You are here: / Only the Board of Parole Has the Authority to Impose Conditions On Postrelease...

Search Results

/

Only the Board of Parole Has the Authority to Impose Conditions On Postrelease Supervision/Fine or Restitution Imposed Without Having Been Discussed at Sentencing Must Be Stricken—Case Remitted

The Third Department noted that County Court should not have imposed conditions upon defendant's postrelease supervision because only the Board of Parole has that power.  The Third Department also noted that County Court should not have imposed a fine or restitution which were not mentioned during the plea proceedings, but the order of protection, which was discussed, should stand:

because only the Board of Parole is authorized to impose the conditions of a term of postrelease supervision (…Penal Law § 70.45 [3]; Executive Law §§ 259-c [2]; 259-i [3], [4]), County Court erred to the extent that it imposed certain conditions of defendant's postrelease supervision at sentencing and the conditions should be stricken. Similarly, inasmuch as neither a fine nor restitution was mentioned at the plea proceedings, the matter must be remitted to allow County Court to either impose the sentence that was negotiated or to give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea before imposing the enhanced sentence … .

In contrast, while only an order of protection against the victim was discussed during the plea agreement, “[o]rders of protection are not punitive in nature and are not necessarily dependent on, or the result of, a plea agreement” … . Accordingly, County Court did not err when it imposed an order of protection in favor of the victim and her family at sentencing and, notwithstanding this Court's determination to remit this matter, the order of protection remains in place. People v Curry, 2014 NY Slip Op 09069, 3rd Dept 12-31-14

 

/ , ,

Failure to Move to Withdraw Plea, and Thereby Preserve the Issue for Appeal, Did Not Prohibit Appeal Here—Defendant Was Wrongly Informed by the Court and Counsel that the Denial of His Speedy Trial Motion Would Be Appealable After the Plea

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court and vacated defendant's guilty plea because defendant was wrongly informed by the court and counsel that his statutory speedy trial issue would survive the guilty plea (for appeal).  Under the circumstances, the court determined the failure to preserve the error by moving to withdraw the plea did not prohibit the appeal:

The People concede that an essential term of the plea bargain was the parties' understanding that defendant would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Defendant was thereafter sentenced … . Defendant now appeals, arguing that his plea was involuntarily entered because his counsel and County Court erroneously informed him that a statutory CPL 30.30 claim would survive a plea of guilty.

Initially, we consider whether defendant was required to preserve this claim by appropriate postallocution motion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 440.10). While a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea is generally not preserved for appellate review unless it was first raised in the trial court …, the Court of Appeals has recognized that “where a defendant has no practical ability to object to an error in a plea allocution which is clear from the face of the record, preservation is not required” … . Here a CPL 440.10 motion was unavailable because the error is clear from the face of the record; similarly a CPL 220.60 (3) motion was practically unavailable because “'defendant [could] hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he ha[d] no knowledge'” … . Inasmuch as defendant–due to the inaccurate advice of his counsel and the trial court–did not know during the plea and sentencing proceedings that his statutory speedy trial claim would be forfeited as a direct consequence of his plea …, preservation was not required … . Moreover, under these circumstances, we agree with defendant that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and, accordingly, we reverse and vacate the plea … . People v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 09067, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


/ ,

Trial Testimony Rendered an Indictment Count Duplicitous Requiring Dismissal/Sexual Abuse First Degree Is Not a Lesser Included Offense Re: a Course of Sexual Conduct Against a Child First Degree

The Third Department determined that an indictment-count rendered duplicitous by the trial testimony should have been dismissed, and an indictment-count was wrongly amended because the new charge was not a lesser included offense re: the original charge:

As pertinent here, the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree requires proof that the defendant engaged in oral sexual conduct with another person who is less than 11 years old, and oral sexual conduct includes “contact between . . . the mouth and the vulva or vagina” (Penal Law § 130.00 [2] [a]; see Penal Law § 130.50 [3]). The challenged count charged defendant with this crime based upon the victim's grand jury testimony that defendant had caused the victim to use her mouth to make contact with defendant's vaginal area on a single occasion in 2004. At trial, however, the victim testified that defendant caused her to engage in this conduct multiple times during the pertinent time period, and that she did not remember any specific time when it had happened. … Unfortunately, the … testimony regarding multiple acts made it impossible to ascertain the particular act upon which the jury verdict was based. We are therefore required, despite the utterly heinous nature of the acts the victim described, to reverse defendant's conviction on this charge; further, the challenged count must be dismissed… . …

While the People may seek to amend an indictment at any time during trial to correct “matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like,” such an amendment may not alter the theory of prosecution reflected in the evidence before the grand jury (CPL 200.70 [1]; see CPL 200.70 [2]…). Further, a court may submit to a jury a lesser included offense of a crime charged in an indictment provided that the elements of the two crimes are such that “it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly committing the lesser offense by the same conduct [and] there [is] a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater” … . * * *

A crime is a lesser included offense of a charge of a higher degree only when in all circumstances, not only in those presented in the particular case, it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly, by the very same conduct, committing the lesser offense … . It is possible for a defendant to engage in an act of sexual conduct within the scope of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child through an act of sexual contact, defined in pertinent part as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” (Penal Law § 130.00 [3]). However, a defendant could also commit an act of sexual conduct within the scope of the originally-charged offense by an act of “sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, [or] aggravated sexual contact” (Penal Law § 130.00 [10]). The definitions of these acts do not include any element of intent; thus, it is possible for a defendant to commit an act that constitutes sexual conduct without the purpose of gratifying anyone's sexual desire that is a required element of sexual contact (see Penal Law § 130.00 [1], [2] [a], [b]; [11]…). Therefore, as it is possible to commit course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree without also committing sexual abuse in the first degree by the same conduct, defendant's conviction on that charge must be reversed, and the amended indictment count must be dismissed … . People v Baker, 2014 NY Slip Op 09068, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


/

Recommencement of A Dismissed Action Pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) Not Allowed Where Prior Action Was Dismissed for Neglect to Prosecute

The Second Department determined that dismissal of plaintiff's action for neglect to prosecute precluded the commencement of another identical action pursuant to CPLR 205 (a):

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that a prior action commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant, which asserted the same causes of action, was dismissed for the plaintiff's failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant and neglect to prosecute, and that the order of dismissal entered in that action adequately set forth the conduct of the plaintiff that constituted the neglect and demonstrated a general pattern of delay in proceeding (see CPLR 205[a]). Accordingly, the court properly concluded that the plaintiff could not avail herself of CPLR 205(a), which provides that, under certain circumstances, an action that has been dismissed, albeit not on the merits, may be recommenced within six months after its dismissal… . Webb v Greater NY Auto Dealers Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 09121, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


/ ,

Regulation Prohibiting/Restricting Smoking in New York Parks Properly Promulgated by Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation—“Boreali” Criteria Explained and Applied to the Facts in Some Depth

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined that a regulation prohibiting/restricting smoking in New York parks was properly promulgated by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).  Petitioner, an organization promoting the interests of smokers, argued the agency did not have the authority to regulate smoking in parks absent legislation on the issue and, therefore, the promulgation of the rule violated the principle of separation of powers.  The court explained the “Boreali” criteria under which the regulation was analyzed and applied the criteria to the facts (the interesting, detailed, fact-specific analysis is not summarized here):

Respondents, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (hereinafter OPRHP) and its Commissioner, are empowered by statute to “[o]perate and maintain . . . historic sites and objects, parks, parkways and recreational facilities”(PRHPL 3.09 [2]) and to “[p]rovide for the health, safety and welfare of the public using facilities under its jurisdiction” (PRHPL 3.09 [5]). In February 2013, pursuant to this statutory authority, OPRHP adopted a rule establishing smoke-free areas in certain limited outdoor locations under its jurisdiction (see 9 NYCRR 386.1). Such regulation, among other things, also prohibits smoking in each state park located in New York City, with limited exceptions (see 9 NYCRR 386.1 [a] [2])… . OPRHP announced that this rule was needed in order to allow “patrons to enjoy the outdoors, breathe fresh air, walk, swim, exercise and experience [s]tate [p]arks' amenities and programs without being exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke and tobacco litter” (NY Reg Dec. 5, 2012 at 11). * * *

“The cornerstone of administrative law is derived from the principle that the Legislature may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, endow administrative agencies with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” (…see NY Const, art III, § 1). As the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, when determining whether an administrative agency has violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers, we must consider the “coalescing circumstances” set forth in Boreali v Axelrod (71 NY2d 1, 11 [1987]), namely, (1) whether the respondents improperly engaged in the balancing of their stated goal with competing social concerns and acted “solely on [their] own ideas of sound public policy”; (2) whether the respondents engaged in the “interstitial” rulemaking typical of administrative agencies or instead “wrote on a clean slate, creating [their] own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) whether the challenged regulation concerns “an area in which the Legislature ha[s] repeatedly tried — and failed — to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions”; and (4) whether the respondents overstepped their bounds because the development of the regulation did not require the exercise of expertise or technical competence by the administrative agency (id. at 12-14 …). In determining whether “the difficult-to-define line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making has been transgressed,” this Court should view these circumstances “in combination” (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 11), while ever mindful that “'it is the province of the people's elected representatives, rather than appointed administrators, to resolve difficult social problems by making choices among competing ends'” … .

Applying the four Boreali considerations, we find no usurpation of the Legislature's prerogative by respondents' promulgation of 9 NYCRR 386.1. Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H. Inc v New York State Off of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv, 2014 NY Slip Op 09085, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


 

/ ,

Default Judgment of Foreclosure Cannot Be Collaterally Attacked in a Plenary Proceeding/Former Property Owner Cannot Contest Sale of Property After Default Judgment of Foreclosure

The Second Department noted that petitioner, Amona, could not bring a plenary action (an Article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding) after a tax foreclosure proceeding in which she defaulted and which resulted in the sale of her property.  Amona's only recourse was a motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure.  However, Amona's default in the foreclosure action precluded any action to contest the sale of the property:

The Supreme Court properly granted the Conservancy's motion, in effect, to dismiss the petition/complaint. The relief sought herein by Amona should have been pursued by way of a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 or CPLR 5015(a) in the in rem tax lien foreclosure proceeding … . “A plenary action or proceeding for such relief does not lie and must be dismissed” … . Since Amona has improperly sought to collaterally attack the judgment by way of this proceeding/action, the Supreme Court properly, in effect, dismissed the proceeding/action.

Moreover, Amona's default in the foreclosure action forever barred and foreclosed her of “all right, title, and interest and equity of redemption in and to the parcel” in which she had had an interest (RPTL 1131). Thus, Amona has no standing to contest the County's sale of the property … (see RPTL 1136[3]…).  Matter of Amona v County of Orange, 2014 NY Slip Op 09125, 2nd Dept 12-31-14

 

/ ,

In an Action Stemming from an Automobile Accident, Having Granted a Default Judgment, Supreme Court Should Not Have Directed Plaintiff to Accept a Late Answer and Allowed Discovery Re: Damages–A Defaulting Defendant Is Not Entitled to Discovery

The Second Department determined Supreme Court, having granted plaintiff's motion for a default judgment on liability in an automobile-accident case, should have also granted plaintiff's motion for an inquest on damages.  Supreme Court should not have ordered plaintiff to accept a late answer and allowed discovery on damages:

Having granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court should have directed an inquest on damages. Since serious injury “is decidedly an issue of damages, not liability” …, the plaintiff will be required to present prima facie proof at the inquest that she sustained a serious injury. However, while the defendants are “entitled to present testimony and evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses at the inquest on damages” …, they may not conduct discovery with respect to the issue of damages, since defaulting defendants forfeit the right to discovery … . Rudra v Friedman, 2014 NY Slip Op 09117, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


/ , , ,

Procedure Under Civil Rights Law for Disclosure of Police Personnel Records Described

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to the audiotapes of interviews of police officers which were attached to a report about a high-speed chase that resulted in the death of plaintiff's decedent.  Plaintiff's decedent was killed when the vehicle the police were chasing crashed into plaintiff's decedent's house:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an action.” However, Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which codifies the standards for the disclosure of police personnel records …, provides that a police officer's “personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion . . . shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review . . . except as may be mandated by lawful court order” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a[1]). Prior to issuing such an order, the court is obligated to conduct an in camera review of the requested file, “and make a determination as to whether the records are relevant and material in the action before” it, and, upon such a finding “the court shall make those parts of the record found to be relevant and material available to the persons so requesting” (Civil Rights Law § 50-a[3]).

Here, the order dated March 22, 2013, indicated that the Supreme Court had reviewed “the reports sought . . . and all documentation annexed thereto” before concluding that there was “relevant and material” information contained therein (emphasis added). Accordingly, the plaintiff met his burden for compelling disclosure pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 50-a, and the court properly directed the County to disclose the IAB report. However, we perceive no reason why the plaintiff should have been denied access to the audiotapes of the interviews which were identified in the attachments to the IAB report … . The plaintiff should be permitted to hear the actual interviews of the officers regarding the accident, and not only read the IAB report's summaries thereof, since the interviews were the main source material for the IAB report and were incorporated by reference therein … .

“The party opposing disclosure carries the burden of demonstrating that the requested information falls squarely within the exemption'” … . The County has not offered any explanation as to why the audiotapes should not be discoverable, especially since it has already disclosed all of the other source material identified in the attachments to the IAB report. Calhoun v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 09095, 2nd Dept 12-31-14


/ ,

Once the Jury Found Defendant’s Negligence Was Not a Substantial Factor in Causing Plaintiff’s Injuries, the Jury Should Not Have Continued to Deliberate, Make Findings of Comparative Negligence and Apportion Damages—Jury’s Continued Deliberations Were Superfluous—New Trial Not Necessary

The First Department determined a new trial was not necessary where the jury went on to assess comparative fault and damages after finding defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.  The jury should have stopped deliberating at that point:

The verdict sheet in this personal injury action instructed the jurors to determine (1) whether defendant was negligent, and (2) if so, whether defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injuries. The jurors found that defendant was negligent, but that his negligence was not a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's injury. The verdict sheet instructed that if the jurors answered the second question in the negative, they should cease deliberations and report their verdict. The jurors, however, continued deliberating and determined that plaintiff was also negligent; that plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing his own injury; that plaintiff was 95% at fault, and defendant was 5% at fault; and that plaintiff was entitled to $200,000 in damages.

This case is controlled by Pavlou v City of New York (21 AD3d 74 [1st Dept 2005], affd 8 NY3d 961 [2007]), a Labor Law case in which the plaintiff was injured due to a damaged crane hoist. In Pavlou, the jurors determined that the City (the owner of the construction site) was negligent under the Industrial Code, but that its negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury. The jury also found that the crane manufacturer was not negligent (id. at 75). The verdict sheet instructed that upon making these findings, the jurors were to stop deliberations. The Pavlou jury, however, went on to find the third-party defendant-employer negligent for operating a damaged crane; the jury then apportioned the employer's degree of fault and fixed the amount of damages (id. at 81). This Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial as against the City, stating, “[T]he jury should not have apportioned [the employer's] liability . . . or fixed the amount of damages, once it determined that the violation of the Industrial Code was not a proximate cause and that the crane manufacturer was not negligent. The fact that the jury attempted such an award was a superfluous act that does not require a new trial” (id. at 76). The Court of Appeals affirmed (8 NY3d 961 [2007]).

The same reasoning as in Pavlou applies here. Once the jurors determined that defendant's negligence was not a substantial factor or proximate cause (see PJI 2:70, Proximate Cause — In General; see also PJI 2:36) of plaintiff's injuries, they should not have attempted to assess plaintiff's own negligence and to fix damages. That they did so was a superfluous act that [*2]does not require a new trial. Alcantara v Knight, 2014 NY Slip OP 09030, 1st Dept 12-30-14


/

Unsworn Juror Properly Dismissed Based Upon the “Two-Hour-Trial-Delay” Rule

The First Department determined the dismissal of a juror based on transportation problems which would delay the trial more than two hours was proper.  Apparently none of the jurors had been sworn at the time of the dismissal. Because the standards for dismissing a juror are higher for sworn, as opposed to unsworn, jurors, the fact that the juror was unsworn was of no consequence:

…[D]efendant had no objection to a delay in swearing the jurors after the completion of jury selection, and thus effectively “agreed to create a category of jurors, i.e., selected but unsworn jurors, about which the Criminal Procedure Law is silent as to criteria for discharge” … . The record reveals that the court merely used CPL 270.35 as a guideline in deciding whether to delay the trial by waiting for the juror. In any event, “[t]he power to excuse an unsworn juror is much broader than the statutorily limited power to discharge a sworn juror . . . .” … . Therefore, if the criteria set forth in CPL 270.35 for the dismissal of a sworn juror have been met, then, a fortiori, the same considerations would warrant dismissal of a selected but unsworn juror … .

“The Court of Appeals has held that the two-hour rule' gives the court broad discretion to discharge any juror whom it determines is not likely to appear within two hours” … . Using the two-hour rule as a guideline, it is clear that the court providently exercised its discretion in replacing the juror with an alternate … . People v Sanchez, 2014 NY Slip Op 09031, 1st Dept 12-30-14


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