You are here: / HERE DEFENDANT, WHO PLED GUILTY TO BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY,...

Search Results

/ , ,

HERE DEFENDANT, WHO PLED GUILTY TO BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, ATTEMPTED TO CHALLENGE HIS CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER, PRONOUNCED AT SENTENCING, IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING; THE SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION WAS DEEMED TO BE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE CHALLENGED ON DIRECT APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, determined that the defendant could not challenge his certification as a sex offender at the SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding. The sex-offender certification is part of the judgment of conviction which must be challenged on direct appeal. Here the defendant pled guilty to burglary as a sexually motivated felony and was designated a sex offender at sentencing.

… [W]e take this opportunity to pronounce that where, as here, a defendant challenges certification on the ground that the underlying New York conviction is for an offense which does not require registration under SORA, the issue is one which is properly raised on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, not on an appeal from an order designating his or her sex offender risk level…. . People v Matos, 2022 NY Slip Op 04984, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was certified as a sex offender at sentencing for burglary as a sexually motivated felony. He attempted to challenge the certification at the SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding. The Second Department, like the First Department, held the sex offender certification was part of the judgment of conviction and can only be challenged by direct appeal.

 

/ , , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A ONE-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW HIS DAUGHTER TO TRAVEL TO COURT TO TESTIFY, COUPLED WITH THE RELATED GRANT OF THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR A MISSING-WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the judge’s denial of defendant’s request for a one-day adjournment to allow defendant’s daughter to travel to court to testimony, and the grant of the People’s related request for a missing witness jury instruction, deprived defendant of a fair trial:

“[W]hen the witness is identified to the court, and is to be found within the jurisdiction, a request for a short adjournment after a showing of some diligence and good faith should not be denied merely because of possible inconvenience to the court or others” … . Under the circumstances here, the Supreme Court should have granted a one-day continuance for the defendant’s daughter to travel to New York from out of state … . The failure to grant this continuance cannot be considered harmless error, as there was conflicting testimony as to the defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the robbery … . …

Although the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the prosecution’s request for a missing witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review … , this issue is inextricably linked with the denial of the defendant’s request for a continuance, and this Court will consider the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … .  “The failure to produce a witness at trial, standing alone, is insufficient to justify a missing witness charge, ‘[r]ather, it must be shown that the uncalled witness is knowledgeable about a material issue upon which evidence is already in the case; that the witness would naturally be expected to provide noncumulative testimony favorable to the party who has not called him [or her], and that the witness is available to such party'” … . People v Reeves, 2022 NY Slip Op 04979, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: The request for a one-day adjournment to allow defendant’s daughter to travel to court to give ostensibly relevant testimony (re: defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the robbery), coupled with the grant of the People’s request to give the missing-witness jury instruction, deprived defendant of a fair trial. The jury-instruction issue was not preserved and was considered in the interest of justice.

 

/ ,

MARIJUANA AND GRAVITY-KNIFE CONVICTIONS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE “OFFENSES” HAVE BEEN DECRIMINALIZED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s marijuana and gravity-knife convictions because the “offenses” had been decriminalized:

The defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree “‘became a nullity by operation of law, independently of any appeal, and without requiring any action by this [c]ourt,'” pursuant to CPL 160.50(5) … . Consequently, the appeal from so much of the judgment as convicted the defendant of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree must be dismissed as academic … . * * *

The defendant contends that the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree predicated on the defendant’s possession of a gravity knife should be vacated because Penal Law § 265.01(1) has since been amended to decriminalize the simple possession of a gravity knife. The People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, agree that the judgment should be modified by vacating that conviction. Even though the statute decriminalizing the simple possession of a gravity knife did not take effect until May 30, 2019 … , under the circumstances of this case, we vacate that conviction and the sentence imposed thereon, and dismiss that count of the indictment, as a matter of discretion in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . People v Lester, 2022 NY Slip Op 04977, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here the marijuana and gravity-knife convictions were vacated in the interest of justice because the offenses had been decriminalized. The gravity-knife conviction was vacated even though the offense was not decriminalized at the time of its commission.

 

/

THE SMALL CONCRETE PEBBLES UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE AND WERE NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code did not apply to the small concrete pebbles on which plaintiff allegedly slipped when attempting to install a heavy glass divider:

When plaintiff stepped forward to place the glass into the track, he stepped onto “minute” pebbles near the track. His right foot slipped forward a few inches, but he did not fall. Plaintiff claims that he sustained injuries, not only because of pebbles he slipped on, but also because of [his employer’s] decision to remove one worker from his team when he undertook to move the glass.

… Neither of the Industrial Code regulations that plaintiff relies on apply to the accident. The floor was not in “a slippery condition” nor were the pebbles a “foreign substance which may cause slippery footing” within the meaning of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) … . Section 23-1.7 (e)(2) of the Industrial Code also does not apply as this was not a passageway, within the meaning of the regulation. In any event, the pebbles were debris that were an integral part of the construction work. The integral to the work defense applies to things and conditions that are an integral part of the construction, not just to the specific task a plaintiff may be performing at the time of the accident … . Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04941, First Dept 8-16-22

Practice Point: Small pebble-sized pieces of concrete are an integral part of the construction and therefore do not constitute a slippery “foreign substance” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. The Labor Law 241(6) action should have been dismissed.

 

/ ,

THE CITY PROPERLY AMENDED ITS CHARTER DELETING THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE CITY TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES, IMPOSING THAT DUTY ON THE COUNTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the city properly amended its charter by deleting the provisions requiring the city to enforce payment of delinquent property taxes, thereby imposing that duty upon the county:

By adopting Local Law No. 2, the City amended its charter by deleting the provisions requiring the City to enforce the payment of delinquent taxes, leaving the County with that obligation under RPTL article 11. The City was statutorily authorized to do so pursuant to RPTL 1104 (2), which recognizes that a city charter “may from time to time be amended.” As a consequence of the amendment, the City is no longer a “tax district” for purposes of RPTL article 11 … and the County treasurer becomes the enforcing officer … . As such, the County treasurer is statutorily required to credit the City for unpaid delinquent taxes upon the return at the end of the fiscal year … . This outcome is neither an expansion nor impairment of the County’s powers but simply a consequence of the statutory structure outlined in RPTL articles 9 and 11. Matter of St. Lawrence County v City of Ogdensburg, 2022 NY Slip Op 04932, Third Dept 8-11-22

Practice Point: Here the city, pursuant to the Real Property Tax Law, properly amended its charter to remove the provisions requiring the city to enforce payment of delinquent property taxes, a duty which now falls upon the county.

 

/

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE SPONTANEOUS ACT OF A BAR PATRON (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant bar owner could not be liable for the spontaneous act of a bar patron which injured plaintiff:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries at the defendants’ bar in Nassau County. At the time of the alleged incident, a female patron purportedly jumped onto the lap of a male patron, who was sitting on a bar stool. This apparently caused the two patrons and the bar stool to fall on top of the plaintiff, who was standing nearby. The plaintiff was “knocked” down to the floor…. ….

A property owner, which must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, has a duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need to do so … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the alleged incident was spontaneous, and could not have been reasonably anticipated and prevented … . York v Paddy’s Loft Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04931, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here defendant bar owner could not be held liable for the spontaneous act of a bar patron which injured plaintiff.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF THE SLIP AND FALL, A RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG IDENTIFIED IN A PHOTOGRAPH, WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff sufficiently identified the cause of the slip and fall. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

… [T]he defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his fall without resort to speculation. In support of his motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, who identified a “raised up” sidewalk flag in photographs depicting the sidewalk where he fell, and, referring to the photographs, testified that he “tripped there.” Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, this evidence raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff tripped on the sidewalk defect referenced … . Santiago v Williams, 2022 NY Slip Op 04922, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s evidence of the cause of his slip and fall, a raised sidewalk flag identified in a photograph, was sufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the wallet seized in the search of his person should have been granted. The related robbery convictions were reversed and a new trial on those counts was ordered. Defendant fled from the scene of the mugging and was properly detained by the police. However, once the pat-down search revealed defendant did not have a weapon, the police should not have seized the (stolen) wallet from defendant’s pocket and searched it. The “constitutional” error was not harmless because, under the facts, the error could have influenced the factfinder:

… [E]ven assuming that the officers were justified in performing a protective frisk … , there was no justification for searching the defendant’s pants pocket, reaching into it, and removing the wallet. In the course of conducting a protective pat-down based upon reasonable suspicion, “[o]nce an officer has concluded that no weapon is present, the search is over and there is no authority for further intrusion” … . There was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing that, during his frisk of the defendant, Nelson felt anything in the defendant’s pocket that seemed to be a weapon or that could have posed a danger to the officers at the scene. Indeed, Nelson did not testify at the hearing. Accordingly, there was no lawful basis for removing the wallet from the defendant’s pocket … , and that act violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … . The officers committed an additional constitutional violation when, after retrieving the wallet from the defendant’s pocket, they opened it and conducted a warrantless search of its contents … . * * *

… [U]nder the constitutional standard, an error cannot be harmless if there is a reasonable possibility that it may have been a contributing factor that influenced the factfinder’s determination … . People v Lewis, 2022 NY Slip Op 04920, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Although defendant was properly detained in a street stop, once the pat-down search revealed defendant did not have a weapon the police were not justified in seizing the stolen wallet from defendant’s pocket and then searching it.

Practice Point: There are two sets of harmless-error criteria, one for nonconstitutional error and one for constitutional error. Under the constitutional-error criteria, the error in this case was not harmless and a new trial was ordered.

 

/ ,

​ THE CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE WHEN PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY BY PROVIDING DEFENDANTS WITH MEDICAL AUTHORIZATIONS BY THE SPECIFIED DATE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF OFFERED NO REASONABLE EXCUSE, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff should have precluded from presenting any medical evidence at trial because plaintiff failed to comply with the conditional order requiring plaintiff to provide defendants with medical authorizations by a specified date:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to comply with the conditional order by providing authorizations for the individuals and entities listed in the defendants’ supplemental demands for authorizations. …

… [T]he conditional order became absolute on February 14, 2020, and to be relieved from the adverse impact of the conditional order, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the conditional order and a potentially meritorious cause of action … . The plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the conditional order, and thus, we need not reach the issue of whether he demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Since the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing to be relieved from the adverse impact of the conditional order, the Supreme Court should not have imposed a limitation on the directive in the conditional order precluding the plaintiff from presenting at trial any medical evidence on the issue of damages … . Martin v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 04907, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the preclusion order became absolute when plaintiff failed to provide medical authorizations to defendants by the specified date. Plaintiff had no excuse for the failure to comply. Therefore plaintiff should have been precluded from offering any medical evidence at trial.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR DEFENDANT’S STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S CAR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact about whether plaintiff, the front-most driver in this rear-end collision action, was negligent:

Hersh [defendant] raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment … . Hersh submitted his own affidavit in which he asserted that, prior to the accident, traffic was moving well and there was no ongoing road construction. Hersh asserted that the plaintiff then “suddenly and unexpectedly jammed on his brakes in front of me,” that Hersh “braked hard” and was able to stop without hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle, but that the vehicle behind Hersh then struck Hersh’s vehicle “twice in the rear,” pushing Hersh’s vehicle into the plaintiff’s vehicle. Hersh stated in his affidavit that, after the accident, he “looked all around on the nearby grass and even under plaintiff’s SUV but did not see any cone” obstructing the lane as the plaintiff claimed. Hersh’s affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Hersh had a nonnegligent explanation for hitting the plaintiff’s vehicle … . Joseph-Felix v Hersh, 2022 NY Slip Op 04905, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant in this rear-end collision case raised a question of fact about whether there was a nonnegligent explanation for defendant’s striking plaintiff’s car.

Practice Point: Although plaintiff’s lack of comparative negligence need no longer be asserted in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in a rear-end collision case, the issue may be considered at the summary judgment stage if plaintiff moves to dismiss defendant’s comparative-negligence affirmative defense.

 

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