You are here: / ​ ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF M...

Search Results

/ ,

​ ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMITED DEFENDANT TO SIX MONTHS IN A SECURE FACILITY PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20(6) WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, who entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, should not have been committed to a secure facility pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) based on a finding defendant suffers from a dangerous mental condition or is mentally ill without first holding a hearing:

The Supreme Court committed reversible error by issuing a commitment order without conducting an initial hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) … . The court’s obligation to provide the initial hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) is mandatory … . At the initial hearing “the People must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant either suffers from a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill” … . Here, the court improperly made a finding that the defendant suffers from a dangerous mental disorder and committed him to a secure facility for six months without first conducting a mandatory hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) and, thus, deprived the defendant of an opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatric examiners and to present his own testimony … . People v Anthony N., 2024 NY Slip Op 00328, Second Dept 1-24-24

Practice Point: Before a defendant can be committed to a secure facility for six months based upon a finding defendant suffers from a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill, the court must conduct a hearing.

 

/ , , , ,

THE 2020 AMENDMENTS BROADENING THE REACH OF THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE DO NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM BASED UPON THE AMENDED STATUTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s counterclaim under the anti-SLAPP statute should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, an attorney, brought this action for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on letters and emails written by defendant which allegedly were intended to damage plaintiff’s reputation in the legal profession. The counterclaim alleged the defendant’s letters and emails were protected by the anti-SLAPP statute in the Civil Rights Law. The Second Department determined the 2020 amendments to that statute, which expanded its reach, do not apply retroactively and defendant, therefore, could not take advantage of those amendments: The counterclaim should have been dismissed:

The first counterclaim alleged that this action was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (hereinafter SLAPP) and sought, among other things, attorney’s fees, costs, and damages pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a. * * *

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the broadened definition of public petition and participation in the amended section 76-a does not apply retroactively to this action … . The complaint, therefore, is governed by the prior statutory definition of an action involving public petition and participation … . Burton v Porcelain, 2024 NY Slip Op 00291, Second Dept 1-24-24

Practice Point: The 2020 amendments to the anti-SLAPP statute do not apply retroactively. Lawsuits started before the amendments cannot take advantage of the broader reach of the amendments.

 

/ , , , ,

THE OWNER OF A COOPERATIVE BUILDING WAS PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR FAILING TO REMEDIATE LEAD PAINT IN A SHAREHOLDER’S APARTMENT WHICH WAS SUBLET TO PLAINTIFF AND HER YOUNG DAUGHTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined the owner of the building (Windsor) in which a cooperative shareholder, Sersch, sublet her cooperative apartment to plaintiff, had constructive knowledge plaintiff’s young daughter was living with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning and peeling lead paint was found in the apartment. Summary judgment finding Windsor liable for failing to remediate the lead paint problem was affirmed:

Windsor’s agents’ frequent and consistent interactions with plaintiff and the infant plaintiff were sufficient to provide constructive notice to Windsor … . Windsor failed to proffer an affidavit from any of the doormen stating that they did not know plaintiff and the infant plaintiff or were unaware of their residence. Under these circumstances, Windsor failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the issue of constructive notice … . * * *

Windsor argues that section [NYC Administrative Code] 27-2056.15(c) exempts it from the duty to remediate and abate the lead paint in the apartment because Sersch “occupied” the apartment during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. Here, the terms of the sublease and the stipulation of settlement clearly indicate that the apartment was not “occupied” by Sersch during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. E.S. v Windsor Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00267, First Dept 1-23-24

Practice Point; Here the owner of a cooperative building was deemed liable under New York City law for failure to remediate lead paint in a shareholder’s apartment which had been sublet to plaintiff and her young daughter.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT CITE A VIOLATION OF ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, WHICH WOULD ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD A CODE VIOLATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the bill of particulars to allege a violation of an Industrial Code provision describing the construction of platforms. Plaintiff was walking on a rebar mat when he fell. The rebar mat could be considered to be a “platform” which, under the Industrial Code, requires planking:

Regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, defendants “made a prima facie showing of entitlement to [summary] judgment” because “plaintiff did not cite any Industrial Code provision that allegedly was violated here in his complaint [or] bill of particulars” … . “However, this failure is not necessarily fatal to a section 241(6) claim and, in the absence of unfair surprise or prejudice, may be rectified by amendment, even where a note of issue has been filed” … . Plaintiff, in seeking to amend the bill of particulars, asserted a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(1), which requires that “[a]ny platform used as a working area or used for the unloading of wheelbarrows, power buggies, hand carts or hand trucks” to “be provided with a floor of planking at least two inches thick full size, exterior grade plywood at least three-quarters inch thick or metal of equivalent strength.” “[T]he platforms contemplated by that section are those used to transport vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic” … . Since it is uncontroverted that plaintiff was traversing the rebar mat carrying more rebar, and workers were expected to walk over the rebar mat, there is at least an issue of fact as to whether the rebar mat qualified as a platform used to transport pedestrian traffic. Plaintiff’s “belated identification of th[is] section[] entails no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and results in no prejudice to the defendant[s]” … . Thus, plaintiff is granted leave to amend his bill of particulars on this point, and summary judgment dismissing the § 241(6) claim is denied. Marte v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00231, First Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: Here in this Labor Law 240(1) action, plaintiff was allowed to amend his bill of particulars to cite a violation of the Industrial Code. Where there is no prejudice this type of amendment can be allowed even after the note of issue is filed.

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANT CANNOT APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING; HE MUST FIRST BE ADJUDICATED BY THE SORA COURT AND MAY SUBSEQUENTLY APPEAL REQUESTING AN ANNULMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in full-fledged opinion by Judge Pitt-Burke, determined the defendant could not appeal an interlocutory order which denied his motion to dismiss the SORA proceeding. Defendant had been convicted of a federal offense and argued the Penal Law did not criminalize the use of morphed images which did not depict actual sexual conduct by a child. The First Department held the defendant must go through with the SORA hearing and subsequently make this argument on appeal:

By its plain language, Correction Law § 168-n (3) only permits an appeal “as of right” from the SORA court’s risk level determination order. To find otherwise would be to ignore the legislative intent of the statutory language … . Namely, the procedural safeguards afforded to defendant in Correction Law § 168-n (3) require the SORA court to conduct a risk assessment hearing before it renders an order requiring him to register as a sex offender in New York and assigns him a risk level designation. Until a hearing is held and a determination made, the defendant’s liberty interest as related to the SORA proceeding has not yet been adjudicated (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). …

Under to CPLR 5701 (a) (2) (v), “[a]n appeal may be taken to the appellate division as of right . . . from an order . . . where the motion it decided was made upon notice and it . . . affects a substantial right.” Even assuming defendant’s interpretation of Correction Law § 168-n (3) is correct, the interlocutory order appealed from does not require defendant to register as a sex offender. In fact, the very procedural safeguards noted above prevent the SORA court from issuing such an order without a hearing. People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 00248, First Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: Defendant could not appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the SORA risk-level proceeding before it was conducted. Defendant contended the federal offense of which he was convicted involved morphed images that did not depict actual sexual conduct by a child, a circumstance, he argued, not covered by the New York Penal Law.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT DEPORTATION BASED ON THE PLEA WAS POSSIBLE, BUT HE WAS NOT TOLD IT WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE MAY HAVE DECIDED TO GO TO TRIAL IF HE HAD BEEN AWARE OF THE MANDATORY DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his guilty plea. Although the court and defense counsel warned defendant he may be subject to deportation based upon his guilty plea, defendant was not told by counsel that deportation would be mandatory. Defendant was entitled to a hearing on whether he was afforded effective assistance of counsel:

During the plea colloquy, County Court — after prompting by the People — advised defendant that his plea to a felony “may result in [his] deportation” and, at the time of sentencing, defense counsel acknowledged that defendant “took a plea with the understanding that there might be some [i]mmigration issues.” Similarly, defendant averred in support of his CPL 440.10 motion that defense counsel “said that there was only a possibility that [he] could be deported,” and that neither County Court nor defense counsel ever told him “that [he] would be deported if [he] plead[ed] guilty.” These advisements were erroneous, and, as … defense counsel readily could have ascertained — simply from a reading of the relevant statutes — …defendant’s plea to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree rendered deportation presumptively mandatory … and rendered defendant ineligible for cancellation of an order of removal … . “Where, as here, defense counsel gives incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, that constitutes ineffective assistance under the first prong of Strickland” [466 US 668] … .

With respect to the issue of prejudice, defendant averred that he came to the United States as an asylee in 2000 and, in 2006, his status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident. According to defendant, he elected to plead guilty because counsel advised him “that it was the only way to avoid going to jail for a prolonged period of time, and because [counsel] said [he] would have a chance to prevail if [i]mmigration tried to deport [him].” Had he been aware that “criminal [possession] of a controlled substance in the third degree was a mandatory deportable crime,” defendant averred, “[he] would not have plead[ed] guilty and [would have] insisted on going to trial.” These averments, coupled with the fact that, at the time of his arrest, defendant had been residing in Schenectady County for eight years, was self-employed as a mechanic and, together with his long-term partner, was the parent of triplets, raise “a question of fact as to whether it was reasonably probable that [he] would not have entered a plea of guilty if he had been correctly advised of the deportation consequences of the plea” … . “As defendant sufficiently alleged that counsel provided incorrect information concerning the deportation consequences that would result from [his] guilty plea and that [he] was prejudiced as a result thereof, [he] was entitled to a hearing on . . . [his] CPL 440.10 motion” … . People v Marcellus, 2024 NY Slip Op 00209, Third Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: Informing a defendant that he may be deported based upon his guilty plea when deportation is mandatory constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

/ ,

PETITIONERS, RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 78 COMPELLING THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO HEAR RATE APPEALS WHICH CHALLENGE MEDICAID RATE PAYMENTS; BECAUSE THE REQUESTED RELIEF REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MANDAMUS RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined that petitioners, 23 residential health care facilities which participate in the federal and state Medicaid programs administered by the NYS Department of Health, did not meet the criteria for mandamus relief pursuant to CPLR Article 78. Petitioner sought to compel the respondent to hear rate appeals which challenge payment rates:

… [I]t is axiomatic that “[a] writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances. Such remedy will lie only to enforce a clear legal right where the public official has failed to perform a duty enjoined by law. While mandamus to compel is an appropriate remedy to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty, it is well settled that it will not be awarded to compel an act in respect to which a public officer may exercise judgment or discretion” … . “A discretionary act involves the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result” … .

To be entitled to such relief, petitioners must establish both a clear legal right to the relief demanded and a corresponding nondiscretionary duty — both are equally necessary for mandamus to lie. Petitioners, relying on Klostermann v Cuomo (61 NY2d 525 [1984]), contend that respondent’s duty to process rate appeals is clear and that respondent is mandated to process the appeals even if the statutory cap prevents respondent from paying the amount due. However, even if we agree with petitioners that respondent has a duty to process appeals, the determination of whether something has taken place within a reasonable time necessarily “involves a discretionary determination” … and thus precludes mandamus relief. Matter of Woodside Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v Zucker, 2024 NY Slip Op 00211, Third Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: Only ministerial acts can be compelled by a writ of mandamus pursuant to CPLR Article 78. If, as here, the requested relief requires the exercise of discretion, mandamus is not available.

 

/ , , , ,

THERE IS NO INDICATION MOTHER WAS INFORMED OF HER COUNSEL’S WITHDRAWAL BEFORE THE PERMANENCY HEARING WAS HELD IN MOTHER’S AND COUNSEL’S ABSENCE; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT AND MOTHER’S ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined it was not demonstrated mother was informed of her counsel’s intent to withdraw from representing her before the judge conducted the permanency hearing in counsel’s and mother’s absence and found against her. The two-justice dissent argued no appeal lies from a default and mother’s recourse was to move to vacate the default pursuant of CPLR 5015(a):

It is well established that the mother, as a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Ct Act, had both a constitutional and a statutory right to the assistance of counsel … . Once counsel has been assigned, an attorney of record may withdraw from representation only upon reasonable notice to his or her client … . Such requirement remains true even where a party fails to appear at proceedings or there are allegations of a breakdown in communication between the client and the attorney … .

Here, there is no indication in the record that the mother’s assigned counsel had informed her that she was seeking to withdraw as counsel … . Nor does the record reveal that Family Court made any inquiry into such notice or whether there was good and sufficient cause for such withdrawal … . Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), 2024 NY Slip Op 00215, Third Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: There is no evidence mother in this neglect proceeding was informed of her counsel’s withdrawal before the court made the neglect finding in her and her counsel’s absence. Matter reversed and remitted.

Practice Point: Two dissenters argued no appeal lies from a default and mother’s only remedy is a motion to vacate the default.

 

/ ,

CLAIMANT, A TEACHER IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL, WAS NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME TO CONSULT WITH HER DOCTOR ABOUT WHETHER TO OBEY THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; THE DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS REVERSED AND THE MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant, a teacher in a Catholic school, was not given enough time to consult with her doctor about the COVID vaccine. Claimant had been informed on or about September 24 she would be terminated if she did not get vaccinated by September 27. Claimant had already had COVID and wanted to discuss whether she had natural immunity with her doctor. The Board deemed her unable to meet an essential function of her job on September 28 and denied Unemployment Insurance benefits:

Although claimant testified that she was unsure about whether to get the vaccine, when she was asked, hypothetically, if she would have gotten the vaccine to keep her job if she had been provided more time, she testified that she would have if she “knew it was safe” and that she “probably” would have, provided she was given an opportunity to consult with her doctor. Even crediting the ALJ’s finding that claimant was notified on September 23, 2021 about the possibility of a vaccine requirement, providing claimant with only four days, two of which were weekend days, to comply with the vaccination mandate was unreasonable. In light of this finding, the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed … . Matter of Antonaros (Commissioner of Labor), 2024 NY Slip Op 00217, Third Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: The claimant had had COVID and wanted to talk to her doctor about natural immunity before deciding to obey the vaccine mandate. Claimant was not given enough time to do so. The denial of Unemployment Insurance benefits was reversed and the matter remitted.

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION; PLAINITFF’S DECEDENT WAS ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL WITH COVID AND DIED FROM COVID; IMMUNITY IS PROVIDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the medical malpractice complaint should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to defendants’ hospital with COVID-19 and died from COVID-19. Defendants are entitled to immunity from suit by the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [P]laintiff alleges that the decedent was diagnosed with COVID-19 after arriving at Elmhurst Hospital on March 30, 2020, and that he died from COVID-19 on April 9, 2020. The defendants’ submissions, including the complaint and the transcript of the plaintiff’s hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h, conclusively established that the defendants were entitled to immunity under the EDTPA (see Public Health Law former § 3082 …). As the complaint makes no allegations that the defendants’ acts or omissions constituted willful or intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm, none of the exceptions to the immunity provisions of EDTPA apply (see Public Health Law former § 3082[2]). Martinez v NYC Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00186, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: The defendants in the medical malpractice, wrongful death action are immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff’s decedent was admitted to the hospital with COVID and died from COVID.

 

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