The 2016-17 Court of Appeals Term Leave Grants – February and March Sessions

After a slow start to the 2016-17 term, where the Court of Appeals granted only 4 cases from the September, October, November, December, and January sessions, the pace began to pick up in February and March.  Between those two months, the Court of Appeals granted 8 motions for leave to appeal.  Here’s a quick overview of those cases.

February Session Grants

Brown v State of New York, 144 AD3d 1535 (4th Dept 2016)

Question presented: Whether a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the trial court’s apportionment of 100% liability to the State for a dangerous condition in the roadway that caused an accident, and 0% to a driver who failed to yield the right of way in violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

Garcia v New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 144 AD3d 59 (1st Dept 2016)

Question presented:  Whether the New York City Board of Health exceeded its authority by adopting regulations mandating the influenza vaccine for children attending certain child care, pre-kindergarten, and kindergarten programs.

Matter of Marine Holdings, LLC v New York City Commission on Human Rights, 137 AD3d 1284 (2d Dept 2016)

Question presented: What standard of proof applies when, in a discrimination enforcement proceeding, the accused landlord comes forward with prima facie evidence that it would be structurally infeasible to provide a reasonable accommodation of a tenant’s disability and the burden of proof shifts back to the Commission, and whether the Appellate Division properly held that substantial evidence did no exist in the record to rebut the landlord’s showing.

Gravano v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 142 AD3d 776 (1st Dept 2016)

Question presented: Whether video game depictions of celebrities can constitute a misappropriation of their likenesses in violation of Civil Rights Law § 51’s right to privacy.

I summarized these cases and the First Department’s holding when they were granted, which can be found here.

March Session Grants

Parietti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 140 AD3d 1039 (2d Dept 2016)

Question presented: What is sufficient to constitute constructive notice of a hazardous condition in a retail store, and whether the Appellate Division properly granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart where the store “established that the alleged wet condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident such that its employees were able to discover and remedy it.”

Matter of Anonymous, an Intermediate Care Facility v Molik, 141 AD3d 162 (3d Dept 2016)

Question presented: Whether under Social Services Law § 493(3)(a), the only circumstance under which the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs could substantiate a report of neglect against a facility or provider agency is where an incident of neglect has occurred but the subject cannot be identified.

Altman v 285 West Fourth LLC, 127 AD3d 654 (1st Dept 2015)

Question presented: Whether a tenant in what should be a rent-regulated apartment under the NYC Rent Stabilization Code can agree to pay a rent that exceeds the maximum rent allowable under the RSC and waive the protections afforded under the statute by agreeing not to bring a proceeding for a rent overcharge.

That was part 2 of my 4-part series looking ahead to the cases for which the Court of Appeals has granted leave to appeal.  Next up, the April and May Session leave grants.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: