You are here: / THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP...

Search Results

/ ,

THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this ice and snow slip and fall case should not have been granted. The climatological data presented to show there was a storm in progress at the time of the fall was not authenticated, related to a different county, and conflicted with plaintiff’s testimony at the 50-h hearing:

… [T]he defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the three pages of climatological data that it submitted in support of its motion should have been authenticated because these pages themselves did not indicate that the data contained therein was “taken under the direction of the United States weather bureau” (CPLR 4528). In any event, the climatological data was gathered from a neighboring county, and it was inconsistent with the plaintiff’s testimony at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that light snow fell about [*2]six hours prior to the accident. Under the circumstances, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that a storm was in progress at the time of the accident or that it did not have a reasonable opportunity after the cessation of the storm to remedy the alleged slippery condition … . Beaton v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 04477, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

/ , ,

A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon,, determined the defendant in this foreclosure action waived any stay of proceedings under CPLR 321(c) triggered by her attorney’s suspension:

CPLR 321(c) … provides any adversary party with a mechanism for lifting a stay—by serving a notice upon the nonrepresented party to obtain a new attorney.  Thus there are … two ways in which a CPLR 321(c) stay may be lifted. One way is if the party that lost its counsel retains new counsel at its own initiative, or otherwise communicates an intention to proceed pro se … . The second way is by means of the above-described notice procedure … . …

… [T]he plaintiff moved … for summary judgment … and for an order of reference … at a time when no event allowing for the lifting of the CPLR 321(c) stay had yet occurred. No new attorney had yet appeared on behalf of the defendant, and there is no indication that the defendant had elected to proceed pro se … . Moreover, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment without having served a CPLR 321(c) notice demanding the appointment of new counsel and without abiding by the statutorily mandated 30-day waiting period that follows the notice.

Nevertheless, the defendant’s new counsel formally appeared in the action six days after the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was filed, submitted papers in opposition to that motion, and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant, all within the original or adjusted briefing schedule. … The appearance and activities of the defendant’s new counsel operated, in effect, as a waiver of the protections otherwise afforded to the defendant by CPLR 321(c) … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kurian, 2021 NY Slip Op 04509, Second Dept 7-31-21

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED BY A REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a downward departure in this statutory-rape SORA risk level proceeding. The issue was not preserved because defendant did not request a downward departure but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

“In cases of statutory rape, the Board has long recognized that strict application of the Guidelines may in some instances result in overassessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … . The Guidelines provide that a downward departure may be appropriate where “(i) the victim’s lack of consent is due only to inability to consent by virtue of age and (ii) scoring 25 points [for risk factor 2, sexual contact with the victim,] results in an over-assessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … .

Since the defendant did not request a downward departure from his presumptive risk level in the County Court, his contentions on appeal regarding a downward departure are unpreserved for appellate review … . However, under the circumstances of this case, we address those contentions in the interest of justice … .

Considering all of the circumstances presented here, including that the subject offense is the only sex-related crime in the defendant’s history, and that the defendant accepted responsibility for his crime, the assessment of 25 points under risk factor 2 resulted in an overassessment of the defendant’s risk to public safety … . Accordingly, a downward departure is warranted, and the defendant should be designated a level one sex offender. People v Maldonado-Escobar, 2021 NY Slip Op 04502, Second Dept 7-2-21

 

/ ,

IN A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION WITH DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE, THE STOP OF A VEHICLE BASED ON AN OBSERVED TRAFFIC VIOLATION, THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND THE VALIDITY OF AN INVENTORY SEARCH, COUNTY COURT’S DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE VEHICLE IS REVERSED OVER TWO CONCURRENCES AND A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, comprehensive opinion by Justice Miller, over two concurrences and a two-justice dissent, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the warrantless search of the vehicle in which cocaine was found was not demonstrated to be valid under the fellow officer rule, was not demonstrated to be valid pursuant to the automobile exception, and was not demonstrated to be based on a valid inventory search. In a nutshell, the claimed exceptions to the warrant requirement were rejected because they were not supported by the evidence at the suppression hearing. The detailed factual and legal analyses cannot be fairly summarized here. The opinion should be consulted on the issues addressed, including the propriety of the stop of the vehicle, because of the extraordinary depth of the discussions. County Court’s denial of suppression was based on the following findings. All except the reason for the stop (an observed traffic violation) were rejected on appeal:

The [county] court first concluded that the State Troopers had probable cause to stop the vehicle by virtue of “the fellow-officer rule.” … [T]he court cited to testimony that law enforcement officials had intercepted approximately 89,000 communications, and that some of these communications indicated that there would be a quantity of narcotics in the vehicle on the night in question.

… [T]he [county] court credited the testimony of one of the State Troopers who testified that he observed the subject vehicle exceed the maximum speed limit and fail to maintain its lane.

…[T]he [county] court concluded that the intercepted communications and the application of the fellow officer rule provided a lawful basis for the search of the vehicle at the outset of the traffic stop.

The [county court] concluded that the State Troopers were authorized to search the subject vehicle under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment. In this regard, the court noted that one of the State Troopers had reportedly detected the odor of marihuana when he initially approached the vehicle after it was pulled over.

Finally, the County Court determined, as a third alternative ground, that the cocaine was properly recovered pursuant to a valid inventory search.  People v Mortel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04498, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

/ ,

IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ADMIT AN INAUDIBLE RECORDING AND TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A PURPORTED TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined it was reversible error to admit in evidence an inaudible tape recording and to provide the jury with a purported transcript of the recording:

Whether a tape recording should be admitted into evidence is within the discretion of the trial court after weighing the probative value of the evidence against the potential for prejudice” … . “An audiotape recording should be excluded from evidence if it is so inaudible and indistinct that a jury must speculate as to its contents” … . “Even where tape recordings are inaudible in part, so long as the conversations can be generally understood by the jury, such infirmities go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility” … . “[I]n order to constitute competent proof, a tape should be at least sufficiently audible so that independent third parties can listen to it and produce a reasonable transcript” … .

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in admitting the subject recording into evidence … . The first approximately 25 minutes of the conversation between the defendant and the complainant on the subject recording is almost completely inaudible, as all that can be heard are the background noises of a restaurant … . Further, some of the remaining portions of the subject recording were “so inaudible and indistinct” … that the jury would have had to speculate as to their contents … . The error was compounded when the jury was given what purported to be a transcript of portions of the largely inaudible recording … . People v Melendez, 2021 NY Slip Op 04497, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

/

STATUTORY AMENDMENTS REPEALING MANDATORY SURCHARGES AND CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE FEES FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS WERE REMEDIAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the statutory amendments which went into effect while the appeal was pending were remedial and therefore should be applied retroactively. The amendments repealed the imposition of mandatory surcharges and crime victim assistance fees for youthful offenders:

Permitting juveniles whose direct appeals were pending when the amendments were enacted to benefit from them would further the legislative purpose of removing unreasonable financial burdens placed on juveniles and enhancing their chances for successful rehabilitation and reintegration. … [P]rospective application would undermine the legislative goals by continuing the recognized inequity created by imposition of the surcharges and fees and leaving youth at risk for future “devastating” consequences should they be unable to pay. Indeed, the Legislature conveyed “a sense of urgency” in correcting these problems by providing that the amendments would take effect immediately … .

… [R]etroactive application of the amendments would not result in unfairness or impair substantive rights … . The subject surcharges and fees, which are “nonpunitive,” were enacted strictly as a revenue raising measure … . People v Dyshawn B., 2021 NY Slip Op 04487, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER CPLR 3001 TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON THE PROPER RATE FOR POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST; ANOTHER COURT’S PRIOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROPER INTEREST RATE WAS MERELY ADVISORY (I.E., NOT ON THE MERITS) AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR LAW OF THE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over an extensive dissent, determined (1) Supreme Court had the power to issue a declaratory judgment in this hybrid proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment on the rate of post-judgment interest; and (2) Supreme Court correctly found that dicta in a prior ruling about the proper post-judgment interest rate (i.e., that the rate should be 9% per year under the CPLR, not 2% per month under the Insurance Law) was merely “advisory” and therefore was not controlling under the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, or law of the case. Supreme Court’s finding that the Insurance Law interest rate applied was affirmed. Using that rate the original 2001 judgment of $8,842.49 had apparently grown to $229,981.66 as of 2015:

CPLR 3001 uniquely vests the Supreme Court with authority to render declaratory judgments to the exclusion of other courts of the state. … [T]o the extent [respondent] wished to obtain a declaratory judgment governing the rate of interest on its judgment, … with appellate remedies correctly foreclosed, the Supreme Court was the only court where it could seek redress on that issue. * * *

… [T]he Appellate Term’s expression in its decision and order dated August 18, 2017, regarding the applicable rate of interest was not determined on the merits, but was instead merely advisory. * * *

… [Appellant] was unable to establish that there was a determination on the merits in any prior proceeding about the proper rate of interest applicable to the judgment, as to preclude the Supreme Court from considering the issue de novo … . Matter of B.Z. Chiropractic, P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 04484, Second Dept 7-21-21

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S PARALYSIS, THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff’s expert failed to raise a question of fact in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice case:

… [P]laintiff alleged that if [defendants] Lougee and King had made an appropriate referral to an orthopedic specialist and monitored her condition after the referral was made, plaintiff would have received necessary surgery before she became paralyzed. … [Defendants] appeal from an order denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. * * *

The affidavit of plaintiff’s medical expert failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition inasmuch as the conclusory opinion of plaintiff’s expert that defendants’ “multiple deviations from the standard of care were a substantial contributing factor in causing [plaintiff’s injuries]” is insufficient to raise an issue of fact concerning proximate cause … . It is undisputed that treatment of a condition arising out of an issue with plaintiff’s spinal hardware is outside the scope of defendants’ practice and that referral to an orthopedic specialist … was appropriate, and plaintiff’s expert failed to identify what treatments or interventions were necessary, how defendants’ monitoring of [the orthopedic specialist] would have necessarily resulted in those treatments or interventions being performed by the specialist, and whether the timing of any such interventions would have prevented plaintiff’s injuries. Humbolt v Parmeter, 2021 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

/ , , ,

MOTHER’S ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW WITHOUT NOTICE TO MOTHER WHO DID NOT ATTEND THE TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS HEARING; THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS THEREFORE IMPROPER AND APPEAL IS NOT PRECLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the default order terminating mother’s parental rights was improper because mother’s attorney was allowed to withdraw without notice to mother. Because the default order was improper, mother’s appeal is not precluded (default orders are not appealable):

In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b,respondent mother contends that Family Court erred in allowing the mother’s attorney to withdraw as counsel and in proceeding with the hearing in the mother’s absence. We agree. ” ‘An attorney may withdraw as counsel of record only upon a showing of good and sufficient cause and upon reasonable notice to the client . . . [, and a] purported withdrawal without proof that reasonable notice was given is ineffective’ ” … . Because there is no indication in the record that the mother’s attorney informed her that he was seeking to withdraw as counsel, the court should not have relieved him as counsel … . Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order entered on default (see CPLR 5511 …), here, the absence of evidence that the mother was put on notice of her attorney’s motion to withdraw renders the finding of default improper, and thus the mother’s appeal is not precluded … . We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for the assignment of new counsel and a new hearing … . Matter of Calvin L.W. (Dominique H.), 2021 NY Slip Op 04470, Fourth Dept 7-15-21

 

/ ,

THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS MADE TO A CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE CASEWORKER, UNDER THE FACTS, ACTED AS AN AGENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING THE INTERVIEW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the statements made by defendant to a Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworker should have been suppressed because, under the facts, she was acting as an agent of law enforcement at the time of the interview:

… [T]he CPS caseworker testified at the Huntley hearing that, at the time she interviewed defendant, she was aware that defendant was being held on criminal charges and that he was represented by counsel. She further testified that she worked on a multidisciplinary task force composed of social services and law enforcement agencies, through which she received training on interviewing individuals accused of committing sexual offenses. Additionally, in keeping with task force protocol directing her to report to law enforcement any inculpatory statements made during CPS interviews, the CPS caseworker called the investigating officer immediately following the interview with defendant and promptly went to his office to report defendant’s statements. Under the circumstances of this case as reflected at the hearing, although the police did not specifically direct the CPS caseworker to conduct the interview on a specific date or time or accompany her to the interview … , we conclude that the CPS caseworker here had a “cooperative working arrangement” with police such that she was acting as an agent of the police when she interviewed defendant and relayed his incriminatory statements … . The statements were thus obtained in violation of defendant’s right to counsel, and the court erred in refusing to suppress them … . Further, because defendant’s statements to the CPS caseworker were the only statements in which he admitted to having sexual contact with the victim, we cannot say that there is “no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the plea” … . People v Desjardins, 2021 NY Slip Op 04465, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

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