New York State Court Decision Cases - Essay Example

People v. Henderson No.165 NY Reports, NY Court of Appeals, 2009 FACTS This case involves an appeal made by the defendant who was charged with attempted assault in the first degree under Penal Law Sections 110.00 and 120.10. The case originally stemmed from a fight, which happened at the Anna M. Kross Center at Rikers Island Jail. Two versions were given as to what transpired. People alleged that the defendant was the one who instigated the fight while the defense argued that the defendant was not present at all when the alleged fight broke out. Among the witnesses presented were two correction officers who testified that around 9:30 in the evening of March 17, 2003, they both heard a noisy disturbance at the housing unit where they were working. One of the officers relayed that he saw the defendant throw over the table on another inmate, and also that both officers saw the defendant fight with this inmate-victim. According to one of the officers, the defendant allegedly pulled out a metallic object from his left shirt sleeve and attacked the said inmate victim with punches and jabs to his body causing blood on the victim’s shirt. Finally, it was testified by one of the correction officers who followed the defendant walking over the shower area, that the defendant was seen placing an object down in one of the drains before he returned to the day room. After the prisoners involved were removed from their cells, a nine-inch shank with a point and a sharpened edge was said to have been retrieved from the drain. The inmate victim who was taken to the prison clinic for treatment was found to have puncture wounds, multiple stab wounds and lacerations. The defendant however, rebutted the said version by using the testimony made by the inmate victim stating that the defendant was a friend and was not among the assailants. The prosecution however cast doubt on the inmate-victim’s credibility through their cross-examination and found variance as to the inmate-victim’s reaction. The very first reaction of the said victim against the defendant was to accuse him, which when after the attack, suddenly signed a handwritten statement stating that he didn’t know what happened and didn’t know who did the said assault. Prosecutors then concluded that the victim may have been intimidated by the defendant. The jury then convicted the defendant with attempted assault in the first degree without however considering the other crimes charged. The defendant motioned to set aside the verdict but was unsuccessful and was thereafter sentenced to a term of 16 years life imprisonment. The defendant then moved to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence, which was denied by the Supreme Court. PROCEDURAL POSTURE The defendant appeals to the New York State Court of Appeals from the decision of the Appellate Division affirming the judgment and the order made by the Supreme Court denying the motion of the defendant to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence. ISSUE Whether or not the Appellate Division properly appreciated the suggestion that the inmate-victim was lying because he was intimidated by the defendant. DECISION The decision of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The prosecutor’s questions on cross-examination reasonably criticized the inmate-victim’s truthfulness and looked for motives of his testimony in clearing defendant of participation in the fight, including intimidation or fear of reprisal. REASONING The prosecutor properly took into consideration the relevance of the inmate-victim’s contact with the defendant during the time that he decided to testify for the defense. The prosecutor’s summary of comments were a fair response to the defense counsel’s argument that not one of the inmates came forward to testify that the defendant had anything to do with the incident. Hence, the prosecutor legitimately and correctly intimated the possibilities other than defendant’s innocence, which is mainly, the prospect of retaliation or adherence to the code of silence. Vintage, LLC v. Laws Construction Corp., et al. NY Reports, New York State Court of Appeals, 2009 FACTS This case stems from the suit made by Vintage against Westway Industries, Inc., Laws Construction Corp., and Westway Industries Inc./Laws Construction Corp., which is a joint venture for breach of contract. Gagne Development Company, Inc. intended to develop a golf course in the Bronx and asked Vintage, LLC for assistance in finding a suitable general contractor for the project. Because the project failed, Vintage then filed a suit against the said joint venture and against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company for payment of the bond. The parties then stipulated that the trial would focus only on the issue of liability. Among the evidence submitted was a letter of intent dated March 3, 2000 signed by William J. Vescio, the president of Laws Construction, which summarized the potential agreement between Gagne and Westway Laws. Another evidence presented which gave rise to Vintage’s cause of action were two agreements dated April 27, 2000,stating that they are between “Westway Industries and/or SU-Z Inc. and/or Laws Construction Corp., hereinafter referred to as the (General Contractor) and Vintage, LLC.” It can however be gleaned from the documents that they were not signed by anyone from Laws Construction nor signed by anyone claiming to be acting on behalf of a joint venture. Rather, they were signed by Stephen Nigro as president of Westway Industries and Kenneth Reinartz as president of Vintage. Defendants argued that they are entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict, since the agreements were unambiguous in that the joint venture is not a party to the agreements. PROCEDURAL POSTURE The Vintage, LLC then appeals from the order of the Appellate Division wherein it granted directed verdict on the ground that the agreements unambiguously establish that only Vintage and Westway Industries agreed to be bound by their terms. ISSUE Whether or not the agreements were unambiguous insofar as the joint venture being a party to the agreements. DECISION Directed verdict should have been granted and the order of the Appellate Division in granting the directed verdict should be affirmed. The agreements are ambiguous insofar as the joint venture, being a party to the agreements is involved. REASONING The Court reasoned that the two agreements drafted by Vintage, only Vintage and Westway Industries were to be bound by their terms without any reference to the joint venture. There was also no indication that any signatory executed the agreements on behalf of the joint venture. Hence, the sole parties to the agreements were Vintage and Westway Industries. Hence it must be enforced in accordance with the plain meaning of its terms. In the Matter of Edward J. Vomero v. City of New York, et al. No. 157 NY Reports, New York State Court of Appeals, 2009 FACTS This case was brought by the Appellant against the City of New York, specifically in the zoning board’s decision in granting a use variance for the construction of a commercial structure in a residentially-zoned area which was said to be an abuse of discretion. PROCEDURAL POSTURE The Appellant appeals the order of the Appellate Division to the New York State Court of Appeals which granted the use of variance for the construction of a commercial structure in a residentially-zoned area and which reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court. ISSUE Whether or not there was grave abuse in the grant of the use of variance. DECISION The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the judgment of the Supreme Court reinstated. The zoning board’s decision in granting the use of variance for the construction of a commercial structure in a residentially-zoned area was an abuse of discretion. REASONING The Court reasoned that the uniqueness of the property’s characteristics as defined in the New York City Zoning Regulation Sections 72-21(a) were not established and from which the physical conditions of the parcel were relied upon by the board. The requirement of peculiarity and inherent uniqueness in the zoning lot was not satisfied in the case at bar. Although the residentially-zoned corner property is situated on a major thoroughfare in a predominantly commercial area, this does not necessarily meant that the uniqueness requirement was satisfied since other nearby residential parcels share similar conditions. Hence, although a local zoning board has a broad discretion when reviewing an application for a zoning variance, its determination may be set aside if the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily or abused its discretion. References In the Matter of Edward J. Vomero v. City of New York, et al. No. 157 NY Reports, New York State Court of Appeals, 2009. People v. Henderson No.165 NY Reports, NY State Court of Appeals, 2009. Vintage, LLC v. Laws Construction Corp., et al. NY Reports, New York State Court of Appeals, 2009 Read More