You are here: / Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Prosecution of a Lesser Included Offense Never...

Search Results

/ ,

Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Prosecution of a Lesser Included Offense Never Considered by the Trier of Fact in the First Trial

The Fourth Department noted that an Article 78/prohibition action is a proper vehicle for raising double jeopardy as a bar to a prosecution. Defendant was charged with two counts of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and one count of Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI).  In a bench trial, defendant was acquitted of one count of DWI and the second count of DWI, of which defendant was initially convicted, was subsequently dismissed pursuant to a post-trial motion because of the legal insufficiency of the evidence.  Under these circumstances, because the DWAI count was never considered in the bench trial, a second trial on that charge alone does not violate the double jeopardy prohibition:

“[I]n a bench trial, it is presumed that the Judge sitting as the trier of fact made his [or her] decision based upon appropriate legal criteria” … . Here, the court, upon acquitting defendant of common-law DWI, would have applied the “acquit-first” rule …, and next considered DWI, per se, before reaching DWAI as a lesser included offense under either count of DWI … . Inasmuch as the court convicted defendant of the count charging DWI, per se, it could not have reached the lesser included offense of DWAI. Consequently, we conclude that “double jeopardy concerns . . . are not present in the case at hand . . . [because] the People here d[o] not seek to retry defendant on the count[, i.e., DWI, per se, or common-law DWI] of which he was acquitted at the first trial. Rather, the only count at issue in the retrial [will be] the lesser [DWAI] charge for which the [court did not] reach a verdict. At no point during the retrial [will] defendant [be] in jeopardy of conviction of the greater offense. Thus, there [i]s no constitutional double jeopardy bar to [a] second trial” on the lesser included offense of DWAI … . Matter of Case v Sedita, 2015 NY Slip Op 03630, 4th Dept 5-1-15

 

/ , ,

Attorney’s Charging Lien Based Upon a Judgment for Child Support Arrears Was Proper—Relevant Law Explained

The Fourth Department, in the context of plaintiff’s attempt to collect a judgment reflecting child support arrears, determined an attorney’s charging lien was appropriately attached to the proceeds of the sale of defendant’s property.  The court rejected the argument that child support payments are exempt from an attorney’s charging lien, at least under the facts of this case.  Here the children were already emancipated and the nonpayment was not enforced for 16 years.  The Fourth Department explained the law surrounding attorney’s charging liens, and noted the exemptions for proceedings before “a department of labor” and an award of alimony or maintenance:

Under the common law, “the attorney’s lien was a device invented by the courts for the protection of attorneys against the knavery of their clients, by disabling clients from receiving the fruits of recoveries without paying for the valuable services by which the recoveries were obtained’ “… . Judiciary Law § 475 “codifies and extends the common-law charging lien” …, by providing an attorney with “a lien upon his or her client’s cause of action, claim or counterclaim, which attaches to a verdict, report, determination, decision, award, settlement, judgment or final order in his or her client’s favor, and the proceeds thereof in whatever hands they may come” (§ 475 …). The statute is remedial in nature and therefore must “be construed liberally in aid of the object sought by the [L]egislature, which was to furnish security to attorneys by giving them a lien upon the subject of the action” … . “The lien comes into existence, without notice or filing, upon commencement of the action or proceeding,” and “gives the attorney an equitable ownership interest in the client’s cause of action” … .

The only exception contained in the statute is for proceedings before “a department of labor” (Judiciary Law § 475). In addition to that statutory exception, the Court of Appeals has held that, as a matter of public policy, a charging lien may not attach to an award of alimony or maintenance … . Mura v Mura, 2015 NY Slip Op 03639, 4th Dept 5-1-15

 

/ , , ,

Continuous Representation Doctrine Did Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Fraud, Excessive Fees and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Actions Were Not Duplicative of the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Punitive Damages Claim Properly Pled

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, determined the continuous representation doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations for the legal malpractice cause of action, the fraud, excessive fees, and unjust enrichment causes of action were not duplicative of the legal malpractice action, and the demand for punitive damages properly survived dismissal. It was alleged that defendants-attorneys gave the plaintiffs bad advice re: a tax shelter and failed to inform plaintiffs of the close business ties between the attorneys and a firm which profited directly from the advice given plaintiffs. With regard to the continuous representation doctrine, the court explained that, in order to toll the statute, the representation must relate to the specific matter out of which the malpractice is alleged to have arisen—an on-going relationship on other matters does not toll the statute. The allegation that the defendants did not disclose their business relationship with the firm profiting from the legal advice was sufficient to support the fraud cause of action (as “non-duplicative”). The excessive fees and unjust enrichment causes of action were likewise not duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action. The punitive damages claim was sufficiently pled because it alleged a wide-ranging scheme affecting many of defendants’ clients:

…[W]hile there was certainly the possibility that the need for future legal work would be required with respect to the tax strategy, plaintiffs could not have “acutely” anticipated the need for further counsel from defendants that would trigger the continuous representation toll. * * *

Defendants argue that, because the legal malpractice claim is time-barred, plaintiffs’ other claims arising out of the representation are also time-barred since they are merely duplicative of the malpractice cause of action. This contention derives from CPLR 214(6), which was enacted to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing the three-year statute of limitations for professional malpractice claims by characterizing a defendant’s failure to meet professional standards as something else, such as a breach of contract (for which there is a six-year statute of limitations) … . The key to determining whether a claim is duplicative of one for malpractice is discerning the essence of each claim … . * * *  Here, the essences of the fraud and malpractice claims are sufficiently distinct from one another that the court properly did not invoke the duplicative claims doctrine. * * *

The excessive fee and unjust enrichment claims are also not duplicative of the malpractice claim. The former is stated regardless of the quality of the work performed, so long as a plaintiff can reasonably allege that the fee bore no rational relationship to the product delivered … . Here, plaintiffs did so, since they asserted that defendants collected a $425,000 fee for a “cookie cutter” legal opinion. By the same logic, the unjust enrichment claim, which is predicated on the excessiveness of the $425,000 fee, also properly survived the motion to dismiss. * * *

…[P]laintiffs’ claim for punitive damages properly survived dismissal. Defendants’ conduct is alleged to have been directed at a wide swath of clients, and the first amended complaint sufficiently alleges intentional and malicious treatment of those clients as well as a “wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations” … .  Johnson v Proskauer Rose LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 03626, 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

/

Defendant’s Statement Was Made In Response to the Functional Equivalent of a Question Designed to Elicit an Incriminatory Response and Should Have Been Suppressed

The Third Department determined a statement made by the defendant after he had been arrested and was being transported to the police station was not “spontaneous” (as County Court found) and should have been suppressed. At the arrest scene one of defendant’s “associates” indicated defendant might have drugs in his anal cavity.  In the police car, an officer said to the defendant that he hoped defendant did not have any more drugs on him and the defendant said he probably did.  During a subsequent search drugs were found in defendant’s anal cavity. Although defendant’s statement indicating he probably had more drugs on him should have been suppressed because it was made in response to a police statement designed to elicit an incriminating response, the drugs themselves were not subject to suppression.  The Third Department determined the search which turned up the drugs was not triggered by the statement:

The admissibility of a statement made by a defendant in custody depends on whether it was “the product of ‘express questioning or its functional equivalent'” … . The operative question is whether, in context, “the officer should have known that his statement was ‘reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from the suspect'” … . In our view, County Court erred in concluding that the inculpatory statement was admissible because it was simply a spontaneous response to a declaration by [the officer]. For a statement to be spontaneous, it must be self-generated without “inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescense, no matter how subtly employed” … . Coming on the heels of [the officer’s] explanation that defendant would be searched as part of the booking process, and having been informed by the passenger that defendant may have hidden additional drugs on his person, we find [the officer’s] statement to be the functional equivalent of a question intended to elicit an incriminating response … . Since defendant was in custody and had not been given Miranda warnings, the statement should have been suppressed as involuntary. People v George, 2015 NY Slip Op 03574, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

/ , ,

Juvenile Delinquency Adjudications Can Not Be Considered in the Criminal History Categories of a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI)—However the Adjudications Can Be Considered When Deciding Whether to Depart from the Recommended Risk Level

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rose, indicated its prior rulings should not be followed and determined that juvenile delinquency adjudications may not be considered under risk factors 8 and 9 (criminal history) for the purpose of assessing points in the risk assessment instrument (RAI). However the adjudications may be considered in determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level:

Relying on People v Campbell (98 AD3d 5 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 853 [2012]), defendant contended that Family Ct Act § 381.2 (1) precluded the use of the juvenile delinquency adjudication and, without the 30 points for criminal history, defendant would be presumptively classified as a risk level I sex offender. County Court, citing our previous decisions in People v Pride (37 AD3d 957 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 812 [2007]) and People v Dort (18 AD3d 23 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]), denied defendant’s challenge to the 30-point assessment and classified defendant as a risk level II sex offender. Defendant appeals.

We reverse. We agree with the holding of People v Campbell (supra) that the Board “exceeded its authority by adopting that portion of the [Sex Offender Registration Act] Guidelines which includes juvenile delinquency adjudications in its definition of crimes for the purpose of determining a sex offender’s criminal history” (id. at 12; see Family Ct Act § 380.1 [1]…). Contrary to the People’s argument, the fact that the points at issue in Campbell were assessed under risk factor 8 of the RAI does not require a different conclusion because both risk factor 8 and risk factor 9 fall within the criminal history category of the RAI. To the extent that our prior decisions suggest that juvenile delinquency adjudications may be considered crimes for purposes of the RAI, we note that the conflict between the Guidelines and the Family Ct Act was not raised in those cases and they should no longer be followed. Our ruling is limited, however, to precluding the use of juvenile delinquency adjudications to assess points for criminal history under the RAI, and we do not hold that the facts underlying a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered when determining whether to depart from the recommended risk level … . People v Shaffer, 2015 NY Slip Op 03586, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

/ ,

The Fact that One of Four Men Approached for a Level One Street Inquiry Ran Did Not Provide the Police with Reasonable Suspicion that Defendant, Who Obeyed the Police Commands, Was Involved in a Crime

The First Department determined that the police did not have sufficient cause to detain four men, including the defendant, on the street. The fact that one of the four men subsequently ran did not provide any additional justification for detaining defendant. The police had enough information about a near-by robbery only to justify a “level one” street inquiry of the four men, not detention.  While detained without sufficient cause, defendant was asked by the police to lift up his shirt, revealing a gun.  Absent “reasonable suspicion” of involvement in a crime, the defendant should not have been detained to await the show-up. Absent an indication defendant posed a danger to the police officers, the defendant should not have been asked to lift his shirt:

…[T]he group of men was in a location to which a group of robbers had been reported to have fled only minutes earlier, giving the officers an articulable reason for inquiring into why the men were in the area … . The question, then, is whether the encounter ever escalated to a point that the police would have been justified in holding the men at the scene while the complainant was transported to it.

…[R]easonable suspicion is a necessary predicate to a detention for a showup identification … . Further, a person’s flight is sufficient to create the reasonable suspicion necessary to escalate a level one or level two encounter to a level three detention, so long as other circumstances are attendant, such as a high-crime location and activity suggesting, although not alone creating, reasonable suspicion that the person fleeing the scene may be engaged in criminal conduct … . In all of the cases which discuss flight as the determining factor in creating reasonable suspicion, however, the defendant is the person who fled. Here, of course, defendant did not flee; he obeyed the officers’ direction to stop and to submit to their questioning. People v Thompson, 2015 NY Slip Op 03605 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

/

Hearing Officer’s Failure to Determine Why Three Witnesses Called by the Petitioner Purportedly Refused to Testify Required Annulment and Expungement of the Disciplinary Determination

The Third Department annulled the disciplinary determination, finding that the hearing officer deprived the petitioner of his right to call witnesses by failing to investigate the witnesses’ purported refusal to testify:

Although petitioner requested that his employee assistant interview three inmate witnesses who worked in the library, the record reflects no effort by the employee assistant to interview the potential witnesses or to report the results of those efforts to petitioner. When this issue was raised at the hearing and petitioner inquired about those witnesses, the Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing in order for the employee assistant to ascertain the witnesses’ willingness to testify. Thereafter, the Hearing Officer denied the requested witnesses based upon the employee assistant’s report that all three witnesses refused to testify. No inquiry was made by the Hearing Officer as to the reasons for those witnesses’ refusal, no witness refusal forms were provided, and petitioner’s employee assistant was not called to testify regarding the circumstances as to why the witnesses refused to testify. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer deprived petitioner of his right to call witnesses and the matter must be expunged.. . Matter of Gross v Prack, 2015 NY Slip Op 03595, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

/ ,

Precise Dates of Abuse Need Not Be Proven in a Family Court Act Article 10 Proceeding/Exclusion of Respondent from Proceedings During Child’s Testimony Was Proper

The Third Department affirmed the child abuse/severe abuse/neglect findings against respondent and noted that the precise dates of the abuse need not be proven in a Family Court Act Article 10 proceeding.  The Third Department further determined that the exclusion of the respondent during one of the children’s (Aleria’s) testimony, while allowing the respondent’s attorney to be present, was a proper exercise of discretion:

…[E]vidence of the exact dates that the abuse and/or neglect occurred is not required in order for petitioner to sustain its applicable burdens of proof in Family Ct Act article 10 proceedings (see Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i], [ii]). Rather, a child’s ability to recall details — including, among other things, dates and times — goes to the credibility and weight given to the child’s disclosures. In this regard, “Family Court’s findings are entitled to great deference especially where the critical evidence is testimonial, in light of the court’s ability to assess the witnesses’ credibility, and should generally not be disturbed absent a conclusion that they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” … . The record before us contains corroborated allegations of horrendous, repeated acts of sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by respondent against his children and stepdaughter and, thus, we see no reason to depart from Family Court’s finding that the allegations of severe abuse, abuse, neglect and derivative abuse and neglect were sufficiently proven.

Nor do we find that Family Court abused its discretion when it excluded respondent from the courtroom during Aleria’s testimony. Although respondent is entitled to due process, he does not have an absolute right to be present at all stages of this civil proceeding … . “As such, in the context of a Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding, this Court has concluded that, ‘[i]n balancing the due process right of the accused with the mental and emotional well-being of the child, a court may . . . exclude the respondent during the child’s testimony but allow his [or her] attorney to be present and question the child'” … . Accordingly, after having properly balanced respondent’s interests with the impact of his presence in the courtroom on Aleria’s emotional state and well-being, Family Court’s decision to permit her to testify outside of respondent’s presence was an appropriate exercise of discretion. Matter of Aleria KK. (Ralph MM.), 2015 NY Slip Op 03590, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

/ , ,

Exclusion from Coverage of Claims Brought By or On Behalf of a Governmental Entity Applied to a Qui Tam Case Brought by a Private Party Pursuant to the Federal and State False Claims Acts Re: Medicare and Medicaid Over-Billing—the Private Party (“Relator”) Is Bringing the Action On Behalf of the Government, Which Is the Real Party In Interest

The First Department determined that the insurer’s motion for a declaration it was not obligated to pay for defendant’s defense in a lawsuit under the Federal False Claim Act alleging excessive Medicare and Medicaid billing.  As allowed under the Act, the suit was brought by a private party, called a “relator.”  The policy excluded coverage for any and claim “Brought by or on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, or any federal, state, local or foreign governmental entity, in such entity’s regulatory or official capacity.”  Supreme Court determined the exclusion did not apply because the suit was brought by a private party.  However, pursuant to the terms of the False Claim Act, the action brought on behalf of the government by the relator and the government is the real party in interest:

An action brought under the False Claims Act may be commenced in one of two ways. First, the federal government itself may bring a civil action against a defendant (31 USC § 3730[a]). Second, as is the case here, a private person, or “relator” may bring a qui tam action “for the person and for the United States Government,” against the defendant, “in the name of the Government” (id. at [b][1]). Under such circumstances, the government may elect to intervene, and if it recovers a judgment, the relator receives a percentage of the award (id. at [d][1]). If the government declines to intervene, as in the case here, the relator may pursue the action and may receive as much as 30 percent of any judgment rendered (see id. at [d][2]).

While relators indisputably have a stake in the outcome of False Claims Act qui tam cases that they initiate, “the Government remains the real party in interest in any such action” … . As the Second Circuit has explained:

“All of the acts that make a person liable under [the False Claims Act] focus on the use of fraud to secure payment from the government. It is the government that has been injured by the presentation of such claims; it is in the government’s name that the action must be brought; it is the government’s injury that provides the measure for the damages that are to be trebled; and it is the government that must receive the lion’s share-at least 70%-of any recovery.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. QK0903325 v Huron Consulting Group, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 03608, 1st Dept 4-30-15

 

/ ,

Failure to Mail Summons and Complaint to the Address the Property Owner Designated for the Receipt of All Relevant Correspondence Required Vacation of the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale—Property Owner Was Never Properly Served Pursuant to CPLR 308(2)

The Second Department determined the property owner, Murphy, was entitled to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale because he was not properly served.  The summons was not served at Murphy’s primary residence in Manhattan (Reade Street), where Murphy had always received correspondence about the subject property (a vacation home referred to as the Noyack property) and where Murphy had requested all correspondence regarding the subject property be sent.  Rather the summons was served on someone other than Murphy (who was not identified) at the Noyack property and was mailed there as well. The court determined the service was invalid because it did not comply with the two prongs of CPLR 308(2):

CPLR 308 sets forth the different ways in which service of process upon an individual can be effected in order for the court to obtain jurisdiction over that person. CPLR 308(2) provides, in pertinent part, that personal service upon a natural person may be made “by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by . . . mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence” (emphasis added). “Jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to CPLR 308(2) unless both the delivery and mailing requirements have been strictly complied with” … . It “is a two-step form of service in which a delivery and a mailing are both essential” (Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C308:3).

Since, under the circumstances of this case, the Noyack property, although Murphy’s vacation home, could properly be characterized as his dwelling place or usual place of abode … , we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff satisfied the first prong of CPLR 308(2) by a fair preponderance of the evidence by serving process upon a person of suitable age and discretion at the Noyack property … .

However, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof that its mailing of copies of the summons and complaint to that same address satisfied the second prong of CPLR 308(2). The undisputed evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff received notice from Murphy that the Reade Street address was to be used with respect to all notices concerning the Noyack property. Thereafter, from 2003 through December 2008, a period of time extending beyond the date of the mailing of copies of the summons and complaint to the Noyack property, the plaintiff actually utilized the Reade Street address to send Murphy all correspondence and notices relating to the Noyack property, including those referable to the mortgage statements and Murphy’s default thereunder. The only documents that the plaintiff mailed to the Noyack property were the summons and complaint, despite its knowledge that Murphy had given notice in accordance with the terms of the mortgage that his residence was the Reade Street address, and that it was at that address that he was to receive all mail. Washington Mut. Bank v Murphy, 2015 NY Slip Op 03520, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

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