You are here: / PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY AND POLICE UNDER 42 USC 1983 ALLEGING THE CITY...

Search Results

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY AND POLICE UNDER 42 USC 1983 ALLEGING THE CITY AND POLICE HAD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR PRACTICE ALLOWING POLICE OFFICERS TO FILE FALSE CHARGES, TESTIFY FALSELY AND FALSIFY EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO RECORDS OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS OR INVESTIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CPLR DISCOVERY PROVISIONS AND WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO A FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for certain police records should not have been denied. Plaintiff sued the city under 42 USC 1983 alleging an unconstitutional policy or practice by the police which allows officers to swear out false criminal charges, testify falsely at trial and falsify evidence without consequences. Plaintiff sought records of complaints and investigations of similar conduct by officers in a specific task force. Because plaintiff is suing the city, his requests could be brought both pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and the CPLR discovery provisions. Supreme Court should not have restricted plaintiff’s access to records to that available under the FOIL:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion with respect to plaintiff’s requests seeking records of complaints and investigations of allegedly similar conduct by officers in the same task force, as those requests did not, in fact, constitute a fishing expedition … . Plaintiff limited his requests to officers assigned only during the six months before his arrest … , and his reference to lawsuits, investigations by the Internal Affairs Bureau, and complaints to the Civilian Complaint Review Board also sufficiently identified documents sought with “reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120[2] …). Without allowing disclosure of allegations of misconduct by other officers, it is unlikely that plaintiff could demonstrate “that the municipality had a custom or practice that was both widespread and reflected a deliberate indifference to its citizens’ constitutional rights” … .

… Supreme Court should not have imposed a limitation precluding plaintiff from seeking records directly from defendants instead of under FOIL. “When a public agency is one of the litigants, . . . it has the distinct disadvantage of having to offer its adversary two routes into its records” … , and the availability of FOIL does not replace the concomitant right to disclosure under the CPLR. Badia v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01582, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point; Here plaintiff sued the police under 42 USC 1983 alleging an unconstitutional policy to allow the police to file false charges, testify falsely and falsify evidence. Because plaintiff was suing the police, he was entitled to records of similar complaints under the CPLR discovery provisions and was not restricted to FOIL requests.

 

/ , , ,

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in this sidewalk slip and fall case, in a decision too complex to fairly summarize here, determined a provision of the master lease violated General Obligations Law 5-321:

General Obligations Law § 5-321 states that “[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”

The Court of Appeals, in Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. (42 NY2d 153 [1977]) and Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp. (7 NY3d 412 [2006]), established an exception to General Obligations Law § 5-321. Parties to a lease agreement may execute a provision requiring the tenant to indemnify the landlord from the landlord’s own negligence. However, the lease must also contain an insurance provision “allocating the risk of liability to third parties” because “[c]ourts do not, as a general matter, look unfavorably on agreements which, by requiring parties to carry insurance, afford protection to the public” … . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that when an indemnity clause is coupled with an insurance procurement provision, a tenant is obligated to indemnify the landlord for its share of liability, and such agreement does not exempt the landlord from liability to the plaintiff, but allocates the risk to a third party through insurance … . Insurance procured by the tenant in satisfaction of the indemnity clause provides the injured plaintiff with adequate recourse for the damages suffered … .

… Article 13 of the master lease requires Regent [the landlord] to be indemnified for all claims “provided however that the same shall not arise from the willful acts of Landlord during the term of this Lease.” On its face, we find that this provision violates General Obligations Law § 5-321. Bessios v Regent Assoc., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01583, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A lease which requires the landlord to be indemnified for its own negligence violates General Obligations Law 5-321 unless the lease also requires the tenant to procure insurance which will compensate the injured party for the landlord’s negligence.

 

/ ,

A MUTUAL MISTAKE IN AN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE PRICE OF SHARES OF STOCK WARRANTED REFORMATION OF THE CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, determined a mutual mistake in an agreement justified reformation of the contract. The opinion is too detailed to fully summarize here:

… [W]e find that Supreme Court correctly held that the parties intended to include an antidilution provision that provided for the adjustment of both the share price and the number of shares when common stock was issued at a price below plaintiffs’ exercise price, and that, as result of mutual mistake, inadvertently left the word “sentence” and did not change it to the plural, “sentences” in section 3(b) … .Accordingly, upon exercise of their warrants, plaintiffs were entitled to the value of the adjusted number of shares that were owed but not delivered (565,822 shares). Empery Asset Master, Ltd. v AIT Therapeutics, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01585, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A mutual mistake in a contract allows reformation of the contract to reflect the intent of the parties.

 

/ , ,

THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITIONS WERE TIMELY FILED; THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE COVID TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the juvenile delinquency petitions were timely fifed because of the COVOD toll imposed by the Executive Orders:

By Executive Order No. 8.202.8, issued on March 20, 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the “time limit[s] for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state” were “tolled” … . “A toll suspends the running of the applicable period of limitation for a finite time period, and the period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the relevant time period” … . However, a suspension “simply delays expiration of the time period until the end date of the suspension” … . By its plain terms, Executive Order 8.202.8 tolled the statute of limitations … , until that order and subsequent Executive Orders extending the tolling period were rescinded by Executive Order 8.210, issued on June 24, 2021 and effective the next day … .

Since the period of the toll must be excluded from the calculation of the filing deadline … , the juvenile delinquency petitions were timely filed on July 2,2021. Respondent allegedly committed his first unlawful act on December 21, 2019. Normally, the filing deadline for the petitions would have been respondent’s 18th birthday — June 7, 2021, which was 534 days after he allegedly committed the first act. When the first executive order took effect on March 20, 2020, there were 444 days remaining before respondent’s 18th birthday. By adding 444 days to June 24, 2021, when the executive order’s tolling provisions were terminated, the Agency’s deadline for filing the petitions was August 25, 2022. Here, the Agency refiled and served the second set of petitions on July 2, 2021, only eight days after the executive orders were rescinded.

The order rescinding the prior Executive Orders meant that the statute of limitations would start running again, “picking up where it left off” … . We also note that Family Court’s narrow interpretation of the Executive Order would deprive respondent of the benefits of Family Court intervention … . Matter of Isaiah H., 2023 NY Slip Op 01587, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the COVID toll of the statute of limitations rendered the filing of the juvenile delinquency petitions timely. The correct application of the toll was explained.

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and recalling and vacating a prior appellate decision, determined defendant sufficiently raised ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice in his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground he was not informed of the possibility of deportation before entering a guilty plea. The motion should not have been denied without a hearing:

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction based on Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), which held that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. In light of the affidavits from defendant, defendant’s plea counsel (indicating no recollection or notation that he discussed immigration consequences with defendant), and his sister, as well as motion counsel’s representation that plea counsel admitted in an interview that he was not well-versed in immigration law, defendant presented sufficient evidence that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, such that a hearing was warranted if a sufficient showing was similarly raised as to prejudice.

Regarding whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance, we also find that defendant’s submissions are sufficient to warrant a hearing. Given the length of time defendant has resided in the United States, his ties to the United States, his lack of ties to the Dominican Republic, and his employment history, defendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial … . People v Guzman-Caba, 2023 NY Slip Op 01593, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to vacate the conviction sufficiently raised ineffective assistance and prejudice issues which warranted a hearing. The defendant presented evidence he was not informed he could be deported based on his guilty plea and demonstrated he was prejudiced by the failure. The judge should have ordered a hearing.

 

/ ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR UNDUE INFLUENCE, CONVERSION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated causes of action for conversion, unjust enrichment and undue influence exercised by the defendant with regard to changing the beneficiary on a $6 million account:

… [T]he circumstances requiring scrutiny include the alleged facts that plaintiff was decedent’s closest living relative, that they had a continuing close relationship, and that he had been the designated beneficiary for 10 years, while defendant was a neighbor and relatively recent friend … . Moreover, plaintiff sufficiently alleges defendant’s financial motive (the $6 million-plus value of the account), opportunity (that his aunt and defendant were neighbors, and his aunt’s advanced age, fragile physical health, and inability to print the change of beneficiary form independently), and actual exercise of undue influence (the execution and mailing of the change of beneficiary form and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the writing of a $15,000 check to defendant weeks later) … . Furthermore, accepting the pleadings as true, the allegations that plaintiff’s aunt attempted to stop payment on the $15,000 check and that she complained to others that defendant had tricked her into writing the check, and changed her will to remove defendant as her executor, but did not change or revoke the beneficiary form, together support an inference that the aunt either was not aware of the form or was not aware of its effect. Salitsky v D’Attanasio, 2023 NY Slip Op 01597, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: The allegation that plaintiff’s aunt changed the beneficiary on a $6 million account from plaintiff to defendant, coupled with the allegations of the aunt’s fragile health and advanced age, stated causes of action for undue influence, conversion and unjust enrichment.

 

/ ,

DNA EVIDENCE RECOVERED AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER POINTED TO THE VICTIM’S BOYFRIEND AS THE PERPETRATOR; BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WAS A SINGLE IDENTIFICATION WITNESS WHO WAS 88 YEARS OLD AND HAD POOR VISION, THE DNA EVIDENCE MAY HAVE LED TO A MORE FAVORABLE VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the DNA evidence (from under the victim’s fingernails) procured after the trial may have resulted in a verdict more favorable to the defendant. Defendant was identified as the perpetrator by an 88-year-old witness who had poor vision. The DNA recovered from the victim was that of the victim’s boyfriend. There was no other evidence tying defendant to the scene:

… [T]he defense theory at trial was one of mistaken identity. The defendant posited that the perpetrator was actually Samuels’s [the victim’s] boyfriend, Jermaine Robinson. No physical evidence linked the defendant to the crime. The only identity evidence offered by the People at trial was the testimony of a single eyewitness, Marchon, who was 88 years old at the time of the incident and suffered from significantly impaired vision. Marchon’s description to the police of the perpetrator’s appearance was not conclusive and was, in part, more consistent with Jermaine Robinson’s appearance. Under the facts of the case, it would not have been unreasonable to conclude that Marchon confused Samuels’s estranged husband with her current boyfriend in making her identification to the police. Marchon also was not able to conclusively identify the defendant at trial. Moreover, various members of the defendant’s family provided alibi evidence for his whereabouts on the day of the attack. Finally, two Allen charges … were required before the jury was able to reach a verdict.

Under all of these circumstances, while not a “virtual certainty,” there existed a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant had the DNA evidence been admitted at trial … . People v Robinson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01533, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this murder case DNA evidence discovered after the trial pointed to a different perpetrator and the single eyewitness was 88 years old and had poor vision. Had the DNA evidence been admitted at trial the verdict may have been more favorable to defendant. New trial ordered.

 

/

BECAUSE THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY (ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD) WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ANY OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, IT IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A VIOLENT FELONY; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender. Defendant pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon third, which was not a lesser included offense of any of the offenses charged in the indictment. Therefore the attempted criminal possession of a weapon third can not be classified as a violent felony:

Penal Law § 70.02 defines a class E violent felony offense, in pertinent part, as “an attempt to commit any of the felonies of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as defined in subdivision five, six, seven or eight of section 265.02 as a lesser included offense of that section as defined in section 220.20 of the criminal procedure law” … in turn defines a ‘lesser included offense’ as one where the defendant pleads ‘to an offense of lesser grade than one charged in a count of an indictment'” … . Thus, a plea of guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree “constitutes a violent felony offense only when the defendant has been initially charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and pleads guilty to the attempted crime as a lesser included offense” … . Here, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as an added count to the indictment, which did not charge him with the completed crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should not have sentenced the defendant as a violent felony offender … . People v Nyack, 2023 NY Slip Op 01532, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon third. Because that offense was not a lesser included offense of any offense charged in the indictment, it is not classified as a violent felony. Therefore defendant should not have been sentenced as a second violent felony offender.

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE GUILTY PLEA MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HIS IMMIGRATION STATUS HE WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS POSSIBLE; MATTER SENT BACK TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant was not informed of the possibility of deportation before entering the guilty plea, although defendant was aware the plea may have a negative impact on his immigration status.. The issue need not be preserved for appeal. The matter was sent back to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate the plea:

At the plea proceeding, the court questioned the defendant as to whether he had discussed with defense counsel “the possible negative impact on [his] immigration status as a result of [his] pleas of guilt.” The defendant replied: “Yes. I did explain to him that I was concerned about that.” The court then inquired whether the defendant had “an opportunity to discuss these pleas and their impact on [his] immigration status with an immigration attorney.” In response, the defendant indicated that he had discussed the matter with an immigration attorney, who had informed him of the “possibility” that he would lose “TPS [Temporary Protected Status].” The court did not advise the defendant of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the guilty plea. People v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 01530, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: Here the negative impact of the guilty plea on defendant’s immigration status was discussed prior to his entering the plea, but the possibility of deportation was not specifically addressed. The defendant was given the opportunity to move to vacate the plea. Under the facts, preservation was not required.

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT PROPERLY PROHIBITED FATHER FROM POSTING BLOGS DISPARAGING THE CHILD’S RELATIVES ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE TOO BROAD IN THAT THEY WENT BEYOND THE NEEDS OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court had properly prohibited father from posting blogs disparaging the child’s relatives on social media, but that the restrictions on future speech should have been more narrowly tailored to the needs of the case:

“A prior restraint on speech is a law, regulation or judicial order that suppresses speech on the basis of the speech’s content and in advance of its actual expression” … . A party seeking to impose such a restraint bears a “heavy burden of demonstrating justification for its imposition” … . Such party must demonstrate that the speech sought to be restrained is “‘likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest'” … . An order imposing a prior restraint on speech “must be tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case” … .

Here, that portion of the order which directed the father to erase, deactivate, and delete “any existing blogs and likenesses” was “not tailored as precisely as possible to the exact needs of the case” … . Specifically, this restriction required the father to delete “any existing blogs and likenesses,” regardless of whether the blogs or likenesses relate to the child, the mother, the mother’s family, or the instant proceedings…. . Matter of Walsh v Russell, 2023 NY Slip Op 01522, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: As long as the restrictions on future speech relate to the family court case the constitution is not violated. Here father could be prohibited from posting blogs disparaging the child’s relatives and likenesses of the child. The order to delete past posts was also proper. But the restrictions on future speech were too broad in that they went beyond the needs of the case.

 

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