In this case, the Long Island College Hospital challenged the New York State Labor Relations Board's 1964 certification of Local 144 as the bargaining representative for skilled maintenance employees after a self-determination election, and refused to bargain, prompting an unfair labor practice proceeding under the State Labor Relations Act. The Appellate Division annulled the board's bargaining order due to concerns over the English-only ballot, insufficient Spanish notices, and inaccuracies in union materials. The Court of Appeals reversed, upholding the board's determination that the maintenance employees formed an appropriate unit and that the election was valid, based on the board's broad discretion in unit determinations and the lack of grounds to invalidate the results.
The case was a libel suit brought by bus tour companies and their officers against Congressman Lester Wolff and his aide for issuing press releases that reported safety defects found in one of the plaintiffs' chartered buses by federal and state officials. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, applying the New York Times v. Sullivan actual malice standard for statements on matters of public interest, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, reasoning that the releases were based on information from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and the California Highway Patrol, the plaintiffs had not shown knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, and the constitutional privilege applied regardless of the defendants' status as non-media speakers.
The case concerned the New York City Board of Education's challenge to a determination by the State Commissioner of Education ordering the Board to grant permanent appointment, salary, and tenure as principal to Adele Timpson, who had served as acting principal of P.S. 100 for 11 years without passing the required licensing examination. The Commissioner had ruled in Timpson's favor on her petition under Education Law section 2573, but the Board brought an article 78 proceeding to annul that ruling. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of Special Term, holding that the Commissioner's order was arbitrary. The core reasoning was that article V, section 6 of the New York Constitution mandates that civil service appointments be made according to merit and fitness ascertained by competitive examination, and that satisfactory performance in a temporary or out-of-title position cannot substitute for the required exam or permit bypassing the merit system.
In People v. Sanders, an indigent defendant charged with burglary moved to suppress evidence obtained from his apartment and, after the motion was denied, requested a free transcript of the pretrial suppression hearing minutes plus a short adjournment for its preparation. The trial court denied the request, the trial proceeded, and the defendant was convicted; on appeal the New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. The court held that an indigent defendant possesses a fundamental constitutional right to a free transcript of such minutes and that the request here was timely under prior decisions because it followed closely after the hearing and preceded any substantive trial proceedings. Although the opinion granted relief in this case, it announced stricter prospective rules requiring that future requests for hearing minutes be made before the conclusion of the pretrial hearing.
This case involved a dispute between the City of New York and the State of New York over entitlement to nearly $500,000 in fines imposed on three public employee unions and their leaders for striking in violation of the Taylor Law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions granting the funds to the City. The court reasoned that Judiciary Law section 791 directs fines for criminal contempt, absent special provisions, to be paid to the treasurer of the county where the imposing court sits, with the City performing that function in New York County; it distinguished these fines, which vindicate public justice in a localized manner, from civil contempt remedies or other statutory allocations. The opinion rejected the State's arguments under the Finance Law as inapplicable once the fines were determined not to belong to the State.
The case concerned a landlord's challenge to New York City's Local Law No. 7 of 1972, which extended rent increase exemptions for eligible senior citizens from January to June 1972, on the ground that it violated a 1971 state law prohibiting local rent controls more stringent than those already in effect. While the appeal was pending, the city enacted Local Law No. 51 of 1972 under new state legislation authorizing such exemptions provided landlords received full compensation through tax abatements. The Court of Appeals held that the new local law superseded and replaced the challenged law, rendering the sole issue in the complaint moot and academic. It therefore reversed the lower courts and directed dismissal of the action on mootness grounds, noting that the underlying question was unlikely to recur in the same form.