You are here: / IN THIS MURDER TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP UNCHARGED CRIMES...

Search Results

/ , , ,

IN THIS MURDER TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP UNCHARGED CRIMES WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE PRETRIAL SANDOVAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE DID NOT INTERVENE; THE DEFENSE DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s murder and weapons convictions, determined prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene (there were no defense objections) required a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly mentioned uncharged crimes which were not brought up in the Sandoval proceedings:

During their direct case, however, the People elicited testimony from three different witnesses about a prior bad act that had not been included in their Sandoval/Molineux proffer.  * * *

The prosecutor asked defendant whether the incident, which had occurred approximately a decade earlier, involved him shooting a rifle toward another person. Defendant denied this, and he was then questioned as to whether he tried to reload the rifle but was stopped by bystanders, which he also denied. The prosecutor then asked, “is that how you handle your confrontations, you grab a gun and just fire away?” The prosecutor continued the questioning in this vein by asking defendant whether it was “[k]ind of like . . . … [when] you just fired a warning shot out the window, correct?” The prosecutor subsequently cross-examined defendant relative to the incident involving him shooting someone off a motorcycle — which … was not included in the People’s Sandoval/Molineux motion. … [T]he prosecutor inquired as to whether defendant had stated in a recorded jail call that another inmate had urinated in his bed and that, if he caught who did it, he would stab that person in the neck with a pencil. * * *

… [T]he magnitude of the prosecutor’s misconduct was the fact that County Court made no effort to intervene or otherwise attempt to minimize or alleviate the prejudice being caused to defendant…. . People v Nellis, 2023 NY Slip Op 03046, Third Dept 5-8-23

Practice Point: Although the convictions were not against the weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene warranted a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly brought up uncharged crimes which were not ruled upon in the Sandoval proceedings.

 

/

THE DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FLOWER POT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCIDENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property owner did not demonstrate the flower pot over which plaintiff tripped was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous:

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped and fell over a white flowerpot located next to a white column on the landing of premises owned by the defendant. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that, on the day at issue, she was standing on the landing outside the defendant’s front door speaking with the defendant, who was standing in the doorway. The plaintiff testified that when the defendant moved the outer screen door toward her, she stepped back into the object, lost her balance, and fell from the landing. …

… “[W]hether a hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances” … . “A condition that is ordinarily apparent to a person making reasonable use of his or her senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . Therefore, “[w]hether a dangerous or defective condition exists on the property so as to give rise to liability depends on the particular circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … .

… [T]he defendant failed to establish … the alleged condition was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous under the circumstances surrounding the accident … . Evans v Fields, 2023 NY Slip Op 03000, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: When defendant property owner opened the screen door, plaintiff stepped back, tripped on a flower pot and fell down the stairs. Under the circumstances, there is a question of fact whether the flower pot was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF-BANK’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff-bank’s CPLR 306-b motion to extend the time for the service of the summons and complaint:

CPLR 306-b provides, in pertinent part, that “[s]ervice of the summons and complaint . . . shall be made within one hundred twenty days after the commencement of the action . . . . If service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service.”

“The interest of justice standard requires a careful judicial analysis of the factual setting of the case and a balancing of the competing interests presented by the parties. Unlike an extension request premised on good cause, a plaintiff need not establish reasonably diligent efforts at service as a threshold matter. However, the court may consider diligence, or lack thereof, along with any other relevant factor in making its determination, including expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the meritorious nature of the cause of action, the length of delay in service, the promptness of a plaintiff’s request for the extension of time, and prejudice to defendant” … . CPLR 306-b “empowers a court faced with the dismissal of a viable claim to consider any factor relevant to the exercise of its discretion. No one factor is determinative—the calculus of the court’s decision is dependent on the competing interests of the litigants and a clearly expressed desire by the Legislature that the interests of justice be served” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve Cruz with the summons and complaint in the interest of justice, considering, inter alia, the expiration of the statute of limitations, the meritorious nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action, the plaintiff’s prompt request for the extension, and the lack of demonstrable prejudice to [defendant]. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v Lottihall, 2023 NY Slip Op 02999, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: The criteria for an “interest of justice,” versus a “good cause shown,” extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b explained.

 

/ , , ,

AFTER A DIVORCE PLAINTIFF SUED THE EX-WIFE AND HER ATTORNEYS ALLEGING FALSE ARREST, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487; THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action against defendant attorneys should have dismissed for failure to state causes of action:

The plaintiff and the defendant Janet P. Lezama were married … . … Lezama commenced an action for a divorce … in which she was represented by the defendants Dana Navins and Kass & Navins, PLLC … . After the divorce … , the plaintiff commenced this action against Lezama and the attorney defendants to recover damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 based on allegations that the defendants concocted a “plan” to obtain a divorce against the plaintiff and obtain an excessive “financial settlement.” … [P]laintiff alleged that, as part of this plan, Lezama made false allegations of child abuse and criminal conduct against the plaintiff. * * *

“To be held liable for false arrest, [a civilian] defendant must have affirmatively induced the officer to act, such as taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the officer is not acting of his or her own volition” … . Similarly, to be held liable for malicious prosecution, it must be shown that the defendant played an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act … . “Merely giving false information to the authorities does not constitute initiation of the proceeding without an additional allegation or showing that, at the time the information was provided, the defendant knew it to be false, yet still gave it to the police or District Attorney” … . * * *

With respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action, the improper conduct alleged was not “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” … . With respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action, the plaintiff failed to allege with specificity any material misstatements of fact made by the attorney defendants in the divorce action with the intent to deceive that court … . Tueme v Lezama, 2023 NY Slip Op 03036, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: The complaint did not state causes of action for false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress or violation of Judiciary Law 487, criteria explained.

 

/ , ,

A COURT MUST ACCEPT AN ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE; BUT THE TERMINATION OF THE TEACHER, WHO HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD, FOR INAPPROPRIATELY RESTRAINING A FEMALE STUDENT, SHOCKED ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s interpretation of conflicting evidence must be accepted, but termination of the teacher based on the evidence was not warranted. It was alleged the petitioner-teacher inappropriately restrained a female student who was trying to get past him:

“Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through a statutory mandate (see Education Law § 3020-a), the determination of the arbitrator is subject to ‘closer judicial scrutiny’ under CPLR 7511(b) than it would otherwise receive” … . “An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” … .

Here, there was a rational basis and evidentiary support for the finding that the petitioner committed the conduct with which he was charged by inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him. Although a video of the incident, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, could be interpreted in more than one way, this Court must “accept the arbitrator’s credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists” … .

However, in light of the petitioner’s otherwise unblemished record of approximately 19 years as a teacher with the respondent, the penalty of termination of employment was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness … . Matter of O’Brien v Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 03011, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: In this arbitration pursuant to the Education Law, the court was required to accept the arbitrator’s interpretation of conflicting evidence. But termination of the teacher for inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him shocked one’s sense of fairness.

 

/ ,

THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPANSION OF A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING USE FELL WITHIN THE NONCONFORMING USE; THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF A MARINA WAS ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the marina and shellfishiing operation were preexisting nonconforming uses, there was a question whether the expansion of the marina fell within the nonconforming use. The zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) determination allowing the expansion was annulled and the matter was remitted to the ZBA:

“While nonconforming uses are generally permitted to continue, they may not be enlarged as a matter of right” … . Although a mere increase in the volume in one’s business may not constitute a change in use, “a distinction is to be drawn where there has been a purposeful expansion of the nature of [the] operation” … . “The protection of vested rights in a nonconforming structure, existing or in process of erection at the time of the imposition of zoning restrictions, does not extend to subsequent new construction” … .

Here, the Reeves’ [the marina owners’] failure to obtain site plan approval for the reconstruction of the docks and bulkhead, for which permits were initially issued in 2003, casts doubt on whether any of the new structures built after 2003 fall within the Reeves’ nonconforming use for the marina and commercial shellfishing operation … and calls into question the Building Department’s unexplained finding that the dock and bulkhead reconstruction work “did not constitute an expansion of a pre-existing, non-conforming use in 2003″—which was not specifically addressed in the ZBA’s … determination. Matter of Andes v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Riverhead, 2023 NY Slip Op 03009, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: An expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use, here a marina and shellfishing operation, may not fall within the nonconforming use. The building department’s finding that new construction did not expand the preexisting nonconforming use was not addressed in the zoning board of appeals’ (ZBA’s) determination. The determination was annulled and the matter was sent back to the ZBA.

 

/ ,

THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Maltese, determined there was a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition on a sidewalk which resulted in a piece of concrete falling on plaintiff in the subway station below. Although the city can escape liability if it did not have written notice of the sidewalk defect, the city did not claim a lack of notice. Because the city issued permits for tree pits above the subway, there was a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition (as opposed to having written notice of it):

Generally, assuming that the alleged dangerous condition falls within the scope of Administrative Code § 7-201(c)(2), under the framework set forth in Smith v City of New York [210 AD3d 53] , the City would have the initial burden to show that it lacked prior written notice. Here, however, the City does not argue on appeal that it lacked prior written notice of the alleged defect. Therefore, we do not address this issue. Because the burden did not shift to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of an exception to the prior written notice defense … , we consider instead whether the City made a prima facie showing that, contrary to the allegations in the complaint, it did not cause or create the alleged dangerous condition.

Here, the City failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against it … . As the Supreme Court noted, the City annexed to its motion papers street opening permits for “tree pits” along Metropolitan Avenue between Union Avenue and Lorimer Street … . Neither in its initial moving papers nor in its reply papers … did the City submit evidence that the construction company’s preparation of tree pits above the subway station did not cause or create the defective condition which allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s accident. Morejon v New York City Tr. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 03007, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Permit. Here the city did not claim it didn’t have written notice of a sidewalk defect which allegedly caused a piece of concrete to fall on plaintiff in the subway station below. Because the city issued tree pit permits for the sidewalk, there was a question of fact whether the city created the dangerous condition.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; BUT DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability in this intersection traffic accident case, but defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense should not have been dismissed:

… [T]he plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that [defendant] Giunta entered the intersection without yielding the right-of-way to the plaintiff’s vehicle, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142[a] …). … [P]laintiff testified … that his vehicle had been traveling for about six blocks before approaching the subject intersection; that he was operating his vehicle at or below the speed limit of 25 miles per hour as he approached the intersection; that he saw the defendants’ vehicle “speeding” while moving from left to right; and that he had only one second to react before the impact … .

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

… Giunta averred that he stopped at the stop sign and proceeded at 10 miles per hour through the intersection. Giunta further averred that after the front of his vehicle had passed through the intersection, the plaintiff’s vehicle struck the right rear quarter panel of his vehicle with such “tremendous force” that it caused his vehicle to spin around and roll over on its roof and then back onto its wheels. Under these circumstances, the defendants raised triable issues of fact, including whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care in approaching the intersection and whether the plaintiff could have avoided the collision … . Ki Hong Park v Giunta, 2023 NY Slip Op 03004, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s comparative negligence is not a bar to summary judgment in a traffic accident case. But defendant can still raise a comparative-negligence affirmative defense which can survive plaintiff’s successful summary judgment motion.

 

/

THERE WERE TWO STEPS LEADING TO A LANDING AT DEFENDANT’S FRONT DOOR; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised a question of fact whether the absence of a handrail where two steps led to an elevated landing at defendant’s front door was a proximate cause of her fall. Plaintiff alleged there was nothing to grab onto as she fell. Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint on the ground plaintiff did not know the cause of her fall:

The defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … . The defendant’s submissions in support of her motion included, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which revealed the existence of a triable issue of fact. In particular, the plaintiff testified, among other things, that she “was looking for something to grab onto” as she fell but found nothing. “Even if the plaintiff’s fall was precipitated by a misstep,” her testimony that she looked for something to grab onto to stop her fall presented “an issue of fact as to whether the absence of a handrail was a proximate cause of her injury” … . Since the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, we need not consider the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Jean-Charles v Carey, 2023 NY Slip Op 03003, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged there was nothing to grab onto as she fell from a landing at defendant’s front door, which raised a question of fact whether the absence of a handrail was a proximate cause of her fall. There were only two steps leading to the landing.

 

/

​DEFENDANT DAWSON FELL ON PLAINTIFF DURING A DANCE HOSTED BY DEFENDANT NON-PROFIT, LENOX HILL; PLAINTIFF SUED LENOX HILL ALLEGING NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF THE DANCE; LENOX HILL DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF AND DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was unable to show defendant non-profit (Lenox Hill), which hosted a dance for its members, owed her a duty of care to her or proximately caused her injury. Both plaintiff and defendant, Dawson, were members of defendant Lenox Hill. Lenox Hill hosted a dance. During the dance Dawson fell on plaintiff, breaking her ankle. Plaintiff sued Lenox Hill alleging negligent supervision:

In general, a party does not have “a duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others … . A duty can only be found where there exists a special relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff requiring the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the third party, or a special relationship “between defendant and [the] third [party] person whose actions expose[d] plaintiff to harm,” which “would require the defendant to attempt to control the third person’s conduct” … .

… [P]laintiff failed to plead that she had a special relationship to defendant requiring it to protect her … . * * *

Plaintiff also failed to establish proximate cause. To establish proximate cause, “a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury” … . In the context of the intervention of a third-party between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s injury, “liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” … .

Here, Lenox Hill established that Dawson’s fall was not foreseeable. The record supports that Lenox Hill was not on notice of any similar incidents. Bindler v Lenox Hill Neighborhood House, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02966, First Dept 6-6-23

Practice Point: Generally a party does not have a duty to control the conduct of third persons. Therefore the defendant nonprofit which hosted the dance where plaintiff was injured when another dancer fell on her did not owe plaintiff a duty of care and did not proximately cause her injury.

 

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