You are here: / DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was not adequately warned about the risks of representing himself:

The record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … , including the potential for his sentences in two pending cases, arising from unrelated incidents, to run consecutively. The court also failed to inquire into defendant’s understanding of “the nature of the charges” … . This despite defendant’s admission that he did “[n]ot necessarily” understand the charges in one case and was “still coming to grips with the charges” in the other case. The court’s statement during the waiver colloquy that defendant was “facing felony charges” was inadequate for that purpose.

Moreover, the court’s inquiry did not “accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant. While there is no mandatory “catechism for this inquiry,” there must be a “searching inquiry” conducted by a court before permitting self-representation … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. People v Perry, 2021 NY Slip Op 05826, First Dept 10-26-21

 

/ ,

THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS GUARDIAN BY A NON-FAMILY-MEMBER IN THE ABSENCE OF A TESTIMONIAL HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Incapacitated Person’s (IP’s) son should not have been removed as guardian and replaced with a non-family-member in the absence of a testimonial hearing:

Rather than hold a testimonial hearing, Supreme Court simply accepted what the Court Examiner claimed in her motion. The Court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law to justify the removal of petitioner. Nor did it hold that removal of the petitioner was in the best interest of the IP. Petitioner did not have any opportunity to testify under oath, or rebut the allegations made against him, despite his competency as a guardian being directly at issue … . A testimonial hearing in this case is necessary so that the record can be developed, and the disputed issues of fact and law can be resolved.

We have long recognized that strangers will not be appointed either a guardian of the person or the property unless it is impossible to find someone within the family circle who is qualified to serve  … . The preference for a relative may be overridden by a showing that the guardian-relative has rendered inadequate care to the IP, has an interest adverse to the IP or is otherwise unsuitable to exercise the powers necessary to assist the IP … . Moreover, the ultimate remedy of removal may be an abuse of discretion, where a guardian’s errors do not prejudice or harm the estate. The court should also consider whether other less drastic remedies, such as ordering compliance or reducing the guardian’s compensation, would be appropriate. Matter of Roberts v Maxis, 2021 NY Slip Op 05833, First Dept 10-26-21

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM TWO INCIDENTS: A FORM FELL OFF A WALL ONTO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE GRINDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of causes of action should have been granted. Two separate incidents were alleged: (1) a concrete form fell three to five feet off a wall onto plaintiff; and (2) plaintiff was injured after he was directed to use a defective grinder:

… [Plaintiff] had been instructed to clean up debris directly underneath a form used for concrete, and that the form came off the wall and fell on top of him from a height of three to five feet … . Plaintiff’s inability to explain precisely what caused the form to fall on him does not preclude Labor Law § 240(1) liability … . Plaintiff demonstrated that he was injured when the steel and plywood form fell on him because an elevation-related safety device failed, or no device was placed and operated so as to provide him with adequate protection … .

… [P]laintiff was not required to supply an expert affidavit … . …

Plaintiff was directed to use a visibly defective grinder that had no blade, safety guard or side handle. There was also no cut-off switch. While he was using the grinder, it spontaneously cut off and then turned back on, without plaintiff engaging the power switch. When plaintiff complained, he was instructed to proceed with the defective grinder or go home. Viruet v Purvis Holdings LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05840, First Dept 10-26-21

 

/ ,

IN CONSIDERING A MOTION TO DISMISS A PETITON TO MODIFY CUSTODY TO ALLOW RELOCATION, FAMILY COURT MUST ACCEPT THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION AS TRUE AND AFFORD PETITIONER EVERY FAVORABLE INFERENCE; MOTHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody to allow her to relocate to New Jersey should not have been dismissed without a hearing:

“While not every petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing” … , an evidentiary hearing is generally “necessary and should be conducted unless the party seeking the modification fails to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing or no hearing is requested and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child[]’s best interests” … . “In assessing whether the petitioner has alleged the requisite change in circumstances, so as to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Family Court must liberally construe the petition, accept the facts alleged in the petition as true, afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference and resolve all credibility questions in favor of the petitioner” … .

The change in circumstances alleged by the mother in her petition included, among other things, the child’s “strong desire to relocate” with the mother to New Jersey and a recent breakdown in the child’s relationship with the father. In concluding that these allegations were facially insufficient, Family Court failed to accept the mother’s allegations as true, afford her the benefit of every favorable inference and resolve credibility issues in her favor. Matter of Sarah OO. v Charles OO., 2021 NY Slip Op 05758, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

/ , ,

FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (DSS) TO COMMENCE A NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court does not have the authority to direct the Department of Social Services (DSS) to commence a neglect proceeding:

Neither DSS nor the attorney for the child disputes the ability of DSS to commence a neglect proceeding without leave of a court. They also do not dispute that Family Court, under Family Ct Act § 1034, may order DSS to conduct a child protective investigation and report its findings to the court. What is disputed is whether Family Court may order a child protective agency, such as DSS, to commence a neglect proceeding against a parent. …

“Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” … . The relevant statute provides that a proceeding under Family Ct Act article 10 may be “originate[d]” either by “a child protective agency” or “a person on the court’s direction” (Family Ct Act § 1032 [a], [b]). In view of the express terms of the statute, Family Court has the authority to direct the commencement of a Family Ct Act article 10 proceeding. That authority, however, is limited to directing only a “person” to do so … — which DSS is not. Matter of Donald QQ. v Stephanie RR., 2021 NY Slip Op 05760, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF, A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR, DID YARD WORK FOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER, INCLUDING SPREADING MULCH AND USING HIS OWN LADDER TO TRIM A TREE; PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE LADDER ON THE MULCH; THE LADDER FELL OVER WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (THE MULCH) AND DID NOT SUPERVISE OR DIRECT PLAINTIFF’S TREE-TRIMMING WORK; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner’s motion for summary judgment in this ladder-fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant asked him to trim some tree branches. Plaintiff placed his own ladder on mulch which he (plaintiff) had spread there as part of his landscaping work. Plaintiff alleged the mulch constituted a dangerous condition which caused the ladder to tip. Plaintiff also alleged the owner exercised supervision and control over his work and was liable for directing him to trim the tree:

Even assuming that defendant had a conversation with plaintiff, the request to trim the trees was a general instruction about what needed to be done without any direction about how to perform the task … . It is undisputed that defendant neither provided any equipment for the project nor directed the manner in which the ladder was placed or the trimming performed … . …

As to the dangerous condition theory of liability, … defendant did not create the hazard, as it is undisputed that plaintiff and his associates were the ones who spread the mulch and placed the ladder … . Nor is there any evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendant was not shown to have expertise in landscaping and, even if he was inside the house when the ladder was being set up on the mulch, this general awareness would be insufficient to establish notice of an unsafe condition … . Vickers v Parcells, 2021 NY Slip Op 05762, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

/ , , ,

PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (B), WHEN DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITLED TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for a finding whether defendants in this foreclosure action are eligible for assigned counsel, determined the judge did not comply with CPLR 3408 (b) at the settlement conference:

[CPLR 3408 (b)] provides that, at the initial foreclosure settlement conference, “any defendant currently appearing pro se[] shall be deemed to have made a motion to proceed as a poor person under [CPLR 1101]. The court shall determine whether such permission shall be granted pursuant to standards set forth in [CPLR 1101]” (CPLR 3408 [b]). Because defendants appeared at the June 2016 settlement conference without representation, each was “deemed to have made a motion to proceed as a poor person” and Supreme Court was required to determine such motion (CPLR 3408 [b]). Although Supreme Court erred in failing to adhere to its obligations under CPLR 3408 (b), the question remains whether defendants would have been eligible for the assignment of counsel based upon their financial circumstances. The record does not contain adequate information to render such a determination (see CPLR 1101 [a]). The eligibility for assigned counsel is a threshold issue that must be resolved before we can determine the merits of this appeal. As such, we withhold decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to render a determination as to defendants’ eligibility for assigned counsel as of the June 2016 settlement conference … . Carrington Mtge. Servs., LLC v Fiore, 2021 NY Slip Op 05743, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

/ ,

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE RESPONDENTS (MOTHER AND FATHER) VIOLATED THE ORDER OF SUPERVISION; IN THIS ORDER-VIOLATION PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED UPON AND REFERRED TO EVIDENCE, SOME OF WHICH WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, FROM THE UNDERLYING NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the Department of Social Services (petitioner) did not demonstrate respondents (mother and father) violated the order of supervision and Family Court should not have incorporated evidence from a separate neglect proceeding into the order-violation proceeding:

… [I]t was error in the context of a violation motion for Family Court to find that respondents were in “technical” compliance with the order of supervision but were nonetheless in violation of said order. … [T]he quantum of proof required to establish a willful violation of a court order pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1072 is clear and convincing evidence … , which was not established here. * * *

… [T]he court permitted petitioner to introduce unproven allegations against respondents from the underlying neglect proceeding, evidence relating to other conduct that predated the … order, as well as inadmissible hearsay contained in the case notes authored by petitioner’s employees and the children’s therapists. As the court’s decision is replete with references to this evidence, the admission of this evidence, if relied upon at all to establish willful violations, irreparably tainted its decision … . Matter of Nicholas L. (Melissa L.), 2021 NY Slip Op 05746, Third Dept 10-21-21

 

/

CLAIMANT WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF A COMPANY RUNNING A WEBSITE AND APP TO CONNECT PET OWNERS WITH PET SITTERS, WALKERS AND BOARDERS, ETC. (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“Board”), determined claimant was not an employee of Rover, a website which connects pet owners to pet sitters, walkers, boarders, etc.:

Rover only exercises control over the platform that a provider uses to find client pet owners and not any part of the job itself … , and this type of incidental control over the provider’s services is insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship … . More analogous to fitness instructors and odd-job taskers, and, in contrast to Uber drivers or Postmates couriers, providers are individually selected by their client pet owners and “have the ability to create a following or generate their own [repeat] customer base” … . As Rover does not exercise any control over the manner in which the providers perform their services, the means used or results produced, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s determination that Rover exercised sufficient direction, supervision and control over the providers to demonstrate an employment relationship … . Matter of Hawkins (A Place for Rover Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2021 NY Slip Op 05748, Third Dept 10-21-21​

 

/ , ,

NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A LANDFILL DID NOT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined the public nuisance and negligence causes of action stemming from odors from a landfill should have been dismissed. The public nuisance cause of action alleged only injury to the public at large, not the required special injury unique to the parties. The negligence cause of action did not allege any tangible property damage or physical injury:

… [P]laintiffs here have not asserted an injury that is different in kind from the relevant community at large, which, in our view, consists of the other homeowners and renters impacted by the landfill’s odors … . * * *

To recover in negligence, a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct … . …

… [T]he noxious odors at issue are transient in nature and do not have a continuing physical presence. … [P]laintiffs have not alleged any tangible property damage or physical injury resulting from exposure to the odors. … [T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of plaintiffs’ property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law … . Davies v S.A. Dunn & Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05751, Third Dept 10-21-21

Similar issues and result in Duncan v Capital Region Landfills, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 05757, Third Dept 10-21-21

​

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