You are here: / Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper

Search Results

/

Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly amended a decision and order which initially granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on “speedy trial” grounds. The amended decision and order, which was issued a day after the initial decision and order, denied the motion with respect to three counts:

A court possesses “inherent authority to rectify a prior error in dismissing an indictment” … , and “where there is a clearly erroneous dismissal of an indictment or count thereof, it is unreasonable to foreclose a court from reconsidering its previous determination” …, even in the absence of a formal motion for leave to reargue by the People … . Furthermore, under the facts of this case, there was no constitutional or statutory impediment to the court’s power to promptly modify its prior determination to dismiss the indictment and to thereby correct the previous error … .

Here, the Supreme Court recognized the error only one day after issuing the initial decision and order, well within the time period during which, for example, a motion for leave to reargue could have been made and before the People even had a reasonable opportunity to make such a motion. Moreover, while any present challenge to the court’s determination of the statutory speedy trial issue in the amended decision and order was forfeited by the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea of guilty …, we note, in any event, that the error in initially dismissing counts seven, eight, and nine based on an alleged statutory speedy trial violation was clearly apparent from the documents in the court file. Accordingly, the prompt issuance of the amended decision and order correcting the prior mistake in this case was not improper or jurisdictionally defective. People v Francis, 2015 NY Slip Op 07679, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , ,

People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration Consequences of a Guilty Plea, Is Not Applied Retroactively

The Second Department determined that People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), which requires that defendant’s be informed of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, would not be applied retroactively:

The defendant’s conviction became final prior to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), in which the Court of Appeals held that courts were required to advise defendants of the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant contends that Peque should be applied retroactively. This contention is without merit.

Previously, in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel were under a duty to advise noncitizen defendants of the deportation risks of their pleas of guilty. It is now settled that the Padilla decision does not apply retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings … . For the same reasons, we decline to give retroactive application to Peque, which, like Padilla, concerns the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty, and “rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution” … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 07685, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

/ , , ,

Wilfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt/Supreme Court Properly Drew a Negative Inference from Defendant’s Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination

In an extensive opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of civil contempt re: an order in a matrimonial matter. The Court of Appeals determined Supreme Court properly drew a negative inference from defendant’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that “wilfulness” is an element of civil contempt:

… [N]owhere in Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3] is wilfulness explicitly set forth as an element of civil contempt (Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]…). Indeed the only mention of wilfulness for civil contempt is in § 753 [A] [1], which is not at issue in this case as it applies only to “[a]n attorney, counsellor, clerk, sheriff, coroner,” or someone otherwise selected or appointed for judicial or ministerial service. In contrast, Judiciary Law § 750, the criminal contempt provision, permits a court to impose punishment for criminal contempt only for “wilful disobedience to its lawful mandate” (Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]…). This statutory language makes clear that where the legislature intended to require wilfulness, it knew how to do so, and any omission of such element is intentional … . …

Apart from the statute, this Court has not imposed a wilfulness requirement for civil contempt… . El-Dehdan v El-Dehdan, 2015 NY Slip Op 07579, CtApp 10-20-15

 

/ ,

Sexual Conduct That Does Not Rise to the Level of a SORA Sex Offense May Be Considered Under the “Number of Victims” Risk Factor

The Court of Appeals determined that the “number of victims” risk factor (risk factor 3) under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) properly included “sexual conduct” that did not amount to SORA level sex offenses and which involved “webcam chats:”

Given that the Guidelines do not mention a SORA level offense in risk factor 3, but instead address the more general term, “sexual conduct,” we agree with the People that the conduct does not have to amount to a SORA level offense in order to be considered. Furthermore, the child can still be a victim under risk factor 3 even though the defendant and the child were not in the same room, but were communicating through a webcam … . People v Izzo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07576, CtApp 10-20-15

 

/ ,

Lobby of Public Housing Unit Is Not “Open to the Public” Within the Meaning of the Law of Trespass

The Court of Appeals determined the misdemeanor information charging defendant with criminal trespass second degree was sufficient. The defendant was in the lobby of a public housing unit where a “no trespassing” sign was posted. When asked, the defendant said he did not reside in the building and could not identify any resident who had invited him. The court explained the elements of all three degrees of trespass and found that the lobby of a public housing unit is not “open to the public” within the meaning of the law of trespass:

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the word “public” in the phrase “public housing” refers to ownership, not access. It is not the case that all property owned by the government is “open to the public.” Certain areas of publicly-owned buildings may be restricted from public use by a locked door or a front desk, much like the common areas of privately-owned buildings … . The presence of a “No Trespassing” sign may also indicate that the common area of a publicly-owned building is not open to the public. Accordingly, we agree with the Appellate Term that it is possible for a person to enter or remain in a publicly-owned dwelling without license or privilege to do so. People v Barnes, 2015 NY Slip Op 07577, CtApp 10-20-15

 

/

Analytical Criteria for Determining Whether a Defect Is Trivial Explained

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, tackled the topic of “trivial defects” in slip and fall cases.  The court looked at three actions where the defect was deemed trivial, and reversed two of them. The court explained the analytical principles:

The repetition of the phrase “not constituting a trap” in many Appellate Division opinions should not be taken to limit the means by which a plaintiff may demonstrate a question of fact concerning the hazard posed by a physically small defect. Liability does not “turn[] upon whether the hole or depression, causing the pedestrian to fall, . . . constitutes ‘a trap’ ” … . The case law provides numerous examples of factors that may render a physically small defect actionable, including a jagged edge …; a rough, irregular surface …; the presence of other defects in the vicinity …; poor lighting …; or a location — such as a parking lot, premises entrance/exit, or heavily traveled walkway — where pedestrians are naturally distracted from looking down at their feet … .

Our survey of such cases indicates that the lower courts, appropriately, find physically small defects to be actionable when their surrounding circumstances or intrinsic characteristics make them difficult for a pedestrian to see or to identify as hazards or difficult to traverse safely on foot. Attention to the specific circumstances is always required and undue or exclusive focus on whether a defect is a “trap” or “snare” is not in keeping with [our precedent]. Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07578, CtApp 10-20-15

 

/ , ,

Environmental Clean-Up Indemnification Agreement Between Seller and Buyer of Property Triggered by Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) “Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)” Letter to Buyer

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the environmental clean-up indemnification agreement between the seller (Pyne) and buyer (Remet) of property was triggered by the Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC’s) letter to Remet. Although the letter referred to Remet as a “potentially” responsible party (PRP), the letter required that Remet enter into a consent agreement (re: the clean-up) with the DEC or, if no consent agreement is executed within 30 days, pay for the clean-up done by the DEC:

The plain language of the governing contractual indemnity provision, together with the language of the PRP letter and the surrounding facts and circumstances, demonstrate that Remet was entitled to indemnification because it was “required,” within the meaning of the sales agreement, to act in response to the PRP letter. The PRP letter stated that it pertained to an “Urgent Legal Matter,” indicated that a prompt reply was “necessary,” and set forth the consequences that would flow from Remet’s refusal to act. Regardless of whether Remet was designated a potentially responsible party or a responsible party, the letter demanded either a consent order or payment, and any language indicating that Remet’s response was voluntary must be read in terms of those demands. In other words, the PRP letter — by its terms — effectively marked the beginning of a “legal” process against Remet pursuant to the ECL, in which DEC expressly sought recovery from Remet for any amounts expended in remediating the [the site].

Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the indemnification clause include the parties’ awareness that, because the [site] was listed as an inactive hazardous waste site, the purchaser of the property at issue here risked incurring substantial expenses, and that Pyne accordingly deposited a large sum in escrow to cover at least a portion of those potential expenses. Remet Corp. v Estate of Pyne, 2015 NY Slip Op 07575, CtApp 10-20-15

 

/ ,

Attorney General’s Complaint Against Sprint Stated a Cause of Action Under the False Claims Act Re: Sales Tax On Wireless Phone Calls

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a partial dissent, determined the attorney general’s (AG’s) complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action against Sprint, based upon the False Claims Act (FCA), alleging the knowing submission of false sales tax statements re: interstate and international wireless phone calls. The court succinctly stated its holding as follows:

… (1) the New York Tax Law imposes sales tax on interstate voice service sold by a mobile provider along with other services for a fixed monthly charge; (2) the statute is unambiguous; (3) the statute is not preempted by federal law; (4) the Attorney General’s (AG) complaint sufficiently pleads a cause of action under the New York False Claims Act (FCA)(State Finance Law § 187 et seq.); and (5) the damages recoverable under the FCA are not barred by the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. People v Sprint Nextel Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 07574, CtApp 10-20-15

 

/ ,

Loud Argument With Another Teacher In Front of Students Did Not Justify an Unsatisfactory Rating and Discharge of Probationary Teacher

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for a probationary teacher lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious. Her termination, therefore, was based upon a deficiency in the review process which undermined its fairness. The U-rating and termination stemmed from a “loud” argument with another teacher in front of students. The majority concluded the evidence about the argument did not support a finding of insubordination and unprofessional conduct. The dissent argued there was a rational basis for the respondent’s rulings and, under the principles of administrative law, the court was powerless to substitute its own judgment:

We hold that the U-rating for the summer of 2011 lacked a rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious. Even accepting the testimony that petitioner engaged in a loud argument with another teacher about sharing a room, there is no rational basis to find petitioner’s conduct was unprofessional, insubordinate or unbecoming. Here, the subject of the argument concerned whether petitioner’s students with disabilities should share space with students that composed the art cluster or obtain a larger classroom. There was no evidence presented that the content of conversation itself was unprofessional. The simple conduct of an argument without more elaboration on how the subject and language of the conversation was unprofessional is insufficient to provide a rational basis for professional misconduct.

As to the termination of petitioner’s employment, it is well established that a “probationary employee may be discharged for any or no reason at all in the absence of a showing that [the] dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of law” … . Nonetheless, given the failure to establish a rational basis for the summer 2011 U-rating, petitioner established a deficiency in the review process to terminate petitioner’s employment that was “not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process” … . Matter of Mendez v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 07599, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

/

Prejudice Which Would Preclude Amendment of an Answer Must Stem from a Right Lost in the Interim Between the Original Answer and the Application to Amend

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Environmental) should have been allowed to amend its answer to deny its employee (Tompkins) was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident at issue occurred. The court explained that plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice from the amendment, as the term “prejudice” is to be understood in this context:

A proper showing of prejudice must be “traceable not simply to the new matter sought to be added, but also to the fact that it is only now being added. There must be some special right lost in the interim, some change of position or some significant trouble or expense that could have been avoided had the original pleading contained what the amended one wants to add” … . Plaintiff has made no such showing. In her opposition before the motion court, plaintiff asserted that she would be prejudiced by the amendment because Environmental “would be vicariously liable for the acts of [Thomas] Tompkins,” if Tompkins was operating the vehicle within the scope of his employment. This is not the kind of significant prejudice necessary to deny an amendment to the pleading, as plaintiff would suffer the same “prejudice” if Environmental had raised its scope-of-employment defense in its initial answer. Williams v Tompkins, 2015 NY Slip Op 07598, 1st Dept 10-20-15

 

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