You are here: / NEITHER PARTY WAS THE “PREVAILING PARTY” IN THIS DISPUTE OVER...

Search Results

/ ,

NEITHER PARTY WAS THE “PREVAILING PARTY” IN THIS DISPUTE OVER THE CARE OF THE PARTIES’ INCAPACITATED FATHER; THEREFORE NEITHER PARTY WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined neither party in this dispute over care for an incapacitated person (the parties’ father) was a “prevailing party” and therefore neither of the two sons, Michael and Stephen, was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees:

Following an evidentiary hearing, … the Supreme Court denied Michael’s request to remove Stephen as Milton’s [father’s] attorney-in-fact and health care agent. However, the court determined that Stephen breached the settlement agreement by refusing to mediate. The court also granted that branch of Michael’s motion which was for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the settlement agreement’s fee shifting provision. …

 “Under the general rule, attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule” … . “‘[O]nly a prevailing party is entitled to recover an attorney’s fee’ and ‘[t]o be considered a prevailing party, a party must be successful with respect to the central relief sought'” … . “Such a determination requires an initial consideration of the true scope of the dispute litigated, followed by a comparison of what was achieved within that scope” … . Matter of Milton R., 2021 NY Slip Op 04975, Second Dept 9-15-21

 

/ ,

GENERAL CRITERIA FOR DENYING, WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, A MOTION TO VACATE A CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, without discussing the facts, laid out the criteria for denying a motion to vacate a conviction on ineffective-assistance grounds without holding a hearing:

… [A] court may deny a CPL 440.10 motion without conducting a hearing if “[t]he motion is based upon the existence or occurrence of facts and the moving papers do not contain sworn allegations substantiating or tending to substantiate all the essential facts” … . Here, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing because, under the circumstances presented, defendant failed to sufficiently allege “‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s [alleged] errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial'” … . Moreover, defendant failed to otherwise “show that the nonrecord facts sought to be established . . . would entitle him to relief” … . People v Dogan, 2021 NY Slip Op 04956, CtApp 9-14-21

 

/ , ,

A PSYCHIATRIC EXAM IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF A PROSECUTION AT WHICH DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL; THE EXCLUSION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM THE EXAM WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction, determined the exclusion of defense counsel from the psychiatric exam by the People’s expert was not harmless error:

After defendant provided timely notice that he intended to present psychiatric evidence at trial, he was twice interviewed by a clinical psychologist engaged by the People (see CPL 250.10 [2], [3]). Although defense counsel was present at the first examination, the expert denied defense counsel admittance to the second examination. Over defense counsel’s objection that defendant’s right to counsel had been violated, the expert’s testimony was admitted at trial. On defendant’s appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that defendant’s constitutional right to counsel had been violated but that the error was harmless … . …

In Matter of Lee v County Ct. of Erie County (27 NY2d 432 [1971]), we held that defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at pre-trial psychiatric examinations “to make more effective [a defendant’s] basic right of cross-examination” … In Lee, we cited to United States v Wade’s (388 US 218 [1967]) definition of a critical stage of the prosecution as “‘any stage of the prosecution, formal or informal, in court or out, where’ ‘the presence of his counsel is necessary to preserve the defendant’s basic right to a fair trial as affected by his right meaningfully to cross-examine the witnesses against him and to have effective assistance of counsel at the trial itself'” … . We thus held that pretrial psychiatric examinations are a critical stage of the prosecution.

… The People—not the defendant—bear the burden of showing that “there was no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s admission” of that part of the expert’s testimony based on the uncounseled examination “affected the jury’s verdict” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the expert’s testimony at trial was based in part on the examination undertaken in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel, and we cannot say that the error was harmless … . People v Guevara, 2021 NY Slip Op 04955, CtApp 9-9-21

 

/ , ,

THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY SERVED BUT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE APPEAL; THE APPELLATE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW A LATE FILING; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that, although the pro se inmate-petitioner did not timely file the notice of appeal, the notice was timely served and the Third Department could have exercised discretion to allow a late filing. The matter was remitted because the Third Department’s decision was silent about the reasons for dismissing the appeal:

… [P]etitioner argues that the Appellate Division should have applied a pro se inmate “mailbox rule” to deem the notice of appeal timely filed upon delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to the appropriate court.

CPLR 5515 (1) provides that an appeal is taken when, in addition to being duly served, the notice of appeal is “fil[ed] . . . in the office where the judgment or order of the court of original instance is entered.” The CPLR further clarifies that “papers required to be filed shall be filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is triable” (CPLR 2102 [a]). Thus, by its express terms, the CPLR indicates that filing occurs when the clerk’s office receives the notice of appeal. Indeed, “filing” has long been understood to occur only upon actual receipt by the appropriate court clerk … . A “mailbox rule” for filing would also contravene the clear distinctions between filing and service drawn by the legislature inasmuch as the CPLR directs that, unlike filing, “service by mail shall be complete upon mailing” (CPLR 2103 [b] [2]). .. * * *

… [T]he legislature has given courts the authority to excuse untimely filing under certain circumstances. CPLR 5520 provides that, “[i]f an appellant either serves or files a timely notice of appeal . . . , but neglects through mistake or excusable neglect to do another required act within the time limited, the court from or to which the appeal is taken . . . may grant an extension of time for curing the omission” (CPLR 5520 [a]). Matter of Miller v Annucci, 2021 NY Slip Op 04954, CtApp 9-9-21

 

/ , , ,

THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE APPEAL OF THE SORA RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the appeal of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level classification could not be heard because the record was not sufficient. The matter was remitted:

“Although the short form order utilized by County Court contains the ordered language required to constitute an appealable paper, the written order fails to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Correction Law § 168-n (3)” … . “The hearing transcript is similarly deficient as it does not contain clear and detailed oral findings to support County Court’s risk level classification” … . The scant record before us is not sufficiently developed to enable this Court to make its own factual findings and legal conclusions — particularly with respect to the number of victims and the points assessed under risk factor three. Accordingly, County Court’s order is reversed, and this matter is remitted for further proceedings. People v Kwiatkowski, 2021 NY Slip Op 04934, Third Dept 9-2-21

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE OF ALTERCATIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHILDREN AND ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDINGS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the neglect findings were not supported by the record:

With respect to the April 2018 incident, petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate the presence of the children during the altercation that occurred. Given that “a finding of imminent danger is contingent on the child[ren] being present,” the evidence relating to that incident was not relevant and was insufficient to support a finding of neglect … .With respect to the January 2019 incident, it is undisputed that all of the children except the oldest child were asleep during the altercation; as such, the evidence presented could not support a finding of neglect as to the younger children. As to the oldest child, it is true that “a single act of domestic violence may be sufficient to establish neglect if the child is present for such violence and is visibly upset and frightened by it” … . However, the proof at the fact-finding hearing failed in this regard because it was not established that the oldest child was visibly upset or frightened. Thus, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the oldest child was in imminent risk of emotional or physical impairment … . Moreover, the oldest child’s out-of-court statements that the father gave her two to three shots of alcohol were not corroborated by the other evidence presented by petitioner, and the mere “repetition of an accusation by a child does not corroborate that child’s prior account” … . To the contrary, even petitioner’s witnesses conceded that such a level of alcohol consumption was not supported by their observations of the oldest child’s demeanor and her .01 blood alcohol content. With respect to the allegations of alcohol abuse while caring for the children, “[t]here was insufficient evidence that [respondents] ‘misused alcoholic beverages to the extent that [they] lost self-control of [their] actions,’ or that the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the children had been impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired” … . Matter of Josiah P. (Peggy P.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04936, Third Dept 9-2-21

 

/

THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE ITS OWN DETERMINATION TO APPORTION SOME OF CLAIMANT’S DISABILITY TO A 1976 INJURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined the Board did not have sufficient evidence to determine the extent to which a 1976 injury accounted for some of claimant’s disability:

We recognize that the Board’s medical guidelines “provide ‘useful criteria’ and the Board makes the ultimate determination of a claimant’s degree of disability, but that determination must be supported by substantial evidence” … . Moreover, “although the Board may reject medical evidence as incredible or insufficient, it may not fashion its own medical opinion” … . Here, there are no operative or pathological reports from any surgeries related to the 1976 injury in the record. Nor is there any medical evidence regarding the degree of disability, if any, that had resulted from the 1976 injury and/or surgery and the record reflects that claimant was fully employed with no restrictions at the time of the 2016 injury. Further, even assuming, without deciding, that an evaluation of the 1976 injury under the 1996 guidelines is appropriate for the purposes of determining whether that injury would have resulted in an SLU [schedule loss of use] award, there is no medical opinion that the 1976 injury would have resulted in an SLU award at the time of the injury or under the subsequently published 1996 guidelines. Matter of Hughes v Mid Hudson Psychiatric Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 04939, Third Dep 9-2-21

 

/ , ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE 911 CALL WAS NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE CALLER AND THE BASIS FOR THE CALLER’S KNOWLEDGE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS IRRELEVANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not present sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing. Probable cause for the traffic stop was based on a 911 call. But no evidence was presented to demonstrate the reliability of the caller or the basis for the caller’s knowledge. The fact that the relevant evidence was presented at trial did not matter. The appeal focuses on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing:

… [T]he officer’s only justification for the stop was the dispatcher’s report that a 911 caller had asserted that one of the vehicle’s occupants possessed a “long gun.” Initially, defendant claims that the stop was invalid because possession of a “long gun” is lawful in New York. We reject that claim as meritless (see Penal Law 265.00 [22]). However, the People failed to introduce the 911 recording, failed to introduce any evidence indicating whether the 911 caller was an identified citizen informant or an anonymous tipster, and failed to offer any explanation of the basis of the caller’s knowledge. In sum, the People put forward no relevant information concerning the circumstances surrounding the call at the hearing. Contrary to the People’s suggestion that an appellate court can consider evidence subsequently admitted at trial to justify affirmance of an order denying suppression, “the propriety of the denial must be judged on the evidence before the suppression court” … . Therefore, on the record of the suppression hearing, “whether evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances or under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework, the reliability of the tip was not established” … . People v Walls, 2021 NY Slip Op 04949, CtApp 9-2-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK AFTER DEFENDANT CROSSING GUARD MOTIONED FOR HIM TO CROSS; THE CROSSING GUARD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE DENIED THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, affirmed the grant of the crossing guard’s (Gandolfo’s) and the county’s motion for summary judgment in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case. Defendant Gandolfo had assumed her position in the crosswalk and motioned for infant plaintiff to cross the road when plaintiff was struck by a car driven by Upton. The dissent argued there was some evidence that Gandolfo may have been negligent:

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1102 provides that “[n]o person shall fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any police officer or flagperson or other person duly empowered to regulate traffic.” Here, the County defendants … [submitted] transcripts of the deposition testimony of Gandolfo, Upton, and an eyewitness to the accident, which demonstrated that Upton’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Gandolfo testified that, upon seeing the infant at the southern corner of the intersection from her post on the northern corner, she entered the crosswalk, and, upon reaching the middle, raised her stop sign toward traffic traveling east on Montauk Highway, and her gloved hand toward traffic traveling west, checked in both directions two times for approaching vehicles, and seeing none, nodded to the infant to enter the crosswalk. Gandolfo further testified that she heard Upton’s vehicle, which was traveling east on Montauk Highway, before she saw it, and that, despite Gandolfo’s presence in the crosswalk, Upton failed to stop her vehicle, and struck the infant as he had almost reached the middle of the crosswalk. The eyewitness testified that, after dropping her child off at the high school, she was waiting for the infant to walk through the crosswalk before making a right turn onto Montauk Highway, and the crossing guard, dressed in a crossing guard uniform, was in the middle of the crosswalk holding a stop sign, when the infant was struck as he approached the middle of the crosswalk. During her deposition, Upton, who frequently traveled the route where the accident occurred, testified that, prior to striking the infant, she saw Gandolfo in the road, holding up her stop sign, but did not see the infant until after her vehicle struck him. Christopher W. v County of Suffolk, 2021 NY Slip Op 04922, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

/ , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY CREATED BY THE CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether a contractor, Home Crafts, launched an instrument of harm such that the contractor was liable to a subcontractor, Catalano, who fell from a ladder when attempting to fix the problem. Home Craft had ordered that sheet metal be placed over a chimney during the installation of gas fireplace inserts. The sheet metal caused smoke to back up when the fireplace was tested. Catalano fell when taking the sheet metal off the chimney:

… “[A] contractor may be said to have assumed a duty of care and, thus, be potentially liable in tort, to third persons when the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties, launches a force or instrument of harm” … .

Here, Home Crafts failed to establish, prima facie, that it did not launch a force or instrument of harm by directing Catalano to seal the chimney, without alerting the other contractors that the fireplace at issue was rendered inoperable due to the inability to ventilate smoke … . Santibanez v North Shore Land Alliance, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 04921, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

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