You are here: / No Constitutional Right to a Sua Sponte Inquiry Into Defendant’s Mental H...

Search Results

/ , ,

No Constitutional Right to a Sua Sponte Inquiry Into Defendant’s Mental Health Before Allowing Defendant to Proceed Pro Se

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a defendant may be competent to stand trial but not competent to proceed pro se, but determined the trial court did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights by not conducting a sua sponte inquiry into his mental health when he asked proceed pro se:

Defendant submits that [Indiana v Edwards (554 US 164 [2008])] requires states to adopt a two-tiered competency standard — a baseline for competency to stand trial and a separate, heightened standard for competency to proceed pro se at trial — and compels a competency hearing before a defendant may be permitted to proceed pro se. But we do not view Edwards as imposing such a requirement — and our interpretation is in accord with the federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue … . Although a court has discretion to require representation by counsel in certain circumstances despite a request to proceed pro se, it does not follow that the Constitution is offended if that discretion is not exercised. People v Stone, 5, CtApp 2-13-14

 

/ ,

Two-Year Time Limit On Bringing Suit Against Insurer for Cost of Replacement of Damaged Property Unreasonable If Replacement Cannot Reasonably Be Done Within Two Years

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals, in answering a question posed by the Second Circuit, determined a two-year time-limit on bringing suit against an insurance company was unreasonable because suit could not be brought until the damaged property was replaced. Therefore, as was true in this case, if the damage-repair takes longer than two years, the insured cannot sue for payment:

“[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable” … . We conclude that the contractual period at issue here — two years from the date of “direct physical loss or damage” (i.e., from the date of the fire) — is not reasonable if, as the Second Circuit's question requires us to assume, the property cannot reasonably be replaced within two years.It is true, as the District Court pointed out, that there is nothing inherently unreasonable about a two-year period of limitation. In fact, we have enforced contractual limitation periods of one year … . The problem with the limitation period in this case is not its duration, but its accrual date. It is neither fair nor reasonable to require a suit within two years from the date of the loss, while imposing a condition precedent to the suit — in this case, completion of replacement of the property — that cannot be met within that two-year period. A “limitation period” that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim. It is true that nothing required defendant to insure plaintiff for replacement cost in excess of actual cash value, but having chosen to do so defendant may not insist on a “limitation period” that renders the coverage valueless when the repairs are time-consuming. Executive Plaza LLC v Peerless Insurance Company, 2, CtApp 2-13-14

 

/

Proof Sufficient to Support Unlawful Surveillance Conviction/Defendant Was Standing on the Front Door Step Videotaping Woman Inside

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the proof was legally sufficient to support defendant’s “unlawful surveillance” conviction. Defendant videotaped a woman who was in her bathroom with the door open on the second floor of her townhouse. The defendant was standing on the front door step of the woman’s townhouse holding a video camera over his head in front of a small decorative window in the front door. The court determined that defendant’s actions, at 7:30 a.m. on December 24, could be deemed “surreptitious” within the meaning of the statute, even though he was potentially visible to the public while he was videotaping:

Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, defendant's conduct was surreptitious in nature. Although he was standing on complainant's front step, potentially exposed to public view, it was at 7:30 a.m. on Christmas Eve. The argument that defendant's conduct was completely out in the open, for anyone who happened by to see, is undermined given the pre-dawn hour.* Moreover, defendant was holding the small black camera in his black-gloved hand. In addition, he apparently had to hold the camera over his head, in the air, in order to get the proper angle and used the zoom function. Under the circumstances, there is legally sufficient evidence that defendant was acting in a furtive or stealthy manner, attempting to obtain the video of complainant without being discovered — in other words, that he was acting surreptitiously. People v Schreier, 4, CtApp 2-13-14

 

/ , ,

Appellate Review of Conviction Based Upon Circumstantial Evidence Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals determined there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support defendant’s conviction, even though innocent explanations for the evidence could be offered. The court explained appellate review of circumstantial evidence:

…[I]t is well-established that “[t]he standard of appellate review in determining whether the evidence before the jury was legally sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the same for circumstantial and non-circumstantial cases” … . That standard, of course, is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, “there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt” … . A jury, faced with a case in which the proof of a particular charge, or element thereof, consists entirely of circumstantial evidence, “must exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis” … . But an appellate court's duty, when reviewing the jury's finding, is not to determine whether it would have reached the same conclusion as the jury, with respect to a proposed innocent explanation of the evidence (see Grassi, 92 NY2d at 699 [“Defendant has offered myriad innocent explanations or inferences that could be drawn by a jury to counter this evidence. That, however, is not the legal standard by which this Court is bound for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence appeal”]). Rather, the appellate court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, must decide whether a jury could rationally have excluded innocent explanations of the evidence offered by the defendant and found each element of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Reed, 3, CtApp 2-13-14

 

/ ,

Agent for Partially Disclosed Principal Is Personally Liable on the Contract

In finding the agent (Sussman) liable for a contract because the principal was not fully disclosed, the Second Department wrote:

​

…[The evidence] indicates at best that Sussman was acting as an agent for a “partially disclosed principal,” in that the agency relationship was known, but the identity of the principal remained undisclosed (Restatement [Second] of Agency § 4[2]…). As an agent for an undisclosed principal, Sussman became personally liable under the contract (…Restatement [Second] of Agency § 321). Stonhard v Blue Ridge Farms, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00985, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

/ , ,

Employer Which Hired Undocumented Workers Who Were Injured On the Job Protected from Suit by the Workers’ Compensation Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals determined the employer [Microtech] was entitled to the protection of the Workers’ Compensation Law and a suit against the employer by the hospital (which paid out Labor Law claims to the injured workers) was properly dismissed. The employer had hired undocumented workers [the Lemas] who were injured doing demolition work at the hospital. The workers were paid Workers’ Compensation benefits by the employer. The workers sued the hospital under the Labor Law and were awarded a verdict. The hospital then sued the employer which, the Court of Appeals held, was protected from suit by section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law:[Quoting the appellate division, the Court of Appeals wrote:]

…[T]o rule in the hospital's favor would “effectively deny [Microtech] the economic protections it acquired under the Workers' Compensation Law in return for providing [the Lemas] with compensation for their injuries,” as well as “relieve [the hospital] of its responsibility to ensure a safe construction site for workers under the Labor Law”… . New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v Microtech Contracting Corp, 1, CtApp 2-13-14

 

/ ,

Public Interest Privilege (Protecting Government Documents from Disclosure) Explained

In determining Supreme Court erred when it ordered the county to produce documents sought during discovery without reviewing them to determine the applicability of the asserted public interest privilege, the Second Department wrote:

CPLR 3101(a) broadly mandates “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” This provision is to be liberally interpreted in favor of disclosure … . Nonetheless, a party from whom disclosure is sought may seek to prevent disclosure by properly invoking a recognized privilege. “A party asserting that material sought in disclosure is privileged bears the burden of demonstrating that the material it seeks to withhold is immune from discovery” … .”A public interest privilege inheres in certain official confidential information in the care and custody of governmental entities” … . “This privilege permits appropriate parties to protect information from ordinary disclosure, as an exception to liberal discovery rubrics” … . “Specifically, the privilege envelops confidential communications between public officers, and to public officers, in the performance of their duties, where the public interest requires that such confidential communications or the sources should not be divulged” … “The justification for the privilege is that the public interest might otherwise be harmed if extremely sensitive material were to lose this special shield of confidentiality”… . Ren Zheng Zheng v Bermeo, 2014 NY Slip Op 00979, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

/ , ,

Landowners Who Have Been Granted a Variance Are Necessary Parties In an Action Challenging the Variance (CPLR 1001 (b))

The Second Department determined that landowners who were issued a zoning variance were necessary parties in the action challenging the variance. The landowners had not been properly served and Supreme Court went ahead and determined the merits without the landowners in the suit. On appeal the petitioners did not dispute that the landowners were necessary parties, but argued their presence should be excused under the factors in CPLR 1001 (b). The Second Department disagreed, finding that, under the facts, factors 2 through 5 required the landowners to be parties to the action:

A court may excuse the failure to join a necessary party and allow an action to proceed in the interest of justice upon consideration of five factors enumerated in CPLR 1001(b):   (1) whether the petitioner has another remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder, (2) the prejudice that may accrue from nonjoinder to the respondent or to the nonjoined party, (3) whether and by whom prejudice might have been avoided or may in the future be avoided, (4) the feasibility of a protective provision, and (5) whether an effective judgment may be rendered in the absence of the nonjoined party… . Matter of Feder v Town of Islip Zoning Board of Appeals, 2014 NY Slip Op 00998, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

/ ,

Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Backyard Constituted a Search/Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in His Backyard

The Second Department determined that the police officer’s warrantless entry into defendant’s backyard constituted a search because the defendant had an expectation of privacy there. The fact that the officer was aware of an apparently false report of a fire in the area did not justify the application of the emergency doctrine (also analyzed in the decision). The seized evidence (marijuana and a firearm) should have been suppressed:

A search occurs, thereby triggering the protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 12 of the New York Constitution, when the police invade an area where a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy … . A legitimate expectation of privacy exists where a person has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable … . The curtilage of the home–the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home or the area that is related to the intimate activities of the home—is part of the home itself … . The determination of whether an area falls within the home’s curtilage may be made by reference to four factors: “the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by” … .Consideration of these factors in connection with the evidence in this record, including two photographs of a portion of the subject premises, compels us to conclude that the defendant’s rear yard was within the curtilage of the home. The rear yard was in close proximity to the home, shielded from view by those on the street, and within the natural and artificial barriers enclosing the home. This physical arrangement made manifest the defendant’s expectation of privacy, and that expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable… . People v Theodore, 2014 NY Slip Op 01025, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

/ ,

Fall from Subway Platform Not the Result of Negligent Crowd Control

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and dismissed a lawsuit stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s fall from a subway platform to the tracks below. The court explained the negligence criteria with respect to the crowd on a subway platform:

“A subway company is not negligent merely because it permits crowds to gather on its platform. Before proof of negligence in this regard may be said to exist, it must be shown that the crowd was so large and unmanaged that a user of the platform was restricted in his free movements or was unable to find a safe standing place, and that as a result of either of those conditions an injury was sustained” … .Here, there is no evidence that the crowd on the subway platform was so large and unmanaged that it restricted the decedent’s freedom of movement to the extent necessary to impose liability on the Transit Authority. The evidence in the record was insufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence against the Transit Authority and, in effect, was insufficient to establish that any negligence was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries… . Garcia v New York Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 00961, 2nd Dept 2-13-14

 

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