You are here: / PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE...

Search Results

/ ,

PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE AD ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF HIV POSITIVE PERSONS CONSTITUTED DEFAMATION PER SE, STATE DID NOT USE THE IMAGE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES THEREFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined that the state’s use of claimant’s image in a public service ad informing HIV positive people of their rights constituted defamation per se, but not standard defamation. The First Department further determined the Civil Rights Law (privacy violation) causes of action did not apply to the state, which did not use the image for commercial purposes. Claimant alleged she suffered “mental anguish” as a result of the publication of her image and argued HIV constitutes a “loathsome disease” because of the way the condition is perceived by portions of the public:

​

… [P]laintiff must prove damage to (his, her) reputation or standing in the community, or damages such as personal humiliation, mental anguish and suffering” (PJI 3:29B). The use of the word “or” clearly indicates that the state of the law in New York is such that mental anguish is an alternative to reputational injury in establishing damages in a defamation case. * * *

… [B]ecause claimant alleges that she was the victim of defamation per se, we must decide whether she is indeed entitled to recover under that theory. A defamation plaintiff must plead special damages unless the defamation falls into any one of four per se categories: (1) statements charging the plaintiff with a serious crime; (2) statements that tend to injure the plaintiff in her trade, business or profession; (3) statements that impute to the plaintiff a “loathsome disease”; and (4) statements that impute unchastity to a woman… . Claimant purports to qualify under the “loathsome disease” category. …  Claimant, … while taking issue with the archaic term “loathsome,” argues that it is legally operative and historically applicable in the case of medical conditions such as HIV that are communicable and can still, in claimant’s opinion, result in societal ostracism. Nolan v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00269, First Dept 1-16-18

DEFAMATION (PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE AD ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF HIV POSITIVE PERSONS CONSTITUTED DEFAMATION PER SE (FIRST DEPT))/HIV (DEFAMATION, PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE AD ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF HIV POSITIVE PERSONS CONSTITUTED DEFAMATION PER SE (FIRST DEPT))/IMAGES (DEFAMATION, PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE AD ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF HIV POSITIVE PERSONS CONSTITUTED DEFAMATION PER SE (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE AD ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF HIV POSITIVE PERSONS CONSTITUTED DEFAMATION PER SE, STATE DID NOT USE THE IMAGE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES THEREFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVACY RIGHTS (CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, PHOTOGRAPHS, PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE AD ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF HIV POSITIVE PERSONS CONSTITUTED DEFAMATION PER SE, STATE DID NOT USE THE IMAGE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES THEREFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/PHOTOGRAPHS (CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, PHOTOGRAPHS, PUBLICATION OF CLAIMANT’S IMAGE IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SERVICE AD ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF HIV POSITIVE PERSONS CONSTITUTED DEFAMATION PER SE, STATE DID NOT USE THE IMAGE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES THEREFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the city’s answer in this malicious prosecution/false arrest action was properly struck because of the city’s failure to comply with multiple discovery orders. The First Department also noted that a purely legal issue raised for the first time on appeal can be addressed provided the record is sufficient. (The issue raised for the first time on appeal was Supreme Court’s erroneous grant of a default judgment with respect to one of the defendants before the defendant’s time to answer the complaint had expired.) Essentially the initial discovery order was issued in May 2011 and the response was not filed until the return date of the plaintiff’s motion to strike in July 2014. The dissenting justices argued that some sanction short of striking the answer was warranted:

​

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, “[i]f any party . . . refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed, pursuant to this article, the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just.” This Court has long held that “the drastic remedy of striking a party’s pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a discovery order . . . is appropriate only where the moving party conclusively demonstrates that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” …  “Willful and contumacious behavior can be inferred by a failure to comply with court orders, in the absence of adequate excuses” … . Although actions should be resolved on the merits whenever possible, the efficient disposition of cases “is not promoted by permitting a party . . . to impose an undue burden on judicial resources to the detriment of . . . other litigants. Nor is the efficient disposition of the business before the courts advanced by undermining the authority of the trial court to supervise the parties who appear before it” … . “[I]t generally is within the discretion of the motion court to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed against an offending party” and “[i]t would not be appropriate . . . for this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the Justice sitting in the IAS Court”… . Watson v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00245, First Dept 1-16-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, STRIKE ANSWER, APPEALS, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (STRIKE ANSWER, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (FIRST DEPT))/ANSWER, MOTION TO STRIKE  STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR3126 (STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (FIRST DEPT))

/

MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion in limine was actually a motion for summary judgment and was therefore untimely and should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on debris at a construction site and sued under Labor Law 241 (6) and negligence. Summary judgment motions had been adjudicated. Four years later before starting a bench trial the defendants purported to make a motion in limine and the court dismissed the action with prejudice:

​

The trial court found that the motion court’s [prior] order held that [defendant]”(1) did not have sufficient notice of; and (2) did not cause or create the debris condition that resulted in plaintiff[‘s] … accident” and dismissed the complaint because “plaintiffs place the alleged violation of the Industrial Code squarely only on and with defendant … .”

The trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion in limine because, as defendants’ acknowledge in their brief, it was one for summary judgment. As such, it was untimely as it was brought more than 120 days from the filing of the note of issue (CPLR 3212[a]). Further, an issue of material fact cannot form the basis for granting a motion in limine because it is an “inappropriate device to obtain [summary] relief” … . Casalini v Alexander Wolf & Son, 2018 NY Slip Op 00246, First Dept 1-16-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/MOTION IN LIMINE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3212 (MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the limitation of liability provision precluded recovery for breach of contract for any amount over the limitation. The contract was an exclusive licensing agreement (ELA) for a securities trading system (ATS). The First Department noted that it was proper to consider the limitation of liability, an affirmative defense, on a motion to dismiss:

​

It was not error for Supreme Court to rule on the enforceabilty of the liability limitation provision, although it is an affirmative defense, on a motion to dismiss. In the ordinary course of deciding motions, courts consider whether documentary evidence establishes an asserted defense, in this case a defense concerning the limitation of liability provisions in the parties’ contracts … .

​

New York courts routinely enforce such liability-limitation provisions, especially when negotiated by sophisticated parties. The Court of Appeals has recognized that “[a] limitation on liability provision . . . represents the parties’ Agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed, which the courts should honor.* * * [The parties] may later regret their assumption of the risks of non-performance in this manner, but the courts let them lie on the bed they made”… . However, such clauses are unenforceable when, “[i]n contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing. This can be explicit, as when it is fraudulent, malicious or prompted by the sinister intention of one acting in bad faith. Or, when, as in gross negligence, it betokens a reckless indifference to the rights of others, it may be implicit” … . Electron Trading, LLC v Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00380, First Dept 1-15-18

CONTRACT LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, (LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, LIMITED LIABILITY PROVISION PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR ANY AMOUNT OVER THE LIMITATION, ALTHOUGH THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WAS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT))

/

LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s leaving unattended for several minutes a 16-month-old child in a bathtub with four inches of water constituted neglect. The child drowned:

​

In our view, this evidence was more than sufficient to establish a prima facie case of neglect. Fundamentally, a reasonably prudent person would not leave a 16-month-old child unattended in a bathtub filled with four inches of water for any appreciable amount of time … . Through her own statement, respondent estimated that she was absent for 1 to 10 minutes. Doing so was “intrinsically dangerous” and has resulted in a heartbreaking tragedy for this family … . Where, as here, a prima facie case has been established, it became respondent’s obligation to offer “a reasonable and adequate explanation for how the child sustained the injury”… . Respondent opted not to testify and did not call any witnesses. Consequently, we conclude on the record before us that the petition should have been granted. Matter of Leah VV. (Theresa WW.), 2018 NY Slip Op 00201, Third Dept 1-11-18

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing SUNY Plattsburgh’s dismissal of petitioner-student, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that a new disciplinary hearing was required because the Title IX Coordinator’s (Butterfly Blaise’s) testimony at the hearing reflected a misunderstanding of how consent to sex can be communicated. The facts of the sexual encounter between petitioner and the “reporting individual,” another student, were presented at the hearing by Blaise because, by statute, the reporting individual can decide whether or not to participate in the hearing.  The dissenting justices argued that the petitioner was denied his due process right to cross-examine the reporting individual and the determination should be annulled and expunged.  The majority found that the procedure employed by the college, including notice of the charges, comported with the controlling “Enough is Enough Law” and due process. The decision goes through all the arguments made by petitioner, which are substantive and well worth reading, but which cannot be fairly summarized here. With respect to the evidence of consent, the court wrote:

​

During the hearing, petitioner asked Blaise to define affirmative consent and she read the statutory definition, including that “consent can be given by words or actions as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in sexual activity.” Petitioner then asked, “So affirmative consent can be implied or referred [sic] from conduct?”, and Blaise responded, “[O]nly if the direct question is: Can I have sex with you? So you must ask directly what it is that you want to do to that person. . . . And the answer affirmatively must be yes.” This explanation was incorrect. The error was compounded when petitioner next inquired whether the consent standard applied to both parties, and Blaise explained that the obligation applied to the person initiating the sexual activity. When petitioner asked, “How do you define initiation?”, Blaise explained “that you initiated sexual intercourse by penetrating her.” This, too, was erroneous for the concepts of consent and initiation pertain to either verbal communication or the conduct between the participants, not simply the physical act of penetration.

Blaise’s mistakes raise a concern with regard to the Board’s determination, which was, simply, that petitioner was responsible for violating the Student Conduct Manual because he “initiated sexual intercourse with another student three different times without establishing affirmative consent.” By this determination, the Board failed to provide the requisite “findings of fact . . . [and] rationale for the decision and the sanction” (Education Law § 6444 [5] [b]). As a consequence of Blaise’s erroneous interpretations, we, like petitioner, are unable to discern whether the Board properly determined that petitioner initiated the sexual activity or even considered whether affirmative consent was given based on the reporting individual’s conduct. Matter of Jacobson v Blaise, 2018 NY Slip Op 00205, Third Dept 1-11-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ( DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ENOUGH IS ENOUGH LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (COLLEGES, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the appeal of the SORA risk assessment was not properly before it because County Court never issued the required order:

​

County Court, in a bench decision, adopted the People’s arguments regarding both the override and the assessment of additional points, denied defendant’s request for a downward departure and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender. …

​

County Court is statutorily required to “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” … . The resulting order “must be in writing”…  and, further, must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable”… . The record before this Court does not reflect that County Court issued a written order or that any such order subsequently was entered and filed. Although County Court indicated that its bench decision would “serve[] as the order of the [c]ourt,” a bench decision is neither a substitute for the required written order nor an appealable paper … . Notably, neither the transcript of the court’s bench decision nor the standard form designating defendant’s risk level classification, the latter of which County Court signed and dated, contains the “so ordered” language required “so as to constitute an appealable order” … . Absent evidence of the required written order, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Scott, 2018 NY Slip Op 00203, Third Dept 1-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO PLEAD TO A LESSER OFFENSE WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR’S PERMISSION, HOWEVER NEITHER A WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the writ of prohibition against a judge for accepting a plea to a lesser offense without the prosecutor’s permission was not warranted because the judge (the respondent) acknowledged the mistake. The court further determined it did not have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus, seeking vacation of the plea and reinstatement of the more serious charge, because the plea had already been entered and the conditional discharge sentence had been commenced:

​

Under CPL 220.10 (3), “the defendant may, with both the permission of the court and the consent of the people, enter a plea of guilty of a lesser included offense.” “Where the record shows that the prosecutor’s consent to a plea is premised on a negotiated sentence and a lesser sentence is later deemed more appropriate, the People should be given the opportunity to withdraw their consent” … . Respondent concedes in his brief that he committed a legal error in accepting Hernandez’s plea to a reduced charge without petitioner’s consent. The question therefore distills to whether a writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus is warranted given that Hernandez’s guilty plea has already been accepted, she was already sentenced by respondent to, among other things, a one-year conditional discharge period and such period expired in November 2017.

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition is only available where a body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction and there is a clear legal right to such relief” … . Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from accepting guilty pleas to reduced charges in the future without his consent. Respondent, however, noted at the sentencing hearing that this was the first time that he had ever reduced a charge without petitioner’s consent and that he did so “under the circumstances of [the] case.” Given that the record does not indicate that respondent has undertaken such similar action in the past or has expressed an intention to do so in the future, and taking into account respondent’s concession that his actions were erroneous, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition … . Matter of Carnright v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 00206, Third Dept 1-11-18

/

FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, held that defendant’s furtive movements inside a car justified the police officer’s fear that defendant may have had a weapon, and the use of a bank card reader to see if the information on the magnetic strips of defendant’s cards matched the information on the front of the cards did not require a search warrant:

​

Upon the officers’ approach to his car, defendant’s “furtive motion[] in attempting to stuff something under the passenger seat . . . caused the officer to reasonably fear for his safety and reasonably believe that defendant might possess a weapon” … . The officers were thus justified in directing defendant to show his hands and get out of the car, and in performing a limited search of the area where defendant appeared to have hidden something … . The search revealed contraband, providing probable cause for defendant’s arrest … . …

​

Defendant’s final suppression argument is that when the police used a bank card reader to determine whether the account information contained in the magnetic strips of the cards recovered from defendant’s wallet matched the information printed on the front of the cards, this action was similar to a cell phone search, and it thus required a search warrant under Riley v California (573 US , 134 S Ct 2473 [2014]). However, a growing number of cases addressing this technology recognize that this type of police action does not violate any privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment … . People v Sankara, 2018 NY Slip Op 00224, First Dept 1-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW,  FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))/FURTIVE MOVEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))/BANK CARD READER (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, FURTIVE MOVEMENTS JUSTIFIED POLICE OFFICER’S LIMITED SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, USE OF BANK CARD READER ON CARDS IN DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION DID NOT REQUIRE A SEARCH WARRANT (FIRST DEPT))

/

CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s findings that claimant, a construction worker, was employed by an uninsured company (George Villar/Atelier) that failed to appear at the hearing and that the general contractor (Omega) was responsible for payment of the workers’ compensation awards:

​

… [C]laimant testified that he had been hired by Mullady [supervisor working for George Villar/Aletier] and worked at the construction site for about a year before the accident. Claimant explained that he identified Villar as his employer on his claim form because Mullady had informed him during his employment that Villar was the boss. Claimant testified that he witnessed Villar give cash to Mullady in order to pay claimant and others at the job site. Claimant also testified that if he had questions about the work assigned by Mullady or his supervisor, he would ask either of them or Villar, who was occasionally at the work site. According to claimant, Villar told him after the accident that he would pay the medical bills. Claimant was familiar with Villar as he had worked directly for him at various other work sites. With regard to testimony from the Omega representative, he testified that Omega performed construction management services at the construction site and obtained the construction permit for the project listing itself as the general manager. Other than indicating that Omega was paid for its services by Villar, the representative was unable to provide any further information regarding any contractors working at the construction site. Given the uncontroverted testimony of claimant, we find that the Board’s decision that claimant was employed by Atelier is supported by substantial evidence … . Matter of Joseph v Atelier Consulting LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00218, Third Dept 1-11-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy