You are here: / THE PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING THREE BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS...

Search Results

/ ,

THE PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING THREE BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE EITHER NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE OR INACCURATE AND WERE DEEMED PRETEXTUAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the prosecutor’s reasons for striking three Black prospective jurors were pretextual. The proffered reasons were deemed irrelevant and/or inaccurate. The court also noted that the prosecutor improperly told the jury the defendant was guilty:

Supreme Court improperly determined that the facially race-neutral reasons proffered by the prosecutor during step two were not pretextual. With respect to prospective juror no. 6, the prosecutor stated that since this prospective juror “lives on church property,” there were concerns “as to religious reasons, sympathy reasons.” However, during voir dire, this prospective juror was never questioned concerning her religious affiliation, or whether her living situation would make her more sympathetic to the defendant … . …

… “[T]he prosecutor did not offer any explanation for how [two of the] juror[s’] employment [situations] [working with mentally ill people] related to the factual circumstances of the case or the qualifications of the juror[s] to serve” … . People v Vera, 2023 NY Slip Op 06758, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor’s reasons for striking three Black prospective jurors were not relevant to the facts of the case and/or were inaccurate. The Second Department deemed the reasons pretextual and ordered a new trial.

 

/

THE FEDERAL CRIME WHICH WAS USED TO ENHANCE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK; DEFENDANT’S SECOND FELONY ADJUDICATION VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s second felony offender adjudication, noted that federal conviction did not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing:

… [T]he defendant was improperly adjudicated as a second felony offender based on his federal conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, because that predicate crime does not require actual injury as one of its elements (see 18 USC § 1959[a][3]) and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Odom, 2023 NY Slip Op 06756, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a federal crime does not meet the definition of a felony in New York it cannot be used to enhance defendant’s sentence. Here the federal crime did not include actual injury as one of its elements and therefore did not constitute a felony in New York. Defendant’s second felony offender adjudication was vacated.

 

/ ,

IN THIS STREET STOP CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER’S CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN THE OUTLINE OF A GUN UNDER DEFENDANT’S SWEAT PANTS WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE PEOPLE THEREFORE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession-of-a-weapon conviction, determined the People did not meet their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing because the police officer’s (Desposito’s) testimony was not credible. The court went on to say that, even if Desposito’s testimony were true, the evidence did not provide reasonable suspicion for the street stop. Defendant was walking on the sidewalk. Desposito was in a moving car. Desposito claimed he saw the outline of a gun under defendant’s sweat pants and told defendant to stop. Defendant ran, was captured, and a gun was found. Because Desposito was in a moving car and his view of defendant was obscured by parked cars and another pedestrian, the court found his testimony insufficient to meet the “going forward” burden of proof:

… [T]he People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Desposito’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Desposito’s testimony that he was able to observe an “L-shaped object” beneath the defendant’s sweatpants as the police vehicle drove past the defendant strains credulity and defies common sense … . …

… [E]ven if Desposito’s testimony is credited as true, his observations did not constitute specific circumstances indicative of criminal activity so as to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to lawfully pursue the defendant, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight … . People v Leon, 2023 NY Slip Op 06754, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a police officer’s suppression-hearing testimony attempting to demonstrate reasonable suspicion for a street stop is incredible as a matter of law, the People fail to meet their “burden of going forward” and the motion to suppress must be granted.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS AND EXHIBITS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF HE WERE AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter, determined the judge should not have denied defendant’s motion to vacate his plea without holding a hearing. Defendant alleged he would not have pled guilty if he had been informed of the deportation consequences:

According to the defendant’s motion and exhibits, he allegedly immigrated to the United States at approximately 17 years of age, resided here for approximately 26 years, was employed in the United States, and had two children here. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s allegations in his motion that he would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation, were sufficient to raise an issue of fact in that regard … . Therefore, the County Court erred in deciding the defendant’s motion to vacate his plea without a hearing. People v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 06752, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a defendant, in a motion to vacate his plea, raises a question of fact about whether he would have pled guilty if he had know he could be deported, the judge should not deny the motion without holding a hearing.

 

/ , ,

THE JUDGE HAD A COURT OFFICER COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY ABOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should not have communicated with the jury outside of the defendant’s presence and should not have delegated the court’s duty to a court officer. When the jury sent out the verdict sheet, the judge noticed a mistake. The jury had indicated “guilty on all counts,” including count 2, but the jury should have been instructed to skip count 2 if it found defendant guilty of count 1. The judge sent a court officer to the jury to explain the mistake. The jury came back with a verdict of guilty on count 2. Defense counsel did not object to the procedure:

“[A] defendant has the right to be present during all critical stages of a trial and . . . this includes the right to be present when the jury is given instructions or information by the court” … . “Equally true is that the court may not delegate to a nonjudicial staff member its authority to instruct the jury on matters affecting their deliberations” … . While “[a] Trial Judge may properly authorize a court officer to speak to a deliberating jury when the subject of the communication is administerial[,] . . . a Trial Judge who authorizes a court officer to communicate with a jury on matters which are not administerial not only errs, but commits an error so grave as to warrant reversal even though the defendant’s attorney might have consented to the occurrence of the error” … .

… Supreme Court improperly delegated a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member at a critical stage of the proceedings. … [T]he instruction was not a mere ministerial matter. Under the circumstances, where the jury was deliberating and had expressed confusion about the relationship between counts one and two, the court’s rejection of the verdict sheet and the instruction to correct it was an instruction regarding the jury’s deliberation … . Thus, the defendant was absent during a critical stage of the trial, and the court improperly delegated a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member … . People v Fulton, 2023 NY Slip Op 06750, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: It is reversible error for a judge to communicate with the jury outside the defendant’s presence.

Practice Point: It is reversible error for a judge to allow a court officer to communicate with the jury about a substantive matter.

 

/ ,

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PREMATURE (MADE BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED) AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED THE ISSUE COULD BE HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for summary judgment which was brought before issue was joined should not have been granted. Although the issue was not preserved for appeal, the Second Department heard the appeal because it presented a pure question of law that could not have been avoided if it was brought up below:

“A motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined and the requirement is strictly adhered to” … . Since H Mart’s motion was made prior to joinder of issue, the Supreme Court should not have granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract alleging failure to procure insurance … . “Although this argument is raised for the first time on appeal, we reach the argument because it presents a pure question of law appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided if raised at the proper juncture” … . Maurizaca v CW Highridge Plaza, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06734, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: A motion for summary judgment will be denied if made before issue is joined.

Practice Point: An issue that is not preserved for appeal may be decided on appeal if it presents a pure question of law which could not have been avoided if it had been raised below.

 

/ ,

A FACTUAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD CONVICTION AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS BASED ON THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the record was not sufficient to support summary judgment on the neglect allegations based upon respondent’s plea to endangering the welfare of a child:

… [A] criminal conviction may be given collateral estoppel effect in a Family Court proceeding where (1) the identical issue has been resolved, and (2) the defendant in the criminal action had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of his or her criminal conduct” … . “It is well settled that [t]he party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination” … . * * *

“[I]t is not enough to merely establish the existence of the criminal conviction; the petitioner must prove a factual nexus between the conviction and the allegations made in the neglect petition” … . Matter of Clarissa F. (Rex O.), 2023 NY Slip Op 06680, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Here a factual nexus between the endangering the welfare of a child conviction and the allegations of neglect was not demonstrated. Summary judgment on the neglect allegations based solely on the criminal conviction should not have been granted.

 

/

THE STRICT LIABILITY THEORY APPLIES HERE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS KICKED BY DEFENDANT’S HORSE; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHICH HORSE KICKED PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S AWARENESS OF THE RISK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in this action stemming from defendant being kicked by plaintiff’s horse. There were questions of fact about which of plaintiff’s horses kicked the plaintiff and whether plaintiff was aware of the risk of approaching the horse. Plaintiff was familiar with the horses and defendant had called plaintiff because two of the horses were fighting. The court rejected the argument that negligence, as opposed to strict liability, was the applicable theory:

Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7) classifies horses as domestic animals, and ” ‘[w]hen harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule’ . . . of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities” … (quoting Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 599 [2006] …) . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the exception to that rule set forth in Hastings v Sauve (21 NY3d 122, 125-126 [2013]) does not apply here, inasmuch as the horse did not stray from defendant’s property .. . Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, he may not maintain a negligence claim against defendant under the reasoning of Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC (35 NY3d 541 [2020]). In that case, the Court of Appeals held that the Bard rule, set forth above, does not apply to a veterinary clinic … . The Court reasoned that the Bard “line of precedent concerning animal owners [was not] directly implicated” in Hewitt … . By contrast, inasmuch as defendant was the owner of the horse that injured plaintiff, the Bard rule of strict liability applies here. Shuttleworth v Cory, 2023 NY Slip Op 06635, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Strict liability, not negligence, controls in this horse-kick case. The recent Court of Appeals applications of a negligence theory to injury caused by animals do not apply here.

 

/ , , , ,

​ ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW, FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION IS REQUIRED UNDER THE TOWN LAW; BECAUSE THE TOWN HAD TIMELY KNOWELDGE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) although plaintiff would not have been required to file a notice of claim for an employment discrimination action against a city pursuant to the General Municipal Law, plaintiff is required to file a notice of claim for the instant employment discrimination action against the town pursuant to the Town Law, and (2) plaintiff was entitled to leave to file a late notice of claim. The notice of claim provisions in the Town Law are broader than those in the General Municipal Law and include “wrong to a person” which encompasses employment discrimination:

Consistent with the purpose of the Human Rights Law, unlawful discrimination and retaliation is undoubtably considered a wrong against a person (see Executive Law § 290 [3]). Thus, the plain, unambiguous text of Town Law § 67 directs that a notice of claim is required for an action alleging violations of the Human Rights Law. * * *

Although the presence or absence of any given factor is not determinative, it is well settled that “[a] factor to be accorded great weight in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is whether the [public corporation] had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim, including knowledge of the injuries or damages” … . …

… [T]here is no dispute that the Town and its officers had timely actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim … . Arnold v Town of Camillus, 2023 NY Slip Op 06627, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Unlike the General Municipal Law, the Town Law requires the filing of a notice of claim for an employment discrimination action under the Human Rights Law.

Practice Point: The most important criterium for granting leave to file a late notice of claim is the defendant’s timely knowledge of the facts underlying the action.

 

/ ,

HERE THE WRITTEN LOGGING CONTRACT WAS COMPLETE AND UNAMBIGUOUS; EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ADDITIONAL ORAL AGREEMENT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the contract at issue was complete and any evidence of an alleged oral agreement was precluded by the parol evidence rule:

 “The parol evidence rule generally operates to preclude evidence of a prior or contemporaneous communication during negotiations of an agreement that contradicts, varies, or explains a written agreement which is clear and unambiguous in its terms and expresses the parties’ entire agreement and intentions” … . …

Defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the timber sale contract is a complete written instrument, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . The contract sets forth the parties, the address of the property, the contract period, the payment terms, and a description of the items sold … . There is no reference to any other document or map … . Inasmuch as the contract constituted a complete, integrated agreement, plaintiffs may not rely on an alleged oral agreement to permit logging on the southernmost section of the property, permit logging on the middle section of the property only upon additional payment, and prohibit logging on the northernmost section of the property, to vary the terms of the contract. Indeed, one would expect the contract to embody any such restrictions on logging, and “[s]uch a collateral agreement cannot be separately enforced” … . Lentner v Upstate Forestry & Dev., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06626, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Where a written contract is complete and unambiguous on its face, evidence of an additional oral agreement is precluded by the parol evidence rule.

 

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