You are here: / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the judge should have determined whether defendant, who had been convicted of an armed felony, was eligible for youthful offender treatment:

“[W]hen a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony . . . and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)” … . Here, the People concede that the sentencing court failed to make any appropriate on-the-record determination. We accept the People’s concession and, accordingly, the case should be remitted for consideration of youthful offender treatment. People v Hargrove, 2021 NY Slip Op 06427, Ct App 11-18-21

 

/ ,

THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DISPLAY OF STATUTORY TEXT ON A VISUALIZER WHEN A JUDGE RESPONDS TO A JURY’S REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the consent of the parties is not required for the display of the relevant statutory text on a visualizer during the judge’s response to a jury’s request for supplemental instruction. Consent of the parties is required for allowing the jury to be provided with copies of the statutory text, but not for the display of the text during the supplemental instruction:

When a deliberating jury requests supplemental instruction, Criminal Procedure Law § 310.30 requires the court to provide a meaningful response. When the jury’s request concerns a relevant criminal statute, the law also permits the court to provide the jury with copies of the statutory text, but only with the consent of both parties. This case asks us to decide whether consent of the parties is required before the court, during a readback of the requested law and relevant definitions, may simultaneously display the corresponding text using a visualizer … . We conclude that consent is not required … . …

During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking for “definitions of the law” and later clarified that they were requesting the elements and relevant definitions of the charged crimes. The jury also asked that this information be displayed on the visualizer.

The judge informed counsel that he would comply with this request and project the relevant statutory text so the jury could see it while the judge read the text aloud. Although defense counsel did not object to the material selected for the readback, he did object to the process of displaying the text for the jury, arguing that “placing [the text] on the visualizer is really [no] different from handing them a written copy.” He asserted that once jurors are handed “instructions in written form, whether it is visually or physically, that they then start having the ability to interpret based on how they see the words, [and] what punctuation may or may not be there . . . .” The judge overruled the objection and proceeded as he had described to the parties. A short time later, the jury convicted defendant on two counts and acquitted him on one count of criminal possession of a weapon. People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 06426, Ct App 11-18-21

 

/

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW SECTION 18 (2) (e) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT NO MORE THAN $ .75 PER PAGE CAN BE CHARGED FOR MEDICAL RECORDS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a concurrence, determined there is no private right of action for a violation of Public Health Law section 18 (2) (e), which limits the charge for copies of medical records to $ .75 per page. Defendant charged plaintiff $1.50 per page:

Applying the Sheehy factors here, we conclude that no private cause of action exists for violations of Public Health Law § 18 (2) (e). The first factor is satisfied. Ortiz [plaintiff] is clearly part of a class that section 18 was designed to protect. The original law and its subsequent amendment were intended to increase patient access to medical records, and prevent medical providers from overcharging patients for copies of their medical records … . …

Turning to the second factor, it is unclear whether a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose.  * * * … [G]iven the substantial fines the Commissioner and the Attorney General can impose, the additional deterrent effect of a private right of action is difficult to ascertain.

Even assuming the second factor is satisfied, though, the final factor—consistency with the legislative scheme—is clearly not. … [E]nforcement mechanisms already exist for section 18. First, the Commissioner and Attorney General’s ability to impose substantial fines against providers that overcharge for copies of records acts as a deterrent … . Second, the Attorney General’s duty to seek injunctive relief upon the request of the Commissioner provides a legal mechanism for ending any widespread practices violating section 18. Finally, an individual patient’s ability to commence an article 78 proceeding to enforce the law’s provisions provides recourse for individual patients who are unable to access their records due to illegally high costs. Ortiz v Ciox Health LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06425, Ct App 11-18-21

 

/ ,

EXPERT TESTIMONY ON FALSE CONFESSION AND CROSS-RACIAL IDENDITIFICATION/MISIDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial judge, after a Frye hearing, properly precluded expert testimony of Dr. Redlich on false confessions. In addition, the trial court properly precluded expert testimony on cross-racial identification/misidentification:

On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the proffered testimony would not have aided the jury. Although Dr. Redlich is an impressively credentialed researcher, properly qualified by the trial court as an expert in her field, the trial court found that her testimony at the Frye hearing revealed her difficulty in linking her research on the possible causes of false confessions to the case at hand. Despite her review of the witnesses’ testimony at the Huntley hearing, she did not explain how her testimony was at all relevant to the circumstances presented by defendant’s interrogation, even by crediting defendant’s account of the events … . For instance, defendant flatly denied ever making the second, more detailed, confession—so, expert testimony regarding dispositional and situational factors that create a risk of a false confession has no relevance to the oral or written version of that statement. Moreover, defendant maintained that the first handwritten statement was the product of outright coercion—including a physical assault the night before and the deprivation of food and medicine—rather than resulting from psychological coercion of police interrogation that creates the risk of false confession, consistent with a recondite theory of which Dr. Redlich would have testified. There is a difference between the classically, inherently coercive interrogation that produces an involuntary confession—an issue that the jury is well-equipped to understand … —and the phenomenon of false confessions involving the interplay of situational and dispositional factors that produce a coercive compliant false confession from an innocent suspect, an occurrence that the jury may find counterintuitive. People v Powell, 2021 NY Slip Op 06424, CtApp 11-18-21

 

/ ,

PROOF THE ELEVATOR DOOR MALFUNCTIONED WHEN PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE ELEVATOR DID NOT SUPPORT A PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s proof demonstrated that the elevator door malfunctioned at the time plaintiff attempted to enter the elevator. A malfunction is not enough to support a products liability cause of action:

Plaintiff Patricia Booth was injured when she was knocked to the ground when the doors to an elevator closed as she was attempting to enter the elevator; Otis had modernized the elevator eight years earlier. Otis established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the strict products liability claim by submitting evidence that the elevator door at issue was not defective … .

… Crediting the testimony of plaintiff’s daughter that she was holding the door open button and that plaintiff had crossed the elevator threshold when the doors began to close, this establishes nothing more than a malfunction at the time of the accident, which is insufficient to maintain a strict products liability cause of action … . The fact that Otis “both supplied the elevator and serviced it after installation would not impose upon [it] strict liability for a defect which developed after installation was completed” … . Booth v Otis El. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 06433, First Dept 11-18-21

 

/

THE FACT THAT OSHA REQUIRES PROTECTION ONLY FOR FALLS MORE THAN SIX FEET WAS IRRELEVANT; PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM AN ELEVATED PLANK, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s fall from a plank, even if the fall was less than six feet, entitled him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action:

Even if, as [defendant] contends, plaintiff fell less than six feet, that does not render the statute inapplicable … , [Defendant’s] claimed compliance with OSHA regulations requiring fall protection only for falls of six feet or more is irrelevant … . The wooden plank from which plaintiff fell did not constitute a “passageway,” but “served, conceptually and functionally, as an elevated platform or scaffold” … . DaSilva v Toll First Ave., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06438 First Dept 11-18-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED A DEMAND ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO PURSUE A DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS FUTILE; THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, A CLAIM FOR WHICH NO DAMAGES NEED BE ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the requirement that a demand on the board of directors to pursue a derivative action was futile and therefore is excused. In addition, the complaint adequately alleged a breach of fiduciary duty:

Plaintiffs properly alleged demand futility as required under Business Corporation Law § 626 (c) by asserting that at least four out of seven of the members of derivative plaintiff/nominal defendant Xerox Holdings Corporation’s board of directors were controlled by Icahn, Xerox’s largest single shareholder, and thus lacked the independence to make an impartial decision on bringing suit … . * * *

… [T]he claim for breach of fiduciary duty was pleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b), as the complaint states that the Icahn defendants used confidential information about Xerox’s planned acquisition of HP Inc. to buy HP common shares before news of the acquisition became public and before HP’s stock price increased … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ claims do not fail for lack of damages, as damages “have never been considered to be an essential requirement for a cause of action founded on a breach of fiduciary duty” … . The function of an action for breach of fiduciary duty “is not merely to compensate the plaintiff for wrongs committed by the defendant but . . . to prevent them, by removing from . . . trustees all inducement to attempt dealing for their own benefit in matters . . . to which their . . . trust relates” … . Miami Firefighters’ Relief & Pension Fund v Icahn, 2021 NY Slip Op 06446, First Dept 11-18-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME PAY, SPREAD-OF-HOURS PAY AND WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ACT CAUSES OF ACTION, INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this action alleging “violations of minimum wage, overtime pay and spread-of-hours pay under the Labor Law and violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) …” . The First Department granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, finding them entitled to liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees:

Plaintiffs established prima facie that defendants violated Labor Law §§ 190-199, 650, and 652 and 12 NYCRR 142 and 146-1.6 by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread-of-hours pay. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 requires an employer to pay an employee for overtime, i.e., working time over 40 hours, at a wage rate of 1½ times the employee’s regular rate, defendant Georgios Liristis, owner of defendant GE & LO Corp. d/b/a Burger Hut, testified that plaintiffs each worked 8- to 10-hour shifts, six days a week, and were paid a fixed salary. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.4(a) requires that, for any day in which an employee’s spread of hours exceeds 10 hours, the employee receive one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate in addition to the minimum wage, the record shows that plaintiff Galindo Tezoco, who regularly worked shifts over 10 hours, did not receive the additional hours’ pay.

Defendant Liristis’ testimony establishes that defendants failed to pay three of the five plaintiffs the prevailing minimum wage during the relevant periods. Defendants cannot avail themselves of the “tip credit,” since they undisputedly failed to provide notice of the tip credit in writing … .

Plaintiffs established that defendants violated the WTPA by failing to provide them with wage statements (see Labor Law § 195[3]) and by failing to provide wage notices to plaintiff Silverio Tezoco … . It is undisputed that defendants failed to provide any wage notices or wage statements during the course of plaintiffs’ employment. Tezoco v GE & LO Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06463, First Dept 11-18-21

 

/ , ,

PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE LOWER 5.76% INTEREST RATE ON THE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR JUDGMENT; THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY IMPOSED THE 9% INTEREST RATE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5004 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reduced the multimillion dollar damages award in this lawsuit by a student severely burned during a chemistry demonstration at his public high school. The trial judge properly imposed a 9% interest rate on the judgment because the defendant city was late (laches) in seeking the lower interest rate (5.75%) authorized by law:

[The judgment] awarding the principal sums of $29,585,000 million for past pain and suffering and $29,585,000 for future pain and suffering over 54 years, plus 9% interest, unanimously modified, on the facts, to vacate the awards … , and remand for a new trial of those issues, unless plaintiff stipulates … to reduce the awards for past pain and suffering to $12,000,000 and for future pain and suffering to $17,000,000 … . * * *

… [D]efendants … should have formally moved to compute interest on the verdict at a lower rate than 9% … . This way, plaintiff would have had the opportunity to submit proof to the contrary, and the court could have ordered a hearing if necessary … . Given defendants’ laches in seeking to avail themselves of a lower interest rate authorized by law, Supreme Court providently declined to depart from CPLR 5004’s presumptive 9% interest rate … . Yvonne Y. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 06468, First Dept 11-18-21

 

/

CLAIMANT’S REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION BASED UPON A CHANGE IN CONDITION FILED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF CLAIMANT’S CAPPED INDEMNITY BENEFITS WAS NOT UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined claimant’s request for reclassification based upon a change in condition was not untimely:

“The Board’s unilateral position that a permanently partially disabled claimant must seek reclassification prior to the exhaustion of his or her permanent partial disability award runs in direct contravention to the plain language of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6-a), which provides that, subject to limitations not relevant here, ‘the [B]oard may, at any time, without regard to the date of accident, upon its own motion, or on application of any party in interest, reclassify a disability upon proof that there has been a change in condition'” … . Thus, the Board improperly refused to consider the three C-27 forms that were submitted by claimant’s physicians because they were filed shortly after the expiration of claimant’s capped indemnity benefits. Accordingly, claimant must be provided with an opportunity to seek reclassification based upon each and every one of the C-27 forms that were submitted by his physicians, irrespective of whether they were filed after the expiration of his indemnity benefits, as well as any additional, current medical evidence and/or testimony in support of his request for reclassification … . “If, after further development of the record, claimant is reclassified, there would at that time be no bar to him receiving, for example, retroactive permanent total disability benefits from the date when he was found to have been totally disabled” … .  Matter of Phillips v Milbrook Distrib. Servs., 2021 NY Slip Op 06402, Third Dept 11-18-21

 

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