You are here: / Department of Corrections Has Right to Force-Feed Inmate on Hunger Str...

Search Results

/ , ,

Department of Corrections Has Right to Force-Feed Inmate on Hunger Strike

The Court of Appeals determined that the state has the right to force-feed an inmate (Dorsey) who is on a hunger strike, once the inmate’s life is in jeopardy.  The opinion by Judge Graffeo is lengthy and deals with preservation requirements, the mootness doctrine, as well as the constitutional rights implicated in the refusal of medical care.  Judge Lippman dissented, addressing primarily his view that the issues discussed on appeal had not been preserved and the “exception to mootness” doctrine had been misapplied.  Judge Graffeo wrote:

It is therefore evident that DOCCS’ decision to intervene when Dorsey’s hunger strike progressed to the point that his life was in jeopardy was reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives. Taking action to interrupt an inmate hunger strike not only serves to preserve life and prevent a suicide but also to maintain institutional order and security. There was no way that DOCCS could effectuate these interests other than to seek a judicial order permitting feeding by nasogastric tube — less intrusive means had been attempted without success. Dorsey had been moved to the infirmary and medical staff within the facility had repeatedly counseled him in an attempt to get him to voluntarily abandon the hunger strike (as he had done before) to no avail. Matter of Bezio v Dorsey, No 65, CtApp, 5-2-13

 

/

Department of Corrections Immune from Wrongful Confinement Suit

The Third Department affirmed the dismissal of a complaint by an inmate suing the Department of Corrections for wrongful confinement (after the annulment of a disciplinary determination) on immunity grounds: “[A]ctions of correctional facility employees with respect to inmate discipline matters are quasi-judicial in nature and, unless the employees exceed the scope of their authority or violate the governing statutes and regulations, [defendant] has absolute immunity for those actions”… .Loret v State of New York, 514609, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

/ ,

Conviction Reversed on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Grounds

After reviewing a litany of errors made by defense counsel which demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the procedural and evidentiary principles underlying a criminal prosecution, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversed defendant’s conviction because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel:

In order to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a court must consider whether defense counsel’s actions at trial constituted “‘egregious and prejudicial’ error such that defendant did not receive a fair trial” ….. While a single error by defense counsel at trial generally does not constitute ineffective assistance …, courts must examine defense counsel’s entire representation of defendant …. “[T]he claim of ineffectiveness is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole” …. “Defense counsel are charged with managing the day-to-day conduct of defendant’s case and making strategic and tactical decisions” …. Counsel’s performance in fulfilling this role is “objectively evaluated” …”to determine whether it was consistent with strategic decisions of a ‘reasonably competent attorney'” ….  While defense counsel’s errors in thiscase individually may not constitute ineffective assistance, “the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s actions deprived defendant of meaningful representation” …. Defense counsel’s actions throughout this case showed an unfamiliarity with or disregard for basic criminal procedural and evidentiary law. At the very least, a defendant is entitled to representation by counsel that has such basic knowledge, particularly so, when that defendant is facing a major felony with significant liberty implications. Considering the seriousness of the errors in their totality, we conclude that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by less than meaningful representation. People v Oathout, No 81, CtApp, 5-2-13

 

/ ,

Contract-Based Duty Owed to Non-Party Explained

In this case a stove that was not secured to the wall with a bracket tipped over as children either stood or jumped on the oven door. One of the children was killed.  One of the many issues in the case was whether the contractor who installed the stove without the bracket was liable to the surviving child.  In upholding the denial of the contractor’s motion for summary judgment, the Third Department explained when a contractual relationship can give rise to tort liability to a third party:

Defendant contends that, since he performed work as a contractor for the rental agent, he owed no duty to the surviving child and, thus, his motion for summary judgment in this regard should have been granted. “[A] contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party” …. The  three limited exceptions to this general rule include: “(1) where  the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance  of his [or her] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm;  (2) where  the plaintiff detrimentally relies on  the continued performance  of the contracting party’s duties[;] and  (3) where  the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” …. Care must be taken in the application of the exceptions so that they do not “swallow up the general rule” …, and determining whether a duty exists is “a question of law for the courts” ….  Kelley…v Schneck…, 515645, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

ESPINAL

/ , ,

Plaintiff Was Unable to Demonstrate Landlord Had Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint​

Plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the presence of lead paint in defendant’s building, in the face of defendant’s deposition testimony about his lack of knowledge, justified the dismissal of the lead-paint-injury complaint.  The Third Department explained:

“[I]n order for a landlord to be  held liable for injuries resulting from a defective condition upon the premises, the plaintiff must establish that the landlord had actual or constructive notice of the condition for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been corrected” ….To  establish constructive notice in the context of a lead paint case, the plaintiff must show “that the landlord (1) retained a right of entry to the premises and assumed a duty to make repairs, (2) knew that the apartment was constructed at a time before lead-based interior paint was banned,  (3) was aware  that paint was  peeling on  the premises, (4) knew of the hazards of lead-based paint to young children and (5) knew that a young child lived in the apartment” … . Hines v Double D and S Realty Management Corp, 515635, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

/ ,

Criteria for Negligence on Part of Out-of-Possession Landlord with Limited Right of Reentry​

In dismissing a personal injury action stemming from plaintiff’s fall down a two-step interior stairway, the First Department explained the liability criteria for an out-of-possession landlord with limited right to reenter:

As out-of-possession landlords, with a limited right to reenter, they could only be liable for negligence “based on a significant structural or design defect that is contrary to a specific statutory safety provision” …. The only condition alleged on appeal to serve as a predicate for [defendant’s] potential liability involves the riser heights of the steps. Even if the alleged Building Code provision, which concerns uniformity, were applicable and had been violated, the same would not constitute a significant structural or design defect and could not serve as a basis for liability against [defendant]. Drotar v Sweet Thing, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03180, 1st Dept, 5-2-13

SLIP AND FALL

/

Procedure for Sentencing a Second Felony Offender Not Followed

The Second Department sent the matter back for resentencing because of the sentencing court’s failure to follow the statutory procedure for adjudicating defendant a second felony offender:

As the People correctly concede, the sentencing court adjudicated the defendant a second felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.06) absent any indication of compliance with the procedural requirements of CPL 400.21, or any showing that the defendant was given notice and an opportunity to be heard …. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, for resentencing in accordance with the mandates of CPL 400.21 ….  People v Puca, 2013 NY Slip Op 03114, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

/

Failure to Cooperate with Probation Department Is Valid Reason for Enhanced Sentence

The Second Department determined defendant’s failure to cooperate with the probation department in violation of his plea agreement was a valid ground for an enhanced sentence:

The condition of the defendant’s plea that he cooperate with the probation department was explicit and objective, and was acknowledged, understood, and accepted by the defendant as part of the plea agreement …. The defendant’s violation of that condition, by refusing to be interviewed by the probation officer, allowed the Supreme Court to impose the enhanced sentence.  People v Patterson, 2013 NY Slip Op 03113, 5-1-18

 

/

Procedure for Sentencing as Persistent Felony Offender Not Followed

In sending the matter back for resentencing, the Second Department noted that the statutory procedure for sentencing as a persistent felony offender had not been followed:

The Supreme Court erred in failing to provide proper notice of the persistent felony offender hearing pursuant to CPL 400.20(1)-(4), and to set forth specific reasons supporting its determination to sentence the defendant as a persistent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.10[2]…). People v Brown, 2013 NY Slip Op 03111, 2nd Dept, 3-1-13

 

/ , ,

Evidence of Physical Injury (re Assault) Insufficient

In reversing an Assault 3rd conviction, the Second Department determined, under a weight of the evidence analysis, the proof of “physical injury” was insufficient:

Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence, since the evidence presented at trial did not establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9). Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). The complainant testified that he sustained bruising and scraping to his right arm, neck, and back, but he did not seek any medical treatment or miss any work. The complainant also provided no details that would corroborate his subjective description of pain, nor did he take any pain medication. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence that the complainant suffered a “physical injury”…, and the judgment must be reversed and the indictment dismissed. People v Boley, 2013 NY Slip Op 03109, 2nd Dept, 5-1-13

 

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