You are here: / Perjury Allegations Lacked Requisite Specificity, Indictment Should Have...

Search Results

/

Perjury Allegations Lacked Requisite Specificity, Indictment Should Have Been Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined the indictment did not meet the “specificity” pleading-requirements for perjury, and the charge to the grand jury was similarly defective:

“An indictment for perjury must contain all of the essential elements of the offense . . . and must set forth the alleged false testimony so as to apprise the defendant of the particular offense with which he [or she] is charged” … . Here, “[n]othing in the record before us gives any indication what the [grand] jury thought was false” … . Because the indictment failed to identify the particular falsehoods alleged to have been made by defendant, the indictment failed to provide her with the requisite “fair notice of the accusations made against [her], so that [she would] be able to prepare a defense” … .

Moreover, despite numerous pretrial requests for particularization by defense counsel, the People never identified the particular falsehoods allegedly made by defendant … . Rather, the prosecutor identified particular subject “areas that [he] believe[d] [were] perjurious.” ” To allow the prosecutor, or the court, to make a subsequent guess as to what was in the minds of the grand jur[ors] at the time they returned the indictment would deprive the defendant of a basic protection which the guaranty of the intervention of a grand jury was designed to secure. For a defendant could then be convicted on the basis of facts not found by, and perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury which indicted him [or her]’ . . . The lack of specific allegations in the District Attorney’s charge to the [g]rand [j]ury on the perjury count renders it impossible to determine which specific statement or statements of [defendant] the [g]rand [j]ury found to be false. It is impossible to determine what the [g]rand [j]ury intended when it voted on the perjury charge . . . Since the [g]rand [j]ury presentation and legal instructions do not answer these questions, the perjury count [should have been] dismissed”… . People v Heatherly, 2015 NY Slip Op 07111, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ ,

Gun Found Wedged Under a Rock After an Illegal Police Pursuit Was Not “Abandoned,” Suppression of Gun Was Proper

The Fourth Department determined that all the fruits of an illegal pursuit and arrest of the defendant were properly suppressed. Defendant crossed a street, causing a car to stop abruptly to avoid hitting him. The police pursued defendant, intending to arrest him for disorderly conduct. The police noticed defendant was carrying a bulky object held in his shirt. After capturing the defendant, the police found a gun wedged under a rock. The People conceded that the pursuit of defendant was unlawful because his crossing the street did not constitute disorderly conduct. The only question on appeal was whether the gun was abandoned, and therefore not subject to suppression. The court explained the relevant test for abandoned property in this context:

It is well established that property seized as a result of an unlawful pursuit must be suppressed, unless that property was abandoned … . “Property which has in fact been abandoned is outside the protection of the constitutional provisions . . . There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights . . . [and, thus,] [t]he proof supporting abandonment should reasonably beget the exclusive inference of . . . throwing away’ ” … . “The test to be applied is whether defendant’s action . . . was spontaneous and precipitated by the illegality or whether it was a calculated act not provoked by the unlawful police activity and was thus attenuated from it” … . Here, the court properly concluded that defendant’s action was spontaneous and precipitated by the unlawful pursuit by the police … . The court thus properly determined that the People failed to establish that defendant had abandoned the gun and, consequently, properly suppressed the gun. People v Mueses, 2015 NY Slip Op 07088, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ ,

Absence of Information About the Source of Double Hearsay in the Search Warrant Application Required Suppression

The Fourth Department determined a search warrant application which was based upon double hearsay did not provide probable cause to search because the initial source of the information was inadequately described.  There was no way to determine the reliability of the source or the basis of the source’s information (Aguilar-Spinelli test). An amended warrant which sought seizure of items in plain sight during the search was rendered invalid by the defective initial warrant:

It is well settled that a search warrant may be issued only upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur …, and there is sufficient evidence from which to form a reasonable belief that evidence of the crime may be found inside the location sought to be searched … . It is equally well settled that, under New York law, “[p]robable cause may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information . . . New York’s present law applies the Aguilar-Spinelli rule for evaluating secondhand information and holds that if probable cause is based on hearsay statements, the police must establish that the informant had some basis for the knowledge he [or she] transmitted to them and that he [or she] was reliable” … . “Notably, where the information is based upon double hearsay, the foregoing requirements must be met with respect to each individual providing information” … .People v Bartholomew, 2015 NY Slip Op 07112, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ , ,

Pat-down Search Pursuant to a Stop for a Traffic Infraction Unlawful—Injury to Officer During Unlawful Search Will Not Support Assault Conviction (Which Requires the Officer Be Injured Performing a Lawful Duty)

The Fourth Department determined the pat-down search of defendant after he was stopped for walking in the street was unlawful. Therefore the assault charge stemming from injury to the police officer during the unlawful search was not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The officer was not performing a “lawful duty” at the time of the injury (a required element of the assault charge):

A person is guilty of assault in the second degree under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) when, “[w]ith intent to prevent . . . a police officer . . . from performing a lawful duty . . . , he or she causes physical injury to such . . . police officer” (id.). Here, a police officer stopped defendant for walking in the middle of a roadway in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1156 (a), and the suppression court found that the search of defendant’s person by another officer was not lawful … . We have previously held that even the more limited pat-down search of a traffic offender “is not authorized unless, when the [person or] vehicle is stopped, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the officer is in danger or there is probable cause for believing that the offender is guilty of a crime rather than merely a simple traffic infraction’ ” (People v Everett, 82 AD3d 1666, 1666, …). Here, as in Everett, the search of defendant was unauthorized, and the officer was injured only after he attempted to perform the unlawful search (see id.). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People …, we thus conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that the officer was injured while undertaking a lawful duty … . People v Richardson, 2015 NY Slip Op 07069, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ ,

Pleading Requirements for “Goods Sold and Delivered” Cause of Action Succinctly Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on its “goods sold and delivered” cause of action, the Fourth Department explained the pleading requirements:

… [P]laintiff’s complaint, with its attached invoices, satisfied the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016 (f) … . The invoices provided the requisite degree of specificity inasmuch as they permitted defendant ” to respond in a meaningful way on an item-by-item basis’ ” … . Each invoice set forth the date of the order, the specific items ordered and delivered, the quantity ordered and delivered, as well as the price per unit and the total price for the quantity ordered … . Defendant was thus required to indicate specifically in its verified answer “those items [it] dispute[d] and whether in respect of delivery or performance, reasonable value or agreed price” (CPLR 3016 [f]). Defendant failed to do so and, therefore, Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiff’s motion on the cause of action for goods sold and delivered … . Erie Materials, Inc. v Central City Roofing Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07137, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ , ,

Where Arrest Was Not Authorized, Conviction for Resisting Arrest Was Against the Weight of the Evidence

The People conceded defendant’s actions (apparently simply standing with a group) did not constitute disorderly conduct. Therefore, the Fourth Department determined, defendant’s arrest for disorderly conduct was unauthorized and his conviction of resisting arrest was against the weight of the evidence:

As the People correctly concede, the evidence fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the arrest of defendant for disorderly conduct was authorized. The Court of Appeals has “made clear that evidence of actual or threatened public harm (inconvenience, annoyance or alarm’) is a necessary element of a valid disorderly conduct charge” …, and there is no evidence of such actual or threatened harm here. Inasmuch as it “is not disorderly conduct . . . for a small group of people, even people of bad reputation, to stand peaceably on a street corner” …, the arrest of defendant for engaging in that conduct was not authorized. “There being no probable cause that authorized defendant’s arrest, [he] cannot be guilty of resisting arrest” … . Thus, we conclude that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” … . People v Howard, 2015 NY Slip Op 07100, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ , ,

State Claims Re: Alleged Release of Toxins During Love Canal Clean-Up Not Precluded (Preempted) by Federal CERCLA Remedy

The Fourth Department determined state claims for negligence, abnormally dangerous activity, private nuisance and trespass were not precluded by a federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) remedy re: the Love Canal toxic contamination:

As the federal District Court explained, “it is uniformly recognized that, in enacting CERCLA, Congress expressly disclaimed an intent to preempt state tort liability for damages caused by the release of hazardous substances” … . District Court therefore granted plaintiffs’ motion seeking to remand the matter to Supreme Court, determining that “plaintiffs seek relief only under common law theories of negligence, . . . private nuisance, and trespass” … , “[and t]he claims . . . do not expressly challenge the effectiveness of the [CERCLA] remedy . . . Rather, plaintiffs seek only to be made whole for any harm proximately caused by defendants’ conduct, whether in performance of operation, maintenance, and monitoring obligations with respect to the remedy, or during the [sewer project]” … .

* * * The doctrine of judicial estoppel prohibits a party who has assumed a position in one legal proceeding, and prevailed on that position, from assuming a contrary position in another proceeding because the party’s interests have changed … . Here, however, we conclude that plaintiffs’ position was consistent in both the federal and state court matters inasmuch as they maintained that they did not challenge the CERCLA remedy, as the moving defendants alleged, but instead challenged defendants’ performance of their respective obligations in executing the CERCLA remedY. Abbo-Bradley v City of Niagara Falls, 2015 NY Slip Op 07145, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ ,

Conclusory Allegations Will Not Survive a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action—Punitive Damages Must Be Connected to a Substantive Cause of Action—Late Disclaimer in Property Damage Action Is Valid Absent Prejudice

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s cause of action alleging bad faith on the part of the insurer should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The court explained that conclusory, as opposed to fact-based, allegations will not survive a motion to dismiss. The court noted that a claim for punitive damages must be tied to a specific cause of action and cannot be based upon conclusory allegations.  The court further held that even an unreasonable delay in disclaiming a property damage claim is valid absent prejudice:

Our role is thus to “determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory . . . and the criterion is whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he [or she] has stated one’ ” … . Nevertheless, ” [w]hile it is axiomatic that a court must assume the truth of the complaint’s allegations, such an assumption must fail where there are conclusory allegations lacking factual support’ ” … . Indeed, ” a cause of action cannot be predicated solely on mere conclusory statements . . . unsupported by factual allegations’ ” … . …

… [W]e note that, “in order to establish a prima facie case of bad faith, the plaintiff must establish that the insurer’s conduct constituted a gross disregard’ of the insured’s interests” … . We conclude … the fourth and sixth causes of action “should have been dismissed because they do not allege [any] conduct by [Allstate] constituting the requisite gross disregard of the insured’s interests’ necessary to support such causes of action” … . Moreover, the “[a]llegations that [Allstate] had no good faith basis for denying coverage are redundant to [plaintiffs’] cause[s] of action for breach of contract based on the denial of coverage, and do not give rise to an independent tort cause of action, regardless of the insertion of tort language into the pleading” … .

… “A demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action” … . Here, the complaint fails to set forth “the pleading elements required to state a claim for punitive damages” … ; plaintiffs’ “conclusory allegation[s] as to [Allstate’s] motive for [its] refusal [to pay the claim are] an insufficient premise for a demand for punitive damages” … . …

Where, as here, the underlying claim does not arise out of an accident involving bodily injury or death, the notice of disclaimer provisions set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (d) are inapplicable and, [u]nder the common-law rule, delay in giving notice of disclaimer of coverage, even if unreasonable, will not estop the insurer to disclaim unless the insured has suffered prejudice from the delay’ ” … . Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, their conclusory allegation that they were “damaged and prejudiced” by the untimely disclaimer is insufficient to withstand this CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss … . Miller v Allstate Indem. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07134, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

/ ,

Question Whether Loan At Issue Was a “Home Loan” Requiring a Settlement Conference, Hearing Ordered

The Second Department found that a hearing was required to determine whether the loan at issue was a “home loan” such that a settlement conference pursuant to CPLR 3408 was required. The court explained the analytical factors:

“CPLR 3408 does not apply to every residential foreclosure action” … . CPLR 3408 only mandates a settlement conference in a residential foreclosure action involving a “home loan” as that term is defined by RPAPL 1304, and when the “defendant is a resident of the property subject to foreclosure” (see CPLR 3408…).

RPAPL 1304(5)(a)(i)-(iv) defines a qualifying home loan as one in which, inter alia, the borrower is a natural person; the borrower incurs the debt primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and the loan is secured by a mortgage on real property in this state “used or occupied, or intended to be used or occupied wholly or partly, as the home or [the] residence of one or more persons and which is or will be occupied by the borrower as the borrower’s principal dwelling” … .

Here, the conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties reveal a sharp factual dispute, inter alia, as to whether the subject loan was made for the defendant’s personal, family, or household use, and whether the mortgaged premises was to be occupied as the defendant’s principal dwelling. Richlew Real Estate Venture v Grant, 2015 NY Slip Op 07018, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

/ , ,

Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Department of Health’s Finding that Property Transfers Rendered Petitioner Ineligible for Medicaid Benefits

The Second Department annulled the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) finding that petitioner was ineligible for Medicaid benefits based on transfers of property made well before she exhibited signs of dementia. The court explained the analytical criteria:

In reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination made after a fair hearing, the court must review the record as a whole to determine if the agency’s decisions are supported by substantial evidence and are not affected by an error of law … . Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” … . While the level of proof is less than a preponderance of the evidence, substantial evidence does not arise from bare surmise, conjecture, speculation, or rumor (see id. at 180), or from the absence of evidence supporting a contrary conclusion … . When determining Medicaid eligibility, an agency is required to “look back” for a period of 60 months immediately preceding the first date the applicant was both “institutionalized” and had applied for Medicaid benefits to determine if any asset transfers were uncompensated or made for less than fair market value (42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [B]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][1][vi]). If such a transfer was made during that period, the applicant may become ineligible for Medicaid benefits for a specified period of time (see 42 USC § 1396p[c][1][A], [E]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][3]), unless there is a “satisfactory showing” that, inter alia, the assets were transferred exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for medical assistance (42 USC § 1396p[c][2][C][i], [iii]; Social Services Law § 366[5][e][4][iii]). It is the petitioner’s burden to rebut the presumption that the transfer of funds was motivated, in part if not in whole, by anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … .

Here, the evidence at the fair hearing showed that the latest of the subject transfers was made approximately two years before the petitioner started to exhibit signs of dementia. At the time of the transfers and in the years preceding her need for nursing home care, the petitioner was in good health and living independently. She was driving, cooking, exercising, and paying her own bills. The transfers themselves constituted gifts to her relatives, and the petitioner still had more than $250,000, not including Social Security benefits, following the transfers. Under these circumstances, the petitioner met her burden of rebutting the presumption that the subject transfers were motivated by the anticipation of a future need to qualify for medical assistance … . Matter of Sandoval v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 07034, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

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