You are here: / ​ALL AGREED A MULTIPLICITOUS COUNT SHOULD BE DISMISSED; THE CONCURRENCE A...

Search Results

/

​ALL AGREED A MULTIPLICITOUS COUNT SHOULD BE DISMISSED; THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PROSECUTION HERE WAS UNNECESSARY AND A RESTORATIVE-JUSTICE APPROACH WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals dismissed a multiplicitous count of the indictment. The concurrence by Judge Wilson argued that the underlying prosecution would have been better replaced by a restorative-justice approach. The grand larceny and perjury charges stemmed from what all parties agreed was a “dumb argument” on the street:

A multiplicitous indictment “creates the risk that a defendant will be punished for, or stigmatized with a conviction of, more crimes than [they] actually committed” … . Even when the multiplicitous convictions do not increase the defendant’s sentence, the stigma of impermissible convictions endures and must be remedied. Thus, when a defendant is convicted of multiplicitous charges, the proper remedy is vacatur of all but one of the multiplicitous convictions and dismissal of those counts of the indictment, regardless of whether that corrective action has any effect on the defendant’s sentence. Here, there is no dispute regarding the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the two counts of perjury of which defendant was ultimately convicted were multiplicitous. As the People concede, the proper remedy is therefore dismissal of one of the convictions. People v Greene, 2024 NY Slip Op 00096, CtApp 1-11-24

Practice Point: It is entirely proper to dismiss a multiplicitous indictment-count after trial.

Practice Point: Here Judge Wilson, in a concurrence, argued that this prosecution, which arose from a “dumb argument” on the street, was unnecessary. The case should have been handled with a restorative-justice approach.

 

/ , ,

THE NEW JERSEY ORDER AND JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE NEW YORK FORECLOSURE ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a New Jersey order and judgment should have been accorded full faith and credit in this foreclosure action:

“A judgment rendered by a court of a sister State is accorded ‘the same credit, validity, and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced’ ” … . Our review of the foreign judgment at issue is “limited to determining whether the rendering court had jurisdiction” … . It is undisputed that the New Jersey court had jurisdiction as the defendants appeared in the action and vigorously litigated the matter for years, thus, “inquiry into the merits of the underlying dispute is foreclosed” … and “the merits of [the] judgment of a sister state may not be collaterally attacked” … . Accordingly, a “decree of a sister [s]tate in which [the] parties were subject to personal jurisdiction in that [s]tate is entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of New York” … . Sjogren v Land Assoc., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: A New York court’s only function in determining whether a foreign state’s order and judgment should be accorded full faith and credit is assessing whether the foreign court had jurisdiction over the matter.

 

/ ,

IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that the combined hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law sections 9.31 and 9.39 was improper but the patient was not prejudiced by the procedure. The respondent had been released from the hospital, so the appeal was moot. But the Third Department heard the case because the issue was likely to otherwise evade review:

As we understand respondent’s position, she maintains that in the context presented — where a patient is admitted on an emergency basis under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 and has demanded a hearing, but whose status is converted to an involuntary admission on medical certification under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27 prior to the hearing — the ensuing hearing must be limited to a section 9.39 format. Respondent emphasizes that she never requested a hearing under section 9.31 to challenge her involuntary admission. By holding a combined hearing, respondent contends that County Court deprived her of her statutory right to demand a later hearing under section 9.31. * * *

The … question is whether County Court improperly combined the hearings … to conclusively resolve whether respondent was entitled to release that day, assuming the proof fell short under either standard. That question is resolved by the procedures outlined in Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31 (a) and 9.39 (a) (2), which vest in the patient — not the court or hospital — the right to request a hearing under each section. In that regard, we agree with respondent that, because she never requested a hearing under section 9.31, the court erred in holding a combined hearing and she retained the right to later request a hearing under section 9.31. On the other hand, had respondent also requested a section 9.31 hearing, we see no reason why a combined hearing could not be held by the court, provided it did so within the applicable statutory deadlines and considered both statutory standards in rendering its decision. Matter of Julie O., 2024 NY Slip Op 00015, Third Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: Here an “emergency” hospital admission under the Mental Hygiene Law and an “involuntary” admission were pending at the same the time. The admissions have different standards. Therefore, if the patient does not request a combined hearing the court should not hold one. However a patient could request a combined hearing.

Practice Point: Here the patient had been released from the hospital and the appeal of the patient’s admission was moot. However the Third Department considered the case because the issue was likely to evade review.

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFFS’ RECUSAL MOTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS ACTIVE IN THE JUDGE’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge in a traffic accident case should have granted plaintiffs’ recusal motion. Plaintiffs had learned defense counsel was active in the judge’s election campaign and had failed to disclose that information to the parties:

…Justice Muller did not disclose to the parties that defense counsel and his law firm were providing assistance to his judicial campaign. Plaintiffs independently learned of the fundraiser, prompting them to raise the issue and seek the judge’s recusal. The record establishes that the law firm hosted a fundraising event for Justice Muller, that the names of defense counsel and five other attorneys from his firm appeared as supporters on Justice Muller’s campaign website and that defense counsel wrote a favorable opinion letter endorsing Justice Muller’s candidacy which appeared in several news publications throughout the Fourth Judicial District. Furthermore, the JCEC’s [Judicial Campaign Ethics Center’s] … letter clearly states that Justice Muller was “disqualified, subject to remittal, from presiding over matters involving defense counsel and his law firm, including partners and associates, during the course of [his] judicial campaign” … . Although we have no way of knowing Justice Muller’s reasons or intentions, it is undisputed that he did not disclose the JCEC letter to the parties until a month after receiving it, when his campaign results became official, and he was elected to a new term of office. As judges need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Justice Muller should have disclosed the JCEC letter upon receipt and recused from the matter as soon as possible (see Rules Governing Jud Conduct [22 NYCRR] §100.3 [E] [1]; Advisory Comm on Jud Ethics Op 03-64 [2003]). Therefore, Justice Muller abused his discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for recusal. Minckler v D’Ella, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to disclose to the parties defense counsel’s involvement in the judge’s election campaign required recusal.

 

/ , ,

THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the guarantor of a lease for a barbershop that was forced to close by the Governor of New York during COVID was relieved of liability for unpaid rent only for the period covered by NYC’s Guaranty Law:

As part of its declarations of intent and findings for the amendments extending the closing of the period of the Guaranty Law (first from September 30, 2020 to March 31, 2021, then from March 31, 2021 to June 30, 2021), the City Council made plain that the protections were “temporary,” and designed to provide businesses covered by the law with “a reasonable recovery period with a duration that is comparable to the period of time that [the] businesses were forced to close or operate with significant limitations on indoor occupancy” (New York City Local Laws 98/2020 and 50/2021, §§ 1[a][7], [9]).

In light of the language of the Guaranty Law and its legislative history, we conclude that the law “bars only those claims against guarantors seeking rent that came due within the [law’s] protection period” … . Tamar Equities Corp. v Signature Barbershop 33 Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00039, First Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: New York City’s Guaranty Law relieves a guarantor of its liability for unpaid rent during a COVID-related business closure only for the “COVID” period described in the Guaranty Law.

 

/

DEFENDANT INSURER DID NOT TIMELY DISCLAIM COVERAGE AND IS THEREFORE OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE INSURED; A DISCLAIMER-NOTIFICATION MUST BE SPECIFIC AND UNAMBIGUOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant Navigators Insurance Company, did not timely notify plaintiff Titan that Navigators was disclaiming coverage. Therefore Navigators was required to defend Titan:

Because Navigators sought to deny coverage based on that policy exclusion, it was required under Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2) to provide written notice of the disclaimer as soon as reasonably possible after receiving Titan’s tender in which it sought coverage under as an additional insured … . Furthermore, the application of this exclusion was obvious and did not require an investigation … . We therefore find that Navigators’ unexplained delay in disclaiming coverage – seven months after the first tender and almost three months after the second was unreasonable as a matter of law … .

We reject Navigators’ contention that it did, in fact, disclaim coverage in an email to Titan’s insurance broker. Although the email mentioned the exclusion, it did not unequivocally state that Navigators was disclaiming coverage (Insurance Law § 3420[d][2] …). Nor did the email apprise Titan, with the high degree of specificity required, of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer was predicated … . Titan Indus. Servs. Corp. v Navigators Ins. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 00041, First Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: An insurer must notify the insured it is disclaiming coverage as soon as possible and in specific, unambiguous language.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S “INADEQUATE FALL-PROTECTION” CAUSES OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT FROM A NURSE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A PHYSICIAN (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the two “inadequate fall-prevention” causes of action in the complaint sounded in medical malpractice, not negligence. Therefore the affidavit from a nurse was not sufficient to support the malpractice causes of action:

Defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment with respect to the specific allegations sounding in medical malpractice, by and through an expert’s affidavit from a physician opining that decedent was provided with fall prevention interventions throughout her admission that met or exceeded the standard of care, and that, following each fall, decedent was rendered the appropriate medical care and treatment. Moreover, this physician opined that the treatment plan developed for decedent and the care rendered to her were within the standard of care and were not a substantial factor in causing the alleged injuries … . In opposition, plaintiff tendered an expert affidavit from a nurse. However, inasmuch as certain allegations sound in medical malpractice and pertain to medical determinations and what a physician should or should not have done, plaintiff’s nurse rendered opinions that “went beyond her professional and educational experience and cannot be considered competent medical opinion” … . Currie v Oneida Health Sys., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06780, Second Dept 12-28-23

Practice Point: Re: the medical malpractice causes of action, the affidavit from a physician in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment prevailed over plaintiff’s affidavit from a nurse who, based on her experience and education, could not offer a competent medical opinion.

 

/ ,

THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION’S (NRA’S) FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL (NYAD) WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITH RESPECT TO THE RETALIATION COUNTERCLAIM, THE NYAD DEMONSTRATED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SUE THE NRA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scarpulla, determined the National Rifle Association’s (NRA’s) First Amendment retaliation and selective enforcement counterclaims against the New York Attorney General (NYAG) were properly dismissed. The First Amendment retaliation claim was properly analyzed under the “no probable cause” standard. The underlying action by the NYAD alleged improper use of NRA funds by the defendants, among other allegations:

… [T]he NRA asserted counterclaims against the NYAG for First Amendment retaliation and selective enforcement. Specifically, the NRA alleged that while the NYAG was campaigning for her current position, she displayed animus towards the NRA by promising to “take down the NRA” using her power as attorney general to regulate charities. James allegedly called the NRA a “terrorist organization” and “criminal enterprise.” The NRA further alleged that the NYAG, rather than working with the NRA to fix issues, as it has done in other cases involving not-for-profit corporations, instead sought dissolution, an extreme remedy not frequently pursued by the NYAG. * * *

On this issue of first impression, we hold that the proper legal standard applicable to First Amendment retaliation claims in civil enforcement proceedings such as this one is the no probable cause standard articulated in Hartman and Nieves (see generally DeMartini v Town of Gulf Stream, 942 F3d 1277, 1304-1306 [11th Cir 2019] …, McBeth v Himes, 598 F3d 708, 717-720 [10th Cir 2010]). …

Applying the no probable cause standard here, the NRA’s First Amendment retaliation counterclaims were properly dismissed for lack of causation … . That is, the NYAG showed as a matter of law that it had probable cause to investigate and sue the NRA … . People v National Rifle Assn. of Am., 2023 NY Slip Op 06819, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: The correct standard for analyzing a First Amendment retaliation claim is whether there was “no probable cause” to commence the underlying lawsuit. Here the First Department determined the NYAG had probable cause to sue the NRA, which defeated the NRA’ First Amendment retaliation counterclaim.

 

/ ,

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS INSPECTED “MORE THAN AN HOUR” BEFORE AND EVIDENCE OTHERS WERE IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE FALL DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant hospital did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of the wet substance on the floor alleged to have cause plaintiff’s slip and fall. Evidence that the corridor in question was inspected “more than an hour” before the slip and fall and evidence others were in the corridor when plaintiff fell did not eliminate questions fact about whether the hospital had constructive notice of the condition:

… [T]he defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition. The defendant’s evidence that the corridor was inspected more than an hour before the accident was insufficient to establish that the condition did not exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy the condition. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony, submitted by the defendant in support of its motion, established that there were at least three nurses and a doctor present in the corridor at the time of her fall … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that she did not notice anything on the floor before she fell was insufficient to establish that the condition would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection … . Croake v Flushing Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 06723, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: In a slip and fall, evidence the area of the fall was inspected “more than an hour” before the fall does not demonstrate the defendant did not have constructive notice of the condition.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RELEASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this traffic accident case had raised questions of fact about when the release signed by plaintiff under unfair circumstances:

… [P]laintiff’s allegations were sufficient to raise questions of fact as to whether the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances that indicate unfairness, and whether it was not “fairly and knowingly” made … . The plaintiff averred, among other things, that shortly after the accident, an insurance representative for the defendants called him “repeatedly;” that he had difficulty understanding the defendants’ representative due to a language barrier; that the defendants’ representative, who had him sign the release to obtain money for medical bills, never explained that the document he signed was a release or had the legal effect of the release; and that the plaintiff was not represented by an attorney at the time he signed the release. Moreover, the plaintiff raised questions of fact as to whether there was mutual mistake as to the nature of the injuries sustained by plaintiff from the alleged accident … . Wei Qiang Huang v Llerena-Salazar, 2023 NY Slip Op 06772, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: Unfair circumstances surrounding the signing of a release, short of fraud, can invalidate it.

 

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