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.

E.J. Brooks Company v Cambridge Security Seals

By order entered June 5, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

1. "Whether, under New York law, a plaintiff asserting claims of misappropriation of a trade secret, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment can recover damages that are measured by the costs the defendant avoided due to its unlawful activity."

and

2. "If the answer to the first question is 'yes,' whether prejudgment interest under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5001(a) is mandatory where a plaintiff recovers damages as measured by the defendant's avoided costs."

On June 27, 2017, the Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.


Makinen v City of New York

By order entered May 22, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

"Do sections 8-102(16)(c) and 8-107(1)(a) of the New York City Administrative Code preclude a plaintiff from bringing a disability discrimination claim based solely on a perception of untreated alcoholism?"

On June 1, 2017, the Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.


Matter of World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation

By order entered January 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

“(1) Before New York State's capacity-to-sue doctrine may be applied to determine whether a State-created public benefit corporation has the capacity to challenge a State statute, must it first be determined whether the public benefit corporation "should be treated like the State" (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Island R.R. Co., 516 NE2d 190, 192 [1987]), based on a "particularized inquiry into the nature of the instrumentality and the statute claimed to be applicable to it" (see John Grace & Co. v State Univ. Constr. Fund, 375 NE2d 377, 379 [1978]), and if so, what considerations are relevant to that inquiry?

(2) Does the "serious injustice" standard articulated in Gallewski v H. Hentz & Co. (93 NE2d 620 [1950]), or the less stringent "reasonableness" standard articulated in Robinson v Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. (144 NE 579 [1924]) govern the merits of a due process challenge under the New York State Constitution to a claim-revival statute?”

On February 9, 2017, the Court accepted the certified questions and set a briefing schedule.


Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v Century Indemnity Company

By order entered December 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

"Does the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Excess Insurance Co. v Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 3 NY3d 577 [2004], impose either a rule of construction, or a strong presumption, that a per occurrence liability cap in a reinsurance contract limits the total reinsurance available under the contract to the amount of the cap regardless of whether the underlying policy is understood to cover expenses such as, for instance, defense costs?”

On January 10, 2017, the Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.


Gevorkyan, et al. v Judelson

By order entered November 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

"Whether an entity engaged in the 'bail business,' as defined in [New York Insurance Law] NYIL § 6801(a)(1), may retain its 'premium or compensation,' as described in NYIL § 6804(a), where a bond posted pursuant to [New York Criminal Procedure Law] NYCPL § 520.20 is denied at a bail-sufficiency hearing conducted pursuant to NYCL § 520.30, and the criminal defendant that is the subject of the bond is never admitted to bail."

On December 15, 2016, the Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.


CHAUCA v ABRAHAM, et al.

By order entered November 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

"What is the standard for finding a defendant liable for punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502?"

On December 15, 2016, the Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.