You are here: / ALTHOUGH HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS WITHOUT AUTHENTICATING THE ACCOUNTS, PHOTOGRAPHS AND STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined it was (harmless) error to admit in evidence the content of social media accounts which was not authenticated:

We disagree … with the Supreme Court’s determination admitting into evidence certain content from various social media accounts … . The People failed to present sufficient evidence that the subject social media accounts belonged to the defendant, that the photographs on the accounts were accurate and authentic, or that the statements found on one of the accounts were made by the defendant … . People v Upson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04876, Second Dept 9-2-2020

 

/

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED; NO MENTION OF THE WAIVER WAS MADE UNTIL AFTER THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE RIGHTS AT STAKE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the waiver of appeal was invalid because it was first mentioned after the guilty plea and the explanation of the purportedly waived appellate rights was insufficient:

… [T]he appeal waiver was not mentioned by the Supreme Court prior to the defendant’s plea of guilty, but only afterward. Accordingly, “the defendant received no material benefit from his appeal waiver, as the court had already accepted the defendant’s plea and made its sentence promise” … . Under such circumstances and in the absence of a request by the People, “the court’s insistence upon the execution of an appeal waiver was a gratuitous, after-the-fact additional demand asserted after the bargain had already been struck” … . In addition, the court’s colloquy on this issue, conducted after the plea had already been accepted, “mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal” … . Contrary to the People’s contention, “these defects were not cured by the terms of the standard written appeal waiver form, which not only lacked detail and repeated many of the mischaracterizations contained in the court’s colloquy, but further misstated that the defendant was giving up the right to all postconviction relief separate from the direct appeal” … . People v Eduardo S., 2020 NY Slip Op 04873, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

/ ,

THE APPELLATE COURT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REFUSED TO LOWER DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BY ONE DAY TO AVOID DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s one-year sentence for assault, which had already been served at the time of the appeal, should not be reduced by one-day to avoid the immigration consequences of the one-year sentence (deportation):

On this record, even taking into specific consideration the potential immigration consequences of the jury’s verdict and the court’s sentence thereon, and recognizing that the trial judge has the best first-hand knowledge of the case and of the defendant, it cannot be said that the definite term of imprisonment of one year was unduly was harsh or excessive, or that any reduction of one day is warranted to further the interest of justice. …

We have rejected requests for one-day sentence reductions in cases with immigration consequences where the defendants used physical force or violence in the commission of their crimes against others … . …

Here, the defendant’s conduct involved violence against two assault victims, so that a one-day sentence reduction would be an outlier measured against our existing precedents. In any event, to reduce the defendant’s sentence by one day for the purpose of circumventing the normal application of U.S. immigration laws and procedures, in an appeal involving a) physical violence, b) against duly authorized peace officers, c) working in the line of duty, d) causing permanent physical injury to one of the officers, e) and inconsistent with this Court’s prior precedents, builds a bridge that is too far for us to traverse. People v Janvier, 2020 NY Slip Op 04861, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

/ ,

THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support consecutive sentences for assault second and criminal possession of a weapon second:

… [T]he sentence imposed on the conviction of assault in the second degree should not run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. There were no facts adduced at the defendant’s plea allocution to establish that the defendant attempted to possess ” a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon'” … . People v Goodman, 2020 NY Slip Op 04857, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

/

THE FEDERAL FELONY DID NOT QUALIFY AS A NEW YORK PREDICATE FELONY, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender because the federal conviction did not qualify as the equivalent of the New York felony:

… [T]he defendant was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender on the basis of a prior federal conviction for possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number (see 18 USC § 922[k]). “An out-of-state felony conviction qualifies as a predicate felony under Penal Law § 70.06 only if it is for a crime whose elements are equivalent to those of a felony in New York” … . Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable (see 18 USC § 922[k] … ) and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Dyce, 2020 NY Slip Op 04853, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

/ , ,

ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, once the motion court found defendant’s counsel ineffective for failing to inform defendant he risked being sentenced to life in prison as a persistent felony offender after trial, the motion court could not leave the convictions in place and reinstate the original sentence. Defendant had been offered a plea offer with a sentence of 4 1/2 to 9 years which he rejected and moved to vacate the guilty plea pursuant to CPL 440.10:

CPL 440.10(4) provides that “[i]f the court grants [a defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440], it must, except as provided in subdivision five or six of this section, vacate the judgment, and must dismiss the accusatory instrument, or order a new trial, or take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (emphasis added). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plain language of CPL 440.10(4) requires that, upon a finding that a defendant’s CPL 440 motion is meritorious, a court must, in the first instance (absent the exceptions in subdivisions five or six of CPL 440.10 which are not relevant here), vacate the judgment … , and upon so doing, must then select one of three options: (1) “dismiss the accusatory instrument,” (2) “order a new trial,” or (3) “take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (CPL 440.10[4]). Since the court found that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, it should have granted the defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion by vacating the judgment of conviction … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04849, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

/ , ,

MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTIONS TO AN ACCOUNTING OF A TRUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION OF EMAILS DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SETTLE WERE SUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the motions to quash subpoenas issued by appellants who objected to an accounting of a trust should not have been granted and the appellants’ counsel’s submissions demonstrating a good faith effort to settle the matter (22 NYCRR 202.7) were sufficient:

In a proceeding pursuant to article 22 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act to settle an account of a trust, a party filing objections is “entitled to all rights granted under article thirty-one of the civil practice law and rules with respect to . . . discovery” (SCPA 2211[2]). CPLR 3101(a), which provides for “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” is to be liberally construed “to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … .

A “party or nonparty moving to vacate the subpoena has the initial burden of establishing either that the requested [information] is utterly irrelevant’ to the action or that the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious'” … . Matter of Cheryl LaBella Hoppenstein 2005 Trust, 2020 NY Slip Op 04846, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

/ ,

AN INDICATION THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED, REVEALED WHEN THE TROOPER RAN THE PLATES, DID NOT SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE WEAPON AND DRUGS FOUND IN THE VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a concurring opinion and an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the state trooper did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop. The weapon and drugs found in a search of defendant’s (Mr. Hinshaw’s) car should have been suppressed. The stop was based entirely on an indication the car had been impounded revealed when the officer ran the plates. The notice explicitly stated it “should not be treated as a stolen vehicle hit:”

The trooper here did not observe any violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and “everything looked good.” Putting aside the result of the license plate inquiry, “[t]he trooper candidly testified that he had had no reason to stop defendant” … . …

The result of the license plate check provided neither probable cause to conclude a traffic infraction had occurred nor any basis for an objectively reasonable belief that criminal behavior had occurred or was afoot. Although the People and our dissenting colleague argue that the trooper understood the “generic” impound notification to require further investigation as to its cause, the trooper’s speculation that the car could have been impounded for “registration . . . problems,” the “plates could have been suspended,” “insurance could have been suspended,” or the vehicle could have been stolen was just that — pure speculation … . * * *

Because “there was not even a suggestion that the conduct of the defendant or his companions had been furtive in character before the police interfered with their car’s progress,” and “the record here is bare of any objective evidence of criminal activity as of the time of the stop” … , the stop of Mr. Hinshaw’s vehicle was invalid. People v Hinshaw, 2020 NY Slip Op 04816, CtApp 9-1-20

 

/ ,

THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO TOWERS, TWICE THE HEIGHT OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS, DID NOT VIOLATE THE NYC ZONING RESOLUTION, THEREFORE THE NYC PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proposed construction of two towers, twice the height of the surrounding buildings, did not violate the zoning resolution  (ZR). Therefore the approval of the construction by the NYC Planning Commission (CPC) without the need for a special permit was not arbitrary and capricious:

… [T]he ZR authorizes the CPC to issue special permits in the enumerated categories only where a waiver or modification of particular ZR provisions is necessary. It is undisputed that none of those categories applies here. The CPC reviewed the applications and the prior special permits and determined that no new special permit was or could be required under any applicable ZR provision. “We accord deference to the Commission’s rational” interpretation of the ZR … . Accepting petitioners’ argument that a special permit is nevertheless required “would result in the judicial enactment of a new restriction . . . not found in the Zoning Resolution” … . Matter of Council of the City of N.Y. v Department of City Planning of the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 04812, First Dept 8-27-20

 

/ , , , ,

PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WERE NOT MET; ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO SHAREHOLDERS OR EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pleading requirements for a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action were not met and defendant attorneys, who represented the corporation, not the decedent, did not owe a fiduciary duty to decedent:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying that branch of the Berger defendants’ [attorneys’] motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the sixth cause of action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against them. ” [T]he elements of a cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship, (2) misconduct by the defendant, and (3) damages directly caused by the defendants misconduct'” … . A cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty must be pleaded with the particularity required under CPLR 3016(b) … . Here, the sixth cause of action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty against the Berger defendants, contained only bare and conclusory allegations related to damages, without any supporting detail, and failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016(b) … .

Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Berger defendants represented Rockland Inc., and owed a fiduciary duty to the decedent based upon that representation. However, a corporation’s attorney represents the corporate entity, not its shareholders or employees … . Mann v Sasson, 2020 NY Slip Op , 04737, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

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