You are here: / IN RESPONSE TO A BATSON INQUIRY, THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR STRIKING...

Search Results

/ ,

IN RESPONSE TO A BATSON INQUIRY, THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR STRIKING THE PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN FACT RELATED TO ANOTHER PROSPECTIVE JUROR FOR WHOM DEFENDANT HAD EXERCISED A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined that, in response to a Batson inquiry, the prosecutor’s reason for striking the prospective juror did not, in fact, relate to the correct prospective juror. Rather, the prosecutor’s reason related to another prospective juror for whom the defendant had exercised a peremptory challenge:

… [T]he prosecutor stated that the reason that he exercised a peremptory challenge on the prospective juror at issue was due to “her answer as to why she wanted to sit on the jury.” Specifically, the prosecutor explained that the prospective juror expressed an “odd interest in the defendant’s right to remain silent, right to testify,” and that “[t]he way she answered the question . . . was very strange.” However, … the statements the prosecutor attributed to the prospective juror at issue were, in fact, made by a prospective juror upon whom defendant exercised a peremptory strike. Because “a proffered race-neutral reason cannot withstand a Batson objection where it is based on a statement that the prospective juror did not in fact make” … , “an equal protection violation was established” … .People v Douglas, 2022 NY Slip Op 01919, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: If, pursuant to a Batson inquiry, the prosecutor refers to answers given by the wrong prospective juror, a new trial will be ordered.

 

/

THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE SUPPORT OBLIGATION CALCULATED PURSUANT TO THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT (CSSA) BASED UPON THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY MOTHER WHEN THE CHILDREN WERE WITH HER; THE EXPENSES DID NOT QUALIFY AS “EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the support magistrate should not have deviated from the presumptive support obligation calculated pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA):

… [T]he Support Magistrate determined that, because the children spent approximately 50% of the parenting time with the mother and because the mother incurred expenses for the children’s “food, clothing, shelter, utilities, cell phones, transportation[,] and extracurricular activities” during the times they were with her, she should be granted a variance from the presumptive support obligation. That was error. Although “extraordinary expenses incurred by the non-custodial parent in exercising visitation” with a child not on public assistance may support a finding that the presumptive support obligation is unjust or inappropriate … , “[t]he costs of providing suitable housing, clothing and food for [a child] during custodial periods do not qualify as extraordinary expenses so as to justify a deviation from the presumptive amount” … , “nor is the cost of entertainment, including sports, an extraordinary visitation expense for purposes of calculating child support” … . Matter of Livingston County Support Collection Unit v Sansocie, 2022 NY Slip Op 01914, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Mother’s expenses for the children when they stayed with her did not qualify as “extraordinary expenses.” Therefore the support magistrate should not have deviated from the presumptive support obligation calculated pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA).

 

/ , ,

THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the criteria for imposing the maximum restitution surcharge of 10% were not met:

… [T]he judgment … is … modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the surcharge to 5% of the amount of restitution … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in imposing the 10% surcharge because there was no ” ‘filing of an affidavit of the official or organization designated pursuant to [CPL 420.10 (8)] demonstrating that the actual cost of the collection and administration of restitution . . . in [this] particular case exceeds five percent of the entire amount of the payment or the amount actually collected’ ” … . People v Webber, 2022 NY Slip Op 01904, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Before the maximum restitution surcharge of 10% can be imposed, an affidavit must be filed demonstrating the actual cost of collection.

 

/ , ,

WHERE AN ORDER CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION, THE DECISION CONTROLS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court in this post-judgment matrimonial case, determined the decision controls the discrepancy between the order and the decision:

… [B]oth parties expressly agreed in the oral stipulation that plaintiff’s benefits would be distributed “[i]n accordance with the Majauskas formula.” That oral stipulation was an unambiguous expression of the parties’ intent to follow Majauskas, …

… [T]he amended order conflicts with the court’s written decision insofar as the … amended order purports to award defendant 23.86% of a former spouse survivor annuity under 5 USC § 8341 (h) (1). The stated percentage represents defendant’s share of plaintiff’s gross monthly annuity, as calculated by the court pursuant to the Majauskas formula, but the court in its decision made no award to defendant of a former spouse survivor annuity, which, had it been awarded, would have expressly conflicted with the parties’ agreement. Where, as here, there is a conflict between the decision and the order, the decision controls, and we therefore modify the amended order accordingly … . Reukauf v Kraft, 2022 NY Slip Op 01898, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: If there is a conflict between an order and a decision, the decision controls.

 

/ ,

THE NEGLECT FINDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court’s neglect finding, determined the finding was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence:

“[A] party seeking to establish neglect must show, by a preponderance of the evidence … , first, that a child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired and second, that the actual or threatened harm to the child is a consequence of the failure of the parent or caretaker to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with proper supervision or guardianship” … .. In considering whether the requisite minimum degree of care was provided, “[c]ourts must evaluate parental behavior objectively: would a reasonable and prudent parent have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances then and there existing” … . Here, the evidence at the fact-finding hearing establishes that the mother acknowledged her mental health issues and had been compliant with treatment following her discovery that she was pregnant … ; and that she was engaged in a supportive housing program that would allow her to care for the child, thereby limiting any extended need for foster care … . Matter of Isabella S. (Nicole S.), 2022 NY Slip Op 01897, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Although the specific allegations of neglect are not described in this decision, the criteria for a neglect finding are clearly explained.

 

/ ,

THE POLICE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MAN IN A MOTEL ROOM (DEFENDANT) WAS A SUSPECT IN A SHOOTING; AN INFORMANT HAD TOLD THE POLICE THE MAN IN THE ROOM WAS FROM ROCHESTER, HIS NICKNAME WAS “JAY” AND HE “HAD A WARRANT;” WHEN THE MAN LEFT THE ROOM, THE POLICE STOPPED HIS TAXI; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not demonstrate the legality of the defective’s order to stop the taxi in which defendant was a passenger. An informant told the police a man in a motel room was from Rochester, his nickname was “Jay,” and he “had a warrant.” The detective believed the man in the motel room was a suspect in a shooting which occurred a month before. Surveillance was set up and the detective was told a man had left the room and gotten into a taxi. The defective, who did not see the man leave the room, ordered the stop of the taxi: It turned out that defendant was not the shooting suspect. He was charged with possession of a controlled substance:

At the suppression hearing, a police detective testified that he directed the stop of the taxi based on a belief that defendant was in fact a different man whom authorities had identified as a suspect in a shooting that had occurred over a month earlier. …

The detective conceded that he had never seen a still photo of the suspect, that the video of the shooting that he did view lacked detail, and that he was unaware of whether the suspect’s actual height, weight, skin tone, or other specific discernable characteristic were on the arrest warrant for the shooting suspect. Further, the informant never identified the man in the motel room as the shooter, and the vague description given, i.e., that the man was from Rochester, that his nickname was the ubiquitous “Jay,” and that he “had a warrant”, is too generalized to support the reasonable suspicion required for the officers’ stop of the taxi … . … This is also not a case in which the “proximity of the defendant to the site of the crime[ and] the brief period of time between the crime and the discovery of the defendant near the location of the crime” added to the totality of circumstances supporting the detective’s reasonable suspicion … . People v Singleton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01893, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: The police mistakenly thought the man in a motel room (defendant) was a shooting suspect based upon vague and general allegations made by an informant. When he left the motel room, the defendant’s taxi was stopped and he was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance. The People did not demonstrate the legality of the stop.

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS, I.E., PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED TO PAY $10,000 IN COUNSEL FEES TO DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not follow the procedural requirements for imposing sanctions, i.e.,  $10,000 in attorney’s fees to defendant’s counsel, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel:

The motion court’s sua sponte award of sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel did not satisfy the procedural requirements of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Court (22 NYCRR) § 130-1. That section provides that a court may award costs or impose sanctions “upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … and “only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate” … . DeSouza v Manhattan RX LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01875, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: Before a judge can impose sanctions, here ordering plaintiff’s attorney to pay counsel fees in the amount of $10,000 to defendant’s attorney, the relevant rules in 22 NYCRR 130-1 must be complied with, i.e., affording an opportunity to be heard and issuing a written decision explaining the conduct, why it was found frivolous and the reasons for the amount awarded or imposed.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT COMMODITY FUTURES BROKER IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER FIDELITY BONDS FOR LOSSES INCURRED BY THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF A BROKER AMOUNTING TO $141 MILLION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant MF Global was entitled to coverage under fidelity bonds for losses incurred by the criminal actions of a broker, Dooley, for which Dooley was ordered to pay restitution to MF Global in the amount of $141 million:

This 2009 declaratory judgment action involves a $141 million insurance coverage dispute between plaintiffs New Hampshire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Axis Reinsurance Company (Insurers) and defendant, commodity futures broker MF Global Finance USA, Inc. (MF Global). New Hampshire issued the primary bond insurance policy to MF Global’s predecessor and Liberty Mutual and Axis Reinsurance each issued excess financial institution bonds, covering the same policy period and incorporating the provisions and terms of the primary bond. Defendant MF Global seeks coverage under those bonds for a trading loss incurred in February 2008 by Evan Brent Dooley, a broker for MF Global, who in 2012 pleaded guilty to exceeding speculative position limits in violation of 7 USC §§ 6a and 13(a)(5). Dooley was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release and was ordered to pay restitution of over $141 million to MF Global upon release from prison.

… [W]e hold that defendant is covered under the fidelity bonds for its loss and is entitled to summary judgment in its favor…. . New Hampshire Ins. Co. v MF Global Fin. USA Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01880, First Dept 3-17-22

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF AT JFK AIRPORT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, HE WAS NOT ON DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT; THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this vicarious liability, negligent hiring and supervision and premises liability action should have been granted. Plaintiff was allegedly assaulted by Miles, who worked for American Airlines, at JFK airport (owned by defendant Port Authority). Plaintiff sued under respondeat superior and negligence theories. Miles testified he was not on duty at the time of the incident:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for intentional torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment, as long as those acts were “generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . Where the material facts are not in dispute, the question whether respondeat superior liability attaches is one of law and can be determined on a motion for summary judgment … . Here the threshold question is whether Miles was even working, or under the direction of American, at the time of the incident. … [D]efendants attached the deposition transcript of Miles, who testified that he was not working at the time of the incident. This was sufficient to at least satisfy defendants’ prima facie burden … .

Because the testimony of Miles, who, notably, is not a party to this action, was that he was not on duty when the altercation occurred, defendants shifted the burden on the issue of respondeat superior. Moreover, Miles’s testimony about his job responsibilities — escorting planes in and out, and loading and unloading luggage — established prima facie that the foreseeability element of respondeat superior liability was not present. The alleged assault bore no connection to plaintiff’s work duties, and thus was not “in furtherance of any employer-related goal whatsoever”  Summors v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 01891, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: An American Airlines employee allegedly assaulted plaintiff at JFK airport. The defendants demonstrated the American Airlines employee was not on duty at the time of the incident, which was deemed fatal to respondeat superior (vicarious) liability.

 

/ ,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED A TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this ice slip and fall case did not eliminate questions of fact about whether they had constructive notice of the icy condition:

Supreme Court found that plaintiffs’ testimony, submitted by defendants, showed that the allegedly dangerous condition “was neither visible nor had it existed for a significant period of time,” and “plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence to prove . . . constructive notice.” Although [plaintiff] testified that the parking lot appeared wet, not icy, when viewed from her husband’s truck, she also stated that she saw the ice once she had fallen; further, the affidavit of a witness states that “[t]he ice in the parking lot that morning was clearly visible.” Thus, the record contains conflicting accounts as to the visibility of the ice. “When considering a summary judgment motion, courts must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and accord that party the benefit of every reasonable inference from the record proof, without making any credibility determinations” … . Applying this standard, we find a triable issue of fact as to constructive notice. Carpenter v Nigro Cos., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 01857, Third Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: Where there is conflicting evidence of constructive notice of a dangerous condition, here whether the ice which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall was visible, summary judgment is not appropriate.

 

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