You are here: / ALL THE ITEMS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR WERE NOT LISTED IN A WRITTEN INVENTORY,...

Search Results

/ ,

ALL THE ITEMS IN DEFENDANT’S CAR WERE NOT LISTED IN A WRITTEN INVENTORY, IN VIOLATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S INVENTORY-SEARCH POLICY; THEREFORE THE FIREARM WAS NOT FOUND DURING A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the firearm seized from defendant’s car before the car was towed from a crash scene was not found in a valid inventory search. No written inventory was created. The Third Department held that, under the Albany Police inventory search policy, which the court found reasonable, all items in the vehicle should be listed in written inventory. The dissent argued the policy only required “valuable” property to be listed:

Despite the reasonableness of the policy, [Officer] Elliott’s testimony reveals that he did not comply with it and, therefore, Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion. To that end, Elliott testified that it is the Albany Police Department’s policy, as related to inventory searches, that “[a]nything valuable is . . . logged and placed into our property for safekeeping.” Elliott further testified that, because nothing of value was found in the car, nothing was seized and an inventory list was not created relative to the contents of the vehicle. This testimony conflates the requirement that a written inventory always be created with the discretion given to police officers to determine which property is valuable and, as such, must be taken into custody for safekeeping. Thus, from his testimony, it is apparent that Elliott did not comply with the policy regarding inventory searches, as it clearly mandates that an inventory search always be completed and the vehicle be “completely inventoried,” not allowing for discretion of the individual officers … . People v Jones, 2020 NY Slip Op 03826, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

/ ,

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT IN THIS AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION CASE; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined, on the People’s appeal, the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the charged crimes (aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle). One issue was whether the ID defendant showed to the officer at the traffic stop was sufficient to connect the defendant to the Department of Motor Vehicles abstract:

In view of defendant’s admission to the police officer during the stop that he did not have a driver’s license, as well as the information in the certified abstract from the Department of Motor Vehicles, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charges in the indictment … . Furthermore, by producing the identification card to the police officer, defendant adopted the information therein, including his date of birth … . Accordingly, contrary to defendant’s assertion … , there was admissible evidence connecting defendant to the abstract. Because the record discloses that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the charged crimes, the indictment must be reinstated … . People v Reid, 2020 NY Slip Op 03827, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

/ , ,

MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER PRO SE PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY TO WARRANT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that mother presented enough evidence in her pro se petition for a modification of custody to warrant a hearing:

“A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order first must demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant the court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming this threshold requirement is met, the parent then must show that modification of the underlying order is necessary to ensure the child’s continued best interests” … . “[I]n determining whether a pro se petitioner made a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing, we construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference. As a general matter, custody determinations should be rendered only after a full and plenary hearing” … .

In her petition, the mother alleged, among other things, that the father repeatedly attempted to take the child with him to a prison to visit an inmate who was convicted of murder and on at least one occasion was successful. She also asserted that the child had no desire to accompany the father on these visits and, in fact, they caused the child significant distress. Furthermore, the mother alleged in her petition that the father has refused to allow any additional parenting time, despite numerous requests, and that he has threatened to take away her court-ordered parenting time. Finally, the mother averred that she has completed therapeutic counseling, is continuing with further therapy and is a fit parent. We find that the pro se petition is sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing based on these allegations. “We also note that the prior custody order was entered upon consent of the parties and there has not . . . been a plenary hearing regarding custody” since 2014 … . Matter of Kimberly H. v Daniel I., 2020 NY Slip Op 03830, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

/ ,

THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE AND THE HEARING COMMITTEE HAD THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A LATE ANSWER FROM PETITIONER-PHYSICIAN WHO WAS FACING REVOCATION OF HER MEDICAL LICENSE; THE REJECTION OF THE ANSWER ON THE GROUND THE ALJ AND HEARING COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ACCEPT IT AS A MATTER OF LAW WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) and the Bureau of Professional Medical Conduct (BPMC) Hearing Committee’s rejection of the petitioner-physician’s attempt to file a late answer to the charges was arbitrary and capricious. The ALJ and the Hearing Committee determined they did not have discretion, as a matter of law, under Public Health Law section 230 to accept the late answer. The Third Department held the ALJ and the Hearing Committee could have exercised discretion and accepted the answer:

… [T]he ALJ and the Hearing Committee concluded that they were precluded, as a matter of law, from accepting petitioner’s answer. We do not read the statute as imposing such a bar. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the ALJ and the Hearing Committee had the discretion to decide whether to accept the answer. The statutory language mandating the timely filing of an answer was added to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (c) (2) in 1996 … . Prior to the amendment, the filing of an answer was discretionary. The legislative history indicates that the amendment’s purpose in mandating the filing of an answer was to “expedite proceedings by focusing the proceedings on matters in dispute” … . Allowing a licensee to submit an answer prior to the first hearing date does not compromise this statutory objective. Notably, in Matter of Tribeca Med., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health (83 AD3d 1135 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 707 [2011]), this Court determined that the ARB [Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct] possessed the discretionary authority to relieve a licensee of a default in answering charges of professional conduct … . It follows that the ALJ and the Hearing Committee had the discretionary authority to accept an answer filed after the 10-day deadline, but before the hearing. The flaw here is that the ALJ and the Hearing Committee failed to exercise any discretion in rejecting the answer, simply concluding that they lacked the legal authority to do so. Moreover, the ARB incorrectly declined to even address the issue as a procedural matter for the ALJ to resolve. These errors of law render the ARB’s determination arbitrary and capricious. Matter of Offor v Zucker, 2020 NY Slip Op 03835, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

/ , ,

FAMILY COURT ALLOWED MOTHER TO TESTIFY BY TELEPHONE WITHOUT WARNING HER A NOTARY SHOULD BE PRESENT SO SHE COULD BE SWORN AND THEN, SUA SPONTE, REJECTED MOTHER’S TESTIMONY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SWORN; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this child support violation proceeding, determined that mother’s testimony by telephone should not have been rejected, sua sponte, because it was unsworn. Family Court allowed mother to testify and mother, who was facing incarceration for the child-support violation, had not been warned to have a notary present so her testimony could be sworn:

In noting the lack of a notary present with the mother to swear her in, Family Court correctly identified a critical issue about to unfold at the hearing, but then took no timely corrective action to address the issue, permitted the unsworn questioning to occur and then, in its written decision, found fault with the very unsworn testimony methodology that it had permitted to occur at the hearing. The correct course of action would have been for the court to explain up front that, if the mother wished to testify, she would have to do so under oath and then administer the oath itself if the mother had not made other suitable arrangements. Given that the mother was facing a potential period of incarceration of up to six months in the event that Family Court determined that her failure to pay child support was willful (see Family Ct. Act § 454 [3] [a]), the mother’s testimony was essential to the court’s determination as to whether she had had the ability to pay or willfully disobeyed the prior support order. Thus, having permitted the mother to give unsworn testimony telephonically, it was error for Family Court to thereafter sua sponte rule, nearly 1½ months after the hearing, that it would not credit the mother’s testimony given that it was not sworn.  Matter of Burnett v Andrews-Dyke, 2020 NY Slip Op 03838, Third Dept 7-9-20

 

/ , , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether forfeiture of defendant’s vehicle would impose an excessive hardship and would constitute an constitutionally impermissible excessive fine. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a weapon which was found in his vehicle:

Plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant, the registered and titled owner of the vehicle, who pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, used the vehicle as a means of committing the crime of criminal possession of a firearm … .

In opposition, defendant, acting pro se, submitted an affidavit and supporting evidence in support of his argument that forfeiture of the vehicle, which he needed for getting to work with his tools and picking up his children from school, would impose an excessive and tremendous hardship on him and his family, particularly given that this is his sole criminal offense, and in light of other mitigating facts. This evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether, under all the factual circumstances, civil forfeiture of the vehicle would be grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore a constitutionally impermissible excessive fine … . Property Clerk, N.Y. City Police Dept. v Nurse, 2020 NY Slip Op 03866, First Dept 7-9-20

 

/ , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF A SIDEWALK UTILITIES GRATE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in this slip and fall case, determined there were questions of fact about whether: (1) a sidewalk grate belonged to the abutting landowner (11 Madison) or the utility (Con Ed); and (2) whether the installation of the grate by the prior owner of the property constituted a special use of the sidewalk:

The record does not demonstrate conclusively that the owner of the sidewalk vault grate on which plaintiff Marie Saez allegedly tripped was defendant Con Ed, rather than the 11 Madison defendants, who owned the property abutting the sidewalk where the grate was located. There is an affidavit by the president of defendant Sapir Realty Management Corp. averring that the grates were already installed when the 11 Madison defendants acquired the property in 2003 and that the 11 Madison defendants had never been advised by Con Ed that they had any responsibility for maintaining the grates over Con Ed’s utility vaults or presented with any plans concerning the grates. There is also evidence that the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor in interest had purchased and installed the non-standard vault gratings, and there is a note on the plot plan for the vault construction stating that this entity was to “supply, install and maintain” the non-standard gratings it had requested. As issues of fact exist whether Con Ed or the 11 Madison defendants owned the gratings, it cannot be concluded that Con Ed was responsible for maintaining the gratings and the area around them in safe condition … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether the 11 Madison defendants’ predecessor’s installation of the non-standard vault grates constitutes a special use of the sidewalk by these defendants. Although there is evidence that they had no access to the grates and the vault, the evidence is not conclusive. Moreover, there is evidence that the transformers in the vaults provided electrical service solely to their property … . Saez v Sapir Realty Mgt. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03863, First Dept 7-9-20

 

/ ,

POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE STOP AND PURSUIT; THEREFORE THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined the police who stopped and pursued the defendant did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at the outset. So the weapon discarded by the defendant should have been suppressed:

“Police pursuit is regarded as significantly impeding a person’s freedom of movement, thus requiring justification by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . By contrast, “mere surveillance need not be justified by reasonable suspicion” … .

Although the police actions began as permissible observation, while following defendant slowly in their car without turning on their lights or sirens … , observation gave way to pursuit when the officers turned on their lights and sirens to cross the street against traffic and pull up ahead of defendant. Even crediting one of the officer’s testimony that his intent was to get a better view and alert oncoming traffic, not to cut off, block, or alarm defendant, the objective impact of this maneuver was “intimidating” and communicated “an attempt to capture or . . . intrude upon [defendant’s] freedom of movement” … .

Because it is undisputed that the circumstances before this police activity were not sufficient to create reasonable suspicion, it was unlawful and could not be validated by any subsequently acquired suspicion … . When defendant discarded a handgun during the course of the illegal pursuit, he did not voluntarily abandon it and it should have been suppressed … . People v Collins, 2020 NY Slip Op 03852, First Dept 7-9-20

 

/ , , ,

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SERVED VALID SUBPOENAS ON THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 352 (MARTIN ACT) IN A FRAUD INVESTIGATION; ONCE THE MOTIONS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE EX PARTE ORDER RE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS WAS DETERMINED, THE COURT NO LONGER HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION; THEREFORE THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES’ SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE SUPREME COURT OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined that the Attorney General (petitioner) properly served subpoenas on the virtual currency companies (respondents) pursuant to General Business Law (GBL) 352 (Martin Act) in a fraud investigation. The subpoenas were attacked on several grounds, all of which were rejected: (1) subject matter jurisdiction (arguing the virtual currency is not a commodity or a security): (2) long-arm jurisdiction (arguing insufficient contacts with New York); (3) ex parte order was not certified as required by GBL 352 (court found this a technical not jurisdictional defect). But before addressing the issues raised on appeal, the Second Department held that the court did not have statutory authority under the GBL to address the respondents’ motion to dismiss (which was the basis of the appeal). Under the GBL, once the motions to vacate or modify the subpoenas were determined, the court has no authority over the Attorney General’s investigation:

… [U]nder the Martin Act’s statutory scheme, once Supreme Court has issued an order responding to a GBL 354 application, it has no further role in the Attorney General’s investigation, except to rule on a motion by either party to vacate or modify the order, as respondents made here. Accordingly, once the court issued the order authorized by GBL 354 on April 24, 2019, and modified it by order dated May 16, 2019, the proceeding before it was concluded and there was no action or proceeding for Supreme Court to “dismiss” on May 21, 2019 when respondents filed their motion that resulted in the order now before the court. All that remained was the Attorney General’s ongoing investigation, in which, by statute, the courts have no further role at this stage. Indeed, neither party cites to, and this Court is unaware of, any prior case in which the subject of a Martin Act investigation has moved to “dismiss” an application by the Attorney General for an order pursuant to GBL 354. Matter of James v iFinex Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03880, First Dept 7-9-20

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, I.E., FINDING THE DEFECT TRIVIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this staircase slip and fall case should not have been granted. The defendant did not demonstrate it did not have constructive notice of salt (used to melt ice) on the steps. Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, granted the motion on the ground the salt constituted a trivial defect because the parties did not raise that issue:

“To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” … . To meet its burden on the issue of lack of constructive notice, a defendant must offer some evidence as to when the accident site was last cleaned or inspected prior to the accident … .Mere reference to general cleaning practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice” … . Here, in support of the motion, the defendant submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the part-time porter and the deposition testimony of the property manager of the defendant’s building, which merely provided evidence as to the defendant’s general cleaning practices, with no evidence as to when the area at issue was last inspected or cleaned prior to the accident.

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion on the ground that the presence of the salt on the step at issue constituted a trivial defect since the parties did not raise this issue … . Johnson v 101-105 S. Eighth St. Apts. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 03773, Second Dept 7-8-20

 

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