Court of Appeals Title
   
Advanced Decision Search
Spacer
Spacer
Spacer
Spacer
Spacer
Spacer
Spacer

Home Certified Questions (500.27)

Below is a listing of Rule 500.27 certified questions pending before the Court, stating the issue(s) certified and their status. Please call the Clerk's Office if you have any questions.

For those certified questions that proceed to briefing in the normal course, the briefing schedule generally will be: appellant's brief to be filed 60 days after the Court accepts the certification; respondent's brief to be filed 45 days after the date set for the filing of appellant's brief; and a reply brief, if any, to be filed 15 days after the date set for the filing of respondent's brief.

The Court welcomes motions for amicus curiae participation from those qualified and interested in the subject matter of these certified questions. Please refer to Rule 500.23 and direct any questions to the Clerk's Office.


MATTER OF VIKING PUMP, INC. AND WARREN PUMPS, LLC, INSURANCE APPEALS:

By order entered June 10, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court certified the following questions to this Court:

"1. Under New York law, is the proper method of allocation to be used all sums or pro rata when there are non-cumulation and prior insurance provisions?

2. Given the Court's answer to question #1, under New York law and based on the policy language at issue here, when the underlying primary and umbrella insurance in the same policy period has been exhausted, does vertical or horizontal exhaustion apply to determine when a policyholder may access its excess insurance?"

On June 25, 2015, the Court accepted the certified questions.  The case is being briefed.


BECK CHEVROLET CO., INC. v GENERAL MOTORS LLC

By order entered May 19, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

"(1) Is a performance standard that requires 'average' Performance based on statewide sales data in order for an automobile dealer to retain its dealership 'unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair' under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law section 463

(2) (gg) because it does not account for local variations beyond adjusting For the local popularity of general vehicle types? (2) Does a change to a franchisee's Area of Primary Responsibility or AGSSA constitute a prohibited 'modification' to the franchise under section 463 (2) (ff), even though the standard terms of the Dealer Agreement reserve the franchisor's right to alter the Area of Primary Responsibility or AGSSA in its sole discretion?"

On June 4, 2015, the Court accepted the certified questions. The case is being briefed.


THE MINISTERS AND MISSIONARIES BENEFIT BOARD v SNOW

By order entered March 5, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

“(1) Whether a governing-law provision that states that the contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, in a contract not consummated pursuant to New York General Obligations Law section 5-1401, requires the application of New York Estates, Powers & Trusts Law section 3-5.1(b)(2), a New York statute that may, in turn, require application of the law of another state?

(2) If so, whether a person’s entitlement to proceeds under a death benefit or retirement plan, paid upon the death of the person making the designation, constitutes ‘personal property . . . not disposed of by will’ within the meaning of New York Estates, Powers & Trusts Law section 3-5.1(b)(2)?”

On March 26, 2015, the Court accepted the certified questions.  The case is scheduled for argument on September 10, 2015.


ERIC M. BERMAN, P.C., et al. v CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.

By order entered October 29, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

"1. Does Local Law 15, insofar as it regulates attorney conduct, constitute an unlawful en- croachment on the State's authority to regulate attorneys, and is there a conflict between Local Law 15 and Sections 53 and 90 of the New York Judiciary Law?

2. If Local Law 15's regulation of attorney conduct is not preempted, does Local Law 15, as applied to attorneys, violate Section 2203(c) of the New York City Charter?"

On November 20, 2014, the Court accepted the certified questions. The case was argued on June 3, 2015.


COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, & c., et al. v MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INCORPORATED, et al.:

By order entered October 31, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

"Based on the declarations and documentary evidence presented by Commerzbank, could a reasonable trier of fact find that DAF validly assigned its right to sue for common law fraud to Dresdner in connection with its sale of Cheyne SIV notes? If so, based on the record established in the summary proceedings in the district court, could a reasonable trier of fact find Morgan Stanley liable for fraud under New York law?"

On November 20, 2014, the Court accepted the certified questions. The case was argued on June 1, 2015.