Academy Amicus
Overview
The New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers (NYSATL) proudly undertakes amicus curiae efforts to support issues of critical importance to the legal community and the public. Our amicus briefs highlight significant legal questions, advocate for justice, and support trial lawyers and their clients throughout New York State.
Why the Academy Intervenes
The Academy intervenes in cases where critical legal issues impact the rights of trial lawyers, their clients, and the broader pursuit of justice. By filing amicus briefs, the Academy amplifies the voice of trial lawyers and supports the fair and equitable application of the law across New York State. Representing a diverse membership of legal professionals, we engage in cases that raise questions of statewide importance, challenge unjust precedents, or clarify legal standards. Our efforts reflect the Academy’s commitment to ensuring access to justice, protecting the rights of plaintiffs, and fostering a judicial system that serves the interests of fairness and accountability.
Requesting Amicus Participation
To request the Academy’s amicus participation in a case, please email us. A member of the Academy’s Amicus Committee will respond promptly.
Include:
- A brief summary of the case.
- Why you believe the Academy’s participation is warranted.
- Any relevant documents & deadlines.
Amicus Briefs Submitted by the Academy
Below is a list of cases where the Academy has submitted amicus briefs. Each case summary includes three key elements: (1) the general issues presented to the court, (2) the Academy's specific legal arguments or points raised, and (3) the court’s outcome.
Ferreira v City of Binghamton, 38 NY3d 298 [2022]
- Case Summary: This case arose from a police raid conducted under a no-knock search warrant. During the raid, police officers entered the residence and encountered the plaintiff, Jesus Ferreira, who was sleeping on a couch near the door. Upon entry, an officer mistook an Xbox controller in Ferreira’s hand for a weapon and shot him, causing severe injuries. The key legal question was whether the “special duty” requirement applied to cases where harm is inflicted directly by municipal employees, as opposed to harm caused by third parties.
- Academy’s Legal Points:
- Elimination of Special Duty in Direct Harm Cases: The Academy argued that the “special duty” requirement should not apply when harm is directly caused by a government actor. Imposing the requirement in such cases would undermine the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and create an unjust procedural hurdle for plaintiffs.
- Government Accountability: The Academy emphasized that municipalities must be held accountable for negligence in situations where their actions directly cause harm, such as improper planning or execution of police operations.
- Fair Application of Negligence Law: The Academy urged the Court to adopt a clear standard ensuring that governmental actors are subject to the same negligence rules as private individuals when directly inflicting harm.
- Outcome: The Court of Appeals held that the special duty requirement does apply in cases involving direct harm caused by governmental negligence but clarified that a special duty can arise in situations where municipal actors take “positive control of a known and dangerous condition.” In this case, the Court found that the police’s planning and execution of the no-knock raid created a special duty to the individuals within the premises, including Ferreira. The decision partially aligned with the Academy’s position by recognizing the need for accountability and a limited duty in direct harm cases.
Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC, 41 NY3d 310 [2024]
- Case Summary: This case involved a workplace injury sustained by Srecko Bazdaric, a painter, who slipped and fell on plastic sheeting covering an escalator during a renovation project. The key legal issue was whether the plastic sheeting constituted a "foreign substance" under Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) and whether the “integral to the work” defense applied.
- Academy’s Legal Points:
- Scope of Labor Law § 241(6): The Academy argued that the plastic sheeting was not integral to the work and that employers and general contractors should not be absolved of liability when avoidable and unsafe conditions are present at the worksite.
- Worker Safety: The Academy emphasized that the Industrial Code is designed to ensure worker safety and that employers must adopt reasonable precautions to mitigate hazards, such as using safer materials like drop cloths or securing plastic coverings.
- Rejection of Overbroad Defenses: The Academy contended that extending the “integral to the work” defense too broadly undermines the protective purpose of Labor Law § 241(6).
- Outcome: The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plastic sheeting was a foreign substance and that the “integral to the work” defense did not apply because the hazard was avoidable. The Court adopted the Academy’s position, reaffirming the importance of workplace safety standards and rejecting defenses that shift accountability away from owners and contractors.
Sabine v State of New York
- Case Summary: This case involved a motor vehicle accident in which the claimant, Michael Sabine, was injured when a state-owned truck driven by a state employee collided with his vehicle. The key issue on appeal was the accrual date for prejudgment interest in a bifurcated trial where liability and damages are determined separately.
- Academy’s Legal Points:
- Accrual of Prejudgment Interest: The Academy argued that prejudgment interest should accrue from the date liability is established rather than from the later determination of damages. They emphasized that this approach aligns with CPLR § 5002’s intent to ensure full compensation for plaintiffs.
- Fair Compensation: The Academy asserted that delaying interest calculations unfairly penalizes plaintiffs and undermines the purpose of New York’s No-Fault framework, which preserves judicial remedies for serious injuries.
- Clarification of Legal Standards: The Academy urged the Court to resolve conflicting Appellate Division precedents to provide clarity and consistency regarding prejudgment interest in bifurcated trials.
- Outcome: The Court of Appeals ruled that prejudgment interest accrues from the date liability is determined, as advocated by the Academy. The Court emphasized the importance of fully compensating prevailing plaintiffs and rejected arguments for delaying interest calculations until the damages phase.
Flanders v Goodfellow
- Case Summary: This case involved a dog attack in which the plaintiff, Rebecca Flanders, sustained injuries while delivering mail to the defendants' home. The key legal issues on appeal were whether the defendants had constructive notice of the dog’s vicious propensities and whether the Court should revisit the longstanding rule in Bard v Jahnke, which restricts liability in domestic animal injury cases to situations involving prior knowledge of viciousness.
- Academy’s Legal Points:
- Revisiting Bard and Allowing Negligence Claims: The Academy argued that the Court should overturn Bard v Jahnke and adopt the Restatement (Second) of Torts standard, which permits negligence claims against domestic animal owners when injuries result from the owners’ failure to take reasonable precautions.
- Constructive Notice of Vicious Propensities: The Academy emphasized that evidence of prior aggressive behavior, such as jumping on visitors or barking at strangers, can raise a question of fact regarding the owners’ constructive notice of a dog’s dangerous propensities.
- Ensuring Fairness for Injured Plaintiffs: The Academy asserted that the current rule unfairly restricts injured plaintiffs’ ability to recover for injuries caused by domestic animals, leaving New York as an outlier among states.
- Outcome: The Court overturned the Fourth Department's decision and reversed Bard v. Jahnke in the process. The Court adopted the Academy's position, allowing Plaintiffs to pursue claims for vicious propensity or negligence against animal owners.
SanMiguel v. Grimaldi
- Case Summary: This case involved a medical malpractice action in which the plaintiff, Veronica SanMiguel, sustained severe emotional and psychological injuries when her child died shortly after birth allegedly due to medical malpractice that occurred during delivery. The key legal issues on appeal were whether the plaintiff could recover for her emotional damages when her child was born alive through a claim for lack of informed consent and whether the Court should revisit the longstanding rule in Sheppard-Mobley v. King, which precludes mothers from recovering for emotional injuries caused by the death of a child due to medical malpractice that occurred prior to birth, when the child is born alive and the mother does not suffer any independent physical injury due to the malpractice.
- Academy’s Legal Points:
- Preserving Claims Based on Lack of Informed Consent: The Academy argued that the Court should affirm the First Department’s ruling that mothers can recover for emotional harm when they do not give informed consent for medical procedures that occur prior to birth, which result in death to their child after birth.
- Revisiting Sheppard-Mobley and Permitting Recovery for Medical Malpractice: The Academy argued that the Court should overturn Sheppard-Mobley and permit mothers to recover emotional injuries when their children die shortly after birth based on claims of direct medical malpractice.
- 3. Ensuring Fairness for Injured Plaintiffs: The Academy asserted that the current rule unfairly restricts mothers’ ability to recover for psychological injuries suffered when medical malpractice that occurs in-utero causes death of their children shortly after birth, which makes New York as an outlier among states.
- Outcome: In a 4-3 decision, the Court reversed the First Department's decision, ruling that the Sheppard-Mobley bar applies to claims of lack of informed consent as well as medical malpractice. The Court's ruling affirms the rule that mothers are prohibited from recovering for their own emotional injuries suffered when (1) medical malpractice causes injury to a child in the womb, (2) the mother does not, herself, suffer physical injury, and (3) the child is born alive and dies shortly after birth. Judge Rivera wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge Troutman joined, advocating for the overturning of Sheppard-Mobley and permitting mothers to recover for their own emotional injury in these cases. Judge Wilson wrote a separate dissent.
Committee Members
-
- Mike Bersani
- Andrea Bonina
- Shana De Caro
- Michael J. Hutter
- Angelicque Moreno
- Andrew Smiley
-
- Carey Beyer
- Michael A. Bottar
- James Hacker
- Lambros Lambrou
- Eric Parchment
- Christina Sonsire
-
- John Bonina
- Carolyn Caccese
- Jay Halfon
- Francis M Letro
- John K. Powers
- Mark Weinberger
Additional Resources
Notice to the Bar – Amendments to Rules of Practice – Amicus Curiae
After considering public comment received, the Court of Appeals has amended its Rules of Practice relating to amicus curiae relief, effective May 8, 2024. The Court’s Notice to the Bar summarizes the changes and explains how the amendments to the timing requirements for amicus curiae motions will be implemented.
Access the Notice to the Bar and a copy of the Court's order amending the Rules.