You are here: / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS,...

Search Results

/

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff (Ebner) alleged she did not see the single step down which caused her to fall. The Second Department found that defendant did not prove the step was open and obvious. The handrail was not demonstrated to be a sufficient visual cue:

​

Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted, among other things, Ebner’s deposition testimony, deposition testimony of certain of the defendant’s employees, and an expert affidavit. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, Ebner identified the cause of her fall as her inability to see the single step on the walkway she was traversing … . The defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the step constituted a dangerous condition or whether the subject step was open and obvious, and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law … . The affidavit of the defendant’s expert failed to establish, as a matter of law, that a handrail that the defendant contends was adjacent to the walkway on the date of the subject accident provided a sufficient visual cue to alert pedestrians to the presence of the step. Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, it failed to demonstrate that it did not have constructive notice of the dangerous condition prior to the subject accident … . Ross v Bretton Woods Home Owners Assn., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04482, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)/SLIP AND FALL ( DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SINGLE STEP DOWN WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF A HANDRAIL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE)

/

AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED.

After a full trial the jury found defendant did not violate Labor Law 240 (1) and awarded damages on plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Plaintiff had fallen from a ladder when it shifted. The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted at the outset. Because the jury apportioned fault, the damages had to be revamped because comparative fault does not apply to a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. The court noted that plaintiff’s undocumented immigrant status and the fact he did not pay taxes and used a coworker’s name, issues raised by the defendant (apparently in opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion), had no relevance to credibility as to any material fact:

​

Before the matter proceeded to a trial on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through his deposition testimony, which indicated that he was working on an unsecured ladder that moved while he was standing on it … . In opposition, Drake, which submitted only an attorney’s affirmation, failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Contrary to Drake’s contention, the fact that the plaintiff was an undocumented immigrant who failed to pay taxes and had used a coworker’s name to obtain health insurance immediately following the accident does not present an issue relating to the plaintiff’s credibility as to any material fact … .

Further, as “contributory negligence will not exonerate a defendant who has violated [Labor Law § 240(1)] and proximately caused a plaintiff’s injury” … , the jury’s finding of comparative fault, and the corresponding reduction in the damages awarded to the plaintiff, must be vacated. Cano v Mid-Valley Oil Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04419, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED)

/ , ,

CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the choice law provisions in a contract between plaintiff and defendant Unkechaug Indian Nation did not include a clear-cut waiver of sovereign immunity and must be construed against the drafter, the plaintiff here. Therefore the defendant was immune from suit for breach of contract:

​

Here, the plaintiff contends that the defendant waived its sovereign immunity by virtue of a choice-of-law provision stating that the contract would be governed by the laws of New York, and by the following provision of the contract:

“[The] parties agree that any claim or controversy regarding this Contract shall be most conveniently and economically resolved in Suffolk County, New York, and therefore, the parties agree that any claim or action brought for enforcement, interpretation or damages under this Contract shall be brought only in Suffolk County and the parties agree to forebear from filing a claim in any other jurisdiction.”

Although this clause requires “any claim or controversy” regarding the contract to be resolved in Suffolk County, it does not require that such claim or controversy be resolved by a state court. Rather, under the clause, a party could bring a claim before a mediator, an arbitrator, a tribal court, a state court, or a federal court, as long as the selected forum was located in Suffolk County. Thus, unlike the cases involving arbitration clauses, this clause does not unequivocally express the defendant’s agreement to be sued in a state court. …

​

The fact that the contract also includes a choice-of-law provision does not resolve the ambiguity in the subject clause, since the law of the State of New York could be applied in other forums besides a state or federal court to interpret the contract … . Aron Sec., Inc. v Unkechaug Indian Nation, 2017 NY Slip Op 04413, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

INDIAN LAW (SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/CONTRACT LAW (SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/IMMUNITY (INDIAN NATION, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)/SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY (INDIAN NATION, CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION)

/ ,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED.

The Second Department, in finding the foreclosure action time-barred, noted that the debt was accelerated (in a prior foreclosure proceeding) which started the six-year statute. The election to accelerate a debt can be revoked but was not here:

​

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations … . “The law is well settled that, even if a mortgage is payable in installments, once a mortgage debt is accelerated, the entire amount is due and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on the entire debt”… .

Here, in support of her cross motion, the defendant submitted proof that the mortgage debt was accelerated on May 15, 2007, when the plaintiff commenced the first action to foreclose the subject mortgage. Thus, the six-year limitations period expired prior to the commencement of the instant action on July 9, 2013. Moreover, while a lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage… , the record in this case is barren of any affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior action … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Barnett, 2017 NY Slip Op 04490, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS STARTED TO RUN IN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WHEN THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED, THE ELECTION TO ACCELERATE WAS NEVER REVOKED, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED)

/

CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, upholding the expulsion of a student from a private college (Pratt Institute) based upon allegations of sexual harassment, explained the relevant court-review criteria:

​

“[P]rivate schools are afforded broad discretion in conducting their programs, including decisions involving the discipline, suspension and expulsion of their students” … . “Judicial review of the actions of a private school in disciplinary matters is limited to a determination as to whether the school acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or whether it substantially complied with its own rules and regulations” … . Here, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, Pratt Institute informed him of the specific allegations against him, and substantially complied with its sexual harassment policy … . Matter of Ibe v Pratt Inst., 2017 NY Slip Op 04443, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE EXPLAINED)/COLLEGES (CRITERIA FOR COURT REVIEW OF THE EXPULSION OF A STUDENT FROM A PRIVATE COLLEGE EXPLAINED)

/ ,

EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.

The Second Department determined excessive interference by the judge deprived defendant of a fair trial:

​

“Trial judges have wide discretion in directing the presentation of evidence but must exercise that discretion appropriately and without prejudice to the parties” … . While “neither the nature of our adversary system nor the constitutional requirement of a fair trial preclude a trial court from assuming an active role in the truth-seeking process,” the court’s discretion in this area is not unfettered … . “The overarching principle restraining the court’s discretion is that it is the function of the judge to protect the record at trial, not to make it. Although the law will allow a certain degree of judicial intervention in the presentation of evidence, the line is crossed when the judge takes on either the function or appearance of an advocate at trial” … . Thus, while there is no absolute bar to a trial court asking a particular number of questions of the witnesses in order to advance the goals of truth and clarity, a court may not “assume the advocacy role traditionally reserved for counsel, and in order to avoid this, the court’s discretion to intervene must be exercised sparingly” … .

​

Here, notwithstanding numerous objections by defense counsel, the Supreme Court exercised little or no restraint in questioning the witnesses at length and improperly “assume[d] the advocacy role traditionally reserved for counsel” (id.). We acknowledge that this trial was lengthy because it involved three codefendants and multiple complainants. However, contrary to the People’s contention, the court’s questioning of the witnesses far exceeded what was necessary to “clarify[ ] confusing testimony” or facilitate “the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial” … . The court engaged in protracted and often unnecessary questioning on both direct and cross-examination, and at times acted as an advocate for the People … . People v Robinson, 2017 NY Slip Op 04473, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGES, EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL)/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL)

/ ,

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted on the ground that the affidavit of service was filed in the wrong office. Service was timely made and the error was corrected as soon as it was known:

​

” The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion'” … .Here, there is no reason to believe that the defendants did not properly and timely serve Minard in compliance with the so-ordered stipulation dated December 8, 2014. Moreover, the defendants promptly requested permission to correct the irregularity in filing the affidavit of service after learning that it was filed in the wrong office, and there was no allegation or indication of prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of the requested correction. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ application for an extension of time to file the affidavit of service in the Clerk’s office, and thereupon denying their motion for summary judgment on the ground that they failed to file proof of service in that office … . Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04417, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (ERROR IN FILING, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS FILED IN THE WRONG COURT)

/ , , ,

WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant City’s motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should not have been set aside. The court held that whether the Big Apple map sufficiently identified the defective curb where plaintiff fell was a jury question and the verdict should stand:

​

“Although [t]he awareness of one defect in the area is insufficient to constitute notice of a different particular defect which caused the accident,’ where there are factual issues as to the precise location of the defect that caused a plaintiff’s fall and whether the defect is designated on the map, the question should be resolved by the jury” … . The trial court improperly set aside the verdict against the City for lack of legally sufficient evidence that the City had prior written notice of the alleged defect in the curb at the corner where plaintiff indicated she fell … . A jury verdict may not be set aside for legal insufficiency unless there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [jurors] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . Here, it cannot be said that it was “utterly irrational for [the] jury to reach the result it has determined upon” … .

At trial, plaintiff testified that she tripped and fell, due to a defect at the corner of Madison Street and Rutgers Street. Plaintiff testified that she stepped off the curb with her left foot into the crosswalk on to Madison Street and that the tip of her right foot got caught on something on the ground, which caused her to fall and fracture her ankle. Plaintiff further testified that the curb where she tripped and fell was “separated from the sidewalk and raised.” Plaintiff also entered into evidence photographs of the street corner where she fell that depicted a broken, cracked and defective curb in front of 197 Madison Street. Another photograph entered into evidence showed that the address of “197 Madison St.” was clearly reflected on the H and M Deli storefront awning, located at the corner of the intersection where plaintiff fell. Counsel for the City further highlighted this point during re-cross-examination of plaintiff regarding the precise location of her fall, when counsel inquired, “In front of that H and M Deli?… The deli that is addressed 197 Madison, right?” To which plaintiff replied, “Yes.” Additionally, the Big Apple Map, which the City stipulated to receiving, denoted an “X” in front of 197-199 Madison Street, and, according to the Big Apple Map Legend, an “X” indicates a “broken, misaligned or uneven curb.”

​

… [W]hile it is true that the Big Apple Map did not have an “X” at the precise corner where plaintiff fell, the map did depict an “X” in front of the address of 197 Madison Street, which encompasses multiple storefronts within one building, stretching from the building on the corner towards the middle of the block. Foley v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04389, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, SLIP AND FALL, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/EVIDENCE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT,WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (SLIP AND FALL, MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE OF DEFECT,WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/SLIP AND FALL (MUNICIPAL LAW, WRITTEN NOTICE, WHETHER THE BIG APPLE MAP PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE CITY OF THE DEFECTIVE CURB WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

/ , ,

THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, over a two justice dissenting opinion authored by Justice Gesmer, determined the city’s decision whether to enforce animal cruelty and other laws and regulations which may pertain to the public, ritual killing of chickens in an annual religious practice (Kaporos) is discretionary and therefore cannot be enforced by a mandamus proceeding:

We hold that the laws which plaintiffs seek to compel the City defendants to enforce in this action involve the judgment and discretion of those defendants. This is because the laws themselves implicate the discretion of law enforcement and do not mandate an outcome in their application. … There are disputes about whether the conduct complained of is in violation of the implicated laws and regulations. There are disputes about whether and to what extent the implicated laws can be enforced without violating constitutional rights belonging to the non-City defendants. Rituals involving animal sacrifice are present in some religions and although they may be upsetting to nonadherents of such practice, the United States Supreme Court has recognized animal sacrifice as a religious sacrament and decided that it is protected under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment … .

Consequently, the decision whether and how to enforce these laws and regulatory provisions allegedly violated during Kaporos implicates the reasoning and discretion of the City defendants and the law enforcers. None of the laws or regulations plaintiffs rely on preclude the City defendants from deciding whether or not to enforce those laws in the context of Kaporos. Plaintiffs do not have a “clear legal right” to dictate which laws are enforced and how, or against whom. Determining which laws and regulations might be properly enforced against the non-City defendants without infringing upon their free exercise of religion involves the exercise of reasoned judgment on the part of the City defendants. The outcome cannot be dictated by the court through mandamus. Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Dept., 2017 NY Slip Op 04408, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (ANIMAL CRUELTY, RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS, THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE)/ANIMAL LAW (RELIGIOUS RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS, THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE)/RELIGION (RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS,  THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE)/KAPOROS (ANIMAL CRUELTY, RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS, THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE)

/ , ,

BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW.

The First Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, over a two justice dissent, determined the detective’s mention of a drug offense for which defendant was represented by counsel during questioning on a homicide required suppression of the interrogation:

​

Although the reference to the drug charges on which defendant was represented was brief and flippant, it was not, in context, innocuous or discrete and fairly separable from the homicide investigation. The detective told defendant during the questioning that he knew defendant was involved in selling drugs at the location of the murder and that the killing was over a drug debt. The remarks regarding the pending drug case went to defendant’s alleged participation in the drug trade at the location of the homicide, the very activity out of which a motivation for killing the victim arose. Indeed, it succeeded in eliciting from defendant a response that may fairly be interpreted as incriminating himself in dealing drugs at the location, the alleged motivation and context out of which the homicide occurred. Accordingly, because questioning regarding the drug case on which defendant was represented by counsel was intertwined with questioning regarding the homicide, defendant’s statements should have been suppressed.

However, we find no other basis for suppression. As the dissent notes, the repeated comments made to defendant by the detective and his colleagues to the effect that defendant should “tell [his] side of the story” immediately because if he were to wait until trial, “[no] one is going to believe” him and he would be “charged with murder, not . . . manslaughter” did not vitiate the Miranda warnings defendant had received … . People v Silvagnoli, 2017 NY Slip Op 04392, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)

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