You are here: / In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled...

Search Results

/ ,

In the Absence of an Express Agreement that the Plaintiff Was Entitled to a Commission Upon the Sale of Assets by the Principal, the Agreement Created an Exclusive Agency, which Merely Precluded the Principal from Hiring Another Agent, but Did Not Create, in the Agent, an Exclusive Right to Sell

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, in another case arising from the “toxic debts” crisis, determined that the plaintiff was an exclusive agent for the sale of assets, and was not granted an exclusive right to sell the assets. If plaintiff had been granted an exclusive right to sell, it may have been entitled to a commission when the assets were sold by the principal.  But, since the contract was silent about the plaintiff's right to a commission when the principal sells the assets, plaintiff was granted only an exclusive agency for the sale of the assets and the principal could sell the assets without any obligation to pay a commission to the plaintiff.  The exclusive agency agreement only precluded the principal from hiring another agent:

The distinction between an exclusive agency and an exclusive right to sell is well established in a body of Appellate Division case law … . As stated nearly a century ago, “The general rule is that where an exclusive right of sale is given a broker, the principal cannot make a sale [herself] without becoming liable for the commissions. But where the contract is merely to make the broker the sole agent, the principal may make a sale [herself] without the broker's aid, if such sale is made in good faith and to some purchaser not procured by the broker”… .

Put differently, “[a] broker is entitled to a commission upon the sale of the property by the owner only where the broker has been given the exclusive right to sell; an exclusive agency merely precludes the owner from retaining another broker in the making of the sale” … . We have endorsed this dichotomy implicitly in the past …, and now do so explicitly.

Furthermore, we agree with the case law of the lower courts holding that a contract giving rise to an exclusive right of sale must “clearly and expressly provide[] that a commission is due upon sale by the owner or exclude[] the owner from independently negotiating a sale” … . Requiring an affirmative and unequivocal statement to establish a broker's exclusive right to sell is consistent with the general principle that an owner's freedom to dispose of her own property should not be infringed upon by mere implication. Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v UBS AG, 2014 NY Slip Op 04112, CtApp 6-10-14

 

/ ,

Judge’s Speaking to a Juror During Deliberations, With Defense Counsel’s Permission, Outside the Presence of the Defendant and Counsel, Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the judge's conducting a transcribed colloquy with a juror during deliberations, outside the presence of counsel and the defendant, was a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal.  Counsel were informed that a juror wished to talk to the judge and agreed that the judge could do so their absence. Counsel and the defendant were subsequently apprised of the substance of the colloquy and given the opportunity to read the transcript. Defense counsel did not raise an objection:

A defendant's fundamental constitutional right to be present at all material stages of a trial encompasses a right to be present during the court's charge, admonishments and instructions to the jury … . This “absolute and unequivocal” right is further embodied in CPL 310.30 (Mehmedi, 69 NY2d at 760; see Collins, 99 NY2d at 17).

Under CPL 310.30, when a deliberating jury requests further instruction or clarification on the law, trial evidence, or any other matter relevant to its consideration of the case, “the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant,” the court must give such information or instruction as it deems proper (CPL 310.30…). We have consistently held that a defendant's absence during non-ministerial instructions, in violation of CPL 310.30, affects the mode of proceedings prescribed by law and presents an error of law for our review — even absent an objection or where defense counsel has consented to the procedures used.  People v Rivera, 2014 NY Slip Op 04115, CtApp 6-10-14

 

/ , ,

Records of Criminal Proceedings Sealed Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.50 Can Be Accessed by the Commission on Judicial Misconduct Investigating the Alleged Misconduct of a Judge—The Law Surrounding the Sealing of Criminal Records Explained—Mootness Doctrine Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals determined that the Commission on Judicial Conduct is authorized under the Judiciary Law to request records of a criminal matters sealed under Criminal Procedure law 160.50 for use in its investigations.  In the course of the opinion, the court explained why the case before it could not be considered moot (the Court of Appeals can hear only “live”cases). The appellant is an attorney who had been charged, along with a judge, with crimes related to the judge's election campaign.  The Commission sought the sealed records of those criminal proceedings, which had ended in dismissal and acquittal.  The appellant opposed release of the records:

…[A]bsent “extraordinary circumstances” …, a specific grant of power …, or the existence of a legal mandate the nature of which would be impossible to fulfill without unsealing criminal records …, sealed criminal records may only be accessed by individuals and agencies specifically enumerated, and “narrowly defined” in CPL 160.50 (1) (d) … .

Given the Commission's broad powers under the Judiciary Law, specifically its authority under Judiciary Law § 42 (3) to request and receive a wide range of records and data, and its constitutional duties and obligations to ensure the integrity of the judicial system by investigating and sanctioning judicial misconduct, we conclude that the Commission may obtain documents sealed pursuant to CPL 160.50. Continued public confidence in the judiciary is of [*9]singular importance, and can be furthered only by permitting the Commission access to information that allows it to quickly identify and respond to judicial misconduct, including criminal behavior, abuse of power, corruption, and other actions in violation of laws applicable to judges. Matter of New York State Commission on Jud Conduct v Rubenstein, 2014 NY Slip Op 04118, CtApp 6-10-14

 

/ ,

No Exigent Circumstances to Justify Search of a Closed Container in Defendant’s Possession Upon His Arrest for Minor Non Violent Offenses to Which the Contents of the Bag Could Have Had No Connection

The First Department determined there were no exigent circumstances which justified the search of a plastic bag (closed container0 that was in defendant’s possession at the time of his arrest:

The police detained defendant in a subway station for violating Transit Authority regulations. Because a warrant check revealed that defendant had an active warrant, the police decided to arrest him rather than issue a summons. Defendant was holding a plastic bag in his hand, and put it on the ground next to him before being handcuffed. An officer picked up the bag, which felt heavy, and looked inside to check for weapons or contraband. Inside the bag was another plastic bag, which contained a canvas bag. The officer then noticed a strong odor of marijuana, opened the canvas bag, and found nearly a pound of marijuana.

The People failed to meet their burden of showing exigency. The officers did not testify that they feared for their safety, or that they were concerned that the bag contained evidence that defendant could destroy, and the circumstances did not suggest that any exigency required an immediate search. Defendant was being arrested for minor nonviolent offenses and was not suspected of any crimes, he was handcuffed and guarded by several officers, he was fully cooperative and voluntarily placed the bag on the ground, his demeanor and actions were not threatening, and there was no indication that he might try to grab or kick the bag, which was no longer in his possession. Furthermore, there was no indication that the bag might contain a weapon and, given the nature of the transit violations, there was no possibility that the bag could contain evidence to support those charges. People v Febres, 2014 NY Slip OP 04150, 1st Dept 6-10-14

 

/

In Cases Not Involving Death or Bodily Injury Arising from an Accident, Whether a Notice of Disclaimer is Timely Is Governed by Common Law Waiver and Estoppel Principles, Not by the Provisions of Insurance law 3420

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the requirement that a disclaimer of coverage be made “as soon as reasonably possible after first learning of the … grounds for disclaimer” did not apply in a case involving coverage for the clean up of environmental contamination.  The Court explained that the “as soon as reasonably possible” language comes from Insurance Law 3420 and applies only to coverage for death or bodily injury arising from accidents:

By its plain terms, section 3420 (d) (2) applies only in a particular context: insurance cases involving death and bodily injury claims arising out of a New York accident and brought under a New York liability policy … . “Where, as here, the underlying claim does not arise out of an accident involving bodily injury or death, the notice of disclaimer provisions set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (d) are inapplicable” … . In such cases, the insurer will not be barred from disclaiming coverage “simply as a result of the passage of time,” and its delay in giving notice of disclaimer should be considered under common-law waiver and/or estoppel principles… . KeySpan Gas E Corp v Munich Reins Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04113, CtApp 6-10-14

 

/

Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing

The Third Department determined County Court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea without a hearing.  The court was aware defendant was under medication which was affecting her ability to think at the time she entered the plea:

…[A]n evidentiary hearing is … required upon a motion to withdraw a guilty plea “[w];here the record raises legitimate questions as to whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered into” … . County Court was well aware that defendant was being medicated for longstanding mental health issues, and was further on painkillers due to a recent injury. When she appeared before County Court …, defendant stated that her psychological issues were “out of control” and that she could not think. She further advised County Court that the painkillers she was taking left her unable to attend to her personal needs without assistance. County Court then adjourned the case pending trial, only to have defendant reappear a short time later and plead guilty. People v Bass, 2014 NY Slip Op 04079, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Court Is Not Required to Notify Defendant of His Right to Contest the Constitutionality of His Prior Conviction Before Sentencing Defendant as a Second Felony Offender

The Third Department noted that the sentencing court was not required to notify defendant of his right to contest the constitutionality of his prior conviction before sentencing defendant as a second felony offender:

” ‘County Court was not obligated to expressly advise defendant of his right to contest the constitutionality of the prior conviction'” … . Here, the record reveals that defendant was provided with the prior felony information before sentencing and, while represented by counsel during sentencing, declined to deny or controvert any of the allegations in the information. Accordingly, County Court substantially complied with the requirements of CPL 400.21 (3), and defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender … . People v Wilkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 04083, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Taking a Position Adverse to Client’s Pro Se Motion to Withdraw a Guilty Plea Constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Third Department noted that counsel may not take a position adverse to the client’s pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea.  To do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel:

We agree with defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as his new counsel took a position adverse to his with regard to the motion to withdraw his plea. “While defense counsel is not required to support a pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea, counsel ‘may not take a position . . . that is adverse to the defendant'” … . Although defendant was properly permitted to obtain a new attorney, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when such counsel “affirmatively undermined arguments [that defendant]; wished the court to review” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for reconsideration of defendant’s motion, for which he must be represented by new counsel. People v Russ, 2014 NY Slip Op 04084, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

/ ,

Conclusory Allegations of Bad Faith in Negotiations Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement Did Not State a Cause of Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the parties failure to come to an agreement did not give rise to a cause of action.  The negotiations, pursuant to a prior settlement agreement, had come to an impasse which, the Court of Appeals concluded, was not actionable:

It is true, as the concurring Justices in the Appellate Division pointed out, that courts normally give a generous reading to pleadings that are attacked as insufficient on their face. But it is not too much to ask that a pleading filed after more than a decade of back and forth between the parties contain some specific facts supporting the claim of bad faith — not just the bald conclusions, contradicted by the only relevant document referred to, that [defendant] insisted “on terms that conflicted with the Settlement Agreement” and “made a definite and final communication” of its intent to violate its obligations. IDT Corp v Tyco Group SARI, 2014 NY Slip Op 04044, CtApp 6-5-14

 

/

Nature of a Repugnant Verdict Explained—Here the Verdict Convicting Defendant of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Acquitting Defendant of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance Was Not Repugnant—The Proof at Trial Plays No Part in the Repugnancy Analysis

The Third Department determined County Court should not have determined a verdict was repugnant and sent the jury back for further deliberations.  The Third Department vacated the defendant's conviction on the relevant count.  In the course of the decision the Third Department explained the nature of a repugnant verdict, noting that the proof at trial plays no part in the analysis:

Contrary to defendant's assertion, the jury's initial verdict — convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and acquitting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree — was not repugnant. “[A]; verdict as to a particular count shall be set aside [as repugnant]; only when it is inherently inconsistent when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury” … . In assessing a repugnancy claim, “we must review the elements of the offenses as charged to the jury without regard to the proof that was actually presented at trial. Thus, [i];f there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support. . . . In this context, the apparently illogical nature of the verdict — as opposed to its impossibility — is viewed as a mistake, compromise or the exercise of mercy by the jury, none of which undermine[s]; a verdict as a matter of law” … .

Here, upon reviewing the elements of the subject offenses, it is readily apparent that the jury's verdict was not repugnant. Criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree requires proof that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold a narcotic drug (see Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), whereas criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree requires only, insofar as is relevant here, that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a narcotic drug with intent to sell it (see Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Notably, a “[d];efendant's acquittal on the [sale count]; does not negate the elements of the [possession count], for a person can possess and intend to sell a narcotic drug, but not actually accomplish a sale” … . Defendant's argument to the contrary is predicated upon the specific proof adduced at trial, which — the Court of Appeals has instructed — is to play no role in our analysis of a repugnancy claim … . As the jury's initial verdict was not repugnant, County Court should have denied defendant's motion, accepted the jury's verdict and adjourned the matter for sentencing. Instead, County Court implicitly granted defendant's motion, devised a special verdict sheet and directed the jury to resume deliberations. People v Kramer, 2014 NY Slip Op 04085, 3rd Dept 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