You are here: / AT SENTENCING THE PROSECUTOR REFERENCED EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED...

Search Results

/ , , ,

AT SENTENCING THE PROSECUTOR REFERENCED EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENTENCE REPORT BUT, WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, NEITHER DEFENDANT NOR DEFENSE COUNSEL ADDRESSED THE ISSUE; NOTWITHSTANDING THE SILENCE OF THE DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO WHETHER THE GUILTY PLEA WAS KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY; THERE WAS NO NEED TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singh, determined the prosecutor’s mention of defendant’s (Dupree’s) exculpatory statements in the presentence report (PSR) required the judge to conduct an inquiry to ensure the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, despite the defendant’s and defense counsel’s failure to address the statements at sentencing. Defendant and defense counsel were asked by the judge whether they wished to address the court and both said “no.” The issue need not be preserved and was properly raised on appeal:

Before sentencing, Dupree was interviewed by the Department of Probation. He made the following statement: “I admitted to shooting someone in the leg and back and the bullet went through his chest. I was fighting with him (stranger) and was defending myself. I was drinking at the club and someone slipped something in my drink and I was leaving the club to get home. He saw me staggering and wanted to rob me.” This statement was included in the presentence report (PSR).

At sentencing, Supreme Court asked whether the parties had any factual difficulties with the PSR. The prosecution replied, “I do have some factual difficulty relating to the defendant’s statement which I do not believe there was a valid self-defense claim. In fact, it is not a valid self-defense claim. . . . So I do take issue with that part of his statement as well as his claimed intoxication.” The court then asked, “and anything for the defense?” to which defense counsel replied, “no.” The court later asked whether the defense would like to be heard as to the promised sentence and, finally, asked Dupree himself if there was anything he would like to add. Neither Dupree nor his attorney addressed the statement in the PSR or the prosecution’s comment made in open court. * * *

The prosecution … argues that if Supreme Court had to inquire further, it did so by asking if defense counsel had anything to say. Yet the Court of Appeals has never held that a court may satisfy its obligation merely by allowing the defense to speak. Neither have we. Rather, the law is clear that “the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary” … . People v Dupree, 2025 NY Slip Op 00199, First Dept 1-14-25

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor, at sentencing, expressed disagreement with exculpatory statements attributed to defendant in the presentence report but neither defendant nor defense counsel chose to address the issue when given the opportunity by the judge. The prosecutor’s reference to the statements triggered the need for an inquiry by the judge into whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, notwithstanding the silence of the defense. There was no need to preserve the issue for appeal.

 

/ , ,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED WITHOUT DISCUSSION; JUDGE RIVERA IN A DISSENTING OPINION JOINED BY JUDGE WILSON WOULD HAVE REVERSED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s burglary, assault, criminal contempt and resisting arrest convictions without discussion. Judges Rivera and Wilson would have reversed on ineffective assistance grounds:

From the dissent:

Counsel’s performance here was deficient in several respects and no reasonable defense strategy explains those failings. Before trial, counsel’s boilerplate motion referenced matters not at issue and lacked factual support in several respects, evincing counsel’s failure to properly investigate defendant’s case. Counsel also failed to show defendant video crucial to the prosecution’s case until shortly before trial—and even then, only after defendant complained to the court and the court ordered counsel to provide the video. During trial, counsel’s cross-examination of the victim resulted in admission of defendant’s criminal history, even though the trial court had denied the prosecution’s request to present that same history should defendant testify. Counsel then failed to object to an obviously-ambiguous jury instruction that might have resulted in a conviction on the top count. Despite these glaring errors, the majority concludes that defendant received constitutionally-acceptable representation. This outcome ignores our precedents and reduces the right to effective counsel to a platitude spoken to appease defendants. Our State Constitution’s guarantee of effective assistance ensures the integrity of the process and a fair trial—including for those defendants who appear guilty. Counsel’s many errors fell below that standard. I would therefore reverse and order a new trial. People v Howard, 2025 NY Slip Op 00184, CtApp 1-14-25

Practice Point: Although the majority affirmed the convictions without discussion, the two-judge dissenting opinion described “glaring errors” by defense counsel in detail.

 

/ , ,

PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (H) ARE LIMITED TO THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined the terms of the life insurance policy, which was terminated by the defendant insurer, were unambiguous and enforceable. The General Business Law section 349 (h) cause of action alleging deceptive business practices survived but any punitive damages were limited to three times actual damages. The nature of the life insurance policy and payment scheme are too complex to fairly describe here. The $2 million life insurance policy was issued to an 82-year-old woman. With respect to the available damages in a private General Business Law 349 (h) action, the court wrote:

… [T]he legislature carefully calibrated damages at the time section 349 (h) was enacted. We decline to alter that balance by making available a remedy that goes far beyond what the legislature contemplated. As evidenced by the increased penalties on similar statutes, the legislature will act where it believes current remedies are insufficient. It has not done so here. We therefore conclude that punitive damages in addition to the treble damages delineated in section 349 (h) are unavailable. Hobish v AXA Equit. Life Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 00183, CtApp 1-14-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth discussion of the damages available in a private General Business Law 349 (h) deceptive-business-practices action.

 

/ ,

DETERMINING SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE BY COMPARING THE RANGE OF MOTION OF LIMBS ON THE INJURED SIDE TO THE RANGE OF MOTION OF CORRESPONDING LIMBS ON THE OTHER SIDE MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE IF THE OTHER SIDE HAS ALSO SUFFERED INJURIES, WHETHER PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY, IN THE PAST (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined comparison of the ranges of motion of the injured limbs to the corresponding limbs on the other side of the body (contralateral members), which resulted in 0 % loss of schedule use (SLU), was a flawed approach. The Board concluded that such a comparison was not appropriate only if the injuries on the other side of the body are permanent, which was not demonstrated to be the case here. The Third Department disagreed and held that the comparison may also be inappropriate if the prior injuries on the other side of the body were temporary, The matter was remitted:

… [W]e agree that evidence of a permanent physical or functional impairment of the contralateral member due to traumatic injury or other condition that does not affect the subject member would render a comparison to the contralateral member when determining range of motion inappropriate. However, comparing contralateral members that have temporary physical or functional impairments, either due to work-related or nonwork-related injuries, would also be inappropriate as such comparisons could equally result in inequitable range of motion findings. In our view, the Board’s interpretation of section 1.3 (3) (b) of the guidelines to apply only to permanent physical or functional impairments is unreasonable and cannot be upheld … . Here, the Board rejected [the] findings that a comparison of the contralateral members was inappropriate due to a lack of evidence that the injuries that claimant suffered to those members in the 2014 work-related accident resulted in permanent impairments. Under these circumstances, we remit the matter to the Board so that a proper assessment regarding a comparison of contralateral members may occur … . Matter of Brooks v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 00130, Third Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the problems raised by determining a loss of schedule use by comparing ranges of motion on both sides of the body. Comparison of the injured side to the other side may not be appropriate if the other side has been injured in the past.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an excavated area four or five feet below ground level when a worker at ground level threw a board into the excavated area which struck plaintiff. Apparently throwing boards into the excavated area was part of the work, so the Labor Law 200 and negligent supervision causes of action survived:

Defendant thus demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff was not injured by an “object [that] fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .T he burden thus shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which plaintiff failed to do” … , requiring dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. * * *

Defendant’s proof showed that the dig area was not “normally exposed to falling material or objects” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [a] [1]), and, in any event, plaintiff was working only four to five feet below grade. Thus, defendant demonstrated the “overhead protection” regulation was not applicable … . Accordingly, defendant met its preliminary burden to show that plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 241 (6) as a matter of law … . Plaintiff’s proof does not raise an issue of fact on this point, thus dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim should have been granted … . James v Marini Homes, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00132, Second Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: If the safety precautions related to falling objects are not applicable because the plaintiff was working in an area where falling objects could not be anticipated, then the “falling objects” protections in Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) will not be triggered.

 

/ ,

THE STANDARD FOR AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW OF A SENTENCE CLARIFIED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, remitted the matter to the Appellate Division for a determination whether a sentence reduction is warranted using the correct standard. The defendant need not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court to warrant a review of the sentence by the intermediate appellate court:

The intermediate appellate courts are empowered to reduce a sentence that, though legal, is “unduly harsh or severe” (CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). The decisions whether a sentence warrants reduction under that standard, and the extent to which the sentence should be reduced, are committed to the discretion of the intermediate appellate court, which has “broad, plenary power” to reduce the sentence “without deference to the sentencing court” … . A defendant need not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion by the sentencing court in order to obtain a sentence reduction … . People v Brisman, 2025 NY Slip Op 00123, CtApp 1-9-25

Practice Point: The correct standard for review of a sentence in an intermediate appellate court is whether the sentence is “unduly harsh or severe.” The decision to reduce a sentence is committed to the discretion of the intermediate court without deference to the sentencing court. The defendant need not show extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court.

 

/ , ,

THE JUSTICE FOR INJURED WORKERS ACT (JIWA), WHICH TOOK EFFECT DECEMBER 30, 2022, AMENDED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SUCH THAT A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULING CANNOT BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT IN A SUBSEQUENT PERSONAL INJURY ACTION; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THE JIWA APPLIES RETROACTIVELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, determined the amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law (the Justice for Injured Workers Act [JIWA]), which precludes giving a Workers’ Compensation Board’s ruling collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent personal injury action, applies retroactively. Therefore the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to add the collateral estoppel defense should have been denied:

Plaintiff alleges that he sustained neck and back injuries in a construction site accident that occurred on August 6, 2020. He commenced this action on September 28, 2020, and separately applied for workers’ compensation benefits. In a decision filed October 19, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board held that plaintiff’s claimed injuries were not causally related to his accident. … [D]efendants moved, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s neck and back claims, based on the Workers’ Compensation Board’s decision to which, they argued, the court should give collateral estoppel effect. * * *

JIWA’s legislative sponsor explained that its purpose was to correct what the Legislature perceived to be an injustice to injured workers caused by Second Department precedent (see Langdon v WEN Mgt. Co. (147 AD2d 450 [2d Dept 1989]) and left unresolved by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Auqui v Seven Thirty One Ltd. Partnership (22 NY3d 246 [2013]) … . Thus, JIWA was intended to return to what the Legislature perceived to have been the rule “for almost 80 years” — namely that courts, in third-party actions, would “reject[ ] attempts by defendants to apply collateral estoppel” to decisions reached in the “swift[ ]” and “cursory” workers’ compensation context — and that workers would not be prevented “from exercising their constitutional right to a jury trial” … . Accordingly, the Legislature clearly intended JIWA to be remedial in nature, to correct an unintended judicial interpretation, and to reaffirm what the Legislature believed the law should be. Garcia v Monadnock Constr., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00154, First Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: The December 30, 2022, amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Law which precludes giving Workers’ Compensation Board rulings collateral estoppel effect in subsequent personal injury actions applies retroactively.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY MAKING A LEFT TURN DIRECTLY INTO DEFENDANT’S PATH OF TRAVEL WHEN DEFENDANT HAD A GREEN LIGHT; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT DEFENDANT WAS SPEEDING WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant driver was entitled to summary judgment in this intersection traffic accident case. Defendant had the right-of-way (green light) when plaintiff made a left turn directly into defendant’s path of travel. Plaintiff’s testimony that defendant was speeding was not enough to raise a question of fact:

“A violation of a standard of care imposed by the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . “Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 provides that the driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left within an intersection . . . shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Further, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(a) provides that no person shall turn a vehicle at an intersection . . . until such movement can be made with reasonable safety” … . “Although a driver with the right-of-way is entitled to anticipate that the other driver will obey the traffic laws requiring him or her to yield, a driver is bound to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses and is negligent for failure to do so” … . However, “a driver with the right-of-way who has only seconds to react to a vehicle which has failed to yield is not comparatively negligent for failing to avoid the collision” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s contention that the defendant was operating his vehicle at an excessive speed “is speculative and unsupported by any competent evidence” … . The defendant testified at his deposition that he was driving below the speed limit, and the plaintiff admitted during her deposition that she did not see the defendant’s vehicle prior to the collision … . Although evidence regarding the force of a collision or the manner in which a vehicle moved as a result thereof may be sufficient to create an inference that a driver was speeding in some circumstances … , the plaintiff’s deposition testimony was not sufficient to create such an inference … . Further, the plaintiff’s “contention[ ] that [the defendant] could have avoided the accident . . . w[as] speculative and unsupported by the record … . Morante v Blaney, 2025 NY Slip Op 00086, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: Although proof that defendant driver with the right-of-way was speeding when the plaintiff driver violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law by making a left turn may raise a question of fact, here plaintiff driver’s testimony standing alone, claiming defendant was speeding, was not enough to raise a question of fact.

 

/ , ,

THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing one of defendant’s robbery convictions and ordering a new trial, determined (1) a new trial is required because the judge did not obtain defendant’s written and signed consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations had begun, and (2) the showup identification of the defendant was unreasonable and unduly suggestive, requiring dismissal of the counts relating to one of the two robberies (there was no identification testimony at the trial):

“Under CPL 270.35, once the jury has commenced deliberations an alternate juror may not be substituted for a regular juror unless the defendant consents to the replacement . . . in writing . . . signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court” … . * * *

… [T]the People failed to establish that the showup identification was conducted in close temporal proximity to the crime … . Further, there was no unbroken chain of events or exigent circumstances that justified the showup identification, as the defendant was already under arrest for the second robbery … .

… [T]he People failed to establish that the showup identification was not unduly suggestive. Here, prior to the showup identification, the complainant was informed by the police officers that they had someone in custody who matched the description provided by the complainant. During the showup identification, the defendant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and there were one to two police officers near the defendant as he was treated by emergency medical service providers. While these factors alone do not necessarily render a showup identification unduly suggestive, when viewed cumulatively with other factors, including that the officers informed the complainant that the defendant committed another crime around the corner, that the defendant’s face was severely bruised and bleeding, and that it was “an active crime scene” with several surrounding officers dealing with witnesses “[y]elling and screaming,” the showup identification was unduly suggestive … . People v Simon, 2025 NY Slip Op 00117, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: A defendant’s consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations have begun must be in writing signed in open court.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of a showup identification deemed unreasonable and unduly suggestive.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN A GUARDED DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT AND IN A LOCKED BATHROOM IN THE JAIL; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL, NOT A PROPRIETARY, FUNCTION (PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE PARKING LOT AND JAIL), PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY OWED HIM A SPECIAL DUTY, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO DO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence action against the county in this Child Victims Act case should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant Weis, a corrections officer employed by defendant Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, sexually abused him in a guarded parking lot at the Sheriff’s Department and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department held that the alleged negligence related to a governmental function, not a proprietary function of the Sheriff’s Department, requiring plaintiff to demonstrate he was owed a “special duty:”

… [T]he specific acts or omissions that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries were the defendant’s decisions regarding the level of security and surveillance to provide in a fenced-in jail parking lot, with admission controlled by a posted guard, or within the facility itself. Those decisions go beyond the scope of the defendant’s duty as a landlord and constitute actions undertaken in the defendant’s police protection capacity … . Accordingly, the specific acts or omissions at issue here involved a governmental function.

… [B]ecause the defendant was engaged in a governmental function, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate that the municipality owed him a “special duty” … . A special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted” or “the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally” … . Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Neary v Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 00105, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: It is not easy to determine whether a governmental entity is engaged in a governmental function or a proprietary function at the time of an alleged negligent act or omission. Here plaintiff alleged abuse by a Sheriff’s Department employee in the guarded department parking lot and in a locked bathroom in the jail. The Second Department deemed the security of the parking lot and the jail a governmental function (acting as a landlord) and held the county could not be liable unless it owed plaintiff a ‘special duty.” Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a “special duty.”

 

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