12 results for 'judge:"Duffy"'.
J. Duffy finds the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion for reconsideration of his sentence on the grounds it lacked jurisdiction over the filing. The 90-day deadline for the reconsideration motion began to run on the date the sentencing judgment was entered, not the date it was orally imposed by the court. Additionally, defendant's failure to include evidence not available at the time of his original sentencing was not fatal to the motion because state law imposes no such requirement, and while it may affect the validity of defendant's motion, it did not preclude the court from considering the merits of his claims. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-37868, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Sentencing, Jurisdiction
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly dismissed the tax petition as untimely, as the petitioner failed to comply with the time constraints of section 702(2) of the Real Property Tax Law. This ruling conflicts with a 1979 determination of the Appellate Division, Third Department which found that the commencement of a proceeding under article 7 of the Law, prior to completion of a final assessment roll, did not render the proceeding jurisdictionally defective. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 05729, Categories: Tax
J. Duffy finds the trial court erroneously granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on negligence and negligent entrustment claims filed by the injured driver because there are questions of fact as to whether the employee was acting in the scope of his employment when he caused the head-on collision. Although the employee was driving a personal vehicle and was not on the clock at the time of the accident, he was transporting an assistant and welding equipment to a jobsite, which renders an interpretation he was within the scope of his employment reasonable. Reversed in part.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-39686, Categories: Vehicle, Negligence
J. Duffy finds the lower court erroneously granted the insurance company's motion for summary judgment because ambiguity in the contract language with the policyholder allows her to stack uninsured motorist coverage. Although she selected non-stacked coverages on her policy application, the insurer charged premiums for uninsured motorists on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis and the policyholder paid several premiums, which entitles her to stacked coverage. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-38005, Categories: Insurance, Contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Duffy finds the lower court erroneously granted State Farm's motion to dismiss the policyholder's suit to recover uninsured motorist benefits. Although he settled with the tortfeasor without the company's written consent, State Farm's failure to respond to his notice about the settlement offer within a year may have voided that provision of the parties' contract. Although consent to settle provisions are typically enforceable, evidence in this case could allow a jury to infer State Farm had a reasonable opportunity to withhold its consent but failed to do so, which would waive that portion of the policy. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: September 25, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-37133, Categories: Insurance, Contract
J. Duffy finds that a lower court properly found in favor of a buyer who was sued by a seller after the buyer allegedly breached their contract by failing to purchase the seller's interest in an oilfield business. As the lower court established, the buyer was unable to find financing to complete the deal, and this financing was "a condition precedent to an enforceable contract." Affirmed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: July 26, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-38912, Categories: Energy, Tort, Contract
J. Duffy finds a lower court did not err in dismissing several motions brought by defendant after he was permitted to withdraw a years-old plea relating to possession and manufacture of child pornography. After being allowed to withdraw that plea, defendant moved to dismiss charges against him on the grounds that they violated his right to a speedy trial, but such constitutional protections do not apply once a defendant has already pleaded or been found guilty. Affirmed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: June 13, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-40005, Categories: Plea, Speedy Trial, Child Pornography
J. Duffy finds a lower court did not err in barring a woman from collecting judgment from a third-party company after she prevailed on a claim of retaliation. That woman, who has made “several unsuccessful attempts” to collect her judgment, filed a motion to “pierce the corporate veil” of another company on the grounds that the company was ostensibly the “alter ego” of one defendant whom she alleged had “transferred his personal assets” to the company in order to avoid paying the judgment. That company was not “party to the underlying proceedings,” and the woman’s new motion effectively attempts to “assert a new cause of action against a nonparty,” for which the lower court does not have jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-40049, Categories: Civil Rights, Damages, Enforcement Of Judgments
J. Duffy finds a lower court ruled mostly correctly in convicting defendant of charges related to credit card fraud. Defendant raised a range of issues with her conviction, including arguing that she should have received more credit for time served, but the credit defendant seeks “was already counted toward a sentence imposed in a prior case.” However, the lower court should recalculate its restitution order because it calculated restitution based on nine unauthorized transactions rather than “the single transaction for which defendant was convicted.” Affirmed in part.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-38256, Categories: Fraud, Sentencing, Restitution