You are here: / Insufficient Proof of Value of Stolen Property, Evidence of Prior Crimes...

Search Results

/ , ,

Insufficient Proof of Value of Stolen Property, Evidence of Prior Crimes Improperly Admitted, Identification Testimony Improperly Admitted, Prosecutor Improperly Vouched for Witnesses—New Trial Ordered

In reversing the defendant’s grand larceny conviction, the Fourth Department determined the evidence of the value of the property was “conclusory” consisting only of “rough estimates” and was therefore legally insufficient.  The court also determined evidence of uncharged crimes and identification testimony should not have been admitted, and noted the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of prosecution witnesses. With respect to the uncharged crimes and identification evidence, the court wrote:

…[W]e agree with defendant that County Court erred in allowing the People to introduce evidence concerning an uncharged burglary to prove his identity as the perpetrator of the burglary and petit larceny charged in the indictment. The instant crime is “not so unique as to allow admission of evidence of the [uncharged burglary] on the theory of the similarity of the modus operandi” … . The court further erred in admitting the testimony of a witness who identified defendant in an out-of-court photo array procedure and thereafter identified him in court. The People failed to satisfy their obligation pursuant to CPL 710.30 inasmuch as no statutory notice was given by the People with respect to their intent to offer “testimony regarding an observation of the defendant at the time or place of the commission of the offense or upon some other occasion relevant to the case, to be given by a witness who has previously identified him as such” (CPL 710.30 [1]…). The errors in admitting evidence of the uncharged burglary and the identification of defendant are not harmless, considered singularly or in combination, inasmuch as the proof of defendant’s guilt is not overwhelming, and there is a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for either of the errors… . People v Walker, 2014 NY Slip Op 05254, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/

Petition to Vacate Hearing Officer’s Decision Terminating Petitioner (a School Administrator) Was Not Properly Served Upon a “School Officer”

The petitioner, an elementary school administrator, was terminated for misconduct after a hearing.  Petitioner then filed a petition to vacate the hearing officer’s (HO’s) decision.  Supreme Court dismissed the petition as untimely and improperly served.  The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the petition was timely, but it was not properly served. The dissenters argued that the petition was not timely filed as well:

…[W]e conclude that the phrase “receipt of the hearing officer’s decision” in Education Law § 3020-a (5) (a) refers to the receipt of such decision from the SED [State Education Department]. We thus reject respondents’ contention that section 3020-a provides that the 10-day period in which to appeal runs from the receipt of the HO’s decision by email, not the receipt of the HO’s decision through mail sent by the SED. Rather, we agree with petitioner that, by concluding that the 10-day period to appeal commenced upon petitioner’s receipt of the HO’s decision by email, the court rendered the notification process contained in Education Law § 3020-a (4) superfluous.  * * *

…[W]e agree with the court that petitioner’s service of the petition was defective. The decision of the Second Department in Matter of Franz v Board of Educ. of Elwood Union Free Sch. Dist. (112 AD2d 934 …) is instructive. There, “[t]he notice of petition was personally delivered to [the] respondent [Board of Education]’s secretary,” whom the 2nd Department concluded was “not a school officer’ as set forth in . . . Education Law [§ 2 (13)]” (id. at 935). In support of that conclusion, the 2nd Department noted that “[t]he courts of this State have consistently required strict compliance with the statutory procedures for the institution of claims against the State and its governmental subdivisions, and where the Legislature has designated a particular public officer for the receipt of service of process, we are without authority to substitute another” … . We likewise conclude here that the payroll clerk employed in the District’s business office was not a “school officer” under the Education Law. Matter of Puchalski v Depew Union Free School Dist…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05271, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/ , ,

Grievance Did Not Relate to Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreement

In finding that one of two grievances was not arbitrable because the grievance (overtime pay for police officers privately employed as security officers at the airport) did not relate to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Fourth Department explained the operative criteria:

It is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, we do not determine the merits of the grievance and instead determine only whether the subject matter of the grievance is arbitrable (see CPLR 7501…). “Proceeding with a two-part test, we first ask whether the parties may arbitrate the dispute by inquiring if there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance’ . . . If no prohibition exists, we then ask whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement. If there is a prohibition, our inquiry ends and an arbitrator cannot act” … .

“Where, as here, the [CBA] contains a broad arbitration clause, our determination of arbitrability is limited to whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA’ ” … . If such a “reasonable relationship” exists, it is the role of the arbitrator, and not the court, to “make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them” … .

Matter of City of Syracuse v Syracuse Police Benevolent Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05251, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/

Policy Language Interpreted to Support Plaintiff’s Allegation the Insurer Was Timely Notified of Injured Worker’s Claim

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court finding that the documentary evidence did not demonstrate the insurer had not been timely notified of the claim (within the meaning of the policy language) as a matter of law.  In the course of the decision, the court interpreted the policy terms “occurrence,” “claim” and “suit” as well as the phrase “see to it that defendant was notified:”

Initially, we conclude that the December 2009 letter was a notice of an “occurrence . . . which may result in a claim” and not a “claim” under the policy. The terms “occurrence,” “claim,” and “suit” are separately used in the policy, and thus each term must be ” deemed to have some meaning’ ” … . The policy defines “[o]ccurrence” as “an accident.” The term “[c]laim” is not defined in the policy, but such term has been interpreted to mean ” an assertion of legally cognizable damage,’ ” i.e., ” a type of demand that can be defended, settled and paid by the insurer’ ” … . Here, the December 2009 letter “neither makes any demand for payment nor advises that legal action will be forthcoming” … . Rather, the letter advised plaintiff that [the injured worker] had retained an attorney in connection with personal injuries he had sustained during the course of his work on the construction project, requested that plaintiff forward the letter to its insurance carrier, and warned plaintiff that failure to notify its carrier could result in a denial of coverage and “personal responsibility for any obligations that may arise” from [the] accident.

We further conclude that the January 2010 letter and form … sent to defendant at plaintiff’s request satisfied the insured’s duty under the policy to “see to it” that defendant was notified of the occurrence “as soon as practicable” …. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the policy did not require that written notice of an occurrence come directly from plaintiff; it simply required that plaintiff “see to it” that defendant was “notified” … . Moreover, to the extent that the phrase “see to it that we are notified” is ambiguous, that ambiguity must be construed in plaintiff’s favor … .   Inasmuch as the January 2010 letter constituted notice of an “occurrence,” we conclude that the May 2010 letter constituted notice of a “claim” or “suit” based upon [the injured worker’s] April 15, 2010 commencement of the underlying action. We therefore agree with plaintiff that the court erred in dismissing the complaint against defendant inasmuch as the documentary evidence does not conclusively establish a defense to plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law… . Spoleta Constr LLC v Aspen Ins UK Ltd, 2014 NY Slip Op 05250, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/

Attributes of Equitable Mortgage Explained

In affirming the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based upon allegations of the existence of an equitable mortgage, the Fourth Department explained the attributes of an equitable mortgage:

“Equity generally will keep an encumbrance alive, or consider it extinguished, as will best serve the purposes of justice’ ” … . “The whole doctrine of equitable mortgages is founded upon [the] cardinal maxim of equity which regards that as done which has been agreed to be done, and ought to have been done” … .

” [A]n equitable mortgage may be constituted by any writing from which the intention so to do may be gathered, and an attempt to make a legal mortgage, which fails for the want of some solemnity, is valid in equity’ ” … . “While [a] court will impose an equitable mortgage where the facts surrounding a transaction evidence that the parties intended that a specific piece of property is to be held or transferred to secure an obligation’ . . . , it is necessary that an intention to create such a charge clearly appear from the language and the attendant circumstances’ ” . .. . Canandaigua Natl Bank & Trust Co v Palmer, 2014 NY Slip Op 05263, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/ , ,

Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police Misconduct

Fourth Department affirmed the judgment against the state for wrongfull conviction and imprisonment.  After nine years of imprisonment for attempted murder, another came forward and credibly confessed to the crime.  The claimant was released and sued the state.  The state argued on appeal that, because the claimant made an inculpatory statement, the proof that he did not bring about his own conviction was insufficient.  In rejecting that argument, the court explained:

Claimant consistently maintained his innocence and contended that his inculpatory statement was coerced. “[A] coerced false confession does not bar recovery under section 8-b because it is not the claimant’s own conduct’ within the meaning of the statute” … . It is well settled that “[t]he voluntariness of a confession can only be determined through an examination of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession” … . “Relevant criteria include the duration and conditions of detention, the manifest attitude of the police toward the detainee, the existence of threat or inducement, and the age, physical state and mental state of the detainee” … . The use or misuse of a polygraph examination is also a factor to be considered in determining whether there was impermissible coercion … .

Here, we conclude that the record fully supports the court’s determination that claimant’s inculpatory statement was the product of police misconduct … . Claimant was awake for 34 hours before making his only inculpatory statement, which was the second statement he made. He had been interrogated for 15 hours in a six- by eight-foot windowless room. He ate nothing and drank only one can of soda and, although he was a heavy smoker, he had no cigarettes in the prior four or five hours. He remained under the severe emotional trauma of having seen his wife in a horrible bloodied and battered condition. Claimant was advised that, if he took a polygraph exam and passed, he would be permitted to go home.

Notably, the polygraph operator expressed significant concern to fellow officers about the reliability of the polygraph exam because claimant was “somewhat physiologically unresponsive to the polygraph.” Gristwood v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05259, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

/

Defendant Failed to Prove Three Elements of Adverse Possession

The Third Department determined that defendant failed to demonstrate it had acquired plaintiff’s property by adverse possession:

To establish adverse possession, defendant was required to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that its possession was “(1) hostile and under claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) continuous for the required [10-year] period” … . Additionally, where, as here, the claim of right is not founded upon a written instrument, it was necessary for defendant to “establish that the land was ‘usually cultivated or improved’ or ‘protected by a substantial inclosure'” … . Upon our review of the record, we agree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that defendant failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to more than one of these elements.

Specifically, defendant has failed to establish that its use of the disputed parcel was continuous or exclusive * * * [and] … defendant presented no evidence that it cultivated or improved the disputed parcel during the relevant period.  Salerno v CE Kill Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05224, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

“Confidential Relationship” With Decedent Not Demonstrated As a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled that petitioners had not demonstrated, as a matter of law,  the existence of a confidential relationship between the decedent and respondent. Where a confidential relationship is demonstrated, the stronger party has the burden of showing by clear and convinciing evidence that a particular transaction from which the stronger party benefitted was not the result of undue influence.  The court explained the operative criteria for a confidential relationship:

A confidential relationship is one that is “of such a character as to render it certain that [the parties] do not deal on terms of equality” … . Such inequality may occur from either one party’s “superior knowledge of the matter derived from a fiduciary relation, or from an overmastering influence” or from the other’s “weakness, dependence, or trust justifiably reposed” on the stronger party … .

The limited issue presented on this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred when it declined to find, as a matter of law, that there was a confidential relationship between respondent and decedent. The basis for petitioners’ claim that such a relationship existed was, in part, the familial relationship between respondent and decedent. A familial relationship, however, is not necessarily a confidential relationship … . Importantly, the existence of a confidential relationship is ordinarily a factual determination based upon “evidence of other facts or circumstances showing inequality or controlling influence”… . Matter of Bonczyk v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 05231, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/

Subsequent Action Which Included Claims Which Could Have Been Raised in the First Action Precluded by Doctrine of Res Judicata

The Third Department determined that a prior ruling had res judicata effect even though the subsequent action sought damages for a different period of time:

Under the doctrine of res judicata, “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … , so long as “the party to be barred had a full and fair opportunity to litigate any cause of action arising out of the same transaction and the prior disposition was a final judgment on the merits” … . Thus, where those requirements have been met, if “a plaintiff in a later action brings a claim for damages that could have been presented in a prior [action] against the same party, based upon the same harm and arising out of the same or related facts, the claim is barred by res judicata” … . Stated another way, “when a plaintiff brings an action for only part of his [or her] cause of action, the judgment obtained in that action precludes him [or her] from bringing a second action for the residue of the claim” … .

Here, the record reflects that plaintiff had a full opportunity to litigate the issues relating to his small claim for unpaid wages in City Court and such court’s disposition was a final decision on the merits. It is also evident that the claim brought by plaintiff in City Court and the instant action arise out of the same series of transactions in connection with his work for defendants. Although the present action concerns wages allegedly owed for a different time period than the City Court claim, inasmuch as it had matured at the time that plaintiff commenced the prior action …, plaintiff could have also raised the current claim at that time … . Tovar v Tesoros Prop Mgt LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05233, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement Was Trumped by the Overall Purpose of the Agreement—Shareholder Properly Compelled to Sell His Shares

The Third Department determined a shareholders’ agreement. although it did not address the particular problem at issue, must be read to avoid a result which would be at odds with the clear purposes of the agreement.  One of the three shareholders of the closely held corporation (the defendant) was convicted of a felony and the other shareholders terminated his employment and sought to buy his shares. The defendant sought to prohibit the buy-out by arguing it was untimely under the terms of the shareholders’ agreement.  Because the corporation distributed alcoholic beverages, if the defendant remained a shareholder the corporation would lose its distributor’s license:

A shareholders’ agreement — like any other contract — should be enforced according to its terms … . In so doing, “[t]he contract must be read as a whole to determine its purpose and intent, and it should be interpreted in a way [that] reconciles all its provisions, if possible” … . To that end, “the goal should be a practical construction of the language used so that the reasonable expectations of the parties are realized” …, and “the contract must be interpreted so as to give effect to, not nullify, its general or primary purpose” … .

Here, the shareholders’ agreement reflects “[t]he shareholders[‘] desire to establish a market value for their shares, to effectively control the management of the company, for their mutual best interests, and to protect against divisive relationships which would arise if outsiders with incompatible management philosophies gained interests in the company.” Consistent with that stated objective, the agreement further recognizes that “[t]he company is dependent upon and derives substantial benefit from the continued active interest and participation of those shareholders who participate in the management of the company.” In an attempt to preserve the closely-held nature of the corporation, the agreement provides that when a shareholder’s employment with the corporation ceases, “he or she shall be treated as though he or she were selling all of his or her shares under paragraph A of . . . [s]ection [t]wo [of the agreement],” which outlines the procedures to be followed when a shareholder, during the course of his or her lifetime, “transfer[s] any of his or her shares to anyone other than a family member.” In such case, the shareholder is to give notice of his or her intention to sell and, “[f]or a period of thirty [30] days after the notice is delivered, the [corporation] shall have an option to purchase all or any part of the offered shares on the payment terms specified in [s]ection [f]our [of the agreement].” If the corporation does not exercise such option, then the remaining shareholders are granted an additional 30-day option to purchase any or all of the available shares. * * *

…[R]eading the agreement as a whole and affording it a practical construction that is consistent with and gives proper effect to the parties’ stated intentions …, we are satisfied that Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel [defendant] to sell his shares to the corporation — even if that option to purchase was not timely exercised. To hold otherwise and permit [defendant] to retain his shares due to the asserted noncompliance with the time period set forth in the shareholders’ agreement not only would effectively rewrite the parties’ agreement and undermine its stated purpose, i.e., to retain managerial control within the closely-held family corporation, but would place the corporation at risk of losing its distributor’s license, thereby rendering its stock worthless… . A Cappione Inc v Cappione, 2014 NY Slip Op 05230, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

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