You are here: / PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED...

Search Results

/ , , ,

PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town planning board’s approval of the development of land should be annulled. The land included wetlands which required an investigation and approval by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and those requirements had not been met. The petitioners’ request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) should have been granted:

​

“A lead agency’s determination whether to require a SEIS . . . is discretionary” … . “The lead agency may require a supplemental EIS, limited to the specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS that arise from: (a) changes proposed for the project; (b) newly discovered information; or (c) a change in circumstances related to the project” … . “The decision to prepare a SEIS as a result of newly discovered information must be based upon . . . (a) the importance and relevance of the information; and (b) the present state of the information in the EIS'” … . The limitations that apply to a court’s review of an agency’s SEQRA determination, that is, only to ascertain whether the agency took a hard look at the relevant areas of environmental concern and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination, also apply to the agency’s determination regarding whether a SEIS is needed, and the court may no more substitute its judgment on this point than it may on other aspects of agency decision-making … .

Here, the petitioners contend that a SEIS is needed because Scenic never obtained a jurisdictional determination from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter ACOE) validating  [the developer’s] delineation of wetlands on the subject property. They argue that, prior to issuing the determinations challenged on appeal, the Planning Board was presented with critical new evidence demonstrating that no jurisdictional determination had been issued by the ACOE for the subject property. The petitioners are correct. Matter of Shapiro v Planning Bd. of the Town of Ramapo, 2017 NY Slip Op 07734, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ZONING (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA)  (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/WETLANDS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WETLANDS, PLANNING BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING WETLANDS NEEDED APPROVAL BY THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, REQUEST FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined, in the interest of justice (error not preserved), the defendant was deprived of his right to confront a witness against him. A witness to the stabbing, Torres, could not be located and did not testify at the trial. Before it was clear Torres would not testify, two officers had already testified to facts that made it obvious Torres had identified the defendant as the perpetrator:

​

The record reveals … that the trial court understood full well the risk that the jurors, based on the detailed testimony of the arresting officers, might conclude that Torres—now a nontestifying witness—had identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators. Before summations, the court expressly warned both sides: “if I find that either of you are making any representation to this jury that Mr. Jose Torres made an identification of the defendant you will regret it.” Later, the court again warned the prosecutor in the following terms: “[S]ince Jose Torres did not testify, there is no way you are going to argue to this jury or infer to this jury in any way, shape or form that Jose Torres made an identification. Because that’s clearly the only import of your subsequent questioning about what did you do afterwards? Of course, the defendant got arrested. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand Jose Torres obviously identified something in this case.”

Both sides followed the court’s instructions during summations. However, during the jury’s deliberations, the jurors specifically requested a readback of [a police officer’s] testimony regarding “what Jose Torres told him relating to the perpetrator’s identification and what happened when he identified the defendant.” The requested testimony was read to the jury without any limiting instruction.

Under the unusual circumstances presented, the jury’s note demonstrates that the risk foreshadowed by the trial court had materialized, namely, that the jury had inferred from the arresting officers’ testimony that Torres had identified the defendant as one of Rivera’s attackers. Although neither side can be faulted for the introduction of the arresting officers’ testimony at a time when everyone believed in good faith that Torres would testify, once it became clear that Torres would not be produced as a witness, the arresting officers’ testimonial hearsay regarding the information conveyed to them by Torres violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him … . People v Tavarez, 2017 NY Slip Op 07756, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  (UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFRONTATION, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT)

/ ,

DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed, over a dissent, defendant’s robbery and kidnapping convictions. The robbery first degree conviction was premised upon the use of duct tape over the victim’s mouth and around the victim’s wrists as constituting a dangerous instrument capable of inflicting serious injury. The kidnapping conviction was premised upon the restraint of the victim with duct tape. The dissent argued the tape was not a dangerous instrument and, under the facts, kidnapping merged with the robbery:

Here … the duct tape used by the defendant constituted a dangerous instrument. “Any instrument, article or substance, no matter how innocuous it may appear to be when used for its legitimate purpose, becomes a dangerous instrument when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury. The object itself need not be inherently dangerous. It is the temporary use rather than the inherent vice of the object which brings it within the purview of the statute” … . …

… [T]he convictions of kidnapping in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree did not merge with the robbery convictions. The defendant’s act of locking the complainant inside the storage unit was a crime in itself committed after the robbery had been completed that did not merge therewith … . People v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 07758, Second Dept 11-8-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/ROBBERY (DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))’KIDNAPPING  (DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/MERGER (CRIMINAL LAW, DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))/DUCT TAPE (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, DUCT TAPE USED TO SILENCE AND RESTRAIN THE VICTIM WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROBBERY FIRST STATUTE, KIDNAPPING BASED UPON THE RESTRAINT OF THE VICTIM DID NOT MERGE WITH ROBBERY, DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the intoxication defense in this murder and manslaughter case (two victims). Defense counsel had requested jury charges on the justification defense and lesser included offenses. It is possible defense counsel made a strategic decision against requesting the intoxication defense instruction:

​

Assuming, without deciding, that the evidence at trial was sufficient to warrant an intoxication charge … , defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that charge in this case … . Defense counsel prudently pursued a justification defense, which would have been a total defense to the top count of murder in the second degree. Moreover, defense counsel successfully requested the lesser-included offenses of manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree, and the latter count was submitted over the People’s objection. Defense counsel could have strategically determined that requesting an intoxication charge would have undermined, or distracted from, the justification defense in this particular case. Although reasonable legal minds may differ on the better strategy with respect to a charge of intoxication, we cannot second-guess defense counsel’s decision with the benefit of hindsight. Accordingly, the defendant has not demonstrated the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for defense counsel’s failure to request an intoxication charge … . People v Pagan, 2017 NY Slip Op 07753, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, AILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest in the interest of justice (error not preserved), determined the arrest was not authorized. The complainant told the police a man in a white BMW had pointed a gun at him. When the complainant saw the defendant and another man standing near a white BMW he said “that’s them.” Because the officers did not know which of the two men pointed the gun at the complainant, they did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time he fled:

​

A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer from effectuating an authorized arrest of himself or herself or another person … . “A key element of resisting arrest is the existence of an authorized arrest, including a finding that the arrest was premised on probable cause” … . Although the defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence of an authorized arrest is unpreserved for appellate review … , we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we agree with the defendant that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the element of authorized arrest because, as a matter of law, the evidence failed to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest … . However, at the time that the complainant pointed to the defendant and [another] and stated “that’s them,” the police officers had only been informed that one individual pointed a firearm at the complainant. Therefore, under the circumstances presented here, the officers could not have concluded that it was more probable than not that the defendant … had been driving the white BMW and pointed a firearm at the complainant. Accordingly, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime of resisting arrest. People v Andrews, 2017 NY Slip Op 07747, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS  (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/RESISTING ARREST (ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/ARREST (PROBABLE CAUSE, ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))

/

ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the motion to suppress physical evidence (stolen property and a handgun) and subsequent statements made at the police station should have been granted. All charges except the traffic violations which led to the vehicle stop were dismissed. The arresting officer observed the defendant make an illegal turn and run a red light. Shortly after the vehicle stop, before the officers had any reason to suspect defendant’s involvement in a recent robbery, the arresting officer asked defendant whether he had anything illegal in the car. The Second Department held that question was not justified by a suspicion of criminal activity:

​

The evidence established that the officer did not have a “founded suspicion that criminality [was] afoot” that would justify his question as to whether the defendant had anything illegal in the vehicle … . Although the stop was justified by the traffic violations, the intrusiveness of the officer’s conduct exceeded that which is permissible during a normal traffic stop … . …

 “[A] request for information involves basic, nonthreatening questions regarding, for instance, identity, address or destination. . . . Once [an] officer asks more pointed questions . . . the officer is no longer merely seeking information . . . [and the inquiry] must be supported by a founded suspicion that criminality is afoot”… .

​

Thus, the … handbag, the cell phone, and the camera should have been suppressed as fruit of an illegal search, as well as the gun that was subsequently found upon an inventory of the vehicle … .

…[T]he suppression record did not demonstrate that the causal connection between the illegal search and the defendant’s statements was sufficiently attenuated to purge the taint of the illegal search… . People v Newson, 2017 NY Slip Op 07752, Second Dept, 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, TRAFFIC STOPS, ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SUPPRESSION, TRAFFIC STOPS, ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/STATEMENTS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, DEFENDANT WAS ONLY A PARTY TO THE ACTION AS A TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court exceeded its authority when it, sua sponte, awarded a money judgment against defendant personally. Defendant was only a party to the action in his representative capacity (trustee):

​

“[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the Supreme Court not only strayed from this principle … , but did so by purporting to impose liability on an individual who was not even a party to the action. ” It has been repeatedly held that persons suing or being sued in their official or representative capacity are, in contemplation of law, distinct persons, and strangers to any right or liability as an individual, and consequently a former judgment concludes a party only in the character in which he was sued'” … . Magid v Sunrise Holdings Group, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07718, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, DEFENDANT WAS ONLY A PARTY TO THE ACTION AS A TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, DEFENDANT WAS ONLY A PARTY TO THE ACTION AS A TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTEES  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, DEFENDANT WAS ONLY A PARTY TO THE ACTION AS A TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , , ,

ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that an action alleging attorneys adduced false testimony in a prior court proceeding must be brought as a motion to vacate the judgment in the prior case, not as a new action:

​

Generally, a party who has lost an action as a result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action against the party who adduced the false evidence, and the plaintiff’s remedy lies exclusively in moving to vacate the judgment … . Under an exception to that rule, a separate action may be commenced where the alleged perjury or fraud in the underlying action was “merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme” … which was “greater in scope than the issues determined in the prior proceeding” … .

Here, the moving defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, violation of Judiciary Law § 487, and prima facie tort insofar as asserted against them by demonstrating that the plaintiffs are merely attempting to collaterally attack an order issued in the underlying action. In opposition, the plaintiffs only raised conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations that the moving defendants’ fraud in the underlying action was “merely a means to the accomplishment of a larger fraudulent scheme” … . DeMartino v Lomonaco, 2017 NY Slip Op 07706, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD, ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (FRAUD, ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FRAUD, ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/FALSE TESTIMONY (ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT))EVIDENCE (FALSE TESTIMONY, FRAUD, ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed this foreclosure action as abandoned because the bank moved for an order of reference within one year of the default:

​

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” However, “[i]t is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . Rather, it is enough that the plaintiff timely takes “the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference” to establish that it “initiated proceedings for entry of a judgment within one year of the default” for the purpose of satisfying CPLR 3215(c) … . “[A]s long as proceedings are being taken, and these proceedings manifest an intent not to abandon the case but to seek a judgment, the case should not be subject to dismissal” … . This is so even where, as here, a timely motion for an order of reference is subsequently withdrawn … .

​

Here, the plaintiff took the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference (see RPAPL 1321[1]) … within one year of the defendant’s default. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not abandon the action … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Mayen, 2017 NY Slip Op 07768, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/ABANDONMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3215 (c)  (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ABANDONMENT, BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT))

/

DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint in this foreclosure action on the ground that efforts to serve the defendant were inadequate pursuant to CPLR 308 (4). The Second Department found the efforts to serve defendant met the due diligence standard:

​

Here, the affidavit of the process server demonstrated that three visits were made to the homeowner’s residence, each on different days and at different times of the day. The process server also described in detail his unsuccessful attempt to obtain an employment address for the homeowner, including interviewing a neighbor. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that the due diligence requirement was not satisfied  … . U.S. Bank, N.A. v Cepeda, 2017 NY Slip Op 07767, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 308 (4)  (DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT))/DUE DILIGENCE (SERVICE OF PROCESS,  DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND 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