You are here: / Parole Conditions Did Not Require Parolee to Report Brief, Incidental Contact...

Search Results

/

Parole Conditions Did Not Require Parolee to Report Brief, Incidental Contact with Children to His Parole Officer—Parole Violation Determination Annulled

The Third Department annulled the finding that petitioner had violated his parole by not reporting brief contact with a child.  Petitioner was doing construction work when a coworker’s daughter emerged briefly approached petitioner and the coworker:

“It is well established that a parole revocation decision will be upheld so long as ‘the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such determination'” … . Notably, in order to warrant revocation, the alleged parole violation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Executive Law § 259-i [3]; [f]…), which we find lacking in the record before us. * * *

The parole conditions did not clearly require petitioner to report such an insignificant encounter to his parole officer, however, and petitioner testified that he did not know that he needed to do so. Further, while the coworker’s children were occasionally present during lunch breaks at the work site, they largely remained outside the eating area and there was no showing that petitioner had any contact with the children during such times. In view of this, petitioner’s parole conditions did not plainly require him to report such information to his parole officer. Accordingly, given the absence of probative evidence supporting the charge that petitioner failed to truthfully report his activities to his parole officer, the determination finding that he violated his parole in this regard must be annulled… . Matter of Peck v Evans, 2014 NY Slip Op 04107, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/

Plea to a Lesser Offense Need Not Be Supported by Facts Admitted in a Plea Allocution—Court’s Unnecessary Attempt to Have Defendant Admit to Facts in Support of All of the Elements of the Lesser Offense Required Vacation of the Plea

The Court of Appeals determined defendant's guilty plea was tainted by the court's and counsel's confusion about the allocution which was required.  The defendant was charged with rape by forcible compulsion (first degree) and pled guilty to a lesser rape offense–i.e., sexual intercourse with a person incapable of consent by reason of being mentally incapacitated.  The lower court and counsel, according to the court of appeals, were under the misimpression that the plea allocution must included factual allegations supporting every element of the lesser offense:

Where a defendant enters a negotiated plea to a lesser crime than one with which he is charged, no factual basis for the plea is required (People v Clairborne, 29 NY2d 950, 951 [1972]…). Indeed, under such circumstances defendants can even plead guilty to crimes that do not exist (People v Foster, 19 NY2d 150, 153 [1967]; [plea to attempt to commit a crime of which intent is not an element]).

It seems, however, that at the time of defendant's plea counsel and the court were unaware of the rule of Clairborne, and thought it necessary to find a basis in fact for the plea. The court led defendant through an allocution in which he admitted that he encountered the victim when she was “too drunk to really make a decision about whether she did or did not want to have sex”; that he knew that “she was mentally incapacitated apparently from drinking”; and that he “went ahead and had sexual intercourse with her anyway.” The allocution provided no support for the idea that the victim was mentally incapacitated as the Penal Law defines that term. * * *

We conclude that we must reverse and vacate the plea. Although the entire allocution was unnecessary, and although even if it were necessary we would not require that it prove every element of the crime charged …, we simply cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned … . People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04039, CtApp 6-5-14

 

/

Petitioner Not Given Adequate Employee Assistance—Determination Annulled—New Hearing Ordered

The Third Department determined the petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because a report he requested was never provided to him, and no explanation for the failure to provide the report was made:

…[W]e agree with petitioner’s contention that he was denied adequate employee assistance. Specifically, the record reflects that petitioner’s assistance form requested the “injury report,” but the record does not reveal that petitioner was either provided with the report or informed that it did not exist. While the Hearing Officer noted petitioner’s request at the hearing and advised petitioner that he would check into this, no further mention of this issue was made. Under these circumstances, we cannot say on this record that such omission did not prejudice petitioner’s defense, and the determination must be annulled … . Matter of Rupnarine v Prack, 2014 NY Slip Op 04093, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Where There Is Evidence, Other than or in Addition to a Chemical Test, of a Blood Alcohol Content, the Jury Can Be Instructed that It May Base Its Verdict on Its Own Finding Re: Blood Alcohol Content

The Court of Appeals determined defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction that a “blood alcohol content of less that .08 is prima facie evidence defendant was not intoxicated” on the basis of her expert's testimony that her blood alcohol content was below .08 at the time she was driving (her subsequent blood alcohol test result was .09).  However, the Court of Appeals explained the defendant could have requested a jury instruction which would allow the jury to find she was not intoxicated if the jury first made the finding her blood alcohol level was below .08:

Since the evidence of her BAC that defendant presented here was not determined by a chemical test but was contained in the opinion of a defense expert, that evidence did not have the “prima facie” effect specified by the statute and defendant was not entitled to the charge she sought.

…It should not be thought, however, that the BAC thresholds specified in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(A) must be entirely omitted from a jury charge in a common law DWI case or in a driving while ability impaired (DWAI) case brought under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (1) (“No person shall operate a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate such motor vehicle is impaired by the consumption of alcohol”). It is obvious from Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 (2) and 1195 (2) that the Legislature has made judgments about the significance of certain statistical thresholds — i.e., that a BAC of .08% or more justifies an inference of intoxication; that a BAC below .08% justifies an inference of non-intoxication; that a BAC above .07% justifies an inference of impairment; and that a BAC equal to or less than .05% justifies an inference that the driver was neither intoxicated nor impaired in her ability to drive. There is no reason why juries should remain unaware of these legislative judgments.

Thus, in this case Town Court should, if it had been requested to do so, have charged the jury in words or substance: If you find that there was less than .08 of one percent by weight of alcohol in defendant's blood while she was operating the motor vehicle, you may, but are not required to, find that she was not in an intoxicated condition. Similarly, in a DWAI case where the defendant proffers evidence other than chemical tests of a BAC at or below .05%, it would be proper to charge: If you find that there was .05 of one percent or less by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood while she was operating a motor vehicle, you may, but are not required to, find that her ability to operate the motor vehicle was not impaired by the consumption of alcohol. And the People are entitled to a corresponding charge when they rely on evidence other than chemical tests to show that a defendant's BAC was above .08% in a DWI case, or above .07% in a DWAI case.  People v Fratangelo, 2014 NY Slip Op 04041, CtApp 6-5-14

 

/ , ,

Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations

The First Department explained that when a notice of termination of an at-will employee is ambiguous with respect to finality, the ambiguity is construed against the employer and the four-month statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding is not triggered:

Ordinarily, where the employment of an at-will employee, like petitioner, is terminated, the four-month statute of limitations applicable in article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217) begins to run from the date of the termination, notwithstanding the availability of optional administrative review proceedings … . However, where an administrative agency “create[s]; []; ambiguity and [the]; impression of nonfinality,” that ambiguity regarding finality is to be resolved against the agency … .

* * * We find that, notwithstanding the fact that the letter otherwise conveyed the concrete impact ordinarily associated with finality for statute of limitations purposes …, respondent created sufficient ambiguity as to finality such that the language must be construed against it and the petition must be deemed timely. Matter of Burch v New York City Health & Hosp Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04060, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Given the Surrounding Circumstances, the Allegation that the Juvenile Was in Possession of a Machete Was Sufficient to Allege the Juvenile Was in Possession of a “Dangerous Knife” within the Meaning of the Penal Law

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined a juvenile delinquency petition which alleged the juvenile was in possession of a machete sufficiently alleged the statutory element of possession of a “dangerous knife:”

The statute does not define the term “dangerous knife.” In Matter of Jamie D. (59 NY2d 589 [1983]), however, this Court held that the term, as used in the statute, “connotes a knife which may be characterized as a weapon” (id. at 592). We explained that certain knives may fall within the scope of the statute based solely on the knife's particular characteristics. For instance,”a bayonet, a stiletto, or a dagger” would come within the meaning of “dangerous knife” because those instruments are “primarily intended for use as a weapon” (id. at 592-93).

We also explained that other knives, which are designed and primarily intended for use as “utilitarian utensils,” may also come within the statutory language in at least two ways (id. at 593). First, a knife may be converted into a weapon, and second, “the circumstances of its possession, although there has been no modification of the implement, may permit a finding that [*4]on the occasion of its possession it was essentially a weapon rather than a utensil” (id. at 593).

A “machete” is generally defined as “a large, heavy knife that is used for cutting plants and as a weapon” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machete). While a machete has utilitarian purposes, under the circumstances of this case, it would be unreasonable to infer from the statement supporting the petition that respondent was using the machete for cutting plants. Rather, the arresting officer's description of the “machete”, with its 14-inch blade, being carried by respondent late at night on a street in Brooklyn, adequately states “circumstances of . . . possession” (Jamie D. at 593) that support the charge that defendant was carrying a weapon. Matter of Antwaine T, 2014 NY Slip Op 04042, CtApp 6-5-14

 

/ ,

In the Absence of a Colloquy Conducted by the Court, the Circumstances Indicated that Mother Knowingly, Intelligently and Voluntarily Waiver Her Right to Counsel In a Custody Proceeding

In the course of a decision affirming Family Court’s finding that a change of circumstances warranted modification of the custody arrangement, the Third Department determined the mother had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her right to counsel.  In the absence of a colloquy conducted by the court, the Third Department found that the relevant circumstances indicated the waiver was valid:

“[A]; party is entitled to self-representation once the court determines that the decision to do so is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Although it is preferable that the court’s determination be made following an appropriate colloquy with the party on the record, it may also be made upon an examination of all the potential relevant circumstances” .. . Here, at the initial court appearance on April 8, 2011, the mother was represented by an attorney, whom she states was assigned. By the next court date, July 15, 2011, she had terminated the services of the assigned attorney and appeared with a substituted retained attorney. At the next appearance, the father told the court that he was switching attorneys and, at the ensuing appearance on August 10, 2011, the mother informed the court that she wanted to terminate the services of her retained attorney. Her attorney was present and, after confirming that the mother had discussed such action with the attorney, the court permitted the attorney to withdraw.

Noting the multiple adjournments and delays that had occurred by such time, many caused by the switching of attorneys by both parties, the mother was admonished to obtain substitute counsel before the next court date. Over a month later, on September 14, 2011, the mother appeared and stated that she had not been able to retain a new attorney and was involved in a dispute with her former retained attorney about fees. The court stated that it would grant yet another adjournment, but that a trial date would be set with no more adjournments permitted, and the court also reminded the mother that she could apply for assigned counsel. The mother next appeared on November 30, 2011, stating that she was representing herself and that she was ready to proceed with the hearing. The mother had already appeared and prepared documents in many of the proceedings pertaining to the child without an attorney and, among other things, she had obtained subpoenas for several witnesses prior to the hearing. Under all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the record sufficiently reflects that the mother waived her statutory right to counsel knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily… . Matter of Joshua UU v Martha VV, 2014 NY Slip Op 04089, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Client’s Claim His Attorney Pressured Him Into Changing the Retainer Agreement, Thereby Costing the Client More, Did Not Sound In Malpractice and Was Not an Arbitrable Fee Dispute

The First Department noted that an action by a client alleging he was pressured by his attorney into changing the retainer agreement from an hourly retainer to a contingency retainer (thereby costing the client more) did not sound in malpractice and was not arbitrable under part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts:

Plaintiff does not assert that defendants’ conduct caused the result of his dispute with his disability insurer to be worse than it would have been. Rather, he argues that defendants, in bad faith and without full disclosure, pressured him into changing from an hourly retainer to a contingency retainer. The only loss he alleges is the additional fees owed to counsel as a result of changing the retainer. This is fatal to his claim for malpractice … . …

The retainer agreement provided for arbitration under part 137 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts. However, the gravamen of the contract claim is that it is invalid because of defendants’ misconduct in inducing plaintiff to sign it, or because it created a windfall for defendants. By the express terms of the rules the parties chose to govern their arbitration, claims such as this are not arbitrable since 22 NYCRR 137.1(b)(3) provides that part 137 does not apply to “claims involving substantial legal questions, including professional malpractice or misconduct” … . Cohen v Hack, 2014 NY Slip Op 04068, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

/

Mother’s Consent to Adoption Not Required

The Third Department determined mother’s consent to adoption was not required due to her failure to seek treatment for drug and alcohol problems and lack of contact with the child:

“Consent to adoption is not required of a parent who ‘evinces an intent to forego his or her parental or custodial rights and obligations as manifested by his or her failure for a period of six months to visit the child and communicate with the child or person having legal custody of the child, although able to do so'” … . “Once the petitioner makes such a showing by clear and convincing evidence, the burden shifts to the parent to demonstrate sufficient contact or an inability to engage in such contact”… . * * *

The record not only reflects that the mother failed to demonstrate an acceptable reason for the absence of contact or communication for over six months, but also that the impediments contributing to such absence of contact resulted from the mother’s own acts and lack of effort … . Matter of Lori QQ, 2014 NY Slip Op 04105, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the Public Employees Relation Board (PERB) properly ruled the town could not revoke its policy of providing vehicles for use by certain town employees pursuant to a provision of the Town Code. The town argued that it could unilaterally revoke the vehicle assignments because the provision which purported to allow the vehicle assignments was illegal (the dissent agreed).  The Court of Appeals held that the provision was not illegal and, therefore, any change in the vehicle assignment policy must be negotiated with the union:

…[T]he Town asks us to rule in its favor on the ground that a public employer does not violate section 209-a (1) (d) of the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law} when it unilaterally discontinues a past practice with respect to a term and condition of employment that is illegal under local law. Whatever the merits of the Town's position, we do not reach and need not consider them because the relevant past practice was not, in fact, illegal under the local law. Accordingly, PERB reasonably applied its precedent to determine that the Town engaged in an improper practice when it unilaterally discontinued the permanent assignment of “take home” vehicles to employees who enjoyed this benefit before the Town adopted and implemented the 2008 fleet/vehicle policy, and PERB's determination was based on substantial evidence.  Matter of Town of Islip v New York State Pub Empl Relations Bd., 2014 NY Slip Op 04030, CtApp 6-5-14

 

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