ADMIRALTY, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Lee v. Astoria Generating Co., No. 161
In an action for indemnification arising out of an accident that occurred on navigable waters, the Appellate Division’s order reversing summary judgment for defendants is reversed where a barge containing an electricity generating turbine is a vessel under 33 U.S.C. section 905(b) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, and that provision preempted plaintiff’s New York State Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) claims.
ATTORNEY’S FEES, GOVERNMENT LAW, PROPERTY LAW & REAL ESTATE
Hargett v. Ticonderoga, No. 169
In petitioner’s appeal from an award of attorney’s fees to respondent in an Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) proceeding, the order is affirmed where EDPL section 702(B) provides for reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs when a condemnee successfully challenges a condemnor’s authority to acquire real property in proceedings pursuant to EDPL section 207(A).
CIVIL RIGHTS, COMMUNICATIONS LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, GOVERNMENT LAW
Walton v. N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. Servs., No. 149
In an action alleging that the portion of a telephone charge for collect calls from inmates that was allocated as a commission to the department of corrections violated the New York Constitution, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the collection of the commission did not constitute a tax; 2) the practice was not a “taking” in the absence of government compulsion; and 3) plaintiffs failed to establish that the commission bore no reasonable relationship to legitimate penological aims.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FAMILY LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Godfrey v. Spano, No. 147
In a state constitutional challenge to two directives by executive and county officials that recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages for purposes of public employee health insurance coverage and other benefits, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to specify a circumstance where taxpayer funds were expended as a result of the executive order at issue that would not have been expended in the absence of the order.
CONTRACTS, CORPORATION & ENTERPRISE LAW, ENTERTAINMENT LAW, EVIDENCE, INJURY AND TORT LAW, M&A, MEDIA LAW
Snyder v. Bronfman, No. 153
In an action to recover the value of plaintiff’s services in helping to achieve a corporate acquisition, specifically the acquisition of Warner Music from Time Warner, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff’s quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims were barred by the statute of frauds contained in General Obligations Law section 5-701 (a)(10).
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
People v. Gillyard, No. 168
Defendant’s criminal impersonation conviction is affirmed where the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a handcuff key to show familiarity and access to the tools of the charged crime, but the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming.
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
People v. Colon, No. 162
In an appeal from a denial of defendants’ motion under Criminal Procedure Law section 440.10 to vacate their murder convictions, the order is reversed where the prosecutor failed to correct a witness’s misleading testimony and, in addition, compounded these errors by repeating and emphasizing the misinformation during summation, and there was a reasonable probability that this affected the jury’s verdict.
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
People v. Brown, No. 152
Defendant’s rape conviction is affirmed where defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the introduction of a DNA report processed by a subcontractor laboratory to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) through the testimony of a forensic biologist from OCME, because the report was not testimonial and therefore was not hearsay.
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
People v. Alemany, No. 150
Defendant’s attempted rape sentence is affirmed where a hearing court may assess risk factor points to a defendant under the Sex Offender Registration Act where there was clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was undomiciled and lacked any history of living in shelters or community ties.