You are here: / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER...

Search Results

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the fact that defendant was not required to register as a sex offender under the law of Washington state did not affect the requirement that he register in New York. The Full Faith and Credit Clause was not implicated:

​

Defendant argues that requiring him to register in New York when a Washington court order relieved him of the obligation to register in that state violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause (see US Const, art IV, § 1). However, this clause is designed “to avoid conflicts between [s]tates in adjudicating the same matters” … and “is not implicated where the issue decided by a court in [another] state is different from the issue being decided by a New York court” … . Here, Washington and New York have each separately adjudicated the risks posed by defendant to their respective citizens, and each state has imposed sex offender registration requirements pursuant to the governing sex offender registration laws in each state and, accordingly, neither state has adjudicated the “same matter” in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause .., .

… [F]ull faith and credit principles do not require New York to assign an offender the same risk level as that imposed by the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred … . …

… [Because] each state is assessing the risks posed to its own citizens and vulnerable populations and applying its own registration laws, the courts are not adjudicating the “same matters” in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause … . People v Hlatky, 2017 NY Slip Op 06693, Third Dept 9-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA)  (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT))/FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER UNDER THE LAW OF WASHINGTON STATE, NEW YORK LAW PROPERLY REQUIRED REGISTRATION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE NOT VIOLATED (THIRD DEPT))

/

ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Family Court properly vacated an adoption because one of the parties (Ming) who had parental rights was not notified of the adoption proceedings and the court was not fully or accurately informed of Ming’s involvement with the child. Ming was legally married to Marco under British law. Both Ming and Marco had contributed sperm and a surrogate carried the baby. The child was conceived with Marco’s sperm and Marco was ultimately awarded custody. After Ming moved back to England, Carlos, Marco’s new partner, adopted the child. It was that adoption which was properly vacated:

​

It is undisputed that Ming and Marco’s marriage in the UK was effective as of August 2008. New York courts as a matter of comity will recognize such out-of-state marriages … . The child was born in 2014, as the result of jointly executed surrogacy agreements, at a time when the couple was considered legally married, thus giving rise to the presumption that the child is the legitimate child of both Marco and Ming .,, . After the child was born, Marco, Ming and the child lived together as a family, and the couple took affirmative steps in the UK to establish Ming’s parental rights in accordance with UK law. Under these circumstances, the Missouri judgment in 2014 awarding Marco sole and exclusive custody of the child, as opposed to the egg donor and surrogate, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of legitimacy.

​

… Marco and Ming were deemed legally married when they embarked on the surrogacy process to have a child together .., . Accordingly, the child was born in wedlock, and Ming was entitled to notice of the adoption proceeding … . …

… The adoption petition required petitioner to give a sworn statement that the child to be adopted was not the subject of any proceeding affecting his or her custody or status. Even though petitioner was aware of the Florida divorce action before finalization of the adoption, he failed to disclose the action to the court, instead averring in a supplemental affidavit that there had been no change in circumstances “whatsoever” since the filing of the adoption petition. Matter of Maria-Irene D., 2017 NY Slip Op 06716, First Dept 9-28-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))/ADOPTION (ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))/MARRIAGE  (ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the disciplinary determination must be annulled and expunged because the hearing officer did not independently assess the credibility of an informant:

​

“A disciplinary determination may be based upon hearsay confidential information provided that it is sufficiently detailed and probative for the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of the informant’s reliability”… . Here, the Hearing Officer, without informing petitioner, interviewed the correction officer who investigated the incident and authored the misbehavior report about the information obtained from the confidential informant. Although the correction officer attested to the informant’s past reliability, the substance of the information gleaned from the informant was too vague and insufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to independently assess the reliability or credibility of the informant … . Because the confidential information was instrumental in finding petitioner guilty of the charges, the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of Fields v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 06697, Third Dept 9-28-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESSED BY HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (in part) Supreme Court, determined one of defendant’s motions for a directed verdict was premature because plaintiff had not finished presenting proof, a second motion for a directed verdict was properly granted based upon admissions made by plaintiff’s witness, and a cross-claim based upon an indemnification agreement failed because the agreement purported to indemnify a party for its own negligence (in violation of the General Obligations Law). With respect to the premature motion for a directed verdict, the court wrote:

​

“Any party may move for judgment with respect to a cause of action or issue upon the ground that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, after the close of the evidence presented by an opposing party with respect to such cause of action or issue, or at any time on the basis of admissions.”

In interpreting this provision, this Court has held that the requirement that a party opposing a directed verdict motion must have closed its presentation of evidence “must be strictly enforced” (Griffin v Clinton Green S., LLC, 98 AD3d 41, 46 [1st Dept 2012]). Further, we have held that “the grant of a dismissal [pursuant to CPLR 4401] prior to the close of the opposing party’s case will be reversed as premature, even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . This Court in Griffin emphasized the importance of each party being “afford[ed] . . . a day in court” … . * * *

​

[Defendant] essentially asks us to endorse a system whereby a party can make a directed verdict motion at any time during trial, so long as the party opposing the motion has put in some unspecified quantum of evidence that, though it may not have been everything the opposing party intended to put in, was sufficient for the trial court to determine that there were no issues of fact and it could decide for the movant as a matter of law. We decline to do so. 11 Essex St. Corp. v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 06709, First Dept 9-28-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DIRECTED VERDICT, MOTION FOR  (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT  (INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE  (MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS READY WILLING AND ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had not met the proof requirements for specific performance of a real estate contract:

“To prevail on a cause of action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, a plaintiff purchaser must establish that it substantially performed its contractual obligations and was ready, willing, and able to perform its remaining obligations, that the vendor was able to convey the property, and that there was no adequate remedy at law” … . In moving for summary judgment on a complaint seeking specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff purchaser must submit evidence demonstrating financial ability to purchase the property in order to demonstrate that it was ready, willing, and able to purchase such property… . In the absence of such evidence, a plaintiff purchaser’s motion for summary judgment in its favor on a cause of action for specific performance should be denied due to the plaintiff purchaser’s failure to meet its initial burden … . “When a purchaser submits no documentation or other proof to substantiate that it had the funds necessary to purchase the property, it cannot prove, as a matter of law, that it was ready, willing, and able to close” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that he was ready, willing, and able to purchase the subject property, since he did not submit any evidence demonstrating his financial ability to close the transaction … . Grunbaum v Nicole Brittany, Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 06638, Second Dept 9-27-17

REAL ESTATE (PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS READY WILLING AND ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS READY WILLING AND ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WAS READY WILLING AND ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff (Kelly) should not have been allowed to file a late notice of claim in this sidewalk slip and fall case. No reasonable explanation was offered and defendant housing authority did not have timely notice of the substance of the claim:

​

… Kelly failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve a timely notice of claim upon NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority]. Kelly’s excuse, that he first discovered the identity of the owner of the subject walkway at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, arose from a lack of due diligence in investigating the matter, which is an unacceptable excuse … . Even if Kelly made an excusable error in identifying the public corporation upon which he was required to serve a notice of claim, he failed to proffer any explanation for the additional seven-month delay between the time that he discovered the error and the filing of his application for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

Furthermore, NYCHA did not acquire timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting Kelly’s claim. Although the City was served with a notice of claim within 90 days after the accident and conducted a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing about 5½ months after the accident, notice to the City cannot be imputed to NYCHA … . Moreover, the notice of claim, served together with the application upon NYCHA almost 10 months after the 90-day statutory period had elapsed, was served too late to provide NYCHA with actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … .

Finally, Kelly presented no “evidence or plausible argument” that his delay in serving a notice of claim upon NYCHA did not substantially prejudice NYCHA in defending on the merits … . Kelly v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 06640, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM,  PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition seeking leave to file a late notice of claim should have been denied. Although the school was aware of the student’s injury, it was not timely made aware of the negligent supervision claim. The fact that the school did not demonstrate prejudice from the delay was not determinative:

​

… [T]he petitioner failed to establish that the School District acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the child’s accident or a reasonable time thereafter. Although the school nurse prepared a “Notification of Injury” form, which the petitioner signed nearly two months after the accident, this form merely indicated that the child received a laceration and contusion on the outer corner of his left eye when he fell on the steps of the large slide. Thus, the form did not provide the School District with timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts underlying the claims that it was negligent in supervising its students, and in the hiring and training of school personnel … . Therefore, the School District had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligence … .

… [P]etitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her failure to serve a timely notice of claim. The child’s infancy alone, without any showing of a nexus between the infancy and the delay, was insufficient to constitute a reasonable excuse … . Moreover, to the extent that the petitioner attributed her delay to the need to determine that the proper entity to sue was the School District, a readily ascertainable fact, such a claim does not constitute a reasonable excuse… .

While the petitioner did satisfy her initial burden of showing a lack of substantial prejudice to the School District as a result of her late notice, and the School District failed to make a “particularized evidentiary showing” of substantial prejudice in response … , the presence or absence of any one factor is not necessarily determinative in deciding whether permission to serve a late notice of claim should be granted… . A balancing of the relevant factors … demonstrates that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition … . McClancy v Plainedge Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 06651, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, (LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/

COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the insurer was not obligated to defend an action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment and foreclosure of mechanic’s liens. The commercial liability policy covered only personal injury, property damage and advertising injury:

​

“The general rule is that a commercial general liability insurance policy does not afford coverage for breach of contract, but rather for bodily injury and property damage”… . To hold otherwise would render an insurance carrier a surety for the performance of its insured’s work … . The determination of an insurer’s duty to defend must be drawn from allegations of the underlying complaint … . Here, the complaint in the Owens action sounds exclusively in breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and seeks to foreclose on mechanic’s liens. There is no claim for bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury as is required to trigger coverage under the policies herein. J.W. Mays, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 06639, Second Dept 9-27-17

INSURANCE LAW (COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND SEEKING FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT))/COMMERCIAL LIABILITY INSURANCE (COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND SEEKING FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a substantive decision, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defendant was not informed by his attorney that the plea would trigger mandatory deportation:

​

… [D]efense counsel incorrectly advised the defendant that his plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree would preserve his eligibility to apply for a cancellation of removal, when, in fact, his conviction constituted an aggravated felony, rendering him mandatorily deportable and ineligible for cancellation of removal … . Courts have recognized the significance to a defendant, in pleading guilty, of a possibility of discretionary relief from removal … . The lack of such a possibility here was “succinct, clear, and explicit” and could have been determined simply from reading the text of the statute … . Thus, counsel had a duty to give correct advice as to the immigration consequences of the plea … . Counsel failed to do so, instead misadvising the defendant that there was a possibility of receiving a cancellation of removal. * * *

​

Given the circumstances here, including the defendant’s focus on the immigration consequences of his plea, his large incentive to negotiate a plea which did not render him mandatorily deportable without eligibility for relief, the possibility of offering the People such a plea with the same sentence or even a longer aggregate sentence, and the fact that the prosecutor was unconcerned with the immigration consequences of the plea, the defendant established a reasonable probability that he could have negotiated a plea agreement that did not impose mandatory deportation without eligibility for relief … . Thus, the defendant established the requisite prejudice from counsel’s misadvice under Strickland, and further that counsel’s error was “egregious and prejudicial” such that it denied him meaningful representation under the New York Constitution … . People v Abdallah, 2017 NY Slip Op 06657, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEPORTATION,  DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT))

/

MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined manifest necessity justified the declaration of the mistrial over the defendant’s objection because a crucial prosecution witness (the complainant in a sex offense prosecution) could not be located. Although there was no evidence the defendant caused the witness’s unavailability, there was evidence the witness’s mother was responsible:

​

The petitioner was charged with course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and predatory sexual assault against a child, and the case proceeded to trial. After the jury was sworn, but before opening statements were made and before any testimony was offered, the prosecutor requested three consecutive continuances, as the complainant and her mother could not be located . * * *

​

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . ” Manifest necessity'” means a ” high degree of necessity'” based on reasons that are ” actual and substantial'”… . Moreover, before declaring a mistrial, a court must explore all appropriate alternatives and must provide a sufficient basis in the record for resorting to this “drastic measure” … . Where a mistrial is premised upon the claimed unavailability of crucial prosecution evidence, including witnesses, the validity of that claim is subject to the “strictest scrutiny” since a prosecutor is not entitled to a mistrial merely to gain a more favorable opportunity to convict … .

Here, the prosecutor made a sufficient showing that the unavailability of the 13-year-old complainant, who had absconded to an unknown location with her mother, could be factually attributed to some person acting on the petitioner’s behalf … . Moreover, the trial court properly gave the prosecutor additional time to find the witness and considered other alternatives, including the prosecutor’s application for leave to introduce at the trial the witness’s grand jury testimony.  Matter of Palacios v Singas, 2017 NY Slip Op 06652, Second Dept 9-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (SECOND DEPT))/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, CRIMINAL LAW, MANIFEST NECESSITY JUSTIFIED DECLARATION OF A MISTRIAL OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION, COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEX OFFENSE TRIAL COULD NOT BE LOCATED (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