You are here: / A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED...

Search Results

/ ,

A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF WHEN THE DOOR HANDLE WAS LAST INSPECTED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants did not demonstrate the glass door which shattered had been inspected close in time to the incident. Therefore a question of fact remained whether defendants had constructive knowledge of the loose handle which caused the door to shatter when plaintiff attempted to open it:

Although 730-Gen’s urban portfolio manager testified that he inspected the interior vestibule doors following an incident that involved the exterior doors in the weeks prior to plaintiff’s accident, his testimony only provided a vague description of the inspection performed. Importantly, he could not identify exactly when the inspection occurred, and he did not indicate that any steps were taken to examine the door’s metal handle.

The urban portfolio manager further testified that defendants had a daily inspection protocol in place to inspect the vestibule doors. However, he admitted that he had never seen anyone perform a daily inspection and he could not identify when the last inspection occurred prior to plaintiff’s accident. …

730-Gen also asserts that the doors received cursory inspections, in that they were used on a daily basis. Yet, there is no record of these cursory inspections taking place … , or any indication that they involved a reasonable inspection of the door handle … .

… 730-Gen’s reliance on the urban portfolio manager’s inspection, which occurred almost two weeks prior to plaintiff’s accident, failed to establish, prima facie, that inspecting the door handle on a biweekly basis is reasonable, especially in light of the daily inspection protocol defendant contends was in place to ensure the handles were tightly secured … . Doherty v 730 Fifth Upper, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02979, First Dept 5-30-24

Practice Point: Unless the defendant can show the instrumentality which caused plaintiff’s injury was inspected and found safe close in time to the injury, a defendant’s motion for summary judgment will not be granted.

 

/ , , ,

SECOND DEPARTMENT TO JUDGES: DON’T DISMISS A COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, made the following point explicit: a sua sponte dismissal of a complaint is almost never appropriate and almost always will be reversed:

Sua sponte dismissals are not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). The reason is that such dismissals are not, by definition, the product of motions made on notice for that particular relief as otherwise statutorily required. Nevertheless, the Second Department has consistently recognized the gravity of sua sponte dismissals and the lack of opportunity for aggrieved parties to have been heard on the dispositive issue at the trial level. Those circumstances have caused the Second Department to typically grant discretionary applications for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701[c]), or relatedly, to deem notices of appeal to be applications for leave to appeal, which have been liberally granted … . * * *

The importance that courts not dismiss actions sua sponte absent extraordinary circumstances is grounded in a fundamental concept that lawyers and judges know well—that due process requires parties to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard about litigation issues … . Courts are to be bastions of due process. It is not the role of the court, within the moat of that bastion, to seize upon an issue not raised by any party in a motion and to unilaterally dismiss an action on the basis of that discrete issue, without providing the party whose claim is dismissed so much as notice of the issue and an opportunity for all parties to be heard on it. The Court of Appeals has cautioned the judiciary that “[w]e are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide [matters] on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Louis, 2024 NY Slip Op 02948, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Judges should not dismiss complaints sua sponte because the parties are not given proper notice of the relevant issue and the parties do not have the opportunity to be heard on it.

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHICH STEP SHE SLIPPED AND FELL FROM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE ALL THE STEPS WERE UNLEVEL AND SLOPING; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY WAS LATENT AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff could not identify the cause of her stairway fall and defendant did not demonstrate the nonlevel and sloping condition of the steps was latent and could not have been discovered:

… [T]he plaintiff testified that her fall was caused by the fact that the “stairs were not level . . . not straight.” Although the plaintiff testified that she might have lost her balance on either the fourth step from the top of the staircase or the fourth step from the bottom of the staircase, the report of the plaintiff’s expert witness … stated that the treads on the staircase were “uneven and pitched forward,” creating an “inherent walking hazard,” and that the “out-of-level and sloping condition” affected “the entire staircase.”

* * * “In moving for summary judgment on the ground that [a] defect was latent, a defendant must establish, prima facie, that the defect was indeed latent—i.e., that it was not visible or apparent and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection”…..  Here, the evidence proffered in support of the defendant’s motion failed to establish, prima facie, that the nonlevel and sloping condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall amounted to a latent condition and could not have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection. Toro v McComish, 2024 NY Slip Op 02945, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Here the unlevel and sloping condition of the steps in the stairway where plaintiff fell was not shown to be latent and undiscoverable upon inspection.

 

/ , ,

THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME; APPEAL HEARD DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the defendant’s factual recitation preceding the plea negated elements of the offense. The court heard the appeal despite a failure to preserve the error by moving to withdraw the plea:

Although the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention concerning the factual recitation with respect to the charge of attempted burglary in the second degree, where, as here, the defendant’s factual recitation clearly casts significant doubt upon his guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the plea allocution on direct appeal despite the failure to move to withdraw his plea of guilty on that ground … .

The crime of attempted burglary in the second degree provides, in relevant part, that a person is guilty of that offense when, inter alia, he or she knowingly enters a dwelling unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime therein (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25[2]). During his plea allocution, the defendant stated that he did not enter the home knowingly. Upon further questioning by the County Court, the defendant stated that he had “no intent” to commit the crime. The defendant’s factual recitation therefore negated an essential element of attempted burglary in the second degree, which was not corrected by further inquiry by the court, thereby calling into question the voluntariness of the defendant’s plea … . People v Martinez, 2024 NY Slip Op 02938, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: When the plea allocution negates elements of the crime and the judge does not inquire further, the question whether the plea was voluntary is raised.

Practice Point: When it is clear from the record that the plea allocution negated elements of the crime, the issue will be heard on direct appeal even if not preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea.

 

/

THE COVID TOLL OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE RENDERED THE INDICTMENT TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined that the COVID toll of the speedy trial statute rendered the indictment timely:

Contrary to the determination of the County Court, while it was in effect, Executive Order No. 202.87 constituted a toll of the time within which the People must be ready for trial for the period from the date a felony complaint was filed through the date of a defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, with no requirement that the People establish necessity for a toll in each particular case … .

Because Executive Order No. 202.87 served to toll the speedy trial statute, the period from December 30, 2020, to January 25, 2021, was not chargeable to the People … . People v Fuentes, 2024 NY Slip Op 02933, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: The Executive Order imposing the COVID toll of the speedy trial statute rendered the indictment in this case timely.

Same issue and result in People v Lawson, 2024 NY Slip Op 02937, Second Dept 5-29-24.

Same Issue and result in People v McPhaul, 2024 NY Slip Op 02939, Second Dept 5-29-24.

 

/ , ,

THE NEGOTIATED PLEA REQUIRED NO POST-PLEA ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AFTER THE PLEA BUT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS AND THE RECORDS SEALED; THE POST-PLEA ARRESTS WERE THEREFORE A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SENTENCING JUDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s sentence was based upon post-plea arrests which resulted in dismissal on speedy trial grounds and for which the records had been sealed. Criminal records sealed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 160.50(1) have thereby been rendered a nullity. Therefore the sealed proceedings can not be the basis for a sentence:

… [T]he defendant … pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm … and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree …  as part of a negotiated disposition. It was agreed that if the defendant successfully completed one year of interim probation and complied with certain conditions during that time, including a no-arrest condition, the criminal possession of a firearm charge would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to a conditional discharge on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. However, if the defendant failed to satisfy the conditions, he would be sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm.

It is undisputed that during the term of the defendant’s interim probation, he was arrested three times. The proceedings with regard to those arrests were dismissed on speedy trial grounds and the records sealed. However, after an Outley hearing … , the Supreme Court determined that there was “a legitimate basis for [the defendant’s] arrest” and that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of his interim probation. Based upon that determination, the court sentenced the defendant to a one-year term of imprisonment on the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm. * * *

The proceedings resulting from the defendant’s postplea arrests were dismissed on speedy trial grounds, which were terminations in his favor … , and the records of those proceedings were sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50(1). Thus, the “arrest[s] and prosecution[s] [are] deemed a nullity” … , and the sealed records were “not available for consideration at sentencing” … . People v Desdunes, 2024 NY Slip Op 02932, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: Arrests and prosecutions dismissed on speedy trial grounds and sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50(1) are a nullity and cannot be considered in sentencing.

 

/ ,

THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR SENTENCING A DEFENDANT AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY THE JUDGE; SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge did not follow the procedure for sentencing a defendant as a persistent felony offender:

The Supreme Court erred in failing to comply with the procedural requirements of Penal Law § 70.10(2) when resentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender. The procedure for determining whether a defendant may be subjected to increased punishment as a persistent felony offender requires a two-pronged analysis (see CPL 400.20[1] …). “Initially, the court must determine whether the defendant is a persistent felony offender as defined in subdivision 1 of section 70.10 of the Penal Law, namely, that he [or she] previously has been convicted of at least two felonies, and secondly, the court must determine if it ‘is of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his [or her] criminal conduct are such that extended incarceration and lifetime supervision of the defendant are warranted to best serve the public interest'” … . Before imposing such sentence, “the court is obliged to set forth on the record the reasons it found this second element satisfied” … .

Here, the Supreme Court failed to comply with the second prong of the analysis by failing to set forth, on the record, the reasons why it was “of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate[d] that extended incarceration and life-time supervision [would] best serve the public interest” (Penal Law § 70.10[2] …). People v Acevedo, 2024 NY Slip Op 02927, Second Dept 5-29-24

Practice Point: A judge’s failure to set forth on the record the reasons for sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender will result in vacation of the sentence and remittal.

 

/ , ,

PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, BUT THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY DOES NOT TOLL THE ONE YEAR AND 90 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to file a late notice claim against the NYC Transit Authority should not have been granted because the motion was made more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued. Although physical incapacity can be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a notice of claim withing 90 days, it does not toll the period for making a timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim:

The court erred … in concluding that plaintiff’s hospitalization from the February 12, 2020 accident until April 11, 2020 rendered timely plaintiff’s January 25, 2021 notice of claim upon defendant NYC Transit Authority … . Although physical incapacity may be properly considered as a reasonable excuse under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for the failure to timely file a notice of claim … , it is relevant only upon timely motion for leave to file a late notice of claim “made before or after the commencement of the action but not more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued” … . Melgarejo v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02892, First Dept 5-28-24

Practice Point: A period of physical incapacity may be a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim, but it does not toll the one year and 90 day statute of limitations for filing a motion for leave to file a late notice of claim.

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA; AND DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE DECIDED AGAINST PLEADING GUILTY HAD HE BEEN GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE RISK OF DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his guilty plea on the ground his attorney provided erroneous information about the deportation consequences of the plea. In addition to showing defense counsel’s advice was wrong, defendant raised a question of fact whether it was reasonably probable he would not have pled guilty if he had been correctly advised about the risk of deportation:

… [T]rial counsel erroneously advised defendant that he “could . . . be deported” if he were to be “incarcerated for any extensive amount of time,” but, if he were sentenced to “probation,” defendant would not be deported. “These advisements were erroneous, and … defense counsel readily could have ascertained — simply from a reading of the relevant statutes — that defendant’s plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree rendered deportation presumptively mandatory and rendered defendant ineligible for cancellation of an order of removal” … . …

… [D]efendant averred in his CPL 440.10 motion that, at the time of his plea, he had resided in the United States for over 20 years and that he “financially supported the mother of his child, as well as her two older children from a prior relationship.” Given his family circumstances and their dependency upon him, defendant averred that, had he received correct advice about pleading guilty to an aggravated felony for purposes of immigration, he “would have rejected the plea offer, proceeded to trial, or sought other alternative plea options.” These allegations “raise a question of fact as to whether it was reasonably probable that he would not have entered a plea of guilty if he had been correctly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea” … . People v Pinales-Harris, 2024 NY Slip Op 02844, Third Dept 5-23-24

Practice Point: If, in the papers supporting a motion to vacate the guilty plea, a defendant shows defense counsel provided erroneous information about the deportation consequences of the guilty plea, and raises a question of fact whether it is reasonably probable he would not have pled guilty had the correct information been provided, he is entitled to a hearing on the motion.

 

/ ,

DEATH RECORDS KEPT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE PETITIONER, A NON-PROFIT WHICH PROMOTES GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined petitioner’s request for the “New York State Death Index” through December 31, 2017, should have been denied:

Petitioner is a not-for-profit organization that promotes public access to government records for historical and genealogical purposes. Respondent is statutorily charged with “procur[ing] the faithful registration of . . . deaths,” except in the City of New York … .  * * *

While petitioner’s interest in seeking information to assist in genealogical research promotes a legitimate public interest, such a request does not “further the policies of FOIL, which are to assist the public in formulating intelligent, informed choices with respect to both the direction and scope of governmental activities” … . * * *

We agree with respondent’s contention that Public Health Law § 4174 (1) (a) provides an exemption authorizing the withholding of the requested information. That statute allows respondent to release “either a certified copy or a certified transcript of the record of any death” to seven specific categories of applicants. The provision concludes with a qualifier that “no certified copy or certified transcript of a death record shall be subject to disclosure under [FOIL]” … . The term certified transcript is broadly defined as “a computer generated or other reproduction of information abstracted from the original state or local record the elements of which shall be as determined by the commissioner and certified by the commissioner . . . as being an accurate abstract of information contained in the original record” … . We recognize that petitioners are not requesting copies of death certificates or any “certified” records. Even so, in our view, the import of the statute is to limit the disclosure of these records to applicants who fall within the defined categories, whose needs require that the records be certified. The express qualifier precludes a FOIL request otherwise made by a nonqualifying member of the general public. In this context, the statutory focus is not on the certification component but on maintaining the confidentiality of the underlying information … . Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York State Dept. of Health, 2024 NY Slip Op 02854, Third Dept 5-23-24

Practice Point: The Public Health Law  limits the disclosure of death records kept by the health department to specific categories of applicants and state the records are not subject to disclosure under FOIL. Here the request by a non-profit promoting genealogical research was denied in its entirety.

 

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