You are here: / Grossly Negligent and Reckless Driving Did Not Support Conviction for Depraved...

Search Results

/

Grossly Negligent and Reckless Driving Did Not Support Conviction for Depraved Indifference Murder

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined that the actions of the defendant, who killed a pedestrian during a police chase, did not meet the criteria for depraved indifference murder.  Although the defendant drove in a grossly negligent and reckless manner, there was evidence he took measures to avoid injuries to others and therefore was not indifferent to the effects of his actions:

A person is guilty of depraved indifference murder when, “[u]nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life [such person] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]). Depraved indifference is a culpable mental state which “is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life” … . Thus, “a depraved and utterly indifferent actor is someone who does not care if another is injured or killed” (id. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Due to the wanton nature of this mens rea, “depraved indifference murder properly applies only to a small, and finite, category of cases where the conduct is at least as morally reprehensible as intentional murder” … .

A defendant who knowingly pursues risky behavior that endangers others does not necessarily evince depraved indifference by engaging in that conduct. As we have explained, “[a] person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life — that person does not care how the risk turns out” … . “The element of depraved indifference to human life comprises both depravity and indifference, and has meaning independent of recklessness and the gravity of the risk created” … . In short, the mens rea of depraved indifference will rarely be established by risky behavior alone. People v Maldonado, 2014 NY Slip Op 04878, CtApp 7-1-14

 

/ ,

Reversible Error to Give a Modified Malpractice Jury Instruction in a Negligent/Defective Design Case

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, reversed a $10 million judgment against Volvo, finding that one of the jury instructions, which was a modified version of the jury instruction for a malpractice case, should not have been given.  The plaintiff lost a leg when the ignition of the manual transmission car was switched on and the car lurched forward, pinning the plaintiff.  A central issue in the trial was whether the car should have been equipped with a device which would have prevented the car from starting when it was in gear.  In addition to the jury instruction issue, the court discussed the redundancy of instructions for negligent design and defective design, the appeal as of right and by permission pursuant to CPLR 5601 and 5602, and the inconsistency of the verdict.  With respect to the malpractice jury instruction, the court wrote:

[PJI 2:15] should not have been given in this case. It was designed for malpractice cases. As the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions says: “The principle stated in the pattern charge is the underlying basis of malpractice actions” (1A NY PJI3d 2:15 at 259 [2014]). The Committee goes on to say that “[t]he principle extends to skilled trades and to professions not generally thought of in connection with malpractice” (id.), but we know of no basis for including automobile manufacturers in that category. This is not a malpractice case, but a negligent design or (what amounts to the same thing) a design defect case.

PJI 2:15 is reserved for malpractice cases because the standards of care applicable to malpractice cases and to other negligence cases are different. In a malpractice case against, for example, a doctor or a lawyer, the defendant is generally held to the level of skill and care used by others in the community who practice the same profession … . In negligence cases generally, by contrast, the jury must compare the defendant's conduct to that of a reasonable person under like circumstances (Restatement [Second] of Torts § 283…). In negligent design/design defect cases, the reasonable-person standard has been given more specific form: the question is whether the product is one as to which “if the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner” … .  Reis v Volvo Cars of N Am, 2014 NY Slip Op 04880, CtApp 7-1-14

 

/ ,

Albany County Cyberbullying Criminal Statute Overly Broad

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a dissent, determined that a statute passed by the Albany County Legislature, aimed at criminalizing cyberbullying, was too vague and broad to survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment:

Based on the text of the statute at issue, it is evident that Albany County “create[d] a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth”… . The language of the local law embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children … . As written, the Albany County law in its broadest sense criminalizes “any act of communicating . . . by mechanical or electronic means . . . with no legitimate . . . personal . . . purpose, with the intent to harass [or] annoy. . . another person.” On its face, the law covers communications aimed at adults, and fictitious or corporate entities, even though the county legislature justified passage of the provision based on the detrimental effects that cyberbullying has on school-aged children. The county law also lists particular examples of covered communications, such as “posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail.” But such methods of expression are not limited to instances of cyberbullying — the law includes every conceivable form of electronic communication, such as telephone conversations, a ham radio transmission or even a telegram. In addition, the provision pertains to electronic communications that are meant to “harass, annoy . . . taunt . . . [or] humiliate” any person or entity, not just those that are intended to “threaten, abuse . . . intimidate, torment . . . or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on” a child. In considering the facial implications, it appears that the provision would criminalize a broad spectrum of speech outside the popular understanding of cyberbullying, including, for example: an email disclosing private information about a corporation or a telephone conversation meant to annoy an adult.  People v Marquan M, 2014 NY Slip Op 04881, CtApp 7-1-14

 

/ ,

Unearned Hourly Fees and Contingency Fees Are Not the Property of a Dissolved Law Partnership

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined that unearned hourly fees and contingency fees are not the property of a dissolved law firm such that a bankruptcy trustee can reach them on behalf of creditors:

In New York, clients have always enjoyed the “unqualified right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time” without any obligation other than to compensate the attorney for “the fair and reasonable value of the completed services” … . In short, no law firm has a property interest in future hourly legal fees because they are “too contingent in nature and speculative to create a present or future property interest” …, given the client's unfettered right to hire and fire counsel. Because client matters are not partnership property, the trustees' reliance on Partnership Law § 4 (4) is misplaced.

… New York courts have never suggested that a law firm owns anything with respect to a client matter other than yet-unpaid compensation for legal services already provided. Appellate Division decisions dealing with unfinished business claims in the context of contingency fee arrangements uniformly conclude that the dissolved partnership is entitled only to the “value” of its services… . Matter of In re: Thelen LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 04879, CtApp 7-1-14

 

/

In a Partition Action, Tenant in Common Not Liable to Other Tenants in Common for Use and Occupancy of the Property/Tenant in Common Entitled to Reimbursement from Other Tenants in Common for Taxes and Repairs

In the context of a partition action, the Fourth Department explained that a tenant in common is not liable to other tenants in common for the use and occupancy of the property and is entitled to reimbursement of any payments made for taxes and repairs:

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the court properly determined that defendant was not liable to them for the value of defendant’s use and occupancy. “[P]artition is an equitable remedy in nature and [the court] has the authority to adjust the rights of the parties so [that] each receives his or her proper share of the property and its benefits” (Hunt v Hunt, 13 AD3d 1041, 1042). A tenant in common “has the right to take and occupy the whole of the premises and preserve them from waste or injury, so long as he or she does not interfere with the right of [the other tenants] to also occupy the premises” … . “Mere occupancy alone by one of the tenants does not make that tenant liable to the other tenant[s] for use and occupancy absent an agreement to that effect or an ouster” … , both of which are absent here.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ further contention, the court properly determined that defendant was entitled to be reimbursed for payments that he made for property taxes and repairs. It is well settled that a tenant in common is entitled to be reimbursed for the share of the taxes paid by him for the benefit of other tenants in common … . Additionally, a tenant in common is entitled to be reimbursed for money expended in maintaining, repairing and improving the property, if such maintenance, repairs, and improvements were undertaken in good faith and were necessary to protect or preserve the property … . Cooney v Shepard, 2014 NY Slip Op 04589, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/

In Absence of a “Special Relationship” Insurer Not Liable for Agent’s Negligent Misrepresentation

The Fourth Department determined the insurance carrier was entitled to summary judgment because it did not have a “special relationship” with the insured.  Plaintiff’s insurance had been cancelled for lack of payment.  After a loss, the plaintiff sued the insurer alleged that he had relied on the agent’s representation that his insurance premium had been paid.  Absent a “special relationship” suit can not be premised on such reliance:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the gravamen of which is a claim for negligent misrepresentation. An essential element of such a claim is the “duty to use reasonable care to impart correct information due to a special relationship between the parties” … . A special relationship may arise from “a course of dealing over an extended period of time which would have put objectively reasonable insurance agents on notice that their advice was being sought and specially relied on” … . According to plaintiff, he had a special relationship with defendant based on a course of dealing. We conclude that defendant met its burden on the motion, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact concerning the existence of a special relationship … . The interactions between plaintiff and defendant on which plaintiff relies ” would [not] have put [an] objectively reasonable insurance agent[] on notice that [his or her advice] was being sought and specially relied on’ ” … , such that a special relationship was formed based on a course of conduct. Defendant therefore cannot be held liable for negligent misrepresentation based on its agent’s response to an inquiry from plaintiff concerning whether his policy premium had been paid. In view of our determination, we do not consider defendant’s remaining contentions. Majtan v Urbanke Assoc Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04631, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/

Count Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Evidence Dismissed

The Fourth Department determined one count of an indictment had been rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence.  The indictment charged the theft of a bicycle.  However the trial evidence alleged the theft of two bicycles.  Therefore it is possible the jury was not unanimous in determining a specific bicycle had been stolen:

Because defendant’s right to be tried and convicted of only those crimes charged in the indictment is fundamental and nonwaivable” …, we review defendant’s contention despite his failure to preserve it. CPL 200.30 (1) provides that “[e]ach count of an indictment may charge one offense only.” Count five of the indictment charged defendant with stealing a bicycle and thus was not facially defective. At trial, however, the evidence established that two bicycles were stolen. Consequently, ” [r]eversal is required because the jury may have convicted defendant of an unindicted [petit larceny], resulting in the usurpation by the prosecutor of the exclusive power of the [g]rand [j]ury to determine the charges’ . . . , as well as the danger that . . . different jurors convicted defendant based on different acts’ “… . People v Wade, 2014 NY Slip Op 04587, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/ ,

Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to Considerable Testimony About Prior Consistent Statements Made by the Victim Concerning Alleged Sexual Abuse Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Fourth Department, over a strong two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied.   The complainant was allowed to describe prior consistent statements she made about the alleged incidents of sexual abuse. In addition, the People’s expert was allowed to testify about those prior consistent statements.  Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to that testimony and she indicated she had no strategic purpose in failing to object.  The majority determined the prior consistent statements were admissible because they completed a narrative.  The dissent noted that no cases supporting the introduction of prior consistent statements to complete a narrative were found.  In the opinion of the dissenters, the prior consistent statements constituted inadmissible bolstering and defense counsel’s failure to object to them constituted ineffective assistance:

… [O]ur dissenting colleagues conclude that defense counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the testimony of the victim that she reported to her mother at age six that defendant had touched her in a sexual manner; that she reported to her sister at age 14 that defendant had raped her; and that she told a police witness and the grand jury what she told the jury during her testimony. We respectfully disagree with that conclusion. Although the dissent correctly notes that the repetition of prior consistent statements may “give to a jury an exaggerated idea of the probative force of a party’s case” … , here, the victim’s testimony constituted a narrative of events. Indeed, she did not repeat the specific allegations of her testimony, i.e., that defendant had engaged in anal penetration … . In light of defense counsel’s opening statement that the relationship between defendant, the victim and the victim’s mother was such that it could “cause someone to make fake allegations,” the narrative of events was relevant. We also disagree with our dissenting colleagues that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s remarks during summation referencing that testimony constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the remarks were a fair response to defense counsel’s summation challenging the credibility of the victim and her motivation for making the accusations …, we conclude that the failure of defense counsel to object to those comments does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … . People v Gross, 2014 NY Slip Op 04592, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/

Rebuttal Witness Properly Called by the People to Show Possible Bias of Defense Witness

The Fourth Department, over a strong two-justice dissent, determined that a rebuttal witness called by the People was properly allowed to testify to demonstrate the bias of a defense witness.  The explanation about the relevance of the rebuttal testimony is fact-specific.  The dissenters did not see the rebuttal testimony as relevant to the defense witness’ bias and did not agree that the “bias” rationale for the rebuttal was actually raised in the trial court:

…[T]he rebuttal witness was properly called to give testimony that was relevant to the defense witness’s bias or motive to fabricate, which is not collateral … . The defense witness was defendant’s former girlfriend, and the rebuttal witness was defendant’s ex-wife, who married defendant after he and the defense witness ended their romantic relationship. In her cross-examination of the defense witness, the prosecutor attempted to show that defendant and the defense witness were romantically involved at the time of the trial, but the defense witness would admit only that she and defendant were friends, and claimed that she and defendant had been friends “all along,” i.e., they were friends even when defendant and the rebuttal witness were married. The prosecutor informed the court that she wanted to call the rebuttal witness to rebut the defense witness’s testimony that she and defendant were “friends this entire time.” We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the rebuttal witness should not have been allowed to testify. Reading the prosecutor’s colloquy with the court on this issue, together with her cross-examination of the defense witness, we conclude that the purpose of calling the rebuttal witness was to show that defendant and the defense witness were romantically involved at the time of the trial, which the prosecutor believed could be inferred if the defense witness and defendant had not been friends when he was married to the rebuttal witness.

We also disagree with our dissenting colleagues that our affirmance of the trial court’s ruling violates People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192). The Court of Appeals has ” construed CPL 470.15 (1) as a legislative restriction on the Appellate Division’s power to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court’ ” (id. at 195). Contrary to the position of the dissent, we are not affirming on a ground that is different from that determined by the court. The court allowed the rebuttal witness to testify for the “limited purpose” of whether the defense witness and defendant were friends, and we conclude that the court’s determination was proper. We simply differ from the dissent in our interpretation of the meaning of the rebuttal witness’s testimony tending to show that the defense witness and defendant were not friends after defendant married the rebuttal witness.  People v Nicholson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04611, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

/

Defendant’s Temporary Possession of a Weapon Was “Innocent”

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s conviction for possession of a weapon was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s half-brother handed her the weapon just before he became involved in an altercation.  The court determined defendant’s possession of the weapon was “innocent:”

“Under our law, in certain circumstances, the possession of a weapon may be innocent and not criminal. Innocent possession of a weapon is possession that is temporary and not for an unlawful purpose” … . “This defense of temporary and lawful’ possession applies because as a matter of policy the conduct is not deemed criminal” … . Furthermore, a “defendant is not required to prove that h[er] possession of the weapon was innocent. Rather, the People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that the defendant knowingly possessed the weapon and that such possession was not innocent” … . For this defense to be considered by the trier of fact, “there must be proof in the record showing a legal excuse for having the weapon in [one’s] possession as well as facts tending to establish that, once possession [was] obtained, the weapon [was] not used in a dangerous manner” … . People v Holes, 2014 NY Slip Op 04643, 4th Dept 6-20-14

 

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