You are here: / No Manifest Necessity for Declaring a Mistrial Over Defendant’s Objection–Double...

Search Results

/ , ,

No Manifest Necessity for Declaring a Mistrial Over Defendant’s Objection–Double Jeopardy Barred Retrial

The Second Department determined there was no “manifest necessity” for the trial court’s declaring a mistrial (over defendant’s objection) and therefore retrial was precluded.  The jury informed the court it had reached a verdict one count but could not reach a verdict on the remaining two counts. The defendant asked the court to accept a partial verdict and the court refused.  Subsequently a juror asked to be excused due to an emergency.  The defendant, at the court’s urging, agreed to excuse the juror and renewed his request for a partial verdict.  The request was again refused and the defendant did not agree to the substitution of an alternate juror.  The court, on its own motion, declared a mistrial. When the court ruled defendant could be retried on the two counts on which the jury could not agree, defendant brought an application for prohibition:

Prohibition is the traditional remedy where a defendant seeks protection against double jeopardy … and the writ lies in this case. * * *

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, double jeopardy will, as a general rule, bar retrial … . However, the right to have one’s case decided by the first empaneled jury is not absolute, and a mistrial granted as the product of manifest necessity will not bar a retrial … . ” Manifest necessity’ means a high degree of necessity’; the reasons underlying the grant of a mistrial must be necessitous, actual and substantial'” … . Even if the reasons for declaring a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to declaring a mistrial … .

Here, the trial court failed to explore all appropriate alternatives before declaring, on its own motion, a mistrial … . Accordingly, there was no manifest necessity for the declaration of a mistrial and, thus, retrial on counts two and three of the indictment is precluded.  Matter of Gentil v Margulis, 2014 NY Slip Op 06314, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ ,

Criteria for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Finding a Verdict to be Against the Weight of the Evidence Explained

In the context of a personal injury action, where the issue was whether plaintiff’s injury was “serious” within the meaning of Insurance Law 5102 (d), the Second Department explained the criteria for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 and finding a verdict to be against the weight of the evidence.  The Second Department affirmed the denial of defendant’s post-verdict motions but found the damages awarded by the jury to be excessive:

” To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of showing that there is no rational process by which the jury could find in favor of the plaintiff and against the moving defendant'” … . In considering the motion for judgment as a matter of law, “the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … .  * * *

A jury verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence when the evidence so preponderates in favor of the movant that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Where, as here, conflicting expert testimony is presented, the jury is entitled to accept one expert’s opinion, and reject that of another expert … . “Issues of credibility are for the jury, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and the evidence. Its resolution is entitled to deference” … . “[A] successful party is entitled to a presumption that the jury adopted a reasonable view of the evidence” … .  Cicola v County of Suffolk, 2014 NY Slip Op 06293, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ , ,

Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated the Fourth Amendment

The Second Department determined that a new trial was required because defendant’s statement should have been suppressed.  The police pulled the defendant from inside his home to arrest him without a warrant, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The Second Department noted, however, that the trial court did not err in refusing the suppress evidence of a post-arrest lineup identification:

Here, the police knocked on the defendant’s door at approximately 6:50 a.m. When the defendant answered the door he appeared to be “half asleep,” and was naked from the waist down. He only partially opened the door, was never in full view of the police, and never crossed the threshold of his apartment. When the police directed the defendant to step fully into view, the defendant instead attempted to shut the door, trapping a detective’s arm as the detective tried to keep the door from closing. After law enforcement officials successfully pushed the door open, they pulled the defendant from the area behind the door into the public hallway, where he was then arrested.

Under the discrete circumstances of this case, where the police officers crossed the threshold into the defendant’s apartment, pulled him into the hallway, and arrested him without a warrant, the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated … . People v Riffas, 2014 NY Slip Op 06333, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ ,

Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention of the Defendant to Conduct a Brief Investigation—Arrest of the Defendant in the Absence of Probable Cause Required Suppression of Defendant’s Statement

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that defendant’s statement should have been suppressed because the police arrested him in the absence of probable cause.  Two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest were in the backseat of a legally parked vehicle.  Defendant was in the driver’s seat, fumbling with the ignition keys when the police first saw him.  The police pulled him from the vehicle and arrested him.  The Second Department found the arrest premature. Because of the presence of the two persons for whom the police had probable cause to arrest, there was only a reasonable suspicion of the defendant’s involvement which justified only forcible detention for a brief investigation:

The hearing testimony established that at approximately 8:00 a.m. on June 10, 2009, the police received a radio transmission regarding a robbery in progress, perpetrated by two black males, at a Queens residence. The police activated their sirens and lights and went to the specified house, arriving within two minutes of receiving the transmission. When the police arrived, two of the complainants, still gagged and partially bound, were on the porch of the house. The complainants used gestures to direct the officers’ attention to two men, Myers and Santos, who were walking on the sidewalk, about four houses away. Myers and Santos, who were the only civilians on the block, started running, and the officers chased them. During the chase, Santos discarded an object, which the police later recovered and found to be a gun. When Myers and Santos turned a corner several blocks from the complainants’ house, the officers lost sight of them briefly. When one of the officers turned the corner, he did not see any people, but saw the rear passenger door on a sport utility vehicle being closed. The vehicle was legally parked and the engine was off. The officer ran to the vehicle and peered inside through the tinted windows. After spotting Myers and Santos in the rear passenger seat, the officer “punched” the driver’s side window to alert the driver not to drive away. The officer pulled the driver’s door open and saw the defendant in the driver’s seat, “fumbling” with the keys and trying to put them in the ignition. The officer pulled the defendant out of the car, placed him face-down on the ground, and handcuffed him. Eventually, the defendant was placed in a police car. People v Delvillartron, 2014 NY Slip Op 06327, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ ,

Marriage of an Incapacitated Person Properly Annulled

The Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence to justify the annulment of the marriage of an incapacitated person (Aldo D.). for whom a temporary guardian had been appointed, to the appellant:

…[C]lear and convincing evidence was presented at the hearing that Aldo D. was incapacitated … . Among other things, testimony was adduced that Aldo D. suffered from Parkinson’s disease, and the temporary guardian testified that he observed symptoms of dementia in Aldo D. For example, the temporary guardian related that Aldo D. did not seem to understand that he was being evicted from his apartment, and that he had married without intending to do so. The temporary guardian further testified that Aldo D. was very limited in his ability to walk and dress himself, and he could not cook for himself. He did not recognize his need for help. When questioned by the court, Aldo D. repeatedly denied marrying the appellant, said that he did not remember marrying the appellant, and did not want to be married to her. The appellant acknowledged during her testimony that they had, “to a degree,” two marriage ceremonies, because, at the time of the first ceremony, Aldo D. “wasn’t feeling well.” The evidence before the Supreme Court was legally sufficient to establish that Aldo D. was incapacitated. Because there was legally sufficient evidence presented to the Supreme Court establishing that Aldo D. was incapacitated, it was proper to annul the marriage between him and the appellant pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d) … . Matter of Dandridge, 2014 NY Slip Op 06311, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ , ,

Election of Remedies Provision in Labor Law 740 Precluded Retaliation Action Based Upon an Alleged Violation of NYC Administrative Code

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ action for retaliation in employment in violation ov the NYC Administrative Code was barred by the election of remedies provision of Labor Law 740 (7):

[The Administrative Code-based] claim is barred by the election of remedies provision contained in Labor Law § 740(7). Labor Law § 740(7) provides that “the institution of an action in accordance with this section shall be deemed a waiver of the rights and remedies available under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, law, rule or regulation or under the common law.” The waiver applies to causes of action arising out of or relating to the same underlying claim of retaliation … .

The plaintiffs in this action alleged retaliation pursuant to Labor Law § 740 in a prior action … . The claim asserted here pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107 arises out of and relates to the same underlying claim of retaliation as asserted in the prior action. It is, therefore, barred by the Labor Law § 740(7) election of remedies provision … . The waiver may not be avoided by amending the complaint to withdraw the section 740 claim, as the plaintiffs did in the prior action … . Charite v Duane Reade Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06292, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ ,

Annuity Purchased as Part of Settlement After Husband’s On-the-Job Accident Is Marital Property—Husband’s Pension Is Marital Property to the Extent It Represents Deferred Compensation—Wife Did Not Demonstrate Entitlement to Appreciation of Marital Residence (Which Was Husband’s Separate Property)

After noting that the appellate court has the same powers as the trial court in rendering a judgment in a matrimonial action, the Second Department determined that an annuity purchased pursuant to a settlement agreement stemming from the on-the-job injury to the plaintiff-husband should have been deemed marital, not separate, property.  The Second Department further determined that plaintiff’s pension was marital property subject to equitable distribution, and defendant did not demonstrate she was entitled to any portion of the appreciation of the marital residence (which was plaintiff’s separate property):

Although a settlement award emanating from a personal injury action commenced by the parties is partially the separate property of each party named in such action (…Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][d][2]), here, the parties’ conduct converted the separate property of the settlement into marital property. Specifically, the parties’ agreement to a settlement term that allowed the obligor or its successors to purchase an annuity, which provided for a right of survivorship to each party, to effectuate the terms of the settlement, manifests the parties’ intent to transfer the character of the property of each arising out of that settlement from separate to marital. * * *

With respect to the equitable distribution of this marital asset, “it is important to note that there is no requirement that the distribution of each item of marital property be on an equal basis” … . Here, equity dictates that the plaintiff should receive most of the annuity, as he is permanently disabled and unable to earn an income now or in the future, whereas the plaintiff is employed and has future income earning capacity. * * *

The Supreme Court also erred in finding that the plaintiff’s pension payments constituted separate property not subject to equitable distribution (cf. Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][b]). In New York, “pension benefits or vested rights to those benefits, except to the extent that they are earned or acquired before marriage or after commencement of a matrimonial action, constitute marital property” … . To the extent that a disability pension constitutes compensation for personal injuries, it is considered separate property not subject to equitable distribution … . However, to the extent that a disability pension represents deferred compensation, it is subject to equitable distribution … . Thus, here, the defendant is entitled to an equitable share of the marital portion of so much of the plaintiff’s pension as represents deferred compensation … . * * *

…[T]he defendant failed to provide any evidence tending to show an appreciation in the value of the marital residence due to her contributions that would entitle her to an equitable share of the increase in value of the marital property (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][d][3]…). The only evidence of the value of the marital residence was the plaintiff’s net worth statement, which indicated that he purchased it for $35,000. The defendant offered no evidence to establish the value of the home at the time of the commencement of the divorce action or whether it had appreciated in value during the marriage. Rizzo v Rizzo, 2014 NY Slip Op 06305, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/

Supreme Court Properly Imputed Income to Husband (Higher than that Reported by Husband) in Awarding Pendente Lite Maintenance and Child Support

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly imputed income to the defendant-husband to determine pendente lite awards of maintenance and child support:

…Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in imputing income of $200,000 per year to the defendant for the purposes of computing pendente lite awards of maintenance and child support. In determining a party’s maintenance or child support obligation, a court need not rely upon the party’s own account of his or her finances … . A court is justified in imputing income to a spouse when it is shown that the marital lifestyle was such that, under the circumstances, there was a basis for the court to conclude that the spouse’s actual income and financial resources were greater than what he or she reported on his or her tax returns … . The court may impute income to establish the party’s support obligation (see Domestic Relations Law §§ 240 [1-b][b][5][iv]; 236[B][5-a][b][4][a]…). Here, the Supreme Court, in effect, found the defendant’s account of his own finances was not believable, and was justified in imputing income to him that was far higher than he reported… . Weitzner v Weitzner, 2014 NY Slip Op 06303, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ , ,

Five-Month Delay In Disclaiming Coverage—Insurer Estopped

The Second Department determined the insurer’s delay in disclaiming coverage in a legal malpractice action prejudiced the attorney.  The insurer was therefore estopped from disclaiming coverage:

Where, as here, the matter does not involve death or bodily injury, the untimely disclaimer by an insurer does not automatically estop the insurer from disclaiming on the basis of late notice unless there has been a showing of prejudice to the insured due to the delay … . Although the court did not make a determination that [the attorney] was prejudiced by the defendants’ approximate five-month delay in disclaiming coverage, based upon this record, [the party injured by the alleged malpractice] made a sufficient showing of prejudice to [the attorney]due to the [insurer’s] late disclaimer such that the defendants are estopped from disclaiming coverage … .Moreover, the purported reason for the disclaimer of coverage was evident on the face of the original complaint, and did not require any additional investigation by the insurer … . The [insurer] failed to rebut this showing. B & R Consol LLC v Zurich Am Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 06287, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

/ ,

Election of Remedies Provision of Labor Law 740 (Retaliation in Employment) Does Not Bar a Separate Claim Pursuant to Labor Law 203-c (Placement of Cameras in Employee Restrooms)

The Second Department determined the election of remedies provision of Labor Law 740 (retaliation in employment) did not bar a separate and independent claim pursuant to Labor Law 203-c (placement of video cameras in employee restrooms):

Labor Law § 740(7) provides that “the institution of an action in accordance with this section shall be deemed a waiver of the rights and remedies available under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, law, rule or regulation or under the common law.” However, the waiver only applies to causes of action arising out of or relating to the same underlying claim of retaliation … . The Labor Law § 203-c cause of action here asserts the separate and independent claim of illegal placement of video cameras in employee restrooms. Thus, it is not barred by the Labor Law § 740(7) election of remedies provision … . Davis v Duane Reade Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06295 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

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