You are here: / EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A DISBARRED ATTORNEY, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD...

Search Results

/ , ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A DISBARRED ATTORNEY, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have ensured defendant knew the risks of conducting the trial pro se before allowing defendant, a disbarred attorney, to represent himself:

A court must determine that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is made competently, intelligently, and voluntarily before allowing that defendant to represent himself or herself … . In order to make that evaluation, the court “must undertake a ‘searching inquiry’ designed to ‘insur[e] that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … . The court’s inquiry “must 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” … . Nonetheless, no specific litany is required and a reviewing court may look to the whole record, not simply to the questions asked and answers given during a waiver colloquy, in order to determine whether a defendant actually understood the dangers of self-representation … . Subsequent warnings, however, cannot cure a trial court’s earlier error in not directing the defendant’s attention to the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation … .

Here, although the record demonstrates that the Supreme Court was aware of the defendant’s pedigree information, including his status as a disbarred attorney, the court failed to ascertain that the defendant was aware of the risks inherent in proceeding without a trial attorney and the benefits of having counsel represent him at trial … . Contrary to the People’s contention, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates that the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation were known by the defendant … , as the court neither “tested defendant’s understanding of choosing self-representation nor provided a reliable basis for appellate review” … . People v Crispino, 2021 NY Slip Op 04918, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

/ ,

THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ (ZBA’S) DENIAL OF A LOT-SIZE VARIANCE CONFLICTED WITH A PRIOR RULING BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS; THEREFORE THE ZBA WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION; THE DECISION, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling that the zoning board of appeals (ZBA’s) denial of a lot-size variance was arbitrary and capricious:

“A decision of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its own prior precedent nor indicates its reason for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious,” and thus, “[w]here an agency reaches contrary results on substantially similar facts, it must provide an explanation” … .

Here, the ZBA failed to set forth any factual basis in the determination to establish why it was reaching a different result on essentially the same facts as a prior application that had been granted … . Further, in response to the petitioner’s submission of expert testimony, the ZBA’s findings were merely supported by generalized community opposition and were not corroborated by any empirical data or expert testimony … . Matter of O’Connor & Son’s Home Improvement, LLC v Acevedo, 2021 NY Slip Op 04915, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

/ , , ,

THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS A LICENSED DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE BANK DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Iannacci, determined: (1) the bank in this foreclosure action did not have to allege it was a licensed “debt collection agency” pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code (20-490); (2) the proof of defendant’s default was inadmissible hearsay:

A judicial foreclosure action such as the one at bar does not constitute the sort of tactics “shocking to the conscience of ordinary people”—like phone calls at unreasonable hours and other threatening behavior—that the subject Administrative Code provisions were enacted to address. Furthermore, the particular requirements and prohibitions placed upon debt collectors under the Administrative Code are concerned with ensuring that consumers can verify that payment on a debt is actually due, learn the correct amount of the debt, and meaningfully communicate with the debt collection agency about the debt … . In the context of judicial foreclosure, the state statutory scheme operates to protect homeowners and ensure fairness in the process, in a far more comprehensive manner and in ways that might not be entirely consistent with the Administrative Code provisions. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff failed to sustain its initial burden of demonstrating that the defendants defaulted in the repayment of the subject note. To establish such default, the plaintiff relied upon an affidavit of a representative of its loan servicer, whose averment regarding the defendants’ default was based upon her review of unidentified business records. Inasmuch as no business records were attached to, or otherwise incorporated into, the affidavit, this averment constituted inadmissible hearsay lacking in probative value … . Citibank, N.A. v Yanling Wu, 2021 NY Slip Op 04902, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

/

THE PEOPLE FAILED TO COMPLETE PROVIDING DISCOVERY BY THE TIME THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS FILED PURSUANT TO CPL 30.30 (5); DEFENDANT’S WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department granted defendant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus releasing him from incarceration or reducing his bail. The speedy trial statute was violated because discovery had not been completed before the People filed the certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 30.30 (5):

The current statutory framework of CPL 245.10 “abolishes the prior mechanism for obtaining discovery through serving a demand upon the People and instead requires the People provide the discovery listed in CPL 245.20 ‘automatically’ within the deadlines established” therein … . “As discovery demands are now defunct, the exclusion provided for in [CPL 245.10] subdivision (4)(a) is no longer applicable to the period of time when the defendant is waiting for discovery to be provided by” the People … .

Here, contrary to the People’s contention, their filing of the certificate of compliance pursuant to CPL 30.30(5) could not be deemed complete until all of the material and information identified in the certificate as subject to discovery and electronically shared with the defendant was actually produced to the defendant, pursuant to CPL 245.50(1) and (3) … . … [T]he substitution of a different assistant district attorney did not constitute an exceptional circumstance that would render excludable for speedy trial purposes the time period between the date to which the Supreme Court adjourned the matter for the filing of the People’s response to the defendant’s omnibus motion, and the date upon which the People ultimately filed their response … . Thus, the People are chargeable with the time between the court-imposed deadline to respond to the omnibus motion and the date on which the People actually filed a response … . … [S]ince more than 90 days of delay in bringing [defendant] to trial … are chargeable to the People, CPL 30.30(2)(a) requires that he be released on bail which he is capable of meeting, or upon his own recognizance … . People ex rel. Ferro v Brann, 2021 NY Slip Op 04897, Second Dept 8-27-21

 

/ ,

THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE DRO TO SPECIFY PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A SHARE OF DEFENDANT’S DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT WOULD HAVE APPLIED THE LACHES DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the doctrine of laches did not apply and defendant could recoup a lump sum disability retirement payment made to plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant were divorced and a stipulation provided plaintiff would receive her marital share of defendant’s retirement benefits under the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS). A Domestic Relations Order (DRO) was filed in 2010. In 2011 the NYSLRS approved the DRO with respect to ordinary retirement but was silent on disability retirement. In 2019 the NYSLRS approved defendant’s 2016 disability retirement application and a retroactive lump sum payment was made to defendant and plaintiff. In 2019 defendant moved to amend the DRO to specify plaintiff was not entitled to the disability retirement benefits. Supreme Court denied the motion applying the doctrine of laches. The dissent apparently agreed the laches doctrine was properly applied:

“Laches is defined as such neglect or omission to assert a right as, taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity . . . The essential element of this equitable defense is delay prejudicial to the opposing party” … . “The mere lapse of time, without a showing of prejudice, will not sustain a defense of laches” … .

Here, the court found that defendant should have sought to amend the DRO in 2011, after receiving the letter from NYSLRS. But at that time, defendant was not eligible for and had not applied for a disability retirement. When his disability retirement application was approved in February 2019 and defendant became aware that plaintiff’s distribution would accordingly increase, he promptly moved to amend the DRO. Moreover, even if there was a delay here, plaintiff utterly failed to make a showing of prejudice … . Taberski v Taberski, 2021 NY Slip Op 04804, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

/ , , ,

THE SMELL OF PCP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS CHASTISED FOR FAILURE TO CALL THE COURT’S ATTENTION TO CONTRARY AUTHORITY, UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT THE APPEAL PRESENTED A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, MISCONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST AN ARRESTING OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

THIS OPINION WAS VACATED ON JANUARY 28, 2022, AND REPLACED WITH 2022 NY Slip Op 00560

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the police officer’s (Dorchester’s) testimony at the suppression hearing established probable cause to search defendant’s car based upon the smell of PCP, or, as the court described it, “olfactory detection of street-level PCP.” The opinion was as much directed to improprieties in the appellate brief as to  the “olfactory detection of PCP:”

“[A]s soon as I walked up to the vehicle,” Dorchester testified, “I could smell a really strong chemical odor that was familiar to myself as PCP.” Dorchester had received PCP training at the police academy; he regularly received updated training on PCP and other drugs; and he had encountered PCP and its distinctive smell “hundreds” of times over the course of his career as a police officer. Based on his training and experience, Dorchester testified, he immediately recognized the odor emanating from defendant’s vehicle as PCP. When pressed on whether he could have been smelling something else, Dorchester held firm: the smell of PCP, he explained, was “pretty distinct.” * * *

[I]t is astoundingly inaccurate for defendant’s brief to assert that “[t]his is a case of first impression.” Moreover, the representation in defendant’s brief that “none of the Appellate Divisions . . . has ever passed upon the question of whether the smell of PCP may, standing alone, constitute probable cause to search” is an unacceptable dereliction of counsel’s duty of candor to our Court, for the First Department has done precisely that in two separate cases … . And given that Sanchez [168 AD3d 584] involved a car search, the statement in defendant’s brief that “no appellate case law from this state . . . has approved the search of a vehicle based solely on the smell of PCP” is yet another misrepresentation of the caselaw. We take this opportunity to echo the First Department’s monition that “counsel has an obligation to bring adverse authority to [our] attention” … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s appellate brief levels serious allegations of perjury, official misconduct, and federal civil rights violations against officer Dorchester. The record, however, lacks any proof to substantiate appellate counsel’s accusations. It is one thing to suggest that Dorchester’s testimony was legally insufficient to justify the search … . But it is quite another thing to file a brief that directly, repeatedly, and unnecessarily accuses Dorchester of serious crimes without evidentiary support. Counsel’s “baseless assertions are shockingly irresponsible” … . People v Fudge, 2021 NY Slip Op 04801, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

/ , ,

THE MAJORITY APPLIED THE DISCOVERY STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE ORDER TO TURN OVER THE ROSARIO MATERIAL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL WAS MADE, FINDING THE ORDER PROPER; THE CONCURRENCE AGREED BUT ARGUED THE COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RULE THAT THE DISCOVERY STATUTE ENACTED IN 2019 SHOULD ALWAYS BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence, affirmed defendant’s conviction. One of the issues in the appeal was whether it was appropriate for the court to order the prosecution to turn over Rosario material one week before trial. The majority ruled the order was proper under the former law, CPL former 240.45. The concurrence agreed but argued the court should decide whether the current law, enacted in 2019 (see CPL 245.10 [1] [a]; 245.20) should always be applied prospectively:

We reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s failure to produce a video-recorded statement of the victim until one week prior to trial. Defendant does not dispute that the recording constitutes Rosario material. Under the discovery rules in effect at the time of defendant’s trial, “[w]here, as here, [a] witness[ is] not called to testify at a pretrial hearing, Rosario material need not be disclosed until ‘[a]fter the jury has been sworn and before the prosecutor’s opening address’ ” ( … CPL former 240.45 [1] [a]). Neither party requested that this Court consider the retroactivity of the new discovery statute now in effect. People v Austen, 2021 NY Slip Op 04798, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

/

COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BEFORE SENTENCING HIM AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court was obligated to determine whether defendant was a second violent felony offender before sentencing defendant as a second felony offender:

Where it is apparent at the time of sentencing that a defendant may be a second violent felony offender, the People are required to file a second violent felony offender statement in accordance with CPL 400.15 and, if appropriate, the court is then required to sentence the defendant as a second violent felony offender … . Here, no such statement was filed, although the People were aware that, approximately 10 years earlier, defendant had been incarcerated in North Carolina for a period of approximately 38 months on a prior conviction of voluntary manslaughter … . Had the court concluded based on that predicate offense that defendant is a second violent felony offender for this class C violent felony, the court would have been constrained by statute to impose a sentence that includes a determinate term of incarceration of not less than seven years and not more than 15 years … , and thus the six-year term of incarceration that defendant actually received pursuant to his plea agreement would have been illegal. People v Smith, 2021 NY Slip Op 04883, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

/ , ,

A SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBER WHO YELLED “BE QUIET” INTO A MICROPHONE, THE LOUDNESS OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD, DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OWED TO THE STUDENT; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was entitled to a directed verdict in this action which alleged plaintiff’s daughter was injured when a faculty member used a microphone to tell the students to be quiet. It was alleged loudness of the command caused injury:

In order to prevail on a negligence claim, ” ‘a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom’ “… . On appeal, defendant disputes the element of breach only. To that end, the standard to which defendant and its employees are held is “that degree of care which a reasonable [parent] of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances, commensurate with the apparent risk involved” … . Further, “[w]hen a duty exists, nonliability in a particular case may be justified on the basis that an injury is not foreseeable” … .

Although the proof at trial reflected that a school faculty member had “yelled” two words into a microphone and “was really loud” in doing so, there was no proof presented that those words were spoken in a manner or at a volume that was unreasonable, foreseeably unsafe, or in violation of any applicable standard of care. In other words, “[w]ithout knowing what is ‘too loud’,” “there [was] no standard of care by which a jury could determine on the evidence presented that defendant[] had breached a duty owed to plaintiff”… . Because there was no “rational process by which the [jury] could base a finding in favor of [plaintiff]” on the element of breach, we conclude that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict … . Joni C. v Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04859, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

/

DEFENDANT MADE A VALID REQUEST TO APPEAR IN THE GRAND JURY BEFORE THE AMENDED INDICTMENT WAS FILED; THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY DECLINED THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY WAS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, dismissing the indictment, determined defendant should have been allowed to testify before the grand jury:

CPL 190.50 (5) (a) provides that a defendant’s request to testify is timely as long as it is made prior to the filing of the indictment” … . Here, defendant’s June 8, 2017 notice, which ” ‘satisfied the statutory requirements for notifying the People of a request to appear before the grand jury’ ” … , was received by the District Attorney on the same day, prior to the filing of the amended indictment on June 9, 2017. Contrary to the contention of the People and the rationale of the court, it is of no moment under the statute that defendant had previously declined the opportunity to testify … . “Where, as here, defendant’s request to testify is received after the grand jury has voted, but before the filing of the indictment, defendant is entitled to a reopening of the proceeding to enable the grand jury to hear defendant’s testimony and to revote the case, if the grand jury be so advised” … . People v Royal-Clanton, 2021 NY Slip Op 04856, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

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