You are here: / A Defendant’s Status as an Undocumented Alien Cannot Be the Sole...

Search Results

/ , ,

A Defendant’s Status as an Undocumented Alien Cannot Be the Sole Ground for Imposing Incarceration As Opposed to Probation

In a case of first impression, the Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that a defendant’s status as an undocumented alien cannot constitute the sole reason for a sentence of incarceration as opposed to probation. County Court reasoned that as soon as a sentence of probation was imposed upon an undocumented alien, the defendant would be in violation of probation by virtue of his/her undocumented status. Therefore, County Court concluded, a sentence of probation was not available to any undocumented alien. The Second Department disagreed, holding that a defendant’s status as an undocumented alien can be considered in determining the appropriate sentence, but it cannot be the sole ground for imposing a sentence of incarceration. To pre-determine that an undocumented alien is not eligible for probation violates due process and equal protection, constitutional rights which are afforded undocumented aliens:

… [W]e reach two conclusions. First, courts may appropriately consider a defendant’s undocumented immigration status in imposing criminal sentences. The decision to impose or not impose a sentence of probation may legitimately be affected by factors directly related to undocumented status. Those factors include, but are not necessarily limited to, the likelihood of the defendant’s deportation during the probationary period, the defendant’s history, if any, of repeated departures from and illegal reentries into the United States, the presence or absence of family in the United States, the defendant’s employment history, and the defendant’s legal employability. Second, it is impermissible for a sentencing court to refuse to consider a sentence of probation for an undocumented defendant solely on the basis of his or her immigration status. Doing so violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Federal and New York constitutions by treating certain defendants differently from others based upon their undocumented presence in this state. In other words, a defendant’s undocumented immigration status may be a factor a court takes into account in determining whether to include probation as part of a sentence, but such status cannot be the sole factor a court relies upon in denying a probationary sentence and in imposing a term of imprisonment instead. People v Cesar, 2015 NY Slip Op 06252, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/

Prosecutor’s Reasons for Challenging an Hispanic Juror Were Pretextual—New Trial Ordered

The Second Department determined the prosecutor’s proffered reason for challenging an Hispanic juror was pretextual and ordered a new trial. Two Hispanic jurors were challenged by the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s reason for challenging one of them was the juror’s alleged inability to understand questions. The Second Department determined there was no support for that reason in the record:

… [A] new trial is necessary because the prosecutor exercised one of her peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner with respect to a Hispanic male prospective juror … . Under both state and federal law, the use of peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner is prohibited … . Trial courts must follow a three-step protocol to determine whether a party has used its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. First, the moving party contesting the peremptory challenges must allege sufficient facts to make a prima facie showing that the prospective jurors were challenged because of race … . Where the moving party makes such a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to offer a race-neutral reason for each of the disputed peremptory challenges … . If such reasons are offered, the burden shifts back to the moving party to demonstrate that the reasons, although facially neutral, are pretextual … . The third step requires the trial court to make an ultimate determination as to whether the proffered reasons are pretextual … . * * *

Contrary to the trial court’s determination, the facially race-neutral reason proffered by the prosecutor for exercising a peremptory challenge with respect to the Hispanic male prospective juror was pretextual. Although the prosecutor argued that this prospective juror had a difficult time understanding the trial court’s questions during voir dire, this claim is not borne out by the record. Rather, the record shows that the prospective juror was repeatedly asked the same question regarding his willingness to follow the law and assured the trial court more than once that he would follow the law as it was provided. While this prospective juror asked for one of the court’s questions to be repeated, and expressed that he did not understand compound questions when they were asked of him, never during the questioning by the trial court did he give a conflicting answer or state that he would not or could not follow the law. Indeed, any appearance of a lack of understanding on the part of this prospective juror is attributable to confusion caused by the manner in which the trial court intervened during the prosecutor’s questioning of the juror: while a question was pending before the juror, the court asked compound questions of him.

Moreover, the prosecutor’s failure to pursue questioning of this prospective juror, whom she purportedly believed could not follow the law, despite repeated assurances by the prospective juror to the contrary, also renders the basis for the challenge pretextual … . People v Fabregas, 2015 NY Slip Op 06253, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/

Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Party Ordered to Stay Away Was Not Related to, a Member of the Household of, or in an Intimate Relationship With, the Subject of the Order of Protection

The Second Department determined Family Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Family Court Act 812 and could not, therefore, issue an order of protection to a person, Kirton, who was not a party to a family offense proceeding. Family Court’s jurisdiction in a family offense proceeding is limited to certain acts which occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” (Family Ct Act § 812[1]…). [M]embers of the same family or household include, among others, persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time… ” [internal quotation marks omitted] Here the party to whom the order of protection was issued, Kirton, was not related in any way to, was not a member of the household of, and did not have an intimate relationship with the petitioner, Cambre (from whom Kirton was ordered to stay away):

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only those powers conferred upon it by the New York Constitution or by statute … . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” (Family Ct Act § 812[1]…). “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … .

Here, Kirton and Cambre have no direct relationship … . The record … demonstrates that they met for the first time during the course of the court proceedings, and have no ongoing relationship … . Accordingly, the undisputed facts establish that there is no “intimate relationship” between the parties within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e)… . Consequently, since the parties do not have an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812 (1)(e), the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the order of protection must be reversed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed. Matter of Cambre v Kirton, 2015 NY Slip Op 06242, 2nd Dept 7-22-15 

 

/ ,

“Outside Influence Upon the Jury” Argument Rejected—“Weight of the Evidence” Review Required New Trial [Editor’s Note—There Appears [to Me] to Be No Difference Between What Can Be Reviewed Under the “Weight of the Evidence” Criteria, Which Need Not Be Preserved by a Motion to Dismiss, and What Can Be Reviewed Under the “Legally Sufficient Evidence” Criteria, Which Must Be Preserved by a Specific Motion to Dismiss]

The Second Department, in applying its “weight of the evidence review,” determined that the counts of the indictment stemming from an alleged burglary or attempted burglary were not supported by evidence the defendant entered the victim’s house illegally. Therefore those counts were dismissed. The court explained how a “weight of the evidence” review is applied. [It seems to this writer that there no longer is a distinction between a “weight of the evidence” review, which need not be preserved by a motion to dismiss, and a “legally sufficient evidence” review, which must be preserved by a specific motion to dismiss.] The court also explained the criteria for determining whether there was undue outside influence on the jury (here alleged discussion of a newspaper article about the trial and defendant’s reputation as a troublemaker).  The “undue outside influence” argument was rejected. Concerning the “weight of the evidence” review, the court wrote:

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]…), we essentially sit as the “thirteenth juror” and “decide[ ] which facts were proven at trial” … . “[W]eight of the evidence review is not limited to issues of credibility” … . “Rather, in conducting its weight of the evidence review, a court must consider the elements of the crime, for even if the prosecution’s witnesses were credible their testimony must prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt'” … .

Here, the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed burglary in the first degree and, concomitantly, failed to prove the defendant’s guilt of murder in the second degree (felony murder) under the first count of the indictment, which was predicated upon his commission or attempted commission of burglary. To prove the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the first degree, the People were required to prove, among other things, that the defendant “knowingly enter[ed] or remain[ed] unlawfully in a dwelling” (Penal Law § 140.30). “A person enters or remains unlawfully’ in or upon premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so” (Penal Law § 140.00[5]). “In general, a person is licensed or privileged’ to enter private premises when he [or she] has obtained the consent of the owner or another whose relationship to the premises gives him [or her] the authority to issue such consent” … .

There was no evidence produced at trial as to how the defendant, who was acquainted with Jones, entered Jones’ house. An investigating police detective testified that there was no evidence of forced entry into the house, and neither of two statements the defendant gave to the police, admitting that he was in Jones’ house when Jones was killed, indicate that he entered the premises unlawfully. Under these circumstances, since the People failed to introduce any evidence as to how the defendant gained entry to Jones’ house, they failed to prove that the defendant entered the house unlawfully. People v Marsden, 2015 NY Slip Op 06260, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/ ,

Question of Fact Whether Softball Coach’s Having Infant Plaintiff Practice Sliding on Grass Increased the Inherent Risk of the Activity Precluded Summary Judgment

The Second Department determined the defendant school district did not demonstrate, in its motion for summary judgment, that the softball coach’s having infant plaintiff practice sliding on grass did not unreasonably increase the inherent risk of the activity. Therefore the school district’s motion was properly denied without any consideration of the opposing papers:

Pursuant to the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, a voluntary participant in a sporting or recreational activity “consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation” … . This includes risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it … . Participants are not deemed to have assumed the risks of reckless or intentional conduct, or concealed or unreasonably increased risks … . ” [A]wareness of risk is not to be determined in a vacuum. It is, rather, to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff'”… .

The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant’s coach, by having her perform an infield sliding drill on the subject grass field, did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity … . Since the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the motion and cross motion were properly denied, and the Court need not determine the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers … . Brown v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 06204, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/ ,

Children’s Out-of-Court Statements Sufficiently Corroborated to Support Neglect Finding

In affirming Family Court’s neglect finding, the Second Department noted that the children’s out-of-court statements, if sufficiently corroborated, will support a finding of neglect. Here the children’s statements were cross-corroborated among them, and were corroborated by the testimony of a school nurse and caseworkers:

In a child protective proceeding, unsworn out-of-court statements of the subject child may be received and, if properly corroborated, will support a finding of abuse or neglect … . The Family Court has considerable discretion in deciding whether a child’s out-of-court statement has been reliably corroborated and whether the record as a whole supports a finding of neglect … . Moreover, where the Family Court is primarily confronted with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded considerable deference on appeal … .

Here, a preponderance of the evidence supported the Family Court’s finding that the father neglected the child Tapharye C. by inflicting excessive corporal punishment on him … . Contrary to the father’s contention, out-of-court statements by the subject children were sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of a school nurse and the caseworkers employed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, who had also observed the evidence of physical injury sustained by Tapharye, as well as by the children’s own cross-corroborating statements … . Matter of Hayden C. (Tafari C.), 2015 NY Slip Op 06241, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/

With the Exception of Residence Addresses Included in the Requested Documents, Respondent Fire Department Did Not Meet Its Burden of Demonstrating the Applicability of a Statutory Exemption to Disclosure

The Second Department determined the respondent fire department did not demonstrate why any information other than the residence addresses should be redacted from the requested documents. Providing the residence addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Conclusory assertions by the fire department were not otherwise sufficient to meet the department’s burden for demonstrating the applicability of a statutory exemption from disclosure:

Under FOIL, government records are “presumptively open” for public inspection and copying, unless they fall within an enumerated statutory exemption of Public Officers Law § 87(2) … . The exemptions are to be “narrowly construed” so as to ensure maximum public access …, and the burden rests on the agency to demonstrate that the requested material in fact qualifies for exemption (see Public Officers Law § 89[4][b]…). To meet that burden, the agency must “articulate particularized and specific justification” for the nondisclosure at issue … .

Here, the Fire Department failed to articulate a particularized and specific justification for any of the redacted information at issue, except for the residence addresses contained in the subject documents. The Fire Department’s conclusory assertions that the redacted information, other than residence addresses, fell within a statutory exemption were insufficient to meet its burden of demonstrating that the requested information was exempt from disclosure … . Matter of Villalobos v New York City Fire Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 06249, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/

Broker Entitled to a Commission Despite Purchaser’s Wish Not to Work with the Broker Any Further

The Second Department determined a broker who had negotiated extensively on behalf of the purchaser, but was not named as a broker entitled to a commission in the operative contract (because the purchaser did not want to work with that broker any further), was entitled to a commission. The court explained the relevant law:

In order to recover a real estate brokerage commission, a broker must establish: (1) that it is duly licensed, (2) that it had a contract, express or implied, with the party to be charged with paying the commission, and (3) that it was the procuring cause of the transaction . “To establish that a broker was the procuring cause of a transaction, the broker must establish that there was a direct and proximate link, as distinguished from one that is indirect and remote, between the bare introduction and the consummation” … . Sholom & Zuckerbrot Realty, LLC v Gallant, 2015 NY Slip Op 06231, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/

Where Plaintiff Does Not Know Which of Two Defendants Distributed the Product Which Caused the Injury, the Doctrine of Alternative Liability Applies—Doctrine Explained

The Second Department determined the doctrine of alternative liability applied to a strict products liability case where it was not possible for the plaintiff to determine which of two defendants distributed the product. The doctrine places the burden on the defendants to demonstrate which of them distributed the product, and if that is not possible, the two defendants would be jointly and severally liable:

Generally, a plaintiff seeking to recover for injuries sustained due to the use of a product is required to prove that it was the defendant who placed the product that injured him or her into the stream of commerce … . However, the doctrine of alternative liability is “available in some personal injury cases to permit recovery where the precise identification of a wrongdoer is impossible” … .

Under that doctrine, where the conduct of two or more defendants is tortious, and ” it is proved that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there is uncertainty as to which one,'” the burden is placed on those defendants to prove that they did not cause the harm … . If the defendants cannot meet that burden, they are jointly and severally liable … . “Recovery under an alternative liability theory requires joinder of all the parties who could have been responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries” … . Silver v Sportsstuff, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06232, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

/ , ,

Failure to Timely Submit a Proposed Judgment of Divorce Did Not Constitute Abandonment of the Divorce Action/Decedent’s Death Before the Judgment of Divorce Was Entered Did Not Abate the Divorce Action/The Stipulation of Settlement (Re: the Divorce), In Which the Parties Agreed They Were No Longer the Beneficiaries of Each Other’s Wills, Was Enforceable

Decedent and her husband had entered a stipulation of settlement and all matters related to their divorce had been settled at the time of decedent’s death. Only the submission of the proposed judgment of divorce remained. The stipulation of settlement included the parties’ agreement that they were no longer the beneficiaries of each other’s wills. Decedent’s husband sought letters testamentary and a share in the estate, arguing that, because the proposed judgment of divorce was not submitted by decedent, decedent had abandoned the divorce action. Surrogate’s court agreed the divorce action had been abandoned and found there was a question of fact whether the stipulation of settlement was enforceable.  The Second Department reversed, finding that the divorce action was not abandoned and the stipulation of settlement was enforceable. Decedent’s husband, therefore, had no right to share in decedent’s estate:

Contrary to the Surrogate Court’s determination, the decedent did not abandon the divorce action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 by failing to timely submit a proposed judgment within 60 days of the Supreme Court’s verbal direction. Since the 60-day time period to submit a proposed judgment under 22 NYCRR 202.48(a) does not run until “after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the [judgment] be settled or submitted,” and the court’s direction was not reduced to a written decision, there was no violation of that rule here … . Furthermore, since all issues in the divorce action had been resolved at the time of the decedent’s death, the Supreme Court had adjudged that the decedent was entitled to a divorce, and nothing remained to be done except the ministerial entry of a judgment of divorce, the decedent’s death did not abate the divorce action … . Under these circumstances “the parties’ substantive rights should be determined as if the judgment of divorce had been entered immediately as of the time nothing remained to be done except enter a judgment” …, and the stipulation of settlement is thus enforceable as a matter of law. Moreover, since the stipulation of settlement contained language which “clearly and unequivocally manifests an intent on the part of the spouses that they are no longer beneficiaries under each other’s wills” …, the stipulation of settlement revoked any testamentary disposition in Carmine’s favor under EPTL 3-4.3, regardless of whether it was ultimately followed by a formal dissolution of the marriage … . Matter of Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 06247, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

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