You are here: / Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Not Followed

Search Results

/

Procedure for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act Not Followed

County Court failed to comply with the statutory procedure for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (Criminal Procedure Law 440.46).  County Court did not issue a written order re: the new sentence, did not issue written findings of fact and reasons for the sentence, and did not inform the defendant of his right to appeal the resentence or his right to withdraw his motion for resentencing.  The Third Department wrote:

Resentencing under CPL 440.46 incorporates the detailed procedures of the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738, § 23…). Those procedures require, as relevant here, that an order issued by  the court informing a defendant of the sentence it will impose in the event of resentencing “must include written findings of fact and reasons for such order” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23 …). Defendant must also be notified that he  or she has a right to appeal that written order of proposed resentencing as well as a right – which can be exercised after the appeal and upon remand – to be  given an  opportunity to withdraw  the application for resentencing before any resentence is imposed…. People v Delayo, 104402, 3rd Dept, 3-2-13

 

/ ,

Post-Arrest Search of Purse Not in Grabbable Area and Not in Vehicle Invalid

The Third Department made a careful analysis of the police actions after receiving an anonymous tip that two women in car were taking drugs.  The court determined the police acted properly in escalating the police intrusion from questioning to arrest, including the search of the car without a warrant.  However, the Third Department held that the post-arrest search of a purse that was not inside the car, and was not in the defendant’s “grabbable area,” was not valid.  In addition the Third Department held the defendant’s answer to a police officer’s question about who owned the purses should have been suppressed, because, at the time of the question, the defendant would not have reasonably believed she was free to go and she had not waived her right to remain silent.  But because her statement was not “involuntary” it would be available for impeachment at trial should she testify.  People v Boler, 104092, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

SUPPRESSION, SUPPRESS

/

Failure to Allow Inmate to Observe Search of Cell Required Annulment​

In annulling a disciplinary determination because petitioner was not allowed to observe the search of his cell, the Third Department wrote:

Department of Corrections and  Community Supervision Directive No. 4910 [V] [C] [1] provides, as relevant here, that “[i]f the inmate is removed  from quarters prior to [a] search, he or she shall be  placed outside the immediate area to be  searched, but allowed to observe the search. However, if, in the opinion of a supervisory security staff member, the inmate presents a danger to the safety and security of the facility, the inmate shall be  removed  from the area and  not allowed to observe the search.” At the disciplinary hearing, petitioner raised his objection that he  was  improperly removed  from the area of his cell despite his request to observe the search. Absent  any  indication that a  supervisory staff member determined  that petitioner posed  a  danger  to the security of the facility, we  cannot  conclude  that the Department  of Corrections and Community Supervision complied with Directive No. 4910.  Matter of Mingo v Chappius, 514655, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

/ , ,

Town Zoning Ordinances Prohibiting Exploration For and Production of Natural Gas (In Response to Concerns Over Hydrofracking) Upheld​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, the Third Department held that a town zoning ordinance which banned “all activities which related to the exploration for, and the production or storage of, natural gas and petroleum,” passed in response to concern over “hydrofracking,”  was not preempted by New York’s Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law (OGSML) (ECL 23-0301, et seq).  The opinion includes an extensive discussion of the legislative history of the preemption language in the OGMSL, as well as the concepts of express, implied and conflict preemption. Norse Energy Corp, USA v Town of Dryden, et al, 515227, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

For identical reasons, a similar ordinance enacted by the Town of Middlefield was held valid by the Third Department.  Cooperstown Holstein Corp v Town of Middlefield, 515498, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

/ ,

Normal Negligence Theories Apply to Injury Resulting from Animal Wandering Off (Cow Struck By Car)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined that the line of strict liability “knowledge-of-an-animal’s-vicious-propensities” cases did not apply to this case, where a cow was negligently allowed to wander off, causing injury to the plaintiff who struck the cow with her car.  In a case like this, normal negligence theories apply:

[Here the claim] … is that a farm animal was permitted to wander off the property where it was kept through the negligence of the owner of the property and the owner of the animal. To apply the rule of Bard — that “when harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely” by the vicious propensity rule (6 NY3d at 599) — in a case like this would be to immunize defendants who take little or no care to keep their livestock out of the roadway or off of other people’s property.  We therefore hold that a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal — i.e., a domestic animal as that term is defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7) — is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept. We do not consider whether the same rule applies to dogs, cats or other household pets; that question must await a different case.  Hastings v Sauve, et al, No 78, CtApp, 5-2-13

 

/

Normal Behavior of Horse (Jerking Head Back) Not Actionable​

The Court of Appeals affirmed the appellate division’s ruling that the plaintiff could not recover for injury to her hand resulting from a horse’s jerking its head back when plaintiff was holding the halter.  The Court of Appeals wrote:

Under the rule of Bard v Jahnke, (6 NY3d 592, 596-597 [2006]), plaintiff cannot recover in the absence of a showing that defendant had knowledge of the animal’s “vicious propensity” or “propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others” …. No such showing was made here. A tendency to shy away when a person reaches for a horse’s throat or face is, as the record shows, a trait typical of horses. The Appellate Division correctly held that a vicious propensity cannot consist of “behavior that is normal or typical for the particular type of animal in question” … .  Bloomer v Shauger, No 79, CtApp, 5-2-13

 

/ ,

Limitation of Liability Clause in House-Design Contract Valid

he defendant designed plaintiffs’ residence and the first floor was built two feet below what the regulations required resulting in increased flood insurance premiums.  In the contract between the parties, it was agreed to limit defendant’s liability to the amount of the fees paid by plaintiffs.  After noting that contractual liability-limit clauses are valid and enforced except in cases of “gross negligence,” the Third Department determined “gross negligence” had not been demonstrated:  In describing “gross negligence,” the Third Department wrote:

In this context, it is settled  that  “gross negligence differs in kind, not only in degree, from claims of ordinary negligence.  It is conduct  that evinces a reckless disregard for the rights of others or smacks of intentional wrongdoing” … .  Soja v Keystone Tozze, LLC, 515422, 3rd Dept 5-2-13

 

/ , , ,

The Term “Release” (Re Hazardous Substances) Did Not Apply to Migration of Hazardous Substance to Neighbor’s Property Underground​

The Third Department determined there were two equally plausible interpretations of the term “sellers” as used in the contract, rendering the contract ambiguous.  Therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint prior to discovery was properly denied. In addition, the Third Department determined that the term “release” (re: hazardous substances) did not extend to the migration of hazardous substances to neighboring properties under ground:

…[The provision] requires  indemnification  for environmental  claims  related  to, among other things, a “Release” of hazardous substances “at locations other than [500 Beech].” “Release”  is defined  to include  “any  spilling, leaking, pumping,  pouring,  emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, dumping  or disposing of any Hazardous  Material  into  the  environment.” In its Canadian action, the neighbor alleged that contaminants – which would be classified as “Hazardous Materials” under the agreement – in the ground  at 500 Beech migrated into the soil and  groundwater at 606 Beech. There is no allegation that hazardous substances were spilled, leaked or otherwise disposed of directly onto the property at 606 Beech. Rather, the allegation is that the flow of underground water carried those substances from 500 Beech, where they had been spilled or leaked, to the neighboring property. Although the hazardous substances eventually wound up at 606 Beech, there is no support for an allegation that the “Release” of those substances occurred at a location other than 500 Beech. Vectron International, Inc, v Corning Oak Holding, Inc, 515408, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

/ , , ,

Prevailing Wage Law Not Preempted by Federal Telecommunications Act or Labor Relations Act

In upholding the finding that petitioner had failed to pay the prevailing wage for work done for a school district, the Third Department determined the prevailing wage law was not preempted by the federal Telecommunications Act and the Labor Management Relations Act:

Generally, a federal law may supersede a state law where Congress explicitly declares preemption as its intent …, or where the federal law is “‘so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the [s]tates to supplement it'” …. The Court of Appeals has observed, however, that “[t]he presumption against preemption is especially strong with regard to laws that affect the states’ historic police powers over occupational health  and safety issues” …. While the Telecommunications Act is intended to exclusively govern the field of telecommunications service (see 47 USC § 253 [a]), the prevailing wage law is a minimum labor standard … .As such, it falls within the Telecommunications Act’s safe harbor provision, which provides that  “[n]othing  in this section  shall affect the  ability of  a [s]tate to impose, on a competitively neutral basis . . . requirements necessary to . . . protect the public safety and welfare” (47 USC  §  253  [b]). … Nor is the prevailing wage law preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act. That statute provides that federal law governs suits to enforce collective bargaining agreements (see 29 USC § 185 [a]). While it is true that the Department  of Labor refers to collective bargaining agreements  to determine  prevailing wages,  those  agreements  are  not  necessarily determinative, and the rights conferred by the prevailing wage law  are independent of those conferred by  such  agreements … . Matter of Pascazi v Gardner, 513528, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

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