You are here: / Even Where Probable Cause for Arrest Exists, a Search Can Not Be Justified...

Search Results

/ ,

Even Where Probable Cause for Arrest Exists, a Search Can Not Be Justified as a Search Incident to Arrest Unless the Searching Officer(s) Intended to Arrest Based Upon the Existing Probable Cause—Here the Officers Did Not Intend to Arrest the Defendant for Littering and the Search Was Therefore Not a Valid Search Incident to Arrest

The Third Department determined the search of defendant's backpack was illegal and suppressed the weapon found. Although the defendant had discarded a cup while the officers were watching him, providing grounds for arrest for littering, the officers did not intend to arrest the defendant for littering and in fact did not charge the defendant with littering.  Therefore the search of the backpack could not be justified as a search incident to arrest:

Based on the recent Court of Appeals decision in People v Reid (__ NY3d __ 2014, 2014 NY Slip Op 08759 [2014]), which holds that there must be either an actual or intended arrest for the offense justifying the search, we now reverse.

It is well recognized that the police may search the person or area within the immediate control of any individual who is lawfully placed under arrest … . The warrantless search incident to arrest advances the twin objectives of ensuring the safety of law enforcement and the prevention of evidence tampering or destruction by a suspect. It is not particularly significant whether a search precedes an arrest or vice versa, so long as the two events occur in a nearly contemporaneous manner… . Based on Reid, however, it is now clear that the police must either make an arrest or intend to make an arrest at the time of the search in order for the search to be considered lawful … . The intent to arrest for the offense justifying the search must be present even if a defendant is ultimately arrested for a different offense … .

In Reid, the defendant was pulled over by a police officer after he was observed driving erratically. Based on the defendant's disheveled appearance and odd responses to questions, the officer ordered him out of the car, searched his person, and uncovered a knife in his pocket. Although it was undisputed that the officer's observations gave him probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving while intoxicated, the officer testified at the suppression hearing that he had no intention of arresting the defendant at the time he was initially stopped and searched. The officer also explained that it was not until discovery of the knife that he decided to arrest the defendant. In declining to uphold the search as incident to the defendant's arrest, the Court of Appeals observed that “but for the search,” the arrest “would never have taken place (2014 NY Slip Op 08759, *6),” concluding that it was irrelevant that an arrest for DWI could have been made prior to the search. The Court explained that the search must be “incident to an actual arrest, not just probable cause that might have led to an arrest, but did not” (2014 NY Slip Op 08759, *4). This necessarily requires that, at the time the search is undertaken, an arrest has either been made or the officer has already formulated the intent to effectuate an arrest.

While in this case the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for littering (see Administrative Code of the City of New York § 16-118…]), defendant was not arrested for that offense. Nor did either of the officers testify at the suppression hearing that they harbored any intent to arrest defendant until they discovered the gun. According to officer Arslanbeck, it was only after they discovered a weapon in defendant's backpack that a decision to arrest him was made. Without an actual arrest or the formulation of an intent to arrest defendant for littering prior to frisking his bag, the search cannot be justified as having been incident to defendant's arrest … . People v Magnum, 2015 NY Slip Op 00796, 1st Dept 2-3-15


/ ,

Judge’s Failure to Question Prospective Juror Re: the Juror’s Possible Bias In Favor of Police Officers Was Reversible Error/Prosecutor’s Suggestion in Summation that Simply Being a Defendant Is Evidence of Guilt Was Grounds for Reversal As Well

The First Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not further question a juror who indicated bias in favor of police officers.  [The judge, in denying defense counsel's “for cause” challenge, erroneously indicated it was defense counsel's role to question the juror about the juror's ability to be fair.]  In addition, the prosecutor's suggestion in summation that simply being a defendant is evidence of guilt was grounds for reversal:

Criminal Procedure Law § 270.20(1)(b) provides that a party may challenge a prospective juror for cause if the juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at trial.” Upon making this type of challenge, “a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion, about [his] ability to serve impartially must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that [he] can be fair” … . The CPL “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or talismanic words” …, but challenged jurors “must in some form give unequivocal assurance that they can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Those who have given “less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality . . . must be excused” and “[i]f there is any doubt about a prospective juror's impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another” … .

In this case, the prospective juror gave a response that was uncertain at best, stating that he did not know and “couldn't say” whether he would be able to judge an officer's credibility as opposed to a civilian witness. * * * Given this ambiguity … it was incumbent upon the trial court to take corrective action to elicit unequivocal assurance from the prospective juror that he would be able to reach a verdict based solely upon the court's instructions on the law … . …

…[T]he prosecutor's summation remarks regarding reasonable doubt also constituted reversible error, as these remarks suggested that the jury should convict based on facts extraneous to the trial. Specifically, the comments “linked [the defendant] to every defendant who turned out to be guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment,” thus inviting the jury to consider his status as a defendant as “evidence tending to prove his guilt” … . Moreover, the prosecutor's comments tended to minimize the jury's sense of responsibility for the verdict. These remarks exceed the bounds of permissible advocacy. People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 00797, 1st Dept 2-3-15


/

Judicial Approval of a Settlement with Third Parties Was Properly Granted After the Expiration of the Statutory Period (Nunc Pro Tunc)—Delay In Seeking Approval Was Not Due to Injured Worker’s Fault or Neglect/Workers’ Compensation Carrier’s Consent to a Settlement Is Required Even Where the Settlement Is Greater than the Amount of the Benefits Received/Absent the Consent of the Carrier, Judicial Approval Is Required

The Second Department determined judicial approval of a settlement with third parties after the statutory period had passed was properly granted nunc pro tunc.  The injured worker received about $189,000 in workers' compensation benefits and eventually settled with third parties for $2,000,000. The workers' compensation carrier sued to collect on its lien.  The court noted that, despite the language of Workers' Compensation Law 29(5), the workers' compensation carrier's consent to a settlement is required even if the amount of the settlement is more than the amount of the benefits. In the absence of such consent (absent here), judicial approval is required (properly granted here):

Workers Compensation Law § 29(5) provides, in pertinent part:

“A compromise of any such cause of action by the employee or his dependents at an amount less than the compensation provided for by this chapter shall be made only with the written approval of . . . the person, association, corporation, or insurance carrier liable to pay the same. However, written approval . . . need not be obtained if the employee or his dependents obtain a compromise order from a justice of the court in which the third-party action was pending. …

.

“If the third-party action is on trial at the time the offer of settlement which is acceptable to the plaintiff, is made and either such written approval or order as provided in this subdivision is required, the action may be marked settled subject to the securing of such written approval or such order. If such written approval or such order is not subsequently secured within three months the action shall be restored to the head of the trial day calendar” (emphasis added).

Section 29(5) was enacted to protect an insurance carrier from paying a deficiency between the settlement and the amount paid to the injured party … . As originally enacted, the provision required the consent of the insurance carrier. However, “in many instances, the carrier arbitrarily refused to give its consent to a proposed settlement regardless of how fair or generous the proposal might have been,” prompting the Legislature to amend the provision to provide that consent need not be obtained where there is judicial approval of the settlement … .

Although there is case law which indicates that approval pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5) is not required if the amount of Workers' Compensation benefits received is less than the amount of the settlement …, the Court of Appeals has held that even where the settlement constitutes 100% of the policy limits, approval pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 29(5) is required in order for the claimant to continue to receive Workers' Compensation benefits in the future …. Any settlement is potentially less than the benefits provided by the Workers' Compensation Law (see 1-7 New York Workers' Compensation Handbook § 7.01[5] [2014]), especially where, as here, the claimant is seeking a permanent partial disability classification from the Workers' Compensation Board, which could mean that he would be entitled to benefits indefinitely.

“[A] judicial order may be obtained nunc pro tunc approving a previously agreed-upon settlement, even where the application for approval is sought more than three months after the date of settlement, provided that the employee can establish that (1) the amount of the settlement is reasonable, (2) the delay in applying for a judicial order of approval was not caused by the employee's fault or neglect, and (3) the insurance carrier was not prejudiced by the delay” … . Fidelity & Guar Ins Co v Digiacomo, 2015 NY Slip OP 00842, 2nd Dept 2-2-15


/ , ,

Appellate Court Defers to Agency Interpretation of a Statute When Specialized Knowledge Required

The Third Department affirmed the State Budget Director’s determination that state employees normally not entitled to overtime pay are eligible for overtime pay if they worked more than 47.5 hours in a week as a result of Hurricane Sandy.  Petitioners sought overtime pay for those who worked more than 40 hours per week.  The Third Department explained when an appellate court must defer to the statutory interpretation made by a state agency (the court so deferred here):

Initially, we must determine whether the Budget Director’s interpretation of Civil Service Law § 134 (6) is entitled to deference. This Court will defer to the governmental agency responsible for the administration of a statute when interpretation of the language at issue requires the agency’s expertise in the matters covered by the statute, but will accord no such deference when “the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent” … . Although the Civil Service Law provides that the “workweek for basic annual salary” for employees who are eligible for overtime shall not exceed 40 hours (Civil Service Law § 134 [1]), overtime-ineligible employees are expressly excluded from the coverage of that section, and nothing else in the legislation defines the phrase “normal workweek” as used in Civil Service Law § 134 (6) for such employees or prescribes the number of hours contained in such a workweek. Under these circumstances, in our view, the number of hours in the “normal workweek” of an overtime-ineligible state employee necessarily implicates the Budget Director’s specialized knowledge of state employment practices and “involves knowledge and understanding of underlying operational practices or entails an evaluation of factual data and inferences to be drawn therefrom” … . Accordingly, this Court will defer to the Budget Director’s determination and uphold it if it is not irrational or unreasonable … . Matter of Kent v Cuomo, 2015 NY Slip Op 00680, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

/ ,

Proof Requirements for an Employment-Discrimination Action (Executive Law 296) Explained

In finding that the employer demonstrated a non-discriminatory reason for firing the plaintiff, the Third Department explained the employment-discrimination proof requirements and analytical criteria under the Human Rights Law (Executive Law 296 (1)(a)):

To support a prima facie case of discrimination under the Human Rights Law (see Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]), a plaintiff must establish: “(1) that he [or she] is a member of the class protected by the statute; (2) that he [or she] was actively or constructive discharged; (3) that he [or she] was qualified to hold the position from which he [or she] was terminated; and (4) that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of . . . discrimination” … . Assuming that low threshold is met, “[t]he burden then shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption of discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision” … . If, in turn, the employer proffers the required nondiscriminatory reasons, “the plaintiff can avoid summary judgment by proving that the employer’s stated reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination by demonstrating both that the stated reasons were false and that discrimination was the real reason” … . “Notably, a challenge by a discharged employee to the correctness of an employer’s decision does not, without more, give rise to the inference that the employee’s discharge was due to . . . discrimination” … . Stated another way, “[i]t is not enough for the plaintiff to show that the employer made an unwise business decision, or an unnecessary personnel move. Nor is it enough to show that the employer acted arbitrarily or with ill will. These facts, even if demonstrated, do not necessarily show that [discrimination] was a motivating factor. [A] [p]laintiff cannot meet his [or her] burden of proving pretext simply by refuting or questioning the defendant[‘s] articulated reason” for terminating the plaintiff’s employment … . Miranda v ESA Hudson Val Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00670, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

/ ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s Policy Change Is “Readily Ascertainable,” Not When Notice of the Policy Change Is Actually Received

The Third Department explained when the four-month statute of limitations begins to run when the triggering event is a policy memorandum issued by an administrative agency:

…[B]oth the statute and case law make clear that the statute of limitations period for a CPLR article 78 proceeding begins to run when “the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner” (CPLR 217 [1]…). Such determination, in turn, “becomes ‘final and binding’ when two requirements are met: completeness (finality) of the determination and exhaustion of administrative remedies. First, the agency must have reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and second, the injury inflicted may not be . . . significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … . In the context of quasi-legislative determinations such as the one at issue here, actual notice of the challenged determination is not required in order to start the statute of limitations clock; rather, the statute of limitations begins to run once the administrative agency’s “definitive position on the issue [becomes] readily ascertainable” to the complaining party … . Matter of School Adm’rs Assn of NY State v New York State Department of Civ Serv, 2015 NY Slip Op 00676, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

/

For Each Year the Business Investment Exemption from Real Property Tax Law Is Sought, a Separate Application Must Be Made

The Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it ruled petitioner, the owner of commercial real property, did not need to apply for a business investment property tax exemption (Real Property Tax Law [RPTL] 485-b) each year for which the exemption is sought.  Supreme Court had granted the exemption for several years based upon one application:

We are mindful that an RPTL 485-b exemption may be obtained upon a single application … . The separate point here, however, is that property owners must preserve their right to relief through annual challenges to the assessment pending a determination of the original assessment challenge. Since petitioner failed to do so here, Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to direct the District to refund payments made based on the 2009 through 2011 assessments … . Matter of Highbridge Broadway LLC v Assessor of the City of Schenectady, 2015 NY Slip Op 00682, 3rd Dept 1-29-15 

 

 

/

Construction Manager Did Not Have the Contractual Authority to Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done and In Fact Did Not Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done—Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 Causes of Action Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action against the construction manager because the construction manager (Sano-Rubin) did not possess the contractual authority to control, and in fact did not control, the manner in which the work was done.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

At the time of plaintiff’s injury, Sano-Rubin was serving as the construction manager for various construction projects occurring throughout the school district pursuant to a contract it had entered into with the school district. Plaintiff initially contends that there are factual issues as to whether Sano-Rubin’s role renders it a statutory defendant under Labor Law § 240 (1), which “imposes liability only on contractors, owners or their agents” … . Under this provision, a party that is operating as a construction manager is not deemed a statutory agent unless that party has “the authority to direct, supervise or control the work which brought about the injury” … . “The key criterion in ascertaining Labor Law § 240 (1) liability is not whether the party charged with the violation actually exercised control over the work, but rather whether [that party] had the right to do so” … . Similarly, under Labor Law § 200, which codifies the common-law duty of care as between owners, general contractors and their agents, the imposition of liability requires a showing that the defendant possessed the authority to direct or control the activity resulting in injury … .

Sano-Rubin’s contract with the school district provided that Sano-Rubin “shall not have control over or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the [w]ork of each of the [c]ontractors” and further, that if Sano-Rubin “observes any safety program or action at the site which it believes is improper or in violation of applicable law or rules, it shall immediately advise the [o]wner.” This contract was submitted upon the cross motion, together with proof of the implementation of these contractual limitations on Sano-Rubin’s authority … , These submissions were sufficient to establish its prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law… . Larkin v Sano-Rubin Constr Co Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00672, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

/ ,

Revocation of Pistol Permit Upheld Despite Petitioner’s Acquittal on Related Criminal Charges—No Formal Revocation Hearing Is Required

In affirming the revocation of a pistol permit, the Third Department explained the criteria for review.  Here the petitioner had displayed a weapon during an altercation with a neighbor and had been acquitted of the related menacing charges.  The Third Department noted that no formal revocation hearing is required as long as petitioner has notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond:

There is no question that “[r]espondent [the judge who revoked the permit] is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a pistol permit and may do so for any good cause, including a finding that the petitioner lack[s] the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous instrument. . . , or that he or she does not possess the maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment necessary to have a pistol permit” … . No formal revocation hearing is required, and due process will be satisfied where the petitioner has been provided with notice of the charges and afforded an adequate opportunity to respond thereto … . Upon review, “respondent’s resolution of factual issues and credibility assessments are accorded deference, and the determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion or a showing that [such determination] was made in an arbitrary and capricious manner” … . Matter of DeAngelo v Burns, 2015 NY Slip Op 00669, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

/

Interest Paid In Advance Should Not Be Deducted from the Face Amount of the Loan When Determining Interest Rate—Law of Usury Does Not Apply to Interest After the Maturity of the Note (Late Payments)

The Third Department explained the law of usury as it related to interest paid in advance and interest after maturity of the note (late charges):

The defense of usury requires clear and convincing evidence of a loan given with the intent to take interest in excess of the legal rate … . As relevant here, a loan is usurious if the annual interest rate exceeds 16% (see General Obligations Law § 5-501 [1]; Banking Law § 14-a [1]). Defendant bases his claim of usury on his advanced interest payment, claiming that the annual interest rate should be calculated by dividing the total annual interest, $18,750, by the total received at closing, $115,625, resulting in an annual interest rate of 16.2%. However, the Court of Appeals has held that “interest on the whole amount of principal agreed to be paid at maturity, not exceeding the legal rate, may be taken in advance” … . Thus, under the traditional method of computation as set forth in Band, the prepaid interest is not deducted from the face amount of the loan and defendant was charged a legal rate of 15% interest … . Defendant’s contention that the late charges incurred after the default should also be included in the calculation of interest is unavailing, because “[t]he defense of usury does not apply where the terms of a promissory note impose a rate of interest in excess of the statutory maximum only after maturity of the note” … . Martell v Drake, 2015 NY Slip Op 00685, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

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