You are here: / Discovery of Trade Secrets Should Have Been Allowed Upon Execution of Confidentiality...

Search Results

/ , , , ,

Discovery of Trade Secrets Should Have Been Allowed Upon Execution of Confidentiality Agreement, Documents Indispensable to Defense and Not Otherwise Available

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have allowed discovery of documents from MREC which included trade secrets because the documents were indispensable to the defense and were otherwise unavailable:

We agree … that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying the cross motion insofar as it sought to condition disclosure of the documents on plaintiff’s execution of a confidentiality agreement … . We therefore modify the order accordingly. “Discoverability of such documents involves a two-fold analysis: the moving party must show that the discovery demand would require it to reveal a trade secret, which then shifts the burden of the responding party to show that the information was indispensable to proving its [case]”… . Here, MREC met its burden of establishing that the documents sought by plaintiff contained information “not known by those outside the business, [and that the documents] were kept under lock and key, were the product of substantial effort and expense, and could not be easily acquired or duplicated” … . We nevertheless conclude that plaintiff established that the documents sought “were indispensable to [its] case and were otherwise unavailable if they could not be obtained from [MREC]”  … . Conley & Son Excavating Co Ltd v Delta Alliance LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06468, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ ,

Court’s Failure to Inquire to Ensure Guilty Plea Was Knowing and Voluntary Required Vacation of the Plea (In the Absence of Preservation)

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court’s failure make an inquiry to determine whether defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary required reversal (in absence of preservation).  The defendant stated during the plea colloquy that the weapon he used was a BB gun, not a handgun.  Defense counsel explicitly waived any related affirmative defense:

At the outset of the plea colloquy, defense counsel stated that, although defendant told the police that he used a .45 caliber handgun in the robbery, the weapon he had used was actually a BB gun. Defense counsel further stated, however, that defendant would waive the affirmative defense set forth in Penal Law § 160.15 (4), which applies where the weapon used in the robbery “was not a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury, could be discharged.” During the ensuing plea colloquy, defendant stated that the gun he had used was a BB gun that looked like a revolver, not a .45 caliber handgun as he had told the police. At the end of the plea colloquy, defense counsel, in response to concerns expressed by the prosecutor, again stated that defendant was waiving the affirmative defense set forth in section 160.15 (4). The court then accepted defendant’s plea.

Although “no catechism is required in connection with the acceptance of a plea” …, it is well established that, “where the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, . . . the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure that [the] defendant’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary” … . “Where the court fails in this duty and accepts the plea without further inquiry, the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the allocution on direct appeal,” despite having failed to make that challenge in a “postallocution motion” directed to the plea court … . People v Dukes, 2014 NY Slip Op 06454, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ ,

Successive Photo Arrays Okay/Statement Made Voluntarily After Refusing to Waive Miranda Rights Admissible for Impeachment Purposes

The Fourth Department dismissed an attempted murder charge because “the jury may have convicted defendant of an unindicted [attempted murder], resulting in the usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the [g]rand [j]ury to determine the charges”… . [The indictment charged one shooting but proof at trial alleged two shootings which were considered by the jury.] In the course of the decision, which also discussed the criteria for severance of defendants and the admissibility for impeachment purposes of a statement made voluntarily after a refusal to waive Miranda rights, the Fourth Department determined that the submission of multiple photo arrays with the defendant in them did not require suppression of the identification evidence:

Contrary to defendant’s … contention, Supreme Court did not err in refusing to suppress identification evidence. ” Multiple photo identification procedures are not inherently suggestive’ ” … . “While the inclusion of a single suspect’s photograph in successive arrays is not a practice to be encouraged, it does not per se invalidate the identification procedures’ ” … . Here, although there was not a significant lapse of time between the presentation of the arrays …, the record establishes that different photographs of defendant were used, that the photographs of defendant appeared in a different location in each photo array … .

We … conclude that the court did not err in determining that defendant’s statements to the police during a brief exchange, made by defendant after he refused to waive his Miranda rights, were voluntary and thus were admissible for impeachment purposes … . Here, the People met their initial “burden at the Huntley hearing of establishing that defendant’s . . . statements were not the product of improper police conduct’ ” … , and “[d]efendant presented no bona fide factual predicate in support of his conclusory speculation that his statement[s were] coerced”…. .  People v Wilson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06394, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ ,

Explicit Verbal Waiver of Miranda Rights Not Required

The Fourth Department determined that the absence of an express waiver of defendant’s Miranda rights did not require suppression of his statement:

…[D]efendant contends that the evidence at the Huntley hearing demonstrates that he did not waive his Miranda rights, but that he asked the arresting officer “[w]hat’s going on” after the arresting officer read him the Miranda warnings. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly refused to suppress those statements. It is well settled that “an explicit verbal waiver is not required; an implicit waiver may suffice and may be inferred from the circumstances” … . Thus, “[w]here, as here, a defendant has been advised of his Miranda rights and within minutes thereafter willingly answers questions during interrogation, no other indication prior to the commencement of interrogation is necessary to support a conclusion that the defendant implicitly waived those rights’ ” … . People v Jones, 2014 NY Slip Op 06452, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ , ,

Teacher’s Subpoena for School Records of a Student Who Testified at the Teacher’s Education Law 3020-a Proceeding Should Have Been Quashed

The Fourth Department determined a subpoena for a student’s school records should have been quashed. The subpoena was served on the school district on behalf of the respondent, a tenured teacher who was the subject of an Education Law 3020-a proceeding.  The alleged misconduct of the student (who testified at the proceeding) occurred outside the classroom and the teacher did not demonstrate the relevance of the requested records:

The record establishes that, following an initial prehearing conference in the section 3020-a proceeding, the Hearing Officer granted respondent’s request for production of the testifying high school students’ records, notwithstanding protections under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), and thereafter limited production of students’ records to those from seventh grade forward. In connection with that request, the Hearing Officer issued a subpoena duces tecum ordering the production of those student records. Although the Hearing Officer had the authority to order the production of student records that were material and relevant to respondent’s defense (see § 3020-a [3] [c] [iii] [A], [C]), it is well established that, “[g]enerally, a subpoena duces tecum may not be used for the purpose of discovery or to ascertain the existence of evidence” … . Where, as here, “the relevance of the subpoena is challenged, it is incumbent upon the issuer to come forward with a factual basis establishing the relevance of the documents sought to the investigation,” to show “that the material sought bears a reasonable relation to the matter under investigation” … . Here, the allegations of misconduct against respondent involved activities outside of the classroom, and respondent stated only generally that the students’ records were “highly relevant” in asserting a defense and that the records are “necessary and relevant to the preparation of a defense to the charges on its face.” Thus, in light of respondent’s failure to indicate how the records are reasonably related to respondent’s defense and a factual basis establishing their relevance …, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in refusing to quash the subpoena duces tecum … . Matter of Watertown City Sch Dist v Anonymous, a Tenured Teacher, 2014 NY Slip Op 06444, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ , ,

In a Personal Injury Trial, Defense Counsel Should Have Been Permitted to Question Plaintiff About Possible Fraud in Income Tax Returns

The Fourth Department determined defense counsel in a personal injury trial should have been allowed to cross-examine plaintiff about possible fraud in plaintiff’s income tax returns.  A new trial was ordered.  The Fourth Department noted that defense counsel would have been bound by plaintiff’s answers and could not have introduced extrinsic evidence:

Here, based on his reading of IRS Publication 51 and plaintiff’s federal tax returns, defendant’s attorney had a good faith basis to ask plaintiff about the propriety of her filing status. Moreover, if plaintiff had improperly filed federal tax returns as head of household in order to receive a tax credit to which she was not entitled, it raises the possibility that she may have committed tax fraud. We conclude that evidence that plaintiff may have committed tax fraud has “some tendency to show moral turpitude to be relevant on the credibility issue” …. Although it is true, as plaintiff points out, that, because of the collateral evidence rule, defendant’s attorney would have been bound by plaintiff’s answers concerning her federal tax returns without “refuting [those] answers by calling other witnesses or by producing extrinsic evidence” (Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 6-305 [Farrell 11th ed]…), we nevertheless conclude that defendant’s attorney should have been allowed to ask the questions … . Young v Lacy, 2014 NY Slip Op 06417, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ , ,

Provision in Separation Agreement Which Called for Employment of the Wife by the Husband Deemed an Employment Contract Breached When Wife Opened a Competing Business

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and determined that a provision in a separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged into the divorce decree constituted an employment contract breached when the plaintiff wife opened a competing business.  The reason for the agreement was to allow plaintiff wife to be paid maintenance by defendant husband’s business during the time when the husband was obligated to pay child support.  The wife was a consultant to defendant’s business:

It is well established that a separation agreement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce “is a contract subject to the principles of contract construction and interpretation” … , and “a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” … . By entering into the Agreement, defendant agreed to employ plaintiff in the event his maintenance obligation terminated during the period of time in which he was still obligated to pay child support. Inasmuch as the language of the Agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face, “the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence” … .

While we agree with plaintiff and the court that the clear and unambiguous intent of the Agreement was to provide a substitute source of monetary support for plaintiff after defendant’s maintenance obligation terminated, we conclude that the reason defendant agreed to employ plaintiff does not change the fact that the Agreement established an employment relationship with corresponding rights and obligations for both parties.

As we have previously stated, “[a]n employee may not compete with his [or her] employer’s business during the time of his [or her] employment” … . When plaintiff opened a business in direct competition with defendant’s business, plaintiff breached her duty of loyalty to her employer … , thereby permitting defendant to terminate the consultation fees and the employment relationship. Anderson v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 06415, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ , ,

Continuing Representation Doctrine (Tolling the Statute of Limitations) Explained

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court finding that the legal malpractice actions should not have been dismissed as time-barred because there were questions of fact whether the continuing representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations.  The plaintiff Town alleged that defendant lawyers did not advise the Town of the proper procedure for appointing a hearing officer, which resulted in the annulment of a proceeding terminating a Town employee.  The question was whether the attorneys’ subsequent involvement in attempting to rectify the mistake constituted continuing representation such that the three-year statute was tolled:

Here, while there were three separate and distinct retainer agreements, we conclude that there are triable issues of fact whether defendants were retained for separate and distinct legal proceedings or, rather, “ongoing and developing phases of the [same] litigation” … . We cannot say as a matter of law that all of defendants’ acts “were not interrelated so that representation on [the second Section 75 hearing and the subsequent CPLR article 78 proceeding were] not part of a continuing, interconnected representation” to perform the specific task of terminating a Town employee … . Inasmuch as “[a] question of fact exists on this issue, . . . summary judgment is inappropriate” … .

We further conclude that there are triable issues of fact whether the gaps in the legal services that defendants performed for the Town were “merely . . . period[s] absent expectations, rather than . . . period[s] when representation formally ended” … . Here … the Town “immediately return[ed] to [defendants] . . . once an issue arising from [the alleged] malpractice [was] detected” … .

Although defendants correctly contend that the continuous representation doctrine requires that there be ” continuing trust and confidence in the relationship between the parties’ ” … , there are triable issues of fact whether the Town ever lost such trust and confidence in defendants. Town of Amherst v Weiss, 2014 NY Slip Op 06411, 4th Dept 9-26-14

 

/ , ,

Plea Colloquy of Co-Defendant Was Inadmissible Hearsay—Court’s Granting of Defendant’s Request to Have the Colloquy Read to the Jury Over Defense Counsel’s Objection Deprived Defendant of His Right To Counsel

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the court granted the defendant’s request to read co-defendant’s plea colloquy to the jury over defense counsel’s objection.  The colloquy was inadmissible hearsay.  Defense counsel alone can determine what evidence is introduced on defendant’s behalf:

Defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the court read the transcript of the codefendant’s guilty plea allocution to the jury. The codefendant’s statements by which she inculpated defendant, were testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant, whom defendant did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]).

The People’s argument that the Confrontation Clause was inapplicable because defendant himself introduced the evidence is unavailing. Although defendant personally requested the introduction of the evidence, he was not appearing pro se. Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the case, and there was no form of hybrid representation. The decision to introduce evidence was not a fundamental decision reserved to defendant, but a strategic or tactical decision for his attorney … . Thus, defendant was deprived of his right to counsel when the court admitted the evidence solely based on his own request, over his attorney’s vigorous and consistent opposition … . People v Lee, 2014 NY Slip Op 06374, 1st Dept 9-25-14

 

/

Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor

The Third Department determined the board’s finding that claimant was an employee of ASISS was supported by substantial evidence, despite evidence suggesting an independent contractor relationship:

Whether there exists an employment relationship is a factual issue for resolution by the Board and its decision will not be disturbed when supported by substantial evidence … . In making such a determination, the Board considers whether the putative employer exercised control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results, with the means being the more important consideration … . Here, the testimony of both claimant and Anthony Stone, the principal of ASISS, established that claimant completed an application for employment and was hired at a rate of pay established exclusively by Stone. ASISS assigned claimant to a specific location, established his hours of work and covered him under its workers’ compensation insurance. Furthermore, it provided him with an employee code of conduct and required him to call in to an automated system at the beginning and end of each shift, to sign a time sheet and to submit incident reports. The client was not informed that claimant was an independent contractor, claimant was required to request time off two weeks in advance and ASISS would find a replacement if claimant was unavailable for his shift. Claimant was required to adhere to the company dress code by wearing a dark suit and tie, as well as a company lapel pin, while on duty. Furthermore, any complaints about claimant’s performance would be handled by ASISS and claimant would receive his pay even if the client did not pay ASISS. Accordingly, while there was other evidence in the record suggestive of an independent contractor relationship, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant was an employee … . Matter of Thomas J Dunno…, 2014 NY Slip Op 06348, 3rd Dept 9-25-14

 

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