You are here: / ALTHOUGH THE RELEVANT DECISION [PEOPLE VS RUDOLPH] CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE RELEVANT DECISION [PEOPLE VS RUDOLPH] CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED, THE DECISION CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE PROCESS WAS COMPLETE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department, noting that the relevant law was announced after defendant’s sentencing but while the appeal was pending, determined County Court’s failure to consider whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status required vacation of the sentence and remittal for resentencing:

There is no dispute that Rudolph [21 NY2d at 499], which was decided after defendant was sentenced but before the appellate process was complete, required County Court to make a determination as to whether defendant, as an eligible youth, should be adjudicated a youthful offender, notwithstanding that no request was made for such treatment (see CPL 720.20 [1] …). Whether to grant youthful offender status lies within the discretion of the sentencing court and cannot be dispensed with through the plea-bargaining process … . Although this Court is “vested with the broad, plenary power to modify a sentence in the interest of justice, . . . and, if warranted, exercise our power to adjudicate [a] defendant a youthful offender” … , we decline defendant’s invitation to do so here, in the complete absence of any consideration by the sentencing court, either summarily or otherwise, as to whether defendant should be adjudicated a youthful offender. As such, we deem it appropriate, under such circumstances, to remit the matter to permit County Court the opportunity to make the initial discretionary determination as to whether youthful offender status for defendant is warranted, after the parties fully set forth their positions for and against such treatment … . Without expressing any opinion as to whether youthful offender adjudication should be afforded defendant, in the event that County Court grants such status upon remittal, which would result in the court imposing a lower sentence than the parties negotiated[*2], the People must be given an opportunity to withdraw consent to the plea bargain … People v Simon, 2022 NY Slip Op 03277, Third Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Even if the requirement that youthful offender status be considered for all potentially eligible defendants was not in force when a defendant was sentenced, if the decision imposing the requirement (People vs Rudolph) came down before defendant’s appellate process was complete, defendant is entitled to resentencing applying the new law.

 

/

THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, REVERSED THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WHICH HAD REVERSED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT DURING A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ISSUES AND FACTS RAISED IN THE APPEAL BUT NOT CONSIDERED BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, without explanation, reversed the Fourth Department which had reversed defendant’s conviction on the ground defendant was not present during a side bar conference concerning the bias of a prospective juror: People v McKenzie-Smith, 2022 NY Slip Op 03308, CtApp 5-19-22

From the Fourth Department Decision (Reversed Without Explanation by the Court of Appeals):

A … prospective juror was peremptorily excused by defendant’s counsel, however, and, during a sidebar conference at which defendant was not present, that juror was questioned “to search out [her] bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” (Antommarchi, 80 NY2d at 250). Consequently, we conclude that, “absent a knowing and voluntary waiver by defendant of his right to be present at that sidebar conference, his conviction cannot stand” … . The only evidence in the record concerning a waiver consists of a conversation between the court, defendant’s counsel and codefendant’s counsel that occurred after the prospective juror was excused, in which codefendant’s counsel indicated that he had just discussed with codefendant the right to approach the bench during such conferences, and defendant’s counsel merely assented. Inasmuch as the discussion was vague and prospective, and there is no indication that defendant or defendant’s counsel were waiving defendant’s Antommarchi rights retrospectively, that conversation is insufficient to establish that defendant waived those rights concerning the questioning of the prospective juror at issue here. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial. People v Mckenzie-Smith, 2020 NY Slip Op 05653, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

Practice Point: The Fourth Department had reversed defendant’s conviction on the ground the defendant was not present at a sidebar conference when the bias of a prospective juror was discussed. Here the Court of Appeals reversed without explanation and sent the case back to the Fourth Department for consideration of other issues raised in the appeal.

 

/ ,

HERE SCREENSHOTS OF TEXT MESSAGES WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED FROM THE VICTIM’S PHONE WERE SUFFICIENTLY AUTHENTICATED TO BE ADMISSIBLE, EVEN IF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIED; THE MESSAGES OF A SEXUAL NATURE ALLEGEDLY WERE SENT BY THE DEFENDANT, A VOLLEY BALL COACH, TO THE VICTIM, A 15-YEAR-OLD PLAYER ON THE TEAM (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting in evidence screen shots of text messages of a sexual nature allegedly sent by the defendant, a high-school volley ball coach, to the 15-year-old victim, a player on the team. The victim had deleted the messages, but her boyfriend had taken screenshots of some of the messages and those screenshots were allowed in evidence. On appeal the Second Department reversed the conviction on the ground that the screenshots had not been properly authenticated:

“[T]echnologically generated documentation [is] ordinarily admissible under standard evidentiary rubrics” and “this type of ruling may be disturbed by this Court only when no legal foundation has been proffered or when an abuse of discretion as a matter of law is demonstrated” … . This Court recently held that for digital photographs, like traditional photographs, “the proper foundation [may] be established through testimony that the photograph accurately represents the subject matter depicted” … . We reiterated that “[r]arely is it required that the identity and accuracy of a photograph be proved by the photographer” … . which would be the boyfriend here. Rather, “any person having the requisite knowledge of the facts may verify” the photograph “or an expert may testify that the photograph has not been altered” … .

Here, the testimony of the victim—a participant in and witness to the conversations with defendant—sufficed to authenticate the screenshots. She testified that all of the screenshots offered by the People fairly and accurately represented text messages sent to and from defendant’s phone. The boyfriend also identified the screenshots as the same ones he took from the victim’s phone on November 7. Telephone records of the call detail information for defendant’s subscriber number corroborated that defendant sent the victim numerous text messages during the relevant time period. Moreover, even if we were to credit defendant’s argument that the best evidence rule applies in this context, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the screenshots. People v Rodriguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 03307, CtApp 5-19-22

Practice Point: Text messages of a sexual nature were allegedly sent by the defendant, a volley ball coach, to a 15-year-old player on the team. The original messages were deleted, but the victim’s boyfriend had taken screenshots of some of the messages. The screenshots were deemed authenticated and admitted by the trial court. The Second Department reversed, applying the best evidence rule. The Court of Appeals reversed the Second Department, finding that, even if the best evidence rule applied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the screenshots had been sufficiently authenticated.

 

/ , ,

WHEN A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH ISSUES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY POLICES TO MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS DEMUTUALIZES, THE CASH-CONSIDERATION PROCEEDS, ABSENT AGREEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY, ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THE EMPLOYEE, NOT THE EMPLOYER WHICH PAID THE PREMIUMS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that when a mutual insurance company which issued professional liability policies to medical professionals demutualizes, where the employer paid the premiums, the distribution of cash consideration goes to the employee, not the employer:

Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC), formerly a mutual insurance company, issued professional liability insurance policies to the eight medical professionals who are litigants in the eight cases before us on these appeals. The premiums for those policies were paid by their employers. In October 2018, MLMIC demutualized and was acquired by National Indemnity Company. Pursuant to its “Plan of Conversion”—approved by the New York State Department of Financial Services—MLMIC sought to distribute $2.502 billion in cash consideration to “Eligible Policyholders.”

The question presented is as follows: when an employer pays premiums to a mutual insurance company to obtain a policy for its employee, and the insurance company demutualizes, who is entitled to the proceeds from demutualization: the employer or the employee? We answer that, absent contrary terms in the contract of employment, insurance policy, or separate agreement, the employee, who is the policyholder, is entitled to the proceeds. Columbia Mem. Hosp. v Hinds, 2022 NY Slip Op 03306, CtApp 5-19-22

Practice Point: Here the employer paid the premiums to a mutual insurance company for medical malpractice insurance for its employees (doctors). When the company demutualizes, absent some contractual provision to the contrary, the cash consideration, here $2.5 billion, is distributed to the employees (doctors), not the employer.

 

/

WHEN A PARTY BRINGS A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN THE COUNTY TO WHICH THE PARTY WANTS VENUE CHANGED, AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE ACTION WAS STARTED, THE PARTY MUST USE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CPLR 511 (A) AND (B), WHICH REQUIRES MAKING A DEMAND ON THE OTHER PARTY BEFORE BRINGING A MOTION; HERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS NOT USED, THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE IN THE “WRONG COUNTY” AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant nursing home’s motion to change venue should have been denied. Unless a party follows the special procedure in CPLR 511(a) and (b), which requires making a demand on the other party before bringing a motion, a motion to change venue must be brought in the county where the action was started. Here the defendant did not use the special procedure and brought the motion to change venue in the county where defendant sought to move the proceedings. That was the wrong county for the motion:

This Court has stated that “[w]here . . . a motion to change venue . . . is made in the ‘wrong county’ and timely objection is raised to the improper venue of the motion itself, Special Term should deny the motion” … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, neither CPLR 501 nor CPLR 511(b) provided a basis for it to notice the motion in Nassau County. Allen v Morningside Acquisition I, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03219, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Here the party made a motion to change venue in the county to which the party wanted venue changed. That was deemed the “wrong county” and the motion was dismissed because the party did not first use the special procedure in CPLR 511 (a) an (b) which requires making a demand on the other party before bringing the motion.

 

/ ,

​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s motion in this foreclosure action did not fit the criteria for a motion to renew or an allowable successive summary judgment motion. The judgment of foreclosure should not have been granted;

“When no reasonable justification is given for failing to present new facts on the prior motion, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to provide any justification for its failure to present the new evidence supporting its renewal motion as part of its prior motion.

Even considered as a successive motion for summary judgment, such a motion “should not be entertained in the absence of good cause, such as a showing of newly discovered evidence” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Osias, 2022 NY Slip Op 03275, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Attempting to bring a second motion which includes “new” facts, without a reasonable justification for leaving them out of the first motion, does not fit the criteria for a motion to renew or an allowable successive summary judgment motion.

 

/ ,

CLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimants’ should have been allowed to file a late notice of claim in this construction accident case. The delay in filing was minimal, claimants made a sufficient showing the defendants were not prejudiced by the delay and defendants did not demonstrate prejudice:

The claimants showed that any delay in ascertaining actual notice of all of the essential facts underlying the claims was minimal … , and that the defendants were provided with an adequate opportunity to investigate the circumstances underlying the claims in light of, among other things, the information contained in an accident report and a medical release, which were both prepared by the defendants’ general contractor on the date of the accident…. . …

… [T]he defendants failed to come forward with “a particularized evidentiary showing that [they] will be substantially prejudiced” if the late claims are permitted … . Schnier v New York State Thruway Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 03267, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: The claimants adequately demonstrated defendants in this construction-accident case were not prejudiced by the minimal delay in filing the notice of claim and defendants were unable to demonstrate any prejudice as they had time to investigate the incident after timely receiving the accident report. Claimants’ motion for leave to file and serve a late notice of claim should have been granted.

 

/ , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined proof of mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice and failure to comply with the content-requirements for the RPAPL 1304 notice in this foreclosure action warranted denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment:

The respondent failed to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. The respondent submitted an affidavit of Alfreda Johnson, a “Foreclosure Specialist” of Fay Servicing, LLC (hereinafter Fay), the plaintiff’s servicer. Johnson did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing … . Furthermore, while Johnson averred that she was familiar with Fay’s mailing practices and procedures, the record indicates that the notices were not mailed by Fay. The record indicates that the notices were mailed by an entity known as “Seterus” … . Johnson does not address this fact at all, let alone demonstrate that she was familiar with Seterus’s mailing practices and procedures. Thus, the respondent failed to establish that the 90-day notices were properly mailed in strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … .

Moreover, the content of the 90-day notices did not strictly comply with RPAPL 1304 … . Here, the 90-day notices omitted information that was required by RPAPL 1304 … . Prof-2014-S2 Legal Tit. Trust II v DeMarco, 2022 NY Slip Op 03263, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Here, in this foreclosure action, not only was proof of mailing the RPAPL 1304 notice insufficient, but the notice did not include all the required information.

 

/

BECAUSE DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined, because the defendant objected to the restitution-amount, a hearing to determine the amount was required:

“‘Before a defendant may be directed to pay restitution a hearing must be held if either: (1) the defendant objects to the amount of restitution and the record is insufficient to establish the proper amount; or (2) the defendant requests a hearing'” … .

Here, the defendant objected to the amount of restitution payable to the complainant, and the record was insufficient to establish the value of damages to the complainant’s property in the amount of $7,630 … . People v Jensen, 2022 NY Slip Op 03250, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Where a defendant objects to the amount of restitution and the record is insufficient to establish the proper amount, a hearing must be held.

 

/ ,

THE DIVORCE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO PAY THE CHILDREN’S COLLEGE EXPENSES FOR FOUR YEARS AND DID NOT MENTION AN AGE CUT-OFF; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S OBLIGATION CEASED AT AGE 21 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation of settlement in the divorce stated that defendant would pay the children’s college expenses for four years with no mention of a cut-off at age 21. Supreme Court should not have ruled that the obligation ceased when the child turned 21:

… [T]he stipulation clearly and unambiguously required the defendant to pay 50% of the costs and expenses for each child’s college education for a total of four years, though his obligation to contribute to room and board expenses would be offset by any child support payments he made during that time. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, no age limitation or restriction was placed on his obligation to pay his share of these costs and expenses, and the stipulation cannot be fairly interpreted to provide that this obligation terminated upon the child’s emancipation … . Pape v Pape, 2022 NY Slip Op 03246, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Here the divorce stipulation of settlement clearly stated defendant was obligated to pay the children’s college expenses for four years. Supreme Court should not have ruled the obligation ceased at age 21.

 

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