You are here: / / APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS...

APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant’s pro se application for remission of the forfeited bail should have been granted. Appellant put up her own money for the bail. In support of her application for remission of the bail she submitted her own affidavit, defendant’s affidavit and a letter from a psychiatrist who had treated the defendant. Supreme Court refused to consider the affidavits and letter which explained defendant had become depressed upon the death of his younger brother, began abusing drugs and went off his mental health medication, resulting in his missing his court date. Instead Supreme Court relied on the court’s form application for remission of bail which was submitted by the appellant. The form application did not have any space for an explanation of the reasons for defendant’s missing his court date:

A court may forfeit a bail bond “[i]f, without sufficient excuse, a principal does not appear when required or does not render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the criminal court wherein bail has been posted” (CPL 540.10[1]). When this occurs, the surety may make an application for remission of the forfeited bail, which the court may grant “upon such terms as are just” (CPL 540.30[2]). “[S]uch an application should be granted only under exceptional circumstances and to promote the ends of justice. In making the application, a defendant or surety has the burden of proving that the defendant’s failure to appear was not deliberate and willful, and that the failure did not prejudice the People or deprive them of any rights” … . We find that appellant met all of these requirements. People v Nichols, 2020 NY Slip Op 02741, First Dept 5-7-20

 

You might also like
IN A FALLING OBJECT CASE WHERE INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS ALLEGED, THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE OBJECT WAS DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Leaky Condominium Roof Supported Negligence and Nuisance
THERE IS NO HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENT FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES STEMMING FROM A BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INSURER’S DELAY IN PAYING THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING, WHICH SHIFTED WHEN WORK WAS DONE ON AN ADJOINING BUILDING, RESULTED IN AN ARRAY OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, THE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ASPECT OF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HIS FOREMAN WHEN INJURED BY AN IMPROPERLY HOISTED LOAD, HE COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
CLAIMANT FELL OFF AN I-BEAM AND HIS LANYARD DID NOT PREVENT HIM FROM STRIKING THE DECK EIGHT TO TEN FEET BELOW; CLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SURROGATE’S COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANCILLARY LETTERS ALLOWING THE NONDOMICILIARY HEIR OF THE OWNER OF A $25 MILLION PAINTING CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS TO SUE TO RECOVER THE PAINTING.
THE FEDERAL DRUG CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 220.39 FOR SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER PURPOSES; IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS DECISION OVERRULED FIRST DEPARTMENT PRECEDENT, OR WHETHER A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT WOULD HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE TWO OFFENSES WERE EQUIVALENT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA,... FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION...