You are here: / DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS...

Search Results

/

DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s refusal to turn around upon request and his hands positioned at his waistband justified a police officer’s drawing his weapon and a pursuit of the defendant when her ran. Suppression of the weapon discarded by the defendant was properly denied:

​

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s positioning and his refusal to comply with the officer’s request to return to the vehicle, while not alone indicative of criminal behavior, could be “considered in conjunction with other attendant circumstances” to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion of criminal activity … . In our view, once defendant refused the officer’s request to return to the vehicle and turned toward the officers, the officers could “reasonably suspect[] that defendant was armed and posed a threat to their safety because his actions were directed to the area of his waistband, which was concealed from their view”,,, . The officer who drew his weapon was justified in doing so out of a concern for his own safety … . We thus conclude that defendant’s flight, “in conjunction with the attendant circumstances, gave rise to the requisite reasonable suspicion justifying police pursuit” … . People v Walker, 2017 NY Slip Op 03317, 4th Dept 4-28-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO TURN AROUND AND HIS HANDS POSITIONED AT HIS WAISTBAND JUSTIFIED AN OFFICER’S DRAWING HIS WEAPON AND POLICE PURSUIT)

/

DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined the arresting officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying his request that defendant show him his hands. Defendant had walked by the officer holding his waistband. When the defendant complied with the officer’s request and raised his hands the officer saw a gun:

​

… [W]e conclude that the location of this encounter in a high-crime area, the officer’s training and his experience in investigating weapons possession crimes at this location, together with defendant’s grabbing of his waistband with his hand concealed under his shirt, provided the requisite founded suspicion for the officer to command defendant to show his hands. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that it is of no consequence that the officer did not observe a gun before commanding defendant to show his hands. Indeed, defendant’s hand was concealed under his shirt while simultaneously grabbing his waistband. The Court of Appeals has noted that “a handgun is often carried in the waistband” … , and that it would be “absurd to suggest that a police officer has to await the glint of steel before he can act to preserve his safety” … .

We recognize that a founded suspicion may not rest upon innocuous behavior that is susceptible of an innocent as well as a culpable interpretation … . Viewed in isolation by an untrained observer, defendant’s actions might not appear to be suspicious but, “when viewed collectively and in the light of the officer’s expertise,” we conclude that the officer had a founded suspicion of criminal activity warranting a level two inquiry … . People v Simmons, 2017 NY Slip Op 03280, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO  (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WALKED BY POLICE OFFICER HOLDING HIS WAISTBAND, OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING DEFENDANT TO SHOW HIM HIS HANDS REVEALING A GUN, SUPPRESSION PROPERLY DENIED)

/

NON-PROFIT PROVIDING WORK TRAINING TO PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS IS EXEMPT FROM UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE.

The Third Department determined claimant was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and the statute which exempts rehabilitative non-profits is constitutional. Claimant was employed by a non-profit which provided work-training for psychiatric patients. Claimant worked 20 hours per week and sought unemployment benefits when the non-profit temporarily closed:

​

To file a valid original claim, a claimant must meet certain qualifications and satisfy employment requirements (see Labor Law § 527 [1]). Labor Law § 563 (2) (d) excludes certain employment from unemployment insurance coverage, including “services rendered for a non-profit organization by a person who (1) receives rehabilitative services in a facility conducted for the purpose of carrying out a program of rehabilitation for individuals whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury or (2) is given remunerative work in a facility conducted for the purpose of providing such work for persons who cannot be readily absorbed in the competitive labor market because of their impaired physical or mental capacity.” The Board credited the hearing testimony establishing that, as part of his vocational rehabilitation, claimant worked for Landmark, a non-profit organization that operates workshops and rehabilitative programs open exclusively to RPC [Rochester Psychiatric Center] patients. Matter of Janakievski (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 03253, 3rd Dept 4-27-17

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NON-PROFIT PROVIDING WORK TRAINING TO PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS IS EXEMPT FROM UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE)/NON-PROFITS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, NON-PROFIT PROVIDING WORK TRAINING TO PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS IS EXEMPT FROM UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COVERAGE)

/ ,

LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL.

The First Department determined the loss of the stenographic notes for the last day of the bench trial and sentencing did not preclude appeal:

​

Although the stenographic notes of the last day of the trial and the sentencing proceeding have been lost and no transcript is available for those dates, a reconstruction hearing sufficed to protect defendant’s right to appeal. The judge’s notes from the last day of trial, the prosecutor’s detailed outline of her summation and trial counsel’s affirmation, which were placed in the record at the hearing, provided an adequate basis to determine whether appealable issues existed … . The fact that this was a nonjury trial, where the factfinder is presumed to have disregarded prejudicial matter … , weighs strongly against the concern that the missing minutes may have revealed appealable issues. People v Zuniga, 2017 NY Slip Op 03264, 1st Dept 4-27-17

​

CRIMINAL LAW (LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)/APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)/TRANSCRIPT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL)

/

15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS.

The First Department determined the 15-month delay in holding respondent sex-offender’s Article 10 trial did not deprive him of due process. The court explained that the statutory 60-day time limit for holding the trial did not require dismissal of the petition and further explained and applied the four-point due process analysis:

​

The 60-day deadline by which a trial “shall” be commenced, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07(a), is not a “strict time limit[]” … . As there is no clear legislative intent to make compliance with that time frame a prerequisite to continued jurisdiction … , the failure to commence a trial within 60 days does not mandate dismissal of the petition … . Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) states repeatedly that failure to comply with various deadlines does not affect the validity of the petition or the various actions subject to those deadlines … . …

​

Respondent’s due process rights were not violated by the 15-month delay between his declaration of readiness for trial, after the probable cause determination, made upon his waiver of a probable cause hearing, and the start of the trial. Under the four-factor balancing test set forth in Barker v Wingo (407 US 514 [1972] … , the length of the delay may be considered presumptively prejudicial … . The second factor, the reason given for the delay (id. at 531), weighs only slightly against petitioner, because a considerable portion of the delay is attributable to respondent, the unavailability of the experts, and circumstances beyond petitioner’s control. …

The third Barker factor, respondent’s assertion of his rights (407 US at 531-532), weighs in respondent’s favor with respect to those adjournments to which he objected. However, his failure to retain any experts for, or to testify in, the article 10 proceedings, his consent to delays, his refusal to appear in court twice, and his engagement in abusive conduct directed against those associated with the proceeding suggest that respondent “did not desire an early judicial hearing” … . …

​

The fourth Barker factor, prejudice to respondent (407 US 532), weighs in petitioner’s favor. There was no oppressive pretrial incarceration, since respondent chose to be confined at Rikers Island, rather than at a secure mental health facility, during the proceedings … , and respondent’s ability to put on a defense was not affected by the delay. Matter of State of New York v Keith F., 2017 NY Slip Op 03276, 1st Dept 4-27-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, 15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, 15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS)

/ , ,

EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED.

The Third Department determined the policy exclusion for injury stemming from an assault controlled and defendant insurer was not required to defend the action by defendant bar patron, Christian, who alleged-plaintiff bar’s employee injured him when ejecting him from the bar. The language of the exclusion took precedence over the general liability provisions. Any negligence causes of action were not covered because the negligence claims stemmed from the assault:

The exclusion, which states that it “is subject to the terms contained in the General Liability Coverage,” provides that “[n]otwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, . . . this policy excludes any and all claims arising out of any assault, battery, fight, altercation, misconduct or other similar incident,” including claims of negligent hiring and supervision. * * *

Here … Supreme Court properly found that the terms of the exclusion controlled over those in the general liability coverage, as “language such as a ‘notwithstanding’ provision ‘controls over any contrary language’ in a contract” … .

Christian asserts that the assault and battery exclusion does not apply because the underlying action alleges acts of negligence. We disagree. “[I]f no cause of action would exist but for the assault, the claim is based on assault and the exclusion applies” and the fact that an insured might be liable under a theory of negligence does not change this … . Graytwig Inc. v Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03229, 3rd Dept 4-27-17

INSURANCE LAW (EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/ASSAULT (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/EXCLUSIONS  (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM ASSAULT NOT COVERED)/THIRD PARTY ASSAULT

/

INMATE’S REQUESTS FOR UNIDENTIFIED WITNESSES IMPROPERLY DENIED.

The Third Department determined some of petitioner’s requests for testimony from unidentified witnesses to the underlying incident were improperly denied. The hearing officer should have checked logs before denying the request for an unidentified corrections officer alleged to have been present. And petitioner’s request for testimony from unidentified inmates who allegedly were delayed by the incident should not have been denied simply because of the number of potential inmate witnesses (50):

​

Petitioner requested the testimony of a correction officer that he believed was present with the sergeant during the incident. Petitioner did not know the name of the witness, but gave the Hearing Officer a description and requested that the Hearing Officer review the logbooks to identify the witness. The Hearing Officer denied the witness, based upon the testimony of the sergeant that he was alone during the incident with petitioner. Inasmuch as the record does not reflect that the Hearing Officer reviewed the logbooks or made any other effort to identify the witness, we cannot say that a diligent effort was made to locate the witness … . …

​

Petitioner also requested the testimony of 50 unidentified inmates who, according to the misbehavior report and hearing testimony, were delayed in returning to their cells from breakfast because of the incident involving petitioner. A correction officer testified that, because of the incident, she was unable to release those inmates to return to petitioner’s cellblock for approximately five to seven minutes. The Hearing Officer denied petitioner’s request, stating that he was not going to call 50 witnesses. We disagree with respondents’ contention that the requested testimony was irrelevant because the inmates did not witness the incident involving petitioner, inasmuch as their testimony was relevant to the charge of interfering with staff. In our view, petitioner was improperly denied the right to call a reasonable number of these witnesses, who were all housed on the same cellblock and should have been easily identifiable. Although calling all 50 witnesses would be impractical and unnecessary, the requested testimony was not irrelevant or redundant, and the Hearing Officer’s blanket denial of these witnesses was therefore improper … . Matter of Harriott v Koenigsmann, 2017 NY Slip Op 03240, 3rd Dept 4-27-1

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INMATE’S REQUESTS FOR UNIDENTIFIED WITNESSES IMPROPERLY DENIED)

/

SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA.

​The Third Department determined the sentence imposed was not in accordance with the plea agreement. Therefore defendant’s plea was not voluntarily made and must be vacated. Defendant was initially sentenced as a persistent felon and that sentence was overturned on appeal. The plea agreement contemplated sentencing either as a persistent felon, or, if the appeal succeeded, as a second felony offender. After the successful appeal, however, defendant was sentenced as a first-time felon:

​

The People concede, and we agree, that the parties’ plea agreement, as set forth in the record before us, did not contemplate the possibility that defendant would be sentenced as a first-time felony offender in the event of a successful appeal to this Court … . Indeed, the record before us establishes that the parties’ contingent plea agreement and ensuing plea colloquy were limited to whether defendant could be sentenced as a second felony offender — versus sentencing as a mandatory persistent felony offender — upon a successful appeal. Accordingly, because the record reflects a mutual mistake at the time of defendant’s plea regarding his predicate status and potential sentencing exposure in the event that he was successful on appeal, his decision to plead guilty was not a knowing, voluntary and intelligent one and, therefore, the plea must be vacated … . People v Brewington, 2017 NY Slip Op 03224, 3rd Dept 4-27-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA)/SENTENCING (SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA)/GUILTY PLEAS (SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT OF AN INVOLUNTARY PLEA)

​

/

NEW AUDI DEALERSHIP WAS OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF DEALERSHIP’S MARKET AREA, SUIT UNDER THE DEALER ACT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff Audi dealership’s suit claiming that the award of a new Audi dealership constituted a modification of the franchise in violation of the Dealer Act (Vehicle and Traffic Law 463 (2)) was properly dismissed. Plaintiff acknowledged that the new dealership was outside plaintiff’s market area:

​

Here, the plaintiff does not dispute that the location of the proposed new Westbury dealership is outside the plaintiff’s “relevant market area,” and thus, the plaintiff cannot challenge the addition of that dealership under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 463(2)(cc). As a result, the plaintiff seeks to challenge the proposed addition of the new dealership under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 463(2)(ff), which provides that a franchisor must give notice to the dealer of any “modification” to the dealer’s franchise … . However, permitting the plaintiff to challenge the addition of the Westbury dealership under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 463(2)(ff) would essentially render the standing requirement and specific procedures set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 463(2)(cc) superfluous … . As such, the Supreme Court properly determined that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 463(2)(cc) is the sole mechanism under the Dealer Act by which the plaintiff can challenge Audi’s addition of the proposed new Westbury dealership, and properly directed the dismissal of the first cause of action.  JJM Sunrise Automotive, LLC v Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03160, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DEALER ACT) (NEW AUDI DEALERSHIP WAS OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF DEALERSHIP’S MARKET AREA, SUIT UNDER THE DEALER ACT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/DEALER ACT (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, NEW AUDI DEALERSHIP WAS OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF DEALERSHIP’S MARKET AREA, SUIT UNDER THE DEALER ACT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/AUTO DEALERSHIPS (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, NEW AUDI DEALERSHIP WAS OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF DEALERSHIP’S MARKET AREA, SUIT UNDER THE DEALER ACT PROPERLY DISMISSED)

​

/ , , ,

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED.

In a dispute between real estate brokers over plaintiff’s entitlement to a percentage of a commission, the Second Department determined defendants’ counterclaims for abuse of process, prima facie tort, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and attorney’s fees were properly dismissed. The (unsuccessful) claim for attorney’s fees was based upon language in a real estate policy and procedure manual the language of which was deemed too vague to supplant the general rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees. With regard to the abuse of process and attorney’s fees claims, the court explained:

“The three essential elements of the tort of abuse of process are (1) regularly issued process, either civil or criminal, (2) an intent to do harm without excuse or justification, and (3) use of the process in a perverted manner to obtain a collateral objective'” … . “[T]he gist of the tort is the improper use of process after it is issued’ by an unlawful interference with one’s person or property'”… . Here, the gravamen of the first counterclaim was that the plaintiff initiated this lawsuit with the intent to harm the defendants, knowing that the brokerage community would find out about the lawsuit, which would damage the defendants’ ability to do business in that community. However, “the institution of a civil action by summons and complaint is not legally considered process capable of being abused” … . Moreover, there was no allegation that the plaintiff improperly used process after it was issued. Furthermore, “a malicious motive alone does not give rise to a cause of action to recover damages for abuse of process” … . * * *

In the fourth counterclaim the defendants sought to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending this action pursuant to a provision in their “Policy & Procedure Manual,” which states, inter alia, that “[i]f a dispute arises due to a commission and a legal action is commenced as a result thereof, the costs of the legal action will be deducted from the fee collected,” and “[i]f [a] suit is a result of an agent’s action, he/she will be responsible for payment of damages incurred as a result.” Since “a promise by one party to a contract to indemnify the other for attorney’s fees incurred in litigation between them is contrary to the well-understood rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees, the court should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise” … . Here, the provision relied upon by the defendants is vague, and a promise by the plaintiff to indemnify the defendants for attorneys’ fees incurred in litigation between them cannot be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire manual. Goldman v Citicore I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03156, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

REAL ESTATE (ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)/INTENTIONAL TORTS (ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)/ABUSE OF PROCESS (ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)/COMMISSIONS (REAL ESTATE, ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED)

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