You are here: / Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not...

Search Results

/

Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not Include Any Offense Which Was In the Indictment, or Any Lesser Included Offense

The Fourth Department determined the failure of the superior court information (SCI) to include the offenses in the indictment, or any lesser included offenses, required reversal of the defendant’s conviction:

The two counts charged in the SCI were not offenses for which defendant was held for action of a grand jury (see CPL 195.20), i.e., those two counts were not included in the felony complaint, and they were not lesser included offenses of an offense charged in the felony complaint … . “[T]he primary purpose of the proceedings upon such felony complaint is to determine whether the defendant is to be held for the action of a grand jury with respect to the charges contained therein” (CPL 180.10 [1]). Thus, ” the waiver procedure is triggered by the defendant being held for [g]rand [j]ury action on charges contained in a felony complaint . . . and it is in reference to those charges that its availability must be measured’ ” … . Inasmuch as the SCI to which defendant pleaded guilty did not “include at least one offense that was contained in the felony complaint,” it was jurisdictionally defective … . That defect does not require preservation, and it survives defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal and his guilty plea … . People v Tun Aung, 2014 NY Slip Op 03135, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/ ,

Competency of Evidence Before Grand Jury Not Reviewable On Appeal Where Defendant Convicted Upon Legally Sufficient Trial Evidence

In response the defendant’s claim that a child witness was allowed to testify before the grand jury without determining her testimonial capacity, the Fourth Department noted that the competency of evidence before the grand jury is not reviewable on appeal where defendant was convicted upon legally sufficient trial evidence. People v Riley, 2014 NY Slip Op 03140, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/ ,

Consequential Damages Related to a Parcel of Land Sold Prior to the Taking Should Not Have Been Granted by the Court of Claims

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fahey, determined the Court of Claims should not have awarded consequential damages for a parcel of land which was sold prior to the taking.  As the court described the issue:

Here we address the issue whether consequential damages may be awarded when the real property in question was sold months before the taking of other real property that affects the land in question. Claimants commenced this proceeding seeking damages for the diminished value of approximately 16 acres of what claimants characterized as “remaining land” following defendant’s taking of approximately 1.22 acres of land from what was claimants’ 17.3-acre parcel. Following a trial, the Court of Claims awarded claimants consequential damages with respect to what the court concluded was 12.835 acres of that parcel. Included in the 12.835 acres of land for which the court awarded consequential damages were 4.63 acres of land sold by claimants to Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (Progressive Parcel) for $1,800,000. That sale occurred in November 2005, i.e., before the taking of the aforementioned 1.22 acres of land in July 2006. Defendant now contends that the award of consequential damages was excessive inasmuch as the court erroneously awarded consequential damages for the Progressive Parcel. We agree. Rose Park Place Inc v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03070, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/ ,

Professional Reliability Exception to the Hearsay Rule (Re: Experts) Explained/Appropriate Date to Commence Prejudgment Interest in Breach of Contract Action Explained

The Fourth Department explained when an expert can rely on hearsay and when prejudgment interest should commence in a breach of contract action:

We reject defendant’s further contention that there was no evidentiary foundation for the testimony of plaintiffs’ damages expert, a construction cost estimator. It is well settled that” [o]pinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness’ ” … . It is also well settled, however, that an expert is permitted to offer opinion testimony based on facts not in evidence where the material is ” of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion’ ” … . “The professional reliability exception to the hearsay rule enables an expert witness to provide opinion evidence based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay, provided it is demonstrated to be the type of material commonly relied on in the profession’ ” … . Here, the expert’s damages testimony was based, in part, on measurements contained in a report that was not admitted in evidence, but those measurements were not otherwise disputed or challenged by defendant. Moreover, the expert testified that the information on which he relied was of the type relied on in his profession.

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in awarding prejudgment interest from April 18, 1990. The jury did not specify a date on which plaintiffs’ cause of action for breach of contract accrued and where, as here, “the precise date from which to fix interest is ambiguous, the date of commencement of the . . . action’ is an appropriate date to choose” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the amount of prejudgment interest awarded from April 18, 1990 and providing that prejudgment interest is to commence from April 18, 1996, the date on which the action was commenced, to May 2, 2012, the date of the judgment. Caleb v Stevenson Envtl Servs Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03057, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/

Evidence of Headaches Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: “Serious Injury”

The Fourth Department, over a substantial dissent, determined that the evidence of plaintiff’s headaches did not raise a question of fact about whether the headaches constituted “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d):

…[W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in concluding that plaintiff raised an issue of fact based upon her complaints of headaches. Although plaintiff submitted excerpts from her deposition in which she testified that “basically every day I would have some type of headache,” it is well settled that “subjective complaints of pain or headaches are insufficient to establish serious injury’ ” … . Here, the record contains no objective basis for plaintiff’s headache complaints … . Moreover, plaintiff “offered no proof that [her] headaches in any way incapacitated [her] or interfered with [her] ability to work or engage in activities at home” … . Downie v McDonough, 2014 NY Slip Op 03048, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/

Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Required Reversal of Plaintiff’s Verdict

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, reversed the judgment for the plaintiff and ordered a new trial finding that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the sole proximate cause defense.  The plaintiff used a wobbly ladder while painting and fell. The trial judge felt that the sole proximate cause defense (i.e., that the plaintiff’s acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident) would have been triggered only if the plaintiff ignored an instruction to use a different ladder. The Fourth Department explained that the defense could also be triggered if the plaintiff knew he had other options available but chose to use the wobbly ladder:

…[T]he court held that plaintiff’s choice of ladder could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries unless he had been told to use another safety device and had ignored that directive. That was an incorrect statement of the law inasmuch as it is not necessary that a plaintiff be told to use another safety device. Rather, there will be no liability imposed on a defendant if the defendant establishes that the plaintiff knew he should use another safety device and knew that such was available at the job site, but chose not to use it … . * * *

As the Court of Appeals held …, in order for there to be liability under section 240 (1), “the owner or contractor must breach the statutory duty under section 240 (1) to provide a worker with adequate safety devices, and this breach must proximately cause the worker’s injuries. These prerequisites do not exist if adequate safety devices are available at the job site, but the worker either does not use or misuses them” … . Piotrowski v McGuire Manor Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03045, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/

Fall from Flatbed Truck Was Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Fall Caused by Gravity Acting On Plywood Being Hoisted from the Truck

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim.  Plaintiff fell from a flatbed truck while trying to steady plywood which became unsteady while being hoisted:

Although flatbed trucks “d[o] not present the kind of elevation-related risk that the statute contemplates” (Toefer v Long Is. R.R., 4 NY3d 399, 408), the accident in this case was caused by a falling object, which distinguishes this case from Toefer … . The accident that caused plaintiff’s injuries “flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … . In other words, the injuries were the result of “the direct consequence of a failure to provide statutorily required protection against a risk plainly arising from a workplace elevation differential” … . Inasmuch as plaintiff established that the plywood fell while being hoisted because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute, we conclude that he is entitled to summary judgment on the section 240 (1) claim … . Hyatt v Young, 2014 NY Slip Op 03056, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

/

Substantive Issue Raised by Petitioner Had Not Been Addressed in a Prior Proceeding Which Had Been Dismissed—Current Proceeding Therefore Not Barred by Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel

The Third Department determined a former teacher’s challenge to the recall of another former teacher was not barred by collateral estoppel.  The challenge was based upon the claim that the petitioner had greater seniority than the recalled teacher.  A prior challenge by petitioner to the recall of a different teacher had been dismissed, but the seniority issue had not been addressed in that prior proceeding:

In order for collateral estoppel to apply, there must be an identity of a decisive issue between the present and prior proceedings which was necessarily decided in the prior proceeding, and the party who will be estopped must have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding … . “Whether to apply collateral estoppel in a particular case depends on general notions of fairness involving a practical inquiry into the realities of the litigation” … . Here, while petitioner raises an identical issue in this proceeding, namely, whether she is entitled to more seniority credit than the Board gave her, that issue has never been decided. Rather, the earlier proceeding was dismissed as time-barred. Because the issue of whether petitioner is entitled to more seniority has not been decided, it is not barred by collateral estoppel … . Matter of Bubel v Board of Educ of the Saugerties Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 02999, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

/ ,

Issuance of a “No Knock” Warrant to Take a DNA Sample Was Not Justified—Sample Should Have Been Suppressed

The Third Department suppressed DNA evidence taken from the defendant pursuant to a “no knock” warrant and reversed defendant’s conviction. No exigent circumstances justified the “no knock” warrant which allowed the police to enter defendant’s home without notice and take the DNA sample:

The search warrant application to obtain DNA from defendant included the unsubstantiated and inaccurate allegations that the “search warrant cannot be executed between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M.,” “the property sought will be removed or destroyed if not seized forthwith,” and “[t]he property sought may be easily and quickly destroyed or disposed of.” There were no factual allegations reflecting exigent circumstances justifying the lack of any notice to defendant of the application to obtain a DNA sample from him. He could not destroy or dispose of his own DNA, and the People’s speculation in their brief that he might have fled was not alleged or supported by facts in the application.

The ensuing search warrant inconsistently stated both that it was to be executed between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and that it could be executed at any time day or night; and it further authorized police to enter the premises where defendant resided without giving notice of their authority or purpose. Under the authority of the warrant, police arrived unannounced at the place where defendant lived demanding his DNA. The total absence of notice to defendant of the search warrant application, which had obvious defects regarding the manner purportedly necessary to obtain defendant’s DNA, violated his constitutional rights and the DNA obtained in such search must be suppressed and the judgment reversed… . People v Walker, 2014 NY Slip Op 02975, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

/ ,

Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release Supervision Moments Before Sentencing

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department vacated defendant's plea to a probation violation because no mention of a period of post-release supervision was made until moments before sentencing.  The court determined there was no need to preserve the error by objection because the defendant had so little time between notification of the post-release supervision and sentencing:

…[W]hether preservation is necessary hinges upon whether the defendant “had ample opportunity to object after the initial [reference to postrelease supervision] was made and before sentence was formally imposed” … . Thus, where “the court first mention[s] postrelease supervision only moments before imposing the sentence,” thereby depriving the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to weigh his or her options at that stage of the proceeding, preservation is not required … .

Although we are mindful that the matter before us concerns a plea of guilty to a violation of probation — as opposed to a plea of guilty to a crime — the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals …is equally applicable here. As noted previously, County Court made no mention of postrelease supervision during the course of defendant's plea colloquy …, nor does the record indicate that defendant otherwise was made aware — prior to entering her plea to the probation violation — that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence … . Rather, the need to impose a period of postrelease supervision was first raised at sentencing — quite literally moments before defendant's sentence actually was imposed … . Under these circumstances, preservation was not required, and County Court's failure to apprise defendant that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence mandates reversal. People v Bolivar, 2014 NY Slip Op 02980, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

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