You are here: / FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CONDITION...

Search Results

/ ,

FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CONDITION AFTER TWO PSYCHIATRISTS FOUND DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined it was reversible error to fail to conduct a hearing to determine defendant’s mental condition after defendant had been examined by two psychiatrists who concluded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental condition. The error was not preserved but was reviewed in the interest of justice:

Defendant now appeals, by permission of this Court, from an amended order that, upon the court’s finding that defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, committed him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health for confinement in a secure facility.

… CPL 330.20 (6) provides that, “[a]fter the examination reports are submitted, the court must, within [10] days of the receipt of such reports, conduct an initial hearing to determine the defendant’s present mental condition” … . In this case, however, the court did not conduct an initial hearing. We agree with defendant that, as the People correctly concede, the court’s failure to conduct the requisite initial hearing constitutes reversible error … . Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review … , we nevertheless review it in the interest of justice … . People v David T., 2020 NY Slip Op 00964, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/ ,

THE COURT, DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE PROSECUTOR WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR A PAROLE SUPERVISION SENTENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; THEREFORE THE MATTER CAN BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was not eligible for a parole supervision sentence and the court, defense counsel and the prosecutor mistakenly believed defendant was eligible. Defendant’s guilty plea was based upon the understanding the court would consider such a sentence (which the court ultimately did not impose). Because all parties misunderstood the law, defendant could not be expected to have preserved the error by moving to withdraw his plea and the matter can therefore be considered on appeal:

… [W]e conclude that defendant’s plea should be vacated because “[i]t is impossible to have confidence, on a record like this, that defendant had a clear understanding of what he was doing when he entered his plea” … . In short, we “cannot countenance a conviction that seems to be based on complete confusion by all concerned” … . Where, as here, “the prosecutor, defense counsel and the court all suffered from the same misunderstanding of the [court’s sentencing discretion], it would be unreasonable to conclude that defendant understood it” … . Although the court did not commit to a sentence of parole supervision under CPL 410.91, it erroneously indicated that defendant was eligible for such a sentence and stated that it would consider such a sentence, among all sentencing options, at sentencing—it did not qualify its statement or advise defendant that there was a possibility that he was not eligible for such a sentence … . We therefore reverse the judgment, vacate the plea, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the superior court information. In light of our determination, we do not reach defendant’s remaining contentions. People v Work, 2020 NY Slip Op 00962, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/ , ,

STATEMENT MADE IN PRIOR APPELLATE DECISION IN THE SAME MATTER TO THE EFFECT NO ONE QUESTIONED THE NUMBER OF HOURS PUT IN BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD WAS DICTA AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THE LAW OF THE CASE ON REMITTAL; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REDUCED THE NUMBER OF BILLABLE HOURS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing the amount of attorney’s fees awarded by Supreme Court, noted that a statement made by the Fourth Department in a prior appeal in the same matter was dicta and therefore should not have been treated as the law of the case by Supreme Court. In the prior decision the Fourth Department stated that no one had questioned the number of hours the attorney (Reedy) had worked on the case as the attorney for the child. Supreme Court took that statement to mean the number of hours could not be reduced by the court on remittal:

Our prior order unequivocally directed the court to calculate the amount of Reedy’s fees. An award of attorney’s fees must be “calculated on the basis of the . . . hours actually and reasonably spent on the matter by . . . counsel, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable hourly rate” … . In assessing the reasonableness of the hours spent by counsel, the issue “is not whether hindsight vindicates an attorney’s time expenditures, but whether, at the time the work was performed, a reasonable attorney would have engaged in the same time expenditures” …  . Thus, upon remittal the court was, inter alia, to determine an award of attorney’s fees that adequately reflected both the time spent and whether such time “was reasonably related to the issues litigated” … . Here, especially in light of Reedy’s prior concession that the amount sought was excessive, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in fixing the amount of fees without determining the reasonableness of the number of hours included in Reedy’s fee request … .

Contrary to respondent’s contention, the court’s statement in its earlier decision that “[n]o one has questioned the number of hours [Reedy] has claimed” did not become law of the case. The doctrine of law of the case “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision” … . Consequently, the doctrine does not apply where, as here, the court makes statements that are “mere dicta” … . Inasmuch as the court’s ultimate ruling in its earlier decision was that Reedy was not entitled to compensation as a private pay AFC, the court’s statement about the number of hours that he worked was dictum. Stefaniak v Zulkharnain, 2020 NY Slip Op 00961, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/ , , , , ,

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED; ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff stated causes of action for tortious interference with employment and defamation against a fellow employee of the Central New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CNYSPCA), The intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action was properly dismissed. The Fourth Department explained the elements of each cause of action and noted that the documents submitted to prove the truth of the allegedly defamatory statements were not “essentially undeniable” and did not “utterly refute” the allegations:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for tortious interference with employment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). According to the complaint, at all times relevant to this appeal, plaintiff was the Executive Director of the Central New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CNYSPCA) and defendant Stacy Laxen, DVM was a veterinarian for the CNYSPCA. During her tenure with the CNYSPCA, plaintiff directed that several cats be euthanized due to an outbreak of ringworm. Soon thereafter, and based on plaintiff’s decision to approve euthanasia without input from a veterinarian, defendant Board of Directors of the CNYSPCA terminated plaintiff’s employment. …

“[A]n at-will employee may assert a cause of action alleging tortious interference with employment where he or she can demonstrate that the defendant utilized wrongful means to effect his or her termination . . . In such cases, the plaintiff is required to show: (1) the existence of a business relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendants’ interference with that business relationship; (3) that the defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming plaintiff or used dishonest, unfair, improper or illegal means that amounted to a crime or an independent tort; and (4) that such acts resulted in the injury to the plaintiff’s relationship with the third party” … .  …

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Laxen’s statements constituted defamation per se inasmuch as they purportedly injured plaintiff in her “professional standing”… . Furthermore, despite the court’s determination that plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure and Laxen was protected by the common interest qualified privilege, accepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, we conclude that the complaint sufficiently alleged that Laxen acted with the requisite malice necessary to overcome those defenses … . Conklin v Laxen, 2020 NY Slip Op 00958, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/

THE ARTICLE OF THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW WHICH ALLOWS INTERACTIVE FANTASY SPORTS (IFS) CONTESTS AND EXCLUDES SUCH CONTESTS FROM THE PENAL LAW GAMBLING PROHIBITIONS VIOLATES THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, determined that Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law Article 14, which states that interactive fantasy sports (IFS) do not constitute gambling and do not violate the Penal Law, violates the New York Constitution:

It is undisputed that IFS contestants pay an entry fee (something of value) in hopes of receiving a prize (also something of value) for performing well in an IFS contest. Therefore, such contests constitute gambling if their outcomes depend to “a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein,” such that they are contests of chance (Penal Law § 225.00 [1]), or if they depend on a “future contingent event not under [the contestants’] control or influence” (Penal Law § 225.00 [2]). * * *

We recognize that the Legislature was sympathetic to and supportive of IFS participants (see e.g. Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 1400 [3]). Nevertheless, we have rejected the Legislature’s explicitly stated basis for the removal of IFS from the Penal Law definition of gambling (see Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 1400 [1]). Moreover, as part of the same legislation that decriminalized IFS, the Legislature clearly intended that IFS contests be heavily regulated (see Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law §§ 1400 [3]; 1402-1406). Hence, we conclude that the Legislature, if it had envisioned the possibility that courts would invalidate the majority of article 14, would not have wished to preserve the decriminalization of IFS located in Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 1400 (2). Thus, we refuse to sever that provision, and invalidate it as well. White v Cuomo, 2020 NY Slip Op 00895, Third Dept 2-6-20

 

/ , , , ,

ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IN FAVOR OF DONALD J TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT INC VACATED AS VIOLATING PUBLIC POLICY AND EXCEEDING THE ARBITRATOR’S AUTHORITY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s award in this action based upon a non-disclosure, non-disparagement agreement (NDA) was against public policy and exceeded the arbitrator’s authority. Plaintiff was employed by defendant, Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. She signed the NDA as a condition of her employment. Plaintiff brought an employment discrimination action in Supreme Court alleging a hostile work environment, sexual discrimination, defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Pursuant to the NDA defendant demanded arbitration. Plaintiff then started a federal lawsuit seeking a declaration that the NDA was void and unenforceable and defendant, pursuant to the NDA again demanded arbitration. The arbitrator found plaintiff had breached the NDA by disclosing confidential information in the federal action and making disparaging comments on her GoFundMe pages and on her Twitter account. The First Department held the information disclosed in the federal action was protected by privilege and the comments posted on the Internet were not part of the defendant’s demand for arbitration:

Plaintiff’s negative statements about defendant, for which the arbitrator made an award, were made in the context of the federal action in which she sought a declaration that the NDA was unenforceable … . By concluding that the allegations in the federal action are tantamount to disclosure of confidential information violative of the NDA, the arbitrator improperly punished plaintiff for availing herself of a judicial forum. Defendant is hard-pressed to explain how plaintiff could have pursued her rights without setting forth necessary factual statements for the federal court to consider.

The remainder of the award was based upon certain Twitter “Tweets” and statements on a GoFundMe page. The nature of the Demand to Arbitrate, however, was limited to statements made “in connection” with this state action. * * * Defendant relies on plaintiff’s actions subsequent to the date of its Demand to Arbitrate in an effort to have the arbitration award confirmed. Since the award takes into account events occurring after the demand, which could not have been legitimately considered at arbitration, the award was made in excess of the arbitrator’s enumerated authority. Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00923, First Dept 2-6-20

 

/

CLAIMANT, A FIELD INSPECTOR FOR A VACANT PROPERTY PRESERVATION COMPANY, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant field inspector was an employee of Safeguard Properties, a property preservation company that preserves vacant properties for lenders on homes that have delinquent loans. Claimant, who performed property occupancy inspections, was not an independent contractor and was therefore entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

The record establishes that claimant, who did not have an inspection business or any other business entity, applied for the field inspector job upon a recommendation of a friend. Inspectors, such as claimant, were sent work orders to perform inspections on properties and were required to complete such inspections within a time frame set by Safeguard. Field inspectors were assigned a regional supervisor to contact regarding questions and problems that arose in connection with the inspections, or to request extensions of time to complete a work assignment. Safeguard prioritized the work order assignments, required field inspectors to adhere to a dress code, provided instructions as to various aspects of how a work assignment was to be completed and, with regard to claimant, paid her every two weeks. Safeguard provided a replacement if a field inspector could not perform an assignment and required field inspectors to provide 30 days’ notice of scheduled vacations, reserving the right to deny such vacation requests. Any complaints by customers or clients were handled by Safeguard.

The record also discloses that field inspectors were required to use a computer compatible with software provided by Safeguard. Safeguard provided stickers and door hangers to inspectors and required that stickers bearing Safeguard’s name be affixed to vacant properties. Safeguard tracked field inspectors’ productivity and required their participation in regular mandatory telephone conferences to discuss work quality. Disciplinary action would be imposed upon field inspectors who failed to respond to Safeguard’s contacts. Matter of Sischo (Safeguard Props. LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2020 NY Slip Op 00894, Third Dept 2-6-20

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE LEASE DID NOT IMPOSE A DUTY ON THE TENANT TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, THE VILLAGE CODE DID; THE TENANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant tenant’s (Invite Health’s) motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although, under the lease, the tenant had no duty to maintain the sidewalk, the village code imposed that duty on owners and tenants:

Here, Code of the Village of New Hyde Park § 165-40.1 requires “owners, tenants or other persons occupying or entitled to the possession and control of any lands, whether vacant or improved” to, among other things, maintain the abutting public sidewalk “in a good state of repair and free and clear of any physical defects or other unsafe, hazardous or dangerous obstructions, encumbrances or conditions” and imposes joint and several liability upon them for injuries caused by their breach of that duty (see Code of the Village of New Hyde Park §§ 1-18, 165-40.1). Given the Code’s imposition of an obligation on a tenant or occupant to maintain an abutting public sidewalk, Invite Health, as a tenant and occupant of the abutting property, had a statutory duty to maintain the public sidewalk where the accident occurred (see Code of the Village of New Hyde Park §§ 1-18, 165-40.1 …) . As such, the mere fact that Invite Health had no duty under the lease agreement to maintain the abutting sidewalk was not dispositive of the issue of whether it owed the injured plaintiff a duty of care. Mule v Invite Health at New Hyde Park, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00869, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

/ ,

PETITIONERS, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VILLAGE BOARD’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, determined petitioners, as members of the public and residents of the Village of Mamaroneck, had standing to challenge an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law. Petitioners alleged the Village Board did not provide proper notice of the meeting, improperly entered a closed executive session and failed to accurately record the minutes of the meeting:

The purpose of the Open Meetings Law and the intent of the Legislature in enacting that law dictate that the harm or injury is the alleged unlawful exclusion of the public from a municipal meeting. The Open Meetings Law plainly confers upon the public the right to attend certain meetings of public bodies (see Public Officers Law § 100). Consistent therewith, the harm or injury of being excluded from municipal meetings that should be open to the public is sufficient to establish standing in cases based upon alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law … . If the analysis and determination of the Supreme Court were allowed to stand, a petitioner/plaintiff would have to demonstrate an additional personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal, or property rights in order to assert a violation of the Open Meetings Law. This would, in effect, interject a counterintuitive restriction upon the general citizenry’s access and participatory freedoms to attend certain meetings of a public body. Such a requirement or condition would undermine, erode, and emasculate the stated objective of this statute, which was designed to benefit the citizens of this state and the general commonweal, assure the public’s right to be informed, and prevent secrecy by governmental bodies. Matter of McCrory v Village of Mamaroneck Bd. of Trustees, 2020 NY Slip Op 00864, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

/ , ,

AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that an email exchange did not acknowledge a debt owed to decedent such that the statute of limitations started anew when the exchange took place in 2015. Any action on the debt was time barred:

Jean M. Hollis (hereinafter Jean) died in October 2015, and was survived by six children. Jean’s will, which was admitted to probate in February 2016, provided that “[i]n the event that any of my surviving children shall be indebted to me at the time of my demise, . . . then such indebtedness shall be deducted from any bequest made to said children.” In January 2016, Paul James Hollis (hereinafter the decedent), one of Jean’s children, died, and his wife, Bernadette Hollis (hereinafter Bernadette), was appointed administrator of his estate. In September 2016, the respondent Peter H. Hollis (hereinafter Peter), as an executor of Jean’s estate, filed a notice of claim against the decedent’s estate alleging that it was indebted to Jean’s estate in the sum of $147,265.35, representing the sum of $146,765.35 borrowed by the decedent from Jean between April 2005 and January 2008, and an additional loan made by Jean to the decedent in December 2011 in the sum of $500. …

The subject email arguably acknowledged that the decedent owed a pre-existing debt to Jean, inasmuch as it stated that he had been “informed” by his sister, Jeanine Hollis, that “[he] owe[s] around $140,000 to Mom.” Although the subject email initially stated that “I have every intention of paying this debt,” it then went on to state that “there are some mitigating circumstances that I would like to note sometime in the near future.” In an email sent the next day, the decedent stated “I just want the process to be fair and not arbitrary.” Since the subject email contained language inconsistent with an intention on the part of the decedent to pay the alleged debt, the court erred in concluding that the subject email renewed the statute of limitations pursuant to General Obligations Law § 17-101 … . Matter of Hollis, 2020 NY Slip Op 00860, Second Dept 2-5-20

 

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