You are here: / THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A SIROIS HEARING ON WHETHER HE PROCURED THE...

Search Results

/ , , ,

THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A SIROIS HEARING ON WHETHER HE PROCURED THE VICTIM’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant was entitled to a Sirois hearing. The People argued the victim’s statement should be placed in evidence because the defendant had procured her silence at trial. But the evidence on the issue was conflicting, necessitating a hearing:

… “[D]efendant should have been afforded an opportunity to test the causal link between [the victim’s refusal to testify at trial and the jail calls], as [defendant] requested, at a separate hearing” … . Although the People contend that a hearing was not necessary because the jail calls “so overwhelming[ly]” establish that the victim’s silence was procured by defendant’s misconduct, “this conclusion . . . is not the test inasmuch as [this Court] cannot evaluate the record in its present state since no hearing was held” … . Moreover, although a defendant may waive a hearing … , that did not occur here. There is no evidence in the record that defendant agreed to forego a hearing or agreed to proceed without further inquiry. In fact, when Supreme Court ruled on the ultimate Sirois issue, rather than on whether the People had “allege[d] specific facts which demonstrate a distinct possibility that a criminal defendant has engaged in witness tampering” such that a hearing was required … , defendant’s trial counsel, the next day, prior to any opening statements, requested a hearing … . The court, however, refused this request, reiterating that it found that the People met their ultimate burden on their submissions. Given this, we find that Supreme Court erred by casting aside “the constitutionally guaranteed truth-testing devices of confrontation and cross-examination … . People v Robinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 02561, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Where there is conflicting evidence about whether a defendant procured a witness’s refusal to testify, the judge should not rule on it without holding a hearing.

 

/ , ,

AN ORDER TO EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A MANNER WHICH CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH PRECLUDES PERSONAL JURISDICTION; PETITIONER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the order to show cause specified a method of service which could not be complied with; therefore personal jurisdiction over Williams was not obtained: (2) election fraud on Williams part was not demonstrated:

Since the method of service provided in the order to show cause was jurisdictional in nature, and the affidavit of service is deficient on its face for identifying an address for mailing purportedly obtained from a document that did not exist, the court should have granted that branch of Williams’s motion which was, in effect, to dismiss the amended petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. …

“A candidate’s designating petition or independent nominating petition ‘will be invalidated on the ground of fraud if there is a showing that the entire petition is permeated with fraud'” … . “Absent permeation with fraud, a designating [or independent nominating] petition may be invalidated where the candidate has participated in or is chargeable with knowledge of the fraud” … . Here, Stark [petitioner] failed to meet her burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the designating petition was permeated with fraud or that Williams participated in or was chargeable with knowledge of any fraud … . Matter of Stark v Williams, 2023 NY Slip Op 02583, Second Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: If an order to show cause directs service of process to be made in a manner which cannot be complied with, personal jurisdiction is precluded even if the affidavit of service purports to have complied with the order.

 

/ ,

UGELL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED AS A CANDIDATE FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR; THE FACT THAT UGELL IS A TOWN JUSTICE IS NOT DISQUALIFYING; ELECTION FRAUD MUST BE PROVEN BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, LACKING HERE (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Ugell, a town justice, should not have been disqualified as a candidate for town supervisor. The fact that Ugell is a town justice was not disqualifying. There was no clear and convincing evidence of election fraud:

The petitioners presented no basis to disqualify Ugell under Election Law § 6-122. The fact that Ugell is subject to the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR) part 100 as a Town Justice does not disqualify him from running for the office of Town Supervisor … .

“The proper evidentiary standard for proving fraud in an Election Law proceeding is clear and convincing evidence” … . “[A]s a general rule, a petition for an opportunity to ballot will be invalidated on the ground of fraud only if there is a showing that the entire petition is permeated with fraud” … . “The inclusion of a candidate’s name on a designating petition, without his or her consent, may constitute fraud”… . Here, in light of the conflicting and, in part, incredible testimony, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the petitioners established, by clear and convincing evidence, fraud so as to warrant invalidating the designating petition … . Moreover, the petitioners failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, “actual deception of the voters or members of the party involved” … . Matter of King v Ugell, 2023 NY Slip Op 02601, Second Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: The fact that Ugell was a town justice did not disqualify him from running for town supervisor. Election fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, lacking here.

 

/ , ,

THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the franchisor, here Toyota, for the negligence of the franchisee car dealership, Plaza Toyota, should have been dismissed. After the plaintiff’s car was worked on at Plaza Toyota, a front wheel fell off:

Supreme Court erred in denying the Toyota defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against them. “In determining whether a defendant, as a franchisor, may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most significant factor is the degree of control that the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee or, more specifically, the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred” … .

Here, affidavits submitted by the Toyota defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that they lacked the requisite control over the manner in which Plaza Toyota serviced vehicles … . Caceres v Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02492, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A franchisor can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a franchisee only if the franchisor exercises control over the franchisee’s daily operations, not the case here.

 

/ ,

STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE; FAILING TO SEE WHAT THERE IS TO SEE IS NEGLIGENCE; ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle traffic accident case should have been granted. Striking a pedestrian is a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which is negligence per se. In addition a driver is expected to see what there is to be seen. Defendant was in the middle lane of traffic when plaintiff was struck:

The plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability through the submission of evidence that established the defendant driver was negligent in failing to see what there was to be seen and in failing to exercise due care in avoiding the collision with the plaintiff (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 [a] …).. By the defendant driver’s own admissions at his deposition, he never saw the plaintiff before the defendants’ vehicle struck the plaintiff; in fact, upon impact, the defendant driver thought “maybe a tire or something . . . hit [the defendants’] car,” and when he first saw the plaintiff, the plaintiff was lying on the pavement. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the road was flat, the weather was clear, and visibility was good. Further, the defendants’ vehicle was traveling in the middle lane of three southbound lanes, when it made contact with the plaintiff who was crossing from the right side of the road, “giving the defendant driver ample time to notice plaintiff crossing the street” … . Beityaaghoob v Klein, 2023 NY Slip Op 02488, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Under the facts in this pedestrian-vehicle traffic accident case, striking plaintiff pedestrian was negligence per se (a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law) and defendant’s acknowledged failure to see the plaintiff constituted negligence. Any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part is not to be considered. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

/ , ,

UNDER THE 2022 AMENDMENT TO CPLR 213, A BANK WHICH HAS STARTED A FORECLOSURE ACTION CANNOT STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the 2022 amendment to CPLR 213 (the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act [FAPA]) overruled the recent Court of Appeals case which held a voluntary discontinuance of a foreclosure action stopped the running of the statute of limitations. In addition, the Second Department ruled the plaintiff bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304:

FAPA amended CPLR 3217, governing the voluntary discontinuance of an action, by adding a new paragraph (e), which provides that “[i]n any action on an instrument described under [CPLR 213(4)], the voluntary discontinuance of such action, whether on motion, order, stipulation or by notice, shall not, in form or effect, waive, postpone, cancel, toll, extend, revive or reset the limitations period to commence an action and to interpose a claim, unless expressly prescribed by statute.” * * *

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish … it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavit of Cynthia Wallace, an officer of Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (hereinafter SLS), the plaintiff’s loan servicer, was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Wallace attested that she was familiar with the types of records maintained by SLS in connection with the loan, that she had personal knowledge of the procedures for creating the records, and that the plaintiff mailed the notices, but she failed to attest that she personally mailed the notices or that she was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff or SLS. Therefore, Wallace failed to establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed (see id.). The plaintiff also failed to submit any domestic return receipts or other documentation proving the certified and first-class mailings … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Stewart, 2023 NY Slip Op 02487, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A recent amendment CPLR 213 prohibits a bank which has started a foreclosure action from stopping the running of the statute of limitations by voluntarily discontinuing the action.

Practice Point: If the bank doesn’t prove strict compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304, its summary judgment motion in a foreclosure action must be denied.

 

/ , , ,

THE ADMINISTRATOR’S MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUED AS PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INITIALLY DENIED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED UPON THE MOTION TO RENEW; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW, AND A MOTION TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A DECEASED PARTY ARE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrator’s (Walter’s) motion to renew in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Walter moved to be substituted as plaintiff. Initially the motion was denied but upon Walter’s motion to renew, the motion was granted:

“A motion for leave to renew . . . shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination” and “shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” … . “CPLR 2221(e) has not been construed so narrowly as to disqualify, as new facts not offered on the prior motion, facts contained in a document originally rejected for consideration because the document was not in admissible form” … . However, “[w]hile it may be within the court’s discretion to grant leave to renew upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the prior motion, a motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation”… . “Thus, the court lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion”… . “While law office failure can be accepted as a reasonable excuse in the exercise of the court’s sound discretion, the movant must submit supporting facts to explain and justify the failure, and mere neglect is not accepted as a reasonable excuse” … .

“If a party dies and the claim for or against him [or her] is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties” (CPLR 1015[a]). “A motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” … . “If the event requiring substitution occurs before final judgment and substitution is not made within a reasonable time, the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made” … . “In determining reasonableness, a court should consider the plaintiff’s diligence in seeking substitution, prejudice to the other parties, and whether the action is shown to have potential merit” … . “Even if the plaintiff’s explanation for the delay is not satisfactory, the court may still grant the motion for substitution if there is no showing of prejudice and there is potential merit to the action, in light of the strong public policy in favor of disposing of matters on the merits” … . Tollinchi v Jamaica Hosp. Med. Ctr., 2023 NY Slip Op 02554, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: The criteria for a motion to renes, and for a motion to be substituted as a party after the death of a party explained in some depth. Here the motion to renew and the motion to be substituted as a party should have been denied.

 

/ ,

THE RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF BEFORE TAKING A MANDATORY COLLEGE FITNESS-EDUCATION COURSE PRECLUDED HER LAWSUIT AGAINST THE COLLEGE ALLEGING INJURIES SUSTAINED TAKING THE COURSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the release signed by the plaintiff precluded her suit against defendant community college (DCC) for alleged injuries sustained in a mandatory fitness education course:

The plaintiff enrolled in a wellness and fitness education course, which was a mandatory course that had to be taken as part of her general studies degree program at Dutchess Community College. The plaintiff informed the course instructor of her prior back injuries, and signed a release which, in relevant part, “discharge[d] Dutchess Community College from all liability for . . . any claim of injury to [the plaintiff’s] person . . . whether harm is caused by the negligence of the releasees or otherwise.” The release further provided that it was “intended to be broad and inclusive in keeping with state laws.” * * *

“Where the language of an exculpatory agreement expresses in unequivocal terms the intention of the parties to relieve a defendant of liability for its own negligence, the agreement will be enforced” … . “Although a defendant has the initial burden of establishing that it has been released from any claims, a signed release ‘shifts the burden of going forward . . . to the [plaintiff] to show that there has been fraud, duress or some other fact which will be sufficient to void the release'” … . Sjogren v Board of Trustees of Dutchess Community Coll., 2023 NY Slip Op 02551, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: An unambiguous release will preclude a lawsuit absent fraud sufficient to void the agreement.

 

/ , ,

WHERE, AS HERE, A PARTY IS A DEFENDANT IN ONE ACTION AND A PLAINTIFF IN ANOTHER ACTION, BOTH OF WHICH STE,M FROM THE SAME TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the two actions stemming from a single traffic accident should have been consolidated. Decedent leased a truck from defendant Travis and had an accident. Decedent sued Travis alleging negligent maintenance of the truck, Travis sued decedent for the damage to the truck. The two actions should have been consolidated:

CPLR 602(b) provides that “[w]here an action is pending in the supreme court it may, upon motion, remove to itself an action pending in another court and consolidate it or have it tried together with that in the supreme court.” Although a motion pursuant to CPLR 602 “is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, consolidation or joinder for trial is favored to avoid unnecessary duplication of trials, save unnecessary costs and expense, and prevent an injustice which would result from divergent decisions based on the same facts. Where common questions of law or fact exist, a motion . . . to consolidate [or for a joint trial] should be granted, absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion” … .

Here, the two actions involve significant common questions of law and fact; a failure to try them jointly would result in a duplication of trials, unnecessary costs and expense, and a danger of an injustice resulting from divergent decisions; and there has been no showing of prejudice by Travez … . Sherpa v Ford Motor Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 02550, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Where two actions arise from the same traffic accident and a party is a defendant in one action and a plaintiff in the other, the actions should be consolidated pursuant to CPLR 602(b).

 

/ ,

THE PARTIAL PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD THE DOWN PAYMENT ON THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS RENDERED THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION UNENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the alleged oral modification of the real estate purchase contract was unenforceable pursuant to he statute of frauds. The original contract called for a $750,000 down payment by a specified date. The payment was not made. Plaintiff argued defendant had orally agreed to take installment payments toward the down payment and two partial payments had in fact been made and accepted. Plaintiff sued for specific performance of the contract. The defendant asserted the statute of frauds affirmative defense. The Second Department held that the two payments did not constitute part performance which would excuse the absence of a writing:

While the statute of frauds empowers courts of equity to compel specific performance of agreements in cases of part performance (see General Obligations Law § 5-703[4]), “the claimed partial performance must be unequivocally referable to the agreement” … . Unequivocally referable conduct is conduct that is “inconsistent with any other explanation” … . It is insufficient “that the oral agreement gives significance to plaintiff’s actions” … . “Rather, the actions alone must be ‘unintelligible or at least extraordinary,’ explainable only with reference to the oral agreement” … . “Significantly, the doctrine of part performance is based on principles of equity, in particular, recognition of the fact that the purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent frauds, not to enable a party to perpetrate a fraud by using the statute as a sword rather than a shield” … . S&G Golden Estates, LLC v New York Golf Enters., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02548, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: In order to constitute part performance of a contract such that the statute of frauds does not apply, the part performance must be inconsistent with any other explanation. The actions must be explainable only with reference to the oral agreement (not the case here).

 

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