You are here: / FAILURE TO CLARIFY WHETHER APPEAL WAIVER WAS PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT...

Search Results

/ ,

FAILURE TO CLARIFY WHETHER APPEAL WAIVER WAS PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE WAIVER INVALID.

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because it was not made clear whether the waiver was part of the plea agreement. The court further determined that the sentence for non-violent offenses committed by the 18-year-old defendant was harsh and excessive. With respect to the invalid waiver of appeal, the court wrote:

Defendant was free to waive his right to appeal as an adjunct to the plea agreement, so long as he made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent decision to do so … . It was accordingly incumbent upon County Court to verify, among other things, that defendant understood he was “intentionally relinquish[ing] or abandon[ing] a known right that would otherwise survive a guilty plea” as a component of the plea agreement … . Defendant expressed his willingness to waive his right to appeal during the plea colloquy, but the record is devoid of any indication that an appeal waiver was actually a component of the plea agreement. An appeal waiver was not mentioned when the terms of the plea agreement were recited and, indeed, the People stated that they did not know if defendant was executing an appeal waiver given the absence of any sentencing commitment. Defense counsel then gratuitously offered to have defendant waive his right to appeal in the spirit of “mak[ing] it as easy on everyone as possible.” As a result of these statements, County Court was obliged to determine whether an appeal waiver was required as a “detail[] of the plea bargain” and, if not, whether defendant understood that he did not have to execute one …. . County Court did neither and, given the absence of proof that defendant waived his right to appeal in return for any consideration, we find that waiver to be invalid … . People v Justiniano, 2015 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/APPEALS (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCE HARSH AND EXCESSIVE)/SENTENCING (HARSH AND EXCESSIVE)

/ ,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.

The First Department sent the matter back for resentencing because the record suggested the sentencing judge erroneously thought he did not have the power to impose a reduced sentence. The First Department determined the defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the sentencing judge erroneously stated the relevant law and did not make sure the defendant understood the difference between the rights waived by entering a guilty plea and his appellate rights:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, where the court failed to adequately ensure defendant’s understanding that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty … . The court’s statement that defendant was “waiving [his] right to appeal any legal issues connected with the case, including the sentence” (emphasis added) was incorrect, insofar as a defendant cannot waive certain rights, such as the right to challenge the legality of a sentence or raise a speedy trial claim … . The court’s further statement that the “right of appeal is waived by [defendant], the rights I just mentioned are automatically waived by a plea” was insufficient to explain that the right to appeal is not included with those automatically waived by a guilty plea, since the court had “just mentioned” that right. Moreover, defendant’s execution of a written waiver “does not, standing alone, provide sufficient assurance that the defendant is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily giving up his or her right to appeal” … . People v Flores, 2015 NY Slip Op 08905, 1st  Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER INVALID)/WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID

/

DESPITE FLORIDA DIVORCE, NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CUSTODY/VISITATION MATTERS BASED UPON THE PARTIES’ PRESENCE IN NEW YORK.

Reversing Family Court, the Third Department determined New York had jurisdiction over the custody/visitation matters, despite the Florida divorce. The parties had subsequently moved from Florida to New York and there was no indication the relocation was temporary. The criteria for New York’s jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) has nothing to do with the legal residence of the parties. The court further determined that the relevant provisions of the UCCJEA did not conflict with the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and was therefore not preempted by the PKPA. With respect to New York’s juriisdiction, the court wrote:

Consistent with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (hereinafter UCCJEA), which is codified in Domestic Relations Law article 5-A, “a court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under [Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a) or (b)]” and, insofar as is relevant here, “[a] court of this state . . . determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-b [2]). As to the first criteria, jurisdiction to render an initial custody determination may be predicated upon, among other things, a finding that “this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]). A child’s home state, in turn, is defined as “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [7]…). A child custody proceeding includes a proceeding in which visitation with the child is at issue (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [4]), and the commencement of a proceeding “means the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [5] … ). Matter of Lewis v Martin, 2015 NY Slip Op 08879, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

FAMILY LAW (JURISDICTION OVER CUSTODY, NEW YORK’S JURISDICTION DESPITE FLORIDA DIVORCE)/JURISDICTION (CUSTODY, NEW YORK’S JURISDICTION DESPITE FLORIDA DIVORCE)/UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA) (JURISDICTION OF NEW YORK DESPITE FLORIDA DIVORCE)/PARENTAL KIDNAPPING PREVENTION ACT (PKPA) (NO CONFLICT WITH UCCJEA)

/ , ,

BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.

The Third Department determined plaintiff coalition’s declaratory judgment action against the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was properly dismissed. The action contended that the DEC’s response to a comment submitted by plaintiff coalition (re; a gas-well permit under State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] review) constituted an unlawful extension of the common law rule of capture and effectuated a trespass on the land owned by a coalition member. The Third Department determined, because the comment period for the relevant rule-making had passed and the relevant rules had not been adopted, and because whether or not the gas-well permit will be issued has not been determined, the declaratory judgment action did not raise a  justiciable controversy:

Assuming, without deciding, that the statewide ban on hydrofracking does not render all of plaintiffs’ claims moot and, further, that plaintiffs each have standing to maintain this declaratory judgment action, Supreme Court nonetheless properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. As this Court recently reiterated, “[i]n order to warrant a determination of the merits of a cause of action, the party requesting relief must state a justiciable claim — one that is capable of review and redress by the courts at the time it is brought for review. A claim is justiciable, in turn, when two requirements are met: first, that the plaintiff has an interest sufficient to constitute standing to maintain the action and, second, that the underlying controversy involves present, rather than hypothetical, contingent or remote, prejudice to the plaintiff” … . Again, even assuming that plaintiffs have satisfied the standing element of this equation, the fact remains that their entire complaint is predicated upon either (1) defendant’s allegedly improper response to a comment made by the Coalition regarding proposed draft regulations that ultimately were not adopted, or (2) the theoretical consequences of a well bore or fluid fracture penetrating the subsurface of [a plaintiff’s] property. Community Watersheds Clear Water Coalition, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 08890, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/HYDROFRACKING BAN (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/NATURAL GAS (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)

/

TOWN’S WITHDRAWAL FROM A COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (CAP) DOES NOT TERMINATE TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM.

The Third Department, in a matter of first impression, determined petitioner, a town assessor who was removed when the town withdrew from the coordinated assessment program (CAP), was entitled to finish out his six-year term. Under the CAP, the petitioner served three towns.  When one of those towns withdrew from the CAP, that town appointed its own town assessor. The Third Department held that petitioner was entitled to finish out his term as assessor for that town:

… [W]e find it telling that RPTL 579 was amended in 2009 to, among other things, clarify that an assessor appointed in a CAP receives a six-year term and to shorten the notice period for a member to withdraw (see L 2009, ch 46, §§ 1-3 [eff May 29, 2009]). The adoption of these companion provisions leads us to conclude that the Legislature intended an assessor’s six-year term to remain intact, even where a CAP member opts to withdraw. Insofar as the assessor is concerned, the effect of withdrawal is merely delayed until the assessor’s term expires, at which time the assessing unit is free to choose a new assessor, without approval from any other assessing unit. Matter of Rubeor v Town of Wright, 2015 NY Slip Op 08895, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

MUNICIPAL LAW (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM [CAP])/TOWN LAW (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM [CAP])/REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM [CAP])/COORDINATED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (TOWN ASSESSOR’S TERM, EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM)

/ ,

STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF PROPERLY REDACTED FROM HOSPITAL RECORDS; EXPERT TESTIMONY DISCLOSED DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PROPERLY PRECLUDED.

In a case with a substantial plaintiff’s verdict, the First Department noted the statement that the driver “made an illegal left turn,” which was attributed to the plaintiff, was properly redacted from the hospital records.  It was not clear the plaintiff made the statement.  Even if she did, plaintiff was not the driver so it was not a statement against plaintiff’s interest. The statement was not made for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment. And the statement does not relate to a matter of fact (“illegal” is a conclusion of law). The First Department further noted that the trial court’s preclusion of testimony by defendants’ experts was not an abuse of discretion. The defendants served their disclosures only days before the trial:

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in precluding testimony from defendants’ biomechanical and accident reconstruction experts because defendants served their disclosures only days before the scheduled trial date. We see no reason to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion in precluding this testimony … , whether applying a “good cause” standard … or a “willful or prejudicial” standard … . We also see no reason to disturb the trial court’s exercise of discretion in precluding testimony regarding a seatbelt defense … . Coleman v New York City Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 08906, 1st Dept 12-3-15

NEGLIGENCE (ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS IN HOSPITAL RECORDS)/EVIDENCE (ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS IN HOSPITAL RECORDS)/HOSPITAL RECORDS (ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN)/EXPERT TESTIMONY (LATE NOTICE, PROPERLY PRECLUDED)/EVIDENCE (PRECLUSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPER, LATE DISCLOSURE)

/

BECAUSE PROPERTY-OWNER-DEFENDANTS UNDERTOOK SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, THEIR FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THOSE EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Second Department noted that, although a property owner is under no duty to remove snow and ice during a storm, if snow removal efforts are made, in moving for summary judgment, the property owner (here Chestnut Oaks) must affirmatively demonstrate the snow removal efforts did not create a hazardous condition. Chestnut Oaks’ failure to so demonstrate required denial of the motion:

As the proponents of a motion for summary judgment, the Chestnut Oaks defendants had the burden of establishing, prima facie, that they neither created the ice condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . “Under the so-called storm in progress’ rule, a property owner will not be held responsible for accidents occurring as a result of the accumulation of snow and ice on its premises until an adequate period of time has passed following the cessation of the storm to allow the owner an opportunity to ameliorate the hazards caused by the storm” … . A person responsible for maintaining property is not under a duty to remove ice and snow until a reasonable time after the cessation of the storm … . However, if a storm is ongoing, and a property owner elects to remove snow, it must do so with reasonable care or it could be held liable for creating or exacerbating a natural hazard created by the storm … . In such an instance, a property owner moving for summary judgment in a slip and fall case must demonstrate in support of its motion that the snow removal efforts it undertook neither created nor exacerbated the allegedly hazardous condition which caused the injured plaintiff to fall … . DeMonte v Chestnut Oaks at Chappaqua, 2015 NY Slip Op 08800, 2nd Dept 12-3-15

NEGLIGENCE (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION, SNOW REMOVAL)/SLIP AND FALL (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION, SNOW REMOVAL)/HAZARDOUS CONDITION, CREATION OF (SNOW REMOVAL)/SNOW REMOVAL (CREATION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION)

/

A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS WHETHER DEFENDANT DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STABBED BY A PATIENT OF THE FACILITY SHORTLY AFTER DISCHARGE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Saxe, determined defendant drug treatment facility (Queens Village) did not demonstrate that it owed no duty  of care to plaintiff who was stabbed by a patient who had just been discharged by the facility. Queens Village is an alternative to incarceration. The patient was there because he had robbed a cab driver at gunpoint. The patient was discharged because he had pushed another patient to the ground and admitted drinking alcohol. The director of Queens Village indicated that the plan was to transfer the patient to an interim facility until he could be returned to the TASC program [Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities]. However, the patient apparently became enraged when told he was being discharged and was “escorted” from Queens Village by the police. There was no evidence the police took the patient into custody, or that the police were told by Queens Village to take the patient to the interim facility. The majority concluded that the evidence demonstrated Queens Village exercised sufficient control over the patient (he was to be transferred to an interim facility, not released) to give rise to a duty of care owed to plaintiff. Because Queens Village moved for summary judgment, the court deemed that Queens Village did not demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care:

Generally, the common law does not impose a duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others; rather, liability for the negligent acts of third persons “arises when the defendant has authority to control the actions of such third persons” … . * * *

The key factor in determining whether a defendant will be liable for the negligent acts of third persons is whether the defendant has sufficient authority to control the actions of such third persons … . Such authority, at a minimum, requires “an existing relationship between the defendant and the third person over whom charge’ is asserted” … .There is no question that Queens Village had “an existing relationship” and sufficient authority to control [the patient’s] actions. Oddo v Queens Vil. Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Community Adolescent Program, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 08943, 1st Dept 12-3-15

NEGLIGENCE (DUTY OF CARE RE: THIRD PARTY)/DUTY OF CARE (OWED TO THIRD PARTY)/THIRD PARTY (DUTY OF CARE OWED TO)

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PARTIAL PERFORMANCE TOOK ORAL AGREEMENT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

The Third Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether an oral agreement to extend a mining lease was enforceable because partial performance took the contract out of the statute of frauds. An amendment to extend the mining lease for 20 years was never executed. However, the agreement was mentioned in a 20-year sublease which was subsequently entered:

Defendants’ statute of frauds argument is governed by General Obligations Law § 5-703, which, as relevant here, provides that an interest in real property can be created or conveyed only by a signed writing. While plaintiff concedes that a signed copy of the amendment does not exist, he contends that the statute of frauds is inapplicable, as the parties’ course of conduct constitutes partial performance of an oral contract to extend the term of the lease (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [4]…). “[P]artial performance of an alleged oral contract will be deemed sufficient to take such contract out of the [s]tatute of [f]rauds only if it can be demonstrated that the acts constituting partial performance are ‘unequivocally referable’ to said contract” … .

Here, plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds applies. Evidence of such performance can be found in the parties’ mutual decision to execute the 20-year sublease agreement, which explicitly referred to the amendment and acknowledged that plaintiff and [defendant] were parties to it. Indeed, if the parties did not have an understanding that the mining lease was to be extended to 20 years, then [defendant sublessee’s] willingness to enter into a 20-year sublease with plaintiff — despite the fact that plaintiff had only a five-year lease with [defendant] and [defendant’s] express consent to the creation of these incongruous interests in his property — would appear to be “‘unintelligible or at least extraordinary,’ explainable only with reference to the oral agreement” …. . Bowers v Hurley, 2015 NY Slip Op 08884, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

REAL PROPERTY (PARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF ORAL AGREEMENT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/CONTRACT LAW (PARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF ORAL AGREEMENT, STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (PARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF ORAL AGREEMENT)

/

IT CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department determined claimant, who had her own IT consultant business, was an employee of Geneva, despite the contractual “independent contractor” designation. The court, however, sent the matter back for a determination whether claimant was totally unemployed. With respect to the employee status, the court wrote:

The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that claimant, who runs her own consulting business, Jessica Consultant LLC, responded to an advertisement placed by Geneva that listed the job requirements and necessary IT background for a position with its client; Geneva screened her and forwarded her credentials to its client, which interviewed and approved of claimant. Geneva required that claimant sign a contract that designated her as the consultant assigned to perform the IT services for the client, and labeled her as an independent contractor. Geneva employed approximately 35 people as consultants who received benefits and designated another 15 consultants as independent contractors who were required to be in business for themselves and to obtain, among other things, their own liability insurance, but Geneva’s chief financial officer conceded that both groups provided the “same services” and had the “same skills.” Geneva contracted with its client to provide claimant’s services and charged the client for those services, and Geneva paid claimant a negotiated daily rate. Claimant worked a full-time schedule set by the client and performed services in the client’s office where she was provided a desk, computer, supplies and support staff. Claimant reported regularly to the client’s manager, who instructed her on the client’s needs and expectations, trained her on the client’s systems, gave her assignments, set her deadlines and approved her time sheets, which were submitted to Geneva for payment. Claimant could not provide substitutes or refuse assigned work and needed the client’s approval to take time off from work. Matter of Thomas (Geneva Consulting Group–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 08889, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (IT CONSULTANT)

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