You are here: / THE CONVICTION UPON WHICH DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER STATUS...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE CONVICTION UPON WHICH DEFENDANT’S SECOND-FELONY-OFFENDER STATUS WAS BASED WAS MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT OFFENSE AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PORTION OF THE 10-YEAR PERIOD WAS TOLLED BY INCARCERATION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND RESENTENCING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender and remitting the matter for a hearing. determined the People did not submit evidence demonstrating when defendant was incarcerated such that the 10-year look-back period for the prior felony conviction could be calculated. The court noted that the issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [D]efendant contends that he was not properly sentenced as a second felony offender. … [D]efendant was not required to preserve such a claim where, as here, the purported illegality is plain “from the face of the appellate record” … . … [W]e agree with defendant that the record reflects that his April 11, 2011 sentence on his predicate felony conviction was imposed more than 10 years before the commission of the instant offense, which occurred on July 6, 2021 … , and the People failed to meet their burden of showing that the 10-year look-back period was tolled by any periods of incarceration … . At sentencing, defendant admitted to the prior offense, but the People’s predicate felony statement did not set forth defendant’s dates of incarceration … . Since the record fails to disclose the legality of sentencing defendant as a second felony offender, the matter must be remitted for a hearing on this issue and resentencing … . People v McCall, 2023 NY Slip Op 02719, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the People’s failure to submit proof of defendant’s prior incarceration made it impossible to determine whether the 10-year look-back period for a prior felony was tolled. Defendant’s sentence as a second felony offender was vacated and the matter was remitted for a hearing and resentencing.

 

/ ,

THE OFFICE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SITING (ORES) CONDUCTED A PROPER REVIEW BEFORE ISSUING THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITING OF MAJOR RENEWABLE ENERGY FACILITIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined that the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES) had conducted a proper review before issuing regulations concerning the siting of major renewable energy facilities. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… [P]etitioners — who include numerous municipalities, municipal corporations and private entities — commenced the instant combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, seeking, among other things, to annul the regulations and direct ORES to engage in a proper SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] review. Specifically, petitioners alleged that, among other things, ORES: (1) mischaracterized the action as an unlisted action rather than a type I action; (2) failed to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of the regulations; (3) violated the home rule provision of the NY Constitution; and (4) violated the express terms of Executive Law § 94-c. * * *

… [W]e agree with petitioners’ threshold argument that ORES misclassified this action as unlisted, rather than type I. … … [T]he promulgation of the regulations should have been classified as a type I action that would carry the presumption of requiring preparation of an EIS [Environment Impact Statement] … . However, “a misclassification does not always lead to the annulment of the negative declaration if the lead agency conducts the equivalent of a type I review notwithstanding the misclassification” … , and, notably, “a type I action does not, per se, necessitate the filing of an EIS” … . * * *

A review of the vast record reveals that ORES took a thorough and hard look at the potential negative environmental impacts associated with the proposed regulations. Matter of Town of Copake v New York State Off. of Renewable Energy Siting, 2023 NY Slip Op 02721, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: The newly created Office of Renewable Energy Siting conducted a proper review before issuing the challenged regulations concerning the siting of major renewable energy facilities.

 

/

ALTHOUGH INJURY IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO WORK IS USUALLY NOT COVERED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION APPLIED BECAUSE CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION AND ON HIS WAY TO PICK UP A POLICE VEHICLE WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the “special errand” exception applied and claimant, who was injured on his way to the police precinct after being called to investigate a grand larceny, was entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits. Although injury on the way to work is usually not covered, here claimant had already coordinated an investigation into the grand larceny and was on his way to pick up his police vehicle at the time of the traffic accident:

At the hearing, there was testimony from the employer’s witness that claimant’s shift and overtime pay did not begin until claimant arrived at the police station and checked out a police vehicle. Even if true, however, these facts are not dispositive of whether the special errand exception applies. Irrespective of when claimant’s overtime pay began, the record reflects that claimant was contacted at 4:15 a.m., at which time claimant began his command and coordination of the criminal investigation of the grand larceny. It was at this point that claimant was engaged in a special errand, as he was then required to report to work early in order to pick up a police vehicle so that he could proceed directly to the crime scene in that vehicle. Although claimant testified that he traveled to the police station along his “usual geographical” route, the work-related activity that claimant was encouraged/required by his employer to do and performed for the employer’s benefit upon being called in early while on standby required claimant to “alter[ ] the usual . . . temporal scheme of travel, thereby altering the risks to which [claimant was] usually exposed during normal travel” (Matter of Neacosia v New York Power Auth., 85 NY2d at 479 …). The Board identified the correct standard articulated by the Court of Appeals but misapplied the special errand exception by overlooking the altered temporal scheme of claimant’s travel and significance of the work-related activity performed by claimant for the employer’s benefit upon being contacted by the employer while on standby … . Matter of Serrata v Suffolk County Police Dept., 2023 NY Slip Op 02725, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: Injury in a traffic accident on the way to work is not covered by Workers’ Compensation. Here, however,, the “special errand” exception applied because claimant, a police officer, was engaged in an ongoing investigation and was driving to the precinct to pick up his police vehicle when the accident occurred.

 

/

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE STRESS CAUSED BY INTERACTION WITH CLAIMANT’S SUPERVISOR AND CLAIMANT’S HEART ATTACK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the evidence supported a causal relationship between the stress caused by interaction with claimant’s supervisor and the subsequent heart attack:

We agree with claimant’s contention that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence as its finding that claimant did not sustain a physical injury is inconsistent with the medical evidence as well as its own finding that claimant sustained a myocardial infarction. The sole medical evidence presented was that from Leslie Parikh, a cardiologist who treated claimant at the emergency room. Parikh testified unequivocally that claimant was diagnosed as suffering a myocardial infarction based upon the elevated troponin levels in claimant’s blood, which was consistent with a stress event on the heart, and opined that the heart attack was causally-related to claimant’s interaction with her supervisor at work. Based on this uncontroverted evidence, the Board, in fact, found that claimant suffered a myocardial infarction causally-related to work.

The Board, nevertheless, found that claimant did not sustain a physical injury, characterizing the incident as claimant having been “in mild emotional distress and . . . experience[ing] a stress event.” …  This is contrary to the unrefuted and unequivocal medical evidence and diagnosis that claimant suffered a myocardial infarction. Matter of DiMeo v Trinity Health Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02731, Third Dept 5-18-23

Practice Point: The treating physician determined claimants’ heart attack was caused by stress from interaction with claimant’s supervisor. Claimant was entitled to Worders’ Compensation benefits.

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of assault second:

The victim testified that defendant delivered a very hard blow to his face, that he felt pain, and that he experienced bleeding and swelling. Hospital records describe the victim’s pain as “aching” and indicate he was directed to take over-the-counter painkillers. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, it was sufficient to establish physical injury for the purposes of Penal Law § 120.05 (3) … . People v Wheeler, 2023 NY Slip Op 02736. CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, found the evidence of physical injury sufficient to support the assault second conviction.

 

/ ,

THE INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING AGGRAVATED FAMILY OFFENSE DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH OF THE LISTED OFFENSES WAS THE BASIS OF THE CHARGE, RENDERING THE COUNT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the count of the indictment charging aggravated family offense (Penal Law 240.75) was jurisdictionally defective because it did not specify which of the offenses listed in the statute was the basis of the charge:

A defendant commits the crime of aggravated family offense pursuant to Penal Law § 240.75 when the defendant “commits a misdemeanor defined in subdivision two of this section as a specified offense and [the defendant] has been convicted of one or more specified offenses within the immediately preceding five years” (Penal Law § 240.75 [1]). Subdivision two of the statute contains 54 “specified offense[s],” 36 felonies and 18 misdemeanors … . To qualify as a specified offense, the defendant and the person against whom the offense was committed must be members of the same family or household as defined in CPL 530.11 (1) (see id. § 240.75 [2]) … . Thus, to commit the crime of aggravated family offense, a defendant must have been convicted of one or more of the specified offenses in subdivision two of the statute within the previous five years, the defendant must have currently committed one of the misdemeanor offenses listed in subdivision two, and both offenses must be committed against a member of the same family or household as the defendant.

Defendant contends that the failure to specify the current misdemeanor offense in the count of the indictment charging him with aggravated family offense rendered that count jurisdictionally defective … . We agree. People v Saenger, 2023 NY Slip Op 02735, CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: The aggravated family offense count did not specify the current misdemeanor offense on which the count was based, rendering the count jurisdictionally defective.

 

/ ,

THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OBSERVED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS STREET STOP DID NOT MEET THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME OR WAS IN POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” STANDARD; THE FRISK WAS THEREFORE ILLEGAL AND THE SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, and an extensive concurring opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the police did not have reasonable suspicion defendant had committed a crime or was in possession of a weapon at the time defendant was frisked. The drugs found on defendant’s person should have been suppressed:

Mr. Johnson’s [defendant’s] actions, as observed by Officer Pike, do not meet the minimum standard required to justify a stop and frisk under De Bour. Prior to the frisk, Officer Pike observed Mr. Johnson: (1) move from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat of his parked car; (2) move his upper torso back toward the driver’s seat; (3) pull up his pants and attempt to buckle his belt; and (4) appear nervous while being questioned. These circumstances do not support a reasonable view that Mr. Johnson was armed or that he had committed or was about to commit a crime. These actions “constituted [nothing] other than ‘innocuous behavior,’ sole reliance on which would impermissibly reduce the foundation for [this] intrusion to nothing but ‘whim or caprice’ ” … . People v Johnson, 2023 NY Slip Op 02734, CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: Here the Court of Appeals determined the defendant’s actions prior to the stop and frisk did not rise to the “reasonable suspicion” standard. The police observed defendant move to the passenger seat in his parked car, move his upper torso back toward the driver’s seat, pull up his pants and attempt to buckle his belt, and appear nervous when questioned. The stop and frisk was illegal and the seized drugs should have been suppressed.

 

/ , , ,

AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that an answer verified by an attorney (as opposed to the defendant) and a complaint verified by an attorney (as opposed to the plaintiff) do not prove the contents:

… [A]n answer verified by an attorney is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant has a potentially meritorious defense … . …

… [A]lthough a verified complaint “may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim,” the complaint “must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge since a pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits” … . Since the complaint in this case was verified only by the plaintiff’s attorney, and not by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not rely on its contents to supply proof of the facts constituting the claim. Pemberton v Montoya, 2023 NY Slip Op 02674, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Answers and complaints verified by the attorney and not by the party do not prove the contents.

 

/

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted relief which was not requested by any party:

The Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, directed the plaintiffs to prepare documents for a closing and to schedule a closing, or to pay to the defendant 27% of the profits of the plaintiff corporations. “Generally, a court may, in its discretion, grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party”… . Here, no party sought the relief granted, which could be prejudicial to the appealing plaintiffs … . Newburgh Commercial Dev. Corp. v Cappelletti, 2023 NY Slip Op 02670, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: A judge’s power to grant relief sua sponte (relief not requested) is limited and such relief will not be affirmed if any party has been prejudiced.

 

/

ALTHOUGH FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND HAD ONLY SEEN THE ABUSED CHILD TWO OR THREE TIMES SHE WAS DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD; THERE WAS A STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined father’s girlfriend, Aisha, who only seen the abused child, Erica, two or three times, was correctly deemed a person legally responsible for Erica. The decision and the dissent are too fact-specific to fairly summarize here:

“Determining whether a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a discretionary, fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the particular circumstances of each case. Factors such as the frequency and nature of the contact between the child and respondent, the nature and extent of the control exercised by the respondent over the child’s environment, the duration of the respondent’s contact with the child, and the respondent’s relationship to the child’s parent(s) are some of the variables which should be considered and weighed by a court” … . “The factors listed here are not meant to be exhaustive, but merely illustrate some of the salient considerations in making an appropriate determination” … . Although “article 10 should not be construed to include persons who assume fleeting or temporary care of a child such as a supervisor of a play-date or an overnight visitor” … , the definition “expressly encompasses paramours who regularly participate in the family setting and who therefore share to some degree in the supervisory responsibility for the children” … .

Aisha’s relationship to the father, as well as Erica, weighs in favor of a finding that she was a person legally responsible for Erica during the relevant time period … . In January 2016, when Erica was injured, Aisha was the father’s girlfriend and the mother of their child Eric Jr., Erica’s half-sibling. Aisha began a romantic relationship with the father in 2013 and met Erica for the first time in August 2014, when Erica was approximately six months old. Aisha testified that in January 2016, she “treated [Erica] like if she was my child” … . Aisha further testified that she brought Erica to her niece’s birthday party because Erica was going to be her stepdaughter and that “any child of [the father’s] is mine[ ], so any children that [the father] has is a part of me as well.” The father testified that the interaction between Aisha and Erica was “as of a parent to a child,” and further testified that Aisha “treated Erica no different than she treated Eric [Jr.].” Matter of Erica H.-J. (Tarel H.), 2023 NY Slip Op 02662, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Here father’s girlfriend was deemed a person legally responsible for the abused child, despite the fact she had seen the child only two or three times. There was a strong dissent.

 

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