Cites Matter of Sherrill v. . O'Brien — Matter of Sherrill v. O’Brien, 114 App. Div. 890, reversed. Matter of Pendleton, v. O’Brien, 114 App. Div. 890, reversed. Matter of Payne v. O’Brien, 114 App. Div. 890, reversed.
The case involved a former employee of a furniture retail business suing his employer for unpaid regular wages and overtime compensation under the FLSA and New York Labor Law, plus claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and related property torts based on equipment he allegedly provided or stored at the workplace. The employer denied the claims, asserted that the employee was exempt from overtime as an administrative or managerial worker, and brought a counterclaim for damages arising from alleged post-termination interference with the company's computer system, which had led to a separate criminal proceeding resolved by a guilty plea to disorderly conduct. The trial court denied both sides' motions for summary judgment and related relief. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order to preclude admission of the sealed criminal indictment and plea transcript in support of the counterclaim but otherwise affirmed, holding that material factual disputes existed regarding the nature of the employee's duties, exemption status, wage amounts owed, and liability on the counterclaim and property claims.
This case involves a dispute between parents over custody and visitation of their two children, where the father, who had sole custody under a prior consent order, filed a petition in Family Court seeking to suspend the mother's visitation and terminate her parental rights on grounds of abandonment to facilitate adoption by his paramour. The Family Court suspended visitation, denied the father's motion to convert the petition into an adoption proceeding, but refused to dismiss it entirely, opting instead to address abandonment issues in Family Court while adoption petitions proceeded in Surrogate's Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's October 2024 order and granted the mother's motion to dismiss the petition. The court reasoned that the core issue of abandonment for adoption purposes should be resolved solely in Surrogate's Court to avoid duplicative proceedings, as the father lacked standing to seek termination of parental rights in Family Court outside of an agency-initiated proceeding, and the paramour had already filed adoption petitions there.
This case involves a dispute between parents over custody and visitation of their two children, where the father, who had sole custody under a prior consent order, filed a petition in Family Court seeking to suspend the mother's visitation and terminate her parental rights on grounds of abandonment to facilitate adoption by his paramour. The Family Court suspended visitation, denied the father's motion to convert the petition into an adoption proceeding, but refused to dismiss it entirely, opting instead to address abandonment issues in Family Court while adoption petitions proceeded in Surrogate's Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's October 2024 order and granted the mother's motion to dismiss the petition. The court reasoned that the core issue of abandonment for adoption purposes should be resolved solely in Surrogate's Court to avoid duplicative proceedings, as the father lacked standing to seek termination of parental rights in Family Court outside of an agency-initiated proceeding, and the paramour had already filed adoption petitions there.
This case involved a defendant's appeal from his guilty plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a 2020 vehicle search that was based solely on the odor of marijuana detected by police. The Appellate Division addressed whether Penal Law § 222.05(3)(a), part of the 2021 Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act, applies to a suppression hearing conducted after the statute's effective date even though the search predated it. The court concluded that the statute's broad present-tense language limiting probable cause determinations based solely on cannabis odor in any criminal proceeding, including CPL 710.20 suppression motions, requires its application here, distinguishing the situation from the Court of Appeals' prior decision in People v. Pastrana involving pre-enactment convictions. As a result, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the plea, granted suppression, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
This case involved a defendant's appeal from his guilty plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a 2020 vehicle search that was based solely on the odor of marijuana detected by police. The Appellate Division addressed whether Penal Law § 222.05(3)(a), part of the 2021 Marihuana Regulation and Taxation Act, applies to a suppression hearing conducted after the statute's effective date even though the search predated it. The court concluded that the statute's broad present-tense language limiting probable cause determinations based solely on cannabis odor in any criminal proceeding, including CPL 710.20 suppression motions, requires its application here, distinguishing the situation from the Court of Appeals' prior decision in People v. Pastrana involving pre-enactment convictions. As a result, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the plea, granted suppression, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.
This case concerned a challenge by National Building & Restoration Corp., related entities, and officers to a determination by the New York State Department of Labor finding that they willfully failed to pay required prevailing wages and supplements on nine public works projects between 2008 and 2010, falsified payroll records, and engaged in illegal wage kickbacks. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination in full. The court held that Labor Law article 8 authorized the Department's broad investigative powers and the addition of National Construction Services, Inc. as a substantially owned-affiliated entity liable for penalties, that substantial evidence supported the findings of underpayments, willfulness, knowing participation by officers, and record falsification, and that the interest, civil penalty, and five-year debarment from public works bidding were authorized by statute and not disproportionate.