You are here: / THE SENTENCING COURT INDICATED IT COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS SENTENCING...

Search Results

/ ,

THE SENTENCING COURT INDICATED IT COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS SENTENCING AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE BUT SENTENCING COURTS HAVE DISCRETION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RE-SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined the sentencing court erroneously indicated it had no discretion to deviate from the sentencing agreement with the People:

“[T]he sentencing decision is a matter committed to the exercise of the court’s discretion and . . . can be made only after careful consideration of all facts available at the time of sentencing” … . “The determination of an appropriate sentence requires the exercise of discretion after due consideration given to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” … . Here, the court indicated that it had no choice but to sentence defendant pursuant to its agreement with the People … , and the sentencing transcript, read in its entirety, does not reflect that the court conducted the requisite discretionary analysis … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing. People v Knorr, 2020 NY Slip Op 04690, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM WITH CERTAIN EVIDENCE SOONER, FOR SPEEDY TRIAL PURPOSES THE PEOPLE CAN BE CHARGED ONLY WITH THE TIME NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENTIARY ISSUE; THE NEED FOR MORE INVESTIGATION DID NOT INVALIDATE THE PEOPLE’S STATEMENT OF READINESS WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN; THEREFORE THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indictment should not have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds. The People withdrew their statement of readiness stating that there was newly discovered evidence. Supreme Court found that the evidence was available early on and should have been discovered had the People been diligent.

The record shows that the People were not aware until April 30, 2019 that mistakes by police detectives had incorrectly led them to conclude that they could not locate the user of the Instagram account that had been used to send the photographs of defendant engaging in sexual acts with the victim to defendant’s ex-girlfriend. While we agree with the court that the People’s late realization was entirely due to the People’s failure to properly inspect the evidence within their possession, the time chargeable to the People is only the delay that is directly attributable to their inaction, and that which directly implicated their ability to proceed to trial … . Thus, the delay that is chargeable to the People due to their inaction with respect to the photographs is any additional time that they required to investigate the matter, which they could have previously investigated. Moreover, the People’s need to further investigate the photographs did not render their prior statement of readiness illusory because the record shows that, at the time they announced their readiness, the People would have been able to establish a prima facie case and proceed at trial … . People v Pratt, 2020 NY Slip Op 04662, fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO COMMISSIONS EARNED ON HIS ACCOUNTS BEFORE, BUT NOT AFTER, PLAINTIFF WAS TERMINATED; ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS ORAL, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS UNTIL AFTER PLANTIFF WAS TERMINATED. (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, an at will employee, was not entitled to commissions on sales to any account generated by plaintiff earned after plaintiff was terminated. Although the employment contract was oral, it was not subject to the statute of frauds until after plaintiff was terminated:

General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) provides that “[e]very agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking . . . [b]y its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof.” “Only those agreements which, by their terms, have absolutely no possibility in fact and law of full performance within one year’ will fall within the statute of frauds” … .

Here, plaintiff was an at-will employee of defendant, and “an at-will employment . . . is capable of being performed within one year despite the fact that compensation remains to be calculated beyond the one-year period” … . We therefore reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in denying its motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim for payment of commissions fixed and earned during the course of plaintiff’s employment with defendant … .

… [T]he court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion [for summary judgment] with respect to plaintiff’s claim for “commissions on sales to any accounts generated by [plaintiff] on a future and ongoing basis including post-termination of [plaintiff’s] employment,” i.e., the claim for commissions that would accrue subsequent to the termination of plaintiff’s employment. Although “[a]n oral agreement that is terminable at will is capable of performance within one year and, therefore, does not come within the Statute of Frauds . . . [,] General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) bars enforcement of a promise to pay commissions that extends indefinitely, dependent solely on the acts of a third party and beyond the control of the defendant” … . Thus, the court erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim for commissions accruing subsequent to the termination of plaintiff’s employment … . Bermel v Vital Tech Dental Labs, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04666, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN 2010 WHEN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS STARTED WAS REVOKED BEFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank raised a question of the fact whether the acceleration of the debt at the time the foreclosure action was commenced in 2010 was revoked before the six-year statute of limitations ran out:

We nevertheless agree with plaintiff that its submissions in opposition to the motion raised a question of fact whether the present action was timely commenced. It is well settled that “[a] lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, [although] it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … .

Here, plaintiff submitted evidence that its predecessor in interest mailed letters to defendants in January 2016, i.e., before the statute of limitations expired, revoking the prior acceleration of the mortgage. As plaintiff correctly contends, the evidence, including an affidavit of mailing, established that the letters were properly mailed to defendants at their address, thereby giving rise to the presumption that the letters were received by defendants … . Defendants’ unsubstantiated denial of receipt was “insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service at the address where all notices under the mortgage were to be sent” … . Moreover, on the limited record before us, we conclude that language of the letters and the surrounding circumstances raised a question of fact whether plaintiff’s predecessor in interest validly revoked the prior acceleration of the mortgage and, thus, whether the present action was timely commenced … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04653, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , , ,

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the affidavit of plaintiff’s expert in this medical malpractice action did not address several of the allegations of defendant’s negligence. Therefore the unaddressed claims were deemed abandoned:

The affidavit of plaintiff’s expert anesthesiologist addressed defendant’s conduct only with respect to the claims arising from defendant’s alleged failure to ensure that the transport of Pasek [plaintiff] to the operating room was performed safely and his alleged failure to document the disconnection event and resulting blood loss in Pasek’s medical chart. Inasmuch as plaintiff’s expert failed to address the claims against defendant regarding the diagnosis, consulting, testing, examination, and pre- and post-operative treatment and did not identify any deviation with respect to defendant’s efforts to ventilate, monitor, or resuscitate Pasek, those claims are deemed abandoned. Supreme Court thus erred in denying defendant’s motion with respect to those claims … , and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Pasek v Catholic Health Sys., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04652, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARNESS AND FELL FROM A ROOF; THE FACT THAT HARNESSES MAY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Although plaintiff was a ground worker the on roofing job, he fell from the roof alleging that a toe board “gave out.” The fact that plaintiff was not wearing a harness, in the face of allegations harnesses were available, was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion. The dissenters argued the evidence that all the toe boards were in tact after the accident raised a question of fact whether that safety device failed:

… [P]laintiff met his initial burden on that part of the motion by establishing that his ” injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . Specifically, plaintiff submitted his deposition testimony, wherein he stated that the toe board failed, causing him to fall from the roof. He also testified that he was not provided with a harness and that there were no available harnesses nearby. …

The ” presence of [other safety devices] somewhere at the worksite’ does not [alone] satisfy defendants’ duty to provide appropriate safety devices” … . …

… “[T]he mere failure by plaintiff to follow safety instructions” does not render plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his injuries  … . The evidence presented by defendants established only that plaintiff possibly failed to follow safety instructions, not that he outright refused to “use available, safe and appropriate equipment” … . Defendants failed to demonstrate that plaintiff ” chose for no good reason not to’ ” wear a safety harness … . At most, plaintiff’s “alleged conduct would amount only to comparative fault and thus cannot bar recovery under the statute” … . Schutt v Bookhagen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04651, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , , , ,

THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, dismissing the petition seeking review of the town’s approval of a wind turbine project. determined a second supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) was not necessary before approving an increase in the height of the turbines and the placement of the transmission lines underground. The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court’s failure to address issues raised in the petition constitutes a denial of the related relief, and the petitioners did not cross-appeal those denials:

During the SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] process, a SEIS may be required to address “specific significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the EIS,” arising from, inter alia, changes in the project … . A decision to require a SEIS “must be based upon . . . the importance and relevance of the information; and . . . the present state of the information in the EIS” … . “A lead agency’s determination whether to require a SEIS—or in this case a second SEIS—is discretionary” … , and such determination “should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence” … .

We conclude that the Town Board “took a hard look at the areas of environmental concern and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its conclusion that a second SEIS was not necessary” … . The Town Board’s discretionary determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by the evidence … . The prior submissions concerning the impact of the project on bald eagles, combined with the updated materials submitted with the latest project modification, were sufficient to establish that the proposed changes would not adversely impact bald eagles. The materials established that collisions between raptors and wind turbines are rare, and that even the higher, 599-foot turbines lie below the normal flight altitude of bald eagles. With respect to the buried electrical transmission lines, the materials showed that such a modification would have a significant positive environmental impact, reducing the effect of the project on wetlands. Matter of McGraw v Town Bd. of Town of Villenova, 2020 NY Slip Op 04644, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFFS SUED A FOSTER-CHILD PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR FRAUD AND NEGLIGENCE AFTER THE FOSTER CHILD SEXUALLY ASSAULTED PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD; THE FRAUD ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE PLACEMENT SERVICE’S MERE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOSTER CHILD’S SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN 2008 DID NOT START THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY A DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFFS’ BIOLOGICAL CHILD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the fraud cause of action was not time-barred and the defendant’s owed a duty which supported the negligence cause of action. The plaintiffs, who had a biological child, took in a foster child through Good Shepherd, a placement service. The plaintiffs were not aware that the foster child had a history of animal abuse and sexually inappropriate behavior. One day after plaintiffs’ adoption of the foster child, the child sexually assaulted the biological child. Plaintiffs sued in fraud and negligence and Supreme Court denied Good Shepard’s motion to dismiss:

A defendant’s mere knowledge of something is not an element of a fraud cause of action; instead, a fraud cause of action requires a showing of, inter alia, the false representation of a material fact with the intent to deceive … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that Good Shepherd knew of the foster child’s history of animal abuse and engaging in sexually inappropriate behavior as early as May 2008, we conclude that its knowledge thereof did not demonstrate that the alleged fraud occurred at that time. Good Shepherd submitted no evidence that, in May 2008, it falsely represented the foster child’s relevant history with the intent to deceive plaintiffs. Thus, it did not establish as a matter of law that the fraud cause of action accrued in 2008 … . Moreover, Good Shepherd submitted the amended complaint, wherein plaintiffs alleged that, on numerous occasions in early 2012, they contacted Good Shepherd about the foster child’s sexually inappropriate behavior and that, on each occasion, Good Shepherd assured them that the foster child had no history of that type of behavior. We therefore conclude that Good Shepherd failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the fraud cause of action asserted in 2016 was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [8]). * * *

Although defendants contend that they did not owe the biological child a duty because they lacked control over the foster child during the four years that he lived with plaintiffs, control over a third-person tortfeasor is just one way to establish a duty. … [A]duty may also exist where “there is a relationship . . . between [the] defendant and [the] plaintiff that requires [the] defendant to protect [the] plaintiff from the conduct of others,” and “the key . . . is that the defendant’s relationship with either the tortfeasor or the plaintiff places the defendant in the best position to protect against the risk of harm” … . Stephanie L. v House of The Good Shepherd, 2020 NY Slip Op 04643, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/ , ,

BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THIS DIRECTORS & OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST FORMED TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion applied to the Directors & Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy:

Plaintiff Westchester Fire Insurance Co. … commenced this action seeking a declaration that it has no coverage obligations to defendants insureds, arguing primarily that the “insured versus insured” exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy, procured by RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), bars coverage of claims asserted against defendants, … RCAP’s former directors and officers. Defendants insureds contend, among other things, that coverage exists under the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion. The claims, herein, arose after RCAP’s bankruptcy.

The Creditor Trust was formed, pursuant to the reorganization plan, to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of the unsecured creditors … . …

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04627, First Dept 8-20-20

 

/ ,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault third conviction, determined the evidence of “physical injury” was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Although the question of whether physical injury has been established is generally for the jury to decide, “there is an objective level . . . below which the question is one of law” … . Here, the complainant testified that the defendant pushed him to the ground, and slapped him several times in the face. The complainant testified that he cried because he “was in a lot of pain.” There was no evidence, however, corroborating the complainant’s subjective description of the degree of pain he experienced … . There was no testimony about the duration of the pain, whether the shove or slaps left any visible bruising, swelling, or redness, or whether the defendant sought medical treatment or missed any time from work or school … . Under these circumstances, there was legally insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain as a result of being pushed to the ground and slapped several times in the face … . People v Jhagroo, 2020 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

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