Articles Posted in Court Decisions

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

July 24, 2009
1. People v. Bright, 1010, 5732/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5607; 881 N.Y.S.2d 291; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5436, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), …

2. People v. Thomas, 985, 5090/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5636; 881 N.Y.S.2d 291; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5417, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County, (Carol Berkman, J.), …

3. People v. Coronel, 975, 9516/98, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5629; 881 N.Y.S.2d 293; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5414, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, …

4. People v. Deoleo, 979, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5632; 881 N.Y.S.2d 292; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5468, July 2, 2009, Decided, July 2, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J.), …
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

July 16, 2009:

1. People v. Ross, 678, 4397/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4164; 62 A.D.3d 619; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, …

2. People v. Boateng, 668, 380/06, 668A, 2434/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4157; 62 A.D.3d 614; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4052, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), …

3. People v. Glover, 109, 876/04, 110, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4168; 62 A.D.3d 626; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4053, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, …

4. People v. Frederick, 663, 6348/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4155; 62 A.D.3d 612; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4041, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, …

5. People v. Manrique, 674, 1575/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4162; 62 A.D.3d 617; 880 N.Y.S.2d 51; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4050, May 28, 2009, Decided, May 28, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, …

6. People v. Hogans, 654, 1437/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4118; 62 A.D.3d 595; 878 N.Y.S.2d 890; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, …

7. People v. Nevarez, 630, 630A, 3633/06, 6046/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4104; 62 A.D.3d 585; 878 N.Y.S.2d 888; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, …
.
Continue reading

by

David Badertscher
Legal experts and prosecutors are quite concerned about possible results of the June 25, 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 07-591. In this decision the Court has ruled that forensic analysts conducting tests must be in court to testify about their test results and that lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic, or breath test printouts describing a suspect’s blood-alcohol level are no longer to be considered as sufficient evidence. A person is now required to be in court to talk about the test results. The basic question the Supreme Court addressed in this opinion was: “Is a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington?”* In its ruling the Supreme Court answered, yes.
_________________________ *The above quote was taken from discussion of this opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court Oyez website at. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_591 . This site also includes links to the text of the opinion as well at to the Syllabus, dissent, concurrance, and argument. For additional information see discussion in a July 15, 2009 Washington Post article by Tom Jackman, and follow the link on the U.S. Supreme Court website.

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

July 6-10, 2009.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 08, 2009 US v. Meadows, No. 08-1122 Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress as the officers acted within the permissible scope of an investigatory stop when they handcuffed defendant and removed him from his sister’s home; 2) the court did not err in its handling of defendant’s status as a felon during trial as defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by any information about his criminal history that came before the jury; 3) the government did not err in the challenged statements it made during its closing summation; and 4) the government did not err in its instructions to the jury.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 08, 2009 US v. Bryant , No. 08-1160 Conviction and sentence for drug crimes is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in not requiring the government to show that the presentence report’s description of the prior New York conviction was based on a sufficiently reliable source to establish the accuracy of that description, and thus the government could not have met its burden of establishing the existence of the prior conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes; 2) the court did not err in finding that a certified copy of the record from the Suffolk Superior Court was sufficiently reliable to support the fact of defendant’s Suffolk Superior Court conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes; 3) both of the defendant’s prior convictions, if proven, qualify as a predicate offenses under U.S.S.G. sec. 4B1.2; and 4) the court did not err in considering the two transactions as part of the same course of conduct for purposes of sentencing.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 06, 2009 Pilgrim v. Luther, No. 07-1950 In a prisoner civil rights action, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim fails as a matter of law as entreaties to activity such as petitions protesting prison conditions are not entitled to First Amendment protection where other less disruptive means of airing grievances are available; and 2) plaintiff’s claims that defendant violated his due process rights are without merit as any error on the part of the corrections officer assigned to assisting plaintiff was harmless in light of defendant’s owns failures.
Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

July 6-10. 2009.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, July 08, 2009 McCullen v. Coakley , No. 08-2310
In an action challenging a statute creating a fixed buffer zone around reproductive health care facilities, district court judgment rejecting the facial challenge and refuseing to enjoin enforcement of the new law is affirmed where: 1) there is nothing in the text or the legislative history of the statute that deprives that statute of content-neutral status, and thus an intermediate scrutiny analysis applies; 2) the statute is a valid time-place-manner regulation that advances a significant governmental interest without burdening substantially more speech than necessary and leaves open adequate alternative channels of communication; 3) plaintiffs’ overbreadth argument is without merit as the increased degree of the expansion of the buffer zone in the statute is reasonable, and thus the expansion is not a matter of constitutional significance; and 4) plaintiffs’ vagueness argument fails as plaintiffs want to engage in the anti-abortion protests that are proscribed in the atto! rney general’s challenged guidance letter, and a party to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 06, 2009 Pilgrim v. Luther, No. 07-1950 In a prisoner civil rights action, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim fails as a matter of law as entreaties to activity such as petitions protesting prison conditions are not entitled to First Amendment protection where other less disruptive means of airing grievances are available; and 2) plaintiff’s claims that defendant violated his due process rights are without merit as any error on the part of the corrections officer assigned to assisting plaintiff was harmless in light of defendant’s owns failures.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 10, 2009 Little v. KPMG LLP, No. 08-50100 In an action claiming that Plaintiff accounting firms lost business to Defendant when Defendant’s partner practiced without a Texas accounting license, the dismissal of the action is affirmed, where the alleged injury to Plaintiff was too speculative Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

July 8-13, 2009
ADMIRALTY, CORP. GOVERNANCE, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, DEBT COLLECTION Transfield ER Cape Ltd. v. Industrial Carriers Inc., No. 09-1733 In a dispute involving a maritime attachment and garnishment against a corporate alter ego, district court order vacating the attachment is affirmed where, if a corporation is registered with the New York Department of State and therefore found within the district for the purposes of Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, that corporation’s alter egos are also found within the district and the property of those alter egos is not subject to maritime attachment.

CIVIL RIGHTS, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW Harris v. Mills, No. 07-2283 In an employment discrimination action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation act, district court judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s pro se amended complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in concluding that claims under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act cannot be asserted against individuals in their official capacity; 2) plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state reasonable accommodation claims upon which relief can be granted, as both of his claims are legally insufficient; and 3) plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated, as he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard before his petition for reinstatement was denied, and a New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 78 post-deprivation hearing.

ERISA, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, PER CURIAM Burke v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Long Term Disability Plan, No. 08-1611 In a dispute involving disability insurance benefits, district court judgment dismissing plaintiff’s ERISA claim is affirmed where the court was correct to enforce the limitations period of the benefits plan in its entirety, including its prescribed start date, and to dismiss plaintiff’s claim as time-barred as it was brought after the expiration of the limitations period
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING US v. Daye, No. 08-1012 Sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm is vacated and remanded where: 1) defendant’s prior state conviction for engaging in a sexual act with a minor satisfies the standard articulated in Begay and is therefore a violent felony under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act; and 2) the District Court must consider of remand whether Defendant’s escape conviction constitutes a conviction for a violent felony under Chambers, and whether his two prior state convictions stem from conduct committed on different occasions for purposes of the Act.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

June 23, 2009:.

1. People v. Perez, 843, 5734/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4972; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899, June 18, 2009, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), …

2. People v. Pereyra, 850, 579/08, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4975; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4891, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, …

3. People v. Fields, 852, 4782/02, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4977; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4894, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.
Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

June 15-19, 2009.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 2009 Polar Tankers, Inc. v. Valdez, No. 08–310 In a Tonnage Clause challenge to an Alaska ordinance imposing a personal property tax on large oil tankers, judgment for Defendant is reversed, where the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was designed to impose “a charge for the privilege of entering, trading in, or lying in a port.””

Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

June 15-19, 2009.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 2009 Nijhawan v. Holder, No. 08–495 Petitioner’s removal from the U.S. based on his commission of an “aggravated felony” is affirmed, where the $10,000 threshold in 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed a fraud or deceit crime on a particular occasion, rather than to an element of the fraud or deceit crime.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 18, 2009 District Atty.’s Offc. v. Osborne, No. 08–6 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking the evidence used to convict Defendant of sexual assault for the purposes of DNA testing, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where, assuming Plaintiff’s claims could be pursued using Section 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the State’s evidence for DNA testing.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 18, 2009 Yeager v. US, No. 08–67 In an appeal from the District Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss his wire fraud indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds, the order is reversed where an apparent inconsistency between a jury’s verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts does not affect the acquittals’ preclusive force under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Continue reading

by

Uncertainty in Law Circles Over New Court Ruling for Judges

By JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: June 10, 2009 by the New York Times

“Lawyers across the country said that a Supreme Court ruling on conflicts of interest among elected judges could prompt a deluge of requests for judges to recuse themselves from cases.,,,”

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design