Court of Appeals September Session: Arguments of Interest for September 7, 2017

The Court of Appeals wraps up the first week of argument for the September session with three cases on the docket (the Court's case summaries can be found here). The Court will hear arguments on the following issues: (1) whether Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a(1-a), which phases out a special fund that pays benefits to …

New York Judge Denies State’s Motion to Dismiss Suit Challenging Constitutionality of New York’s DFS Law

Last year, a wave of uncertainty surrounded the legality of daily fantasy sports. In New York, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman brought a high profile suit to enjoin the operation of Draft Kings and FanDuel, arguing that their DFS games violated New York's constitutional ban on gambling. Specifically, Article I, § 9 of the New York …

Court of Appeals September Session: Arguments of Interest for September 6, 2017

The Court of Appeals is back for its second day of argument at Court of Appeals Hall, with four cases on the docket (the Court's argument summaries can be found here). Some interesting cases on the calendar today involving the following issues: (1) whether the Second Class Cities Law is superseded by the Taylor Law …

Court of Appeals September Session: Arguments of Interest for September 5, 2017

Welcome back to the first day of argument for the Court of Appeals' 2017-18 term. The Court is back for the first full argument term after its summer break, the first with new Judge Paul Feinman sitting. With lots of exciting cases for New York law on the docket this term (though probably not as …

The 2016-17 Appellate Division Leave Grants: April, May, and June

With the August Election Session now upon us, and the September Session arguments starting up just after Labor Day, it's a good time to wrap up my preview of the 2017-18 Court of Appeals term. This is the fourth part in the series on the cases in which the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal. …

The 2016-17 Appellate Division Leave Grants: January, February, and March

This is round three in my four part series previewing the cases that the Court of Appeals will hear during the 2017-18 term by leave of the Appellate Division. After 19 Appellate Division leave grants from September through December 2016, the grant pace slowed considerably during the first three months of 2017. Only 7 cases …

The Trailblazing Women Judges of the Court of Appeals

If you haven't followed the hashtags #WomenJusticeWeek and #WomenJusticeDay on Twitter, you really should. For this past week, Jack Metzler (@SCOTUSPlaces) and the other #AppellateTwitter denizens have been paying tribute to the distinguished women Justices of the Supreme Court and the approximately 125 women Justices of the State high courts. Included in that celebration are …

The 2016-17 Appellate Division Leave Grants: October Through December

The Court of Appeals is largely a certiorari court, meaning that you generally need permission to take a case there. You would think that because permission must be granted before the Court of Appeals can hear a case, it is usually the Court that grants permission to determine the cases it wants to hear.  You …

How The Appellate Division Grants Leave to the Court of Appeals: The 2016-17 Term Appellate Division Grants

There are multiple ways to take a case to the Court of Appeals. You can seek leave to appeal from the Court directly, which the Court grants fairly infrequently (I previewed the 2016-17 Court of Appeals term leave grants here: Part 1 - September through January Sessions, Part 2 - February and March Sessions, Part …

U.S. Department of Justice Contradicts EEOC, Argues that Title VII Does Not Protect Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Zarda v Altitude Express, Inc., the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, is faced with the question of whether to overrule its prior precedent and hold that Title VII protects against sexual orientation discrimination.  One month ago, the EEOC filed an amicus brief urging the Court to overrule its prior precedent in Simonton v Runyan, and …