You are here: / Building Which Included Residential (Hotel) and Non-Residential Sections...

Search Results

/

Building Which Included Residential (Hotel) and Non-Residential Sections Constituted a “Dwelling” Supporting Defendant’s Conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined that the entry of a building with included residential and non-residential sections, constituted burglary of a “dwelling” supporting burglary in the second degree.

We last confronted this question long ago, in Quinn v People (71 NY 561 [1878]). That case established a rule that we reaffirm today: Generally, if a building contains a dwelling, a burglary committed in any part of that building is the burglary of a dwelling; but an exception exists where the building is large and the crime is committed in a place so remote and inaccessible from the living quarters that the special dangers inherent in the burglary of a dwelling do not exist. Applying that rule to this case, we hold that the evidence supports defendant's conviction on two counts of second-degree burglary. People v McCray, 2014 NY Slip Op 04232, CtApp 6-12-14

 

/ , ,

Writs of Coram Nobis Alleging Ineffective Assistance Not Available In the Three Specific Cases Before the Court Involving the Failure to File Notices of Appeal and the Failure to Make a “Leave to Appeal” Application to the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, over a partial dissent, determined that a writ of coram nobis was not available to two defendants who alleged their attorneys failed to file timely notices of appeal, and to a third defendant who alleged his attorney's failure to make a criminal “leave to appeal” application to the Court of Appeals.  The opinion explains the history of the use of “writs of coram nobis” in this context. People v Andrews, 2014 NY Slip Op 04233, CtApp 6-12-14

 

/ , ,

Village’s Unauthorized Use of Dedicated Park Land Prohibited by the “Public Trust Doctrine”—Village’s Use of the Land Was a “Continuing Wrong” Which Tolled the Statute of Limitations and Precluded the Application of the Laches Doctrine

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined Supreme Court properly granted a permanent injunction, pursuant to the common law “public trust doctrine,” prohibiting the village from building public works structures on dedicated park land.  The action was brought by residents who live near the park, who were later joined by the state.  Because the park land had been used without legislative authority by the village for many decades, the village argued the action was prohibited by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches.  The Court of Appeals determined the “continuing wrong doctrine” tolled the statute of limitations and the laches doctrine did not apply to a continuing wrong, or to actions by the state:

The harm sustained by the public when structures having “no connection with park purposes . . . encroach upon [parkland] without legislative authority plainly conferred” … cannot be traced exclusively to the day when the illegal encroachment began. “In New York, we have consistently characterized an unlawful encroachment as a continuous trespass giving rise to successive causes of action” … . Even though here, because the Village owns the parkland, the encroachment is not trespass, it clearly bears the hallmark of continuity common to the trespass cases: defendants are, continuously, in violation of the public trust doctrine and able to abate that wrong. Just as the failure of a landlord to repair a building's common elements, in violation of by-laws, “constituted a continuing wrong that is not referable exclusively to the day the original wrong was committed” … and “[t]he alleged violation of defendants' contractual obligations to comply with the law and refrain from interfering with the rights of other lessees amounts to a continuous or recurring wrong” …, so does a municipality's ongoing failure to comply with the law and seek legislative authorization for non-park use of parkland. The harm does not consist of the lingering effects of a single, discrete incursion, but rather is a continuous series of wrongs. In short, the claim here is “predicated on continuing unlawful acts and not on the continuing effects of earlier unlawful conduct” …  Capruso v Village of Kings Point, 2014 NY Slip Op 04228, CtApp 5-12-14

 

/ ,

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Challenge Search of Vehicle

The Third Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate he had standing to contest the inventory search of a vehicle, parked and empty at the time the police seized it, which turned up a weapon.  A police officer had seen the defendant driving the vehicle just before it was seized and a confidential informant had told the police where the defendant kept a handgun in the vehicle. Because the People did not rely solely on the statutory presumption of possession of a weapon (Penal Law 265.15 (3)) the defendant needed to allege and demonstrate standing.  Because the defendant did not own the vehicle and denied driving it on the day it was seized, he was unable to challenge the search:

A defendant seeking to suppress evidence has the burden to allege and, if disputed, establish standing to challenge a search … . “Standing exists where a defendant was aggrieved by a search of a place or object in which he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy” … . While a defendant is entitled to “automatic standing” if the People “rely solely on the statutory presumption [of possession of a weapon] contained in Penal Law § 265.15 (3) to establish his [or her] guilt” …, defendant here cannot rely on that exception to his burden regarding standing. The People did not depend entirely upon the statutory presumption of standing, but had other evidence, including one officer who witnessed defendant driving the vehicle and the CI who provided information that defendant had a handgun in the vehicle and where within the vehicle the gun would be located … . Inasmuch as defendant did not own the BMW and denied that he was driving it on the day in question, he failed to allege any legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle. People v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04269, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiffs in Lead-Paint Exposure Cases Are Not Required to Hire an Expert to Link Injuries to Lead-Paint Exposure at the CPLR 3121 (a) Discovery Stage—However, Plaintiffs Must Provide Medical Reports Which Include a “Recital of the Injuries and Conditions as to which Testimony Will Be Offered at the Trial”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, reversed the appellate division and determined the trial judge abused his discretion in the discovery phase of a lead-paint exposure case.  The trial judge ordered the plaintiffs “to produce, prior to the defense medical examinations, medical reports detailing a diagnosis of each injury alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs and causally relating those injuries to plaintiffs' exposure to lead-based paint.”

CPLR 3121 (a) provides that when a party's mental or physical condition is in issue, any other party may serve on the party whose condition is in controversy notice “to submit to a physical, mental or blood examination by a designated physician.” A noticed party then is obligated under 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b)(1) to deliver:

“copies of the medical reports of those medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery. These shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial, referring to and identifying those X-ray and technicians reports which will be offered at the trial, including a description of the injuries, a diagnosis and a prognosis.”

In most personal injury cases, disclosure under this rule is straightforward. The injured plaintiff goes to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. The doctor drafts a report. The plaintiff turns over the report to the defendant.

This case is more complicated. Plaintiffs allegedly suffered lead poisoning as children. Now adults, plaintiffs allege that their childhood exposure to lead caused them numerous injuries. It appears from the dearth of medical evidence in the record that plaintiffs may never have been treated for or diagnosed with many of the alleged injuries. This raises the question of what plaintiffs must disclose in order to comply with rule 202.17 (b) (1).

Plaintiffs argue that the rule requires them to turn over only those reports that currently exist from providers who have “previously treated or examined” them. They argue that they are not required to document or create medical evidence of every alleged injury. To the extent that plaintiffs are arguing that the rule does not obligate them to hire a medical provider to examine them and create a report solely for purposes of the litigations, we agree. Requiring a personal injury plaintiff to hire a medical professional to draft a report purely to satisfy 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) could make it prohibitively expensive for some plaintiffs to bring legitimate personal injury suits. Some plaintiffs may not be able to afford a medical examination or may not even have access to a doctor. Plaintiffs therefore need only produce reports from medical providers who have “previously treated or examined” them.

To the extent, however, that plaintiffs claim that they need to turn over only those medical reports that currently exist, we disagree. The rule obligates plaintiffs to provide comprehensive reports from their treating and examining medical providers — the reports “shall include a recital of the injuries and conditions as to which testimony will be offered at the trial” (22 NYCRR 202.17 [b] [1]) [emphasis added]). Plaintiffs therefore cannot avoid disclosure simply because their treating or examining medical providers have not drafted any reports within the meaning of rule 202.17 (b) (1) … . If plaintiffs' medical reports do not contain the information required by the rule, then plaintiffs must have the medical providers draft reports setting forth that information (see id.)… . If that is not possible, plaintiffs must seek relief from disclosure and explain why they cannot comply with the rule (see 22 NYCRR 202.17 [j]). Hamilton v Miller, 2014 NY Slip Op 04230, CtApp 6-12-14

 

/

Mother’s Request to Relocate Properly Granted

The Second Department determined mother had made a sufficient showing to justify relocating with her child to Michigan, where she could afford an apartment based upon her disability payments alone.  The court explained the operative analytic principles:

“When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child” … . “Relocation may be allowed if the custodial parent demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed move is in the child’s best interests” … . “Although each custodial parent’s request for relocation must be decided on its own merits, the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the [child] and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the [child’s] future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the [child] may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the [child] through suitable visitation arrangements” … . In relocation determinations, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of the hearing court … . Thus, a relocation determination will not be permitted to stand unless it is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record … . Ortiz v Ortiz, 2014 NY Slip Op 04202, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

/

Lease Provision Allowing Landlord to Comingle Security Deposit with Landlord’s Funds Was Void—Question of Fact Whether Both Parties’ Actions Resulted in Termination of the Lease by Operation of Law

The Second Department determined defendants-tenants were entitled to the return of their security deposit because the lease purported to allow the landlord to comingle the security deposit with the landlord’s funds.  The court further determined the landlord was not entitled to summary judgment for breach of the lease because the landlord accepted the keys to the property when the tenants left before the end of the lease, put the house on the market, and did not demand additional rent for over two months:

General Obligations Law § 7-103(1) provides that a security deposit with respect to the use or rental of real property “shall continue to be the money of the person making such deposit . . . and shall be held in trust by the person with whom such deposit or advance shall be made and shall not be mingled with the personal moneys or become an asset of the person receiving the same.” General Obligations Law § 7-103(3) provides that any provision of a lease “whereby a person who so deposits or advances money waives any provision of this section is absolutely void.” When a landlord commingles the security deposit with his or her personal funds in violation of General Obligations Law § 7-103(1), the tenant has “an immediate right to the return of the funds, even if the [tenant] had breached the lease” … . Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their counterclaim by submitting the subject lease, which contained a provision stating that the security deposit may be commingled with the plaintiffs’ general funds. This provision is void by operation of General Obligation Law § 7-103(3), and, in addition, raises an inference that the plaintiffs violated General Obligations Law § 7-103(1) by commingling the security deposit with their own funds …. In opposition, the plaintiffs, who did not submit any evidence that they did not commingle the security deposit with their own funds, failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, which was to recover damages for breach of the lease. The plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that the defendants breached the lease by failing to make monthly rent payments beginning on October 1, 2011. In opposition to that showing, the defendants submitted evidence that, after they vacated the house on or about September 4, 2011, the plaintiffs accepted a return of the keys to the house, immediately put the house on the market for sale, and did not demand payment of rent until late November, 2011. Accordingly, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties both acted so inconsistently with the landlord-tenant relationship that a surrender of the premises was effected by operation of law, thereby terminating the lease prior to the rent becoming due on October 1, 2011… . Soloman v Ness, 2014 NY Slip Op 04185, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

/

Court Properly Permitted Administration of Medication to Involuntarily Committed Patient

The Second Department determined Supreme Court, after a hearing, properly permitted the Rockland Psychiatric Center to administer psychotropic medication to an involuntarily committed patient suffering from schizophrenia who had refused the medication:

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks “the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment,” and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments”… .  Matter of Jay S, 2014 NY Slip Op 04204, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

/ , ,

Decedent’s Statements Admissible Evidence of Pain and Suffering/Damages for Loss of Household Services Explained

The Second Department, in a case where medical malpractice was conceded, determined certain statements made by the decedent were admissible as excited utterances or present sense impressions.  In addition, the damages related to economic loss where decedent was not employed outside the home and devoted 20 hours per week to the care of his disabled daughter were analyzed:

Contrary to the hospital’s contentions, admissible evidence established the decedent’s conscious pain and suffering during the days prior to his death and on the day of his death. The decedent’s statements to his wife … complaining of pain, discomfort, hunger, difficulty breathing, and feeling that he was dying, were excited utterances or present sense impressions, or both, and therefore admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule “for the truth of the matters they assert[ed]” … . The present sense impressions were sufficiently corroborated … by the testimony of the decedent’s wife regarding the decedent’s appearance when she visited him, as well as the testimony of the plaintiffs’ medical experts based on the hospital records. * * *

We agree with the hospital that the plaintiffs failed to establish the decedent’s lost earnings, past or future. However, “[i]n the case of a decedent who was not a wage earner, pecuniary injuries’ may be calculated, in part, from the increased expenditures required to continue the services [he or she] provided, as well as the compensable losses of a personal nature, such as loss of guidance” … .

“[T]he standard by which to measure the value of past and future loss of household services is the cost of replacing the decedent’s services” … . Hyung Kee Lee v New York Hosp Queens, 2014 NY Slip Op 04171, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

/ , ,

Where It Is Possible Jurors Relied On an Illegal Ground a General Verdict Must Be Set Aside, Even If Alternative Legal Grounds Were Provided to the Jury

The Second Department determined that the inclusion on the verdict sheet of an offense that was not a designated felony under Mental Hygiene Law 10.03 (f) warranted an new trial, even though no objection was raised:

Generally, where no objection to an alleged error is advanced at trial, the objection is unpreserved for appellate review … . However, the inclusion on the verdict sheet of a crime that was not a designated felony within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(f) presents such a fundamental error that the appellant’s failure to object does not bar our review of the issue in the exercise of discretion … . At trial, the State was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was a detained sex offender who suffered from a mental abnormality (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[d]). “It is an established rule of Supreme Court jurisprudence that a general verdict of guilt must be set aside where the jurors in reaching their verdict may have relied on an illegal ground or on an alternative legal ground and there is no way of knowing which ground they chose” … . “Thus, the Supreme Court has consistently vacated general verdicts where one of the choices afforded to the jury was to find guilt on an unconstitutional theory. It has rejected the contention that the verdict should be upheld because the fact finder presumably based it on an alternative constitutional ground” … . Matter of State of New York v Todd L, 2014 NY Slip Op 04205, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

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