedings on the motion, and left the non-drug convictions undisturbed.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Pacquette
New York Court of Appeals · 2011-06-07 · cited 10×
The case involved defendant Dean Pacquette, who was indicted for second-degree murder, assault, and weapon possession after a 2007 shooting in Brooklyn. He sought to suppress statements made to police, arguing they violated his right to counsel because an attorney assigned to represent him on an unrelated Manhattan drug charge had advised him not to speak to police about the homicide. At a Huntley hearing, testimony conflicted over whether the attorney clearly indicated representation extended to the Brooklyn case or invoked the right to counsel for it; the detectives understood the representation as limited to the drug matter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of suppression and the conviction, holding that the attorney's statements did not trigger an indelible right to counsel in the homicide investigation under the circumstances of the unrelated arraignment.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. McKnight
New York Court of Appeals · 2010-12-14 · cited 67×
In People v. McKnight, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted murder after he and an accomplice fired multiple shots at Maurice Lingard during a street confrontation, resulting in the death of William Smith due to transferred intent. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 45 years to life, which the Appellate Division upheld, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court reasoned that under Penal Law § 70.25(2), the offenses did not arise from a single act or an act that was a material element of both, as the shots causing Smith's death and those directed at Lingard constituted separate acts, consistent with precedents like People v. Bonilla.
criminal lawprocedure
Kirschner v. KPMG LLP
New York Court of Appeals · 2010-10-21 · cited 216×
The case involves two consolidated appeals in which trustees and shareholders of Refco and AIG sued the companies' outside auditors for allegedly failing to detect or assisting management in committing financial fraud that harmed creditors and investors. The New York Court of Appeals held that the claims were barred under existing precedents on in pari delicto, imputation of agent misconduct to the corporation, and the adverse interest exception. The court reasoned that altering these doctrines to expand liability for professional advisers would require a departure from longstanding common-law principles allocating responsibility between a corporation and its agents, and it declined to do so. The decisions preserved the traditional limits on third-party recovery in cases of corporate fraud.
business & regulatorytorts & liability
Morton v. State
New York Court of Appeals · 2010-06-08 · cited 26×
The case involved a worker injured when a trench wall collapsed during an emergency repair of a water main beneath a state highway, where his employer had not obtained the required work permit from the Department of Transportation. The worker and his wife sued the State of New York, asserting common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6) based on inadequate excavation protections required by the Industrial Code. The Court of Appeals held that the State was not subject to liability under Labor Law § 241(6) as an owner because the unauthorized work created no sufficient nexus to impose the statute's nondelegable duty, reversing the lower courts' finding of liability after a trial on the § 241(6) claim. The court reasoned that the permit requirement under Highway Law § 52 meant the State had no ownership relationship triggering the duty in this context, while dismissing negligence claims for lack of notice or control.
labor & employmenttorts & liability