You are here: / Certification Order Requiring Filing of Note of Issue in 70, Rather than...

Search Results

/

Certification Order Requiring Filing of Note of Issue in 70, Rather than 90, Days Could Not Be Basis of Dismissal

The Second Department determined that a certification order which required a note of issue be filed within 70 days, rather than 90 days, could not be the basis for dismissal of the action:

The certification order dated March 2, 2010, did not constitute a valid 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it directed the plaintiff to file a note of issue within 70 days, rather than 90 days, of the date of the order. Since the order failed to conform with a statutorily mandated condition precedent to dismissal of the action, the Supreme Court was not authorized to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3216… . Although the plaintiff raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it involves a question of law that appears on the face of the record, and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court… . Gu v Hatsis, 2013 NY Slip Op 03970, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

/

Note of Issue Which States Discovery Not Complete Is a Nullity

The Second Department determined a note of issue which indicates discovery is not complete is a nullity:

Pursuant to Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.21, a note of issue must be accompanied by a certificate of readiness, which must state that there are no outstanding requests for discovery and the case is ready for trial (see 22 NYCRR 202.21[a], [b]). While the filing of a note of issue within 90 days after service upon the plaintiff of a written demand to serve and file the note of issue precludes a court from dismissing the action …, here, the plaintiffs’ certificate of readiness stated, inter alia, that discovery proceedings now known to be necessary were not completed, that there were outstanding requests for discovery, and that the case was not ready for trial. Since the certificate of readiness failed to materially comply with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.21, the filing of the note of issue was a nullity, and that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to vacate the note of issue was properly granted… .  Furrukh v Forest Hills Hosp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03968, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

/ ,

Failure to Allege Specific Facts to Rebut Process Server Affidavit Required Denial of Motion to Vacate Judgment w/o Hearing

The Second Department upheld Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to vacate a judgment on the ground defendant was not served.  No hearing was necessary because defendant did not swear to specific facts to rebut the facts in the process server’s affidavit:

“Although a defendant’s sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server’s affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing, no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavits'”…. Since the appellant never denied the specific facts contained in the process server’s affidavit, no hearing was required… .  Bank of NY v Samuels, 2013 NY Slip Op 03958, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

/ ,

Absence of Evidence of Physical Injury Precluded 15 Point Assessment for Violence in SORA Proceeding

The First Department determined the SORA court improperly assessed 15 points for violence because there was insufficient evidence of physical injury:

The court erred in assessing 15 points under the risk factor for use of violence, because the People did not meet their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant caused physical injury (see Penal Law 10.00[9]) to the victim. Although minor injuries may cause substantial pain, a showing of “more than slight or trivial pain” is required …. The People do not dispute defendant’s assertion that the photographs of the injuries depicted only “faint marks and superficial scratches.” Although evidence of medical treatment is unnecessary to establish physical injury …, here the victim’s bare statement that her knee “hurt” was insufficient to support the inference that she suffered substantial pain, given the absence of evidence that she even used ice or an over-the-counter pain reliever. Furthermore, the injury was not sustained as a result of a deliberate assault or other act supporting an inference that it caused substantial pain …. Therefore, the court should have assessed 10 points for forcible compulsion, but not 15 points. People v Quito, 2013 NY Slip Op 03938, 1st Dept, 6-4-13

 

/ ,

Defendant Handcuffed, Post-Arrest Search of Backpack Unlawful

In determining the search of defendant’s backpack was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances to justify it, the First Department wrote:

The search of defendant’s backpack following his arrest was unlawful because he was handcuffed at the time of the search and it was no longer in his control…. The contents of the backpack, which included a pair of pliers and unused garbage bags, should have been suppressed because even where a container is not in the exclusive control of the police, exigency justifying its search incident to arrest is not established in the absence of “some reasonable basis for the belief that the contents of those containers might pose a danger to the arresting officers or when there is legitimate concern for the preservation of evidence which might reasonably be thought to reside within the containers”….  People v Diaz, 2013 NY Slip Op 03937, 1st Dept, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

/

No Need to Request Missing Witness Charge to Argue Absence of Witness to Jury

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined the trial court erred in ruling defense counsel could not argue to the jury that a witness should have been called by the People because defense counsel did not request a missing witness charge (the error was, however, deemed harmless).  The complainant’s statement did not mention an anal penetration which was the subject of trial evidence. When asked why the incident was not mentioned in the statement, the complainant said the police officer taking the statement told her no judge would believe that happened.  The officer did not testify.  The Court of Appeals wrote:

In his summation, defense counsel argued that this part of the complainant’s testimony was incredible. “We’ve changed as a society,” he argued. “No police officer is going to come up there and say, ‘Oh, no one is going to believe you, this was your boyfriend.’ That’s not where we are today.” That part of his argument drew no objection. But the prosecutor did object when counsel added: “And if that’s, in fact, what that police officer said, then where was he, where was that police officer on the stand to say: You know what, I didn’t write it down. I didn’t think she was telling me the truth. He didn’t testify to that.” The trial court sustained the objection and directed the jury to disregard counsel’s comment. Counsel tried again to make the missing witness argument, with the same result.

After summations, defendant moved for a mistrial on the basis of this ruling. The court denied the motion, saying that counsel should have asked for a missing witness instruction if he wanted to make a missing witness argument… .

The courts below clearly erred in holding that defense counsel’s missing witness argument was improper. The trial court’s theory, that a request for a missing witness instruction is a prerequisite to a missing witness argument is, as the Appellate Division recognized, flatly contrary to what we said in Williams (5 NY3d at 734). The Appellate Division affirmed on the alternative grounds that the officer’s testimony may have been cumulative and defendant failed to make an offer of proof. This approach may have been impermissible under People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470 [1998]) and People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192 [2011]).

Just before making the missing witness argument, counsel had attacked as incredible the complainant’s uncorroborated testimony as to what the officer said to her; confirmation of that testimony from the officer would not have been cumulative ….. And counsel had no obligation to make an offer of proof as a predicate for a missing witness argument. It is a premise of such an argument, as it is of a missing witness instruction, that the witness is in the control of the party that failed to call him … A party making such an argument, like one requesting such an instruction, “can hardly know what [the] witness knows or what the witness would say if called” … .  People v Thomas, No 108, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

/ ,

Potential Versus Actual Conflict of Interest

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction, rejecting the defendant’s argument he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because of defense counsel’s conflict of interest.  The Court of Appeals described the difference between an actual conflict of interest (which mandates reversal if not waived) and a potential conflict of interest (at issue in this case):

The defendant bears the burden of establishing a denial of meaningful representation …. When such a claim is premised on a perceived conflict of interest, our precedent differentiates between actual and potential conflicts …. An actual conflict exists if an attorney simultaneously represents clients whose interests are opposed …and, in such situations, reversal is required if the defendant does not waive the actual conflict ….

In contrast, a potential conflict that is not waived by the accused requires reversal only if it “operates” on or “affects” the defense … — i.e., the nature of the attorney-client relationship or underlying circumstances bear a “‘substantial relation to the conduct of the defense'” …. The “requirement that a potential conflict have affected, or operated on, or borne a substantial relation to the conduct of the defense — three formulations of the same principle — is not a requirement that [the] defendant show specific prejudice” …. Nevertheless, it is the defendant’s “heavy burden” … to show that a potential conflict actually operated on the defense ….  People v Sanchez, No 107, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

/ , ,

8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary

In a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined an 8-hour break and the presence of counsel, after a 491/2-hour custodial interrogation, did not render his confession to murder voluntary and reversed his conviction:

We are unwilling to draw the inference, which the People would have us make, that the eight-hour “break” between interrogation and arraignment attenuated the taint of the wrongful interrogation. Defendant’s pre- and post-arraignment statements were, despite their temporal separation, in all other ways seamlessly linked. At the end of the marathon session, the utterly spent defendant, in exchange for a lawyer to which he was absolutely entitled, agreed in a statement ultimately suppressed as coerced, to “give everybody what they want,” and when he returned to the Blue Room on the morning of the same day and faced the same interrogator across the same table, that is exactly what he did. We do not accept the hypothesis that his intervening stay in a holding pen and arraignment on the charge of murder sufficed to transform his coerced capitulation into a voluntary disclosure. By the time of defendant’s post-arraignment statements, his options would have seemed so constricted, by what he had already divulged during the earlier portion of the interrogation, as to render the intervening temporal buffer practically irrelevant. …

…[W]e reject the contention that the entry of counsel guaranteed the voluntariness of defendant’s subsequent statements …. This contention misconstrues the statement in Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion” (id. at 466 [emphasis supplied]). Plainly, this language, expressly limited in its reference, was not intended to stand for the proposition that the presence of counsel will invariably be adequate as an assurance of voluntariness.  People v Guilford, No 103, CtApp, 6-4-13

SUPPRESSION

 

 

/ ,

Retroactive Tax Credit Restrictions Violated Due Process

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Chief Judge Lippman, determined that the retroactive changes in the Empire Zones Program (restricting the availability of tax credits) did not, as the appellate divisions held, violate the Takings Clause, but did violate the Due Process Clause:  The Court wrote:

The purported taking here is plaintiffs’ obligation to pay tax to the State in the absence of a valid tax credit. However, “[t]he mere imposition of an obligation to pay money . . . does not give rise to a claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment” …. Federal courts have held that “[f]or retroactive taxation to be a taking, it must be ‘so arbitrary as to constrain to the conclusion that it was not the exertion of taxation'”…. The retroactive tax liability imposed in the present case cannot be characterized as so flagrant as to constitute the confiscation of property under the Takings Clause. Plaintiffs had no guarantee that they would ever recoup their business investments through the receipt of tax credits, and the New York Constitution provides that tax exemptions are freely repealable (NY Const, art XVI, § 1).  *  *  *

We now turn to that other question: whether plaintiffs’ due process rights were infringed by the statute utilizing the three factors articulated in Replan. In terms of “the taxpayer’s forewarning of a change in the legislation and the reasonableness of his reliance on the old law” (Replan, 70 NY2d at 456), the plaintiffs had no warning and no opportunity at anytime in 2008 to alter their behavior in anticipation of the impact of the 2009 Amendments. * * *The second factor, the length of the period of retroactivity, also benefits plaintiffs. * * * Regardless of whether the period of retroactivity is deemed to span 16 or 32 months, the length of retroactivity should be considered excessive and weighs against the State. * * *   On the third factor, dispositive in this case, the State fails to set forth a valid public purpose for the retroactive application of the 2009 Amendments. The legislature did not have an important public purpose to make the law retroactive.  James Square Associates LP et al v Mullen …, Nos 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, CtApp, 6-4-13

 

/

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Applied

In affirming the dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds, the First Department described the criteria and relevant facts as follows:

The doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified under CPLR 327, permits a court to stay or dismiss an action “where it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere” …. The doctrine rests on considerations of justice, fairness and convenience … . * * *

The subject matter of this action – insurance coverage for liability relating to the manufacture of products in Massachusetts – has no substantial connection to New York. When the policies were issued, Warren was a Massachusetts corporation and had its principal place of business in that state. Liberty Mutual, the insurer under the policies at issue, is a Massachusetts corporation that has its principal place of business in that state. Both plaintiffs are foreign corporations that maintain their principal places of business in other states… . Century Indem Co v Liberty Mut Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 03953, 1st Dept, 6-4-13

 

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