You are here: / PETITIONER HELD HIMSELF OUT AS THE FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKER OF THE BUSINESS...

Search Results

/ ,

PETITIONER HELD HIMSELF OUT AS THE FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKER OF THE BUSINESS AND THE TAX TRIBUNAL PROPERLY FOUND PETITIONER WAS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR UNPAID EMPLOYEE WITHHOLDING TAXES; THE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKER AND WAS PUT IN CHARGE ONLY TO ALLOW THE BUSINESS TO BE CERTIFIED AS A MINORITY BUSINESS-ENTERPRISE; THE IRS IN A PARALLEL PROCEEDING HAD ABSOLVED PETITIONER OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determent the Tax Tribunal properly found that petitioner was a “responsible person” such that he can be held personally liable for unpaid employee withholding taxes. According to the dissent, petitioner held himself out as the business’s (NECC’s) financial decision-maker as part of an agreement with the 51% shareholder, Anthony Nastasi (the actual financial decision-maker) in order that the business would be certified as a minority business-enterprise and be eligible for certain state contracts as a result. In a parallel proceeding brought against petitioner by the IRS, petitioner was absolved of liability:

Notwithstanding evidence that could support a contrary determination, it is undisputed that petitioner was president, the majority shareholder, had check signing authority, was involved in daily field operations and derived a substantial part of his income from NECC. Additionally, petitioner intentionally held himself out to third parties, as well as to the Division of Taxation itself, as the contact person and responsible person for New York taxes by signing state tax returns and checks accompanying the returns, executing a sales tax certificate of authority listing himself as the corporation’s responsible person, filling out the Division’s “Responsible Person Questionnaire,” and maintaining communication with the Department. Accordingly, respondent’s determination that petitioner is a responsible person has a rational basis, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld … . Matter of Black v New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 2022 NY Slip Op 04200, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Even though there was evidence petitioner was put in charge of the business solely to allow it to be certified as a minority business enterprise, the Third Department upheld the Tax Tribunal’s determination that petitioner was a “responsible person” liable for unpaid employee withholding taxes. The two dissenters argued petitioner was not a “responsible person” and should be absolved of liability, which was the result in the parallel IRS proceeding. The result in this case was dictated by the standard for appellate review of an administrative determination. As long as there is evidence in the record which supports the Tax Tribunal’s ruling, the ruling will be deemed rational and upheld.

 

/ ,

TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined the evidence did not support the “drastic remedy” of terminating mother’s supervised visitation with the child:

Although Family Court found that both the mother and the father “testified credi[]bly that relations between the mother and child ha[d] deteriorated” — a determination that was borne out by the testimony — the “denial of visitation to a noncustodial parent is a drastic remedy” … and the record does not contain “substantial proof” that continued supervised visitation “would be harmful to the child” … . We are mindful of the father’s testimony that the child had returned home from a visit with bent glasses and marks on his leg. However, Family Court did not make any factual findings regarding these allegations, and the maternal grandfather — who drove the child home from that visit — denied ever observing the child’s glasses to be “messed up” or witnessing marks on the child’s legs. On this record, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that the bent glasses and marks observed by the father were caused by the mother’s conduct. Moreover, while the mother herself acknowledged that there were issues in the relationship between her and the child, she indicated that this stemmed from the child’s difficult behavior and her concern about the child making racist comments in front of his three-year-old half-sibling. There was also testimony regarding the positive aspects of their relationship and the maternal grandfather, who did all the driving, corroborated that the child generally seemed content during visits. Notwithstanding the father’s testimony to the contrary, we conclude that the evidence presented was not sufficiently compelling and substantial to justify a wholesale suspension of the mother’s supervised visitation … . Matter of William V. v Christine W., 2022 NY Slip Op 04199, Third Dept 6-3022

Practice Point: The termination of supervised visitation is a “drastic remedy” which requires “substantial proof” continued visitation “would be harmful to the child.” The proof was lacking in this case.

 

/ , , ,

HERE THE DEFENDANT, IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE EXTENT OF HIS COOPERATION AND WHETHER NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED THE PROSECUTOR’S WITHDRAWAL OF THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE DID NOT ADDRESS THESE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES; THEREFORE COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had raised several issues in the motion to vacate the conviction which were not addressed by the People’s response. Some of the issues were corroborated in an affidavit from defendant’s prior attorney. Therefore a hearing was necessary:

… [W]e agree with defendant that he is entitled to a hearing on whether counsel was ineffective in connection with defendant’s alleged failure to fully cooperate under the terms of the 2016 cooperation agreement. A hearing is required on a CPL article 440 motion “if the submissions show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established are material and would entitle the defendant to relief” … . In that regard, defendant averred that he consistently gave a truthful account of the burglary and had fully cooperated in the prosecution of [a codefendant] as required by the 2016 cooperation agreement, and his motion papers included a September 2016 supporting deposition from his sister and an affidavit from [his former attorney] to support those claims. Defendant also alleged specific deficiencies in counsel’s performance, namely, that counsel failed to investigate whether the Special Prosecutor’s withdrawal of the 2016 cooperation agreement was impermissibly “premised on bad faith, invidiousness, . . . dishonesty” or unconstitutional considerations and, moreover, failed to discuss the possibility of demanding a hearing on that issue with defendant … . People v Buckley, 2022 NY Slip Op 04197, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: If a motion to vacate the conviction raises substantive issues which are corroborated in some way (here with an affidavit by defendant’s prior attorney), and these substantive issues are not adequately dealt with in the People’s responding papers, a hearing must be held.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

/

IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kennedy in this Labor Law 241 (6) action, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined conflicting testimony about whether plaintiff, who was a foreman, had the authority to stop work because of rain, or was instructed to work in the rain, raised a question of fact about the cause of the accident. Plaintiff slipped on wet plywood and fell as he was passing steel rebar to workers below:

The deposition testimony raised issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by a slippery condition in violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(d), or whether the sole proximate cause was plaintiff’s decision, as a foreman, to work on a plywood surface exposed to the elements while it was raining … . * * *

… [T]he evidence is inconclusive as to whether plaintiff’s decision to work in the rain, rather than simply following his general foreman’s instructions about what work to perform, was the sole proximate cause of his slip-and-fall accident. … [T]his case is distinguishable from the line of cases relied upon by the dissent that conclude that a plaintiff is not the proximate cause of an accident when there is undisputed evidence that they were following the instructions of a foreman. Here, plaintiff was also a foreman with specific duties and potential control over the work that he and his crew were performing. Whether he could or should have ceased work based on his own authority, as a foreman, his extensive work experience and conditions of the site, there are issues of fact that cannot be resolved on this record. Sutherland v Tutor Perini Bldg. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 04228, First Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff was a foreman on a construction site. He was working in the rain when he slipped and fell on wet plywood. If plaintiff had the authority to stop work because of the rain, he may be deemed the sole proximate cause of his fall. If plaintiff was ordered to work in the rain, then the slippery plywood may be deemed to be the sole proximate cause of his fall. Because there was conflicting and/or a lack of evidence on these issues, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted.

 

/ , ,

THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s failure to see the victim’s vehicle on the side of the highway until it was too late did not rise to the level of criminal negligence (legally insufficient evidence). The victim was in a pickup truck with a sign on the back warning drivers that roadwork was being done ahead:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” … . “A defendant acts with criminal negligence in this context when the defendant ‘fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ that death will result” … . “That ‘risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation'” … . “[C]riminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death[;] . . . the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that . . . carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … . As such, a defendant must “engage[] in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” … . Importantly, “nonperception of a risk, even if death results, is not enough” … . …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he [or she] subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . People v Faucett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04195, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case includes a detailed description of the criteria for criminal negligence. In the context of a traffic accident, the defendant’s unexplained failure to see the other vehicle until it was too late, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the defendant made statements during the plea allocution which negated elements of criminal possession of a weapon. At that point, the sentencing judge should have made an inquiry. This issue falls within an exception to the preservation requirement:

Penal Law § 265.03 (3) requires the possession of a “loaded firearm,” meaning “an operable gun with either live ammunition in the gun or held on [the defendant’s] person” with the gun … . … [D]efendant negated that element at sentencing when he stated that the handgun in question was in his bedstand drawer, not on his person, and that it “wasn’t loaded.” At that point, it was incumbent upon County Court to either “conduct a further inquiry or give . . . defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . People v Reese, 2022 NY Slip Op 04194, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements during the plea allocution which negate an element of the charged offense, the judge must make an inquiry or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea. The error need not be preserved for appeal.

 

/ ,

HERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) AFTER HE HAD BEEN INDICTED; THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS INVALID AND THE SCI WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL AND NEED NOT BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s judgment by guilty plea and dismissed the superior court information (SCI). A defendant cannot be prosecuted by an SCI after indictment (defendant here had already been indicted). The error is jurisdictional and need not be preserved by objection. The issue is not forfeited by a guilty plea:

As the Court of Appeals has observed, “[g]iven the objective and the plain language of CPL 195.10 (2) (b), the conclusion is inescapable that waiver cannot be accomplished after indictment . . ., even where it is the defendant who orchestrates the scenario” … .

Here, at the point in time when defendant agreed to be prosecuted by way of an SCI, defendant already had been indicted and the matter was scheduled for trial. Although the indictment subsequently was dismissed, there is no indication in the record that the dismissal was occasioned by a defect in the indictment itself (see CPL 210.20) or that Supreme Court authorized resubmission of the charge to the grand jury (see CPL 210.45 [9]), and it does not appear that a new felony complaint was filed. “Therefore, defendant was not placed on a formal preindictment procedural track” … . Under these circumstances, the waiver of indictment is invalid and the resulting SCI must be dismissed … . People v Michalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04190, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was already indicted when he waived indictment and pled guilty to a superior court information (SCI). That was a jurisdictional error which need not be preserved by objection.

 

/ , ,

COUNTY COURT DISMISSED THE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND COUNT; THE PEOPLE APPEALED; COUNTY COURT THEN STAYED ITS DISMISSAL, HELD A TRIAL, AND DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED; AFTER THE CONVICTION THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT; THE DEFENDANT APPEALED; THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STAY THE DISMISSAL AND GO TO TRIAL ON THAT COUNT; THE CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s promoting-prison-contraband conviction, determined the trial judge, who had initially dismissed the promoting-prison-contraband count, should not have subsequently stayed the dismissal and gone to trial on the promoting-prison-contraband count with the other charges. Apparently the judge stayed the dismissal of the charge because the People had appealed the dismissal. After the trial, the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Then the defendant appealed and argued the judge did not have the statutory authority to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count:

We agree with defendant that County Court improperly stayed its dismissal order. The People had appealed to this Court pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1). In pertinent part, that provision authorizes the People to appeal, as of right, from an order that dismissed an accusatory instrument or a count thereof pursuant to CPL 210.20. Except as provided for in CPL 460.40, the taking of an appeal from a judgment, sentence or order does not automatically stay the execution thereof. With respect to appeals by the People to an intermediate appellate court, an automatic stay results only in the case of an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1-a) “from an order reducing a count or counts of an indictment or dismissing an indictment and directing the filing of a prosecutor’s information” or an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1) “from an order dismissing a count or counts of an indictment charging murder in the first degree” (CPL 460.40 [2]). Plainly, none of those circumstances are present. * * *

… [T]here was no statutory authorization for a stay of County Court’s dismissal order. Without a stay, the bench trial should not have included the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and, thus, there should have been no occasion for defendant to be convicted of the lesser included offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Accordingly, we vacate that conviction. People v Felli, 2022 NY Slip Op 04192, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: With certain exceptions in CPL 460.40, the dismissal of a count cannot be stayed when the People appeal the dismissal. Here the judge dismissed a count, the People appealed, the judge then stayed the dismissal, held a trial, defendant was convicted of the count, and the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Because the judge had no authority pursuant to CPL 460.40 to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count, the conviction was vacated.

 

/ ,

WHEN HER CHILDREN WERE ASLEEP, MOTHER WENT INTO THE BATHROOM, DRANK BRANDY, AND FELL ASLEEP; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A THREAT OF IMMINENT HARM TO THE CHILDREN OR THAT THE CHILDREN SUFFERED ANY EMOTIONAL HARM; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a dissent, determined the neglect finding against mother was not supported by evidence of a threat of imminent harm to the children. While the children were sleeping, mother went into the bathroom, drank brandy and fell asleep:

… [W]e find that petitioner failed to establish that respondent’s ill-advised conduct placed the children at risk of anything beyond, “at most, possible harm” … . To this point, respondent testified that her youngest children were in age-appropriate sleeping arrangements that presented no inherent danger resulting from respondent’s inebriated state … . Further, although there was a period when the children were no longer supervised by respondent when she was taken to the hospital, the testimony reveals that shelter staff were watching the children until petitioner’s supervisor arrived and took custody of them, and there is no indication that they were in any danger during this period of time … .

… [T]he record is devoid of any proof that the children were upset or suffered any emotional harm at any point during the incident … . Matter of Hakeem S. (Sarah U.), 2022 NY Slip Op 04214, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Children are not neglected unless there is a threat of imminent harm or actual harm. Here mother went into the bathroom, drank brandy and fell asleep while her children were asleep. The neglect finding was reversed.

 

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