J Robert Lynch

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.

labor & employmentcriminal lawpropertyprocedure

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.

family law

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.

family law

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a negligence claim filed by the administrator of a Binghamton University student's estate against the State of New York after the student was fatally stabbed in his dormitory by another student, Michael Roque, who had previously expressed hostility toward the victim. The claim asserted two theories: breach of the university's duty as a landlord to provide security, and breach of a duty to protect the decedent from Roque based on statements made during counseling sessions at the university's Counseling Center. The Court of Claims granted the state's cross-motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the duty-to-protect claim, relying on precedent that universities owe no such duty to students. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the university may owe a duty to reasonably follow its own threat assessment and referral policies when a student poses a credible threat, as these procedures place the institution in a position to mitigate harm, and remanded for further discovery on the scope and application of those policies.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a negligence claim filed by the administrator of a Binghamton University student's estate against the State of New York after the student was fatally stabbed in his dormitory by another student, Michael Roque, who had previously expressed hostility toward the victim. The claim asserted two theories: breach of the university's duty as a landlord to provide security, and breach of a duty to protect the decedent from Roque based on statements made during counseling sessions at the university's Counseling Center. The Court of Claims granted the state's cross-motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the duty-to-protect claim, relying on precedent that universities owe no such duty to students. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the university may owe a duty to reasonably follow its own threat assessment and referral policies when a student poses a credible threat, as these procedures place the institution in a position to mitigate harm, and remanded for further discovery on the scope and application of those policies.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a former police officer challenging the denial of accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after a 2011 shoulder injury sustained while responding to a fight. The court annulled the denial of performance of duty benefits, finding that substantial evidence showed the injury resulted from the work incident rather than a prior 2008 condition, but upheld the denial of accidental disability benefits because the incident was an inherent risk of police duties. The reasoning centered on evaluating medical evidence regarding causation and determining whether the event qualified as an accident under retirement law.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved out-of-network healthcare providers and Empire Plan members challenging the Empire Plan's switch to the federal No Surprises Act's independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for surprise medical bills, instead of New York's Surprise Bill Law IDR process. Plaintiffs argued that Civil Service Law § 162 and the Surprise Bill Law required use of the state IDR process. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, declaring that the state IDR process is not required for the Empire Plan and denying plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. The court reasoned that the Empire Plan is a self-funded plan governed by the federal law, which permits use of its own IDR process where state alternatives do not apply, and the Surprise Bill Law does not impose a mandatory obligation on the plan to use the state process.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved out-of-network healthcare providers and Empire Plan members challenging the Empire Plan's switch to the federal No Surprises Act's independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for surprise medical bills, instead of New York's Surprise Bill Law IDR process. Plaintiffs argued that Civil Service Law § 162 and the Surprise Bill Law required use of the state IDR process. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, declaring that the state IDR process is not required for the Empire Plan and denying plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. The court reasoned that the Empire Plan is a self-funded plan governed by the federal law, which permits use of its own IDR process where state alternatives do not apply, and the Surprise Bill Law does not impose a mandatory obligation on the plan to use the state process.

healthcarefederal power

This case involved a constitutional challenge to New York's Early Mail Voter Act, which allows all registered voters to apply for and cast ballots by mail before election day. Plaintiffs, including members of Congress, state legislators, political parties, and voters, sought to invalidate the law, arguing it improperly expanded mail voting beyond the limited circumstances permitted by article II, section 2 of the New York Constitution. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint and declaration that the Act is constitutional. The court held that article II, section 7 authorizes the Legislature to enact laws providing for alternative voting methods for all voters, and section 2 does not prohibit extending such procedures beyond the enumerated categories of absentee voters. The decision rested on the text, historical context, and structure of article II of the state constitution.

electionscivil rights

This case involved 29 nonjudicial employees of the New York State Unified Court System who challenged the denial of their requests for religious exemptions from a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's amended judgment by reversing the partial grant of the petition and dismissing the petition in full, thereby upholding all denials. The court determined that the agency's process complied with lawful procedure and that the Vaccination Exemption Committee's assessments were not arbitrary or capricious, as they rationally identified inconsistencies between petitioners' claimed objections to fetal cell lines in COVID-19 vaccines and their acceptance or use of other medical products connected to such lines, indicating a lack of sincere religious belief. The decision emphasized that employers may evaluate the sincerity of religious beliefs but not their legitimacy under Title VII standards.

religious libertycivil rightslabor & employment

This case involved an appeal by Julie O. from a County Court order continuing her involuntary retention at Cayuga Medical Center under New York's Mental Hygiene Law. She was initially admitted on an emergency basis after erratic behavior and later converted to involuntary admission on medical certification; she requested a hearing under the emergency provision but objected when the court combined it with a hearing on the certification admission. The Appellate Division held that the patient has the right to request separate hearings under each statutory section and the court should not have combined them without her request for the second, but found the error harmless because the evidence satisfied the stricter emergency standard and supported retention under both provisions. The court affirmed the retention order, concluding that clear and convincing evidence showed she had a mental illness posing a substantial risk of harm to herself.

civil rightsprocedurehealthcare

This case arose from a challenge by Oceanview Home for Adults, an adult home operator, to regulations issued by the New York Commissioner of Health that sought to transition residents with serious mental illness from large adult homes into more integrated community-based settings, in line with the ADA integration mandate established in Olmstead v. L.C. The regulations targeted so-called transitional adult homes meeting certain size and mental-illness thresholds and were adopted following federal litigation and a settlement addressing deinstitutionalization. The Supreme Court, in a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, partially granted the petition and invalidated portions of the regulations. On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed the validity of the rules, the applicable level of constitutional scrutiny, and their consistency with federal disability law requirements.

civil rightshealthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge by Oceanview Home for Adults to regulations promulgated by the New York Commissioner of Health restricting admissions to large adult homes designated as transitional adult homes, where a significant portion of residents have serious mental illness, as part of the state's compliance with the ADA's integration mandate under the Olmstead decision and related federal settlements. The Supreme Court partially granted the petition in a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action by invalidating certain regulations. On appeal, the Appellate Division considered the regulations' validity in light of federal disability law requirements for community-based placements, state implementation plans, and constitutional standards, while addressing standing, scrutiny levels, and the scope of the integration mandate.

civil rightshealthcare

The case concerned proprietary nursing homes challenging the New York Department of Health's guidance interpreting Public Health Law § 2808(5)(c), which bars nonpublic residential health care facilities from withdrawing equity exceeding 3% of annual patient care revenue without prior approval. The guidance treated withdrawals by pass-through entities (such as LLCs or S corporations) to pay owners' federal and state income taxes as countable equity withdrawals subject to the threshold, unlike taxes paid directly by the entity itself. Petitioners brought hybrid CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions alleging that the policy violated substantive due process and equal protection and conflicted with prior Court of Appeals precedent. The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal of the claims, holding that the classification rationally advanced the statute's goal of protecting facilities' financial stability and resident care, that tax payments by pass-through entities were not "facility purposes," and that no constitutional violation occurred.

healthcarebusiness & regulatorytaxes

This case involved a licensed chiropractor authorized to treat workers' compensation claimants who was removed from the authorized provider list by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board after an investigation revealed he had received $6,800 in payments from a durable medical equipment supplier for fitting and instructing patients on its products. The petitioner challenged the removal in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that the board violated Workers' Compensation Law § 13-l(10) by not providing a hearing before the chiropractic practice committee. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petition, holding that the statute permits the board chair to independently investigate and decide such matters without a hearing when the underlying facts of the violation are admitted and documented. The court reasoned that this dual-track process under the law, consistent with prior precedent, allows removal for prohibited third-party payments under § 13-l(10)(g) without further process in these circumstances, and the decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory