By Ryan Thompson
Brooklyn Daily Eagle

NEW YORK -- The unique concept began with a trip to Brooklyn in 2002. It was the first time that the New York State Court of Appeals had left Albany since the 19th century, and now it seems that the state’s highest court has embraced the idea of judicial field trips.

Every so often, Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and her six associate judges pack up their black robes and wooden gavels and travel to somewhere else in the Empire State to hold court. The idea is to expose local residents to the prestigious and powerful court that they otherwise may never see.

Wednesday, the New York State Court of Appeals will sit in the Bronx. Oral arguments begin at 2 p.m. and are open to the public. The one-day session will be held in the central jury room of the newly-opened Bronx Hall of Justice, located at 265 East 161st St., just several blocks away from Yankee Stadium.

This is only the fourth time that the Court of Appeals has left Albany since the 1800s, when it was routine for the court to do so. It is only the second time for the court to come to New York City, with the first time being at Brooklyn Borough Hall, where it sat for several days in session. Since then, the Court of Appeals traveled to Buffalo in 2005 and to Suffolk County in 2006.

There are five cases on tomorrow’s calendar. Each side will have 15-20 minutes to make their oral arguments, depending on which case, and the cases will be called in the following order:

Matter of Suarez v. Byrne (Criminal Double Jeopardy) -- Santos Suarez, who was acquitted of intentional murder and won appellate reversal of his conviction of murder "evincing a depraved indifference to human life," contends that further prosecution for first degree manslaughter is barred by constitutional and statutory double jeopardy protections and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division, First Department disagreed.

People v. Ruben Luciano (Discriminatory Jury Selection) -- This case arose during jury selection for Ruben Luciano's trial in Supreme Court, Bronx County, on charges that he shot and wounded Angel Rodriguez, the new boyfriend of his former girlfriend, in December 2002. Defense counsel exercised peremptory challenges against all five female panelists in the first round of jury selection, and the prosecutor objected that the challenges constituted a discriminatory pattern under Batson v Kentucky. The court accepted defense counsel's gender-neutral explanations for three of the strikes, but rejected as pre-textual his explanations for the other two. The court seated those two women as jurors and ruled the defense had forfeited the peremptories that were used against them.

TAG 380, LLC v. ComMet 380, Inc. (Terrorism Insurance) -- ComMet 380, Inc., the owner of a commercial building at 380 Madison Ave., is appealing an order of the Appellate Division, First Department which declared that ComMet's lease does not require its tenant, TAG 380, LLC, to maintain building insurance that covers damages resulting from terrorism. The lease requires TAG to maintain insurance "against loss or damage by fire and against loss or damage by other risks included under the standard Extended Coverage Endorsement as presently adopted for use with the New York Standard Fire Insurance Policy...." The Extended Coverage Endorsement included as covered perils windstorm or hail, smoke, explosion, riot or civil commotion, and "actual physical contact of an aircraft or vehicle with the property." The endorsement specifically excluded some other hazards, such as "hostile and warlike action ... by any government or sovereign power," but it did not list terrorism as a covered peril or an exclusion.

Pultz v. Economakis (Rent Stabilization) -- The issue here is whether the owners of a 15-unit rent-stabilized apartment building may remove all remaining tenants in order to convert the building into a single-family residence for their personal use without first obtaining approval from the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The lower courts split on this question.

Vucetovic v. Epsom Downs, Inc. (Sidewalk Personal Injury) -- This case arose in January 2004, when 47-year-old Dzafer Vucetovic stepped into a tree well in the sidewalk on East 58th St. in Manhattan and fell, injuring his ankle. The tree well was located in front of a building owned by Epsom Downs, Inc. Employees of the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation had removed the tree from that well about four months earlier. Vucetovic filed this personal-injury action against Epsom Downs, contending it was liable for his accident under the "sidewalk law," which took effect in September 2003 and transferred responsibility for sidewalk repair from the City to property owners.

© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2008 All materials posted on BrooklynEagle.com are protected by United States copyright law. Just a reminder, though -- It’s not considered polite to paste the entire story on your blog. Most blogs post a summary or the first paragraph,( 40 words) then post a link to the rest of the story. That helps increase click-throughs for everyone, and minimizes copyright issues. So please keep posting, but not the entire article. arturc at att.net