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.

CRUZ, et al. v TD BANK, N.A. / Martinez, et al. v Capital One Bank, N.A.:
By order entered March 27, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

(1) "whether judgment debtors have a private right of action for money damages and injunctive relief against banks that violate EIPA's procedural requirements; and"

(2) "whether judgment debtors can seek money damages and injunctive relief against banks that violate EIPA in special proceedings prescribed by CPLR Article 52 and, if so, whether those special proceedings are the exclusive mechanism for such relief or whether judgment debtors may also seek relief in a plenary action." On April 30, 2013, the Court accepted the questions. The case is being briefed.

DOE v GUTHRIE CLINIC, LTD., et al.:
By order entered March 25, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

"Whether, under New York law, the common law right of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information may run directly against medical corporations, even when the employee responsible for the breach is not a physician and acts outside the scope of her employment?"

On April 25, 2013, the Court accepted the questions. The case is being briefed.

OSTERWEIL v BARTLETT, III:
By order entered January 29, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

"Is an applicant who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile elsewhere eligible for a New York handgun license in the city or county where his part-time residence is located?"

On February 19, 2013, the Court accepted the certified question. The case is being briefed.

GEORGITSI REALTY, LLC v PENN-STAR INSURANCE COMPANY:
By order entered December 21, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following compound question to this Court:

"For purposes of construing a property insurance policy covering acts of vandalism, may malicious damage be found to result from an act not directly specifically at the covered property? If so, what state of mind is required?"

On January 15, 2013, the Court accepted the certified question. The case is being briefed.

BARENBOIM v STARBUCKS CORPORATION / WINANS v STARBUCKS CORPORATION:
By order entered October 23, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

"1. What factors determine whether an employee is an 'agent' of his employer for purposes of N.Y. Lab. Law § 196-d and, thus, ineligible to receive distributions from an employer-mandated tip pool? In resolving this question for purposes of this case, the Court of Appeals may also consider the following subsidiary questions:

a. Is the degree of supervisory or managerial authority exercised by an employee relevant to determining whether the employee
is a 'manager [or] supervisor' under N.Y. Lab. Law § 2(8-a) and, thus, an employer's 'agent' under § 196-d?

b. If an employee with supervisory or managerial authority renders services that generate gratuities contributed to a common
tip pool, does § 196-d preclude that employee from sharing in the tip pool?

c. To the extent that the meaning of 'employer or his agent' in § 196-d is ambiguous, does the Department of Labor's New York State Hospitality Wage Order constitute a reasonable interpretation of the statute that should govern disposition of these cases?

d. If so, does the Hospitality Wage Order apply retroactively?

2. Does New York Labor Law permit an employer to exclude an otherwise eligible tip-earning employee under § 196-d from receiving distributions from an employer-mandated tip pool?"

On November 27, 2012, the Court accepted the certified questions. The case is being briefed, and is scheduled for oral argument on May 28, 2013.

SCHLESSINGER v VALSPAR CORPORATION:
By order entered July 10, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

"1. May parties seek to have contractual provisions that run contrary to General Business Law § 395-a declared void as against public policy?

2. May plaintiffs bring suit pursuant to § 349 on the theory that defendants deceived them by including a contractual provision that
violates § 395-a and later enforcing this agreement?"

The case is scheduled for oral argument on March 19, 2013.