You are here: / DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO...

Search Results

/

DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the evidence did not support the conclusion that defendant consented to the entry and search of his home. The motion to suppress, therefore, should have been granted. The decision does not discuss the facts and indicates the reasoning of the Appellate Division dissent was followed. People v Freeman, 2017 NY Slip Op 02090, CtApp 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ENTRY AND SEARCH OF HIS HOME, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY.

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction. Defendant alleged he was not informed of the intoxication defense prior to pleading guilty:

… [R]egarding defendant’s claim in his CPL 440.10 motion that counsel’s representation was ineffective for failing to inform him that the required element of criminal intent for burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.25) could be negated by the defense of intoxication[:] The victims’ statements to police include the observations that defendant “looked high and his speech was slow” and that defendant appeared “either drunk or stoned.” Additionally, his criminal record reflects a history of alcohol-related arrests and convictions. Insofar as a defendant’s knowledge that the element of intent may be negated by the potential defense of intoxication is essential to a knowing and voluntary plea … and there is no indication that defendant was aware of the intoxication defense and knowingly waived his right to present such evidence, we are persuaded that defendant has raised an issue sufficient to require a hearing … . People v Perry, 2017 NY Slip Op 02095, 3rd Dept 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY)/INTOXICATION DEFENSE (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY)

/ ,

AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) did not give the petitioner, an indigent sex offender who had completed his sentence, adequate assistance in finding housing in a residential treatment facility (RTF) upon release. Although petitioner had been provided RTF housing by the time the matter was heard, the Third Department reached the issue as an exception to the mootness doctrine. DOCCS’s insufficient assistance in finding RTF housing for released sex offenders was deemed a recurring problem that needed to be addressed:

We agree with petitioner that, due to the “recognized difficulty in securing acceptable housing” for persons subject to sex offender residency restrictions, there is a likelihood of repetition regarding individuals being placed in RTFs due to the failure to secure suitable housing … . Given the transitory purpose of RTFs and considering the lack of appellate precedent regarding challenges to RTF placements and programing, we further recognize that the phenomenon typically evades review … . Finally, we find the issues novel and substantial given that petitioner’s challenges concern whether RTFs are serving their distinct purpose, as contrasted with confinement facilities generally … . * * *

The feasibility and appropriateness of the specific means by which DOCCS may choose to provide affirmative assistance in locating housing to petitioner are, of course, discretionary and beyond the reach of judicial review unless they are shown to be irrational, arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, we may not specify the particular actions that DOCCS should have taken. Nevertheless, its passive approach of leaving the primary obligation to locate housing to an individual confined in a medium security prison facility 100 miles from his family and community, without access to information or communication resources beyond that afforded to other prison inmates, falls far short of the spirit and purpose of the legislative obligation imposed upon DOCCS to assist in this process. Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 02099, 3rd Dept 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)/SEX OFFENDERS (AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)/RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY (SEX OFFENDERS, AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)/APPEALS (AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)

/ ,

WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals determined the issue whether defendant made an unequivocal request for counsel presented a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be heard by the Court of Appeals. People v Slocum, 2017 NY Slip Op 02089, CtApp 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed because plaintiff could not identify the cause of his fall:

During his 50-h hearing, the injured plaintiff testified that he was walking on the sidewalk and was about to cross the street when his right foot caught on “some sort of stone,” causing him to fall. He did not see the stone before the accident, but after he fell, he looked and saw stones embedded in the earth around a tree, which caught his foot. At his deposition, however, the injured plaintiff testified that as he was about to cross the street, he was paying attention to traffic and his foot “hit something” causing him to lose his balance and fall. This time, he identified a raised portion of the sidewalk, approximately three feet away from the tree, as the cause of his fall. He distinguished this area from the cobblestones around the tree and testified that he did not make contact with the cobblestones, as he was “further down, to the side of the tree.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the injured plaintiff’s own contradictory testimony does not create a question of fact … . Rather, it demonstrates that he is unable to identify the cause of his fall and any determination by the trier of fact as to causation would be based upon sheer speculation … . Vojvodic v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02085, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (SLIP AND FALL, SIDEWALKS, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SLIP AND FALL (PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)

/

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. The defendant city owned the sanitation truck (driven by McPhillips) which struck the car in which plaintiff was a passenger:

… [T]he plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, transcripts of the parties’ deposition testimony, which demonstrated, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff was not comparatively at fault for the happening of the subject accident, and that McPhillips was negligent. Contrary to the City’s contention, the transcript of McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not reveal a triable issue of fact as to whether he demonstrated a nonnegligent explanation for the rear-end collision into the other vehicle. Even if, as McPhillips testified, the other vehicle came to a sudden stop at the subject intersection’s yellow traffic light, McPhillips should have anticipated that the other vehicle might come to a stop at the intersection … . Furthermore, McPhillips’s deposition testimony did not rebut the inference of negligence from the rear-end collision, as he testified that he knew that the road was wet from a recent rain shower and he failed to demonstrate that his skid on known road conditions was unavoidable … . Tumminello v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02083, 2nd Dept, 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/REAR-END COLLISION (DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (REAR-END COLLISION, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ ,

PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF EXCUSE.

The Second Department determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been granted, despite of the lack of an adequate excuse. The plaintiff was involved in an accident with a police car. The police report noted that plaintiff was injured. Therefore the city had timely notice of essential elements of the claim:

Here, the City and the NYPD acquired timely actual notice of the facts underlying the claim. The subject motor vehicle accident involved a police department vehicle and police department employee. The NYPD responded to the scene and conducted an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident. Indeed, the police accident report specifically noted that the petitioner, as well as the driver of the vehicle in which she was a passenger, made statements alleging that [the officer] was liable. The police accident report also noted that the petitioner was injured and that a copy of the report was being provided to the Office of the Comptroller, as well as the Motor Transport Division and Personal Safety Unit of the NYPD. Thus, the overall circumstances of this matter support an inference that the City effectively received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim … . In light of the City’s actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim, there is no substantial prejudice to the City in maintaining a defense … . “[W]here there is actual notice and an absence of prejudice, the lack of reasonable excuse will not bar the granting of leave to serve a late notice of claim” … . Matter of Jaffier v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02039, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF EXCUSE)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF EXCUSE)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF INJURED IN COLLSION WITH A POLICE CAR, POLICE REPORT PROVIDED CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE CLAIM, PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE LACK OF EXCUSE)

/ , ,

LANDLORD (SUBLESSOR) DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED.

The Second Department determined defendant nonprofit did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff’s subrogee for the actions of a tenant which apparently started a fire in the tenant’s apartment. Defendant nonprofit leased apartments to tenants suffering from mental illness. The tenants lived independently with little supervision:

Under limited circumstances, the relationship between a lessor and a lessee can give rise to a duty of care inasmuch as the lessor “must exercise reasonable care not to expose third persons to an unreasonable risk of harm” … . … [T]he relevant inquiry [is] whether the defendant, as sublessor, exposed the plaintiff’s insured in this case to an unreasonable risk of harm. Moreover, in evaluating the existence and scope of the duty of care, we are mindful that where, as here, the action involves only property damage, “the public policies, factors, and other analytical considerations used in setting the orbit of duty are different from those at play in cases involving physical injury” … .

Under the circumstances presented, the defendant established, prima facie, that it owed no duty to the plaintiff’s insured to take affirmative steps to prevent the tenant from smoking in the demised premises … . The evidence showed, inter alia, that all participants in the defendant’s housing program had to be able to live independently, and the degree of oversight provided by the defendant under the terms of its agreement with the tenant was limited. …

“[I]n the absence of fault or a specific contract provision to the contrary, neither the landlord nor the tenant is obligated to perform repairs after a fire” … . Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the breach of contract cause of action by showing that the subject lease did not impose an obligation on it to repair the premises after a fire … , or to answer in damages for a fire caused by its sublessee … . Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Hands Across Long Is., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02082, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED)/INSURANCE LAW (LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LANDLORD DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE TO PREVENT A MENTALLY ILL TENANT FROM SMOKING IN THE APARTMENT WHERE A FIRE STARTED)

/ ,

LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE COLLECTION OF RENT AFTER EVICTION BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.

The Second Department determined the clause in the lease which allowed the landlord to collect rent after eviction by summary proceedings was valid and enforceable:

“Although an eviction terminates the landlord-tenant relationship, the parties to a lease are not foreclosed from contracting as they please” … . “Where a lease provides that a landlord is under no duty to mitigate damages after its reentry by virtue of its successful prosecution of a summary proceeding, and that the tenant remains liable for damages, [the tenant] remain[s] liable for all monetary obligations arising under the lease'” … . Here, the lease did not obligate the plaintiff to mitigate damages after a dispossession by summary proceeding and specifically provided that [tenant] would remain liable for rent after eviction. In addition, the lease clearly stated that if [tenant] breached the lease, the plaintiff was not precluded from any other remedy in law or equity. Consequently, the lease did not limit the plaintiff to recovery of only pretermination rent in the event that it commenced a summary eviction proceeding to regain possession of the premises … . L’Aquila Realty, LLC v Jalyng Food Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02027, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

LANDLORD-TENANT (LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE COLLECTION OF RENT AFTER EVICTION BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE)/CONTRACT LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE COLLECTION OF RENT AFTER EVICTION BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE)

/ , ,

NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED BY LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was required to file a notice of claim in his Labor Law action against the city. The notice of claim requirement was not preempted by the Longshoreman’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). Plaintiff was injured while doing overhaul work in a the Brooklyn Navy Yard:

The LHWCA provides nonseaman maritime workers with the right to bring no-fault workers’ compensation claims against their employer, pursuant to 33 USC § 904(b), and negligence claims against the vessel, pursuant to 33 USC § 905(b). As to those two categories of defendants, 33 USC § 905(a) and (b) expressly preempt all other claims, but 33 USC § 933(a) expressly preserves all claims against third parties … . “Importantly, § 933 recognizes that a covered employee may have tort remedies against third parties under federal or state law. Section 933 preserves and codifies a maritime worker’s common law right to pursue a negligence claim against a third party that is not the employer or a coworker; it does not create a cause of action nor establish a third party’s liability for negligence” … . Fernandez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02022, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED BY LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED BY LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNCIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED BY LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT)/LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT (NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED BY LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT)

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