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.


Hector Ortiz, &c., v Ciox Health LLC &c. et al.

By order dated June 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

“Does Section 18(2)(e) of the New York Public Health Law provide a private right of action for damages when a medical provider violates the provision limiting the reasonable charge for paper copies of medical records to $0.75 per page?”

On June, 23, 2020, this Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.


Fast Trak Investment Company, LLC, &c. v Richard Philip Sax, &c. et al.

By order dated June 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

“Whether a litigation financing agreement may qualify as a ‘loan’ or a ‘cover for usury’ where the obligation of repayment arises not only upon and from the client’s recovery of proceeds from such litigation but also upon and from attorney’s fees the client’s lawyer may recover in unrelated litigation?

If so, what are the appropriate consequences, if any, for the obligor to the party who financed the litigation, under agreements that are so qualified?”

On June, 23, 2020, this Court accepted the certified questions and set a briefing schedule.


Adar Bays, LLC v GeneSYS ID, Inc., &c.

By order dated June 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

“1. Whether a stock conversion option that permits a lender, in its sole discretion, to convert any outstanding balance to shares of stock at a fixed discount should be treated as interest for the purpose of determining whether the transaction violates N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40, the criminal usury law.

2. If the interest charged on a loan is determined to be criminally usurious under N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40, whether the contract is void ab initio pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-511.”

On June, 23, 2020, this Court accepted the certified questions and set a briefing schedule.


Brooklyn Center for Psychotherapy, Inc. v Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

By order dated April 9, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

“Must a general liability insurance carrier defend an insured in an action alleging discrimination under a failure-to-accommodate theory?”

On May 7, 2020, the Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.


Simmons v Trans Express Inc.

By order dated April 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court:

“Under New York City Civil Court Act § 1808, what issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and/or res judicata effects, if any, does a small claims court’s prior judgment have on subsequent actions brought in other courts involving the same facts, issues, and/or parties? In particular, where a small claims court has rendered a judgment on a claim, does Section 1808 preclude a subsequent action involving a claim arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or employment relationship?”

On May 7, 2020, the Court accepted the certified question and set a briefing schedule.


CIT Bank v Schiffman

By order dated January 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to this Court:

“(1) Where a foreclosure plaintiff seeks to establish compliance with RPAPL [Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law] § 1304 through proof of a standard office mailing procedure, and the defendant both denies receipt and seeks to rebut the presumption of receipt by showing that the mailing procedure was not followed, what showing must the defendant make to render inadequate the plaintiff’s proof of compliance with § 1304? (2) Where there are multiple borrowers on a single loan, does RPAPL § 1306 require that a lender’s filing include information about all borrowers, or does § 1306 require only that a lender’s filing include information about one borrower?”

On February 13, 2020, the Court accepted the certified questions and set a briefing schedule.


Chavez v Occidental Chemical Corp.

By order dated August 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified the following questions to the Court:

1. Does New York law recognize cross-jurisdictional class action tolling, as described in [the certification] opinion?

2. Can a non-merits dismissal of class certification terminate class action tolling, and if so, did the Orders at issue here do so?

On August 29, 2019, the Court accepted the certified questions and set a briefing schedule.