<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>

<title>FindLaw Opinion Summaries - NY COA</title>
<link>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casesummary/index.html</link>
<description>Daily opinion summaries from the New York Court of Appeals, brought to you by FindLaw.com.</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</lastBuildDate>
<copyright>Copyright: (C) FindLaw </copyright>

<thespringbox:skin xmlns:thespringbox="http://www.thespringbox.com/dtds/thespringbox-1.0.dtd">http://feeds.findlaw.com/FindLawNYCOA?format=skin</thespringbox:skin><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/FindLawNYCOA" type="application/rss+xml" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item>
<title>People v. D'Alessandro</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/bP9dBMoxCrI/143opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Criminal Law &amp; Procedure, Habeas Corpus) In a petition to the Appellate Division for a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that petitioner's appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise a speedy trial argument on appeal, the denial of the petition is reversed where the Appellate Division incorrectly construed the petition as seeking reargument.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=bP9dBMoxCrI:lRz_dN43FnM:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=bP9dBMoxCrI:lRz_dN43FnM:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=bP9dBMoxCrI:lRz_dN43FnM:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=bP9dBMoxCrI:lRz_dN43FnM:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=bP9dBMoxCrI:lRz_dN43FnM:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=bP9dBMoxCrI:lRz_dN43FnM:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/bP9dBMoxCrI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/143opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/143opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Albany</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/AiXuWikFC1g/134opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Administrative Law, Construction, Environmental Law, Property Law &amp; Real Estate) In an action challenging a city's State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determination regarding a proposed municipal project, the Appellate Division's order annulling the determination is reversed where: 1) a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge government actions that threaten that resource; and 2) the government was not required to scrutinize every possible environmental issue, and the failure of the city's environmental impact statement to discuss the possible impact of rezoning on certain rare species was therefore not a fatal flaw.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=AiXuWikFC1g:m48QbxZ4H20:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=AiXuWikFC1g:m48QbxZ4H20:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=AiXuWikFC1g:m48QbxZ4H20:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=AiXuWikFC1g:m48QbxZ4H20:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=AiXuWikFC1g:m48QbxZ4H20:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=AiXuWikFC1g:m48QbxZ4H20:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/AiXuWikFC1g" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/134opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/134opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>People v. Abney</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/K4oCfAT-f9c/139-140opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Criminal Law &amp; Procedure, Evidence) In consolidated appeals from criminal trials in which the court prohibited defendants from introducing expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification, the trial court's order in one matter is affirmed where there was substantial evidence inculpating defendant apart from the eyewitness testimony.  However, the order in the other matter is reversed where the trial judge should have conducted a Frye hearing before making a decision on admissibility.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=K4oCfAT-f9c:RDJfY7xcIR8:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=K4oCfAT-f9c:RDJfY7xcIR8:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=K4oCfAT-f9c:RDJfY7xcIR8:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=K4oCfAT-f9c:RDJfY7xcIR8:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=K4oCfAT-f9c:RDJfY7xcIR8:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=K4oCfAT-f9c:RDJfY7xcIR8:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/K4oCfAT-f9c" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/139-140opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/139-140opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>IDT Corp. v. Tyco Group</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/WUHu8slP3a0/135opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:00:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Commercial Law, Communications Law, Contracts) In a breach of contract action based on defendants' withdrawal from a joint venture to construct a fiber optic communications network, judgment for defendants is affirmed where the parties' settlement agreement made the negotiation and execution of further agreements a pre-condition to the parties' obligation.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=WUHu8slP3a0:HWxD085a490:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=WUHu8slP3a0:HWxD085a490:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=WUHu8slP3a0:HWxD085a490:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=WUHu8slP3a0:HWxD085a490:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=WUHu8slP3a0:HWxD085a490:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=WUHu8slP3a0:HWxD085a490:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/WUHu8slP3a0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/135opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/135opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Props., L.P.</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/ICY-p3AKenU/131opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:00:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Landlord Tenant Law, Property Law &amp; Real Estate, Tax Law) In an action by tenants claiming that their landlords were not entitled to take advantage of the luxury decontrol provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) while simultaneously receiving tax incentive benefits under the City of New York's J-51 program, the Appellate Division's order reversing dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the RSL did not permit defendants to receive both types of benefits.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=ICY-p3AKenU:7UuCkQhh3rs:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=ICY-p3AKenU:7UuCkQhh3rs:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=ICY-p3AKenU:7UuCkQhh3rs:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=ICY-p3AKenU:7UuCkQhh3rs:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=ICY-p3AKenU:7UuCkQhh3rs:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=ICY-p3AKenU:7UuCkQhh3rs:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/ICY-p3AKenU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/131opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/131opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>People v. Arafet</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/4xsGxUjDr14/142opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:00:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Criminal Law &amp; Procedure, Evidence) Defendant's grand theft conviction is affirmed where: 1) one of defendant's prior criminal acts was properly admitted to show his relationship with a fencing operation; and 2) another act was improperly admitted to prove that defendant was an experienced trailer thief, but the error was harmless because fingerprint evidence implicating defendant was overwhelming.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=4xsGxUjDr14:AMj075Mltq0:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=4xsGxUjDr14:AMj075Mltq0:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=4xsGxUjDr14:AMj075Mltq0:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=4xsGxUjDr14:AMj075Mltq0:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=4xsGxUjDr14:AMj075Mltq0:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=4xsGxUjDr14:AMj075Mltq0:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/4xsGxUjDr14" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/142opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/142opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Joan Hansen &amp; Co. v. Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp.</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/liNcAsVdPd4/138opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Dispute Resolution &amp; Arbitration) In an action seeking an order of contempt for violation of a confirmed arbitral award, the appellate division's denial of defendant's motion to stay plaintiff's motion to reopen the arbitration is reversed where, after issuance of an arbitration award, a party may not seek to reopen the arbitration proceeding to request that the arbitrators consider an issue that was not previously presented to the panel.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=liNcAsVdPd4:PLSoKtwGUR0:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=liNcAsVdPd4:PLSoKtwGUR0:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=liNcAsVdPd4:PLSoKtwGUR0:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=liNcAsVdPd4:PLSoKtwGUR0:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=liNcAsVdPd4:PLSoKtwGUR0:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=liNcAsVdPd4:PLSoKtwGUR0:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/liNcAsVdPd4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/138opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/138opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Trust for Cert. Holders of Merrill Lynch Mortg. Invs., Inc. v. Love Funding Corp.</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/r_RRld9wIxo/123opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Civil Procedure, Debt Collection) In response to a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the New York Court of Appeals answered as follows:  a corporation or association that takes an assignment of a claim does not violate Judiciary Law section 489(1) if its purpose is to collect damages, by means of a lawsuit, for losses on a debt instrument in which it holds a pre-existing proprietary interest.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=r_RRld9wIxo:I4N7kaNGzKg:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=r_RRld9wIxo:I4N7kaNGzKg:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=r_RRld9wIxo:I4N7kaNGzKg:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=r_RRld9wIxo:I4N7kaNGzKg:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=r_RRld9wIxo:I4N7kaNGzKg:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=r_RRld9wIxo:I4N7kaNGzKg:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/r_RRld9wIxo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/123opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/123opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Gomez v. Stout</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/2gb1KjH-Xvk/136opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Administrative Law, Labor &amp; Employment Law) In an Article 78 proceeding challenging the termination of plaintiff's position as an amusement park employee, the appellate division's order reinstating plaintiff is modified where: 1) the decision to terminate plaintiff was not made by a person with knowledge of her conduct and responsibilities; and 2) plaintiff was entitled to back pay for the period between the earlier and later termination decisions.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=2gb1KjH-Xvk:V-R3_kq_ExQ:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=2gb1KjH-Xvk:V-R3_kq_ExQ:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=2gb1KjH-Xvk:V-R3_kq_ExQ:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=2gb1KjH-Xvk:V-R3_kq_ExQ:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=2gb1KjH-Xvk:V-R3_kq_ExQ:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=2gb1KjH-Xvk:V-R3_kq_ExQ:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/2gb1KjH-Xvk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/136opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/136opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Garth v. Bd. of Assessment Rev. for Richmond</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/fLa0-z-Uh5w/129opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Tax Law) In an article 7 tax proceeding challenging an assessment of petitioner's real property, the appellate division's order dismissing the petition is reversed where personal jurisdiction is not lacking in an article 7 proceeding where the petitioner omits the return date from the notice of petition.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=fLa0-z-Uh5w:WwAp2CR6JWY:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=fLa0-z-Uh5w:WwAp2CR6JWY:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=fLa0-z-Uh5w:WwAp2CR6JWY:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=fLa0-z-Uh5w:WwAp2CR6JWY:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=fLa0-z-Uh5w:WwAp2CR6JWY:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=fLa0-z-Uh5w:WwAp2CR6JWY:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/fLa0-z-Uh5w" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/129opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/129opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Skelos v. Paterson</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/5rFPkYPAmIc/183opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Constitutional Law, Elections, Government Law) In an action seeking a declaration that the governor of New York lacked the authority to appoint a lieutenant governor, grant of a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff is reversed where the New York Constitution did not require that a vacancy in the office of Lieutenant-Governor be preserved until the next quadrennial election.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=5rFPkYPAmIc:2g30osit2YU:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=5rFPkYPAmIc:2g30osit2YU:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=5rFPkYPAmIc:2g30osit2YU:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=5rFPkYPAmIc:2g30osit2YU:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=5rFPkYPAmIc:2g30osit2YU:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=5rFPkYPAmIc:2g30osit2YU:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/5rFPkYPAmIc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/183opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/183opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Cass v. Krakower</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/BimjAIWd2Ls/179opn.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Elections, Government Law, Per Curiam) In an appeal from a denial of an electoral candidate's Opportunity to Ballot petition, appellate division's decision reversing the trial court's denial of respondents' motion to dismiss is affirmed where petitioner failed to serve or provide any notice of the present proceeding to the Committee to Receive Notices.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=BimjAIWd2Ls:WYNNnt3y1UU:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=BimjAIWd2Ls:WYNNnt3y1UU:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=BimjAIWd2Ls:WYNNnt3y1UU:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=BimjAIWd2Ls:WYNNnt3y1UU:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=BimjAIWd2Ls:WYNNnt3y1UU:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=BimjAIWd2Ls:WYNNnt3y1UU:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/BimjAIWd2Ls" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/179opn.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/179opn.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Butler v. Gloversville</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/mNRpGZsJXjQ/116opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:00:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Injury And Tort Law) In a personal injury action claiming that Defendants failed to use a recommended ground cover at a playground they operated, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where Defendants presented insufficient scientific evidence to show that Plaintiff's injury would have occurred even with the recommended equipment.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=mNRpGZsJXjQ:LXBXZ_rsl84:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=mNRpGZsJXjQ:LXBXZ_rsl84:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=mNRpGZsJXjQ:LXBXZ_rsl84:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=mNRpGZsJXjQ:LXBXZ_rsl84:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=mNRpGZsJXjQ:LXBXZ_rsl84:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=mNRpGZsJXjQ:LXBXZ_rsl84:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/mNRpGZsJXjQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/116opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/116opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>People v. Coventry First LLC</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/Z9iJT8inmPM/115opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:00:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Dispute Resolution &amp; Arbitration, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law) In an enforcement action by the state claiming that Defendant life settlement providers concealed commissions to brokers, who persuaded their clients to accept Defendants' offers, the denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss or compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the state was not bound by arbitration agreements signed by Defendants' clients; and 2) the complaint stated a claim that Defendants knew that the life settlement brokers' conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=Z9iJT8inmPM:SohvxrGQahM:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=Z9iJT8inmPM:SohvxrGQahM:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=Z9iJT8inmPM:SohvxrGQahM:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=Z9iJT8inmPM:SohvxrGQahM:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=Z9iJT8inmPM:SohvxrGQahM:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=Z9iJT8inmPM:SohvxrGQahM:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/Z9iJT8inmPM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/115opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/115opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>People v. Buchanan</title>
<link>http://feeds.findlaw.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~3/9liAXKSdhQA/101opn09.pdf</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:00:01 PDT</pubDate>
<description>(N.Y., Criminal Law &amp; Procedure) Defendant's murder conviction is reversed where the trial court required Defendant to wear a stun belt during trial, and a stun belt may not be used to restrain a defendant in a criminal case without a finding of specific facts justifying the use of such a restraint.&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=9liAXKSdhQA:g6U9fLu7wFc:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=9liAXKSdhQA:g6U9fLu7wFc:F7zBnMyn0Lo"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=9liAXKSdhQA:g6U9fLu7wFc:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=9liAXKSdhQA:g6U9fLu7wFc:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?i=9liAXKSdhQA:g6U9fLu7wFc:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://feeds.findlaw.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?a=9liAXKSdhQA:g6U9fLu7wFc:l6gmwiTKsz0"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/FindLawNYCOA?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/FindLawNYCOA/~4/9liAXKSdhQA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/101opn09.pdf</guid>
<feedburner:origLink>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/101opn09.pdf</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>
</rss>
