You are here: / PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED...

Search Results

/ , ,

PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof did not support assessing 15 points for excessive drug and alcohol use. Defendant’s risk level was reduced from three to two. Although the error was not preserved, the court reviewed it in the interest of justice:

“In order to demonstrate that an offender was abusing [drugs or] alcohol at the time of the offense,’ the People must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offender used [drugs or] alcohol in excess either at the time of the crime or repeatedly in the past” … . Here, although the People offered evidence that the defendant used drugs after the time of the offense, the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used alcohol or drugs in excess either at the time of the offense or repeatedly in the past … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed the defendant 15 points under risk factor 11. People v Madison, 2017 NY Slip Op 06200, Second Dept 8-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SORA (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have imposed an upward departure from the presumptive risk level based upon a theft:

The defendant’s commission of a theft while the underlying criminal prosecution was pending was a factor not taken into account in the Guidelines … . Moreover, the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed that theft. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the presumptive risk level on that basis. That theft, an opportunistic nonviolent theft committed while the defendant was house-sitting for a friend, did not indicate that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk of sexual reoffense … .

In sum, the defendant was properly assessed 75 points … , within the range for a presumptive designation as a level two offender. However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in upwardly departing from the presumptive risk level. Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and designate the defendant a level two sex offender. People v Garcia, 2017 NY Slip Op 06199, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT))/SORA (THEFT DID NOT WARRANT UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined handguns found inside the console of an SUV were properly suppressed. The police stopped the SUV based upon a report of a shooting involving a similar vehicle. After the defendants were handcuffed and removed from the SUV, but before the eyewitnesses to shooting arrived, the police opened the center console and found a firearm. The eyewitnesses subsequently told the police the defendants were not involved in the shooting:

On January 14, 2015, just before 9:30 p.m., two police officers responded to a report of a shooting involving a white Infiniti SUV with several occupants, including one female. Approximately 15 minutes later and eight or nine blocks away from the location of the reported shooting, the officers observed an SUV matching that description parked in a strip mall parking lot, and a woman standing next to it. As the officers approached in their vehicle, the woman walked away, and the driver of the SUV began to drive away. The officers pulled the SUV over, exited their vehicle, and approached the SUV on foot, one officer on each side of it. The officers observed that the two male occupants, the defendants herein, were leaning toward each other, and each had an elbow on the SUV’s center console. The officers did not observe any contraband or firearms inside the SUV. The driver complied with the officers’ request to provide his license and registration, following which the defendants were removed from the SUV, frisked, handcuffed, and seated on a nearby curb to wait for eyewitnesses to the shooting to arrive. Additional officers arrived, one of whom approached the SUV and, noticing that the center console was slightly elevated, opened it and found a handgun. The defendants were then arrested. The eyewitnesses subsequently arrived and confirmed that the defendants were not the persons who had committed the shooting. A second handgun was later found in the center console.

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … .

Under the circumstances here, where the defendants had been removed from the SUV, the police lacked probable cause for a warrantless search of its center console, and the weapons found as a result were properly suppressed … . People v Morris, 2017 NY Slip Op 06194, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW,  FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s statement providing the searching parole officers with the combination to a safe and the guns found in the safe should have been suppressed. The search of defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment was conducted after defendant, who was present in the apartment, violated parole. Defendant was handcuffed and in his underwear when the officer asked for the combination. The officers had already found other weapons and counterfeit DVD’s in the apartment. The People unsuccessfully argued the request for the combination was not designed to elicit an incriminating response:

The question—which arose after the parole officers had found counterfeit DVDs, a box filled with daggers, and a .22 caliber revolver—had only one logical purpose: to elicit a response from the defendant disclosing the combination to the safe, which would possibly lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence, and which would link the safe to the defendant … . Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials as to the combination to the safe, and should have suppressed the two handguns recovered from the safe, as well as a handwritten statement the defendant later made to the police about the handguns, as fruits of the poisonous tree … . Without this evidence, there could not be legally sufficient evidence to support convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree based on those two handguns, or based on the defendant’s possession of three or more firearms. Accordingly, the convictions of those three offenses must be vacated, and those three counts of the indictment must be dismissed. People v Blacks, 2017 NY Slip Op 06186, Second Dept 8-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE ( DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PROVIDING THE COMBINATION TO A SAFE TO SEARCHING PAROLE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS THE FIREARMS FOUND IN THE SAFE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not follow the O”Rama procedure when addressing two notes sent out by the jury. Although the error was not preserved by objection, it was deemed a mode of proceedings error. The notes asked for a readback of testimony and instructions on the charged offense. Although the judge complied with the requests, the jury notes were not marked as exhibits, were not read to counsel, and counsel were not given an opportunity to respond to the notes outside the presence of the jury:

In People v O’Rama, the Court of Appeals set forth the procedure for handling communications from the jury in accordance with CPL 310.30. “The Court of Appeals held that whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel'” … . ” After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses. The court should then ordinarily apprise counsel of the substance of the responsive instruction it intends to give so that counsel can seek whatever modifications are deemed appropriate before the jury is exposed to any potentially harmful information. Once the jury is returned to the courtroom, the communication should be read in open court'”… . Where a trial court fails to provide counsel “with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry, a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is therefore required even in the absence of an objection” … .

Here, although the defendant failed to object to the manner in which the Supreme Court handled the two notes, under the circumstances of this case, the court violated O’Rama and committed a mode of proceedings error, obviating the need for preservation, by failing to provide the defendant with notice of the “precise contents” of the notes prior to giving its responses … . People v Webster, 2017 NY Slip Op 06198, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/JURY NOTES  (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/O’RAMA PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))  

/ , , ,

LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letters evincing a “time of the essence” notification in the underlying real estate transaction did not constitute “documentary evidence” which would support a motion to dismiss. Although he “documentary evidence” argument was not raised below, the court properly considered it as the basis for reversal as a matter of law:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss based on documentary evidence may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law”… . “The evidence submitted in support of such motion must be documentary or the motion must be denied” … . “In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable'”… .

“[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “At the same time, [n]either affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)'” … .

Here, the letters submitted by the defendant did not constitute documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1), and should not have been relied upon by the Supreme Court as a basis for granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The only documentary evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion was the purchase agreement, which did not “utterly refute” the plaintiffs’ allegations or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the issue of whether the letters constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) can be raised for the first time on appeal because it is one of law which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if it had been raised at the proper juncture … . Feldshteyn v Brighton Beach 2012, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06160, Second Dept 8-16-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE,  (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined attorney letters did not constitute documentary evidence which would support a motion to dismiss in this insurance-coverage dispute:

A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only if the documentary evidence submitted utterly refutes the factual allegations of the complaint and conclusively establishes a defense to the claims as a matter of law … . In order for evidence to qualify as documentary, it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable … . Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) … . Accordingly, the letters from the attorney and claims services relied upon by [the insurer] do not constitute documentary evidence for the purposes of CPLR 3211(a)(1). Additionally, the insurance policy, which does constitute documentary evidence, did not utterly refute the factual allegations of the complaint and did not conclusively establish a defense to the claims as a matter of law. Fox Paine & Co., LLC v Houston Cas. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 06162, Second Dept 8-16-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (EVIDENCE, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING BEFORE DETERMINING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED AN ACCOUNTING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the judge should not have ordered an accounting before deciding a summary judgment motion. Neither party had requested and accounting:

The plaintiffs, which are affiliated not-for-profit organizations, commenced this action against the defendant, their former accountant, alleging that it breached contractual and fiduciary duties by preparing misleading audit reports for them for several years, which caused the plaintiffs to suffer serious financial harm. In response, the defendant asserted counterclaims for an account stated and to recover damages pursuant to CPLR 3016(f) for breach of contract. Shortly after the plaintiffs filed a reply to the counterclaims, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the counterclaims. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. The Supreme Court held the defendant’s motion in abeyance pending an accounting even though neither party requested an accounting. The defendant appeals, by permission.

“Generally, a court may, in its discretion, 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, an accounting was not requested and, under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to, sua sponte, grant such relief … . Samuel Field YM & YWHA, Inc. v Irvings Roth & Rubin, PLLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06208, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDGES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING BEFORE DETERMINING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED AN ACCOUNTING (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING BEFORE DETERMINING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED AN ACCOUNTING (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING BEFORE DETERMINING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED AN ACCOUNTING (SECOND DEPT))

/

SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD, COUPLED WITH THE DEATH OF THE STENOGRAPHER AND THE INABILITY TO RECONSTRUCT THE RECORD, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined a new trial was the only option where the stenographic record of the trial was incomplete and could not be reconstructed. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, therefore, could not be entertained. Apparently the stenographer had fallen asleep during testimony and subsequently died:

After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, on the grounds that the trial could not be transcribed and that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. A senior court reporter submitted an affidavit in connection with the motion in which she stated that the court reporter who was assigned to the trial had died, and that there were “significant gaps in [that court reporter’s] notes which rendered the trial unable to be transcribed.” …

A stenographic transcript is an aid to the judge, who is tasked with the final responsibility to certify the record (see CPLR 5525[c], [d]). The parties may agree on a statement in lieu of a transcript and the court may adopt, according to its own recollection, a statement in lieu of transcript submitted by one of the parties … . However, when no agreement and no reconstruction is possible, a new trial is required. Indeed, in civil cases, where a stenographer dies or is no longer in possession of minutes and the minutes cannot be obtained, meaningful appellate review is impaired and a new trial should be ordered if reconstruction is not possible … . Monaco v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 06178, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD, COUPLED WITH THE DEATH OF THE STENOGRAPHER AND THE INABILITY TO RECONSTRUCT THE RECORD, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/STENOGRAPHIC RECORD (SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD, COUPLED WITH THE DEATH OF THE STENOGRAPHER AND THE INABILITY TO RECONSTRUCT THE RECORD, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD, COUPLED WITH THE DEATH OF THE STENOGRAPHER AND THE INABILITY TO RECONSTRUCT THE RECORD, REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appointment of an outside attorney [Mr. Zauderer] to serve as the sole member of a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to determine the merits of claims asserted in this LLC derivative suit was not allowed by the operating agreements:

Neither operating agreement provides for the delegation of decision-making authority to other than a member, or to an outsider like Mr. Zauderer to serve as SLC. The agreements are explicit that while day-to-day management is vested in the manager, “major decisions” need the consent of the other members. We reject the argument that the appointment of the SLC (as opposed to the ultimate decision as to whether to proceed with the derivative litigation) was not a “Major Decision” within the meaning of the agreements. The SLC was specifically granted the authority to “determine the positions and actions that the Companies should take with respect to the claims, considering, among other things, whether the claims have merit, whether they are likely to prevail, and whether it is in the Companies’ best interests to pursue them.”

That is not to say that the appointment of an SLC would in all cases be improper in the LLC context. Indeed, the members may so provide in the operating agreement, and such provision will be enforced in accordance with those same principles concerning the parties’ freedom to contract … . LNYC Loft, LLC v Hudson Opportunity Fund I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06147, First Dept 8-15-17

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVE ACTIONS,  APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))OPERATING AGREEMENTS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,  APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy