You are here: / Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Justification Defense Required Reversal...

Search Results

/ ,

Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Justification Defense Required Reversal and a New Trial/Referring to the Defendant as a Liar, Vouching for the People’s Case, and Asking the Jury to Draw Inferences Not Based Upon the Evidence Constitutes Prosecutorial Misconduct

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because his request for a jury instruction on the justification defense should not have been denied.  There was evidence the victim was in defendant’s home and was attempting to beat and rob the defendant at the time the victim was stabbed. That evidence was sufficient to require submission of the justification defense to the jury. Although the error was not preserved for appeal, the Second Department also noted that the prosecutor improperly characterized the defendant as a liar, vouched for the strength of the People’s case, and asked the jury to draw inferences which were not based upon evidence. With respect to the justification defense, the court explained:

” A trial court must charge the jury with respect to the defense of justification whenever, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is any reasonable view of the evidence which would permit the jury to conclude that the defendant’s conduct was justified'” … . Here, there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support the defendant’s request for a justification charge pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15(2)(b). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the victim from robbing him (see Penal Law § 35.15[2][b]…). Contrary to the People’s contention, it would not have been irrational for the jury to credit the defendant’s account of the incident … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s request for a justification charge pursuant to Penal Law § 35.15(2)(b). The error in failing to give the requested justification charge was not harmless, as it cannot be said that there was no significant probability that the verdict would have been different absent this error … . People v Irving, 2015 NY Slip Op 06167, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/ , ,

Failure to Pay Wages In Violation of Labor Law 191 (1)(a) is a Class A Misdemeanor—Therefore Defendant Was Properly Sentenced to a Period of Incarceration Followed by a Period of Probation—The Statute Authorizes Incarceration or a Fine—Because the Defendant Was Incarcerated, the Fine Must Be Vacated

The Second Department determined defendant was properly incarcerated for 60 days and sentenced to a period of probation for failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law 191(1)(a), which in a Class A misdemeanor.  However, the statute allows for incarceration or a fine.  Because defendant had served 60 days, the imposition of the $5000 fine was vacated:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court was permitted to sentence him to a period of probation. A conviction of failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law § 191(1)(a), which is defined as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment, is a class A misdemeanor (Labor Law § 198-a[1]; see Penal Law § 55.10[2][b]) and, therefore, a crime (see Penal Law § 10.00[6]). Thus, a court may sentence a defendant to a period of probation for the crime of failure to pay wages (see Penal Law § 65.00[1][a]), and the imposition of a period of probation in addition to a 60-day term of incarceration was authorized here (see Penal Law § 60.01[2][d]…).

However, the County Court improperly imposed a $5,000 fine on the defendant. By its terms, Labor Law § 198-a(1) provides for punishment by a fine or imprisonment, but not both a fine and imprisonment, for a first conviction. As the defendant has already served his 60-day term of incarceration, the provision of the sentence imposing a $5,000 fine on the defendant must be vacated. People v DiSalvo, 2015 NY Slip Op 06164, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/ ,

Criteria for Valuation of a Partial Taking of Vacant Land Explained

The Second Department determined the valuation of a partial taking of vacant land (the value before minus the value after the taking based on the highest and best use of the land)  was flawed and remitted the matter for a new valuation.  The decision is detailed and fact-specific and therefore is not fully summarized here.  The court explained some of the most significant valuation criteria, noting that any comparable sales considered in the valuation must be similar in character to the subject land (not so here):

When private property is taken for public use, the condemning authority must “compensate the owner so that he may be put in the same relative position, insofar as this is possible, as if the taking had not occurred'” … . Where, as here, there is a partial taking of real property, “the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the whole before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking” … . “The measure of damages must reflect the fair market value of the property in its highest and best use on the date of the taking, regardless of whether the property is being put to such use at the time”… . The determination of highest and best use must be based upon evidence of a use which reasonably could or would be made of the property in the near future … . Matter of County of Orange v Monroe Bakertown Rd. Realty, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06143, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/ , ,

Service of an Unverified Petition in Violation of the Court of Claims Act Did Not Constitute a Jurisdictional Defect

Reversing the Court of Claims, the Second Department determined that service of a petition which was not verified was not a jurisdictional defect in a proceeding to recover money placed in escrow by the NYS Comptroller pending claims for the state’s appropriation and use of easements.

In accordance with the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, after the Attorney General determined that there was or might be a conflict with regard to the money allegedly owed as a result of the extended use of these temporary easements, the funds were deposited by the New York State Comptroller into a special interest-bearing eminent domain account (see EDPL 304[E][1]). Upon receiving notice of this deposit, the petitioner commenced this special proceeding for the distribution of the money pursuant to EDPL 304(E)(1) and Court of Claims Act § 23. The State promptly rejected the petition, noting that it was served without a proper verification. Within days, the petitioner provided the missing verification. The Court of Claims, however, dismissed the petition, concluding, inter alia, that the failure to comply with the statutory provisions requiring verification constituted a jurisdictional defect that mandated dismissal, without consideration of the merits. The petitioner appeals, and we reverse.

While the time limitations and service requirements set forth in Court of Claims Act §§ 10 and 11 have been referred to as “jurisdictional” … , the instant matter concerns a special proceeding pursuant to EDPL 304(E) for the distribution of money that had been deposited (see Court of Claims Act § 9[12]), and service of the petition without a verification did not constitute an incurable “jurisdictional” defect … . In this regard, the petitioner, upon notice from the State, cured the omission within a matter of days (see CPLR 3022, 3025[a]…). Moreover, considering that no substantive right of the State was prejudiced by the missing verification, even if the omitted material had not been supplied, the Court of Claims, under the circumstances presented to it, should have disregarded the technical infirmity pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 3026 … . Matter of Mazur Bros. Realty, LLC v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06149, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/

Custody Properly Awarded to Non-Parents—Criteria Explained

The Second Department affirmed Family Court’s award of custody to non-parents, explaining the relevant criteria:

In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has a superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances … . The burden is on the nonparent to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances … . Where extraordinary circumstances are found to exist, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody … .

Here, the Family Court properly determined that the nonparent petitioners, Yasmin Culberson and Walter Culberson, sustained their burden of demonstrating extraordinary circumstances based upon, inter alia, the mother’s prolonged separation from the subject child and lack of significant involvement in the child’s life for a period of time, the mother’s failure to contribute to the child’s financial support, and the strong emotional bond between the child and the nonparent petitioners … . Moreover, the Family Court’s determination that an award of custody to the nonparent petitioners would be in the best interests of the child is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record … . Matter of Culberson v Fisher, 2015 NY Slip Op 06144, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

The Third Department determined grandmother demonstrated extraordinary circumstance justifying the award of custody to her with visiting rights for the parents. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

“It is well settled that 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, unfitness, disruption of custody over an extended period of time or other extraordinary circumstances” … . “The burden of proving such extraordinary circumstances rests with the nonparent seeking custody and, if established, the controlling consideration in determining custody is the best interests of the child” … . Proof regarding extraordinary circumstances may include, among other things, that “the parent has neglected ‘to maintain substantial, repeated and continuous contact with’ the child[] or make plans for [her] future” …. . Matter of Yandon v Boisvert, 2015 NY Slip Op 06177, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

/

Arbitrator’s Award Should Not Have Been Vacated—No Clear and Convincing Evidence of Arbitrator’s Bias or Misconduct or that the Arbitrator Exceeded His Power

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s vacation of an arbitration award. The vacation was based in part on a finding of an appearance of bias on the part of the arbitrator. The motion to vacate the award alleged the fact that both the mediator and arbitrator were past Supreme Court justices with overlapping terms demonstrated the arbitrator’s bias or the appearance of bias.  The Second Department explained the limited role of a court in reviewing an arbitrator’s award and noted that any ground for vacation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence:

“It is well settled that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” … . “A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award on one or more grounds stated in CPLR 7511(b)(1) bears a heavy burden, and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence” … .

An arbitrator’s partiality may be established by an actual bias or the appearance of bias from which a conflict of interest may be inferred … . * * * [T]he fact that both the mediator and arbitrator were former Supreme Court Justices who served overlapping terms …, standing alone, did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of actual bias or the appearance of bias on the part of the arbitrator … . Moreover … [the movant] failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator exceeded his power in issuing the award (see CPLR 7511[b][1][iii]), or that he engaged in misconduct … . David v Byron, 2015 NY Slip Op 06107, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/ ,

Forcing Appellant to Proceed Without Counsel in a Family Court Act Article 8 Action Required Reversal of Order of Protection

The Second Department held that forcing appellant proceed without counsel (because he did not complete the paperwork for the assignment of counsel) deprived him of his fundamental right to counsel in a Family Court Act Article 8 action. The order of protection was reversed and matter was remitted for a new hearing either with counsel or after appellant’s knowing voluntary waiver of his right to counsel:

A party in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii]…), but may waive that right provided that he or she does so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily … . To determine whether a party is validly waiving the statutory right to counsel, the Family Court must conduct a “searching inquiry” to ensure that the waiver is unequivocal, voluntary, and intelligent … . A waiver is valid where the record reveals that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel … . The deprivation of a party’s right to counsel, as guaranteed by Family Court Act § 262, requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … .

Here, the record is clear that the appellant did not wish to proceed pro se, but was forced to do so in light of his alleged inability to produce the necessary paperwork in order to be assigned counsel … . The deprivation of the appellant’s fundamental right to counsel requires reversal, without regard to the merits of his position, especially where, as here, the record demonstrates that the appellant did not have a basic understanding of court proceedings … . Matter of Nixon v Christian, 2015 NY Slip Op 06150, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/

Failure to Enter a Default Judgment within One Year Justified Dismissal of the Complaint as Abandoned

The Second Department determined, pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c), plaintiff’s failure to enter a default judgment within one year, and plaintiff’s failure to explain the delay, warranted dismissal of the complaint as abandoned. The court explained the reasons for the rule:

CPLR 3215(c), which is entitled “Default not entered within one year,” states, as relevant to this appeal: “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” The policy underlying the statute is “to prevent parties who have asserted claims from unreasonably delaying the termination of actions, and to avoid inquests on stale claims” … . Upon a showing of the requisite one year of delay, dismissal is mandatory in the first instance … . Failure to take proceedings for entry of judgment may be excused, however, upon a showing of sufficient cause. To establish “sufficient cause,” the party opposing dismissal must demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action … . Here, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of [defendant’s] motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her. [Defendant] demonstrated that the plaintiff had failed to take any proceedings for entry of judgment within one year after she defaulted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient cause why that branch of the motion should be denied. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Hiyo, 2015 NY Slip Op 06100, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/

Court Has No Inherent Power to Vacate a Notice of Lien Which Is Valid on Its Face—Validity of Lien Must Be Determined in Foreclosure Proceeding

The Second Department noted that a court has no inherent power to vacate a notice of lien which is valid on its face. Determination of the validity of the lien must await trial by foreclosure:

A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19(6) … . Lien Law § 19 enumerates the grounds for the discharge of a mechanic’s lien interposed against a nonpublic improvement … . Where, as here, the notice of lien was not invalid on its face, any dispute regarding the validity of the lien must await trial thereof by foreclosure … . Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 06126, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

/

Court Abused Its Discretion In Exercising Its Inherent Power to Grant a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment More than a Year After the Judgment Was Entered (Five Years Here)

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have exercised its inherent power to vacate a default judgment more than one year after the judgment was entered (five years here):

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), a court may relieve a party from a judgment on the ground of excusable default, if a motion for that relief is made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment with written notice of entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1]…). In addition, even after expiration of the one-year limitations period set forth in CPLR 5015, “a court may vacate its own judgment for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice”… .

Here, to the extent the defendant sought to vacate the judgment against her pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), that branch of her motion was untimely because it was not made within one year after service upon her of a copy of the judgment with notice of entry (see CPLR 5015[a][1]… ) . Further, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the interests of substantial justice did not warrant vacating the judgment against the defendant in the exercise of the court’s inherent power … . Yung Chong Ho v Uppal, 2015 NY Slip Op 06132, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

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