You are here: / Keeping Animals In Cages On the Same Lot as Petitioner’s Home, as...

Search Results

/ ,

Keeping Animals In Cages On the Same Lot as Petitioner’s Home, as Part of the Operation of a Business, Constituted a “Home Occupation” Requiring Approval by the Zoning Board

The Third Department determined the zoning board of appeals had properly ruled that petitioner was conducting a business inside his home without approval, a so-called “home occupation.”  The fact that large animals were kept outside petitioner’s home in permanent cages was found to be within the scope of the relevant definition of an “accessory structure:”

Petitioner contends that the activities occur in the cages on his property, not in any building on the property or any offsite location. There is no evidence in this record to show that business activities are conducted “inside the residence” or “at off-site locations,” so such activities must be conducted in “a legally constructed accessory building” to fall within the ordinance (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [42]). An “[a]ccessory [s]tructure” is defined as a building “which is located on the same lot” as, and “the use of which is incidental to that of,” a one- or two-family dwelling (Zoning Law[2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [1]). “Building” is defined as a one- or two-family dwelling or portion thereof “intended to be used for human habitation” but also “shall include accessory structures thereto” (Zoning Law [2008] of theTown of Mayfield § 202 [A] [10]). While cages would not generally be considered buildings, the Zoning Law contains a section on “[w]ord [u]sage” stating that “[t]he word ‘building’ includes the word ‘structure'” (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 201). That provision clarifies any ambiguity concerning the definitions of the relevant terms here, as a cage that is built into the ground – like these cages apparently are – can be considered a structure, and the cages are on the same lot as and incidental to the use of petitioner’s residence … .The code enforcement officer did not assert that the cages were illegally constructed. Thus, as petitioner is carrying on business activities in legally constructed accessory structures, he is operating a home occupation. Matter of Salton v Town of Mayfield Zoning Board of Appeals, 516523, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

/ , ,

Statutory Attorney’s Fees Awarded in a Human Rights Law Action Should Not Be Added to the Jury Award to Determine the Amount of the Contingency Fee

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, explained how attorney’s fees should be calculated when there is a contingency fee agreement which does not make clear how the contingency fee is affected by the award of statutory attorney’s fees (in addition to the jury award) pursuant to the Human Rights Law.  The attorney claimed that the contingency should be calculated after adding the statutory fees to the jury award. The court disagreed:

…[B]oth federal precedent and instructive decisions from our sister states evince that,”absent a contractual provision to the contrary, the trend is to calculate the contingency fee based on the amount of the judgment exclusive of the fee award, and then credit the fee award to the client as an offset against the contingency fee owed. Under this approach, the attorney should be entitled to receive either the contingent fee calculated on the amount of the damage recovery exclusive of any court-awarded fees, or the amount of the court-awarded fee, whichever is greater”… .

In the context of the present case, concerning construction of retainer agreements in conjunction with attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to the NYCHRL (New York city Human Rights Law), such an approach comports with our precedent holding that ambiguous fee agreements should be interpreted against the drafting attorney … .

In addition, permitting counsel to collect a statutory award that exceeds the amount due under a contingency fee agreement advances the “uniquely broad and remedial purpose” of the NYCHRL by incentivizing the private bar to represent civil rights plaintiffs even where any damage award is likely to be insubstantial … . In this regard, freedom of contract is also respected since, in the event that the statutory award is less than the contingency fee, deducting the court-awarded fees from the sum owed under the contract ensures that the attorney receives, and the client pays, no more or less than they bargained for … .

On the facts before us, we need not decide whether a retainer agreement entitling an attorney to court-ordered counsel fees in addition to the full contingency fee would be enforceable. We would note, however, that such an arrangement would be subject to requisite scrutiny under applicable laws and rules controlling the reasonableness of attorney compensation… .  Albunio v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02325, CtApp 4-3-14

 

/

Trial Court’s Decision to Conduct Trial in Defendant’s Absence Without Consideration of the Factors Mandated for Consideration by the Court of Appeals Required Reversal

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not consider the appropriate factors before continuing with the trial without the defendant’s presence:

“A defendant’s right to be present in the courtroom during his or her trial is one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Federal and New York Constitutions, and by statute” … . Even where, as here, “a defendant has waived the right to be present at trial by not appearing after being apprised of the right and the consequences of nonappearance, trial in absentia is not thereby automatically authorized”… . Rather, it must also appear from the record that the trial court considered “all appropriate factors” before proceeding in defendant’s absence, “including the possibility that defendant could be located within a reasonable period of time, the difficulty of rescheduling [the] trial and the chance that evidence will be lost or witnesses will disappear” … . As the Court of Appeals has instructed, “[i]n most cases the simple expedient of adjournment pending execution of a bench warrant could provide an alternative to trial in absentia unless, of course, the prosecution can demonstrate that such a course of action would be totally futile” … .

Here, the record fails to demonstrate that Supreme Court considered any of the appropriate factors. When defendant failed to appear on the morning that trial was scheduled to commence, defense counsel represented to the court that he had no information as to defendant’s whereabouts and requested an adjournment. Supreme Court declined to grant an adjournment, issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest and pronounced its decision to proceed immediately to trial. People v June, 105292, 3rd Dept 4-3-14 

 

/

Notice Requirements for a Nonparty Subpoena Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) Explained/Criteria for a Motion to Quash and Opposition to the Motion to Quash Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals determined the nature of the notice requirements for subpoenaing a nonparty pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a)(4), and the criteria for determining a motion to quash the subpoena:

We conclude that the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the “circumstances or reasons” underlying the subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itself or in a notice accompanying it), and the witness, in moving to quash, must establish either that the discovery sought is “utterly irrelevant” to the action or that the “futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious.” Should the witness meet this burden, the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is “material and necessary” to the prosecution or defense of an action, i.e., that it is relevant. Matter of Kapon v Koch, 2014 NY Slip Op 02327, CtApp 4-3-14

 

/ , ,

Appeals Not Pursued for a Decade or More Properly Dismissed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined, with respect to three of four defendants, dismissal of the appeals was appropriate. The appeals were not pursued for more than a decade, in one case more than two decades, after the filing of the notices of appeal, and the excuses for inaction were found insufficient.  With respect to the fourth defendant, counsel had never reviewed the record. Therefore, defendant’s right to appellate counsel had not been honored. The matter was sent back for the appointment of appellate counsel and submissions, after which the motion to dismiss the appeal could be properly considered.  People v Perez, 2014 NY Slip Op 02326, CtApp 4-3-13

 

/ ,

Defense Counsel Did Not Provide Effective Assistance

The First Department determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel.  Counsel did not object to inadmissible hearsay which corroborated the complainant’s testimony, counsel did not subpoena medical records or call a medical expert despite proof at the first trial the evidence of complainant’s injury was unsupported, and counsel did not impeach the complainant by confronting her with her prior inconsistent statements:

in a case that depended heavily on the credibility of the complainant, counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony indicating that several unnamed out-of-court declarants supported the complainant’s version of the incident. These bystander statements were not admissible under any theory, and we reject the People’s arguments to the contrary. These declarations did not qualify as excited utterances, and, under the circumstances of the case, they were not admissible as background information to complete the narrative and explain police actions. At a prior trial, at which defendant was represented by different counsel, and which ended in a hung jury, the content of these declarations was not placed in evidence.

We are unable to discern any strategic basis for counsel’s failure to object to this highly prejudicial hearsay evidence. Any benefit that defendant may have gained when his counsel attempted to suggest that a police witness fabricated the existence of the bystander declarations was clearly outweighed by the prejudicial effect of having the jury hear the declarations in the first place. Defendant had nothing to lose, and much to gain, by keeping the declarations completely out of the case. Furthermore, the trial record reveals that counsel was unaware, and apparently surprised, that the content of these declarations was not in evidence at the first trial. This tends to suggest that counsel’s failure to object had nothing to do with strategy. People v Ugweches, 2014 NY Slip Op 02333, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

/

Lost Profits Not Recoverable—Too Speculative and Not Contemplated in the Agreement

The First Department determined the agreement between the parties did not contemplate lost profits and, therefore, lost profits could not be awarded as damages for the breach:

Nevertheless, the court properly concluded that [plaintiff] was not entitled to recover lost profits. To the extent [plaintiff] seeks lost profits for a five-year period, such damages are speculative, as its assumption that it would have remained in contract with [defendant] for five years could not be established with reasonable certainty. To the extent it seeks lost profits in the amount of $1 million for 2010 (i.e., $500,000 for two seasons), such lost profits were not within the contemplation of the parties as a probable result of a breach at the time they entered into the agreement and could not be established with reasonable certainty … . The evidence surrounding the negotiation and execution of the contract does not show that the parties expected [defendant] to bear the responsibility for any lost profits sustained by [plaintiff]. Indeed, all the witnesses acknowledged that sales revenue of $500,000 per season was mere expectation, and [defendant’s] principal testified that he would not guarantee minimum sales in his sales agreements, especially with emerging designers, as there were “too many variables involved in procuring success in sales in our very competitive and fickle industry.” Such evidence undermines the conclusion that the parties contemplated that [defendant] would assume liability for [plaintiff’s] loss of anticipated revenue … . Olsenhaus Pure Vegan LLC v Electric Wonderland Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02343, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

/

Denial of For Cause Juror Challenges Required Reversal

After determining one of the counts of the sex-offense indictment must be dismissed as duplicitous because more than one offense was alleged to have taken place during the  time period described in the count, the Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction finding that for cause challenges to jurors should have been granted:

It is well established that “a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial” … . When a juror’s impartiality is in doubt, it is the court’s obligation to make further inquiries and to excuse the juror if the doubt is not fully dispelled … . In this respect, the court should err on the side of disqualification, as “the worst [it] will have done in most cases is to have replaced one impartial juror with another impartial juror” (…see CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; [2]…). Conversely, the denial of a challenge for cause to a biased juror calls fundamental fairness into question and “casts a doubt on the legitimacy of the verdict even before the trial begins” … .Here, one juror stated that his job experience as a correction officer “might” affect his ability to be impartial; when asked whether his employment would prevent him from applying “basic principles” granting certain rights to defendant, he responded, “It may.” A second juror said that her husband’s employment in law enforcement “could” cause her to give greater weight to a police officer’s testimony, and a third juror said that he could not “guarantee” that he would follow an instruction not to grant greater weight to such testimony. A fourth juror stated that her husband’s work as a sheriff’s deputy would”[p]ossibly” cause her to hesitate in providing defendant his constitutional protections; she further confirmed that she would be reluctant to apply the presumption of innocence. A fifth juror said that she believed that children who accused parents of sexual abuse could not lie, and a sixth juror agreed with other jurors that it was “highly unlikely” that a child would lie about this subject, and that it was probable that such a charge must be true because of its seriousness. Finally, a seventh juror expressed doubt when asked whether she would draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s choice not to testify, explaining that “it brings the question up why wouldn’t you[?]” Although she stated that she would follow the judge’s instructions in this regard, she added that she could not “control myself to take something that’s already in my mind away.” The prosecutor advised County Court that at least one of these jurors required rehabilitation because of such expressions of uncertainty, stating that “there should be inquiry from the court. “Nevertheless, the jurors were not questioned further, and none made “unequivocal assertion[s] of impartiality”… . People v Russell, 105083, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

/ ,

Failure to Challenge Conviction Rendered Invalid by Not Advising Defendant of the Period of Post Release Supervision [PRS] Constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The First Department determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel when he was sentenced as a predicate felony offender.  Counsel failed to challenge a 2000 conviction upon a guilty plea which was invalid because defendant was not apprised of the period of post release supervision (PRS) which was subsequently imposed. The fact that the PRS was later removed from the sentence did not cure the error because the defendant had already served four years of PRS and had spent time in jail for a violation of supervision:

In connection with the 2000 conviction, Supreme Court, New York County added postrelease supervision to the sentence in 2009 to cure an unlawful administrative imposition of PRS … . In May, 2010 that court removed PRS from the sentence in accordance with People v Williams (14 NY3d 198 [2010]). Contrary to the People’s sole argument on appeal addressing the Catu issue [the initial failure to advise defendant of the period of post release supervision], the vacatur of defendant’s PRS could not cure the Catu error, or give defendant the benefit of his plea, since at the time of the vacatur he had already served four years of PRS, and had also spent time in jail in violation of that supervision. …

In connection with the instant CPL 440.20 motion [motion to vacate the sentence], the attorney who represented defendant at his 2010 persistent violent felony offender adjudication and sentencing acknowledged that he had no strategic reason for failing to challenge the 2000 conviction, and that he never inquired into whether defendant had been advised about PRS at his 2000 plea proceeding. He further affirmed that had he been aware that the conviction was obtained in violation of Catu, he would have in fact challenged its use to enhance defendant’s sentence in this case. Thus, this was not a case where an attorney may have reasonably believed that it would have been futile to raise a Catu issue regarding the constitutionality, for predicate felony purposes, of defendant’s 2000 conviction, or that the law was unclear on this issue… .  People v Fagan, 2014 NY Slip Op 02344, 1st Dept 4-3-14

 

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