You are here: / Court Properly Accepted Partial Verdict and Sent the Jury Back to Continue...

Search Results

/

Court Properly Accepted Partial Verdict and Sent the Jury Back to Continue Deliberations on the Remaining Count

The Third Department determined the trial court properly accepted a partial verdict and sent the jury back to deliberate on the remaining count:

After the jury indicated that it had reached a verdict, the court started taking the verdict but, when the jury was polled on the larceny charge, one juror stated that she had made a mistake with her verdict. As a result, and over defendant’s objection, Supreme Court took the verdict on the two counts of criminal contempt and sent the jury back to further deliberate on the larceny charge. In our view, Supreme Court properly followed the procedure outlined inCPL 310.70 (1) (b), and there is no basis in the record to conclude that the court abused its broad discretion in accepting the partial verdict and then directing the jury to continue deliberations… . People v Phoenix, 2014 NY Slip Op 105148, 2nd Dept 3-13-14

 

/ ,

Concise Example of a Weight of the Evidence Review

The First Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed the indictment after a weight of the evidence review. The court found too many inconsistencies in the evidence, especially with respect to the identification of the defendant as the attacker.  The decision is a concise example of the kinds of proof problems which are considered significant under a weight of the evidence analysis:

Here, there were troubling discrepancies in the evidence presented to the jury. Most significantly, the complainant testified that the club was sufficiently well-lit for him to see his assailant’s face while the encounter was ongoing. However, the detective who investigated the incident and interviewed the complainant testified, after having had his recollection refreshed with the DD-5 report he prepared in connection with the investigation, that the complainant told him he “did not have a clear recollection of the suspect because it was somewhat dark” in the Maribella. While the complainant denies he told the detective that, the People do not offer, nor can we perceive of, any reason why the detective would have been untruthful not only on the witness stand, but also in a contemporaneous internal report documenting the investigation.

Further clouding the accuracy of the complainant’s identification of defendant was the photograph he picked out of an array. We acknowledge that the complainant did not represent that the person in the photo he chose was his assailant, but rather that he looked like him. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference in the appearances, especially the complexions, of the people depicted in the two photographs, which calls into question the confidence the complainant had in recalling what his attacker looked like.  People v Diaz, 2014 NY Slip Op 01661, 1st Dept 3-13-14

 

/ ,

Conclusory and Unsupported Affidavit from Plaintiff’s Expert Did Not Raise a Question of Fact/Standard of Care for Doctors and Mental Health Professionals In the Context of a Patient’s Post-Treatment Suicide Described

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, reversed Supreme Court and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.  The complaint alleged that plaintiff’s husband’s suicide was the result of negligence on the part of the treating doctors, psychiatrists and other health professionals.  The court noted that in most instances the affidavit from an expert asserting a deviation from the appropriate standard of care will be sufficient to defeat summary judgment.  But here the affidavit from plaintiff’s expert was conclusory and unsupported:

It is well settled that “a doctor is not liable in negligence merely because a treatment, which the doctor as a matter of professional judgment elected to pursue, proves ineffective. . .” … . Liability is imposed “only if the doctor’s treatment decisions do not reflect his or her own best judgment, or fall short of the generally accepted standard of care” … . Although a plaintiff’s expert may have chosen a different course of treatment, “this, without more, represents, at most, a difference of opinion among [medical providers], which is not sufficient to sustain a prima facie case of malpractice'” … . In the context of mental health providers, we have held that “[w]hen a psychiatrist chooses a course of treatment, within a range of medically accepted choices for a patient after a proper examination and evaluation, the doctrine of professional medical judgment will insulate such psychiatrist from liability” … . Where a psychiatrist fails to predict that a …patient will harm his or herself if released, liability will likewise not attach for a mere error in professional judgment … . While it is true that “the line between medical judgment and deviation from good medical practice is not easy to draw” … , the “prediction of the future course of a mental illness is a professional judgment of high responsibility and in some instance it involves a measure of calculated risk. If liability were imposed on the physician or the State each time the prediction of future course of mental disease was wrong, few releases would ever be made and the hope of recovery and rehabilitations of a vast number of patients would be impeded and frustrated” … . However, if a decision to release a patient was less than a professional medical determination, liability may attach … . A decision will not be insulated by the medical judgment rule if it is not based upon a careful examination … .

Generally, ” the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiff’s injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants'” … . To suffice, the expert’s opinion “must demonstrate the requisite nexus between the malpractice allegedly committed’ and the harm suffered” … . However, where “the expert’s ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation . . . the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to withstand summary judgment” … . Park v Kovachevich, 2014 NY Slip Op 01679, 1st Dept 5-13-14

 

/

Licensee Assumed Sufficient Control Over Hired Premises to Create Duty to Maintain Premises in Safe Condition

The Third Department determined the American Cancer Society (ACS), as a licensee, had assumed sufficient control of the premises hired for an event hosted by the ACS to create a duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition.  Plaintiff had tripped over a cable placed by an outfit hired by ACS to provide audio-visual services:

Supreme Court properly concluded that ACS owed plaintiff a duty of care. In the context of premises liability, a party owes a duty to take reasonable measures to protect others from dangerous conditions on the property only where that party owns, occupies or controls the property or makes a special use of it … . No party contends that ACS owned, leased or made special use of the Hall of Springs. However, ACS, as a licensee exercising control, owed a duty to those on the property to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition during the period of its use … . Although “mere sponsorship, absent control, does not render [an entity] legally responsible” for defects on the premises …, ACS’s involvement with the gala exceeded bare sponsorship. ACS entered into a contract with Mazzone Management for use of the Hall of Springs, approved the floor plan for the gala, hired ACES to provide audiovisual services, and hired a band for entertainment, and ACS representatives were present during and oversaw the set up and the event. An ACS representative testified at her deposition that she was present during the set up between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the day prior to the event, that she performed a walk-through of the premises, and that if she had noticed any hazards – including tripping hazards – she would have pointed them out and had them remedied. As the record demonstrates that ACS “conceived of, planned, orchestrated and supervised the [gala],” it had control over the premises during the set up and the event and thereby owed a duty of care to those present to maintain the site in a reasonably safe condition … . Stevenson v Saratoga Performing Arts Center…, 517156, 3rd Dept 3-13-14

 

/

Motion to Renew Granted in Interest of Justice Despite Knowledge of Facts at Time of Original Motion/Motion to Vacate Default Granted Based On Law Office Failure

The Second Department determined a motion to renew was properly granted, in the interest of justice, even though the facts were known at the time of the original motion.  The court also determined, under the facts, the motion to vacate a default judgment was properly granted on the ground of law office failure:

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion which would change the prior determination, and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e][2]…). However, “[t]he rule is not inflexible, and renewal may be granted in the court’s discretion, in the interest of justice, even on facts that were known to the movant at the time of the original motion” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the defendants …  which was for leave to renew that branch of their prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court as granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment … .

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court also properly permitted the Lee defendants to interpose an answer to the complaint and precluded the plaintiff from enforcing the default judgment … . In moving pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a default, the movant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005). Here, the … defendants’ principal affirmed that he retained prior counsel to oppose the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment, but that prior counsel nevertheless failed to oppose the motion, which was granted without opposition. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting this explanation as an excusable default … . The …defendants also demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . In addition, there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff from the delay in answering, and no evidence of an intent by the Lee defendants to abandon any defenses to the action.  Shin v ITCI Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01600, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

/

“Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment Within One Year Not Sufficient

The Second Department determined that the offered “law office failure” excuse for failing to enter a default judgment within the one-year time limit was not sufficient:

CPLR 3215(c), entitled “Default not entered within one year,” provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” (emphasis added). “To avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), a plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for his or her delay and must demonstrate that the complaint is meritorious” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why it did not seek to enter a judgment against the defendant until nearly three years after his failure to answer or appear (see CPLR 3215[c]…). The excuse of law office failure proffered by the plaintiff in its moving papers was “vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated” and, thus, did not constitute a sufficient excuse for the plaintiff’s extended delay in moving to enter a default judgment after the defendant’s default… . GMAC v Minewiser, 2014 NY Slip Op 01581, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

/

Defendant Properly Sentenced As a Youthful Offender on One Indictment But Not on a Second Indictment

The Second Department determined the sentencing court properly sentenced defendant as a youthful offender under one indictment and properly declined to sentence defendant as a youthful offender under a second indictment:

The defendant contends that, because the sentencing court granted him youthful offender status with respect to Indictment No. 12-00529, it was required to do so with respect to Indictment No. 12-01380. The defendant was not convicted of two crimes set forth in separate counts of a single indictment, nor was he convicted of two crimes set forth in two separate indictments consolidated for trial purposes (see CPL 720.20[2]). Therefore, the sentencing court was authorized in its discretion to determine that the defendant was a youthful offender with respect to either or both convictions … . Accordingly, the sentencing court properly determined that it may find the defendant a youthful offender with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 12-00529, but not with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 12-01380.  People v Shaquille Mc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01633, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

/

Defendant Company’s Failure to Keep Current Address On File With Secretary of State Was Not an Adequate Excuse for Default

The Second Department determined that the failure of defendant limited liability company to maintain its current address with the Secretary of State precluded defendant from successfully opposing the motion to enter a default judgment (based upon defendant’s failure to answer:)

To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to appear or timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]…). The defendant contended that it maintained an old address on file with the Secretary of State, and denied receipt of copies of the summons and complaint. However, the defendant’s unexplained failure to keep the Secretary of State apprised of its current address over a significant period of time did not constitute a reasonable excuse … .

Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to vacatur of its default pursuant to CPLR 317. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence that, for a period of more than five years, the defendant failed to file, with the Secretary of State, the required biennial form that would have apprised the Secretary of State of its current address (see Limited Liability Company Law § 301[e]). Under these circumstances, the defendants’ failure to personally receive copies of the summons and complaint was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid notice of actions commenced against it… . Cruz v Keter Residence LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01575, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

/ , ,

Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that a new trial was required because the prosecutor created the impression a non-testifying witness [Drake] had identified the defendant as the shooter.  Although the error was not preserved by objection, the court addressed the issue in the interest of justice.  The court noted as well that the defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments during summation (which reinforced the impression) were erroneously overruled:

Generally, during cross-examination, a party cannot introduce extrinsic evidence or call another witness to contradict a witness’s answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching such witness’s credibility … . As the defendant correctly contends, during the cross-examination of Lloyd, the prosecutor improperly gave the impression that Drake, who did not testify, implicated the defendant while the police questioned her … . Notably, the prosecutor acknowledged at the second trial that Drake had testified at the initial trial, and that Drake had not identified the defendant as having been present at the party.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 453, cert denied _____US_____, 134 S Ct 105). Here, the defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was violated.  People v Lloyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 01631, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

/ , ,

Youthful Offender Privilege Explained/Privilege Not Waived By Denial of the Act Which Was the Subject of the Youthful Offender Adjudication in Subsequent Civil Suit

The Second Department determined the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege associated with his youthful offender status. Although defendant’s son had pled guilty to an assault based upon his throwing an egg, he denied throwing the egg in his deposition during the related civil proceedings.  That denial did not waive the privilege and the plaintiff could not gain access to the records of the criminal proceedings:

The youthful offender statute (CPL article 720) provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which ” emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals'” … . Thus, “[a] youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense” (CPL 720.35[1]). Further, pursuant to CPL 720.35(2), all official records and papers concerning the adjudication are sealed. * * *

The privilege created by this statute attaches not only to the physical documents constituting the official record, but also to the information contained within those documents … . Thus, a person adjudicated a youthful offender may refuse to answer questions regarding the charges and police investigation, whether he or she pleaded guilty, and whether a youthful offender adjudication was made. However, the person must still answer questions regarding the facts underlying the adjudication … . * * *

Here, the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege afforded by the statute since he did not commence an action which places the conduct at issue … . The defendant did not assert counterclaims or cross claims in this action placing the conduct at issue …, and the defendant’s son did not testify as to the confidential contents of the records … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the testimony of the defendant’s son at his deposition denying that he threw the egg which allegedly struck the plaintiff’s daughter did not waive the protections of the statute … . Castiglione v James FQ, 2014 NY Slip Op 01571, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

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