You are here: / FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER...

Search Results

/

FAILURE TO SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION TO BE REVIEWED WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO QUESTION 15 OF THE APPLICATION JUSTIFIED THE BOARD’S REFUSING TO REVIEW IT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF THE RELEVANT HEARING WAS INDICATED ELSEWHERE IN THE APPLICATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Workers’ Compensation Board properly refused the employer’s application for review because the application did not indicate when the objection to be reviewed was made. The application indicated the objection was made at the hearing, but there were several hearings. The fact that the date of the hearing in question was indicated elsewhere in the application did affect the validity of the Board’s ruling:

The pertinent regulation, as well as the instructions in effect at the time that the employer filed its application for review, unambiguously required the employer to “specify the objection or exception that was interposed to the ruling [of the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge], and when the objection or exception was interposed” … . In response to question number 15 on the application for Board review, the employer set forth the specific objection but, in answering when such objection was interposed, indicated “at the hearing on the record.” As noted by the Board, because there were multiple hearings held in this matter, we cannot say that the Board abused its discretion in deeming the employer’s response to question number 15 to be incomplete based upon its failure to specify when such objection was interposed in order to satisfy the temporal element of the regulation …. Further, the fact that the date of the hearing at which the objection or exception was allegedly interposed appeared elsewhere on the application did not obviate the requirement for the employer to provide a complete response to question number 15, as the Board was not required to deduce when the employer’s objection or exception was interposed … . Matter of Rzeznik v Town of Warwick, 2020 NY Slip Op 02702, Second Dept 5-7-20

 

/

APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant’s pro se application for remission of the forfeited bail should have been granted. Appellant put up her own money for the bail. In support of her application for remission of the bail she submitted her own affidavit, defendant’s affidavit and a letter from a psychiatrist who had treated the defendant. Supreme Court refused to consider the affidavits and letter which explained defendant had become depressed upon the death of his younger brother, began abusing drugs and went off his mental health medication, resulting in his missing his court date. Instead Supreme Court relied on the court’s form application for remission of bail which was submitted by the appellant. The form application did not have any space for an explanation of the reasons for defendant’s missing his court date:

A court may forfeit a bail bond “[i]f, without sufficient excuse, a principal does not appear when required or does not render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the criminal court wherein bail has been posted” (CPL 540.10[1]). When this occurs, the surety may make an application for remission of the forfeited bail, which the court may grant “upon such terms as are just” (CPL 540.30[2]). “[S]uch an application should be granted only under exceptional circumstances and to promote the ends of justice. In making the application, a defendant or surety has the burden of proving that the defendant’s failure to appear was not deliberate and willful, and that the failure did not prejudice the People or deprive them of any rights” … . We find that appellant met all of these requirements. People v Nichols, 2020 NY Slip Op 02741, First Dept 5-7-20

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMANDED; DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT BY PLEADING GUILTY TO A PROBATION VIOLATION HE WAS GIVING UP HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING; APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter, determined defendant was not advised he could be deported based on his guilty plea, and further determined defendant’s plea to a probation violation was defective because he was not informed he was giving up his right to a hearing. Although the issue was not preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea, the appeal was heard in the interest of justice:

When defendant, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, the court did not advise him that if he was not a citizen, he could be deported as a consequence of his plea. Even though he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, there is no evidence that defendant knew about the possibility of deportation during the plea and sentencing proceedings. As such, the claim falls within the “narrow exception” to the preservation doctrine (People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 183 [2013], cert denied 574 US 850 [2014]). Therefore, defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation (id. at 198). Accordingly, we remit for the remedy set forth in Peque (id. at 200-201), and we hold the appeal in abeyance for that purpose.

Furthermore, defendant’s guilty plea to violation of probation was defective because there was no allocution about whether defendant understood that he was giving up his right to a hearing on the violation. While there is no mandatory catechism, Supreme Court failed to “advise defendant of his rights or the consequences regarding an admission to violating probation, including that he understood that he was entitled to a hearing on the issue and that he was waiving that right” … . Although defendant never moved to withdraw this plea and his claim is unpreserved, we review it in the interest of justice. People v Pinnock, 2020 NY Slip Op 02731, First Dept 5-7-20

 

/

THE STANDARD FOR VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A ‘REASONABLE’ EXCUSE, NOT A ‘PLAUSIBLE’ EXCUSE; IF NO REASONABLE EXCUSE IS OFFERED THE MERITS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant Swanston’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted. The excuse was not deemed reasonable and, therefore, the merits of the case need not be considered:

The motion court thought that Swanston’s excuses might not be valid but that they were “plausible.” However, plausibility is not the standard; rather, on a CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion, the movant must show a reasonable excuse for his default … . Swanston’s one-sided understanding that plaintiffs would refrain from prosecuting their lawsuit while defendant JackFromBrooklyn Inc. (JFB) negotiated to sell itself did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to answer … .

Given the absence of a reasonable excuse, we “need not determine whether a meritorious defense exists” … . Kowal v JackFromBrooklyn Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02715, First Dept 5-7-20

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS SELLING TICKETS TO A SPORTING EVENT OUTSIDE THE ARENA, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE TICKETS WERE FORGED WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN HE SAW THE POLICE WAS EQUIVOCAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a forged instrument, determined the evidence that defendant knew the Rangers tickets were forged was legally insufficient. The defendant briefly held an envelope containing the tickets and fled when he say the police:

Defendant approached Rangers fans outside of Madison Square Garden before a game, and at one point said “tickets, tickets.” He was on a cell phone call for a few seconds with an unspecified caller, the substance of which was not overheard. Defendant then met an unapprehended man, who gave defendant an envelope, which he immediately passed to a codefendant. The envelope, which the police recovered from the codefendant, contained a birthday card and the four forged Rangers tickets.

The evidence suggested that defendant sought to buy or sell tickets, but it did not show that he knew the tickets in question were forged. Even if the evidence established that defendant knowingly acted in concert with one or more other persons to sell tickets, in the circumstances presented this failed to support an inference that he knew he was selling forged tickets. His momentary possession of the envelope as he took it from one man and handed it to another, without looking inside or otherwise seeing the tickets, and the lack of any evidence of the codefendant’s conduct, besides his walking with defendant and receiving the tickets, does not suffice to establish that defendant knew the tickets were forged, either personally or while acting in concert with the codefendant.

Defendant’s flight from a plainclothes officer, whom defendant may have recognized, was too equivocal to prove that he knew the tickets inside the envelope were forged. There are other reasonable explanations for defendant’s flight, such as his potential awareness that it is unlawful to sell tickets, even if genuine, in the vicinity of the Garden … . People v Johnson, 2020 NY Slip Op 02708, First Dept 5-7-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION RELATED TO A THEFT ON OCTOBER 3 AND DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A DIFFERENT THEFT ON OCTOBER 1 IN SATISFACTION OF BOTH, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO APPELLATE REVIEW OF HIS SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S DENIAL OF REVIEW REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defendant was entitled to appellate review of the denial of his suppression motion even though the suppression motion did not relate to the offense to which defendant pled guilty. The defendant was charged with two thefts from the same residence on different days, a laptop computer taken on October 1 and jewelry taken on October 3. The police stopped the defendant on the street on October 3 and seized the jewelry. The suppression hearing related to that street stop. The defendant pled guilty to the theft of the computer and the jewelry-theft was satisfied by the plea. The Fourth Department held defendant was not entitled to appellate review of the jewelry-related suppression motion because defendant pled to the computer-theft. The case was sent back for review of the denial of the suppression motion:

Defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of burglary in the second degree … . The first count related to the laptop computer, taken from a dwelling on October 1, 2014; the second count related to the jewelry, which was taken from the same dwelling on October 3, 2014, the day of the arrest.

Defendant moved to suppress the jewelry, contending that his detention and the seizure of the jewelry violated his right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures …. Following a suppression hearing, with testimony from two of the police officers present at the arrest, Supreme Court denied defendant’s motion, concluding that the police had “reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrator.”

Defendant, a predicate felony offender who was facing a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison if convicted of both counts of burglary, pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the second degree, in satisfaction of the entire indictment. … [D]efendant pleaded guilty to the October 1 burglary, as charged in the count pertaining to the theft of the laptop computer, in satisfaction of the count charging the October 3 burglary of jewelry, which was the subject of his motion to suppress.  * * *

“[W]hen a conviction is based on a plea of guilty an appellate court will rarely, if ever, be able to determine whether an erroneous denial of a motion to suppress contributed to the defendant’s decision, unless at the time of the plea he states or reveals his reason for pleading guilty” … . * * *

A defendant who pleads guilty to one count will invariably take into consideration that other counts are satisfied by the plea. Importantly, a count satisfied by a guilty plea bears the double jeopardy consequences of a judgment of conviction. The judgment in this case prevents the People from prosecuting defendant again for the October 3, 2014 burglary, even though defendant did not plead to that count … . People v Holz, 2020 NY Slip Op 02682, CtApp 5-7-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFFS, THE DRIVER AND PASSENGER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY, REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-h HEARING(S) UNLESS EACH PLAINTIFF WAS PRESENT WHEN THE OTHER TESTIFIED; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE 50-h HEARING(S) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurring opinion, determined plaintiffs, the driver and passenger in this traffic accident case, did not have the right to observe each other’s testimony at a General Municipal Law 50-h hearing. Both plaintiffs were represented by the same attorney. The action was dismissed because plaintiffs refused to appear for the hearing(s) after plaintiffs’ counsel insisted that both plaintiffs be present during the testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the action:

As General Municipal Law § 50-h (5) makes clear on its face, compliance with a municipality’s demand for a section 50-h examination is a condition precedent to commencing an action against that municipality … . A claimant’s failure to comply with such a demand generally warrants dismissal of the action … . Requiring claimants to comply with section 50-h before commencing an action augments the statute’s purpose, which “is to afford the city an opportunity to early investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident and to explore the merits of the claim, while information is readily available, with a view towards settlement” … . Colon v Martin, 2020 NY Slip Op 02681, CtApp 5-7-20

 

/ , , ,

THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE AN ALLEGEDLY BIASED JUROR; THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM; THEREFORE DIRECT APPEAL, AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, WAS NOT AVAILABLE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a comprehensive, extended dissenting opinion, determined defendant’s constitutional ineffective assistance argument based upon defense counsel’s failure to challenge an allegedly biased juror was properly rejected. The record was deemed insufficient to support the constitutional challenge. A motion to vacate the conviction, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 440, based upon matters not in the record, may be the only avenue available to the defendant here. The defendant was charged with depraved indifference murder stemming from a drive-by shooting:

We reject defendant’s argument here that prospective juror number 10’s statements during voir dire reflect actual bias against defendant predicated on any evidence precluding the juror from rendering an impartial verdict, as opposed to general discomfort with the case based on media coverage. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the juror’s verbatim statements did not reveal what about the case gave rise to his uneasiness — whether it be the seemingly random nature of the shooting, the defendant’s or victim’s identity, or the manner in which the police investigated … . Nor did this juror convey that his uneasiness was connected to any particular personal experience or relationship, … or whether his impressions risked predisposition toward the prosecution or defense. Moreover, as both the prosecutor and trial court indicated in questioning the juror, this case turned not on a dispute about the nature of the crime but on the prosecutor’s ability to prove that this defendant committed it — an issue not impacted by the juror’s apprehension.  * * *

A defendant’s views at trial about a prospective juror as conveyed to counsel are relevant to an ineffectiveness claim based on the joint decision to accept that juror. Here, where we do not know what was said between defendant and his counsel or how that conversation may have affected counsel’s impression of prospective juror number 10, the ineffective assistance claim cannot be resolved on direct appeal. People v Maffei, 2020 NY Slip Op 02680, CtApp 5-7-20

 

/ , ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 13O4 AND A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN THE MORTGAGE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 and a condition precedent in the mortgage and therefore was not entitled to summary judgment in this foreclosure action:

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304 … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, its submission of an affidavit of an employee of the loan servicer was not sufficient to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. The affiant did not aver that he had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, that he was familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of the plaintiff, which allegedly sent the notice, or that the plaintiff’s records had been incorporated into the records of the loan servicer and were routinely relied upon by the loan servicer in its business … . Further, the plaintiff’s submission of an affidavit of its own employee was insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s strict compliance with RPAPL 1304, since that employee had no personal knowledge of the purported mailings, and his unsubstantiated and conclusory statements failed to establish that the notice was mailed to the defendant not only by certified or registered mail, but also by first-class mail … . Although the plaintiff submitted tracking information from the United States Postal Service for certified mailings of the notice, the redacted proof of first-class mailing did not contain any information linking a first-class mailing to the RPAPL 1304 notice, and thus, failed to establish that the notice was mailed by first-class mail … . Likewise, the plaintiff’s submission of a “Proof of Filing” statement pursuant to RPAPL 1306 contained no information indicating that the mailing was done by both registered or certified mail and first-class mail as required by RPAPL 1304 … .

The plaintiff similarly failed to establish, prima facie, that it mailed a notice of default to the defendant by first-class mail as required by the terms of the mortgage as a condition precedent to acceleration of the loan … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Nellis, 2020 NY Slip Op 02621, Second Dept 5-6-20

Similar issues and result in Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Nelson, 2020 NY Slip Op 02604, Second Dept 5-6-20

 

/ ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ANALYST WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE GENERATION OF THE DNA PROFILE HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEDURE USED OR INDEPENDENTLY ANALYZED THE RAW DATA; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine a witness who had first-hand knowledge of the generation of the DNA profile:

When confronted with testimonial DNA evidence at trial, a defendant is entitled to cross-examine “an analyst who witnessed, performed or supervised the generation of defendant’s DNA profile, or who used his or her independent analysis on the raw data” … . As the defendant contends, the People failed to establish that the analyst who testified in this case performed such a role in the testing or analysis of the testimonial DNA evidence introduced against him at trial … . Since the error was not harmless, the defendant is entitled to a new trial … . People v Butler, 2020 NY Slip Op 02676, Second Dept 5-6-20

 

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