You are here: / QUESTIONS OF FACT HAD BEEN RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION...

Search Results

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT HAD BEEN RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND FALSE ARREST ACTIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS, DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment dismissing the complaint against police officers alleging, inter alia, false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff had been arrested and indicted for murder after signing a confession. The charges were eventually dismissed by the prosecutor. In her civil suit, plaintiff alleged the confession was essentially written by the police and she signed it only after she was subjected to hours of intense interrogation. The Court of Appeals concluded a question of fact had been raised whether the police had probable cause to arrest. The court noted that if the police pass false information on to the prosecutor, the “commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding” element of malicious prosecution has been satisfied (with respect to the police officers). The absence of probable cause also bears on the “actual malice” element of malicious prosecution:

 

We have “never elaborated on how a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case demonstrates that the defendant commenced or continued the underlying criminal proceeding” … . But, by suggesting that a defendant other than a public prosecutor may be liable for supplying false information to the prosecutor in substantial furtherance of a criminal action against the plaintiff, we have implicitly recognized that such conduct may, depending on the circumstances, constitute the commencement or continuation of the prosecution … . * * *

Just as in the false arrest context, the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action must also establish at trial the absence of probable cause to believe that he or she committed the charged crimes, but this element operates differently in the malicious prosecution context because “[o]nce a suspect has been indicted, [ ] the law holds that the Grand Jury action creates a presumption of probable cause” … . Generally, the plaintiff cannot rebut the presumption of probable cause with evidence merely indicating that the authorities acquired information that, depending on the inferences one might choose to draw, might have fallen somewhat shy of establishing probable cause … . And, even if the plaintiff shows a sufficiently serious lack of cause for the prosecution and rebuts the presumption at trial, he or she still must prove to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant acted with malice, i.e., that the defendant “must have commenced the prior criminal proceeding due to a wrong or improper motive, something other than a desire to see the ends of justice served” … .

… [I]n some instances, the plaintiff can simultaneously rebut the presumption of probable cause and satisfy the malice element by demonstrating that the evidence of guilt relied upon by the defendant was so scant that the prosecution was entirely baseless and maliciously instituted. In that sense, “[w]hile lack of probable cause to institute a criminal proceeding and proof of actual malice are independent and indispensable elements of a malicious prosecution action, the absence of probable cause does bear on the malice issue,” and “probable cause to initiate a criminal proceeding may be so totally lacking as to reasonably permit an inference that the proceeding was maliciously instituted” … . Moreover, in the alternative, the plaintiff may show malice and overcome the presumption of probable cause with proof that the defendant falsified evidence in bad faith and that, without the falsified evidence, the authorities’ suspicion of the plaintiff would not have fully ripened into probable cause … . Thus, we have observed that, in the context of a malicious prosecution suit against the police, the presumption may be overcome “by evidence establishing that the police witnesses have not made a complete and full statement of facts . . . to the District Attorney, that they have misrepresented or falsified evidence, that they have withheld evidence or otherwise acted in bad faith” … . De Lourdes Torres v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 01254, CtApp 2-23-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (DEFENSE MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANSWER TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT)/RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE NOT APPLICABLE TO ORAL CONTRACT WHERE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONCERNED A WRITTEN CONTRACT)

/ ,

PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the plain view exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and defendant’s suppression motion should have been granted. Defendant walked in to a hospital with a gun shot wound and the police were notified. When the police officer arrived, defendant’s clothes were in a clear plastic bag on the floor. The officer examined the clothes and concluded defendant had shot himself with a gun which had been in his waistband. The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals concluded one of the conditions of the plain-view warrant-exception had not been met by the evidence in the record, i.e., there was no showing the incriminating nature of the clothes was immediately apparent to the officer:

 

“Under the plain view doctrine, if the sight of an object gives the police probable cause to believe that it is the instrumentality of a crime, the object may be seized without a warrant if three conditions are met: (1) the police are lawfully in the position from which the object is viewed; (2) the police have lawful access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent” … .

Against this backdrop we conclude that the hearing court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the clothes seized by police. There was evidence adduced at the suppression hearing that the officer who seized the clothes knew defendant to have been shot, and that defendant awaited treatment at the hospital while dressed in clothes different from those he wore at the time of the shooting. More important, however, is what the evidence presented at the suppression hearing does not establish. That evidence does not show that, before the seizure, the testifying officer knew that entry and exit wounds were located on an area of defendant’s body that would have been covered by the clothes defendant wore at the time of the shooting. Similarly, the record of that proceeding contains no other indicium that could have given rise to a reasonable belief that the shooting had affected defendant’s clothes. To that end, there is no record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the investigating officer had probable cause to believe that defendant’s clothes were the instrumentality of a crime … . People v Sanders, 2016 NY Slip Op 01255, CtApp 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SUPPRESSION (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREDMENT DID NOT APPLY)/PLAIN VIEW (EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY)

/

AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPELLATE RIGHTS AT SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA.

The Court of Appeals, in a concurring opinion by Judge Rivera, explained that an inadequate waiver of appeal at the time of a guilty plea cannot be remedied by an adequate explanation of the waived appellate rights at sentencing:

 

“It is the trial court’s responsibility ‘in the first instance,’ to determine ‘whether a particular [appellate] waiver satisfies [the] requirements’ ” … . In order for a trial court’s inquiry to be meaningful, by logic and reason, it must be part of the colloquy in which a court engages prior to accepting a defendant’s plea … . It would make little sense, and serve only to encourage the filing of a motion to vacate the plea on the ground that defendant did not appreciate the consequences of the waiver, if a court confirmed, after-the-fact, whether the defendant understood the nature of the rights relinquished. Thus, a court complies with its obligation to ensure that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, when a court adequately explains to defendant the “separate and distinct” right to appeal … , and “at least prior to the completion of the plea proceeding, [the court] assure[s] itself that defendant adequately understood the right that [defendant] was forgoing” … . Here, the court’s explanation at sentencing came too late to satisfy the court’s obligations. While the content of the court’s advisement was correct, its timing deprived defendant of the right to know and consider all the terms of the plea bargain prior to his decision to plead guilty. People v Leach, 2016 NY Slip Op 01253, CtApp 2-23-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, AN ADEQUATE WAIVER OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING DOES NOT REMEDY AN INADEQUATE WAIVER AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA)

/

GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF UNDERLYING LAWSUIT BY INJURED WORKER ENTITLED INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer properly disclaimed coverage because the insured, plaintiff general contractor, did not timely notify the insurer of a lawsuit brought by an injured construction worker. Plaintiff was not notified of the suit because it had not appointed a new registered agent for service to replace a defunct agent (not an adequate excuse). The court noted that the “no prejudice” rule applied to the disclaimer, meaning that the insured need not show it was prejudiced by the lack of notice to disclaim:

 

The liability insurance policy at issue here “contain[s] clauses requiring [plaintiff] to provide prompt notice of [both] an occurrence implicating coverage” and any ensuing legal action … . “The insurer’s receipt of such notice is therefore a condition precedent to its liability under the policy,” and a failure to give that notice “may allow an insurer to disclaim its duty to provide coverage” … . At the time the policy here was issued, “[n]o showing of prejudice [was] required” to justify a disclaimer … . The absence of a need to demonstrate prejudice represented “a limited exception to th[e] general rule,” and was justified by a primary “insurer’s need to protect itself from fraud by investigating claims soon after the underlying events; to set reserves; and to take an active, early role in settlement discussions” … .

There is no dispute that plaintiff provided timely notice of the underlying accident, but it is equally clear that plaintiff failed to “[n]otify [defendant] as soon as practicable” that the personal injury action had been commenced. Indeed, plaintiff never gave notice to defendant, although counsel for Speirs did so approximately four months after papers had been served … . That delay, “in the absence of an excuse or mitigating factors, is unreasonable as a matter of law” … . Plaintiff never gave notice because it did not receive the summons and complaint but, inasmuch as its nonreceipt flowed from its failure to appoint a new registered agent for service to replace a defunct one that had been named decades earlier, that explanation was “insufficient as a matter of law” … . Kraemer Bldg. Corp. v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 01233, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (FAILURE TO NOTIFY INSURER OF UNDERLYING LAWSUIT ENTITLED INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE, FAILURE TO NOTIFY INSURER OF UNDERLYING LAWSUIT ENTITLED INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE)

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a question of fact had been raised whether a special relationship had developed between plaintiff (the insured) and plaintiff’s insurance agency (defendant Cardell), such that plaintiff could maintain an action for insurance malpractice. Plaintiff put on rodeos and procured insurance from defendant for each event. One policy mistakenly excluded coverage for injuries caused by animals. Another policy didn’t cover the trailers used to transport the rodeo animals. After the rodeo, a few animals escaped as they were about to be loaded onto trailers and injured several people. Both carriers disclaimed coverage. The court explained the law re: a special relationship between an insured and the insurance agency:

 

Although an insurance agent’s common-law duty to his or her clients does not include a continuing duty to advise the clients on appropriate coverage or to recommend additional coverage that the clients did not request …, an agent may be liable for failing to provide appropriate advice in circumstances where there is a special relationship. As pertinent here, such a relationship may arise when “there is a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on” … . The question whether a special relationship exists between an insurance agent and a client giving rise to a duty to guide and advise the client is a factual determination that “is governed by the particular relationship between the parties and is best determined on a case-by-case basis” … . Here, plaintiff testified that he had purchased his business and personal insurance from defendant for at least six years, that he knew little about insurance and that he relied upon defendant to obtain the appropriate coverage for his rodeo operations. He stated that he had never seen any of the rodeo insurance policies that defendant procured on his behalf, that insurance certificates were the only documents ever provided to him, and that “with [Cardell] being my agent for years, I took that as he was representing me and making sure that I was covered.” As for the failure to include the trailer in the schedule of covered vehicles in plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy — which defendant had also procured — plaintiff stated that he understood that his trailers were covered by his truck insurance and that he was never advised that his trailers should be separately listed as covered vehicles until after the … incident. Finch v Steve Cardell Agency, 2016 NY Slip Op 01231, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY)/VEHCILE AND TRAIFFIC LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY)

/

PROCEDURES MANDATED BY THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARD ACTS NOT FOLLOWED; SUPREME COURT’S ORDER MODIFIED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined Supreme Court did not follow the statutory requirements of the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) and modified Supreme Court’s order. Supreme Court directed plaintiff-father to pay 100% of private school tuition for the child, and further ordered that plaintiff-father pay 100% of the cost of extracurricular, weekend and summer activities for the child. The First Department determined, under the CSSA, the extracurricular, weekend and summer activities should have been factored into child support. The court further determined that, because father and mother never married and lived together for only four months, the discussions between mother and father about private school for the child were not a sufficient ground for ordering father to pay for private school. The private school and extracurricular weekend and summer activities portions of Supreme Court’s order were vacated. The court explained the procedural requirements of the CSSA as follows:

The CSSA first requires a calculation of child support amount (Domestic Relations Laws 240 [1-b] [b][3]). It then allows for the payment of certain categories of enumerated add on expenses, prorated according to the parents’ relative incomes. The add on expenses permitted are expressly stated within the statute, with their own specific standards and considerations justifying the making of such an award. The add on expenses expressly addressed in the CSSA are: (1) child care expenses when a custodial parent is working, looking for work and/or engaged in an educational or training program that will lead to employment (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][4]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c][4],[6]); (2) health insurance and unreimbursed medical expenses (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][5]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][c][5]; and (3) educational expenses (Family Court Act § 413[1][c][7]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][7]). Not expressly delineated as add on expenses in the statute are summer, extra curricular and/or weekend activities. Basic child support, when calculated properly, is presumed to meet all the child’s basic needs. Thus, the expenses of leisure, extracurricular and enrichment activities, such as after school clubs, sporting activities, etc., are usually not awarded separately, but are encompassed within the basic child support award. That is not to say that a court cannot order a parent to pay for these expenses over and above basic child support. If a court does so, however, it is a deviation from the basic statutory formula and requires an analysis under the commonly referred to paragraph “f” factors. Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b][f] (Family Court Act § 413[1][f]) “[u]nless the court finds that the non-custodial parent[‘s] pro-rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, which finding shall be based upon consideration of [certain] factors” enumerated in the CSSA, the child support calculation under the statute is presumptively correct. There are 10 enumerated factors to consider before deviating. They include the financial resources of the parties and child, the health, needs and aptitude of the child; the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the household not been dissolved; tax consequences; nonmonetary contributions that a parent makes; educational needs of either parent; disparity in income of the parents; other child support obligation of the non-custodial parent; extraordinary expenses incurred in visitation and any other factor that the court finds relevant (Family Court Act § [1][f]; Domestic Relations Law § 240[1-b][f]). Although all the factors do not have to present, the court needs to articulate its reasons for making such a deviation from basic child support and relate those reasons to the statutory paragraph f factors … . Michael J.D. v Carolina E.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 01252, 1st Dept 2-18-16

FAMILY LAW (REQUIREMENTS OF CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT NOT MET BY SUPREME COURT, ORDER MODIFIED)/CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (REQUIREMENTS OF CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT NOT MET BY SUPREME COURT, ORDER MODIFIED)

/ ,

FAMILY COURT APPLIED THE WRONG LAW RE: EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A NONPARENT; EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES FINDING IS APPEALABLE EVEN THOUGH CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO MOTHER.

The Third Department reversed Family Court’s finding that extraordinary circumstances justified the award of custody of the child to mother’s cousin. After finding extraordinary circumstances supporting the award of custody to a nonparent had been demonstrated, Family Court went on to find that the best interests of the child required an award of custody to mother. The Third Department noted that a finding of extraordinary circumstances justifying the award of custody to a nonparent is appealable by the mother, even though custody was ultimately awarded to her. In making the “extraordinary circumstances” finding, Family Court had erroneously relied on Domestic Relations Law 72, which applies only to custody awards to grandparents. The court explained the correct applicable law:

 

“[A] parent has a claim of custody of his or her child, superior to that of all others, in the absence of surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, disruption of custody over an extended period of time or other extraordinary circumstances” … . “[T]he nonparent bears the heavy burden of proving extraordinary circumstances and the existence of a prior consent order of custody in favor of the nonparent is not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances” … . “The extraordinary circumstances analysis must consider ‘the cumulative effect’ of all issues present in a given case” …, including, among others, “the length of time the child has lived with the nonparent, the quality of that relationship and the length of time the . . . parent allowed such custody to continue without trying to assume the primary parental role” … . Since a finding of extraordinary circumstances may have enduring consequences for the parent … , it can be challenged on appeal even if, as here, the parent ultimately obtained custody. Matter of Brown v Comer, 2016 NY Slip Op 01218, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

FAMILY LAW (REQUIREMENTS OF CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT NOT MET BY SUPREME COURT, ORDER MODIFIED)/CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (REQUIREMENTS OF CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT NOT MET BY SUPREME COURT, ORDER MODIFIED)

/ , ,

A DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CIVIL COMMITMENT IN A SECURE FACILITY PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20.

In finding that respondent suffers from a dangerous mental disorder requiring civil commitment in a secure facility, the Third Department first determined a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) with narcissistic and paranoid features was sufficient to justify civil commitment pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.20:

… [R]espondent contends, among other things, that the fact that ASPD, alone, is a legally insufficient diagnosis for the purposes of civil confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 (see Matter of State of New York v Donald DD., 24 NY3d 174, 191 [2014]) merits the conclusion that a diagnosis of ASPD with narcissistic and paranoid features is a legally insufficient diagnosis for the purposes CPL 330.20. The Supreme Court of the United States has established that “[s]tates retain considerable leeway in defining the mental abnormalities and personality disorders that make an individual eligible for [civil] commitment” … . The constitutional guarantee of due process limits that discretion, however, by ensuring that civil commitment is not used as a mechanism to identify and confine the dangerous but “typical [criminal] recidivist[s]” … . With this in mind, proof sufficient to satisfy due process requires proof of a mental condition that causes a person to have serious difficulty in controlling his or her dangerous behavior … .

* * * CPL 330.20 (1) (c) … does not limit the relevant form of dangerousness in the same manner; it only requires a relationship between respondent’s current mental condition and “a physical danger to himself [or herself] or others.”

Further, the diagnosis of ASPD with narcissistic and paranoid features is more specific than a generic ASPD diagnosis. Accordingly, this case does not force us to confront a generic ASPD diagnosis that, as elucidated by expert evidence, “means little more than a deep-seated tendency to commit crimes” … . Therefore, we turn to the expert evidence further clarifying respondent’s ASPD diagnosis and its attendant narcissistic and paranoid features.

Expert testimony established that ASPD causes individuals to have “distortions related to their thoughts [and] behaviors, and . . . a reckless disregard for societal norms.” Individuals are diagnosed with narcissistic features when they engage in “grandiose” thinking, have a “sense of self-importance” and feel “entitled” and possibly omnipotent. Finally, individuals with paranoid features often have feelings that “people are out to get them.” Considering this evidence, we conclude that a mental condition marked by a disregard for societal norms and specifically amplified by an unreasonably inflated sense of self worth and an irrational attribution of hostile intentions to other people sufficiently distinguishes a respondent from the typical recidivist and has a relationship to the requisite dangerousness pursuant to CPL 330.20. Accordingly, we conclude that the diagnosis of ASPD with narcissistic and paranoid features is not legally insufficient to support civil confinement pursuant to CPL 330.20. Matter of John Z. (Commissioner of Mental Health), 2016 NY Slip Op 01234, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (CIVIL COMMITMENT JUSTIFIED BY DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES)/CIVIL COMMITMENT (JUSTIFIED BY DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES)/DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER (CIVIL COMMITMENT JUSTIFIED BY DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES)

/

PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING A JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the prosecutor refused to give a race-neutral reason for striking a nonwhite juror. The prosecutor argued that no reason need be provided for juror no. 2 because juror no. 2 was the first nonwhite juror to be struck. The Third Department noted that the judge asked for race-neutral reasons after defense counsel objected to a pattern of striking four nonwhite jurors. Therefore, the judge had implicitly concluded defense counsel had made a prima facie showing of discrimination. At that point the prosecutor was obligated to provide race-neutral reasons for striking all four nonwhite jurors, including juror no. 2:

 

“The purpose of the Batson rule is to eliminate discrimination, not minimize it” … . Accordingly, because “[t]he exclusion of any [nonwhite prospective jurors] solely because of their race is constitutionally forbidden” … , a defendant asserting a Batson challenge need not show a pattern of discrimination. “Although as part of their prima facie case parties often rely on numbers to show a pattern of strikes against a particular group of jurors, a prima facie case may be made based on the peremptory challenge of a single juror that gives rise to an inference of discrimination” … .

Here, County Court implicitly concluded that defendant had made a prima facie showing of discrimination as to all four of the jurors in question, and the burden then shifted to the People to provide race-neutral explanations for all four — not just three — of the nonwhite prospective jurors against whom the People asserted peremptory challenges. Given the People’s failure to provide — and County Court’s failure to require — such an explanation as to all four prospective jurors, defendant is entitled to a new trial. People v Jones, 2016 NY Slip Op 01212, 3rd Dept 2-18-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING A JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURORS (BATSON CHALLENGE, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON REQUIRED REVERSAL)/BATSON CHALLENGE (PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON REQUIRED REVERSAL)

/ , ,

COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have conducted an in camera review of documents sought from Morgan Stanley by the petitioner to see whether the documents are privileged under a “common interest privilege.”  Even though a third party, NaturEner, was privy to the documents, and despite a debtor-creditor relationship between Morgan Stanley and NaturEner, because Morgan Stanley and NaturEner shared a common interest in the underlying contract dispute, the common interest privilege may apply:

The common interest privilege is an exception to the rule that the presence of a third party will waive a claim that a communication is confidential. It requires that the communication otherwise qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege and that it be made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties asserting it … .

We find that Morgan Stanley and NaturEner shared a common interest in their desire to have plaintiff comply with its contractual obligations under the Rim Rock agreements. The fact that respondent and defendant were in a debtor-creditor relationship did not make their interests adverse in all matters and at all times … . Under the circumstances, the court should have ordered an in camera inspection, the limited relief requested in the petition … . Matter of San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01238, 1st Dept 2-18-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS, PARTIES COOPERATING IN LAWSUIT)/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (PARTIES COOPERATING IN LAWSUIT)/PRIVILEGE (COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, PARTIES COOPEERATING IN LAWSUIT)

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