You are here: / ALTHOUGH THE ORDER ADDRESSING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS ISSUED...

Search Results

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE ORDER ADDRESSING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS ISSUED AFTER JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUBSUMED IN THE JUDGMENT, THE ORDER IS APPEALABLE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, overruling precedent, determined that an order issued after judgment, here an order on a motion to set aside the verdict, can be appealed:

… [W]e must consider whether a party may appeal directly from an order denying a CPLR 4404 motion when that order was entered after entry of a final judgment. In some of our previous cases, we have concluded that such an order is “subsumed in the judgment and the right to appeal directly therefrom terminated” (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v Campagna, 233 AD2d 954, 955 [4th Dept 1996] …). We now conclude that the rule set forth in Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. is inconsistent with the statutory framework and with Court of Appeals precedent, and should no longer be followed. Accordingly, we hold that an order otherwise appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a]) entered after the entry of a final judgment is not subsumed in the judgment, but is independently appealable.

An appeal may be taken as of right from an order that, inter alia, “involves some part of the merits,” “affects a substantial right,” or “refuses a new trial” (CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [iii]-[v]). If, however, a court enters an “intermediate order” and subsequently enters a final judgment, the Court of Appeals has held that the entry of the judgment terminates the right to appeal from the order … . Although the right of appeal terminates, the order is not beyond review. There is a statutory remedy. An appeal from the final judgment “brings up for review,” inter alia, “any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” or “any order denying a new trial” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1], [2]). Thus, CPLR 5501 (a) salvages the ability of aggrieved parties to seek review of the intermediate order on appeal.

On the other hand, orders entered after the entry of a final judgment cannot conceptually merge into the judgment. The rule in Aho [39 NY2d 241] applies only to an “intermediate order” … , which the Court of Appeals has defined as an order “made after the commencement of the action and before the entry of judgment” … . Consequently, inasmuch as the right of appeal from a post-judgment order remains in effect, we conclude that the appeal from the order here is properly before us. Knapp v Finger Lakes NY, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03353, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/ , , ,

THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ADDRESSED THE RELEVANT ISSUES AT ORAL ARGUMENT; THE MEDICAL RECORDS DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE EXCUSE FOR DELAY WAS NOT ADEQUATE, THE DEFECT DID NOT REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined claimant’s application for leave to file a late notice of claim in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The court noted that the medical records submitted for the first time in a reply were properly considered because the respondents addressed the relevant issues at oral argument. Both the majority and the dissent noted that the excuse for failure to timely file the notice of claim was inadequate but that defect did not require denial of the application. The majority found claimant demonstrated respondents were not prejudiced by the delay. The dissent disagreed with the majority’s finding that the medical records demonstrated respondents had timely notice of the nature of the claim:

… [W]e reject the contention of respondents and the dissent that it is inappropriate under the circumstances of this case to consider the medical records submitted by claimant for the first time in his reply papers. In general, ” [t]he function of reply papers is to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds [or evidence] for the motion [or application]’ ” … . “This rule, however, is not inflexible, and a court, in the exercise of its discretion, may consider a claim or evidence offered for the first time in reply where the offering party’s adversaries responded to the newly presented claim or evidence” … . …

… “[T]he medical records . . . evince that [respondents’] medical staff, by its acts or omissions, inflicted an[ ] injury on [claimant]’ ” … . The medical records indicate that, following the surgical skin graft procedure, claimant developed swelling beneath the dressings that became constrictive of blood flow to the leg and ultimately caused necrosis, and that respondents’ medical staff, for various reasons, had failed to recognize the ischemic nature of the leg and claimant’s development of compartment syndrome, thereby eventually necessitating partial amputation of the leg … . We thus conclude that respondents timely acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim … . Matter of Dusch v Erie County Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 03351, Fourth Dept 7-12-20

 

/ ,

COCAINE IS NOT DANGEROUS CONTRABAND WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE FIRST DEGREE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND IN THE SECOND DEGREE (PROHIBITING ‘CONTRABAND,’ AS OPPOSED TO ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND’) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, over a two-justice concurrence and a dissent, determined cocaine does not meet the statutory definition of dangerous contraband within the meaning of the offense of promoting prison contraband in the first degree. The defendant’s conviction, based upon the possession of three baggies of cocaine, was reduced to promoting prison contraband in the second degree:

“A person is guilty of promoting prison contraband in the first degree when . . . [that person] knowingly and unlawfully introduces any dangerous contraband into a detention facility” (Penal Law § 205.25 [1]). “Dangerous contraband” is defined as any contraband that is “capable of such use as may endanger the safety or security of a detention facility or any person therein” (§ 205.00 [4]). “[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility’s institutional safety or security” … . ” [W]eapons, tools, explosives and similar articles likely to facilitate escape or cause disorder, damage or physical injury are examples of dangerous contraband,’ ” whereas an ” alcoholic beverage is an example of [ordinary] contraband’ ” … . Drugs, unlike weapons, are not inherently dangerous, and thus general penological concerns about the drug possessed that “are not addressed to the specific use and effects of the particular drug are insufficient to meet the definition of dangerous contraband” … . * * *

Central to our dissenting colleague’s analysis is a distinction between narcotic and non-narcotic controlled substances. The unstated premise is that cocaine is classified as a narcotic because it is inherently dangerous. We respectfully disagree with that premise. Cocaine may be unhealthy, but it is not a narcotic, at least not from a scientific, medical, or pharmacological viewpoint … . People v Simmons, 2020 NY Slip Op 03350, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/ , , , , ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM A NONFINAL ORDER, HERE ORDERS WHICH DID NOT RESOLVE THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES; IN A SUCCESSFUL SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE PAID BY THE CORPORATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined no appeal lies from a nonfinal order and, in a successful shareholders’ derivative action, the corporation is liable for attorney’s fees. The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here. Defendant limited liability company was formed to develop a residential subdivision. The action alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and sought dissolution of the LLC:

… “[A]lthough all of the substantive issues between the parties were resolved, the order was facially nonfinal, since it left pending the assessment of attorneys’ fees—a matter that plainly required further judicial action of a nonministerial nature” … . Further, plaintiffs’ “request for attorneys’ fees was an integral part of each of the asserted causes of action rather than a separate cause of action of its own,” and therefore that issue cannot be implicitly severed from the other issues … . Thus, the order … does not constitute a ” final order’ ” within the meaning of CPLR 5501 (a) (1) and does not bring up for our review any prior non-final order … . * * *

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and disbursements in his status as a derivative plaintiff acting on the LLC’s behalf and in awarding such fees and disbursements … . “The basis for an award of attorneys’ fees in a shareholders’ derivative suit is to reimburse the plaintiff for expenses incurred on the corporation’s behalf . . . . Those costs should be paid by the corporation, which has benefited from the plaintiff’s efforts and which would have borne the costs had it sued in its own right” … . Thus, plaintiff’s success as a derivative plaintiff is not an acceptable basis for an award of attorneys’ fees and disbursements against defendant individually. Howard v Pooler, 2020 NY Slip Op 03347, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/ , ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACTION BY A TENURED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR ON THE EQUAL PAY ACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND CERTAIN NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Equal Pay Act (EPA) cause of action and certain NYS Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) causes of action should not have been dismissed in this sex and disability discrimination action brought by a tenured associate professor:

With respect to the cause of action alleging violations of the EPA, defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the difference in pay between plaintiff and a less senior male colleague who performed similar work under similar conditions “is due to a factor other than sex” … . * * *

With respect to the causes of action for sexual discrimination under Title VII and the NYSHRL, we conclude that issues of fact exist whether defendant’s challenged actions were “based upon nondiscriminatory reasons,” and thus summary judgment is precluded on those causes of action … . Indeed, defendant offered inconsistent and shifting justifications for the pay disparity … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in granting the motion with respect to the sixth cause of action, alleging violations of the NYSHRL based on unlawful retaliation … . To establish a claim for unlawful retaliation under the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action” … . …  [I]ssues of fact exist whether defendant unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff after she complained of gender discrimination when it required her to retain her position as the undergraduate coordinator while at the same time maintaining her regular course load … . Nordenstam v State Univ. of N.Y. Coll. of Envtl. Science & Forestry, 2020 NY Slip Op 03346, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/ , ,

AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, determined defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized after a street stop should have been granted and vacated defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant was charged with two burglaries on different days. Defendant pled guilty to one of the burglaries in satisfaction of both. Defendant appealed the denial of the suppression motion related to the street stop. The Fourth Department did not reach the merits of the appeal because the suppression motion did not involve the offense to which defendant pled guilty. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the denial of the suppression motion was appealable because of its potential effect on the decision to plead guilty in satisfaction of both charges:

A majority of this Court concluded that ” the judgment of conviction on appeal here did not ensue from the denial of the motion to suppress [relating solely to count two] and the latter [wa]s, therefore, not reviewable’ pursuant to CPL 710.70 (2)” … . The Court of Appeals reversed, stating that “the Appellate Division may review an order denying a motion to suppress evidence where, as here, the contested evidence pertained to a count—contained in the same accusatory instrument as the count defendant pleaded guilty to—that was satisfied by the plea” … . The Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this Court to rule on defendant’s suppression contention.

Upon remittitur, we now agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence seized as a result of his unlawful detention on October 3, 2014 … . We further agree with defendant that such error was not harmless under the circumstances (see id. at 1424). We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, grant that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress the physical evidence seized from defendant on October 3, 2014, and remit the matter to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v Holz, 2020 NY Slip Op 03345, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

/ ,

FEDERAL CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL MARINE INTERDICTION AGENT IS NOT A PEACE OFFICER UNDER NEW YORK LAW; THEREFORE THE AGENT MADE A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST OF AN ERRATIC DRIVER HE OBSERVED WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY; MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the Appellate Division, over a dissent, determined the federal marine interdiction agent with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was not a peace officer under New York law and, therefore, could effect a citizen’s arrest. The federal agent observed defendant driving erratically and putting other drivers in danger so he activated his emergency lights and pulled the driver over. The agent stayed in his vehicle and called the Buffalo police. After the Buffalo police arrived, the agent left. The police found a weapon in defendant’s car and he was charged with criminal possession of a weapon. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to suppress and the Fourth Department affirmed. Both courts relied on People v Williams (4 NY3d 535 [2005]) which held that peace officers could not make a citizen’s arrest. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Williams did not control because the federal agent in this case was not a peace officer under the relevant New York statutory definitions and therefore could make a citizen’s arrest:

Because the agent who stopped defendant in this case is not considered a federal law enforcement officer with peace officer powers pursuant to CPL 2.10 and 2.15, he could not have improperly circumvented the jurisdictional limitations on the powers reserved for those members of law enforcement under CPL 140.25, as the peace officers in Williams did. In other words, the agent’s conduct here did not violate the Legislature’s prescribed limits on a peace officer’s arrest powers because he is not, in fact, a peace officer. …

… [A]side from the clear limits as to the justifiable use of physical force that may be applied during an arrest by a private citizen (CPL 35.30 [4]; CPL 140.35 [3]), as well as the requirement that “[s]uch person must inform the person whom he [or she] is arresting of the reason for such arrest unless he [or she] encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical” (CPL 140.35 [2]), nothing in the citizen’s arrest statutes themselves set forth the methods that must be employed when, as here, a crime is committed in the responding citizen’s presence (see CPL 140.30, 140.40 …). We reiterate that whether this stop comported with constitutional principles or the express terms of the arrest statutes is simply not before us, as defendant failed to raise any such arguments before the suppression court. People v Page, 2020 NY Slip Op 03265, CtApp 6-11-20

 

/

COURT’S ERRORS IN DEALING WITH NOTES FROM THE JURY, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE WORD ‘INITIALLY’ FOR ‘INTENTIONALLY,’ REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the court’s handling of jury notes constituted reversible error:

… [I]n a note marked as court exhibit 8, the jury posited a question about the elements of resisting arrest. When reading that note into the record, the Supreme Court substituted the word “initially” in place of the word “intentionally,” forming a substantively different question than that posed by the jury. The court again substituted the word “initially” in place of the word “intentionally” when it read the note aloud later in the proceedings. Since there is no indication in the record that court exhibit 8 was shown to the parties, the court’s erroneous use of a substantively different word than that used by the jury when it read the note into the record, and its repetition of that same error later in the proceedings, constituted mode of proceedings errors. In addition, although the jury submitted to the court a note marked as court exhibit 10 to clarify which portions of the testimony of certain witnesses the jury wished to have read back, the court did not read court exhibit 10 into the record at any point, and the record does not show that the court ever informed the parties that this note had been received. As a result of the errors regarding these jury notes, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction of resisting arrest … . People v Petrizzo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03251, Second Dept 6-10-20

 

/ , ,

EVEN THOUGH THE US SUPREME COURT CASE REQUIRING WARRANTS FOR CELL SITE LOCATION DATA WAS NOT DECIDED AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, PRESERVATION OF THAT ISSUE FOR APPEAL IS STILL NECESSARY; A DEFENDANT MAY BE INDICTED FOR BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE AND INTENTIONAL MURDER; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTINGS AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WERE APPROPRIATE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, affirming defendant’s murder, assault and weapon-possession convictions, and affirming the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate the convictions, determined: (1) the issue re: the warrantless procurement of cell site location data was not preserved, and preservation was necessary despite the fact that the US Supreme Court case requiring warrants was not decided at the time of trial; (2) the defendant was properly indicted, by different grand juries, for both depraved indifference and intentional murder; and (3) consecutive sentences for possession of a weapon and the shootings were appropriate:

At trial, defendant did not preserve any claim relating to cell site location information obtained without a warrant, and the motion court providently exercised its discretion under CPL 440.10(2)(b) when it rejected defendant’s attempt to raise this issue by way of a postconviction motion. Defendant asserts that it would have been futile for trial counsel to raise the issue because the Supreme Court of the United States had not yet decided Carpenter v United States (585 US __, 138 S Ct 2206 [2018]), a case that we assume, without deciding, applies here because defendant’s direct appeal was pending at the time that case was decided. We conclude that defendant should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of the lack of preservation. Although Carpenter had not yet been decided, and trial counsel may have reasonably declined to challenge the cell site information, defendant had the same opportunity to advocate for a change in the law as did the litigant who ultimately succeeded in doing so … . In the closely related context of preservation, the Court of Appeals has expressly rejected the argument that an “appellant should not be penalized for his failure to anticipate the shape of things to come” … . * * *

A grand jury’s indictment of defendant for depraved indifference murder, after a prior grand jury had indicted him for intentional murder, did not violate CPL 170.95(3). The second presentation did not require permission from the court, because the first indictment cannot be deemed a dismissal of the depraved indifference count in the absence of any indication that the first grand jury was aware of or considered that charge … . The rule that a person may not be convicted of both intentional and depraved indifference murder … applies to verdicts after trial, not indictments. These charges may be presented to a trial jury in the alternative (as occurred in this case, where defendant was acquitted of depraved murder but nevertheless claims a spillover effect). Furthermore, the People were not required to present both charges to the same grand jury … . People v Crum, 2020 NY Slip Op 03282, First Dept 6-11-20

 

/

VENUE WAS IMPROPER; DEFENDANTS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; NO OTHER PARTY MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ (Transit Authorities’) motion to change venue should have been granted. Venue was improper, the Transit Authorities followed the correct procedure, and no other party made a motion to change venue:

After plaintiffs commenced this action in Bronx County, the Transit Authorities timely served a demand for a change of venue as of right to New York County, where one of them has its principal office (see CPLR 505[a]; 511). Plaintiffs did not respond to the demand, and the Transit Authorities timely moved to change venue (see CPLR 510[1]; 511[b]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs did not dispute that their choice of venue was improper, but requested that venue be placed in Kings County, where the accident occurred. No other defendant timely appeared in opposition to the motion, although the City defendants submitted a belated affirmation asserting that venue should be placed in Kings County under CPLR 504(3).

By failing to respond to the Transit Authorities’ demand to change venue to a proper forum, plaintiffs forfeited their right to select venue … . Further, no party moved to transfer venue to an alternate county … . Thus, once the Transit Authorities had followed the procedure set forth in CPLR 511 and established that the county chosen by plaintiffs was improper, their motion to change venue to New York County as of right should have been granted … . Richardson v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 03281, First Dept 6-11-20

 

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