You are here: / DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS CONTACT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELAYED UNTIL...

Search Results

/ ,

DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS CONTACT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELAYED UNTIL 15 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined disclosure of contact information re: the complainant’s mother and two 911 callers must be delayed until 15 days before trial:

Where, as here, “the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion” … .

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing immediate disclosure of the subject materials to counsel for the defendant, counsel’s investigator, and the defendant. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have delayed disclosure of the address and contact information of the complainant, and of the name, address, and contact information of the complainant’s mother and the individuals identified as the first and second 911 callers … . People v Harper. 2020 NY Slip Op 02193, Second Dept 4-2-20

 

/ , ,

ON APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION TO CONSULT WITH THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES OR TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN WHY CONSULTATION WAS NOT POSSIBLE; HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS ASSIGNMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, relieving the attorney for the child (AFC) of responsibility for the appeal, determined the AFC did not fulfill his responsibilities under the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR 7.2):

The Rules of the Chief Judge require that an AFC in a custody or visitation proceeding “must zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]; see 22 NYCRR 7.2 [c]), and further provide that, “[i]f the child is capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, the [AFC] should be directed by the wishes of the child, even if the [AFC] believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests” … . The Rules establish only two circumstances in which an AFC may adopt a position that does not reflect the child’s wishes — specifically, when he or she “is convinced either that the child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, or that following the child’s wishes is likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child” … . …

The AFC here wholly failed to fulfill the obligations imposed by these provisions upon this appeal. The only stated basis for his determination to advocate for the children’s best interests rather than for their wishes was their ages. However, it was the AFC’s obligation to “consult with and advise the child[ren] to the extent of and in a manner consistent with [their] capacities” … . At 10, the older child was certainly old enough to be capable of expressing her wishes, and whether the younger child, at 6, had the capacity to do so was not solely dependent upon her calendar age, but also upon such individual considerations as her level of maturity and verbal abilities … . … Here, the AFC’s brief is devoid of any indication of the children’s wishes, with no reference to 22 NYCRR 7.2 or to the analysis that this rule requires an AFC to undertake before advocating for a position that does not express the child’s wishes … . …

Additionally, although the record reveals that the AFC met with the children during the Family Court proceeding, it does not appear that he met or spoke with them again during the appeal … . Matter of Jennifer VV. v Lawrence WW., 2020 NY Slip Op 02136, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/ , , ,

WHETHER THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL RECEIVED COMPETENT REPRESENTATION AT HER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WAS RELEVANT TO HER DECERTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; THEREFORE THE MOTION TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA SEEKING THE ATTORNEY’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to quash a subpoena seeking an attorney’s (Guerra’s) testimony in a teacher decertification proceeding should not have been granted. The attorney was seeking employment with the NYC Department of Education (NYCDOE) at the time she was representing the respondent school principal (Klingsberg) in disciplinary proceedings brought by the NYCDOE. The issue of whether respondent received competent representation in the disciplinary proceedings was relevant to whether those proceedings should be given collateral estoppel effect in the New York State Department of Education (SED) teacher decertification proceedings:

“[A] subpoena will be quashed only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . The party moving to quash bears “the burden of establishing that the subpoena should be [quashed] under such circumstances” … . * * *

… [W]hether Klingsberg was competently represented at that prior proceeding so as to warrant giving preclusive effect to its factual findings is very much in issue in this decertification proceeding and, given that Guerra has firsthand knowledge regarding her representation of Klingsberg at that prior proceeding, it cannot be said that “the information sought [from Guerra] is utterly irrelevant” to the decertification inquiry … . Rather, Guerra’s testimony is highly relevant to whether collateral estoppel will be applied in the pending decertification proceeding. For this reason, petitioners have not satisfied their burden of proof on their motion to quash the subpoena … . Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Educ., 2020 NY Slip Op 02140, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S REPEATED REQUESTS TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that defendant had been denied his right to represent himself. The opinion is basically a detailed rendition of the facts demonstrating that defendant repeatedly requested that he be allowed to represent himself and was repeatedly assigned new counsel after he repeatedly was found mentally fit for trial. There was no evidence defendant was seeking to delay the trial or otherwise interfere with the proceedings:

When a defendant desires to exercise the right to represent himself, “the court’s only function is to ensure that the defendant is acting knowingly and voluntarily, that is, that the defendant is aware of the disadvantages and risks of waiving his right to counsel” … . If the waiver is knowing and voluntary, the request must be granted … . * * *

The court’s belated finding … that defendant intended to “disrupt” the proceedings cannot be used as post-hoc justification of its earlier denials of repeated requests to proceed pro se. Defendant’s requests to proceed pro se were denied throughout 2008, 2009, and much of 2010, without mention of “disruption” as a basis.

It was hardly surprising that defendant expressed increasing frustration with the process, given that he had repeatedly been found fit to proceed, and yet the court continued to deny his requests to proceed pro se and to ignore his complaints regarding counsel. As the Court of Appeals has observed, in finding a defendant’s “outburst” insufficient to trump his right to self-representation,

“Just as the court may not rely on a postruling outburst to validate an erroneous denial, the court may not goad the defendant to disruptive behavior by conducting its inquiry in an abusive manner calculated to belittle a legitimate application. An outburst thus provoked will not justify the forfeiture of the right to self-representation” … .

That defendant on occasion agreed to the appointment of new lawyers does not render his requests to proceed pro se equivocal … . A defendant who elects to proceed pro se “is frequently motivated by dissatisfaction with trial strategy or a lack of confidence in counsel” … .

An erroneous denial of the right to defend onself is not subject to a harmless error analysis. We are therefore obliged to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. People v Trammell, 2020 NY Slip Op 02190, First Dept 4-2-20

 

/

PRIOR CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT FROM ELIGIBILITY FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; IT IS NOT AN ‘ARMED FELONY’ (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the prior conviction of criminal possession of a weapon was not an “armed felony” did not render defendant ineligible for youthful offender status:

Defendant’s prior conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, for “possess[ing] a loaded firearm” (Penal Law § 265.03[1][b]) was not an “armed felony” within the meaning of CPL 720.10(2)(a). As relevant here, CPL 1.20, which CPL 720.10(2)(a) incorporates, defines “armed felony” as “any violent felony offense defined in section 70.02 of the penal law that includes as an element . . . possession . . . of a deadly weapon, if the weapon is a loaded weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury may be discharged” … . The statutory definition of “loaded firearm” explicitly does not require that the firearm be “actually” loaded, because it includes within the definition a “firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm” (Penal Law § 265.00[15]). In contrast, the definition of “deadly weapon” contains no proviso indicating that an actually unloaded weapon is deemed “loaded,” and the definition is therefore met, where usable ammunition is readily available. Accordingly, “in order to be a deadly weapon, a gun must actually be loaded, as that term is commonly understood” … . Since a “loaded firearm” is therefore not always a “deadly weapon,” the crime to which defendant pleaded guilty did not “include[] as an element . . . possession . . . of a deadly weapon” (CPL 1.20[41][a]), and the court should not have found that defendant’s conviction rendered him presumptively ineligible. People v Ochoa, 2020 NY Slip Op 02156, First Dept 4-2-20

 

/ , , ,

THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT REFUTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND WERE ADEQUATELY PLED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff had stated causes of action for tortious interference with contract and defamation and the actions should not have been dismissed on either the “documentary evidence” or “failure to state a cause of action” ground:

Turning first to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), a motion to dismiss pursuant to this provision “will be granted only if the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiff’s claim” … . What may be deemed “documentary evidence” for purposes of this subsection is quite limited. “Materials that clearly qualify as documentary evidence include documents . . . such as mortgages, deed[s], contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable” … . Here, Supreme Court relied upon the statements taken during defendant’s investigation, as well as its non-harassment policy. As plaintiff argues, even sworn affidavits have been held inadequate to meet this statutory standard, and defendant’s submissions here do not qualify as documentary evidence … . …

The grounds for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a) (7) are also strictly limited; the court is not allowed to render a determination upon a thorough review of the relevant facts adduced by both parties, but rather is substantially more constrained in its review, examining only the plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavits … . …

To establish a claim for tortious interference with a contract, the plaintiff must allege “the existence of [his or her] valid contract with a third party, [the] defendant’s knowledge of that contract, [the] defendant’s intentional and improper procuring of a breach, and damages” … . Here, plaintiff’s complaint alleged that a valid contract existed between plaintiff and the distributor, that defendant intentionally spread “false, specious and salacious accusations against [p]laintiff,” and that such conduct “had no good faith or justifiable cause” and did not “protect an economic interest.” Liberally construing these allegations, as we must, taking all of the alleged facts as true, and giving plaintiff every favorable inference … , they do not fail to state a claim.

The defamation claim will ultimately require “proof that the defendant made ‘a false statement, published that statement to a third party without privilege, with fault measured by at least a negligence standard, and the statement caused special damages or constituted defamation per se'” … . Here, the complaint sets forth the particular words complained of and the damages plaintiff allegedly sustained … . Carr v Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02141, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/

FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon plaintiff’s fall when he stepped on a pile of loose pipes was properly dismissed. However the Labor Law 200 cause of action and the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action against some of the defendants should not have been dismissed:

The court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as that statute does not cover a fall allegedly caused by stepping on a pile of unsecured pipes on the floor of a construction site … . …

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should not be dismissed as against UA, Independent Mechanical, Intel Plumbing, and WeWork. The cause of plaintiff’s accident was not the manner in which his work was performed but a dangerous condition on the premises, i.e., the loose pipes that had been laid on the floor directly in front of a doorway … . …

… [T]he record does not support the summary dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as against the UA and 401 Park defendants. Plaintiff’s testimony that his fall was caused by a pile of loose pipes obstructing the doorway presents an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a tripping hazard in a passageway (Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7[e][1] … ). There is also an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), since part of the floor where workers worked or passed was not kept free from scattered tools or materials … . In addition, there is an issue of fact as to whether the unsecured pipes, which were allegedly piled about two feet high directly in front of the doorway, were safely stored pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) … . Armental v 401 Park Ave. S. Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-2-20

 

/

CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW; HER APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Worker’s Compensation Board, determined claimant’s application for Board review should not have been rejected based upon claimant’s answer to question 15 which asks for the the specific ruling objected to:

Claimant filed her application for Board review … and question number 15 on the form RB-89 application and the accompanying instructions directed her to “[s]pecify the objection or exception interposed to the [WCLJ’s] ruling and when it was interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii)” … . Claimant responded by stating that “an exception was noted at the hearing on [January 11, 2018],” that the WCLJ had noted that exception in his decision and that the “objection [was] continued by way of” the application for Board review. The Board found that this response was deficient because it failed to identify the exception. This finding overlooked the information already provided in the application for Board review, however, as claimant made clear in her responses to question numbers 11 and 12 that the challenged ruling was the finding of “no compensable disability” from May 10, 2017 to November 27, 2017 and that the issue was whether the WCLJ had erred in crediting certain medical testimony to make that ruling. Claimant identified the ruling at issue in those responses and, by citing the “exception” continued in her “application for review,” her response to question number 15 unambiguously referred to the ruling named in her prior responses so as to provide the information required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii) and demanded by the form instructions … . Matter of Narine v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 02142, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM A FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Markou’s) motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was troubleshooting a problem with lighting when his ladder slid sideways. He jumped off the ladder and landed on his feet to avoid hitting his head on the ground. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case that he was engaged in a protected activity (repair rather than routine maintenance) and the ladder did not provide adequate protection:

… [W]e find that plaintiffs established that Markou was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), in that he was attempting to repair the overhead lighting system in the cold storage area of defendant’s premises … . …  Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion, the court correctly concluded that plaintiffs, through the deposition testimony and sworn affidavit of their expert, sustained their prima facie burden of showing that the ladder was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to Markou (Labor Law § 240 [1]), causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Markou v Sano-Rubin Constr. Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02144, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/ ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE SECURITY-COMPANY CONTRACT AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON A SECURITY GUARD’S PROMISE TO RESPOND TO HER CALL FOR HELP (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant security company’s (Sera’s) motion for summary judgment in this patient-assault case was properly denied. Plaintiff, a nurse at a healthcare facility, was assaulted by a patient. Sera argued it was only responsible for providing protection against intruders, not patients. Because the contract with Sera was ambiguous the court properly considered extrinsic evidence (deposition testimony) which indicated Sera responded to staff’s calls for help dealing with patient “altercations” or “fighting.” There were questions of fact whether plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the Sera’s contract with the facility and whether plaintiff detrimentally relied on Sera to protect her from the assault. Questions of fact about Sera’s duty to plaintiff and the foreseeability of the assault were raised:

Given [the] testimony and the contractual language, the motion court properly denied summary judgment on the issue of whether defendant is liable to plaintiff as a third-party beneficiary of the contract.

Similarly, the motion court also properly concluded that plaintiff raised questions of fact sufficient to overcome summary judgment as to whether Sera is liable to plaintiff under a theory of detrimental reliance based on plaintiff’s allegation that the Sera security guard promised to respond to plaintiff’s call for assistance, but failed to do so in a timely manner or failed to call the police promptly or at all (see Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140). Defendant’s security guard testified that he could not recall when he received the call from his colleague directing him to go to the floor where plaintiff worked, whether he was advised of any details of what was occurring, or how long it took him to get there. He further testified that he was trained to investigate calls prior to determining whether to call the police, and that, if a staff member called the security station about an incident, it was the Sera security guards’ responsibility to call 911 or the police when warranted. Kuti v Sera Sec. Servs., 2020 NY Slip Op 02153, First Dept 4-2-20

 

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