Note: Before Relying On Any Decision Summarized on this Site, Make Sure It Remains Good Law Using the Method You Trust for that Purpose. See the Discussion Under “Shepardize” Above.
Using the search panel or the footer, you can call up the most recent decision-summaries in any legal category simply by clicking on the category in the drop-down menu (revealed by clicking on “All Categories”) or by clicking on the category in the footer. As an aid in reviewing the recent decision-summaries in the more heavily-populated categories, the following pamphlets are offered. A quick review of the issues is facilitated by the Table of Contents in each pamphlet.
“Negligence” Pamphlets—January 2019—January 2020
Some legal categories generate many more decisions in a given month than others. “Negligence” is one of them. To facilitate an overview of the “Negligence” decisions released every month use the “Pamphlet Service.” The January 2019 through January 2020 “Negligence” pamphlets (linked to below) collect all the decision-summaries in the “Negligence” category posted on this site in each of those months. The “Table of Contents” lists all the issues addressed by the “Negligence” summaries and each “Table of Contents” entry links to the decision-summary, which in turn links to the full decision on the New York State Law Reporting Bureau website. To return to the “Table of Contents” from the body of the pamphlet, just click on “Table of Contents” in the header. Any decision-summaries in this category posted after January 2020 will come up simply by clicking on “Negligence” in the search panel or the footer.
Revised Negligence Pamphlet January 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet February 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet March 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet April 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet May 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet June 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet July 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet August 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet September 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet October 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet November 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet December 2019
Revised Negligence Pamphlet January 2020
Revised Negligence Pamphlet February 2020
“Criminal Law” Pamphlets—January 2019—January 2020
Another heavily populated legal category is “Criminal Law.” All of the “Criminal Law” decision-summaries posted January 2019 through January, 2020, are collected in the pamphlets linked to below. The entries in the “Table of Contents” link to the decision-summaries, which link to the full decisions on the New York State Law Reporting Bureau website. To return to the “Table of Contents” from the body of the “Criminal Law” pamphlet, click on “Table of Contents” in the header. Any decision-summaries in this category posted after January 2020 will come up simply by clicking on “Criminal Law” in the search panel or the footer.
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet January 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet February 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet March 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet April 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet May 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet June 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet July 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet August 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet September 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet October 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet November 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet December 2019
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet January 2020
Revised Criminal Law Pamphlet February 2020
“Civil Procedure” Pamphlets—January 2019—January 2020
“Civil Procedure” is a pervasive legal category, in part because most civil cases reach the Appellate Division based upon motion practice (motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, etc.). The “Table of Contents” in the “Civil Procedure” pamphlets linked to below facilitates a quick review of the “Civil Procedure” issues addressed by our appellate courts January 2019 through January 2020. Any decision-summaries in this category posted after January 2020 will come up simply by clicking on “Civil Procedure” in the search panel or the footer.
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet January 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet February 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet March 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet April 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet May 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet June 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet July 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet August 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet September 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet October 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet November 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet December 2019
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet January 2020
Revised Civil Procedure Pamphlet February 2020
“2019 Court of Appeals Update” Pamphlet—January 2019 – December 2019
The summaries of the decisions and opinions from the New York State Court of Appeals posted between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 have been collected in an organized pamphlet. The “Table of Contents” facilitates a quick review of the issues dealt with by the Court of Appeals so far this year. The entries in the “Table of Contents” link to the decision-summaries. Click on “Table of Contents” in the header to return there. To keep up with the latest Court of Appeals decisions released after December 31 (as they are posted), simply type “CtApp” into the “Search by Keywords” line of the search panel and click on “Search.” The most recent Court of Appeals decision summaries will come up first.
Revised 2019 Court of Appeals Pamphlet
“2019 Labor Law-Construction Law Update” Pamphlet—January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019
The “Labor Law-Construction Law” decision-summaries posted between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, have been collected in a pamphlet. The “Table of Contents” in the “Labor Law-Construction Law” pamphlet linked to below facilitates a quick review of the issues raised in 2019. Any decision-summaries in this category posted since December 31, 2019 will come up simply by clicking on “Labor Law-Construction Law” in the search panel or the footer.
Revised 2019 Labor Law-Construction Law Update Pamphlet
“2019 Foreclosure Update” Pamphlet—January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019
The “Foreclosure” decision-summaries posted between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, have been collected in a pamphlet. The “Table of Contents” in the “Foreclosure” pamphlet linked to below facilitates a quick review of the issues raised in 2019. Any decision-summaries in this category posted since December 31, 2019 will come up simply by clicking on “Foreclosure” in the search panel or the footer.
Revised 2019 Foreclosure Update Pamphlet
NEW JERSEY CONVICTION FOR LEWDNESS, ALTHOUGH NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE IN NEW JERSEY, IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD; IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE CONDUCT UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN OFFENSE IN ADDITION TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE; 30 POINT ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE NEW JERSEY CONVICTION WAS CORRECT (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly assessed 30 points based upon his prior New Jersey conviction for lewdness. The New Jersey offense, based upon defendant’s repeatedly exposing himself to the 12-year-old victim, was deemed the equivalent of New York’s endangering the welfare of a child:
At the SORA court hearing, defendant challenged the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 9, asserting that his New Jersey lewdness conviction was neither a registrable offense in New Jersey nor did the comparable offense under New York law—public lewdness (a misdemeanor)—subject defendant to SORA registration in New York … . * * *
At the outset, we must resolve whether reliance on the underlying conduct of a prior foreign conviction is appropriate as a matter of law for purposes of assessing points under risk factor 9 when conducting a SORA risk-level determination. Under these circumstances, we hold that it is. * * *
Our analysis of the New Jersey conviction starts with North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of New York, wherein we considered whether the defendant was required to register as a sex offender as a result of his federal conviction for possession of child pornography (8 NY3d 745 [2007]). That question turned on the “essential elements” provision in SORA, which defines “sex offense,” in relevant part, as “a conviction of an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any [registrable sex offense in New York listed in section 168-a (2) of the Correction Law]” … . We concluded that, with respect to registrable offenses, the “essential elements” provision “requires registration whenever an individual is convicted of criminal conduct in a foreign jurisdiction that, if committed in New York, would have amounted to a registrable New York offense” … . …
In the SORA registration context … we [have held] that the strict equivalency standard was “not the optimal vehicle to effectuate SORA’s remedial purposes” and it was thus appropriate to utilize a more flexible approach that allowed consideration of the underlying conduct of a foreign conviction in addition to comparing the essential elements of the foreign and New York offense … . People v Perez, 2020 NY Slip Op 02096, CtApp 3-26-20
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DEPARTED FROM ITS PRECEDENT WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION, MATTER REMANDED TO THE BOARD (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, remanding the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Court could not rule on the appeal because the Board did not place on the record its reasons for departing from its own precedent. Claimant retired after she was injured and the Board held that she did not have to demonstrate efforts to get work in order to obtain benefits:
… [T]he Board now maintains that it departed from its administrative precedent by applying a discretionary inference in favor of claimant as permitted by Matter of Zamora v New York Neurologic Assoc. (19 NY3d 186 [2012]), without first requiring claimant to present evidence of her efforts to obtain work or get retrained. All parties agree that pursuant to Zamora the Board may, but need not, infer from the fact that a claimant involuntarily retired due to claimant’s permanent partial disability that the claimant’s reduced post-accident earnings resulted from that disability … . All parties also agree that once initially so classified, a claimant entitled under Workers’ Compensation Law (“WCL”) § 15 (3) (w) to compensation for the disability-related loss of wage-earning capacity need not demonstrate ongoing efforts to work or retrain for work after classification under the 2017 amendment to that provision. Given the parties’ agreement on the applicable law, and the Board’s representation that it departed from its purported precedent without explanation, we reverse and remit so that the Board may clarify its rationale and issue a decision in accordance with Zamora, which should include an explanation if it chooses to depart from an evidentiary requirement imposed on similarly situated claimants in prior proceedings. Matter of O’Donnell v Erie County, 2020 NY Slip Op 02095, CtApp 3-26-20
CLAIMANT, A COURIER, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, over a concurrence and a two-judge dissent, determined the claimant courier was an employee of Postmates and was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits:
Postmates is a delivery business that uses a website and smartphone application to dispatch couriers to pick-up and deliver goods from local restaurants and stores to customers in cities across the United States—deliveries that are, for the most part, completed within an hour. Postmates solicits and hires its couriers, who undergo background checks before being approved to work by Postmates. Once they are approved, the couriers decide when to log into the application and which delivery jobs to accept. Once a courier accepts a delivery job made available through the application, the courier receives additional information about the job from Postmates, including the destination for the delivery. After completing a job, Postmates pays the couriers 80% of the delivery fees charged to customers, and payments are made by the customer directly to Postmates, which pays its couriers even when the fees are not collected from customers. Couriers’ pay and the delivery fee are both nonnegotiable. * * *
Postmates exercises more than “incidental control” over its couriers—low-paid workers performing unskilled labor who possess limited discretion over how to do their jobs. That the couriers retain some independence to choose their work schedule and delivery route does not mean that they have actual control over their work or the service Postmates provides its customers; indeed, there is substantial evidence for the Board’s conclusion that Postmates dominates the significant aspects of its couriers’ work by dictating to which customers they can deliver, where to deliver the requested items, effectively limiting the time frame for delivery and controlling all aspects of pricing and payment. Matter of Vega (Postmates Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 02094, CtApp 3-26-20
IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-manufacturer (Doka) of an allegedly defective ratchet was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff could not produce the ratchet (spoliation). The ratchet was used to move heavy concrete forms into place along a track. Allegedly the ratchets broke when extra pressure was placed on them when the forms became “bound” on the track. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when he used his foot to increase the pressure on the ratchet when the form became bound. Because this was a design-defect case, and because the ratchets allegedly had broken before under similar circumstance, the defendant-manufacturer could present a defense and, therefore, the loss of the ratchet did not warrant dismissal of the complaint:
In cases like this, where the claim is based on a design defect (as opposed to a manufacturing defect), the absence of the product is not necessarily fatal to the defendant. As this Court has observed, a product’s design “possibly might be evaluated and the defect proved circumstantially” … . Circumstantial evidence could, one would imagine, be the testimony of someone involved in the design process, and plans or photographs of the product before it entered the stream of commerce. It could also, assuming that the missing product was one of multiple units manufactured using the same design, be another one of those units. * * *
Doka does not, in any meaningful way, argue why its inability to inspect the exact ratchet that plaintiff was using would prevent it from defending against the products liability claim. Rossi v Doka USA, Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 02098, First Dept 3-26-20
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT PRESENT NON-HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, in an extensive decision explaining the relevant issues and analysis in some depth, determined plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 did not demonstrate standing to bring the foreclosure action:
… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of mailing or proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service evidencing that it properly mailed notice to the defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1304. Instead, the plaintiff relied on an affidavit of Rashad Blanchard, who was employed as a loan analyst by the parent company of the plaintiff’s loan servicer, and copies of the purported notices. The plaintiff submitted only one letter that purported to constitute the statutorily required 90-day notice of default … . Although the letter contained the statement “sent via certified mail,” with a 20-digit number below it, no receipt or corresponding document issued by the United States Postal Service was submitted proving that the letter was actually sent by certified mail more than 90 days prior to commencement of the action. The plaintiff also failed to submit any documentary evidence that notice was sent by first-class mail. Further, Blanchard did not aver that the notice was sent in the manner required pursuant to RPAPL 1304, i.e., by certified mail and first-class mail. Moreover, since he did not aver that he personally mailed the notice, or that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., the entity that purportedly sent the notices, he did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . * * *
[Vice President] Reyes’s affidavit failed to establish a sufficient foundation for the admission of a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518(a) because, although he recited that the records upon which he relied were “regularly maintained by [the plaintiff] in the ordinary course of its business,” he “did not indicate that they were made by their author (or authors, whoever they might be) pursuant to an established procedure for the routine, habitual, systematic making of records that would qualify them as trustworthy accounts,” or that they “were the records regularly relied on in the business” … . Reyes also failed to indicate “that the record [was] made at or about the time of the event being recorded—essentially, that recollection [was] fairly accurate and the habit or routine of making the entries assured” … . …
… .[T]o the extent that Reyes’s purported knowledge of the date the plaintiff received the original note was based upon his review of unidentified business records maintained by the plaintiff, “[his] affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Dennis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02039, Second Dept 3-25-20
PETITIONER REQUESTED AND WAS ENTITLED TO AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANT TO HELP PREPARE A DEFENSE; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, annulling the determination, held that petitioner was denied due process because an employee assistant was not assigned to help him prepare his defense to the allegation he harassed prison staff:
The petitioner was wrongly denied an employee assistant to help him prepare his defense … . “A prisoner charged with violating a prison regulation which could result in the loss of good time’ credit is entitled to minimal due process protections” … . Prior to his disciplinary hearing, the petitioner was confined to administrative segregation and was, therefore, unable to prepare his defense … . Contrary to the respondents’ contention, 7 NYCRR 251-4.1(a) makes no distinction between a tier II and a tier III disciplinary hearing with regard to an inmate’s right to an employee assistant … .
The petitioner had a right to assistance in connection with his disciplinary proceeding pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment … and state regulations governing inmate disciplinary proceedings … . Accordingly, where the petitioner was not provided with assistance and the record reflects that he requested such assistance, the hearing officer’s determination must be annulled and the matter remitted for a new disciplinary hearing and a new determination thereafter … . Matter of Campbell v Lorde-Gray, 2020 NY Slip Op 02036, Second Dept 3-25-20
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict should not have been granted and explained the criteria:
” A motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 may be granted where the trial court determines that, upon the evidence presented, there is no rational process by which the [trier of fact] could base a finding in favor of the nonmoving party'” … . “In considering such a motion, the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in light most favorable to the nonmovant'” … .
Here, the Supreme Court, in announcing its decision, stated that it expressly considered and relied on the defendants’ evidence. This was error, as it was improper for the court to consider, on a motion for a directed verdict made before the moving party had rested and the opposing party had an opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, the evidence introduced by the moving party … .
Thus, in the context of a motion for a directed verdict, the Supreme Court should not have accorded the defendants’ expert’s testimony more weight than that of the plaintiff’s expert. In determining a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court “must not engage in a weighing of the evidence, nor may it direct a verdict where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question” … . Boriello v Loconte, 2020 NY Slip Op 02035, Second Dept 3-25-20
JUDGE EXHIBITED BIAS AGAINST MOTHER AND INTERFERED EXCESSIVELY IN THE CUSTODY HEARING; NEW HEARING ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge was biased against mother and excessively interfered in the custody hearing:
The record of the proceedings supports the mother’s contention that the Family Court was biased against her, depriving her of a fair and impartial hearing. Although the mother’s claim of bias is not preserved for appellate review … . Here, the record demonstrates that the court predetermined the outcome of the case during the hearing and took an adversarial stance against the mother by, among other things, interjecting itself into the proceedings by cross-examining the mother on matters irrelevant to a determination of custody, including referring to the mother as “emotionally excessive” and inquiring as to how many online dating web sites the mother utilized at the time she met the father and as to when the mother and the father became intimate. The court also asked the mother, “so you were looking to start a relationship with someone?” and then commented, “And so you were married at the time?” Although the father was also married to someone when he began his relationship with the mother, no such questions or comments were directed to him by the court. The court’s inquiry of the mother exceeded 30 pages of transcript over the course of the two-day hearing. Although the court also questioned the father, the first inquiry related to setting up a parental access schedule for the father while the hearing was pending and the second set of inquiries appeared designed to elicit testimony from the father that was unfavorable to the mother, including one instance where the court intimated that the mother was practicing “extortion” against the father in order to gain an advantage in the proceedings … . Matter of Siegell v Iqbal, 2020 NY Slip Op 02084, Second Dept 3-25-20
AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A SCHOOL-EMPLOYEE-UNION-MEMBER IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CAN NOT BE LIABLE IN MALPRACTICE TO THE UNION MEMBER (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department determined the attorney (Guerra) who represented a union can not be held liable in malpractice to individual union members in disciplinary proceedings:
Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2), a party may move to dismiss a cause of action on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as the cause of action is preempted by federal law … . Here, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the complaint insofar as asserted against Guerra is preempted by section 301 of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act, and that attorneys such as Guerra who perform services for and on behalf of a union may not be held liable in malpractice to individual grievants such as the plaintiff where the services performed constitute part of the collective bargaining process … . Klingsberg v Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm’rs-Local 1, 2020 NY Slip Op 02083, Second Dept 3-25-20
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE DUTY OF CARE AND KNOWLEDGE ELEMENTS OF A SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant property owner did not demonstrate it was an out-of-possession landlord. And defendants failed to eliminate questions of fact re: several elements of a slip and fall action:
… [T]he defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they had a duty to maintain in a reasonably safe condition the area of the parking lot where the plaintiff allegedly slipped … . They further failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they, or anyone on their behalf, caused, created, or exacerbated the ice condition upon which the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell … , and whether they lacked constructive notice of the alleged ice condition … . Pinck-Jafri v Marsh Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02082, Second Dept 3-25-30
CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION ARISING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined the conviction for criminally negligence homicide was against the weight of the evidence. The passenger in defendant’s car was killed when defendant’s car went off the road, apparently after colliding with other cars defendant was attempting to pass. The decision described all of the witness’s testimony in detail and concluded the conflicting testimony was not a sufficient basis for a conviction:
“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). A person acts with criminal negligence when “he [or she] fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such [a] circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]).
The defendant’s conduct must rise to a level of carelessness where its “seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s . . . sense of right and wrong” … . Moreover, the conduct must create the risk, rather than simply not perceive the risk … .
In cases concerning charges of criminally negligent homicide arising out of automobile accidents involving excess rates of speed, “it takes some additional affirmative act by the defendant to transform speeding into dangerous speeding” … .
Here, the People failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant “fail[ed] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]) which caused the death of his passenger. People v Derival, 2020 NY Slip Op 02072, Second Dept 3-25-20
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, APPOINTED A RECEIVER BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED BY A PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, appointed a receiver and should not have referred an issue to a court attorney referee in this dispute between plaintiff condominium boards and homeowners association and their management company and attorney. The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence:
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, appointing a receiver to manage the plaintiff entities, since the complaint did not seek the appointment of a receiver, no “person having an apparent interest” in the plaintiff entities sought such relief, and there is no evidence that such a drastic remedy was warranted (CPLR 6401[a] …).
The Supreme Court should not have referred the issue of which Board of Managers and/or which management company shall be implemented to manage the affairs of the plaintiffs to a court attorney referee to hear and report, since the defendants lack standing to challenge the alleged violations of the plaintiffs’ bylaws in the elections of new board members (see N-PCL 618 …). Further, the reference of the issue of attorney’s fees was premature … . Board of Mgrs. of Golfview Condominium I v Island Condo Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02070, Second Dept 3-25-20
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s slip and fall:
“A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on property when the condition is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it” … . To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant is required to offer evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected before the accident … . “Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice”… . Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition. While the affidavit of the building superintendent referenced general inspection and cleaning practices, the defendant failed to submit evidence regarding specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question relative to the time when the plaintiff’s accident occurred … . Griffin v PMV Realty, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02068, Second Dept 3-25-20
VILLAGE BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH IS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION NOT SUBJECT TO AN ARTICLE 78 REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the village board properly declined to consider an application to rezone the subject property, which was an exercise of a legislative function:
“[T]he amendment of a zoning ordinance is a purely legislative function” … . The Village Board is vested with discretion to amend its zoning ordinance, and it is not required to consider and vote upon every application for a zoning change (see Village Law § 7-708 …). Thus, in the present case, the Village Board’s determinations not to consider the plaintiffs/petitioners’ applications were a legislative function not subject to review under CPLR article 78 … . Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Village of Mamaroneck, 2020 NY Slip Op 02062, Second Dept 3-25-20
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined there was sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances to award mother sole custody of the children:
… [T]he Family Court’s determination, in effect, that there had been no change in circumstances requiring a transfer of legal custody to the mother and a modification of the father’s parental access lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record … . The record reflects that the children’s relationship with the father has deteriorated since the issuance of the custody order … , that the father had threatened to strike the children with a belt, and that the father denigrated the mother in the presence of the children … . Moreover, the children, who were 11 and 13 years old at the time of the hearing, indicated a strong preference to reside with the mother … . Matter of Georgiou-Ely v Ely, 2020 NY Slip Op 02049, Second Dept 3-25-20
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING, AS OPPOSED TO WIND, CAUSED THE PROPERTY DAMAGE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE INSURER BASED UPON POLICY EXCLUSIONS (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the exclusions in the homeowner’s policy applied to damage caused during Superstorm Sandy. The expert opinion evidence did not demonstrate flooding, as opposed to wind, was the predominant cause of the damage:
The Homeowners Policy contains three exclusions which Allstate has raised here: the flood exclusion, the “weather conditions” exclusion, and the “predominant cause” exclusion. The Homeowners Policy states that Allstate does not cover losses caused by “[f]lood, including, but not limited to surface water, waves, tidal water or overflow of any body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind.” The “weather conditions” exclusion states that Allstate does not cover losses caused by “Weather Conditions that contribute in any way with a cause of loss excluded in this section to produce a loss.” The “predominant cause” exclusion states that Allstate will not cover loss to a covered property when “there are two or more causes of loss to the covered property” and “the predominant cause(s) of loss is (are) excluded” under other provisions of the Policy. Ain v Allstate Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 02042, Second Dept 3-25-20
NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR GAP-RELATED ACCIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, ordering a new trial, in a brief memorandum with no description of the facts, determined evidence of prior accidents involving the gap between the subway train and the platform should not have been admitted because there was no showing the conditions were the same. However the evidence of the non-mandatory gap standards were properly admitted:
In these circumstances, the trial court properly admitted plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding non-mandatory gap standards promulgated by the American Public Transit Association and the Public Transportation Safety Board … . However, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by admitting evidence of prior accidents at New York City subway stations involving the gap between the train car and platform in the absence of a showing that the relevant conditions of those accidents were substantially the same as plaintiff’s accident … . Daniels v New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 02027, CtApp 3-24-20
TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE ADMISSION OF DNA PROFILES WAS HEARSAY WHICH VIOLATED THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a concurrence, determined the testimony which formed the basis for the admission in evidence of DNA profiles was hearsay which violated the Confrontation Clause:
In People v John, we held that, when confronted with testimonial DNA evidence at trial, a defendant is entitled to cross-examine “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data” (27 NY3d 294, 315 [2016]). In People v Austin, we reiterated that a testifying analyst who did not participate in the generation of a testimonial DNA profile satisfies the Confrontation Clause’s requirements only if the analyst “used his or her independent analysis on the raw data to arrive at his or her own conclusions” (30 NY3d 98, 105 [2017] … ). The records before us do not establish that the testifying analyst had such a role in either case. Accordingly, because the analyst’s hearsay testimony as to the DNA profiles developed from the post-arrest buccal swabs “easily satisfies the primary purpose test” for determining whether evidence is testimonial … , we conclude that her testimony and the admission of those DNA profiles into evidence, over defendants’ objections, violated defendants’ confrontation rights. People v Tsintzelis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02026, CtApp 3-24-20
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND FALSE ADVERTISING WERE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED AGAINST AN INSURER PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES; PLAINTIFF, A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, ALLEGED DECEPTIVE AND FALSE MARKETING BY THE INSURER INDUCED HIM TO CHOOSE THE INSURER’S PLAN (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined General Business Law sections 349 and 350 applied to a health insurance plan offered to New York City employees. Plaintiff, a retired NYC police officer brought the action in federal court alleging the insurer (GHI) engaged in “deceptive practices” and “false advertising.” The Third Circuit asked the Court of Appeals to rule on whether the General Business Law causes of action were applicable to plaintiff who was a third-party beneficiary of the insurance contract which had been negotiated by sophisticated parties. The insurer argued a contract between sophisticated parties did not raise a “consumer-oriented” issue:
We have explained that, to state a claim under sections 349 or 350, “a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct, that is (2) materially misleading, and that (3) the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice” … . Thus, a plaintiff claiming the benefit of either section 349 or 350 “must charge conduct of the defendant that is consumer-oriented” or, in other words, “demonstrate that the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large” … . * * *
Here, although there was an underlying insurance contract negotiated by sophisticated entities—only one of which is a party to this action—neither plaintiff, nor any of the other hundreds of thousands of employees and retirees who participated in the GHI Plan, were participants in its negotiation and, critically, that negotiation was followed by an open enrollment period, which exposed City employees and retirees to marketing resembling a traditional consumer sales environment. During the open enrollment period, the employees and retirees could select only one of 11 previously-negotiated health insurance plans offered as part of their compensation and retirement packages from the City, and the insurers were able to market their health care plans directly to the employees and retirees. Significantly, it is the allegedly misleading summary materials that are the subject of plaintiff’s case—not the contract between the City and GHI, which purportedly was never provided to City employees and retirees. Plavin v Group Health Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02025, CtApp 3-24-2020
AN ENTRY IN THE CASE SUMMARY ALONE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF POINTS (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s risk level, determined that an entry in the case summary alone is not sufficient to justify an assessment of points:
We agree with defendant that the People failed to prove by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that he had committed a continuing course of sexual misconduct, i.e., risk factor 4 on the risk assessment instrument (RAI) … . The sole evidence presented by the People in support of that risk factor was the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. At the SORA hearing, however, defendant specifically denied the allegation within the case summary that he engaged in a continuing course of sexual misconduct, and instead testified that he engaged in one instance only. Indeed, it is undisputed that defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of rape in the third degree … stemming from a specific instance of intercourse that occurred on one specified day. We conclude that “the case summary alone is not sufficient to satisfy the People’s burden of proving the risk level assessment by clear and convincing evidence where, as here, defendant contested the factual allegations related to [the] risk factor” … . People v Maund, 2020 NY Slip Op 02011, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
NEW YORK PLAINTIFF, NORTH CAROLINA DEFENDANT, TORTS ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED IN GEORGIA; UNDER A CONFLICT OF LAWS ANALYSIS GEORGIA LAW CONTROLS (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled that Georgia law controlled the action which alleged Bank of America’s employees or agents notarized documents with false signatures. The torts were alleged to have occurred in Georgia. Plaintiff was a domiciliary of New York and Bank of America was a domiciliary of North Carolina:
If the conflicting laws regulate conduct, the law of the place of the tort applies because of the “locus jurisdiction’s interests in protecting the reasonable expectations of the parties” and “the admonitory effect that applying its law will have on similar conduct in the future” … . Where [, as here], however, the conflicting laws relate to the allocation of losses, then “considerations of the State’s admonitory interest and party reliance are less important” … . Nevertheless, pursuant to the third rule set forth in Neumeier v Kuehner (31 NY2d 121, 128 [1972]), i.e., where the parties are domiciled in different states with conflicting laws, the law of the place of the tort normally applies, unless displacing it “will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants” … . We conclude that plaintiff “failed to establish that the exception applies to warrant a departure from the locus jurisdiction rule” … , and thus the third Neumeier rule warrants the application of the law of Georgia in this action … . Durham Commercial Capital Corp. v Arunachalam, 2020 NY Slip Op 02024, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; THE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PRO SE MOTION WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING, DESPITE THE TECHNICAL DEFECTS (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s pro se motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea, on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds, was properly denied without a hearing. The dissenters argued defendant raised the issue sufficiently to warrant a hearing:
Defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to advise defendant, prior to the guilty plea, of a potentially viable affirmative defense concerning the operability of the firearm used in the robberies … . Defendant did not submit, however, the statutorily-required “sworn allegations” of “the existence or occurrence of facts” in support of his motion to warrant such a hearing … . The rule that a CPL 440.10 motion must be predicated on sworn allegations is a fundamental statutory requirement that a defendant must satisfy to be entitled to a hearing … . Absent sworn allegations substantiating defendant’s contentions, the court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the motion … .
Specifically, defendant did not aver in his initial motion papers that he would have rejected the favorable plea deal and insisted on proceeding to trial had he been made aware of the potentially viable affirmative defense. Inasmuch as defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … , his failure to swear that he would have done so is fatal to his motion, and thus the court did not err in denying it without a hearing … . People v Dogan, 2020 NY Slip Op 02021, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
BECAUSE DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS NOT IN CUSTODY HE COULD VALIDLY WITHDRAW HIS REQUEST WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department determined defendant invoked his right to counsel when he was not in custody and therefore defendant could validly withdraw his request for counsel without the presence of counsel:
The Court of Appeals has stated that a defendant who asserts his or her right to counsel while out of custody may later withdraw that assertion without an attorney present and speak to law enforcement agents … . A hearing court may infer that a defendant has withdrawn a request for counsel when the defendant’s conduct unambiguously establishes such a withdrawal, which requires consideration of all relevant factors, including “whether defendant was fully advised of his or her constitutional rights before invoking the right to counsel and subsequently waiving it, whether the defendant who has requested assistance earlier has initiated the further communication or conversation with the police . . . , and whether there has been a break in the interrogation after the defendant has asserted the need for counsel with a reasonable opportunity during the break for the suspect to contact an attorney” … . Here, defendant was repeatedly advised of his rights, including twice immediately before he resumed speaking with the police. Moreover, after an overnight break in questioning, defendant initiated the conversation with the police to inquire about taking a polygraph examination, and he provided his own transportation to the investigators’ office. Consequently, we conclude that the court properly determined that defendant withdrew his assertion of his right to counsel … . We reject defendant’s contention that a different result is required because he did not cause the break in the interrogation. The relevant consideration is not which party caused the break in the questioning, rather it is whether there was “a reasonable opportunity during the break for the suspect to contact an attorney” … , and in this case defendant had such an opportunity during the overnight break in questioning. People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 01981, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
JAIL IS NOT A ‘PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR PETITIONER’S ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ALLEGING UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN JAIL (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department determined jail is not a “public accommodation” within the meaning of the Human Rights Law. Therefore petitioner’s administrative complaint alleging unlawful discrimination in the jail was properly dismissed by the NYS Division of Human Rights (SDHR) for lack of jurisdiction:
SDHR has jurisdiction to, inter alia, investigate and adjudicate complaints of unlawful discrimination in the provision of any “public accommodation, resort or amusement” (Executive Law § 296 [2] [a]; see § 295 [6] … ). For purposes of the Human Rights Law, a “public accommodation, resort or amusement” offers ” conveniences and services to the public’ ” and is “generally open to all comers” … , and it defies logic to suggest that law enforcement is providing ” conveniences’ ” or ” services’ ” to those arrested and detained … . Nor is arrest and detention “open to all comers” in any sense … . Indeed, it well established that “prison facilities do not cater or offer [their] goods to the general public” … . To the contrary, arrest and detention is imposed upon a person by law enforcement and the criminal courts, not provided to those arrested and detained as a service for their benefit. The process of arresting and incarcerating a person is, “by its very nature,” a governmentally decreed “separat[ion of] the general public from the individuals who are compelled by our penal system to be confined” … .
In short, although we note SDHR’s concession at oral argument that governmental entities such as police agencies could provide public accommodations within the meaning of the Human Rights Law under certain circumstances, we join the consensus of courts nationwide in concluding that arrest and incarceration are “properly viewed as the antithesis of a . . . public accommodation’ ” … . Matter of LeTray v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2020 NY Slip Op 01978, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT FROM DEFENDANT DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department determined defendant did not rebut the presumption of valid service of process:
… [P]laintiff submitted, in addition to evidence establishing the default of defendant and “proof of the facts constituting the claim” (CPLR 3215 [f] … ), the affidavit of a process server, who averred that he served defendant by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the office of the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 (b) (1), and an affidavit of additional mailing establishing that a copy of the summons and complaint was also sent to defendant’s mailing address pursuant to CPLR 3215 (g) (4). In opposition, defendant asserted that it was entitled under CPLR 317 to be relieved from its default in pleading, and defendant submitted an affidavit in which its president averred, insofar as relevant to the issue of service, that defendant had not received the summons and complaint prior to receipt of plaintiff’s initial notice of motion for a default judgment.
… [I]n order to be relieved of a default in pleading under CPLR 317, defendant was required to show, among other things, that it did not receive actual notice of the process in time to defend the action … . It is well settled that a “process server’s affidavit constitute[s] prima facie evidence of proper service on the Secretary of State” … , and thus defendant was required to rebut the presumption of proper service … . Here, the “self-serving affidavit [of defendant’s president], which merely denied receipt, is insufficient to rebut [that] presumption” … . Lechase Constr. Servs., LLC v JM Bus. Assoc. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01977, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
BECAUSE FATHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE APPEALABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department determined father was not in default because his attorney appeared. Therefore the custody order was appealable:
Petitioner father commenced this proceeding seeking to modify a prior order of custody that, inter alia, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to respondent mother. The father now appeals from an order that, inter alia, continued sole legal and physical custody of the subject child with the mother.
We agree with the father that Family Court erred in entering the order upon his default based on his failure to appear in court. The record establishes that the father “was represented by counsel, and we have previously determined that, [w]here a party fails to appear [in court on a scheduled date] but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded” … . Matter of Williams v Richardson, 2020 NY Slip Op 01975, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAD BEGUN WORKING FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT ENTERED HIS PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was deprived of his right counsel because defense counsel had become employed by the district attorney’s office at the time of the plea:
It is well established that a criminal defendant’s right to counsel is violated when a defense attorney who actively participated in the preliminary stages of the defendant’s defense becomes employed as an assistant district attorney by the office that is prosecuting the defendant’s ongoing case … . In those circumstances, the defendant and the public are given “the unmistakable appearance of impropriety and [the situation] create[s] the continuing opportunity for abuse of confidences entrusted to the attorney during the [period] of his [or her] active representation of defendant” … . Disqualification is required when there is “the appearance of impropriety and the risk of prejudice attendant on abuse of confidence, however slight” … . “The rule is necessary to prevent situations in which [a] former client[] must depend on the good faith of [his or her] former [attorney] turned adversar[y] to protect and honor confidences shared during the now extinct relationship. In those situations the risk of abuse is obvious” … .
Here, we conclude that defendant’s right to counsel was violated … . The People concede that the attorney who had represented defendant with respect to the misdemeanor charges was employed by the District Attorney’s Office at the time defendant entered into the plea agreement that resolved those misdemeanor charges as well as the felony charges. Thus, on this record, we conclude that there is an “appearance of impropriety and . . . risk of prejudice attendant on abuse of confidence” … , and defendant should not have been required to “depend on the good faith of [his] former [attorney] turned adversar[y] to protect and honor confidences shared during the now extinct relationship” … . People v Sears, 2020 NY Slip Op 01974, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPELLATE COURT DID NOT ADDRESS DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO THE TRIAL JUDGE’S PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM COMMUNICATING WITH HIS ATTORNEY DURING OVERNIGHT RECESSES WHEN DEFENDANT WAS ON THE STAND (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department determined the defendant did not preserve for appeal his objection to the trial judge’s prohibiting defendant from communicating with his lawyer during overnight recesses when defendant was testifying. The legitimacy of the objection was not addressed:
Defendant … contends in his main brief that the court committed reversible error by depriving him of the constitutional right to counsel when it prohibited him from communicating with defense counsel about his testimony during overnight recesses while defendant was in the midst of testifying in his defense. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as defense counsel was ” present and available to register a protest’ to [the] restriction on communication that would [have] provide[d] the court with an opportunity to rectify its error” but did not make a timely protest … . Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Contrary to defendant’s related contention in his main brief, we conclude under the circumstances of this case that defense counsel’s failure to timely object to the prohibition on communication was not so “egregious and prejudicial as to compromise . . . defendant’s right to a fair trial” … . People v Tetro, 2020 NY Slip Op 01973, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
THERE IS NO LEGAL SUPPORT FOR A ‘TRI-PARENT’ ARRANGEMENT WHERE A FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER OF MOTHER, MOTHER AND FATHER SHARE VISITATION AND CUSTODY OF THE CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Centra, over a two-justice concurrence and a dissent, determined petitioner, the former same-sex partner of mother, did not have standing to seek custody and visitation of the child, despite mother’s support of the petition. The petitioner moved out of mother;s residence in 2010. Mother thereafter conceived a child with father. At first father wanted nothing to do with the child, but he has visited the child since 2014. Petitioner participated in the birth and naming of the child and assumed the role of a parent, but the romantic relationship with mother ended in 2012. Father opposed petitioner’s 2017 petition for custody and visitation. Mother did not want to terminate father’s rights. Family Court granted father’s motion to dismiss the petition. The Fourth Department affirmed finding no legal support for a “tri-parent” custody and visitation arrangement:
The wording of Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) is clear and straightforward. It states that “either” parent may seek custody or visitation (id.). It is a well-settled principle of statutory construction that “[w]ords of ordinary import used in a statute are to be given their usual and commonly understood meaning” … . The common dictionary definition of “either” when used as an adjective has two senses, i.e., “being the one and the other of two” and “being the one or the other of two” … . In addition, when the Court of Appeals stated in Brooke S.B. that section 70 does not define the critical term “parent,” it added the following in a footnote: “We note that by the use of the term either,’ the plain language of Domestic Relations Law § 70 clearly limits a child to two parents, and no more than two, at any given time” (Brooke S.B., 28 NY3d at 18 n 3). In our view, the clear wording of section 70 (a), which was expressly recognized by the Court of Appeals, precludes any relief to petitioner here because there are already two parents: the mother and the father. Under section 70 (a), there simply can be no more. We are therefore in agreement with the Third Department’s recent decision determining that to allow three parents to “simultaneously have standing to seek custody . . . does not comport with the holding in Matter of Brooke S.B.” (Matter of Shanna O. v James P., 176 AD3d 1334, 1335 [3d Dept 2019]). Matter of Tomeka N.H. v Jesus R., 2020 NY Slip Op 02015, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
Similar issue and result in Matter of Wlock v King, 2020 NY Slip Op 02019, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, ASSESSED POINTS ON A THEORY NOT RAISED BY THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS OR THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, assessed points on a theory not raised by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders or the People:
… [D]efendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that County Court violated his right to due process by sua sponte assessing points on a theory not raised by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders or the People … . The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine his or her risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the risk level assessment … . Here, no allegations were made either in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or by the People at the SORA hearing that defendant should be assessed 30 points under risk factor 3, and defendant learned of the assessment of the additional points under that risk factor for the first time when the court issued its decision … . …
The court stated that, if defendant were a presumptive level one risk, an upward departure to level two would be warranted based on certain aggravating factors stemming from the nature of the crimes. Because those factors were not presented as bases for departure in the RAI or by the People at the hearing, defendant was not afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to them … . People v Wilke, 2020 NY Slip Op 02002, Fourth Dept 3-20-20
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT NECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant should have been informed his sentence would include a period of post release supervision (PRS). Because defendant was not put on notice, there was not need to preserve the issue for appeal:
At the plea proceeding, the court advised defendant that under the plea agreement, he would plead guilty to third-degree possession, a class B felony, and fifth-degree possession, a class D felony, with the understanding that if he complied with the terms of the plea agreement, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea to the B felony, and be sentenced, solely on the D felony, to 3½ years in prison, followed by two years of postrelease supervision. The court stated that if defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement, he could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison on the B felony, but it neglected to state that any enhanced sentence would include a period of PRS. Defendant violated the plea agreement by, among other things, failing to appear for sentencing, and the court imposed an enhanced sentence that included two years of post release supervision concurrent on the B and D felonies.
The court was required to advise defendant that his potential sentence in the event he violated the plea conditions would include PRS, and it was also required to specify the length of the term of PRS … . The prosecutor’s brief reference to PRS immediately before sentencing was not the type of notice under People v Murray (15 NY3d 725 [2010]) that would require defendant to preserve the issue … . People v Jamison, 2020 NY Slip Op 01955, First Dept 3-19-20
CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO PRESERVE PRE-ACCIDENT POLICE COMMUNICATIONS IN THIS POLICE-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WERE AWARE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ASSERT AN EMERGENCY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the City defendants should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence. The action stemmed from a traffic accident involving a police vehicle and the city defendants were put on notice they would assert an emergency defense by the notice of claim. But the pre-accident police communications were not preserved:
Defendants had an obligation to preserve the pre-accident audio recordings at the time they were destroyed because the Police Department (NYPD) internal report and plaintiff’s notice of claim, which attached the public police accident report, put defendants on notice that they would likely assert an emergency operation defense. Therefore, pre-accident audio communication between the dispatcher and the NYPD vehicle or officers involved in the accident should have been preserved in case it was needed for future litigation … . Under the circumstances presented, the imposition of an adverse inference charge would be an appropriate sanction … . Sanchez v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01970, First Dept 3-19-20
A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DOORMAN OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing should have been held about the validity of the service of the summons and complaint; i.e., whether service on the doorman of the defendant’s (Freeman’s) apartment building was valid service:
The plaintiff asserted that service of process was properly made pursuant to CPLR 308(2), relying on an affidavit of service indicating that service upon Freeman was effected by delivering the summons and complaint to a “doorman” in the apartment building where Freeman resided and by subsequently mailing the summons and complaint to Freeman … . While the affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of service of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(2) … , the evidence submitted by Freeman in support of her motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint sufficiently rebutted the presumption of proper service to warrant a hearing. Freeman’s submissions included specific and detailed averments, as well as the affidavit of a security guard who worked in Freeman’s apartment building. The security guard averred that the summons and complaint were delivered to him at his desk on … , but that he was not authorized to receive packages or deliveries, that he did not deny the process server access to Freeman’s apartment, and that he did not inform Freeman of the delivery. Under these circumstances, the court should have conducted a hearing to determine whether the security guard was a person of suitable age and discretion within the meaning of CPLR 308(2), and whether the outer bounds of Freeman’s dwelling place extended to the security guard’s desk in her apartment building … . Edwards-Blackburn v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 01907, Second Dept 3-18-20
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined conflicting expert opinions in this medical malpractice action created a question of fact:
… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The expert affirmations of two board-certified urologists submitted by the plaintiff contradicted the conclusion of the NYCHH defendants’ experts that the RUMC defendants and other defendants caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff’s experts concluded, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred intra-operatively during the prostatectomy performed by Surasi at Woodhull Medical Center. Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where, as here, the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions. “Such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury” … . Castillo v Surasi, 2020 NY Slip Op 01903, Second Dept 3-18-20
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT; THE CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have ordered the return of the down payment to the buyer (Berman) pursuant to the purchase contract in the context of granting a preliminary injunction. First, by granting the ultimate relief requested Supreme Court had effectively granted summary judgment before issue was joined. Second the criteria for a preliminary injunction were not met. The purchase contract allowed the termination of the agreement and the return of the down payment if three conditions were met. Berman alleged two of the conditions were met and the third was impossible:
Berman failed to demonstrate his entitlement to temporary injunctive relief pursuant to CPLR 6301, as he failed to establish any of the three required elements for such relief: (1) likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent granting of a preliminary injunction, (3) and a balancing of equities in his favor … . …
Berman failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, as the loss of a down payment is not an irreparable harm since the injured party could be made whole by a money judgment … . …
While Berman contends that it was impossible to obtain a Phase II Assessment within the required time, he failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success in establishing that it was impossible to obtain the report. …
Finally, Berman failed to show that the balancing of equities was in his favor. Berman v TRG Waterfront Lender, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01902, Second Dept 3-18-20
DRIVER/OWNER OF THE MIDDLE VEHICLE IN THIS CHAIN-REACTION REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE IS NOT LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the summary judgment motion by the driver/owner of the middle vehicle in this chain-reaction accident should have been granted. The rear-most driver pushed the stopped middle vehicle into the plaintiff’s vehicle:
“A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision to rebut the inference of negligence” … . ” Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation'” … . Thus, “[i]n a chain collision accident, the operator of the middle vehicle may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was properly stopped behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle” … . Bardizbanian v Bhuiyan, 2020 NY Slip Op 01897, Second Dept 3-18-20
THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE AND A HEARING TO THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department determined the referee’s failure to provide notice and a hearing to the defendant in this foreclosure action did not require reversal of the judgment of foreclosure:
It is undisputed that the referee failed to provide notice to the defendant pursuant to CPLR 4313, or to hold a hearing on the issues addressed in the referee’s report. However, as long as a defendant is not prejudiced by the inability to submit evidence directly to the referee, a referee’s failure to notify a defendant and hold a hearing is not, by itself, a basis to reverse a judgment of foreclosure and sale and remit the matter for a hearing and a new determination of amounts owed … . Where, as here, a defendant had an opportunity to raise questions and submit evidence directly to the Supreme Court, which evidence could be considered by the court in determining whether to confirm the referee’s report, the defendant is not prejudiced by any error in failing to hold a hearing … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Viola, 2020 NY Slip Op 01895, Second Dept 3-18-20
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ‘RECKLESS DISREGARD’ STANDARD APPLIES TO THIS POLICE-CAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this police-car traffic accident case should not have been granted. The Second Department held there was a question of fact whether the police officer was an “authorized emergency vehicle” triggering the “reckless disregard” standard of care:
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when a vehicle she was operating collided with a police vehicle operated by the defendant Moira T. Larmour, a police officer. According to Larmour’s deposition testimony, the collision occurred when Larmour, who had been traveling west, made an “exaggerated u-turn” in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop of an unrelated vehicle for an allegedly expired inspection sticker and accelerated her vehicle, which spun on wet pavement and came into contact with the plaintiff’s vehicle, which was traveling east. * * *
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 qualifiedly exempts drivers of authorized emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an “emergency operation” … . An “emergency operation” is defined under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b as, among other things, pursuing an “actual or suspected violator of the law.” Those privileges set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 include passing through red lights and stop signs, exceeding the speed limit, and disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions … . However, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e), “[t]he foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his [or her] reckless disregard for the safety of others.” This is commonly referred to as the reckless disregard standard of care, which requires a plaintiff to establish that a police officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others in order to impose civil liability upon that officer … . Anderson v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2020 NY Slip Op 01894, Second Dept 3-18-20
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PERMITS GRANTING THE CONVERSION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY FROM MANUFACTURING TO RETAIL; PROXIMITY TO DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to contest the defendant City’s issuing permits allowing defendant CAB to convert property from manufacturing to retail. Plaintiff operated a grocery store 450 feet from CAB’s property. The Second Department held proximity was not enough to confer standing on plaintiff:
“In land use matters, . . . [the plaintiff] must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large'” … . “An allegation of close proximity may give rise to an inference of damage or injury that enables a nearby property owner to challenge a land use decision without proof of actual injury” … . “However, this does not entitle the property owner to judicial review in every instance” … . “Rather, in addition to establishing that the effect of the proposed change is different from that suffered by the public generally, the [property owner] must establish that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interests the statute protects” … . Thus, “even where [the property owner’s] premises are physically close to the subject property, an ad hoc determination may be required as to whether a particular [property owner] itself has a legally protectable interest so as to confer standing” … .
Here, the plaintiff alleged standing on the basis of proximity, issues and interests within the zone of interests, and adverse impacts. We disagree with the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to commence this action. The plaintiff failed to allege any harm distinct from that of the community at large … . 159-MP Corp. v CAB Bedford, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01892, Second Dept 3-18-20
SCHOOL BUS DRIVER ALLEGEDLY GESTURED TO PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A TURN AND PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WAS THEN STRUCK BY ANOTHER VEHICLE; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the school bus driver gestured to plaintiff to make a turn and plaintiff’s car was then struck by another car (driven by defendant Mallon) going through the intersection:
“When one driver chooses to gratuitously signal to another person, indicating that it is safe to proceed or that the signaling driver will yield the right-of-way, the signaling driver assumes a duty to do so reasonably under the circumstances” … . Here, the School District failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not rely on the bus driver’s gesture that it was safe for the plaintiff to make his left turn … . The School District also failed to establish, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s alleged negligent conduct in operating Mallon’s vehicle constituted an intervening and superseding act which broke the causal nexus between the bus driver’s alleged negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries … . Pittman v Ball, 2020 NY Slip Op 01944, Second Dept 3-18-20
THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO CONFLICTING MEDICAL OPINIONS, HERE DEALING WITH WEANING CLAIMANT FROM OPIOID PAIN KILLERS (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board has the authority to chose between two conflicting medical opinions. Here claimant had significant pain was was taking high doses of opioids. The independent medical examiner (IME) had one opinion about how the claimant should be weaned from the opioids and claimant’s own physician had a different opinion. The Board sided with the IME:
Although claimant’s physician and the IME gave differing opinions regarding the advisability of weaning claimant from his opiate medications, as well as the manner in which it should be accomplished, the Board is vested with the authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions … . Thus, the Board could choose to credit the opinion of the IME, which was in accordance with the applicable guidelines, over that of claimant’s treating physician. Therefore, inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we find no reason to disturb it … . Matter of Forte v Muccini, 2020 NY Slip Op 01881, Third Dept 3-16-20
SPECULATIVE MEDICAL OPINION DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING CLAIMANT’S PRIOR EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED MESOTHELIOMA, DESPITE EVIDENCE OF EXPOSURE AT THE PRIOR EMPLOYER (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly found that claimant’s mesothelioma was due to asbestos exposure at Kodak, even though claimant was exposed to asbestos in his prior employment at International Paper. Kodak unsuccessfully sought apportionment of the liability with International Paper. Claimant’s employment at International Paper ended in 1967 and claimant worked at Kodak from 1967 to 1985. He was diagnosed in 2013:
… Workers’ Compensation Law § 44 states that, when a worker’s disability due to an occupational disease is established and benefits are awarded, “[t]he total compensation due shall be recoverable from the employer who last employed the employee in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due and in which it was contracted. If, however, such disease . . . was contracted while such employee was in the employment of a prior employer, the employer who is made liable for the total compensation . . . may appeal to the [B]oard for an apportionment of such compensation among the several employers who since the contraction of such disease shall have employed such employee in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due” … . “Importantly, liability under this provision is premised upon employment at the time of or following the contraction of the compensable occupational disease, not upon the disablement that ensues” … The determination of when an employee contracted the disease, which refers to “when the disease process begins, as evidenced by symptoms, diagnosis or other medical evidence that shows [that the] disease process must have existed” … , is a question of fact to be determined by the Board, which will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence … . * * *
While the Board recognized that there may be a delay of up to 50 years between exposure to asbestos and a mesothelioma diagnosis, it correctly found that the medical opinions that decedent’s prior employment contributed to his condition were speculative and insufficient … . Matter of Gimber v Eastman Kodak Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 01875, Third Dept 3-16-20
CLAIMANT WAS WRONGFULLY TERMINATED AFTER TELLING HIS BOSS HE WAS GOING TO FILE A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM, A VIOLATION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 120 (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department determined claimant was terminated because he told the executive manager he would be filing a workers’ compensation claim and taking time off after a slip and fall injury, a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law section 120:
“Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee who has filed or who has attempted to file a claim for workers’ compensation benefits by discharging him or her” … . In enacting this statute, “the Legislature intended ‘to insure that a claimant [could] exercise his [or her] rights under the [Workers’] Compensation Law . . . without fear that doing so [might] endanger the continuity of [his or her] employment'” … . “The burden of proving a retaliatory discharge in violation of the statute lies with the claimant, who must demonstrate a causal nexus between the claimant’s activities in obtaining compensation and the employer’s conduct against him or her” … . With regard to “questions of fact and factual inferences to be drawn therefrom, . . . a decision of the [B]oard is conclusive upon the courts if supported by substantial evidence” … . Matter of Markey v Autosaver Ford, 2020 NY Slip Op 01876, Third Dept 3-16-20
SECURITIES TRADER IS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department determined claimant, a securities trader who worked for Quad Capital, LLC, was an employee entitled to unemployment benefits:
The record establishes that claimant submitted a resume and was interviewed by a managing partner at Quad Capital. After certain criteria, such as a trading license, fingerprints and background check were completed, claimant entered into an Ordinary Member Agreement and was given a trader handbook. The record also establishes that, despite being designated by the contract as a member of the limited liability company, claimant did not make a monetary investment in the company, was paid based upon the net profit only from his portfolio, did not have any managerial duties, did not make any financial or managerial decisions and was not liable for any losses from the company — unlike managing members of Quad Capital. Further, claimant had regularly-scheduled work hours in Quad Capital’s office and was required to notify his manager if he would be absent. Claimant was expected to attend morning meetings, his work was regularly reviewed and monitored by a manger and he was subject to a dress code for which a fine would be imposed if violated. Matter of Giampa (Quad Capital, LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 01877, Third Dept 3-20-20
THE CARRIER’S FAILURE TO INDICATE WHEN IT OBJECTED TO THE RULING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE JUSTIFIED THE DENIAL OF THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board did not abuse its discretion when it denied the carrier’s application for review because question 15 on the application form did not indicate when the relevant objection to the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) was made:
When the carrier filed its application for Board review … , question number 15 on that form, as well as the accompanying instructions in effect at that time, requested that it “[s]pecify the objection or exception interposed to the ruling and when the objection or exception was interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii).” In response to question number 15, the carrier stated, “Please note the carrier’s objection to not finding a transfer of liability to the Special Funds Conservation Committee pursuant to [Workers’ Compensation Law §] 25-a.” The Board found that the carrier’s response was incomplete because there were “several hearings [that] had taken place prior to the hearing [on] July 3, 2018,” and the carrier’s response to question number 15 did “not include the date of the hearing at which the exception to the WCLJ’s ruling was interposed, as required.” Both the regulation itself and the instructions in effect at the time that the carrier filed its application for Board review unambiguously required the carrier to “specify the objection or exception that was interposed to the [WCLJ’s] ruling, and when the objection or exception was interposed” … . As such, a complete response to question number 15 required the carrier to specify the nature of its objections or exceptions and indicate when such objections or exceptions were interposed. Although the carrier satisfied the first prong of the regulation by articulating specific objections to the WCLJ’s rulings, it failed to satisfy the temporal element of the regulation by indicating when such objections were made. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented here, in which the carrier failed to provide the requisite temporal element in its response to question number 15, we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the carrier’s application for Board review … . Matter of Barrera v Corinthian Cast Stone, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01880, Third Dept 3-16-20
Similar issue and result in Matter of Currie v Rist Transp. Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 01874, Third Dept 3-16-20
Similar issue and result in Matter of Perry v All Am. Sch. Bus Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01869, Third Dept 3-16-20
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE DWI ARREST EVEN THOUGH NO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED; BETTER PRACTICE WOULD BE FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO PLACE THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S GUILT ON THE RECORD AT THE TIME OF AN ALFORD PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, affirming defendant’s DWI conviction by guilty plea, determined the waiver of appeal was insufficient. The Third Department noted that the better practice would have been to place the evidence of defendant’s guilt on the record at the time of the Alford plea, and found the arresting officer had probable cause without conducting field sobriety tests. With regard to the waiver of appeal, the court wrote:
During the brief colloquy with defendant, County Court did not sufficiently distinguish the waiver of the right to appeal from the trial-related rights that defendant was forfeiting by virtue of his guilty plea, and the record does not reflect that defendant executed a written waiver. Additionally, in response to County Court’s inquiry regarding defendant’s willingness to waive his right to appeal, defendant replied, “Yes, if that’s what I gotta do, yes. If that’s what you’re making me do, I’ll do it.” Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. People v Crandall, 2020 NY Slip Op 01857, Third Dept 3-16-20
CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department determined claimant’s failure to comply with the formatting requirements supported the denial of claimant’s application for Board review:
The Board’s instructions for the RB-89 form regarding question number 13 required that claimant specify the date and document ID numbers of “the transcripts, documents, reports, exhibits, and other evidence in the Board’s file that are relevant to the issues and grounds being raised for review.” In response, claimant answered, “[a]ll hearings, transcripts and documents in [the Board] file are pertinent to the outstanding issue.” By merely referencing the entire Board case file in response to question number 13, claimant failed to comply with the prescribed formatting and completion requirements … . Accordingly, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant’s application for Board review, and its decision will not be disturbed … . Matter of Hirschbeck v Office of the Commr. of Major League Baseball, 2020 NY Slip Op 01870, Third Dept 3-16-20