You are here: / JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER...

Search Results

/

JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CASE REMITTED.

The Fourth Department remitted the case to Supreme Court because the reasons for denial of youthful offender status were not put on the record:

Where, as here, “a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony or an enumerated sex offense pursuant to CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) or (iii), and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3). The court must make such a determination on the record even where [the] defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request’ pursuant to a plea bargain . . . If the court determines, in its discretion, that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors exist and states the reasons for that determination on the record, no further determination by the court is required. If, however, the court determines that one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors are present, and the defendant is therefore an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender’ ” … . People v Dukes, 2017 NY Slip Op 01105, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CASE REMITTED)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (JUDGE DID NOT PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, CASE REMITTED)

/

LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel’s late request to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror should not have been denied:

Here, defense counsel momentarily lost count of the number of jurors who had been selected. As a result, defense counsel declined to exercise a peremptory challenge to prospective juror 21. When informed that prospective juror 21 was the 12th juror seated, defense counsel immediately asked the court to allow defendant to exercise his last peremptory challenge to that juror. The jury had not yet been sworn, the panel from which the alternates would be selected had not yet been called, and prospective juror 21 had not yet been informed that he had been selected. Furthermore, the People expressly declined to object to the request. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request. Indeed, ” we can detect no discernable interference or undue delay caused by [defense counsel’s] momentary oversight . . . that would justify [the court’s] hasty refusal to entertain [the] challenge’ ” … . Such an error cannot be deemed harmless … . People v Scerbo, 2017 NY Slip Op 01073, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED)/PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE CRIMINAL LAW, JURORS, (LATE REQUEST TO EXERCISE A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO A JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, CONVICTION REVERSED)

/

PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE.

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was not entitled to the exception to the criminal possession of a weapon statute for possession in a person’s “place of business” (reducing the offense to a misdemeanor). Here defendant brought a firearm to work at McDonald’s and shot himself in the leg. The court reasoned the “place of business” exception did not apply because McDonald’s prohibited its employees from carrying firearms:

Although the “place of business” exception is not statutorily defined, it has been “construed narrowly by the courts in an effort to balance the State’s strong policy to severely restrict possession of any firearm’ . . . with its policy to treat with leniency persons attempting to protect certain areas in which they have a possessory interest and to which members of the public have limited access” … . Inasmuch as the evidence at trial established that defendant was prohibited from bringing a gun to work, we conclude that to permit defendant to be subjected only to a misdemeanor “would certainly controvert the meaning and intent of the statute” … . People v Wallace, 2017 NY Slip Op 01071, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE)/WEAPONS, CRIMINAL POSSESSION (PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPTION TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT APPLY WHERE DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN THE WORKPLACE)

/

DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to testify before the grand jury, even though his request was received by the district attorney after deadlines had passed and after the grand jury had voted to indictment (but before filing of the indictment):

As the Court of Appeals has noted, a defendant has a right “under CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to provide notice and, therefore, the concomitant right to give testimony even perhaps after an indictment has been voted but before it is filed” … . Where, as here, defendant’s request to testify is received after the grand jury has voted, but before the filing of the indictment, defendant is entitled to a reopening of the proceeding to enable the grand jury to hear defendant’s testimony and to revote the case, if the grand jury be so advised … . People v White, 2017 NY Slip Op 01070, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT)/GRAND JURY (DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EVEN THOUGH THE REQUEST WAS MADE AFTER THE GRAND JURY HAD VOTED TO INDICT)

/

INSUFFICIENT PROOF GUNSHOT CAUSED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND.

The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s conviction from assault first to assault second based upon insufficient proof of serious physical injury. The victim was shot in the leg:

Although the victim displayed to the jury scars on his leg caused by his gunshot wounds, “the record does not contain any pictures or descriptions of what the jury saw so as to prove that these scars constitute serious or protracted disfigurement” … . Furthermore, although the victim testified that he “feel[s] pain in [his] leg” in cold weather, we conclude that such testimony does not constitute evidence of persistent pain so severe as to cause “protracted impairment of health” … . People v Romero, 2017 NY Slip Op 01069, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (INSUFFICIENT PROOF GUNSHOT CAUSED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND)/ASSAULT (CRIMINAL LAW, INSUFFICIENT PROOF GUNSHOT CAUSED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND)/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSSAULT, INSUFFICIENT PROOF GUNSHOT CAUSED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND)

/ ,

A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint alleging fraud should not have been granted, and the motion to amend the complaint to allege negligent misrepresentation should have been granted. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiff was a sophisticated lender and made the loan without performing due diligence (and therefore could not allege justifiable reliance on any misrepresentations). The First Department held that plaintiff’s request for and receipt of written assurances was sufficient due diligence:

A sophisticated party is generally required to exercise due diligence to verify the facts represented to it before entering into a business transaction … . The Court of Appeals has recognized, however, that, “where a plaintiff has gone to the trouble to insist on a written representation that certain facts are true, it will often be justified in accepting that representation rather than making its own inquiry” … . In this case, plaintiff alleges that it made the loan … in reliance on [defendant] Noto’s opinion letter, which was specifically addressed to plaintiff, in which Noto opined that the loan transaction would not put [any party] into breach of any preexisting contract or agreement … . Plaintiff alleges that this representation was false, inasmuch as the undisclosed 2005 letter agreement required [maintenance of] a $2 million cushion of “unencumbered equity” in the property in any refinancing, and — given that the true value of the property was only $1.9 million, based on the terms of the undisclosed 2005 transaction — plaintiff’s $6.6 million loan … wiped out any such equity in the property. Remediation Capital Funding LLC v Noto, 2017 NY Slip Op 01119, 1st Dept 2-10-17

CONTRACT LAW (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/FRAUD (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/MISREPRESENTATION (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED).SOPHISTICATED PARTY (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/DUE DILIGENCE (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)

/ ,

DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a disclaimer in a subcontract precluded the fraud counterclaim. The court further determined the fraud counterclaim was not duplicative of the breach of contract counterclaim and the fraud counterclaim was pled with sufficient specificity. Plaintiff, Pike, did concrete and steel construction work. Defendant subcontractor, Jersen, was hired to do masonry work:

The fraud counterclaim is the sole focus of this appeal. In that counterclaim, Jersen alleged that, before it began work on the project, Pike was informed by at least one of its other subcontractors that its substrate work was not “accurate, flat or level,” i.e., was deficient. Nevertheless, Pike represented to Jersen that the substrate work “had been erected in accordance with the contract requirements and was plumb, level, and true and that [Pike] had performed a professional survey of the structural steel to confirm the same.” Jersen alleged that Pike’s representations to Jersen “were false,” and that Pike “concealed and recklessly withheld from Jersen knowledge that the substrate was not dimensionally accurate, flat or level.” Additionally, Jersen alleged that Pike made those false representations “in order to deceive Jersen and induce Jersen to commence installation upon the substrate.” Jersen further alleged that it relied on Pike’s representations and would not have commenced installation of the masonry work had Pike not misrepresented to Jersen that the substrate had been installed in accordance with the contract requirements. According to Jersen, it suffered damages as a result of its reliance on Pike’s false representations. * * *

We conclude that the subcontract is ambiguous whether the disclaimer clause in section 1.8 precludes Jersen from relying on any opinions or representations concerning work performed by others after Jersen executed the subcontract, and thus that section 1.8 does not “conclusively establish[ ] a defense” to the counterclaim for fraud … . Pike Co., Inc. v Jersen Constr. Group, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01116, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CONTRACT LAW (DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/FRAUD (DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DISCLAIMER (CONTRACT LAW, FRAUD, DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE DISCLAIMER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/

PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487; PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could bring a plenary action against their attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law 487. The further determined the fact that plaintiff’s had previously asked for sanctions against the attorneys did not collaterally estop them from bringing the Judiciary Law action:

Plaintiffs commenced this Judiciary Law § 487 action against defendant based on her conduct when representing plaintiffs’ adversary in a foreclosure action. We agree with plaintiffs that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Although plaintiffs were aware of the alleged misconduct during the pendency of the prior foreclosure action, they are not precluded from bringing a plenary action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 provided that they are not collaterally attacking the judgment from the prior action … . Indeed, the language of the statute does not require the claim to be brought in a pending action … . Here, plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages for additional legal fees made necessary by defendant’s alleged misconduct in the foreclosure action, and they are not collaterally attacking the judgment of foreclosure … .

… A motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]) is not the same as a cause of action for attorney misconduct … . We therefore conclude that collateral estoppel does not apply, inasmuch as the identical issue was not raised in the foreclosure action … . Kimbrook Rte. 31, L.L.C. v Bass, 2017 NY Slip Op 01083, 4th Dept 2-10-17

 

ATTORNEYS (PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487, PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487, PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION)/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487, PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION)

/ ,

ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT.

The Third Department determined the Worker’s Compensation Board correctly reduced attorney’s fees because the fee application form was not properly completed:

… [C]laimant’s counsel contends that the Board erred in reducing the WCLJ’s award of counsel fees based upon counsel’s failure to complete the OC-400.1 fee application form with respect to dates or time spent on the services rendered. Where counsel requests a fee in excess of $450, the Board’s rules and regulations provide that an attorney must file a written application for such fee using form OC-400.1 and that form must be “accurately completed” (12 NYCRR 300.17 [d] [1]). The form specifically instructs an attorney to, among other things, include the dates that the services were rendered and the time spent [FN3]. Such information, which is also required to be provided to a claimant, is relevant to the Board’s evaluation of the services rendered (see 12 NYCRR 300.17 [e], [f], [g]). “The Board may approve counsel fees ‘in an amount commensurate with the services rendered'” … , and its award will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion … . Here, counsel listed the services rendered, but inserted “35 hours” for the time spent on the services and did not indicate any dates upon which the services were performed or the amount of time spent on each service rendered. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the Board abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in finding the OC-400.1 fee application form defective and reducing the counsel fees to the maximum $450 fee permitted in the absence of the accurate completion of such application form … . Matter of Curcio v Sherwood 370 Mgt. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01047, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT)/ATTORNEYS (WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW, ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED TO $450, FEE APPLICATION NOT PROPERLY FILLED OUT)

/

THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” EXPLAINED.

The Third Department explained the different purposes for the terms “loss of wage-earning capacity” and “wage-earning capacity:”

The employer argues that claimant’s compensation must be calculated based upon his wage-earning capacity pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) and that, because he was working at full wages, his wage-earning capacity was 100% at the time of classification and that the finding of a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity was accordingly unlawful.

The term “loss of wage-earning capacity” was added in 2007 as part of the reform of the Workers’ Compensation Law …, and “is used at the time of classification to set the maximum number of weeks over which a claimant with a permanent partial disability is entitled to receive benefits” … . In contrast, wage-earning capacity is used to determine a claimant’s weekly rate of compensation … . As this Court recently explained in detail, “the legislative history makes clear that ‘wage-earning capacity’ and ‘loss of wage-earning capacity’ are to be used for separate and distinct purposes” … . Indeed, “[u]nlike wage-earning capacity, which can fluctuate based on the claimant’s employment status, loss of wage-earning capacity was intended to remain fixed” … . In light of the separate and distinct purposes for the calculation of a loss of wage-earning capacity and the wage-earning capacity, the Board was free to establish the duration of claimant’s benefits by classifying him with a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity in order to set a fixed durational limit on potential benefits. Matter of Barrett v New York City Dept. of Transp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01037, 3rd Dept 2-9-17

 

WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW (THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE TERMS “LOSS OF WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” AND “WAGE-EARNING CAPACITY” 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