You are here: / The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification...

Search Results

/ ,

The People Were Required to Give Pre-Trial Notice of an Out-of-Court Identification of Defendant by Officer Viewing the Controlled Buy from Across the Street—Identification Was Not So Free From the Risk of Undue Suggestiveness that It Could Be Considered Merely “Confirmatory”—Error Was Harmless In the Face of Overwhelming Evidence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the People were required to provide the pre-trial statutory notice of the intent to introduce evidence of an out-of-court identification of the defendant by the officer (Detective Vanacore) who viewed the underlying controlled drug purchase (by an undercover officer) from across the street. The error was deemed harmless however.  Noting that the identification at issue was not so free from the risk of undue suggestiveness as to render the identification merely “confirmatory,” the court offered a clear explanation of the reasons for the statutory pre-trial notice requirement:

“CPL 710.30 could not be clearer” … . When the People intend to offer at trial “testimony regarding an observation of the defendant either at the time or place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case, to be given by a witness who has previously identified him as such,” the statute requires the People to notify the defense of such intention within 15 days after arraignment and before trial (CPL 710.30 [1] [b]). Not only is “[t]he statutory mandate . . . plain” but the procedure is “simple” … . The People serve their notice upon defendant, the defendant has an opportunity to move to suppress and the court may hold a Wade hearing (see id.). If the People fail to provide notice, the prosecution may be precluded from introducing such evidence at trial.

The notice statute was “a legislative response to the problem of suggestive and misleading pretrial identification procedures” … . In enacting the notice requirement, the Legislature “attempt[ed] to deal effectively with the reality that not all police-arranged identifications are free from unconstitutional taint” … .

The purpose of the notice requirement is two-fold: it provides the defense with “an opportunity, prior to trial, to investigate the circumstances of the [evidence procured by the state] and prepare the defense accordingly” and “permits an orderly hearing and determination of the issue of the fact . . . thereby preventing the interruption of trial to challenge initially the admission into evidence of the [identification]” … . Thus, the statute contemplates “pretrial resolution of the admissibility of identification testimony where it is alleged that an improper procedure occurred” … . * * *

Detective Vanacore’s surveillance of defendant does not constitute an “observation of . . . defendant . . . so clear that the identification could not be mistaken” thereby obviating the risk of undue suggestiveness … . Therefore, the People were required to serve their notice concerning Detective Vanacore’s observations. People v Pacquette, 2015 NY Slip Op 05595, CtApp 6-30-15

 

/ ,

“Continuity” Element of a Criminal Enterprise Explained—Substantive Arguments Re: the Erroneous Use of “And” Instead of “Or” In the Jury Instructions and the “Ineffective Assistance” Stemming from the Failure to Object to the Instructions–the Majority Held the Error Was Not Preserved and the Seriousness of the Error Was Not So Clear-Cut as to Implicate Ineffective Assistance–the Dissent Argued the Jury-Instruction Error Was Preserved and Was Reversible

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissent, affirmed the defendants’ enterprise corruption convictions. The enterprise here involved a doctor and a chiropractor (the defendants), medical clinics, faked accidents, faked injuries, kickbacks to lawyers, fraudulent insurance claims, etc. The court explained that there is no requirement that the People prove the enterprise would continue in the absence of a key participant to demonstrate the “continuity” element of the enterprise, i.e., that the “structure [of the enterprise is] distinct from the predicate illicit pattern.” In addition, the majority determined an acknowledged jury-instruction error (using “and” instead of “or”) was unpreserved, and rejected an ineffective assistance argument which was based on the failure to object to the erroneous jury charge.  In rejecting the ineffective assistance argument, the majority noted that whether the jury-instruction error was reversible was a close question. If the error had been clearly reversible, the majority explained, the ineffective assistance argument would have prevailed. The dissent argued that the jury-instruction error was preserved and constituted reversible error. The jury-instruction and ineffective assistance discussions, like the enterprise corruption discussion, are extensive and substantive.  With respect to the proof requirements for the “continuity” element of enterprise corruption, the court wrote:

Were the People required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal enterprise would survive the removal of a key participant, it would be impossible in most cases to demonstrate the existence of a criminal enterprise. Except where the leading participant was in fact removed some time before the enterprise disbanded, the People would be expected to prove an unknowable proposition concerning a counterfactual scenario in which events occurred differently from the actual world. We have never required such an exercise. Moreover, there is no reason to treat a criminal structure as less deserving of enhanced penalty if its key figure is so essential to the organization that his or her absence would threaten its criminal agenda. A criminal enterprise is no less a criminal enterprise if it has a powerful leader. Finally, if we were to require a criminal enterprise to be able to survive the removal of a key figure, criminal organizations could avoid enhanced penalties simply by placing all control in the hands of one person. It cannot have been the intent of the Legislature to allow such a loophole.

Instead, what is meant by the continuity element of the statute is that to be a criminal enterprise, an organization must continue “beyond the scope of individual criminal incidents” (Penal Law § 460.10 [3]), and must possess “constancy and capacity exceeding the individual crimes committed under the association’s auspices or for its purposes” … . In other words, the requirement is not that the group would continue in the absence of a key participant, but rather that it continues to exist beyond individual criminal incidents. A team of people who unite to carry out a single crime or a brief series of crimes may lack structure and criminal purpose beyond the criminal actions they carry out; such an ad hoc group is not a criminal enterprise. If a group persists, however, in the form of a “structured, purposeful criminal organization” (id. at 659), beyond the time required to commit individual crimes, the continuity element of criminal enterprise is met. People v Keschner, 2015 NY Slip Op 05596, CtApp 6-30-15

 

/

Entering the Victim’s Domicile With the Intent to Assault the Victim Who Died from His Injuries Constitutes Felony Murder (Murder Committed During a Burglary)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined defendant’s felony murder conviction should stand. There was evidence the defendant entered the victim’s apartment intending to assault, not kill, the victim. Therefore the defendant’s causing the death of the victim in the course of the burglary constituted felony murder. The question whether entering the apartment with the intent to kill, and thereafter killing the victim, would also constitute felony murder remains unanswered. The court rejected defendant’s argument that the felony murder statute requires that the death be caused in order to advance the underlying felony, finding that the statute requires only a logical nexus between a murder and a felony:

Noting the Legislature’s inclusion of burglary of all degrees, without qualification, as a predicate felony for felony murder, we observed “that persons within domiciles are in greater peril from those entering the domicile with criminal intent, than persons on the street who are being subjected to the same criminal intent. Thus, the burglary statutes prescribe greater punishment for a criminal act committed within the domicile than for the same act committed on the street” … . It is clear that the Legislature chose to treat burglary differently than other crimes. Therefore, an individual who approaches another on the street with an intent to assault but causes the death of that person could be convicted of manslaughter, but not felony murder. It is entirely reasonable, however, that a person — like defendant — who unlawfully enters a building with the intent to commit an assault therein, but causes the death of another, may be convicted of felony murder, in recognition that the homicide occurs in the context of other criminal activity that enhances the seriousness of the offense. * * *

Defendant also argues that his felony murder conviction rests on legally insufficient evidence because there is no evidence that he committed the murder “in the furtherance of” a burglary. He asserts that the statutory language “in the furtherance of” requires that the death be caused in order to advance or promote the underlying felony. We have not interpreted “in the furtherance of” so narrowly. The felony murder statute is intended to punish a perpetrator for a death he or she caused during the commission of a felony, but not a death that is coincidental to the felony … . The “in furtherance of” element requires “a logical nexus between a murder and a felony” … . Here, there is a clear logical nexus between defendant’s felony of unlawfully entering the victim’s apartment to assault him and the homicide, which was certainly not coincidental. People v Henderson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05592, CtApp 6-30-15

 

/ , ,

City Had Not Impliedly Dedicated Certain Parcels of Land as Public Parklands—Therefore the Parcels, Which Had Been Used as Public Parks, Were Not Protected by the Public Trust Doctrine and Could Be Sold by the City Without the Approval of the State Legislature

The Court of Appeals determined certain city-owned parcels of land which had been used as public parkland had not been impliedly dedicated as public parklands.  Therefore the parcels were not under the protection of the public trust doctrine and could be sold by the city without the approval of the state legislature:

In support of their appeal, petitioners again advance their argument that the City’s actions manifest its intent to impliedly dedicate the parcels as parkland. Under the public trust doctrine, a land owner cannot alienate land that has been impliedly dedicated to a public use without obtaining the approval of the Legislature … . A party seeking to establish such an implied dedication and thereby successfully challenge the alienation of the land must show that: (1) “[t]he acts and declarations by the land owner indicating the intent to dedicate his land to the public use [are] unmistakable in their purpose and decisive in their character to have the effect of a dedication” and (2) that the public has accepted the land as dedicated to a public use … .

It remains an open question whether the second prong of the implied dedication doctrine applies to a municipal land owner, but we need not and do not resolve that issue on this appeal because we conclude that the City’s acts are not an unequivocal manifestation of an intent to dedicate the parcels as permanent parkland. With respect to the element of the owner’s intent — the only matter contested in this appeal — if a landowner’s acts are “equivocal, or do not clearly and plainly indicate the intention to permanently abandon the property to the use of the public, they are insufficient to establish a case of dedication” … . * * *

Here, as the Appellate Division noted, several documents created prior to this litigation demonstrate that the City did not manifest an unequivocal intent to dedicate the contested parcels for use as public parks. The permit, memorandum of understanding and lease/license relating to Mercer Playground, LaGuardia Park and LaGuardia Corners Gardens, respectively, show that “any management of the parcels by the [DPR] was understood to be temporary and provisional” … . Thus, those documents’ restrictive terms show that, although the City permitted and encouraged some use of these three parcels for recreational and park-like purposes, it had no intention of permanently giving up control of the property. And, as the Appellate Division observed, “the City’s “refus[al of] various requests to have the streets de-mapped and re-dedicated as parkland” … further indicates that the City has not unequivocally manifested an intent to dedicate the parcels as parkland. Matter of Glick v Harvey, 2015 NY Slip Op 05593, CtApp 6-30-15

 

/ , ,

Local Law, Which Regulates the Conduct of Attorneys Who Regularly Engage in (Nonlegal) Activities Traditionally Performed by Debt Collectors, Not Preempted by the Judiciary Law

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined that New York City’s Local Law 15, which regulates debt-collection practices, including some debt-collection practices used by attorneys, was not preempted by the Judiciary Law. The Local Law only reaches attorneys who regularly engage in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors. The court found no conflict between the Local Law and the Judiciary Law (no “conflict” preemption). And the court found that the Judiciary Law does not evince an intent to preempt the field of regulating nonlegal services performed by attorneys (no “field” preemption):

Local Law 15, enacted in 2009, amended the debt collection legislation in several ways. Significantly, it expanded the definition of “debt collection agency” to “include a buyer of delinquent debt who seeks to collect such debt either directly or through the services of another by, including but not limited to, initiating or using legal processes or other means to collect or attempt to collect such debt” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-489 [a]). The amendments continued a limited exemption for attorneys or law firms that were “collecting a debt in such capacity on behalf of and in the name of a client solely through activities that may only be performed by a licensed attorney” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-489 [a][5]). The exemption, however, did not cover “any attorney-at-law or law firm or part thereof who regularly engages in activities traditionally performed by debt collectors, including, but not limited to, contacting a debtor through the mail or via telephone with the purpose of collecting a debt or other activities as determined by rule of the commissioner” (Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-489 [a][5]). * * *

Plaintiffs assert both conflict and field preemption in connection with the argument that Local Law 15 is preempted by the Judiciary Law. The Local Law, by its terms, governs the conduct of debt collection agencies. Although attorneys that are acting in a debt collecting capacity may fall within its penumbra, it does not purport to regulate attorneys as such. In fact, it clearly states that it does not pertain to attorneys who are engaged in the practice of law on behalf of a particular client. There is no express conflict between the broad authority accorded to the courts to regulate attorneys under the Judiciary Law and the licensing of individuals as attorneys who are engaged in debt collection activity falling outside of the practice of law and, thus, the Local Law does not impose an additional requirement for attorneys to practice law. Rather, the regulatory schemes can be seen as complementary to, and compatible with, one another. * * *

The courts’ authority to regulate attorney conduct does not evince an intent to preempt the field of regulating nonlegal services rendered by attorneys. “Intent to preempt the field may ‘be implied from the nature of the subject matter being regulated and the purpose and scope of the State legislative scheme, including the need for State-wide uniformity in a given area'” (People v Diack, 24 NY3d 674, 679 [2014] [citations omitted]). Although the courts may have preempted the field of regulating attorney misconduct, that authority does not extend to all nonlegal aspects of attorney behavior, which can be governed by both civil and criminal law, including regulatory proscriptions. To the extent that the courts have exercised some authority over nonlegal services provided by attorneys (see Rules of Professional Conduct 5.7), the regulation in that area is not “so detailed and comprehensive so as to imply that” the field has been preempted … . Eric M. Berman, P.C. v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05594, CtApp 6-30-15

 

/ ,

Failure to Make Clear in the Jury Instructions that the Acquittal on the Top Count Based Upon the Justification Defense Required Acquittal on the Lesser Counts As Well Rendered the Verdict “Ambiguous”—New Trial Ordered in the Interest of Justice

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, exercising the court’s “interest of justice” jurisdiction, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury instructions did not make clear that, if the jury found the defendant’s actions justified (self-defense), acquittal on all counts was mandatory. The defendant was charged with attempted murder, attempted assault in the first degree, and assault second degree stemming from a stabbing. There was evidence defendant may have acted in self-defense.  Therefore the jury was given the justification-defense instruction. The jury found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser two counts. If the not guilty verdict was based on the justification defense, then the defendant should have been acquitted of all charges. The jury instructions did not make the effect of finding the defendant’s acts justified clear. Because it could not be discerned whether the jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder based on the justification defense, the verdict was ambiguous and a new trial was required, notwithstanding that the error in the jury instructions was not preserved:

On this record, review of the issue in the interest of justice is warranted because it is impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree was based on the jurors’ finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the two lesser counts. While lack of justification was included as an element of each crime, the verdict sheet and the court’s accompanying explanation created confusion, because they indicated among other things that the jurors “must consider” count three irrespective of their disposition of higher counts and they failed to explicitly convey that a finding of justification on the top count precluded further deliberation. While the trial court did follow the CJI justification instruction in its charge, it also included as an element of each offense “[t]hat the defendant was not justified,” which may have led the jurors to conclude that deliberation on each crime required reconsideration of the justification defense, even if they had already acquitted the defendant of the top count of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification. People v Velez, 2015 NY Slip Op 05619, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/ ,

Stipulation of Forfeiture of a Sum of Money Was Part of the Judgment of Conviction and Therefore Was Reviewable on Appeal from the Judgment of Conviction

The First Department, over a dissent, determined a stipulation of forfeiture of a sum of money entered by the defendant was part of the judgment of conviction, and was therefore reviewable on appeal. The dissent argued that appeal should have been dismissed because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction and was therefore not reviewable.  The forfeiture was ultimately affirmed on the merits:

At the outset, we reject the People’s contention, adopted by the dissent, that this appeal is not properly before us because the forfeiture was not part of the judgment of conviction. Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.30, a court has the authority to order a forfeiture of property, and any order exercising that authority “may be included as part of the judgment of conviction.” In People v Detres-Perez (127 AD3d 535 [1st Dept 2015]), relying on Penal Law § 60.30, this Court recently found that a forfeiture agreement was part of the judgment of conviction and thus reviewable on the appeal from the judgment. Likewise here, the court’s so-ordering of the stipulation at the time of sentencing rendered it part of the judgment of conviction and reviewable on this appeal as of right (see CPL 450.10). Contrary to the dissent’s position, we do not conclude that Penal Law § 60.30 authorizes the inclusion of forfeiture as part of a defendant’s sentence. Rather, that provision allows a court to order forfeiture as a separate component of the judgment of conviction… . … Finally, the omission of the forfeiture order from the sentence and commitment sheet does not render the order unreviewable since a forfeiture, although not a component of a criminal sentence, can nevertheless be part of the judgment of conviction … . People v Burgos, 2015 NY Slip Op 05600, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/

Subcontractor Who Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Acts or Omissions of Its Subcontractors Under Labor Law 200 May Be Vicariously Liable for those Acts or Omissions Under Labor Law 241 (6)

The First Department explained that, under Labor Law 200 (a codification of common law negligence), a subcontractor, as the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor. Neither the owner, general contractor nor their statutory agent may be held liable under Labor Law 200 in the absence of evidence the owner, general contractor or their statutory agent actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Here there was no evidence the defendant subcontractor created or was aware of a dangerous condition allegedly created by its subcontractors. A subcontractor who did not create and/or has no notice of the dangerous condition, however, can be vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors, as a statutory agent, under Labor Law 241 (6):

 As a subcontractor and, therefore, the statutory agent of the owner and general contractor, [defendant] stands in the shoes of the owner and general contractor, neither of which may be held liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200 (a codification of common-law negligence) for injuries arising from a dangerous condition in the absence of evidence that such party actually created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it … . Uncontroverted evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that [defendant]  sub-subcontracted all of its work … and furnished no workers in its own employ to perform work. Rather, [defendant’s] presence at the site was limited to one-hour visits by its president once a week or every other week. Since there is no evidence that [defendant] itself created the condition in question or had actual or constructive of it, it cannot be held liable for injuries arising from that condition under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200, neither of which makes an owner, a general contractor or their statutory agent vicariously liable for the negligence of a downstream subcontractor … .

However, given that [defendant’s] subcontract with [the owner] delegated to it the authority to supervise all drywall work, and given plaintiff’s allegation that the presence of the pipe segment on the floor was caused by employees of [defendant’s] spackling sub-subcontractor … , [defendant] is subject to liability under Labor Law § 241(6) as a statutory agent … . DeMaria v RBNB 20 Owner, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05599, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/

The Fact that Plaintiff’s Testimony Was the Only Evidence of the Defect Which Caused Her to Fall (a Hole in a Worn Rubber Mat) Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Plaintiff’s Verdict

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion the defendant hospital had constructive notice of a worn rubber mat. The jury could reason that the wearing of the mat, resulting in a hole, occurred over a period of time and should have been noticed by the defendant. The fact that plaintiff’s testimony was the only evidence of the claimed defect did not render the evidence insufficient. The motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence:

Plaintiff testified that as she entered the playground with her five-year-old grandson, her foot became caught in a hole in the rubber mat, and she fell forward, her right elbow striking the ground. Plaintiff described the hole as being caused by “worn out” rubber. * * *

To set aside a jury verdict as unsupported by sufficient evidence, the movant must demonstrate that “there is simply no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [people] to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial” … . The standard for setting aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence is “whether the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [movant] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence” … .

The liability verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence of defendant’s constructive notice of a dangerous condition on its premises and was not against the weight of the evidence … .

Plaintiff’s testimony that she was caused to fall when her foot became ensnared in a “worn out” section of the rubber mat was sufficient to support a finding of liability … . The fact that plaintiff’s testimony provided the lone evidence of the claimed defect is not a basis to conclude that there was insufficient evidence of a hazardous defect to impose liability on the premises owner … .

The dissent’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that the worn out area was visible or apparent by reasonable inspection cannot withstand scrutiny. A “worn out” section by definition occurs over the passage of time. As the trial court noted “the very description of a worn out area pre-supposes a slow process, and can support a jury inference [*3]that the defect should have been discovered.” The jury having reasonably credited plaintiff’s direct observations and testimony over that of the defense witnesses, it is not for us to second-guess the verdict. Cruz v Bronx Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 05601, 1st Dept 6-30-15

 

/

Transcriber of Administrative Hearings Was an Employee Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Appeals Board Not Required to Follow or to Explain Why It Didn’t Follow an “Unappealed” Ruing by an Administrative Law Judge

The Third Department determined claimant, who transcribed administrative hearings for “The Mechanical Secretary,” was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. The court noted that the unemployment insurance appeals board was not required to explain why it did not follow a prior “unappealed” ruling by an administrative law judge which went the other way:

“Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the [Board], if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion” … . “An employer- employee relationship exists when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” … . Here, the record establishes that The Mechanical Secretary advertised for transcriber positions. The president would interview the applicants and assess the quality of their work. The transcriber was required to have certain equipment, but The Mechanical Secretary would loan the transcriber a transcription machine if needed. The Mechanical Secretary arranged to have the work delivered to and picked up from the transcribers within a certain area. In claimant’s case, however, because she did not live in close proximity to the company, she was required to pick her work up at its office and to return the completed work to that office by 9:00 a.m. Claimant was occasionally reimbursed for her travel expenses. Significantly, The Mechanical Secretary set the nonnegotiable pay rate, supplied all the paper needed by the transcribers, and reviewed the final product for mistakes and would correct any minor mistakes or, where the mistakes were significant, send it back to be corrected by the transcriber. Furthermore, The Mechanical Secretary had to be notified if a transcriber was going to take any vacation. Given the evidence produced, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that The Mechanical Secretary exercised a sufficient degree of control over claimant’s work to establish an employment relationship … .

We are unpersuaded by The Mechanical Secretary’s contention that the Board was bound by a prior unappealed Administrative Law Judge decision that found medical transcribers that it had used to be independent contractors. Claimant, who is not a medical transcriber, was not involved in that prior proceeding such that there was a full and fair opportunity for her to contest the decision, nor is the Board “required to conform to the precedent established in the prior unappealed decision or offer a rational explanation for not doing so” … . Matter of Ingle (The Mech. Secretary, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 05553, 3rd Dept 6-25-15

 

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