You are here: / Defendant’s Limited Right to Seek the Advice of an Attorney Before...

Search Results

/ , ,

Defendant’s Limited Right to Seek the Advice of an Attorney Before Consenting to a Breathalyzer Test Was Violated When the Sheriff’s Department Administered the Test Without First Telling Defendant an Attorney Had Communicated with the Sheriff’s Department on Her Behalf

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissent, determined defendant's breathalyzer test results were properly suppressed.  After her arrest for Driving While Intoxicated, the defendant did not ask to speak with an attorney and consented to the test.  However, her family communicated with an attorney who called before the breathalyzer test was administered and told the sheriff's department not to test or question the defendant.  The Court of Appeals determined the sheriff's department was obligated to inform the defendant about the attorney's communication before administering the test:

In People v Gursey (22 NY2d 224 [1968])… we recognized a limited right of the accused to seek legal assistance in alcohol-related driving cases. We held that, based on the warning procedure set forth in section 1194 (2) (b), “if a defendant arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol asks to contact an attorney before responding to a request to take a chemical test, the police 'may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and his lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication'” … . Violation of this right to legal consultation generally requires suppression of the scientific evidence …. Because time is of the essence in obtaining accurate chemical test evidence …, we further observed in Gursey that a suspect's communication with a lawyer regarding “the exercise of legal rights should not [] extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses” … .

It is therefore well established that “there is no absolute right to refuse to take the test until an attorney is actually consulted, nor can a defendant use a request for legal consultation to significantly postpone testing” … . In other words, conferring with counsel is permissible only if “'such access does not interfere unduly'” with timely administration of the test … . * * *

In our view, the statutory right to legal consultation applies when an attorney contacts the police before a chemical test for alcohol is performed and the police must alert the subject to the presence of counsel, whether the contact is made in person or telephonically. Gursey contemplated that a lawyer retained to represent a DWI arrestee can directly communicate with the police, reasoning that “law enforcement officials may not, without justification, prevent access between the criminal accused and [the] lawyer, available in person or by immediate telephone communication, if such access does not interfere unduly” with the administration of alcohol test … . The fact that defendant consented to the breathalyzer about the same time that the attorney was communicating with the police is not dispositive since defendant, after conferring with counsel, could have revoked her consent prior to administration of the test (see generally Vehicle & Traffic Law §§ 1194 [2] [b], 1194-a [3] [c]). The police therefore must advise the accused that a lawyer has made contact on the accused's behalf … . Once so informed, the accused may choose to consult with counsel or forego that option and proceed with the chemical test. People v Washington, 2014 NY Slip Op 04190, CtApp 5-6-14

 

/ , , , ,

Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Mortgage Company Did Not Negotiate a Loan Modification in Good Faith Without a Hearing, and Could Not, Pursuant to the Contract Clause, Order the Mortgage Company to Enter a Loan Modification Agreement

After defendant, Ms Hepburn, failed to answer the summons and complaint in a mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff mortgage company moved for an order of reference (the appointment of a referee to compute the amount due).  Supreme Court denied the motion and, sua sponte, determined the mortgage company had not negotiated a loan modification in good faith (CPLR 3408), and directed the mortgage company to offer a loan modification within sixty days.  The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted the motion for an order of reference (which was not opposed), should not have made a finding the mortgage company failed to negotiate a loan modification in good faith without conducting a hearing, and could not, pursuant to the Contract Clause, order the mortgage company to enter a loan modification agreement:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, determined that the plaintiff failed to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408, and directed it, within sixty days, to offer a loan modification to Ms. Hepburn allowing her to assume the subject mortgage. “It is well-settled that an action to foreclose a mortgage is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . A court “may impose a sanction sua sponte, but the party to be sanctioned must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … .

Here, the only matter before the Supreme Court was the plaintiff’s motion for an order of reference. Without an evidentiary hearing or notice to the parties, the Supreme Court sua sponte determined that the plaintiff had not acted in good faith in its negotiations with Ms. Hepburn at settlement conferences, which were held over a 16-month period, and thereupon denied the plaintiff’s motion. Such procedure did not afford the plaintiff an opportunity to oppose the Supreme Court’s finding that it had not met it obligation to negotiate in good faith as required by CPLR 3408 or to oppose the imposition of sanctions … . Moreover, even if sanctions for failure to negotiate in good faith were appropriate in this matter, the Supreme Court erred in directing the plaintiff to, in effect, enter into a contract with Ms. Hepburn … . Such a sanction violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution … . PHH Mtge. Corp. v Hepburn, 2015 NY Slip Op 03817, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

/ ,

Names of Retired Teachers Not Protected from Disclosure by Public Officers Law 89

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined Public Officers Law 89 (7) did not exempt from disclosure the names of retirees who receive benefits from public employees' retirement systems.  The question boiled down to statutory interpretation:

The answer to the question before us — are retirees' names exempt from disclosure? — is plain from the face of the statute. It exempts “the home address . . . of a retiree,” but not the retiree's name. By contrast, it exempts both the name and home address of “a beneficiary of a public employees' retirement system.” A “beneficiary” of a retirement system, as the term is commonly used, is a family member of an employee or retiree who is entitled to benefits after the employee's or retiree's death; it is so used on the website of one of the retirement systems in this case (NYSTRS,”Glossary of Benefit Terms,” at http://www.nystrs.org/main/glossary/html [last visited April 21, 2014]). In some contexts, “beneficiary” might be read more broadly to include a retiree, for retirees do benefit from retirement systems. But “beneficiary” was obviously not used in that sense in this statute, because the statute provides a separate and more limited exemption for a “retiree.” Matter of Empire Ctr for NY State Policy v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys, 2014 NY Slip Op 03193, CtApp 5-6-14

 

/

Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Precluded Plaintiffs’ Action—Doctrines Clearly Described

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ breach of contract action was precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because all the relevant issues had been raised and determined in defendant’s successful mortgage foreclosure actions. The Second Department offered the following clear descriptions of the res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines:

The doctrine of res judicata provides that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … . The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from relitigating any claim which could have been or should have been litigated in a prior proceeding … . Therefore, under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a valid final judgment will bar future actions between the same parties involving the same cause of action … .

The claims asserted by the plaintiffs in this case concern the parties’ rights and obligations under the mortgage agreements between the plaintiffs and the defendant. As such, those claims needed to be—and, in fact, were—raised by the plaintiffs in defending against the foreclosure action, and thus the plaintiffs are barred from relitigating those claims in this action … . * * *

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent proceeding or action an issue that was raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity … . For the bar to apply, the issue must have been material to the first action and “essential to the decision rendered therein,” and it must be the point that is to be determined in the second action, such that “a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first” … . In addition, the party against whom preclusion is sought must have had a “full and fair opportunity to contest the matter in the prior action” … .

In this case, the claims sought to be relitigated are identical to those that were decided against the plaintiffs in the foreclosure action. These claims were material to the action and were essential to the decision rendered. Moreover, the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination … . SSJ Dev. of Sheepshead Bay I, LLC v Amalgamated Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 03824, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

/ , , ,

Although Picketing by Teachers Was Protected Speech, the Manner in which the Picketing Was Carried Out Endangered the Safety of Students—Therefore the Teachers Were Properly Disciplined

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, with concurring and dissenting opinions, reversed the Appellate Division and found that teachers had been properly disciplined for picketing in their cars in a manner which made it more difficult for parents to drop off their children at the school.  The court applied the so-called Pickering test (Pickering v Board of Educ…391 US 563 [1968]) which addresses the free speech rights of public employees (which are somewhat curtailed).  Under the court's Pickering analysis, the picketing was protected speech, but the manner in which the picketing was done endangered the students. The teachers, therefore, could be disciplined for the manner in which they exercised their right to free speech:

Under Pickering, the determination whether a public employer has properly disciplined a public employee “for engaging in speech requires 'a balance between the interests of the [employee], as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the [public] . . . employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees'” … . This balancing test recognizes that the public employer must be permitted a level of control over its employees so it may fulfill essential services, such as public safety and education, efficiently and effectively …, but also that “[v]igilance is necessary” to ensure public employers do not use their authority “to silence discourse[] not because it hampers public functions but simply because superiors disagree with the content of [the] employees' speech” … . Matter of Santer v Board of Educ of E Meadow Union Free Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 03189, CtApp 5-6-14

 

/ ,

Even Records Demonstrated to Be Material and Necessary to the Prosecution or Defense of an Action Are Not Discoverable If Privileged and the Privilege Is Not Waived

Even though disclosure of a non-party sibling’s medical records was demonstrated to be material and necessary (CPLR 3101(a)(1)), the Second Department determined discovery was precluded because the records are privileged (CPLR 3101 (b)) and the privilege was not waived:

Even when the party seeking disclosure has demonstrated that such disclosure is material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action (see CPLR 3101[a][1]), discovery may still be precluded where, as here, the requested information is privileged and thus exempted from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101(b) … . “Once the privilege is validly asserted, it must be recognized and the sought-after information may not be disclosed unless it is demonstrated that the privilege has been waived” … . Washington v Alpha-K Family Med. Practice, P.C., 2015 NY Slip Op 03831, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

/ , , ,

Comptroller Has Authority to Audit Private Health Care Providers Who Are Paid through an Insurance Company Under Contract with the State for Health Care Provided to State Employees

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the state comptroller had constitutional and statutory authority to audit the billing records of private health care providers (Handler and South) who receive state funds for care provided to state employees through an insurance company under contract with the state. The underlying audit concerned the health care providers' waiver of patients' co-payments which effectively reduced the cost of the care provided by 20%.  Because the state was obligated to pay only 80% of the cost of the care, the comptroller determined the health care providers who waived the copayment were effectively overpaid by the state.  The health care providers argued the comptroller did not have the power to audit them because they were paid by the insurance company, not the state:

Handler and South Island receive State insurance funds in exchange for services rendered to State insurance beneficiaries. The fact that the State relies on a third-party conduit, United [the insurance company], does not change the character of the funds. They remain State dollars directed to pay health care costs incurred by State beneficiaries and charged by Handler and South Island.  Matter of Martin H Handler MD PC v DiNapoli, 2014 NY Slip Op 03191, CtApp 5-6-14

 

/

Failure to Provide Addresses of Witnesses and the Nature of Their Testimony Justified the Denial of Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue

The Second Department determined defendants failed to meet their burden (imposed by CPLR 510 (3)) in support of their motion for a change of venue.  Although the defendants alleged the inconvenience of witnesses, they failed to provide the addresses of those witnesses and failed to described the nature of the witnesses’ testimony. “CPLR 510(3) provides that the court may, upon motion, change the place of the trial of an action where ‘the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change’ (CPLR 510[3]). The party seeking the change, which is discretionary in nature, must set forth: (1) the names, addresses, and occupations of material witnesses, (2) the facts to which those witnesses will testify at trial, (3) a showing that those witnesses are willing to testify, and (4) a showing that those witnesses will be inconvenienced if the venue of the action is not changed … . ” Fitzsimons v Brennan, 2015 NY Slip Op 03801, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

/ , , ,

Once an Amended Complaint is Served the Action Must Proceed As if the Original Complaint Never Existed—A Summary Judgment Motion Based Upon an Affirmative Defense Asserted for the First Time in the Answer to the Amended Complaint Was Properly Brought, Even Though a Prior Summary Judgment Motion on the Same Ground Had Been Denied/Medical Billing Software, i.e., Intellectual Property, Is “Personal Property” Covered by General Obligations Law 5-903—The Automatic Renewal Provision of the Medical Billing Contract Was Therefore Void

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and an affirmative defense asserted in the answer to the amended complaint could be the basis of a summary judgment motion, even though the same ground was asserted in a prior, unsuccessful summary judgment motion. The substantive issue was whether billing software licensed to a doctor was “service … to or for … personal property” within the meaning of General Obligations Law 5-903 (2).  The court determined the billing software was covered by the General Obligations Law and, therefore, the automatic renewal provision in the contract between the software company and the doctor could not be enforced.  The “General Obligations Law” affirmative defense was not asserted in the original answer and a summary judgment motion based on the unpled affirmative defense had previously been denied:

We find that the second summary judgment motion, brought after the pleadings were amended on a substantive issue not previously decided by the court, was procedurally proper. “Once plaintiff served the amended complaint, the original complaint was superseded, and the amended complaint became the only complaint in the action. The action was then required to proceed as though the original pleading had never been served” … . Thus, defendant’s appeal from the prior order denying summary judgment became moot …, and “sufficient cause . . . exist[ed]” for his motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint … . …

General Obligations Law § 5-903 does not define “personal property,” although it broadly defines “person” as “an individual, firm, company, partnership or corporation” and also states that its restrictions apply unless “the person receiving the service” is served with advanced notice calling its attention to the renewal clause in the contract (General Obligations Law § 5-903[2]). The statute does not require that the person own the “personal property” being serviced, and section 5-903 has been analyzed by courts in a variety of circumstances to determine its applicability. Personal property has been interpreted to include intellectual property as well as tangible personal property … . The purpose of the notice provision is to protect service recipients from the harm of unintended automatic renewals of contracts for consecutive periods … . Since § 5-903 is remedial in nature it is construed broadly … .

We find that the parties’ agreement was “for service . . . to or for . . . personal property” within the meaning of the General Obligations Law. The services provided were directly and inextricably related to the billing and medical records of the practice, which are personal property. Healthcare IQ LLC v Tsai Chung Chao, 2014 NY Slip Op 03216, 1st Dept 5-6-14

 

/

In Consolidated Actions Started in Different Counties, the County Where the First Action Was Brought is the Proper Venue

The Second Department determined the proper venue for consolidated actions started in different counties is the county where the first action was brought: ” ‘[W]here actions commenced in different counties have been consolidated pursuant to CPLR 602, the venue should be placed in the county where the first action was commenced, unless special circumstances are present which decision is also addressed to the sound discretion of the court’…” . Fitzsimons v Brennan, 2015 NY Slip Op 03802, 2nd Dept 5-6-15

 

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