You are here: / Criminal Impersonation—Falsely Attributed E-Mails.

Search Results

/

Criminal Impersonation—Falsely Attributed E-Mails.

Defendant was convicted of criminal impersonation (and other offenses) because he sent e-mails which he falsely attributed to scholars who disagreed with the defendant’s father, an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The First Department explained why the defendant’s falsely-attributed e-mails were not protected by the First Amendment: “Defendant was not prosecuted for the content of any of the emails, but only for giving the false impression that his victims were the actual authors of the emails.” People v Golb, 9101, Ind. 2721/09 1st Dept. 1-29-13

Substantially modified by the Ct. of Appeals in People v Golb, 2014 NY Slip Op 03426 [23 NY3d 455], CtApp 5-13-14

 

/

Flight Elevated Level of Suspicion and Justified Pursuit.

The police received a late-night report that three men had committed a robbery and fled into a park. At the park, the police saw the defendant and two other men.  The defendant’s flight upon seeing the officers, who were in plainclothes and were getting out of an unmarked police car, “elevated the level of suspicion to reasonable suspicion of criminality and justified pursuit.”  People v Pitman, 9092, Ind. 2908/10 First Dept. 1-29-13

DeBour, street stops

/ , ,

Spoliation, Discovery Abuse Sanctions, Equitable Estoppel.

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter discussing a breach of contract case with a convoluted history, the First Department dealt with the spoliation of evidence and the appropriate sanctions for spoliation under the CPLR.  It was alleged that a document was deliberately scorched so its authenticity could not be determined by scientific tests.  The Court remanded the case for a hearing on the spoliation issue and determined that, under the facts of the case, if spoliation is demonstrated at the hearing, striking the pleadings would not be an appropriate sanction.  The Court suggested a monetary sanction. Although most of the decision deals with the factual history of the case, there are substantive discussions of sanctions for discovery abuse under CPLR 3126 and the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Melcher v Appolo Medical Fund Management, LLC, et al, 4759-4764, Index 604047/03 First Dept. 1-29-13.

 

/ ,

Third-Party Claims Against Other Law Firms Which Advised Plaintiff.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined a law firm sued for malpractice could assert third party claims against other law firms which advised the plaintiff on the same matter.  There is a substantive discussion of similar third party actions in legal malpractice cases.  Millenium Import, LLC v Reed Smith LLP, et al, Index 603350/07; 591100-07 First Dept. 1-24-13

 

/ ,

Insufficient Proof of Value in Grand Larceny Case.

In a Grand Larceny 3rd case, based on the theft of cell phones, the value of the stolen phones was proved by the testimony of the store manager who did not provide “a basis of knowledge” for her statement of value.  The Second Department noted that “ ‘[c]onclusory statements and rough estimates of value’ that are unsupported by a basis of knowledge are insufficient…”. The conviction was reduced to petit larceny, which requires no proof of value.  People v Sutherland, 2011-06497, Ind. No. 12436/08 Second Dept. 1-23-13

 

/

Answering Juror’s Question Outside Presence of Defendant, Counsel and Other Jurors Required Reversal.

The Second Department determined the trial judge committed reversible error when he answered a juror’s questions in the robing room outside the presence of the defendant, the lawyers and the other jurors. The questions included “when the defendant could be deemed to be responsible ‘by the law’ ….”.  Because the questions were not “ministerial’ and related to “the substantive legal and factual issues of the trial…” the error affected the “organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law.”  Preservation is not required for such a “mode of proceedings” error.  People v Rivera, 2009-11428, Ind. No. 9921/07 Second Dept. 1-23-13

 

/

Lawyer’s Communication Did Not Make “Time of the Essence.”

The Second Department held that the letter from the buyer’s attorney to the seller’s attorney stating that the buyer was prepared to close “on any date … within the next ten days,” and that the buyer would make himself available “at any time and location so designated by you,” and requested that the seller’s attorney “contact me within the next ten days to schedule a closing” did not make “time of the essence” because “it did not clearly and distinctly set a new date and time for closing, and it did not inform the defendant that he would be considered in default if he did not perform by a given date…”. Latora v Ferreira, 2011-09673, Index No. 20462/05 Second Dept. 1-23-13

 

/

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall Case—Slip and Fall Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed.

In a slip and fall involving snow and ice, the defendant, in seeking summary judgment, did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice by offering “some evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned or inspected relative to the time when plaintiff fell….”.  Specifically, the defendant “offered no evidence as to what, if any, cleaning procedures or inspection procedures were performed from December 9 … when the parking lots … were plowed, until the time of the injured plaintiff’s accident on December 12 …”.  Without such evidence, the Second Department held, the defendant did not meet its prima facie burden and the cause of action should not have been dismissed by the trial court.  Feola v City of New York, et al, 2011-06933, Index No. 101006/07, Second Dept. 1-23-13

 

/ ,

Damages for Worry About Baby’s Health Not Recognized in New York.

The Second Department held that plaintiff could not recover for purely emotional damages.  The complaint alleged plaintiff’s doctor knew plaintiff was pregnant, but allowed her to undergo a CT-scan without informing her of the pregnancy. Plaintiff sought damages for “the emotional distress arising from her fear that the CT-scan might have harmed her unborn child.”  The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted because “[n]o such claim is recognized under New York law…”. Nadal v Jaramillo, 2012-04006, Index No. 30748/08 Second Dept.1-23-13

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy