Jenny Rivera

Judge, New York Court of Appeals · Born 1960

📰 News & journal →

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Reyes v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-06-23
In Reyes v. City of New York, plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes, an independent journalist, was arrested after entering the publicly accessible lobby of an NYPD precinct and recording police activity despite warnings based on the department’s Trespass Policy prohibiting such recording inside its facilities. He sued the City in federal court, claiming violations of New York’s Civil Rights Law § 79-p and New York City Administrative Code § 14-189—the Right to Record Acts—which establish a private right to record law enforcement activity without physical interference. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the question whether these statutes apply inside police stationhouse lobbies, and the New York Court of Appeals reformulated and answered it in the negative. The court reasoned that the statutes’ texts are silent on location and thus ambiguous, but their legislative history—centered on incidents of recording police misconduct on public streets and sidewalks—shows no intent to extend the right indoors, and applying it to precinct lobbies would create privacy risks for victims and witnesses and potentially interfere with law enforcement functions.
free speechcivil rights
People v. Flesch
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
In People v. Flesch, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in exchange for the prosecution's recommendation of a five-year probation sentence, but the original plea deal proved illegal because the offense required imprisonment. After the newly elected District Attorney sought to withdraw the recommendation and was disqualified due to a conflict, a special prosecutor was appointed and accepted shock probation—an alternative sentence the defendant himself proposed as meeting his expectations under the agreement. The sentencing court declined to impose probation without a mental health component, offered the defendant multiple chances to withdraw his plea, and ultimately imposed a four-year prison term followed by post-release supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the prosecution did not breach the plea agreement because the original sentence was unlawful, the special prosecutor supported a lawful alternative consistent with the defendant's requests, and the defendant chose not to withdraw his plea despite knowing the court would not impose the negotiated term.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Harris
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
The case concerned whether Jamien Harris's guilty plea to two counts of criminal possession of a firearm, based on weapons found in her home on November 21, 2021, barred a subsequent indictment for the second-degree murder of her grandmother the previous day under CPL 40.40(2), which prohibits separate prosecutions for joinable offenses arising from the same criminal transaction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's dismissal and reinstated the murder indictment. It held that the offenses were not part of the same criminal transaction because the simple possession charges were complete upon the defendant's dominion and control over the firearms on November 21 and were independent of the prior murder, which involved distinct acts and timing under the statutory definition in CPL 40.10(2)(a). The court reasoned that the possession was not unified with the homicide by a common purpose or continuous conduct, and the prosecution's evidence and instructions to the first grand jury focused solely on possession without relying on the shooting.
gunscriminal lawprocedure
People v. Flesch
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
In People v. Flesch, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in exchange for the prosecution's recommendation of a five-year probation sentence, but the original plea deal proved illegal because the offense required imprisonment. After the newly elected District Attorney sought to withdraw the recommendation and was disqualified due to a conflict, a special prosecutor was appointed and accepted shock probation—an alternative sentence the defendant himself proposed as meeting his expectations under the agreement. The sentencing court declined to impose probation without a mental health component, offered the defendant multiple chances to withdraw his plea, and ultimately imposed a four-year prison term followed by post-release supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the prosecution did not breach the plea agreement because the original sentence was unlawful, the special prosecutor supported a lawful alternative consistent with the defendant's requests, and the defendant chose not to withdraw his plea despite knowing the court would not impose the negotiated term.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Harris
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
The case concerned whether Jamien Harris's guilty plea to two counts of criminal possession of a firearm, based on weapons found in her home on November 21, 2021, barred a subsequent indictment for the second-degree murder of her grandmother the previous day under CPL 40.40(2), which prohibits separate prosecutions for joinable offenses arising from the same criminal transaction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's dismissal and reinstated the murder indictment. It held that the offenses were not part of the same criminal transaction because the simple possession charges were complete upon the defendant's dominion and control over the firearms on November 21 and were independent of the prior murder, which involved distinct acts and timing under the statutory definition in CPL 40.10(2)(a). The court reasoned that the possession was not unified with the homicide by a common purpose or continuous conduct, and the prosecution's evidence and instructions to the first grand jury focused solely on possession without relying on the shooting.
gunscriminal lawprocedure
People v. N.H.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23 · cited 2×
The case concerned whether a defendant could validly waive a hearing under Penal Law § 60.12 as part of a plea agreement. N.H., charged with an eligible offense, sought either an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act or a hearing to prove eligibility based on domestic violence she had experienced; the prosecution conditioned a plea deal on her waiving that hearing, which she accepted. The Court of Appeals held that such waivers are invalid. It reasoned that the DVSJA’s statutory scheme deliberately requires courts to determine, after a hearing that considers evidence of abuse and its link to the offense, whether a standard sentence would be unduly harsh, thereby advancing the Legislature’s goal of ensuring judges account for domestic violence’s impact on survivors before imposing sentence. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. N.H.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23 · cited 2×
The case concerned whether a defendant could validly waive a hearing under Penal Law § 60.12 as part of a plea agreement. N.H., charged with an eligible offense, sought either an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act or a hearing to prove eligibility based on domestic violence she had experienced; the prosecution conditioned a plea deal on her waiving that hearing, which she accepted. The Court of Appeals held that such waivers are invalid. It reasoned that the DVSJA’s statutory scheme deliberately requires courts to determine, after a hearing that considers evidence of abuse and its link to the offense, whether a standard sentence would be unduly harsh, thereby advancing the Legislature’s goal of ensuring judges account for domestic violence’s impact on survivors before imposing sentence. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Woods
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-04-21
In People v. Woods, the New York Court of Appeals addressed charges against Travis Woods stemming from a 2006 shooting, including second-degree murder and weapon possession, along with separate drug-related offenses. After three mistrials on the murder and weapons counts due to jury deadlocks between 2008 and 2010, the prosecution waited more than three years before commencing a fourth trial in 2013, during which it frequently failed to appear at calendar calls and offered only general assertions about internal case reviews. The court dismissed the murder and weapons charges, holding that the prosecution failed to provide a sufficient justification for the prolonged delay under speedy trial standards. However, it upheld Woods's drug convictions from the first trial, concluding that the trial court's failure to notify defense counsel of two jury notes requesting witness testimony was harmless because the jury promptly sent a follow-up note on the same topic, allowing counsel to participate in the readback.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Sabb
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-03-19 · cited 1×
The case concerned whether a trial court could impose consecutive sentences on defendant Jhajuan Sabb after he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree for causing the death of S.A. and attempted assault in the first degree for injuring A.T. during the same drive-by shooting. The Court of Appeals held that consecutive sentencing was unlawful and affirmed the Appellate Division's modification of the sentences to run concurrently. The Court reasoned that when a defendant pleads guilty, the prosecution must show that the crimes arose from separate and distinct acts based solely on the factual allegations in the indictment counts to which the defendant pleaded and the admissions in the plea allocution. Neither the indictment nor the allocution established that the manslaughter and assault resulted from distinct acts, such as separate trigger pulls, and the Court declined to consider additional materials like the presentence report. The Court also confirmed that challenges to the legality of consecutive sentences fall under the illegal sentence exception and need not be preserved.
criminal lawprocedure
Matter of Gonzalez v. Northeast Parent & Child Socy.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-03-17 · cited 1×
In this case, a law firm that represented a workers' compensation claimant sought Board approval for legal fees calculated from penalties assessed against an insurance carrier under WCL §§ 25(1)(e) and 25(3)(f) for untimely payments of the claimant's award. The Workers' Compensation Board and lower courts denied the request, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that WCL § 24(2) does not authorize fees based on those charges. The Court reasoned that the statute's text creates a mandatory fee schedule that does not encompass WCL § 25 assessments, which are separate penalties rather than compensation, and that the legislative history contains no indication that such fees were intended.
labor & employmentprocedure
Matter of Gonzalez v. Northeast Parent & Child Socy.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-03-17 · cited 1×
In this case, a law firm that represented a workers' compensation claimant sought Board approval for legal fees calculated from penalties assessed against an insurance carrier under WCL §§ 25(1)(e) and 25(3)(f) for untimely payments of the claimant's award. The Workers' Compensation Board and lower courts denied the request, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that WCL § 24(2) does not authorize fees based on those charges. The Court reasoned that the statute's text creates a mandatory fee schedule that does not encompass WCL § 25 assessments, which are separate penalties rather than compensation, and that the legislative history contains no indication that such fees were intended.
labor & employmentprocedure
Matter of Russell v. Town of Mount Pleasant, N.Y.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-02-19 · cited 2×
The case concerned a FOIL request by James Russell seeking the names and email addresses of all subscribers to the Town of Mount Pleasant’s E-news alert system, which the Town denied on privacy grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the denial, ruling that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy exempt under FOIL. The Court applied a balancing test and found that the subscribers’ privacy interests were substantial, as evidenced by near-unanimous lack of consent and risks such as spoofing or identity theft from public release of the data, while no meaningful public interest supported disclosure. It distinguished a prior Appellate Division decision that had required similar disclosure where no privacy concerns had been shown.
free speechcivil rightsprocedure
Matter of Russell v. Town of Mount Pleasant, N.Y.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-02-19 · cited 2×
The case concerned a FOIL request by James Russell seeking the names and email addresses of all subscribers to the Town of Mount Pleasant’s E-news alert system, which the Town denied on privacy grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the denial, ruling that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy exempt under FOIL. The Court applied a balancing test and found that the subscribers’ privacy interests were substantial, as evidenced by near-unanimous lack of consent and risks such as spoofing or identity theft from public release of the data, while no meaningful public interest supported disclosure. It distinguished a prior Appellate Division decision that had required similar disclosure where no privacy concerns had been shown.
free speechcivil rightsprocedure
People v. Morel
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-02-17
The case concerned whether a misdemeanor complaint charging Agustin Morel with driving while ability impaired by marijuana under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(4) was facially sufficient. The Court of Appeals held that it was and affirmed the conviction. The arresting officer’s allegations within the four corners of the accusatory instrument—defendant’s admission to smoking marijuana shortly before the stop, the odor of marijuana and ash on his clothing, his watery and bloodshot eyes, and his refusal to submit to a chemical test—collectively supplied reasonable cause to believe the offense had been committed. Because Morel had waived prosecution by information, the court applied the less stringent “reasonable cause” standard applicable to misdemeanor complaints and drew permissible inferences from the pleaded facts without relying on an unincorporated refusal report.
criminal lawprocedure
Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-01-13 · cited 1×
The case concerned a challenge by SoHo/NoHo artist groups to a 2021 New York City rezoning that created an optional process for converting restricted Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists (JLWQA) units—originally limited by 1970s laws to certified artists—to unrestricted residential use in exchange for a one-time fee scaled to unit square footage. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and ruled that the fee does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, entitling the City to a declaration to that effect. The court reasoned that petitioners lacked any compensable property interest in the new conversion pathway, which was merely an added opportunity rather than an extinguishment of their existing rights in the restricted JLWQA units; the fee was a standalone monetary charge without government coercion or acquisition of property. It further noted that typical Takings Clause claims involve physical takings or exactions tied to property transfers, which were absent here.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-01-13 · cited 1×
The case concerned a challenge by SoHo/NoHo artist groups to a 2021 New York City rezoning that created an optional process for converting restricted Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists (JLWQA) units—originally limited by 1970s laws to certified artists—to unrestricted residential use in exchange for a one-time fee scaled to unit square footage. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and ruled that the fee does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, entitling the City to a declaration to that effect. The court reasoned that petitioners lacked any compensable property interest in the new conversion pathway, which was merely an added opportunity rather than an extinguishment of their existing rights in the restricted JLWQA units; the fee was a standalone monetary charge without government coercion or acquisition of property. It further noted that typical Takings Clause claims involve physical takings or exactions tied to property transfers, which were absent here.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-12-16
The case involved Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), owner and operator of the sole landfill in the Town of Seneca Falls, challenging a 2016 local law that banned solid waste facilities but grandfathered existing ones only until December 31, 2025; SMI claimed the Town Board violated SEQRA by adopting the law without properly reviewing its environmental effects, including failing to take a “hard look” at impacts from closure. After a convoluted procedural history—including a rescinded replacement law, citizen intervention, dismissals, and prior Appellate Division rulings on timeliness—the Court of Appeals addressed SMI’s standing to assert the SEQRA claim and whether respondents could raise a statute-of-limitations defense. The court held that SMI has standing as an affected property owner under established precedent, declined to review the limitations argument because the appeal arose from a nonfinal Appellate Division order on standing, and therefore reversed and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to decide the SEQRA claim on the merits.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-12-16
The case involved Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), owner and operator of the sole landfill in the Town of Seneca Falls, challenging a 2016 local law that banned solid waste facilities but grandfathered existing ones only until December 31, 2025; SMI claimed the Town Board violated SEQRA by adopting the law without properly reviewing its environmental effects, including failing to take a “hard look” at impacts from closure. After a convoluted procedural history—including a rescinded replacement law, citizen intervention, dismissals, and prior Appellate Division rulings on timeliness—the Court of Appeals addressed SMI’s standing to assert the SEQRA claim and whether respondents could raise a statute-of-limitations defense. The court held that SMI has standing as an affected property owner under established precedent, declined to review the limitations argument because the appeal arose from a nonfinal Appellate Division order on standing, and therefore reversed and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to decide the SEQRA claim on the merits.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-12-16
The case involved Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), owner and operator of the sole landfill in the Town of Seneca Falls, challenging a 2016 local law that banned solid waste facilities but grandfathered existing ones only until December 31, 2025; SMI claimed the Town Board violated SEQRA by adopting the law without properly reviewing its environmental effects, including failing to take a “hard look” at impacts from closure. After a convoluted procedural history—including a rescinded replacement law, citizen intervention, dismissals, and prior Appellate Division rulings on timeliness—the Court of Appeals addressed SMI’s standing to assert the SEQRA claim and whether respondents could raise a statute-of-limitations defense. The court held that SMI has standing as an affected property owner under established precedent, declined to review the limitations argument because the appeal arose from a nonfinal Appellate Division order on standing, and therefore reversed and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to decide the SEQRA claim on the merits.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Mayzenberg
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-11-24
The case concerned whether New York no-fault insurance regulations allow an insurer to deny reimbursement to a licensed healthcare provider for alleged professional misconduct, specifically paying kickbacks for patient referrals. The Court of Appeals answered a certified question from the Second Circuit by holding that the Department of Financial Services regulation (11 NYCRR 65-3.16[a][12]) does not permit such denials when the provider remains properly licensed and has not surrendered control to unlicensed parties. The court reasoned that DFS's narrow interpretation—limiting denials to failures of foundational licensing prerequisites—is rational because it follows the regulation's plain text, supports the no-fault statute's goals of swift victim compensation and reduced litigation, and prevents insurers from unilaterally policing professional conduct outside core eligibility requirements.
business & regulatoryhealthcare

Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Reyes v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-06-23
In Reyes v. City of New York, plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes, an independent journalist, was arrested after entering the publicly accessible lobby of an NYPD precinct and recording police activity despite warnings based on the department’s Trespass Policy prohibiting such recording inside its facilities. He sued the City in federal court, claiming violations of New York’s Civil Rights Law § 79-p and New York City Administrative Code § 14-189—the Right to Record Acts—which establish a private right to record law enforcement activity without physical interference. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the question whether these statutes apply inside police stationhouse lobbies, and the New York Court of Appeals reformulated and answered it in the negative. The court reasoned that the statutes’ texts are silent on location and thus ambiguous, but their legislative history—centered on incidents of recording police misconduct on public streets and sidewalks—shows no intent to extend the right indoors, and applying it to precinct lobbies would create privacy risks for victims and witnesses and potentially interfere with law enforcement functions.
free speechcivil rights
People v. Flesch
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
In People v. Flesch, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in exchange for the prosecution's recommendation of a five-year probation sentence, but the original plea deal proved illegal because the offense required imprisonment. After the newly elected District Attorney sought to withdraw the recommendation and was disqualified due to a conflict, a special prosecutor was appointed and accepted shock probation—an alternative sentence the defendant himself proposed as meeting his expectations under the agreement. The sentencing court declined to impose probation without a mental health component, offered the defendant multiple chances to withdraw his plea, and ultimately imposed a four-year prison term followed by post-release supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the prosecution did not breach the plea agreement because the original sentence was unlawful, the special prosecutor supported a lawful alternative consistent with the defendant's requests, and the defendant chose not to withdraw his plea despite knowing the court would not impose the negotiated term.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Harris
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
The case concerned whether Jamien Harris's guilty plea to two counts of criminal possession of a firearm, based on weapons found in her home on November 21, 2021, barred a subsequent indictment for the second-degree murder of her grandmother the previous day under CPL 40.40(2), which prohibits separate prosecutions for joinable offenses arising from the same criminal transaction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's dismissal and reinstated the murder indictment. It held that the offenses were not part of the same criminal transaction because the simple possession charges were complete upon the defendant's dominion and control over the firearms on November 21 and were independent of the prior murder, which involved distinct acts and timing under the statutory definition in CPL 40.10(2)(a). The court reasoned that the possession was not unified with the homicide by a common purpose or continuous conduct, and the prosecution's evidence and instructions to the first grand jury focused solely on possession without relying on the shooting.
gunscriminal lawprocedure
People v. Flesch
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
In People v. Flesch, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree assault in exchange for the prosecution's recommendation of a five-year probation sentence, but the original plea deal proved illegal because the offense required imprisonment. After the newly elected District Attorney sought to withdraw the recommendation and was disqualified due to a conflict, a special prosecutor was appointed and accepted shock probation—an alternative sentence the defendant himself proposed as meeting his expectations under the agreement. The sentencing court declined to impose probation without a mental health component, offered the defendant multiple chances to withdraw his plea, and ultimately imposed a four-year prison term followed by post-release supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the prosecution did not breach the plea agreement because the original sentence was unlawful, the special prosecutor supported a lawful alternative consistent with the defendant's requests, and the defendant chose not to withdraw his plea despite knowing the court would not impose the negotiated term.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Harris
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-05-26
The case concerned whether Jamien Harris's guilty plea to two counts of criminal possession of a firearm, based on weapons found in her home on November 21, 2021, barred a subsequent indictment for the second-degree murder of her grandmother the previous day under CPL 40.40(2), which prohibits separate prosecutions for joinable offenses arising from the same criminal transaction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's dismissal and reinstated the murder indictment. It held that the offenses were not part of the same criminal transaction because the simple possession charges were complete upon the defendant's dominion and control over the firearms on November 21 and were independent of the prior murder, which involved distinct acts and timing under the statutory definition in CPL 40.10(2)(a). The court reasoned that the possession was not unified with the homicide by a common purpose or continuous conduct, and the prosecution's evidence and instructions to the first grand jury focused solely on possession without relying on the shooting.
gunscriminal lawprocedure
People v. N.H.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23 · cited 2×
The case concerned whether a defendant could validly waive a hearing under Penal Law § 60.12 as part of a plea agreement. N.H., charged with an eligible offense, sought either an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act or a hearing to prove eligibility based on domestic violence she had experienced; the prosecution conditioned a plea deal on her waiving that hearing, which she accepted. The Court of Appeals held that such waivers are invalid. It reasoned that the DVSJA’s statutory scheme deliberately requires courts to determine, after a hearing that considers evidence of abuse and its link to the offense, whether a standard sentence would be unduly harsh, thereby advancing the Legislature’s goal of ensuring judges account for domestic violence’s impact on survivors before imposing sentence. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. N.H.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23 · cited 2×
The case concerned whether a defendant could validly waive a hearing under Penal Law § 60.12 as part of a plea agreement. N.H., charged with an eligible offense, sought either an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act or a hearing to prove eligibility based on domestic violence she had experienced; the prosecution conditioned a plea deal on her waiving that hearing, which she accepted. The Court of Appeals held that such waivers are invalid. It reasoned that the DVSJA’s statutory scheme deliberately requires courts to determine, after a hearing that considers evidence of abuse and its link to the offense, whether a standard sentence would be unduly harsh, thereby advancing the Legislature’s goal of ensuring judges account for domestic violence’s impact on survivors before imposing sentence. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Woods
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-04-21
In People v. Woods, the New York Court of Appeals addressed charges against Travis Woods stemming from a 2006 shooting, including second-degree murder and weapon possession, along with separate drug-related offenses. After three mistrials on the murder and weapons counts due to jury deadlocks between 2008 and 2010, the prosecution waited more than three years before commencing a fourth trial in 2013, during which it frequently failed to appear at calendar calls and offered only general assertions about internal case reviews. The court dismissed the murder and weapons charges, holding that the prosecution failed to provide a sufficient justification for the prolonged delay under speedy trial standards. However, it upheld Woods's drug convictions from the first trial, concluding that the trial court's failure to notify defense counsel of two jury notes requesting witness testimony was harmless because the jury promptly sent a follow-up note on the same topic, allowing counsel to participate in the readback.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Sabb
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-03-19 · cited 1×
The case concerned whether a trial court could impose consecutive sentences on defendant Jhajuan Sabb after he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree for causing the death of S.A. and attempted assault in the first degree for injuring A.T. during the same drive-by shooting. The Court of Appeals held that consecutive sentencing was unlawful and affirmed the Appellate Division's modification of the sentences to run concurrently. The Court reasoned that when a defendant pleads guilty, the prosecution must show that the crimes arose from separate and distinct acts based solely on the factual allegations in the indictment counts to which the defendant pleaded and the admissions in the plea allocution. Neither the indictment nor the allocution established that the manslaughter and assault resulted from distinct acts, such as separate trigger pulls, and the Court declined to consider additional materials like the presentence report. The Court also confirmed that challenges to the legality of consecutive sentences fall under the illegal sentence exception and need not be preserved.
criminal lawprocedure
Matter of Gonzalez v. Northeast Parent & Child Socy.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-03-17 · cited 1×
In this case, a law firm that represented a workers' compensation claimant sought Board approval for legal fees calculated from penalties assessed against an insurance carrier under WCL §§ 25(1)(e) and 25(3)(f) for untimely payments of the claimant's award. The Workers' Compensation Board and lower courts denied the request, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that WCL § 24(2) does not authorize fees based on those charges. The Court reasoned that the statute's text creates a mandatory fee schedule that does not encompass WCL § 25 assessments, which are separate penalties rather than compensation, and that the legislative history contains no indication that such fees were intended.
labor & employmentprocedure
Matter of Gonzalez v. Northeast Parent & Child Socy.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-03-17 · cited 1×
In this case, a law firm that represented a workers' compensation claimant sought Board approval for legal fees calculated from penalties assessed against an insurance carrier under WCL §§ 25(1)(e) and 25(3)(f) for untimely payments of the claimant's award. The Workers' Compensation Board and lower courts denied the request, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that WCL § 24(2) does not authorize fees based on those charges. The Court reasoned that the statute's text creates a mandatory fee schedule that does not encompass WCL § 25 assessments, which are separate penalties rather than compensation, and that the legislative history contains no indication that such fees were intended.
labor & employmentprocedure
Matter of Russell v. Town of Mount Pleasant, N.Y.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-02-19 · cited 2×
The case concerned a FOIL request by James Russell seeking the names and email addresses of all subscribers to the Town of Mount Pleasant’s E-news alert system, which the Town denied on privacy grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the denial, ruling that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy exempt under FOIL. The Court applied a balancing test and found that the subscribers’ privacy interests were substantial, as evidenced by near-unanimous lack of consent and risks such as spoofing or identity theft from public release of the data, while no meaningful public interest supported disclosure. It distinguished a prior Appellate Division decision that had required similar disclosure where no privacy concerns had been shown.
free speechcivil rightsprocedure
Matter of Russell v. Town of Mount Pleasant, N.Y.
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-02-19 · cited 2×
The case concerned a FOIL request by James Russell seeking the names and email addresses of all subscribers to the Town of Mount Pleasant’s E-news alert system, which the Town denied on privacy grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the denial, ruling that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy exempt under FOIL. The Court applied a balancing test and found that the subscribers’ privacy interests were substantial, as evidenced by near-unanimous lack of consent and risks such as spoofing or identity theft from public release of the data, while no meaningful public interest supported disclosure. It distinguished a prior Appellate Division decision that had required similar disclosure where no privacy concerns had been shown.
free speechcivil rightsprocedure
People v. Morel
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-02-17
The case concerned whether a misdemeanor complaint charging Agustin Morel with driving while ability impaired by marijuana under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(4) was facially sufficient. The Court of Appeals held that it was and affirmed the conviction. The arresting officer’s allegations within the four corners of the accusatory instrument—defendant’s admission to smoking marijuana shortly before the stop, the odor of marijuana and ash on his clothing, his watery and bloodshot eyes, and his refusal to submit to a chemical test—collectively supplied reasonable cause to believe the offense had been committed. Because Morel had waived prosecution by information, the court applied the less stringent “reasonable cause” standard applicable to misdemeanor complaints and drew permissible inferences from the pleaded facts without relying on an unincorporated refusal report.
criminal lawprocedure
Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-01-13 · cited 1×
The case concerned a challenge by SoHo/NoHo artist groups to a 2021 New York City rezoning that created an optional process for converting restricted Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists (JLWQA) units—originally limited by 1970s laws to certified artists—to unrestricted residential use in exchange for a one-time fee scaled to unit square footage. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and ruled that the fee does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, entitling the City to a declaration to that effect. The court reasoned that petitioners lacked any compensable property interest in the new conversion pathway, which was merely an added opportunity rather than an extinguishment of their existing rights in the restricted JLWQA units; the fee was a standalone monetary charge without government coercion or acquisition of property. It further noted that typical Takings Clause claims involve physical takings or exactions tied to property transfers, which were absent here.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v. City of New York
New York Court of Appeals · 2026-01-13 · cited 1×
The case concerned a challenge by SoHo/NoHo artist groups to a 2021 New York City rezoning that created an optional process for converting restricted Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists (JLWQA) units—originally limited by 1970s laws to certified artists—to unrestricted residential use in exchange for a one-time fee scaled to unit square footage. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and ruled that the fee does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, entitling the City to a declaration to that effect. The court reasoned that petitioners lacked any compensable property interest in the new conversion pathway, which was merely an added opportunity rather than an extinguishment of their existing rights in the restricted JLWQA units; the fee was a standalone monetary charge without government coercion or acquisition of property. It further noted that typical Takings Clause claims involve physical takings or exactions tied to property transfers, which were absent here.
propertybusiness & regulatory
Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-12-16
The case involved Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), owner and operator of the sole landfill in the Town of Seneca Falls, challenging a 2016 local law that banned solid waste facilities but grandfathered existing ones only until December 31, 2025; SMI claimed the Town Board violated SEQRA by adopting the law without properly reviewing its environmental effects, including failing to take a “hard look” at impacts from closure. After a convoluted procedural history—including a rescinded replacement law, citizen intervention, dismissals, and prior Appellate Division rulings on timeliness—the Court of Appeals addressed SMI’s standing to assert the SEQRA claim and whether respondents could raise a statute-of-limitations defense. The court held that SMI has standing as an affected property owner under established precedent, declined to review the limitations argument because the appeal arose from a nonfinal Appellate Division order on standing, and therefore reversed and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to decide the SEQRA claim on the merits.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-12-16
The case involved Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), owner and operator of the sole landfill in the Town of Seneca Falls, challenging a 2016 local law that banned solid waste facilities but grandfathered existing ones only until December 31, 2025; SMI claimed the Town Board violated SEQRA by adopting the law without properly reviewing its environmental effects, including failing to take a “hard look” at impacts from closure. After a convoluted procedural history—including a rescinded replacement law, citizen intervention, dismissals, and prior Appellate Division rulings on timeliness—the Court of Appeals addressed SMI’s standing to assert the SEQRA claim and whether respondents could raise a statute-of-limitations defense. The court held that SMI has standing as an affected property owner under established precedent, declined to review the limitations argument because the appeal arose from a nonfinal Appellate Division order on standing, and therefore reversed and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to decide the SEQRA claim on the merits.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v. Town of Seneca Falls
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-12-16
The case involved Seneca Meadows, Inc. (SMI), owner and operator of the sole landfill in the Town of Seneca Falls, challenging a 2016 local law that banned solid waste facilities but grandfathered existing ones only until December 31, 2025; SMI claimed the Town Board violated SEQRA by adopting the law without properly reviewing its environmental effects, including failing to take a “hard look” at impacts from closure. After a convoluted procedural history—including a rescinded replacement law, citizen intervention, dismissals, and prior Appellate Division rulings on timeliness—the Court of Appeals addressed SMI’s standing to assert the SEQRA claim and whether respondents could raise a statute-of-limitations defense. The court held that SMI has standing as an affected property owner under established precedent, declined to review the limitations argument because the appeal arose from a nonfinal Appellate Division order on standing, and therefore reversed and remitted the case to the Appellate Division to decide the SEQRA claim on the merits.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedureproperty
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Mayzenberg
New York Court of Appeals · 2025-11-24
The case concerned whether New York no-fault insurance regulations allow an insurer to deny reimbursement to a licensed healthcare provider for alleged professional misconduct, specifically paying kickbacks for patient referrals. The Court of Appeals answered a certified question from the Second Circuit by holding that the Department of Financial Services regulation (11 NYCRR 65-3.16[a][12]) does not permit such denials when the provider remains properly licensed and has not surrendered control to unlicensed parties. The court reasoned that DFS's narrow interpretation—limiting denials to failures of foundational licensing prerequisites—is rational because it follows the regulation's plain text, supports the no-fault statute's goals of swift victim compensation and reduced litigation, and prevents insurers from unilaterally policing professional conduct outside core eligibility requirements.
business & regulatoryhealthcare