You are here: / A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED...

Search Results

/ ,

A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS IN THE RECORD WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (2) CAN BE BASED UPON JUROR MISCONDUCT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; BUT HERE THE DEFENSE WAS AWARE OF THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT PRIOR TO THE VERDICT AND DID NOT OBJECT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department explained that a motion to set aside a verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) or (2) cannot be based upon an issue the defense could have addressed (but did not) prior to the verdict. Although CPL 330.30 (2) allows a motion to set aside the verdict based upon juror conduct of which the defendant was not aware prior to the verdict, here the defense was aware of the alleged juror conduct:

” ‘A trial court’s authority to set aside a verdict under CPL 330.30 (1) is limited to grounds which, if raised on appeal, would require reversal as a matter of law . . . Accordingly, only a claim of error that is properly preserved for appellate review may serve as the basis to set aside the verdict’ ” … . Here, despite being afforded an opportunity to object or seek further relief when the court brought the issue to the parties’ attention during deliberations, defendant did not do so and thus failed to preserve his claim … .. The court therefore properly denied without a hearing the motion insofar as it was based on CPL 330.30 (1) because defendant’s unpreserved argument “did not furnish a proper predicate for setting aside the verdict” … .

A trial court is also authorized to set aside a verdict on the ground that “during the trial there occurred, out of the presence of the court, improper conduct by a juror, or improper conduct by another person in relation to a juror, which may have affected a substantial right of the defendant and which was not known to the defendant prior to the rendition of the verdict” (CPL 330.30 [2] …). Here, the record establishes that the alleged juror misconduct “was addressed by the court and counsel on the record at the time of trial” and that defendant thus “had knowledge of the matter prior to the verdict” … . We therefore conclude that the court properly denied without a hearing the motion insofar as it was based on CPL 330.30 (2) because “the juror misconduct alleged was known to . . . defendant and . . . defendant had the opportunity to act on the information but failed to do so prior to the verdict” … .People v Kenney, 2022 NY Slip Op 05645, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: A motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) must be based upon preserved errors which could be raised on appeal. A motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (2) may be based upon juror misconduct of which the defendant was not aware prior to the verdict. Here, however, the defense was aware of the conduct and did not object.

 

/ ,

A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 (1) MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS IN THE RECORD; I.E., ISSUES THAT CAN BE RAISED ON APPEAL; HERE THE MOTION WAS BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s granting of defendant’s CPL 330.30 (1) motion to set aside the jury verdict, determined the motion was improperly based upon matters outside the record. A CPL 330.30 (1) motion must be based upon issues which can be raised on appeal:

Pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), following the issuance of a verdict and before sentencing a court may set aside a verdict on “[a]ny ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court.” Defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) was procedurally improper because it was “premised on matters outside the existing trial record, and CPL 330.30 (1) did not permit defendant[] to expand the record to include matters that did not ‘appear[ ] in the record’ prior to the filing of the motion[]” … . We therefore reverse the order, deny the motion, and reinstate the verdict inasmuch as defendant’s claim was not reviewable pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) … . People v Allen, 2022 NY Slip Op 05647, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: A motion to set aside a jury verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) must be based upon matters which are in the record; i.e., issues which can be raised on appeal. Here the motion was based on matters outside the record and should have been denied on that ground.

 

/ ,

THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS BEING TREATED AT THE HOSPITAL, WAS IN CUSTODY AND HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE DEFENDANT CALLED A POLICE OFFICER OVER AND SAID “I’M BEAT UP;” THE OFFICER THEN ASKED “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined statements made by the defendant to a police officer while he was being treated at the hospital should have been suppressed. Although the initial statement “I’m beat up” was spontaneous, the statements made after the police officer asked “what happened?” were not spontaneous and were made while the defendant was in custody:

… [I]t is undisputed that defendant was in police custody at the time he made the statements and that no one read defendant his Miranda warnings prior to defendant making the statements.

The officer testified at the suppression hearing that defendant “called [the officer] over” to his bed and said “I’m beat up,” after which the officer asked defendant “what happened.” Defendant then explained the circumstances surrounding how he allegedly came into possession of a weapon he was not legally authorized to possess. We conclude that defendant’s initial statement, “I’m beat up,” was not subject to suppression because it was ” ‘spontaneous and not the result of inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence’ ” … . The court, however, erred in refusing to suppress the remainder of his statements, which were made in response to the officer’s question that was intended to elicit a response, and thus those statements cannot be said to have been “genuine[ly] spontane[ous],” i.e., they were not ” ‘spontaneous in the literal sense of that word as having been made without apparent external cause’ ” … . People v Corey, 2022 NY Slip Op 05646, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Although defendant’s initial statement to the police office “I;m beat up” was spontaneous and not subject to suppression, defendant’s answer to the officer’s question “what happened?” was not spontaneous and should have been suppressed.

 

/ , , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SNOW PLOW WAS “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” AT THE TIME OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE HIGHER “RECKLESS DISREGARD” STANDARD OF CARE APPLIED; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the state’s motion for summary judgment in this snow-plow traffic-accident case should not have been granted because there were questions of fact concerning whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for snow plows was applicable. Although the “reckless disregard” standard may still apply where, as here, the snow plow is raised, the snow plow must be salting the road or otherwise “working its run” at the time of the accident:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) “exempts from the rules of the road all vehicles, including [snowplows], which are ‘actually engaged in work on a highway’ . . . , and imposes on such vehicles a recklessness standard of care” … . The exemption “applies only when such work is in fact being performed at the time of the accident” … , which includes a snowplow engaged in plowing or salting a road … . Although the exemption does “not apply if the snowplow . . . [is] merely traveling from one route to another route” … , a snowplow may be “engaged in work even if the plow blade [is] up at the time of the accident and no salting [is] occurring” when the snowplow is nevertheless “working [its] ‘run’ or ‘beat’ at the time of the accident” … .

… [W]e conclude that the State failed to establish as a matter of law that the snowplow was “actually engaged in work on a highway” at the time of the accident (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 [b] …). Lynch-Miller v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 05640, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here the snow plow was raised when the traffic accident occurred. There were questions of fact about whether the snow plow was salting the road or otherwise working its run when at the time. Therefore, there were questions of fact about whether the higher “reckless disregard” standard of care for vehicles engaged in highway work applied.

 

/ , ,

PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA), HEALTH CARE WORKERS WHO TREATED COVID-19 PATIENTS WERE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; THE EDTPA HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED; THE REPEAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 DURING THE TIME THE EDTPA WAS IN EFFECT MUST BE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the repeal of the COVID-19-related Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law sections 3080-3082) should not be applied retroactively. Therefore, the immunity from civil liability provided by the EDTPA for health care workers who treated COVID-19 patients was in effect when the causes of action in the complaint arose. The complaint, which alleged plaintiff nursing-home resident was not properly tested and treated for COVID-19, was dismissed:

We … conclude that applying the repeal of EDTPA to the allegations in the complaint would have retroactive effect “by impairing rights [defendants] possessed in the past, increasing their liability for past conduct and imposing new duties with respect to transactions already completed” … . “Because the [repeal of EDTPA], if applied to past conduct, would impact substantive rights and have retroactive effect, the presumption against retroactivity is triggered” … . Ruth v Elderwood At Amherst, 2022 NY Slip Op 05637, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: The immunity from civil liability provided to health care workers who treated COVID-19 patients while the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) was in effect remains despite the subsequent repeal of the EDTPA. In other words, the repeal of the EDTPA is not given retroactive effect. The decision includes an exhaustive discussion and analysis of the retroactive application of statutes.

 

/ ,

REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction, noted that refusing to submit to a DWI field screening test (Alco-Sensor breath test) is not an offense:

We agree with defendant … that his “refusal to submit to a [field screening device] did not establish a cognizable offense” (People v Alim, 204 AD3d 1418, 1419 [4th Dept 2022]  … ; see People v Bembry, 199 AD3d 1340, 1342 [4th Dept 2021] …). We therefore modify the judgment by reversing that part convicting defendant of count seven of the indictment and dismissing that count. People v Shirley, 2022 NY Slip Op 05631, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Refusing to submit to a DWI breath test is not an offense. The “conviction” was reversed that the indictment count was dismissed.

 

/

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM OF AN EXCAVATED HOLE; THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WAS NOT A PASSAGEWAY (LABOR LAW 241(6)) AND THERE WAS NO ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240(1); THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff slipped and fell walking in a muddy, excavated hole. The bottom of the hole was not a passageway within the meaning of Labor Law 241(6) and there was relevant elevation-related risk:

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Labor Law § 241(6) for the alleged violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d), since the “excavation pit” where he slipped and fell, “which at that time was no more than a big hole in the ground with an unfinished muddy bottom[,] … was not the type of flooring or passageway contemplated by” the Industrial Code … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, his “accident did not occur on a floor, platform, passageway or similar work area or surface within the purview of [section 23-1.7(d)], but rather on muddy ground in an open area exposed to the elements” … . There was no testimony tending to establish that he was walking along a walkway or path that “workers generally took” … . …

Summary judgment also should have been granted to defendants dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because there was no elevation-related risk involved with his carrying a tank on his shoulder while he walked along the ground … . Alvarado v SC 142 W. 24 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05584, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff slipped and fell while walking on the muddy bottom of an excavated hole. He was not walking on a passageway, so the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed. There was no elevation-related risk, so the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been dismissed.

 

/ ,

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADEQUATELY ALLEGE “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement because it did not allege “out of pocket” damages:

… [T]he complaint fails to plead a cause of action for fraudulent inducement because it does not adequately allege that plaintiff suffered any ascertainable out-of-pocket pecuniary damages resulting from the alleged fraud … . Although plaintiff alleges unspecified reputational damages and lost revenue or profits, these allegations are not sufficient to sustain a cause of action based on fraud … . Similarly, plaintiff fails to allege that it paid any particular amount to acquire the G&P law practice or name, alleging only the value of G&P’s practice when plaintiff acquired it; this allegation is insufficient to measure plaintiff’s damages … . Furthermore, although plaintiff states that G&P “carried undisclosed liabilities,” it does not elaborate on what those might be…. . CKR Law LLP v Dipaolo, 2022 NY Slip Op 05587, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: A complaint alleging fraudulent inducement does not state a cause of action unless it adequately alleges “out of pocket” damages.

 

/ ,

THE FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraud causes of action should have been dismissed because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “out of pocket” damages:

Defendants are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to show the “out of pocket” damages required for a fraud claim (see e.g. Kumiva Group, LLC v Garda USA Inc., 146 AD3d 504, 506 [1st Dept 2017]). Plaintiffs failed to submit evidence of the value of the … stock they received … . Danco Enters., LLC v Livexlive Media, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05589, First Dept 10-5-22

Practice Point: Here the fraud causes of action were dismissed because plaintiffs did not demonstrate “out of pocket” damages. Decisions relied upon by the plaintiffs concerning exceptions to the “out-of-pocket” damages rule were deemed inapplicable.

 

/ , , ,

THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (HRL); THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS STATED A CLAIM UNDER ONLY THE CITY HRL; THE CONTINUING VIOLATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO ISOLATED STATEMENTS MADE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated a hostile work environment claim under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL) and sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL: The isolated statement made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine:

Plaintiff’s allegations, that several times a week over a period of at least two years, plaintiff’s coworker spoke to him in a mock Chinese accent, told plaintiff to “open your eyes,” and tormented him about his mandatory drug testing in a sexually and racially charged manner, are sufficient to state a hostile work environment claim based on national origin discrimination under both the State and City HRLs … .

… [T]he allegations that his coworker regularly made statements about plaintiff’s penis size when plaintiff took bathroom breaks or reported for drug testing “fall within the broad range of conduct that falls between ‘severe and pervasive’ on the one hand and a ‘petty slight or trivial inconvenience’ on the other,” such that they are sufficient under the City HRL but not under the State HRL … . The continuing violation doctrine does not apply to the isolated statements made outside the limitations period because they do not form part of “a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the [limitations] period . . . , but rather discrete events, involving different actors, occurring months to years apart” … . Lum v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05594, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: The allegations that a coworker spoke using a mock Chinese accent and told plaintiff “open your eyes” stated hostile work environment claims under the state and city Human Rights Law (HRL). The allegations that a coworker made comments about the size of plaintiff’s penis stated a sexual harassment claim under the city, but not the state, HRL. Isolated statements made outside the statute of limitations were not subject to the continuing violation doctrine.

 

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