You are here: / MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE ...

Search Results

/ ,

MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant denied stealing the victim’s wallet. The trial evidence indicated there were security cameras on businesses which may have captured the events, Defendant alleged his attorney did not make any effort to investigate whether videos existed and did not interview a man who was present during the incident:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he alleged certain “non-record facts” that “are material and, if established, . . . would entitle him to relief” so as to warrant a hearing … . Defendant, in particular, averred that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to engage in needed discovery related to his claim that he did not take the victim’s wallet. The trial evidence established that the incident occurred in an area surrounded by businesses with security cameras installed and that defense counsel was aware of this fact. Defense counsel, according to defendant, did not investigate whether those security cameras captured the incident on video prior to trial and did not obtain the footage to determine whether it undercut the victim’s claim that defendant had robbed him. Defendant further noted that he was with another man when the incident occurred and alleged that defense counsel failed to interview that individual to learn whether his testimony would be helpful to the defense. If defense counsel failed without reason to investigate known proof that had the potential to corroborate defendant’s account of events, it “may have amounted to less than meaningful representation”  … . Inasmuch as those questions “cannot be determined on the motion papers, . . . we remit for a hearing where proof can be presented on” them … . People v Cruz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05476, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, ALLEGING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING 3RD DEPT)

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the convictions, determined defendant’s request to represent himself should have been granted:

At an apppearance on May 19, 2014, defendant’s counsel informed County Court (Drago, J.) that defendant wanted to represent himself at trial. The court duly inquired into defendant’s educational background, which included a GED earned in 2003, and engaged in an extensive colloquy with defendant emphasizing the importance of having counsel represent him. During this exchange, when asked to explain his decision, defendant gave the extraordinary response, “I don’t really have much explanation for it, just like I’ve been making bad choices, why not continue.” Defendant then illogically acknowledged this was a bad choice on his part. County Court understandably encouraged defendant to reconsider his decision, and directed that a transcript of the proceeding be provided to the trial judge who would make the decision on the application.

When the trial began on May 27, 2014, County Court (Catena, J.), having reviewed the transcript, directly addressed the representation issue with defendant. Defendant elaborated that he had decided to represent himself because he had been unrepresented for the “first seven months of incarceration” and felt he had “a better chance of representing [himself].” He continued, “So I feel like nobody’s going to fight for my life like I’m going to fight for it.” After confirming that assigned counsel was prepared to go forward, County Court denied defendant’s request to proceed pro se, reasoning that it would not be appropriate or a “wise choice” for defendant to do so. As understandable as that reasoning is, the issue is not whether defendant was making a prudent decision, but whether he had the capacity to knowingly waive his right to counsel … .While defendant’s initial extraordinary explanation raised a cause for concern, we conclude that his confirmation at trial demonstrates that he knowingly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel. Since defendant was improperly denied the right to proceed pro se, the judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial … . People v Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 05475, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 3RD DEPT)

/

DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation should not have been granted. The relevant period of postreadiness delay was due to motion practice by co-defendants and was therefore not chargeable to the People for any of the defendants:

The five codefendants who were named with defendant in the joint indictment were arrested and arraigned at various times. During the 27-day period that Supreme Court charged to the People as postreadiness delay, several of these codefendants were engaged in motion practice, including motions that were due but had not yet been filed, were awaiting the People’s response, or were awaiting the court’s decision. In a prosecution involving a single defendant, delay resulting from motion practice is not chargeable to the People (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]…). Likewise, periods of delay that result from motion practice by any codefendant in a joint prosecution are excludable as to all of them … . Defendant did not meet his burden to show that the delay resulting from his codefendants’ motion practice was unreasonably lengthy or that the exclusion provided by CPL 30.30 (4) (d) should not be applied here for any other reason … .

As the language of CPL 30.30 (4) (d) implies, a defendant’s remedy for delays caused by codefendants in a joint prosecution is to move for severance. Here, although defendant was represented by counsel throughout the pertinent period, he neither moved for severance at any time nor showed that good cause for severance existed … . Thus, the 27-day period charged by Supreme Court to the People as postreadiness delay should not have been added to the 163-day period of prereadiness delay, with the result that the People declared readiness within six months and complied with their statutory obligation. People v Chrysler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05477, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

/

COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge to which the previously tried (and reversed) case had been reassigned, did not, pursuant to the Judiciary Law, have the power to issue a verdict based upon a review of the transcript of the prior non-jury trial. Manifest necessity required a mistrial. New trial will not violate double jeopardy rule:

As is relevant here, Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a trial judge “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he [or she] was not present and sitting therein as a judge.” This statute has been interpreted to allow a substitute judge to preside over an already-commenced jury trial or decide a purely legal question, but it prohibits a substitute judge from weighing testimony or making factual and credibility determinations when he or she did not hear the witnesses’ testimony firsthand …. .

Here, Judiciary Law § 21 precluded County Court from rendering a verdict inasmuch as this was a nonjury trial and, in deciding the ultimate issue of guilt, County Court was required to weigh testimony and make factual determinations based upon testimony it did not hear and observe … . In view of the improper comments and actions of County Court … that led to the case being reassigned after the close of proof, coupled with the application of Judiciary Law § 21, we find that a mistrial was manifestly necessary such that double jeopardy does not bar a retrial. Accordingly, we conclude that a new trial is warranted. People v Banks, 2017 NY Slip Op 05474, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/RETRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/DOUBLE JEOPARDY (RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, MANIFEST NECESSITY, MISTRIAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, RETRIAL AFTER REVERSAL, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)/MANIFEST NECESSITY (MISTRIAL, DOUBLE JEOPARDY, COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT)

/

FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the People’s failure to seek the court’s permission to re-present the murder charge to the grand jury was a jurisdictional defect to which a harmless error analysis could not be applied. The dissent argued the error was harmless because defendant (Allen) was acquitted of the murder charge (and convicted of manslaughter). The majority argued that the illegal murder charge loomed over the entire trial and necessarily affected defense strategy and jury deliberations:

The murder charge lacked jurisdictional legitimacy , violating Allen’s constitutional right to be tried for a felony only upon a valid indictment … . While the trial for murder did not violate double jeopardy, it cannot be doubted that the presence of the charge “impugn[ed] the very integrity of the criminal proceeding” (Mayo, 48 NY2d at 252). There is nothing to suggest that Mayo is limited to double jeopardy cases in the manner suggested by the dissent; indeed, the Mayo court recognized that errors of “constitutional magnitude . . . are so fundamental that their commission serves to invalidate the entire trial,” and are not susceptible to a traditional spillover analysis, which has its “most convincing application in the area of trial errors concerning the admissibility of evidence” … .

The dissent maintains that the right to an indictment by a grand jury is not a right “so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error” (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the New York State constitution holds that no person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime unless upon indictment of the grand jury (NY Const, art 1, § 6), and the right to indictment by grand jury has been recognized “as not merely a personal privilege of the defendant but a public fundamental right which is the basis of jurisdiction to try and punish an individual” … .

Although defendant Allen was ultimately acquitted of the murder charge, the charge’s presence loomed over the trial, and in some way influenced the verdict. Rather than continuing to deliberate concerning Allen’s innocence — including evidence suggesting that he was surprised by the shooting, and may have intended that the victim receive no more than a “clipping” — the jury may have concluded that it had sufficiently grappled with the proof by acquitting him of the most serious charge. People v Allen, 2017 NY Slip Op 05501, 1st Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS 1ST DEPT)/INDICTMENT (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)/GRAND JURY  (FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)/JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO SEEK THE COURT’S PERMISSION BEFORE RE-PRESENTING THE MURDER CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT NOT SUBJECT TO A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS FIRST DEPT)

/

(1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the small claims action seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution was not precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. The prior action between the same parties was a property dispute concerning a right-of-way. Although the small claims matter arose from the property dispute, pursuant to the permissive counterclaim rule, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The Third Department also determined the pretrial motion to dismiss the small claims matter should not have been granted, noting such a motion should rarely be entertained within the simplified small claims procedure:

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “‘once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy'” … . Nevertheless, the permissive counterclaim rule operates to “save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action” so long as the second action is not based on “a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

A review of the record establishes that, although some of plaintiff’s allegations relate to events that predate the first action and are connected to defendants’ attempts in the first action to assert their rights as property owners, the monetary relief that plaintiff now seeks is different than the relief he obtained in the first action and would in no way impair the rights established by the first action. Thus, we find that County Court’s conclusion that the doctrine of res judicata bars plaintiff from raising his negligent infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims in this action was clearly erroneous … . Accordingly, we conclude that “substantial justice was not meted out according to the substantive law” as to these claims … .

We also find that County Court erred in addressing the merits of defendants’ pretrial motion to dismiss as it related to the malicious prosecution claim inasmuch as informal and simplified procedures govern small claims actions (see UCCA 1804), and pretrial motions to dismiss should rarely be entertained … . In light of the fact that plaintiff, who appears pro se, has not yet had the opportunity to present his evidence at a hearing, we find that substantial justice will best be served by remittal to City Court for a prompt trial … . Rackowski v Araya, 2017 NY Slip Op 05481, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE ((1) PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY, (2) PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/RES JUDICATA (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE (RES JUDICATA, PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)/SMALL CLAIMS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/DISMISS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO (SMALL CLAIMS, PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS IS RARELY APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE SIMPLIFIED SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE 3RD DEPT)/COUNTERCLAIMS (PURSUANT TO THE PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM RULE, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY 3RD DEPT)

/ , ,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the city defendants did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff’s decedent (Rennix) despite the misconduct of a city employee. The city employee, an emergency medical technician (EMT) named Jackson, was in a restaurant when a restaurant employee collapsed. Because Jackson was not supposed to be on a break, she did not attempt to help plaintiff’s decedent, who died before the ambulance arrived. Rennix was pregnant and her baby also died. Because there was no special relationship between the city and plaintiff’s decedent, the city was not liable:

A municipal emergency response system is a governmental function, and thus where an emergency medical technician is alleged to have been negligent while acting in this governmental capacity, the municipality cannot be held liable unless it owed a “special duty” to the injured party … . There are three recognized situations in which a special duty may arise: “(1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation” … .

The plaintiffs contend that the first category applies to the circumstances here, and a special duty arose from Jackson’s violation of Penal Law § 195.00(2), which criminalizes official misconduct. * * *

Even assuming the plaintiffs could establish that Jackson was guilty of misconduct, the violation of Penal Law § 195.00(2) does not give rise to a special duty so as to impose tort liability. For a special duty to arise from the breach of a statutory duty, the governing statute must authorize a private right of action … . A private right of action “may be fairly implied when (1) the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the governing statute; and (3) to do so would be consistent with the legislative scheme”… .

Here, the plaintiffs’ claim fails at the first step of the analysis, as Rennix was not of a class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted. Rennix v Jackson, 2017 NY Slip Op 05471, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (MUNICIPAL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT)

/ , ,

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant sex offender’s “for cause” challenge to a juror should have been granted in this civil commitment proceeding:

The record of the voir dire reveals that after the appellant’s counsel disclosed that the appellant previously had committed rapes and robberies against 11 different victims and had been dubbed “the Flatbush rapist” in 1991, a prospective juror repeatedly turned away from counsel, said “Wow” on numerous occasions, and acknowledged that she remembered the Flatbush rapist. She further expressed the concern that “I got too many granddaughters,” and when asked at various points if the appellant’s prior offenses might influence her ability to be fair, she remarked “I just went blank,” “I don’t know, I—it&mdash,” and “You know I’m looking at the man and I’m—I know his face, but that’s when he was young and I’m like, wow.” Significantly, the prospective juror never unequivocally asserted that she could be fair and impartial following these remarks. The appellant’s subsequent challenge to the prospective juror for cause was denied, and the appellant utilized a peremptory challenge to remove her from the panel.

The appellant contends that the denial of his for-cause challenge constituted error. We agree. Contrary to the State’s contention, this issue is preserved for appellate review, since the appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges before jury selection was completed (… Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[b]; CPL 270.20[2]). Turning to the merits, CPL 270.20(1)(b) provides that a challenge for cause is authorized when a prospective juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial.” Where a prospective juror’s responses raise serious doubt with regard to his ability to be impartial, that prospective juror must be excused absent an unequivocal statement on the record assuring that he or she can be fair and impartial… . Here, the equivocal responses of the prospective juror, along with her other remarks and expressions of concern, raised substantial doubt as to whether she could be fair and impartial in her evaluation of the case, triggering an obligation on the part of the Supreme Court to inquire further … . Matter of State of New York v Keith G., 2017 NY Slip Op 05444, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/CIVIL COMMITMENT (SEX OFFENDERS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/JURORS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (JURORS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CIVIL COMMITMENT, SEX OFFENDERS, FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR IN THIS SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL COMMITMENT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED 2ND DEPT)

/ , ,

BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the bank did not meet the requirements for the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

In support of its motion, the plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Meldin Rhodes, assistant secretary of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the current loan servicer. Rhodes averred that “servicing records” showed that the notice of default was mailed to the defendant on November 2, 2011, and the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed on December 28, 2012. Attached to Rhodes’s affidavit were copies of the notice of default and the RPAPL 1304 notice purportedly sent by Bank of America, N.A. (hereinafter BOA), the prior loan servicer, to the defendant.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records relied upon by Rhodes under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518). Rhodes, an employee of the current loan servicer, did not aver that he was personally familiar with the record keeping practices and procedures of BOA, the prior loan servicer. Thus, Rhodes failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of records concerning service of the required notices, and his assertions based on these records were inadmissible … .

Inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact as to its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and the notice requirement in the mortgage, its motion should have been denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers  … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Carlin. 2017 NY Slip Op 05421, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

 

FORECLOSURE (EVIDENCE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/HEARSAY (FORECLOSURE,  BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)/BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY RULE (FORECLOSURE,  BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF CONDOMINIUM OWNER STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for violation of the Fair Housing Act. Plaintiff, a condominium owner, alleged she was denied access to common areas of the defendants’ (Vista’s) condominium complex because of her ethnicity:

The Supreme Court … erred in granting that branch of the Vista defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the third cause of action to recover damages for housing discrimination in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (42 USC § 3601 et seq.) insofar as asserted against them. That statute provides, in relevant part, that “it shall be unlawful . . . [t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” (42 USC § 3604[b]). At the motion to dismiss stage, all that is required are sufficiently pleaded allegations that plaintiffs are part of a protected class and that defendants took actions against them that are forbidden by the Fair Housing Act on the basis of their membership in the protected class … . In this case, the complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Vista defendants discriminated against the plaintiff and her family “in an effort to prevent [them] from utilizing the facilities upon the common area,” and that the Vista defendants had engaged in a pattern of discrimination against the plaintiff and her family because they are of Hispanic descent. Accepting these allegations as true, and affording the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the complaint adequately stated a cause of action to recover damages for housing discrimination in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 USC § 3601 et seq.) insofar as asserted against the Vista defendants. Gutierrez v McGrath Mgt. Servs., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05425, 2nd Dept 7-5-17

FAIR HOUSING ACT (PLAINTIFF CONDOMINIUM OWNER STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT 2ND DEPT)/CONDOMINIUMS (FAIR HOUSING ACT, PLAINTIFF CONDOMINIUM OWNER STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT 2ND DEPT)/DISCRIMINATION (FAIR HOUSING ACT, PLAINTIFF CONDOMINIUM OWNER STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT 2ND 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