You are here: / DENIAL OF DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS NOT...

Search Results

/

DENIAL OF DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defense counsel's for cause challenge to a juror. The court's questioning of the juror, which referenced questions just asked of another juror, was sufficient to ensure the juror would render a verdict based on the evidence and the law:

Under the circumstances of this case — including the trial court's direct reference to the questions it had asked of juror No. 123, which called to juror No. 383's attention her previously stated bias — the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's for-cause challenge to the prospective juror based on her subsequent unequivocal assurances of impartiality … . Viewing prospective juror No. 383's statements in totality and in context … , her assurances to the court adequately expressed her ability and willingness to adhere to her obligation to acquit defendant if the evidence required her to do so and established that she would render an impartial verdict untainted by any aforementioned bias or sympathy. “[T]he CPL . . . does not require any particular expurgatory oath or 'talismanic' words” to resolve doubt about a potential juror's ability to be fair… and, here, the trial court had the discretion to deny defendant's for-cause challenge to the prospective juror … . People v Warrington, 2016 NY Slip Op 08584, CtApp 12-22-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED)/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED)/FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE (DENIAL OF DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED)

/

UNDER THE FACTS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT COERCION IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE HAVE IDENTICAL ELEMENTS. 

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Piggot, over a dissenting opinion, determined the trial judge properly refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of coercion in the second degree. Defendant was charged and convicted of coercion in the first degree. The applicable elements of both the first and second degree offenses were the same in this case. The second degree (misdemeanor) offense is reserved for rare cases where the nature of the coercion does not rise to the level of heinousness warranting a felony conviction (not easily described or discerned):

This Court long ago recognized that the crimes of coercion in the first and second degree “are identical when the coercion is committed by instilling a fear that a person will be physically injured or that property will be damaged” … . While the language of the statutes does not provide guidance on which crime is to be charged, … the legislative history reveals an intention that the felony of “coercion in the first degree be charged whenever the method of coercion was to instill a fear of injury to a person or damage to property.” * * *

… [S]econd-degree coercion should be charged as a lesser included offense only in the “unusual factual situation” in which the coercion by threat of personal or property injury lacks “the heinousness ordinarily associated with this manner of commission of the crime” … . We … left open the possibility that, based on the evidence presented in a given case, a trial court could submit second-degree coercion as a lesser-included offense of coercion in the first degree if the “threatened physical injury is not truly fearsome” … .

This case does not present one of those “unusual factual situations” warranting the lesser included charge … . The People’s evidence showed that defendant coerced his former girlfriend by threatening to drive away her clients, make it impossible for her to conduct business, hurt her physically, and even kill her. Such methods of coercion have the heinous quality contemplated by the first-degree statute, and therefore the second-degree charge was not warranted. People v Finkelstein, 2016 NY Slip Op 08585, CtApp 12-22-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (UNDER THE FACTS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT COERCION IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE HAVE IDENTICAL ELEMENTS)/COERCION (CRIMINAL LAW, UNDER THE FACTS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO CONSIDER COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT COERCION IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND COERCION IN THE SECOND DEGREE HAVE IDENTICAL ELEMENTS)

/

PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDTION.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was working for a mover, moving items out of a basement when he fell into a hole which had been dug for soil samples in anticipation of construction. Labor Law 200 was applicable, even though plaintiff was not engaged in construction work:

Where, as here, “a plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed, but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, a general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 only if it had control over the work site and either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … . [The general contractor] failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not have control over the work site, or that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition … . Rocha v GRT Constr. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 08555, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDTION)/DANGEROUS CONDITION (LABOR LAW 200, PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDTION)

/

INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was struck by a pipe which was being carried down a ladder by another worker:

According to the deposition testimony of Haylon Dennis … as Dennis was descending from a ladder, he swung a pipe that he was holding and hit the injured plaintiff, whom Dennis did not realize was standing near him. …

… [Defendants] established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injury was not the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object or person … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Palomeque v Capital Improvement Servs., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08538, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/GRAVITY-RELATED (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

/

RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant general contractor’s motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was sitting on an unsecured cast iron gate, which was resting on the tailgate of a pickup truck, when he and the gate fell from the moving truck. The Second Department determined the fall was not the result of a task involving an elevation-related risk, but rather was the result of riding in a pickup truck (not an elevation-related risk). In addition, the court found that plaintiff’s negligence (choosing to ride in the truck while sitting on the unsecured gate with his legs hanging off the tailgate) constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [T]he plaintiff in this case was not engaged in the task of unloading the truck at the time of the accident. The grate, on which the plaintiff had been sitting, only fell onto the plaintiff because the plaintiff had fallen off the truck and onto the ground as a result of the movement of the truck. “Liability under Labor Law § 240(1) depends on whether the injured worker’s task creates an elevation-related risk of the kind that safety devices listed in section 240(1) protect against'” … . Here, the task that the plaintiff was engaged in at the time of the accident was the task of riding in a pickup truck. As the Court of Appeals and this Court have already held, the task of riding in a pickup truck does not present an elevation-related risk … . * * *

Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s decision to sit in this position during the drive was so unforeseeable as to break the causal nexus between the alleged failure … to comply with Labor Law § 240(1) and the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff’s decision to sit in this position was, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Eddy v John Hummel Custom Bldrs., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 08502, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/TRUCKS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)

/

SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION.

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court did not have the authority under the Domestic Relations Law to deny recognition of, or vacate, adoption orders issued to petitioners by a Russian court. After adopting the children, petitioners learned the children had serious mental health problems which required placement in a residential psychiatric treatment facility. Petitioners then sought relief from the Russian adoption orders:

… [T]he Surrogate’s Court lacked authority under Domestic Relations Law § 111-c to deny recognition of the adoption order. Although a court may deny a petition for registration of a foreign adoption order on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirements set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 111-c(1) … , the statute, by its plain language, was not intended to function as a means to abrogate a foreign adoption or deny recognition of a foreign adoption order on the basis of fraud. …

The Surrogate’s Court similarly lacked authority under Domestic Relations Law § 114(3) to vacate the adoption order. That statute provides that, “[i]n like manner as a court of general jurisdiction exercises such powers, a judge or surrogate of a court in which the order of adoption was made may open, vacate or set aside such order of adoption for fraud, newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause.” … The plain language of that statute only empowers a New York court to vacate its own adoption orders, and not those issued in a foreign sovereign nation … . Matter of Child A (Parent M.), 2016 NY Slip Op 08510, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

FAMILY LAW (SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION)/SURROGATE’S COURT (FAMILY LAW, ADOPTION, SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION)/ADOPTION (SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION)/DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW (SURROGATE’S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE OR VACATE A FOREIGN ORDER OF ADOPTION)

/

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER.

The Second Department determined a constructive trust was properly imposed on Florida property in this divorce action. The wife, who sought the constructive trust, alleged that marital funds were used to buy and improve the property and the property was placed in her husband’s father’s (Boris’s) name for tax purposes:

” The elements of a constructive trust are (1) a fiduciary or confidential relationship; (2) an express or implied promise; (3) a transfer in reliance on the promise; and (4) unjust enrichment'” … . “[A]s these elements serve only as a guideline, a constructive trust may still be imposed even if all of the elements are not established” … . “Thus, although the elements of a constructive trust must be proved by clear and convincing evidence … , [t]he constructive trust doctrine is given broad scope to respond to all human implications of a transaction in order to give expression to the conscience of equity and to satisfy the demands of justice'” … .

Here, evidence adduced at the hearing showed that the wife was related to the husband and Boris through marriage and that Boris allowed the Florida apartment to be used solely by the husband and wife as their vacation home for many years. Therefore, the first element for the imposition of a constructive trust was satisfied … . The wife also satisfied the second element by demonstrating the existence of an implied promise that [husband’s father] was holding title to the Florida apartment for purposes convenient to the husband and that the apartment belonged to the husband and wife … . She also demonstrated that, in reliance on that implied promise, marital funds were used to purchase the apartment and to make renovations costing more than $150,000 … . Furthermore, the wife demonstrated that a constructive trust was necessary ” to satisfy the demands of justice'” … . Kaprov v Stalinsky, 2016 NY Slip Op 08509, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

FAMILY LAW (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)/EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)/CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST PROPERLY IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY PURCHASED AND IMPROVED WITH MARITAL FUNDS BUT TITLED TO ANOTHER)

/

PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION ON PARK LAND.

The Second Department determined petitioners did not have standing to object to the construction of a water purification facility, called an “air stripper” on park land. The petitioners alleged they frequented the park and the natural setting would be destroyed by the air stripper. Standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act  (SEQRA) is demonstrated by injury which is different from any injury suffered by the public at large:

“To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show (1) an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … . “[I]n land-use and environmental cases, a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing . . . to challenge government actions that threaten that resource'” … .

Here, the petitioners failed to establish that they use and enjoy the portion of the park in the vicinity of the proposed location for the air stripper more than most other members of the public … . Matter of Brummel v Town of N. Hempstead Town Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 08513, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION ON PARK LAND)/STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) (PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION ON PARK LAND)/STANDING (ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION ON PARK LAND)

/ ,

COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted in the interest of justice. The court explained the “interest of justice” powers in this context:

“In addition to the grounds set forth in section 5015(a), a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice” … . Moreover, “[a] foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . Thus, a court may rely on “its inherent authority to vacate [a judgment] in the interest of substantial justice, rather than its statutory authority under CPLR 5015(a),” as the “statutory grounds are subsumed by the court’s broader inherent authority” … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Losner, 2016 NY Slip Op 08560, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/FORECLOSURE (COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/EQUITY (COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DEFAULT, MOTION TO VACATE (FORECLOSURE, COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

/ ,

REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, determined requiring an out-of-state resident to post security for costs associated with a lawsuit brought in New York does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution. The plaintiff was injured in an accident in New York (when she was a New York resident) and subsequently moved to Georgia. The defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 8501 and 8503 to direct plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $500:

… [T]he U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause is satisfied so long as a nonresident ” is given access to the courts of the State upon terms which in themselves are reasonable and adequate for the enforcing of any rights he [or she] may have'” … . … There is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment between nonresidents and residents, namely, the fact that nonresident plaintiffs are unlikely to have assets in New York that may be used to enforce a costs judgment. And the discrimination practiced against nonresidents—requiring nonresident plaintiffs to post security for costs—bears a substantial relationship to the State’s objective of deterring frivolous or harassing lawsuits and preventing a defendant from having to resort to a foreign jurisdiction to enforce a costs judgment … . Clement v Durban, 2016 NY Slip Op 08500, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/COSTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/SECURITY (COSTS CIVIL PROCEDURE, REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)/PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (REQUIRING AN OUT OF STATE RESIDENT TO POST SECURITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN NEW YORK DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION)

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