The New York Court of Appeals handed down the following decisions today:
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PER CURIAM
People v. Dallas, No. 30 (N.Y. March 22, 2007)
A finding that the search of defendant's apartment was properly conducted under the "emergency" doctrine is affirmed as the courts below found that the three elements of the doctrine required by People v Mitchell (39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976]).
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM
People v. Melendez, No. 28 (N.Y. March 22, 2007)
Trial court's decision to require defendant's court-appointed interpreter to stand at the back of the courtroom and interpret testimony of a non-English-speaking witness for the entire court, rather than solely for defendant is affirmed over 1) claims of violation of defendant's right to counsel, right to be present, and right to participate in his own defense; and 2) claim regarding alleged inaccurate translation of complainant's testimony and faulty instructions to the grand jury.
CYBERSPACE LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 41 (N.Y. March 22, 2007)
On certified question from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, plaintiff may maintain a claim for the conversion of electronic data where defendant insurer, after terminating its agent agreement with plaintiff insurance agent, repossessed a computer system it had leased plaintiff, denied him further access to the computers and all electronic data, including his stored customer information and other personal information.
GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PER CURIAM
Oboler v. City of New York, No. 33 (N.Y. March 22, 2007)
In a trip and fall case allegedly caused by a depressed manhole cover, dismissal of complaint at close of plaintiffs' case at trial is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence defendant city repaved the street to cause the depression; 2) there was no proof of any special benefit conferred on defendant; and 3) preclusion of plaintiffs' expert's testimony did not affect the outcome of the case.
INSURANCE LAW
Nyack Hosp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., No. 29 (N.Y. March 22, 2007)
In a no-fault car insurance action, an insurer that is waiting for information to verify a pending claim, which delay causes aggregate claims to exceed $50,000, is not precluded by the priority-of-payment regulation (11 NYCRR 65-3.15) from paying already verified claims in the meantime.
These summaries are from FindLaw.com.