You are here: / Court Should Not Have Deferred, Over Defense Counsel’s Objection,...

Search Results

/ ,

Court Should Not Have Deferred, Over Defense Counsel’s Objection, to Defendant’s Request that the Jury Not Be Charged on a Lesser Included Offense—To Do So Denies Defendant His Right to the Expert Judgment of Counsel

The Fourth Department determined the court erred in deferring to the defendant’s request that the jury not be charged to consider a lesser included offense.  Defense counsel strongly objected to the defendant’s request and so informed the court.  The decision concerning whether to request a “lesser included” jury instruction is solely the province of defense counsel:

In Colville (20 NY3d at 23), the Court of Appeals held that “the decision whether to seek a jury charge on lesser-included offenses is a matter of strategy and tactics which ultimately rests with defense counsel.” In that case, the trial court agreed with defense counsel that a reasonable view of the evidence supported his request to submit two lesser included offenses to the jury (id.). Nevertheless, “contrary to defense counsel’s request and repeated statements that, in his professional judgment, the lesser-included offenses should be given to the jury, the judge did not do so because defendant objected” (id.). The jury convicted the defendant of murder, and the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, concluding that, “[b]y deferring to defendant, the judge denied him the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him” (id. at 32). People v Brown, 2014 NY Slip Op 03374, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/ ,

City’s Annexation of Town Land Was in the Overall Public Interest

The Fourth Department determined the annexation of vacant town land by the city was demonstrated to be in the overall public interest, despite the loss of tax revenue to the town:

The municipality seeking an article 17 annexation has the burden of proving that the annexation is in the overall public interest” (…see General Municipal Law § 712…). “A reviewing court must weigh[ ] the benefit or detriment to the annexing municipality, the territory proposed to be annexed, and the remaining governmental unit from which the territory would be taken” … . “Benefit and detriment are customarily defined in terms of municipal services such as police and fire protection, health regulations, sewer and water service, public utilities and public education” … . “Another factor to consider is whether the municipality seeking the annexation and the territory proposed to be annexed have the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community’ ” … .  Matter of City of Fulton v Town of Grandby, 2014 NY Slip Op 03371, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/

Resentencing Defendant to Original Sentence (Imposing No Post Release Supervision) Did Not Require Defendant’s Presence

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant was properly sentenced even though he was not present at the resentencing.  The original sentence did not include a period of post release supervision [PRS].  The resentence also did not impose PRS.  Therefore, there was no error which adversely affected the defendant:

Defendant … contends that the court erred in conducting the resentence in his absence and without assigning counsel (see Correction Law § 601-d [4] [a]; CPL 380.40 [1]…). That contention is not properly before us because we may only “consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect . . . which may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15 [1]). Here, the only issue presented at resentencing was whether the court would impose a period of PRS, and the District Attorney had already informed the court and defendant in writing that the People would consent to the reimposition of the original sentence, i.e., without a period of PRS. Inasmuch as the court reimposed that original sentence, “defendant was not adversely affected by any error, because the result, i.e., freedom from having to serve a term of PRS [with respect to this count of the indictment], was in his favor” … . People v Mills, 2014 NY Slip Op 03388, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/

Indictment Dismissed after Trial as Multiplicitous and Duplicitous/Grand Larceny Can Not Be Based Upon the Violation of a Regulation that Is Civil in Nature

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed the indictment in a prosecution alleging public assistance fraud in the operation of a daycare home.  The indictment charged the defendant with grand larceny, falsifying business records and offering a false instrument for filing.  Essentially, the charges alleged the defendant billed for services provided by an unlicensed care-giver, and billed for services which were not provided.  The Fourth Department held that the entire indictment was rendered multiplicitous and duplicitous by the trial evidence.  In addition, the court determined that the grand larceny count could not be based upon the violation of a regulation requiring the presence of a licensed assistant.

With respect to multiplicity and duplicity, the court wrote:

Prosecutors and grand juries must steer between the evils known as duplicity’ and multiplicity.’ An indictment is duplicitous when a single count charges more than one offense . . . It is multiplicitous when a single offense is charged in more than one count . . . A duplicitous indictment may fail to give a defendant adequate notice and opportunity to defend; it may impair his [or her] ability to assert the protection against double jeopardy in a future case; and it may undermine the requirement of jury unanimity, for if jurors are considering separate crimes in a single count, some may find the defendant guilty of one, and some of the other. If an indictment is multiplicitous it creates the risk that a defendant will be punished for, or stigmatized with a conviction of, more crimes than he [or she] actually committed” … . An indictment that is not duplicitous on its face may be rendered so based upon the trial evidence … .

Here, the People correctly concede that counts 5 through 7, 9, 15 through 17, and 19 of the indictment are duplicitous and multiplicitous inasmuch as they are based on “distinct but not identifiable vouchers.” Those counts are all based on the same time period and the same vendor number and, according to the People, there is no way to identify which voucher refers to which count … .  …

With respect to the remaining counts of the indictment, we agree with defendant that counts 8, 10, 18, and 20 of the indictment were rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence.. . . As noted above, the People alleged that defendant submitted vouchers for monies to which she was not entitled because, at various dates and times, she (1) billed for hours when neither she nor her certified assistant were at the daycare, and (2) she billed for hours when the children were not at the daycare. There is no basis in the record to determine, with respect to each of those counts, whether the jury convicted defendant based upon the first act (billing for hours when the children were watched by uncertified assistants) or the second act (billing for hours when the children were not at daycare), or whether certain jurors convicted defendant upon the former and others upon the latter. Thus, “it is impossible to verify that each member of the jury convicted defendant for the same criminal act”… .

With respect to grand larceny based upon the violation of a regulation, the court wrote:

Count one of the indictment alleges that, between October 1, 2007 and July 30, 2008, defendant “stole property having a value in excess of [$3,000], to wit: a sum of money, belonging to [DSS].” Under Penal Law § 155.05 (1), “[a] person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself [or herself] or to a third person, he [or she] wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.” Larceny includes “obtaining property by false pretenses” (§ 155.05 [2] [a]). A defendant commits larceny by false pretenses when he or she “obtain[s] possession of money of another by means of an intentional false material statement about a past or presently existing fact upon which the victim relied in parting with the money” … .

Here, the People alleged that defendant committed larceny by false pretenses by charging for times when unlicensed assistants were watching the children in violation of OCFS regulations, and by billing for times when the children were not receiving daycare services. We question whether submitting vouchers for daycare services rendered by an uncertified assistant falls within the definition of larceny. OCFS’s regional manager testified that, although it is a “regulatory violation” for an uncertified assistant to watch children at a group day care, the regulations do not state that daycare providers are not permitted to bill for services rendered by an uncertified assistant. Indeed, the DSS special investigator referred to those hours as “billable” on his charts, although unauthorized by the regulations.

Even assuming, arguendo, that billing for services provided by an uncertified assistant constitutes a “wrongful[ ] tak[ing]” within the meaning of Penal Law § 155.05 (1), we note that “[c]onduct which is wrongful in the civil context is not necessarily wrongful’ within the meaning of the larceny statutes” … .  People v Casiano, 2014 NY Slip Op 03362, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/ ,

Owner of Animal Which Strays Can Be Liable in Tort for Related Motorcycle Accident

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s complaint should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiff’s decedent was killed when his motorcycle struck a cow which had wandered off defendant’s land:

The Court [of Appeals has] held that “a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal—i.e., a domestic animal as that term is defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7)—is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept” … . Sargent v Mammoser, 2014 NY Slip Op 03372, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/ , ,

Allegations that Town Was Negligent in Maintaining a Sewer System Involve a Proprietary Function Subject to Ordinary Rules of Negligence

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s causes of  action against a town alleging negligent maintenance, as opposed to design, of a sewer system properly survived summary judgment.  Maintenance is a proprietary function of the town and is subject to ordinary negligence principles:

If the municipality acted in a proprietary role, i.e., “when its activities essentially substitute for or supplement traditionally private enterprises” …, ordinary rules of negligence apply. If, however, the municipality acted in a governmental capacity, i.e., “when its acts are undertaken for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to general police powers” (id. at 425 [internal quotation marks omitted]), the court must undertake a separate inquiry to determine whether the municipality owes a special duty to the injured party … . In the event that the plaintiff fails to prove such a duty, the municipality is insulated from liability. Even in the event that the plaintiff proves such a duty, however, the municipality will not be liable if it proves that the alleged negligent act or omission involved the exercise of discretionary authority … .

With respect to municipal sewer malfunctions, it is well settled that a municipality’s design of a sewer system constitutes a governmental function …, while a municipality’s “operation, maintenance and repair of th[at] sewer system is a proprietary function, and thus the Town’s liability in that respect is not contingent upon the existence of a special relationship”… . Gilberti v Town of Spafford, 2014 NY Slip Op 03382, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/

Sole Heir Did Not Have Standing to Bring Action for Recovery of Estate Property—No Allegations of Misconduct by Personal Representative

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff the sole heir, did not have standing to bring his own action for recovery of the property of the estate because there were no allegations of misconduct on the part of the personal representative:

…[T]he estate representative is charged with the duty of recovering property of the estate, and that plaintiff, as decedent’s sole heir, has no independent cause of action, either in his own right or the right of the estate, to maintain an action for recovery of the property of the estate, absent extraordinary circumstances … . Extraordinary circumstances include collusion of the personal representative with others or an “unreasonable refusal” of the personal representative of the estate to commence an action … . Inasmuch as the extraordinary circumstances must relate directly to the actions of the personal representative of the estate, we conclude that the court erred in determining that the “unique and novel circumstances” of this case, i.e., “homicide, possible forgery, perjury, false statements, and possible conflicts of interest,” constitute the requisite extraordinary circumstances… . Castor v Pulaski, 2014 NY Slip Op 03386, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/ ,

Request for Petitioner’s Income Tax Records Properly Denied—Insufficient Showing the Desired Information Could Not Be Gained from Other Sources

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined petitioner could not be ordered to turn over his income tax records.  Petitioner claimed that he had provided the down payment and monthly mortgage payments for decedent’s home where petitioner resided. Petitioner further claimed that decedent promised the home to him in a verbal agreement (and therefore the home should not pass by the will to petitioner’s sister).  Respondent wanted access to petitioner’s tax records to see if petitioner had sufficient income to make the down payment:

We conclude that Surrogate’s Court properly denied respondent’s motion, inasmuch as respondent has not made a sufficiently strong showing that the information contained in petitioner’s income tax records “were indispensable to this litigation and unavailable from other sources” …, such as “other financial or business records” … . Indeed, respondent “failed to make any factual showing in this regard, since the hearsay affirmation[s] of [respondent’s] attorney [are] wholly conclusory” …, petitioner’s deposition testimony, the only exhibit submitted in support of the motion, accounted for petitioner’s employment history during the times in question, although in a vague manner …, and respondent did not establish that it sought the requested information from any alternate source… .  Matter of Monaco, 2014 NY Slip Op 03423, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/ ,

Rule Requiring Submission of Order or Judgment for Signature within 60 Days Applies Only When Court Directs that the Proposed Order Be Settled or Submitted for Signature

The Fourth Department determined an action had not been abandoned for failure to submit the order for signature within 60 days pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48.  That rule applies only when the court directs a party to submit or settle an order or judgment:

…[W]e agree with plaintiff that the court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. That rule provides that “[p]roposed orders or judgments . . . must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted . . . Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48 [a], [b]). As the Court of Appeals wrote, “[b]y its plain terms, section 202.48 (a) speaks to the circumstances where the court’s decision expressly directs a party to submit or settle an order or judgment” (Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367). Thus, the Court held that “the 60-day period applies only where the court explicitly directs that the proposed judgment or order be settled or submitted for signature” (id. at 365). Here, the order of reference did not explicitly direct plaintiff to settle or submit an order or judgment for signature. Rather, it directed plaintiff to submit a “Motion or [an] Ex Parte Application” seeking a judgment of foreclosure and sale. We therefore conclude that the court erred in dismissing the complaint in reliance on 22 NYCRR 202.48… . Midfirst Bank v Bellinger, 2014 NY Slip Op 03365, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

/ , , ,

Insurance Company’s Documents Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege/Where there is a Discrepancy Between an Order and the Related Decision, the Decision Controls

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should not have ordered disclosure of documents generated by an insurance company in relation to plaintiff’s claim because they were protected by attorney-client privilege.  (The court noted, with respect to the lower court’s decision and order in this case,  that where there is a discrepancy between and order and a decision, the decision controls:)

A party seeking to invoke the attorney-client privilege must show that “the information sought to be protected from disclosure was a confidential communication’ made to the attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services . . . [, and] the burden of proving each element of the privilege rests upon the party asserting it” … . “For the privilege to apply when communications are made from client to attorney, they must be made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and directed to an attorney who has been consulted for that purpose.’ . . . [F]or the privilege to apply when communications are made from attorney to client—whether or not in response to a particular request—they must be made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship” … .

It is well settled that “[t]he payment or rejection of claims is a part of the regular business of an insurance company. Consequently, reports which aid it in the process of deciding which of the two indicated actions to pursue are made in the regular course of its business” … . Notably, “while information received from third persons may not itself be privileged . . . , a lawyer’s communication to a client that includes such information in its legal analysis and advice may stand on different footing. The critical inquiry is whether, viewing the lawyer’s communication in its full content and context, it was made in order to render legal advice or services to the client”… . Nicastro v New York Cent Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 03381, 4th Dept 5-9-14

 

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