You are here: / Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer S...

Search Results

/

Petitioners’ Properties Not Close Enough to Proposed Development to Confer Standing to Allege Violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

The Second Department determined petitioners did not have standing to bring an action alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) because petitioners’ properties were not sufficiently close to the location of the development project:

To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must show (1) an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and (2) that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA … . An injury in fact may be inferred from a showing of close proximity of the petitioner’s property to the proposed development … . Generally, the relevant distance is the distance between the petitioner’s property and the actual structure or development itself, not the distance between the petitioner’s property and the property line of the site … . Here, the individual petitioners’ properties were not located in sufficient proximity to the proposed development to give rise to standing … . Matter of Tuxedo Land Trust Inc v Town Bd of Town of Tuxedo, 2013 NY Slip Op 08255, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

/ ,

Defendant Understood the Reference to the “Appellate Division” Was a Reference to a Higher Court—Waiver of Appeal Was Therefore Valid

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that the defendant’s waiver of appeal was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made.  The defendant was asked by the prosecutor if he understood he was waiving the right to appeal his conviction and sentence to “the Appellate Division, Second Department.”  Because the defendant was 27 years old, had prior contact with the criminal justice system, had filed a notice of appeal pro se, and had requested appellate counsel, the court concluded the defendant understood the reference to the “appellate division” was a reference to a higher court. People v Sanders, 2013 NY Slip Op 08276, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

/ , ,

Purported Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect/Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department noted that a court’s power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte should rarely be used and further noted that a purported lack of standing is not a jurisdictional defect warranting sua sponte dismissal:

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint. ” A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Moreover, the defendants, having failed to answer the complaint or make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, waived the defense of lack of standing … . “Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint by the court”… .  Onewest Bank FSB v Fernandez, 2013 NY Slip Op 08233, 2nd Dept 12-11-13

 

 

/ ,

Uncovered Baseboard Radiator May Constitute an Unsafe Condition Created by Landlord

The First Department determined there were questions of fact about whether the landlord assumed a duty to cover a baseboard heating unit, whether the landlord created an unsafe condition by removing the baseboard heating unit’s cover, and whether the uncovered unit needed repairs or was defective.  The infant plaintiff, who suffers from mental retardation and cerebral palsy, was burned when her face and hand was in contact with an uncovered baseboard radiator for an unknown period of time.  Nina W v NDI King Ltd Partnership, 2013 NY Slip Op 08202, 1st Dept 12-10-13

 

/ ,

Witness’s Hearsay Statement Should Have Been Admitted as a Statement Against Penal Interest/No Need for Declarant to Be Aware of Specific Violation of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, the First Department determined a (hearsay) statement by a witness indicating she (not the defendant) was driving when the property-damage accident occurred should have been admitted as a statement against penal interest.  The central question was whether the declarant was aware she was admitting to a violation of law when the statement was made:

The decision whether to admit a declaration against penal interest as an exception to the hearsay rule requires, among other factors, that the declarant be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his or her penal interest. The issue in this case is whether a statement in which an individual admits to conduct constituting an offense is a statement against penal interest, where the individual believes that the conduct may be illegal but does not know whether it is or not. It arose in the context of a DWI case where the defense was that defendant, who was intoxicated, was not the driver of the car, but a passenger. Specifically, the driver, a 19-year-old woman with no prior criminal history and only a learner’s permit, who met defendant approximately eight hours earlier, made a statement to a defense investigator indicating that she, and not defendant, was driving defendant’s car at the time it collided with a parked car, but refused to testify at trial on Fifth Amendment grounds. We find that the statement was a declaration against penal interest notwithstanding that some of the witness’s apprehension in making the statement was based on her fear that her parents would learn of her involvement with defendant or that, as the court noted, her exposure to criminal liability was relatively minor. The court therefore erred in keeping the statement out. * * *

…[W]e hold that regardless of whether [the witness] was specifically aware that the conduct she admitted constituted a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600, which prohibits an operator of a motor vehicle who causes property damage from leaving the scene, or whether she was specifically aware that she faced a penalty of up to 15 days’ imprisonment and a fine for that offense, the evidence established that her statement satisfied this hearsay exception. Her expressions, at the time of or immediately after her statement, of apprehension that she could get in trouble for her conduct, including repeated inquiries about consulting with a lawyer, sufficed to satisfy the requirement that “the declarant must be aware at the time of its making that the statement was contrary to his [or her] penal interest”… . People v Soto, 2013 NY Slip Op 08217, 1st Dept 12-10-13

 

 

/ , ,

Subpoena Which Could Result In Compelling a New York Reporter to Reveal Her Sources in an Out-of-State Proceeding Should Not Have Been Issued by a New York Court

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, with three dissenting judges, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and held that a New York reporter (Winter) could not be subpoenaed to testify in Colorado.  Under Colorado law, it was likely the reporter would have been compelled to reveal her sources for a story about a notebook provided by James Holmes to his psychiatrist.  Holmes was the shooter in a mass shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, during a midnight showing of a “Batman” movie.  The court determined that the public policy underlying New York’s Shield Law would be violated if the subpoena were issued and, therefore, issuance of the subpoena was prohibited:

…New York public policy as embodied in the Constitution and our current statutory scheme provides a mantle of protection for those who gather and report the news — and their confidential sources — that has been recognized as the strongest in the nation.  And safeguarding the anonymity of those who provide information in confidence is perhaps the core principle of New York’s journalistic privilege, as is evident from our colonial tradition, the constitutional text and the legislative history of the Shield Law.  * * *

It is therefore evident based on the New York Constitution, the Shield Law and our precedent that a New York court could not compel Winter to reveal the identity of the sources that supplied information to her in relation to her online news article about Holmes’ notebook.  Holmes does not argue otherwise but relies on our decision in Matter of Codey (Capital Cities, Am. Broadcasting Corp.) (supra, 82 NY2d 521) for the proposition that, when New York functions as the “sending state” in relation to a CPL 640.10(2) application, issues concerning testimonial privilege — including the applicability of the absolute privilege afforded by the Shield Law — simply cannot be considered by a New York court.  …

CPL 640.10(2) is New York’s codification of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, which has been adopted by all 50 states. * * *

We … conclude that an order from a New York court directing a reporter to appear in another state where, as here, there is a substantial likelihood that she will be compelled to identify sources who have been promised confidentiality would offend our strong public policy — a common law, statutory and constitutional tradition that has played a significant role in this State becoming the media capital of the country if not the world.  Matter of Holmes v Winter, 245, CtApp 12-10-13

 

/

Determination Town Justice Should Be Removed from Office Sustained

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, sustained the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s finding of misconduct and the determination the non-lawyer town court justice should be removed from office. The essence of the alleged misconduct was that the judge presided over matters involving his friends and relatives without disclosing the relationships. With respect to the judge’s presiding over a traffic-ticket proceeding (seatbelt violation) against a long-time friend and business associate (Johnson), the court wrote:

Although the charge against Johnson was relatively minor, petitioner’s decision to hear a case involving a friend and former employer without even disclosing the existence of the personal relationship to the District Attorney was, under the circumstances presented here, no small matter.  The Rules Governing Judicial Conduct direct that “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR § 100.3[E][1]).  A judge’s perception of the nature or seriousness of the subject matter of the litigation has no bearing on the duty to recuse or disclose a relationship with a litigant or attorney when necessary to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism.  Indeed, although petitioner denies giving Johnson preferential treatment, he does not defend his decision to sit on the case and acknowledges in his brief that he made the “wrong choice.”  Matter of George, 249, CtApp 12-10-13

 

/ ,

“Evidentiary Fact” Resolved In Favor of Defendant by a Jury In the First Trial May Not Be Contradicted by Evidence Presented in the Second Trial

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibited the introduction of evidence a firearm was displayed in the course of a robbery.  In the first trial, the defendant was acquitted of First Degree Robbery (which requires display of a firearm) and convicted of Second Degree Robbery (display of a weapon is not an element of Second Degree Robbery). The conviction was reversed on appeal.  In the second trial (for Second Degree Robbery only), the People presented evidence a weapon was displayed.  The court found the People were collaterally estopped from presenting evidence of the display of a weapon in the second trial:

This case is controlled by our holding in People v Acevedo (69 NY2d 478, 480 [1987]) that “the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be applied to issues of ‘evidentiary’ fact.”  As we explained in Acevedo, in the analysis of collateral estoppel issues, facts essential to the second judgment are considered “ultimate” facts; other facts are only “evidentiary” (id. at 480 n 1).  Under Acevedo, when an issue of evidentiary fact has been resolved in a defendant’s favor by a jury, the People may not, at a later trial, present evidence that contradicts the first jury’s finding.  People v O’Toole, 233, CtApp 12-10-13

 

/

Possession of a Controlled Substance May Be Proved Circumstantially/Permissible Inference that Possessors Know What They Possess

The Court of Appeals determined the accusatory instrument charging attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance was sufficient.  The police officer observed defendant drop a glass pipe which contained cocaine “residue.” The court noted that “possession of a controlled substance ‘may be proven circumstantially,’ and ‘possession suffices to permit the inference that possessors know what they possess.’ ”  People v Jennings, 256, CtApp 12-10-13

 

 

/ , , ,

Workers’ Compensation Board’s Finding Re: Extent of Disability Should Not Be Given Collateral-Estoppel Effect in Related Negligence Action

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that collateral-estoppel effect should not be given to a finding by the Workers’ Compensation Board in a related negligence action.  Plaintiff, a delivery person, had been struck by a piece of plywood which fell from a building under construction in 2003.  The Workers’ Compensation Board found that plaintiff’s disability from the accident ceased as of January, 2006. In the related negligence action, the defendant sought to limit plaintiff’s proof of disability to the period prior to January, 2006.  The court held “that there is no identity of issue and that collateral estoppel therefore should not be applied:”

…[D]efendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that the issue decided in the workers’ compensation proceeding was identical to that presented in this negligence action.  We have observed that the Workers’ Compensation Law “is the State’s most general and comprehensive social program, enacted to provide all injured employees with some scheduled compensation and medical expenses, regardless of fault for ordinary and unqualified employment duties” … .  The purpose of awarding such benefits is to provide funds on an expedited basis that will function as a substitute for an injured employee’s wages … .  We have observed that the term “disability,” as used in the Workers’ Compensation Law, “generally refers to inability to work” … .  In addition, the Board uses the term “disability” in order to make classifications according to degree (total or partial) and duration (temporary or permanent) of an employee’s injury … .  The focus of the act, plainly, is on a claimant’s ability to perform the duties of his or her employment.

By contrast, a negligence action is much broader in scope.  It is intended to make an injured party whole for the enduring consequences of his or her injury — including, as relevant here, lost income and future medical expenses. Necessarily, then, the negligence action is focused on the larger question of the impact of the injury over the course of plaintiff’s lifetime.  Although there is some degree of overlap between the issues being determined in the two proceedings, based on the scope and focus of each type of action, it cannot be said that the issues are identical. Auqui v Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership, 212, CtApp 12-10-13

 

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