You are here: / DEFENDANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IN THE LOWER...

Search Results

/ ,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IN THE LOWER COURT; THEREFORE THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the alleged error in the CPL 400.21 predicate felony statement was not preserved for appeal:

Because defendant failed to challenge the CPL 400.21 predicate felony statement filed by the People in the court of first instance, her claim that her sentence was illegal due to the failure to include the tolling periods in that document did not present a question of law for purposes of appellate review … .  Defendant’s claim was not reviewable under the narrow illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement because it was not “readily discernible from the trial record” that the sentence the court imposed was not within the permissible range … . People v Lashley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06938, CtApp 12-14-21

 

/ ,

UNDER THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AN OBJECTION WAS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE ABOUT A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO HIS ABSENCE FROM THE PRE-WAIVER SIDEBAR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined the defendant’s absence from a sidebar conference regarding a prospective juror did not require reversal. Subsequent to the the sidebar, defendant waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences and was given the opportunity to object to the pre-waiver sidebar. Under these circumstance, the Court of Appeals held, although normally not required, an objection was necessary to preserve the error for appeal:

When a defendant is not present at a sidebar conference wherein the court actively solicits answers from a prospective juror which relate to issues of bias or hostility, People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247 [1992]) requires a new trial in the absence of defendant’s waiver of the right to be present. Defendant’s protest in the trial court is generally not required. The purpose of the Antommarchi rule, as derived from CPL 260.20, is to provide defendant the opportunity to personally assess the juror’s facial expressions and demeanor in order to provide meaningful input on the prospective juror’s retention or exclusion from the jury. The question presented on this appeal is whether defendant, having explicitly waived his Antommarchi right to be present at sidebars in the middle of the voir dire proceeding involving a prospective juror who was ultimately struck when codefendant exercised a peremptory strike, is entitled to a new trial based on his absence from a pre-waiver sidebar conference with that same prospective juror. We conclude that the claimed error, under these unique circumstances, required defendant’s protest in the trial court given his acquiescence in the post-waiver voir dire of the prospective juror after being invited to express any objection that he may have had regarding the pre-waiver sidebar conference. People v Wilkins, 2021 NY Slip Op 06936, CtApp 12-14-21​

 

/

CLAIMANT WAS LAID OFF AFTER 15 YEARS BUT CONTINUED TO DO SIMILAR WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER; AFTER HE WAS LAID OFF HE WAS NO LONGER AN EMPLOYEE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined a photograph researcher who continued to work for a a publisher, Rosen Publishing, after he was laid off after 15 years, was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [W]e conclude that … the Board’s finding of an employer-employee relationship is not supported by substantial evidence. After [claimant was laid off], when a photograph research project became available, Rosen Publishing would email claimant the project’s title, the number of specs needed and the deadline for the project, which project he could accept or reject. If claimant accepted the project, an additional email with further information regarding the book’s manuscript and further detail about the project was provided. Other than the deadline for the project, claimant was not required to work any specific hours, was not required to report to Rosen Publishing at any time during the course of the project, received no fringe benefits and could have others perform the research. Claimant was not prohibited from working for competitors, there was no written contract and he was not reimbursed for any expenses, nor was he provided with any equipment to perform his research. Matter of Levick (Rosen Publ. Group Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 06890, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN FRONT OF THE CHILD AND SHOWING PORNOGRAPHY TO THE CHILD CONSTITUTED NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the dismissal of the sexual-behavior-related neglect allegations was error. The petition alleged masturbation in front of the child, having sex in front of the child, and showing pornography to the child. The 3rd Department concluded the allegations were sufficiently supported by the evidence. Matter of Chloe L. (Samantha L.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06892, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/

CLAIMANT ACTOR WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL OF VISUAL ARTS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant actor was not an employee of the School of Visual Arts (SVA). Claimant was paid $10 an hour for a couple of acting jobs at SVA:

Claimant, a professional actor who maintained his own website and IMDb listing to showcase his acting experience and credentials, was referred for the two assignments at issue by an SVA faculty member. Claimant readily acknowledged that he only provided services for SVA once or twice a year, that he was free to provide similar services for other entities, that he could decline to participate in SVA projects for any reason, that he signed a written invoice proclaiming his status as an independent contractor and that no deductions were taken from his pay. Although claimant insisted, contrary to the testimony offered by SVA’s representative, that the scripts provided to him were not authored — and the scenes in which he appeared were not directed — by students, a closer reading of claimant’s testimony nonetheless reveals that the “direction” that he purportedly received from SVA faculty members was minimal and for the purpose of teaching students how to direct. In short, despite other possible indicia of an employment relationship, the record as a whole does not demonstrate that SVA exercised overall control over important aspects of the professional services offered by claimant … . Matter of Ewens (School of Visual Arts, LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 06894, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

THE ARRESTING DETECTIVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON DEPICTED IN SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS AS THE DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the arresting detective should not have been allowed to identify the person depicted in two surveillance videos as the defendant:

The court should not have permitted the arresting detective to give lay opinion testimony that defendant was the person depicted in two surveillance videos. In this case, the alleged difference in appearance — the addition of eyeglasses — was de minimis, and the jury had access to photos of defendant without eyeglasses … . The People do not point to any case in which lay opinion testimony was permitted based on such a slight change in appearance. Moreover, “no other circumstance suggested that the jury, which had ample opportunity to view defendant, would be any less able than the [officer] to determine whether he was seen in the videotape” … . Indeed, at the time of trial, the arresting detective was a 20-year veteran of the force and had 14 years experience investigating robberies and burglaries on the Lower East Side, where the incident occurred. He had made nearly 600 arrests and assisted in approximately 200 others. Stating twice that the perpetrator in this case was defendant carried significant weight in the eyes of the jury. Although the court provided limiting instructions, “[t]ruly prejudicial evidence cannot be erased from a juror’s mind by the court’s instructions” … . People v Challenger, 2021 NY Slip Op 06927, First Dept 12-9-21

 

/ , , ,

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff police officer and defendant police were co-employees pursuant a Police Mutual Aid Agreement between two municipalities, the Town of Glenville and the Village of Scotia. Plaintiff, a Glenville police officer, alleged defendant , a Scotia police officer, was negligent in firing her weapon at a suspect, thereby causing a bullet to strike plaintiff. Because the plaintiff and defendant were deemed co-employees pursuant to the agreement, General Obligations Law 11-106 prohibited plaintiff from suing in negligence:

Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-106, a police officer may now assert a cause of action sounding in negligence “for injuries suffered while in the line of duty against entities other than municipal employers and fellow workers” … . The issue thus boils down to whether plaintiff and Peck [defendant] were acting as coemployees at the time of the incident, which would bar plaintiff’s action. Based primarily upon the operative provisions of the Agreement, we find that they were coemployees on the night of the incident, thereby insulating defendants from liability. Ferretti v Village of Scotia, 2021 NY Slip Op 06895, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION THE INMATE CURSED AT AND THREATENED A CORRECTION OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED, THE CONCURRENCE NOTED THE OFFICER WAS NOT WEARING A BODY CAMERA, DESPITE THE PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED IN 2018 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department confirmed the finding that petitioner cursed at and threatened a correction officer. The concurrence noted that a body camera would have would provided crucial evidence in a case like this:

Although we can accept the explanation here that the correction officer had not been assigned a body camera on the day of the incident, the perplexing question that remains is why not? A recording of actual events would certainly assist in resolving credibility disputes such as the one at hand, either exonerating or condemning the actions of the facility’s employees … . We are mindful that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision has taken steps since 2018 to implement a body camera pilot program and that legislation has been introduced in the State Assembly and Senate to amend the Correction Law to require respondent to establish a “[b]ody camera for correction officers pilot program” at maximum security facilities … . As is evident from this case, it appears that a comprehensive body camera program has yet to be established. Matter of Pine v Annucci, 2021 NY Slip Op 06903, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE COVID VACCINATIONS; THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FATHER ALLEGEDLY WANTED THE VACCINE, MOTHER OBJECTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was required before allowing the children to be vaccinated against COVID. The attorney for the children (AFC) and father, reflecting the wishes of the children, asked for court-approval for vaccination. Mother objected to vaccinating the children:

Family Court gave the parties notice that it was considering the AFC’s request and directed the parties to submit their positions to the court in writing, thus providing some limited opportunity to be heard. Having reviewed those submissions, the court rendered its decision. The court made specific findings that the subject children “have been fully informed regarding COVID-19 and the vaccine” and that they “have the capacity to consent.” These factual findings were made without evidence and based solely on hearsay, through unsworn letters containing representations by counsel. This does not constitute a sufficient basis to support these findings.

Considering that providing a vaccine constitutes medical treatment, and given the general preference toward conducting a hearing in this type of situation, we find that a hearing was required before Family Court could grant petitioner’s request over respondent’s objection … . At such a hearing, the court must focus on whether respondent’s refusal to authorize vaccination constitutes “an acceptable course of medical treatment for [her] child[ren] in light of all the surrounding circumstances,” while heeding the Court of Appeals’ cautionary point that courts cannot “assume the role of a surrogate parent” … . As the Office of Children and Family Services’ guidance documents prohibit local agencies from administering a COVID-19 vaccine if the child refuses to consent, the hearing must address whether the subject children have been fully informed about COVID-19 and the vaccine and whether they have the capacity to consent. After the hearing, the court must carefully balance the risks and benefits of the potential vaccination to decide whether to authorize it for the subject children … . Matter of Athena Y. (Ashleigh Z.), 2021 NY Slip Op 06908, Third Dept 12-9-21

 

/ ,

GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE CHILD VICTIMS ACT COMPLAINTS WHERE DEFENDANT MOVES TO STRIKE “SCANDALOUS OR PREJUDICIAL MATTER” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, laid out guidelines for future pleadings in Child Victims Act (CVA) complaints alleging sexual abuse. The question before the court was how the statute allowing the striking of “scandalous and prejudicial matter” (CPLR 3024(b)) should be applied to CVA complaints. The court ultimately only struck one phrase which referenced “another survivor of [defendant’s] molestation…”. Although the denial of a motion to strike scandalous matter from a pleading is not appealable, the 2nd Department granted leave to appeal:

Based upon the conclusions directly reached here, there are bright lines that should be followed in the future:

— Factual allegations about a plaintiff’s own alleged sexual abuse will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b) as they are central and necessary to giving notice of the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions and occurrences, and the material elements of the cause(s) of action asserted.

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s prior sexually-abusive conduct will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b) where one or more causes of action includes, as a necessary element, what acts or propensities an institutional defendant knew or should have known by the time of the plaintiff’s own abuse.

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s concurrent-in-time sexual abuse of another person will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b) where one or more causes of action includes, as a necessary element, what acts or propensities an institutional defendant knew or should have known by the time of the plaintiff’s own abuse.

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s subsequent relevant statements or conduct that specifically relate back to the sexual abuse of the plaintiff will not be stricken from the complaint under CPLR 3024(b).

— Factual allegations about a defendant’s statements or conduct involving a subsequent sexual abuse survivor, other than the plaintiff, may be stricken from a complaint under CPLR 3024(b) on the ground that they are scandalous or prejudicial and not necessary to the elements of the plaintiff’s specific cause(s) of action. Pisula v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 06872, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

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