You are here: / DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT “I WOULD LOVE TO GO PRO SE” WAS...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT “I WOULD LOVE TO GO PRO SE” WAS NOT A DEFINITIVE REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND THEREFORE THE STATEMENT DID NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A SEARCHING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined defendant’s statement “I would love to go pro se” was not a definitive commitment to self-representation and therefore did not trigger an inquiry by the judge:

… [D]efendant did not clearly and unequivocally request to proceed pro se. During a colloquy with the trial court, defendant referenced the unsuccessful application to relieve his assigned counsel made at his prior appearance, and he renewed that application, claiming that counsel was “ineffective.” The court denied the application and rejected defendant’s renewed attempt to read aloud from what defendant had previously referred to as “my testimony.” Upon review of the record as a whole, defendant’s retort, “I would love to go pro se,” immediately after the court’s denial of his applications “d[id] not reflect a definitive commitment to self-representation” that would trigger a searching inquiry by the trial court … . People v Duarte, 2022 NY Slip Op 00960, Ct App 2-15-22

 

/ , , ,

THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFore, over a dissenting opinion, determined the so-called two-hour rule does not apply to a driver’s license revocation administrative hearing after a DWI arrest. Within two hours of arrest the police can warn the driver that a refusal to submit to the blood-alcohol breath test is admissible at trial. If the request to submit to the test is made and the refusal warnings are given more than two hours after arrest, however, the refusal is not admissible at trial. Here the petitioner refused the DWI breath test three hours after arrest, after the refusal warnings were given. He argued the two-hour rule should apply and the refusal should not be considered at the Department of Motor Vehicle’s (DMV’s) administrative license revocation hearing:

Petitioner’s reliance on the statutory interpretation analysis in People v Odum [31 NY3d 344] as support for a motorist’s substantive right to refuse a chemical test without consequence is misplaced. Odum addressed the admissibility at trial of the results of a chemical test administered more than two hours after the defendant’s arrest, and whether the refusal warnings, including the inaccurate warning regarding the use of any refusal at a criminal trial, as given to him rendered his consent to the test involuntary. We emphasized that the 1973 statute authorizing the admissibility of evidence of a test refusal at a criminal trial was in derogation of common law and concluded as a result that the statutory provision authorizing such admission—Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (2) (f)—had to be strictly construed to include the two-hour rule … . In stark contrast, the limitation on the scope of the revocation hearing in section 1194 (2) (c) is not in derogation of the common law and is a subsequently enacted provision that specifically governs the issues that may be considered at an administrative hearing … . Matter of Endara-Caicedo v Vehicles, 2022 NY Slip Op 00959, CtApp 2-15-22

 

/ ,

LABOR LAW 198-B, WHICH PROHIBITS WAGE KICKBACKS, DOES NOT PROVIDE A FREESTANDING PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined Labor Law 198-b, which prohibits wage kickbacks, does not provide a freestanding private right of action:

Labor Law § 198-b prohibits “kickbacks” by making it unlawful for any person to “request, demand, or receive” part of an employee’s wages or salary on the condition that “failure to comply with such request or demand will prevent such employee from procuring or retaining employment.” Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor offense (see Labor Law § 198-b [5]). Labor Law § 218 also provides for administrative enforcement of section 198-b by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor. The statute empowers the Commissioner to grant affected employees restitution and liquidated damages in addition to imposing civil penalties. * * *

… [W]e apply a three-factor test to determine whether the legislative intent favors an implied right: “‘(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme'” … . * * *

The statutory scheme … expressly provides two robust enforcement mechanisms, “indicating that the legislature considered how best to effectuate its intent and provided the avenues for relief it deemed warranted” … . Konkur v Utica Academy of Science Charter Sch., 2022 NY Slip Op 00911, CtApp 2-10-22

 

/ ,

ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (CBA’S) DID NOT PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A VESTED RIGHT SUCH THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AWARDED AT RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSEQUENT CBA’S (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, addressing certified questions from the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, determined the relevant provisions of the civil-service collective bargaining agreements (CBA’s) did not create a vested right in the health insurance benefits afforded retirees. In other words, the CBA’s did not provide that the coverage of health insurance premiums vested at retirement such that reductions in coverage in subsequent CBA’s would not apply:

… [N]one of the CBA provisions identified by the Second Circuit in the first certified question establish a vested right to lifetime fixed premium contributions, either singly or in combination. Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, CtApp 2-10-22

/ ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE PLEA COURT CONFLATED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITH THE RIGHTS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; CASE REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SUPPRESSION CLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and remitting the case for consideration of the suppression claim, upon the People’s concession, determined the waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [O]rder reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings. Under the totality of the circumstances and upon the People’s concession that the appeal waiver was invalid because the plea court conflated the right to appeal with those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, defendant’s appeal waiver did not foreclose consideration of his suppression claim … . People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00909, CtApp 2-10-22

 

/ ,

AFTER MAKING THE LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR 15 YEARS ON THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (JANUARY 14), PAYMENT WAS NOT TIMELY MADE IN 2018 AND DECEDENT DIED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2018, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 31-DAY GRACE PERIOD; COVERAGE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE POLICY WAS AMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SUCH THAT THE GRACE PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF DEATH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent, determined the decedent’s life insurance policy was unambiguous about the date premiums were due–January 14 or at the end of the 31-day grace period thereafter. After paying the premiums by January 14 for 15 years, the premium was not paid on time in 2018. The insured died on February 26, 2018, just days after the grace period expired. The insurer denied the claim arguing the coverage had lapsed. The Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer. The dissent argued the policy was ambiguous because it also stated the term of the policy was annual and the very first payment was made on January 31, which would place the decedent’s death within the grace period:

Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits under the policy. The terms of the policy clearly and unambiguously tie the due date of the annual premium to the date of issue, January 14, 2002, and expressly state that January 14 is the premium due date. That the insurance policy uses the term “annual” but the premium payment period—which runs from January 14th, the “Date of Issue” and “premium due date”—may not cover a full year creates no ambiguity in light of the clear policy language identifying January 14th as the “premium due date” … . Furthermore, any claimed ambiguity in the definition of “policy date” is irrelevant inasmuch as the policy does not tie the premium due date to the “policy date” but, rather, the date of issue, which is January 14th. Because the insured failed to pay the 2018 premium by January 14, 2018 or within the 31-day grace period, the policy lapsed prior to the insured’s death. Bonem v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2022 NY Slip Op 00908. CtApp 2-10-22

 

/ ,

THE TOWN LAW STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “FIREARMS” DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A TOWN TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF “BOWS” (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, determined the Town Law does not authorize the Town of Smithtown to regulate the discharge of “bows” pursuant to its authority to regulate “firearms:”

Town Law § 130 (27) specifically authorizes certain towns to prohibit the discharge of “firearms” through ordinances that may be more restrictive than other laws where such discharge may be hazardous to the general public, and requires that notice be provided to the Department of Environmental Conservation of any ordinance “changing the five hundred foot [setback] rule” (Town Law § 130 [27]; see Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0931 [4] [a] [2]). While the term “firearm” is undefined in the Town Law, construing it in accordance with its “usual and commonly understood meaning” … , the term “firearm” does not encompass a “bow” … and we are unpersuaded that the Legislature intended otherwise when it used the term in the Town Law. Accordingly, Town Law § 130 (27) does not authorize Smithtown to regulate the discharge of bows. Hunters for Deer, Inc. v Town of Smithtown, 2022 NY Slip Op 00907, CtApp 2-10-22

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S “INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION,” HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation action properly survived summary judgment. Among the issues presented by the allegations was whether she “involuntarily resigned” because of the intolerably hostile work environment. Plaintiff alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment and was retaliated against after she complained about her treatment:

In our view, the broader account by plaintiff of a hostile work environment, Hawkins’ [plaintiff’s supervisor] behavior in placing plaintiff, but not a similarly situated man, on a PIP [performance improvement plan], and what plaintiff described as a wholly inadequate response by Russo [human resources official] to her August 2017 complaint about the situation reflect questions of fact as to whether plaintiff was subjected to a work environment so hostile that her only alternative was resignation and whether that hostility arose from a discriminatory motive … . Defendants attempted to rebut the presumption of discrimination arising from those facts via the affidavit of Hawkins, who averred in conclusory fashion that the other employee he supervised was performing better than plaintiff at the time she was placed on a PIP and that the other employee was also placed on a PIP at some point. Hawkins, however, gave no detail as to how the other employee compared to plaintiff on the performance metrics, failed to deny that the other employee was also underperforming on those metrics in July 2017 and offered no explanation as to why he did not seek to place both on a PIP at that time. Long v Aerotek, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00915, Third Dept 2-10-22

 

/ ,

THE PEOPLE FOCUSED THEIR PROOF ON THE SEXUAL MOTIVATION FOR THE BURGLARY; ALTHOUGH BURGLARY SECOND IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PRIOR NOTICE OF THAT POSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, dismissing the burglary second count, determined the People’s request to instruct the jury on burglary second as a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense should not have been granted. Although burglary second is a lesser included offense of burglary second as a sexually motivated offense, the People’s case focused only on the sexual motivation. Defendant therefore did not have notice the jury would consider burglary second:

… [T]he court improperly charged the lesser-included offense because the People, through the way they presented their case, deprived defendant of notice of the possibility that the jury would be asked to consider a lesser-included. In People v Barnes (50 NY2d 375 [1980]), the Court of Appeals observed that, where the People in a burglary case limit to a particular crime the act that the defendant intended to commit while unlawfully in a building, “the court is obliged to hold the prosecution to this narrower theory alone” … . * * *

In opposing defendant’s pretrial motion to sever certain charges in the indictment from the others, the People focused exclusively on defendant’s sexual harassment of the complainant, and on his grabbing the arm and pulling the shirt of another woman he encountered in the dorm. In making an application for the admission of certain Molineux evidence, the prosecutor focused only on the theory that defendant entered the dorm to satisfy his own sexual urges. And, in his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that defendant “knowingly and unlawfully entered the private area of a dorm to do exactly what he had been doing minutes prior — to grab, to grope and to harass the young women who lived there.” Further, the prosecutor downplayed the behavior defendant displayed towards some men he saw in the lobby of the dorm, stating that “the evidence will show that he was substantially motivated by his desire to abuse women when he passed that turnstile and unlawfully entered the private area of the dorm.” People v Seignious, 2022 NY Slip Op 00948, First Dept 2-10-22

 

/ ,

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION AFFIRMED; DURING A POLICE CHASE, DEFENDANT DROVE THE WRONG WAY ON A HIGHWAY AND CRASHED HEAD-ON INTO AN ONCOMING CAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the evidence supported defendant’s depraved indifference murder conviction stemming from his driving the wrong way on a highway and crashing into an oncoming car during a police chase:

While fleeing from the police, defendant drove 14 blocks against oncoming traffic on the West Side Highway, a major roadway, despite openings in the median between the north and southbound lanes, while running several red lights and driving onto the curb and sidewalk. Additionally, defendant did not avail himself of parking lots and driveways on the west side of the Highway, where he could have pulled off to avoid any collision with an oncoming vehicle. Heading north, the Highway merges into, and becomes, the Henry Hudson Parkway at the intersection of 57th Street. Instead of utilizing the last available opportunity to turn into the north bound lanes, defendant made the decision to continue driving in the wrong direction and entered onto the Parkway. It is unrefuted that the Parkway had no breaks in the median through which he could return to the northbound lanes and that oncoming cars were going even faster there than on the Highway because the speed limit increased from 35 mph to 50 mph. After he got on the Parkway, defendant remained in the lane immediately to the left of the concrete barrier separating the northbound and southbound lanes, made no effort to change lanes or to swerve to avoid oncoming vehicles and made no effort to stop or slow down, despite the fact that he was now on a parkway. He continued driving this way on the Parkway for seven blocks at which time he collided, head-on, with a vehicle driving in the proper direction in the southbound lane. People v Herrera, 2022 NY Slip Op 00949, First Dept 2-10-22

 

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