You are here: / CPL 300.40 (3) (b), WHICH REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS,...

Search Results

/

CPL 300.40 (3) (b), WHICH REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS, APPLIES ONLY TO VERDICTS AFTER TRIAL, NOT TO GUILTY PLEAS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that Criminal Procedure Law 300.40 (3) (b), which requires dismissal of inclusory concurrent counts, applies only to verdicts after trial and not to cases resolved by guilty plea. Defendant confessed to killing a mother and daughter and he was charged with two counts of first degree murder and two counts of second degree murder. He pled guilty to the two counts of second degree murder. On appeal defendant argued the second degree murder counts should have been dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of first degree murder:

CPL 300.40 (3) (b) provides, with respect to inclusory concurrent counts, that “[a] verdict of guilty upon the greatest count submitted is deemed a dismissal of every lesser count submitted” … . Even assuming, without deciding, that counts 3 and 4 of the indictment indeed are inclusory concurrent counts of counts 1 and 2, defendant’s reliance upon both the statute and the cases applying it … is misplaced, as CPL article 300 “‘deals only with trials, and has no application to convictions obtained on a plea of guilty'” … . Having elected to plead guilty to the entire indictment, as was defendant’s right (see CPL 220.10 [2]), he cannot now avail himself of the provisions of CPL 300.40 (3) (b) … . People v Redden, 2020 NY Slip Op 02502, Third Dept 4-30-20

 

/ , , ,

EXTRINSIC COLLATERAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO IMPEACH DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S CREDIBILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $400,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined the defendant doctor’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s $400,000 verdict should have been granted. The trial court should not have allowed extrinsic documentary evidence on collateral matters to impeach defendant’s credibility:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice encompasses errors in the trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, mistakes in the charge, misconduct, newly discovered evidence, and surprise”  … . “In considering such a motion, [t]he Trial Judge must decide whether substantial justice has been done, whether it is likely that the verdict has been affected and must look to his [or her] own common sense, experience and sense of fairness rather than to precedents in arriving at a decision'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court should not have permitted the plaintiff to introduce extrinsic documentary evidence concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s credibility … . In view of the importance of the defendant’s testimony and the emphasis given to the improperly admitted credibility evidence by the plaintiff’s counsel during summation, the errors were sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial … . Rudle v Shifrin, 2020 NY Slip Op 02487, Second Dept 4-29-20

 

/ ,

DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defect which caused plaintiff’s slip and fall was trivial as a matter of law:

The plaintiff testified that he stopped by one of the benches and when he started to walk away, “[his] foot got caught under the bench leg.” The plaintiff further testified that he returned to the site of the accident later that day and observed that the bench leg, which had allegedly caught his foot, was bent and protruding outward approximately two inches into the pedestrian walkway. The plaintiff, who had frequented that mall more than 100 times and had previously been to the area of the mall where the accident had occurred, had never noticed the bent bench leg. No one, including the plaintiff, had ever complained about the bent bench leg to the defendants. Nor had any prior accidents involving the bent bench leg been reported to the defendants. The plaintiff’s engineering expert opined that the defendants were negligent in permitting the bench leg to protrude into the pedestrian walkway so as to create a tripping hazard. * * *

“[A] property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes or trip” … . Photographs which fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish whether a defect is trivial and not actionable … .

Here, the evidence that the defendants submitted in support of their motion, including several photographs of the alleged defect, established prima facie that, as a matter of law, under all the circumstances, including the lighting conditions at the time of the accident, the plaintiff’s unobstructed view of the alleged defect, and the condition and location of the bench leg, the alleged defect was trivial and, therefore, not actionable … . Reich v Alexander’s, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02486, Second Dept 4-29-20

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR FOUR YEARS; THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED WITH NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS MERITORIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s failure to timely seek a default judgment in this foreclosure action required the action to be dismissed as abandoned. Plaintiff’s failure to offer an adequate excuse mandated dismissal without considering whether plaintiff had a meritorious action:

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her as abandoned. CPLR 3215(c) provides, inter alia, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, . . . unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “To establish sufficient cause,’ the party opposing dismissal must demonstrate that it had a reasonable excuse for the delay in taking proceedings for entry of a default judgment and that it has a potentially meritorious action” … .

Here, the plaintiff provided no explanation for the almost four-year delay after the defendant defaulted in 2011 before it filed a request for judicial intervention in February 2015 requesting a residential mortgage foreclosure settlement conference. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court should have found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its delay in seeking a default judgment … . Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse, this Court need not consider whether the plaintiff demonstrated a potentially meritorious action … . Flushing Bank v Sabi, 2020 NY Slip Op 02461, Second Dept 4-29-20

 

/ , ,

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT VIOLATE THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD BY MAKING A U-TURN IN RESPONSE TO A CALL FOR ASSISTANCE; THE STATE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “reckless disregard” standard applied to a police making a u-turn. Plaintiff motorcyclist alleged he lost control of the motorcycle because he was forced to brake when the officer (Balletto) pulled out from the shoulder to make the turn. Believing it was safe to do so, the officer made the u-turn to respond to another officer’s call for assistance. The state’s (defendant’s) motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

“[T]he reckless disregard standard of care in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(e) only applies when a driver of an authorized emergency vehicle involved in an emergency operation engages in the specific conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b). Any other injury-causing conduct of such a driver is governed by the principles of ordinary negligence” … . “Conduct exempted from the rules of the road by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104(b) includes disregarding regulations governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions” (… see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104[b][4]).

Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that by attempting to execute a U-turn in response to another trooper’s radio call for assistance, Balletto’s conduct was exempted from the rules of the road by section 1104(b)(4), and that, as a result, his conduct was governed by the reckless disregard standard of care in section 1104(e) … . The defendant also established, prima facie, that Balletto did not operate the emergency vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of others … . Cable v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02453, Second Dept 4-29-20

 

/ ,

A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MENTION DE-ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUTURE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS; THEREFORE THE DEBT WAS NOT DE-ACCELERATED AND THE SUBSEQUENT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a stipulation of a discontinuance of the 2008 foreclosure action did not de-accelerate the debt. The foreclosure action was therefore time-barred:

An action to foreclose a mortgage is subject to a six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213[4]). With respect to a mortgage payable in installments, separate causes of action accrue for each installment that is not paid and the statute of limitations begins to run on the date each installment becomes due … . Once a mortgage debt is accelerated, however, the statute of limitations begins to run on the entire debt … . “A lender may revoke its election to accelerate the mortgage, but it must do so by an affirmative act of revocation occurring during the six-year statute of limitations period subsequent to the initiation of the prior foreclosure action” … . * * *

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Bank of New York’s execution of the stipulation of discontinuance of the 2008 action did not, by itself, constitute an affirmative act revoking acceleration … . Notably, the stipulation was silent on the issue of acceleration and did not otherwise indicate that the plaintiff would accept installment payments … . Moreover, a notice of de-acceleration must be “clear and unambiguous to be valid and enforceable” … . Here, the notices of intent and 90-day notices which were sent prior to commencement of this action were completely silent as to de-acceleration. Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Yacoob, 2020 NY Slip Op 02451, Second Dept 4-29-20

 

/ ,

ADMISSION OF A HEARSAY STATEMENT BY A BYSTANDER WHO TOLD A POLICE OFFICER DEFENDANT HAD RUN INTO A HOUSE WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined it was (harmless) error to admit the hearsay statement attributed to a bystander who told a police officer the defendant had run into a house after a car chase:

Defendant contends that County Court erred in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony when the police officer was allowed to testify at trial that the bystander told him that the fleeing suspect ran into the house. We agree. The statement of the bystander was inadmissible hearsay because it was admitted for the truth of the matters asserted therein … . Indeed, the import of the bystander’s statement was to confirm that the suspect had indeed fled into the house, and thereby confirm that someone inside the house, i.e., defendant, perpetrated the crime. Nevertheless, we conclude that the error was harmless because the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that defendant would have been acquitted but for the admission of the hearsay testimony … . Defendant was identified by the victim and the other eyewitness as a perpetrator of the robbery, which had occurred in broad daylight, close in time to the show-up identification procedure. Those identifications of defendant were corroborated by testimony of the police officer, who observed the suspect flee from the stolen vehicle toward the house where defendant was apprehended. Moreover, the evidence strongly supported an inference that defendant was not in the house for innocent purposes because he did not live at that address and had tried to conceal his identification in an uninhabited part of the house. People v Harrington, 2020 NY Slip Op 02399, Fourth Dept 4-24-20

 

/ ,

CPL 330.30 MOTION ALLEGING JUROR MISCONDUCT DURING DELIBERATIONS, I.E. CONDUCTING A REENACTMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the Criminal Procedure Law 330.30 motion alleging misconduct during jury deliberations should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant was charged with menacing a police officer and whether the defendant heard the announcement that the people knocking on his door were deputy sheriffs was a critical issue. Defense counsel learned after the trial that the jurors had conducted a reenactment in the jury room to determine whether defendant heard the sheriffs:

… [I]n support of the motion, defendant submitted the affirmation of his attorney. Defendant’s attorney alleged that, during post-verdict discussions with the jury, he learned that the jurors had attempted during their deliberations to determine whether defendant was aware that the people knocking at his door were sheriff’s deputies by using the bathroom door in the deliberation room to reenact the moment when one of the deputies knocked on defendant’s door and announced the deputies’ presence. The court did not conduct a hearing and instead summarily denied the motion, ruling that, although the alleged jury reenactment constituted a conscious, contrived experiment that placed before the jury evidence not introduced at trial, the experiment was not directly material to any critical point at issue. That was error.

As defendant correctly contends, whether he could hear the announcement by the deputy was directly material to a critical point at issue in the trial—indeed, to an element of menacing a police officer—i.e., whether defendant “knew or reasonably should have known” that the people at his door were sheriff’s deputies (Penal Law § 120.18 …). We conclude under the circumstances of this case that a hearing is required to ascertain whether and in what manner the alleged reenactment occurred, and whether such conduct “created a substantial risk of prejudice to the rights of the defendant by coloring the views of the . . . jur[y]” … . People v Newman, 2020 NY Slip Op 02449, Fourth Dept 4-24-20

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF LANDLORD HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LEASE BY THE TENANT; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED LOSS OF GOODWILL WAS NOT APPLICABLE; THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES FAVORED THE TENANT; THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined a preliminary injunction was not warranted in this dispute over a lease. Defendant store leased space in plaintiff mall. The lease provided the store could terminate the lease before the end of the term if its gross sales were below a threshold. The store sought to terminate the lease on that ground, but the mall alleged the store’s gross sales did not fall below the threshold. The lease included a liquidated damages provision. The majority concluded the liquidated damages provision provided a remedy at law, the loss of goodwill was not applicable and the balance of the equities favored the store, not the mall. So the preliminary injunction should not have been granted:

… [T]he lease contains a liquidated damages provision that entitles plaintiff to certain money damages if defendants prematurely vacate the premises and cease operations. The lease also contains an integration clause stating that the lease is “the entire and only agreement between the parties.” Thus, because the lease specifically provides that plaintiff is entitled to certain money damages in the event that defendants vacate the premises in breach of the agreement—the very injury that serves as the predicate for plaintiff’s action—we conclude that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and, moreover, that plaintiff has not suffered irreparable harm because the liquidated damages clause was intended as the sole remedy for such a breach … .

We disagree with our dissenting colleagues that plaintiff established a likelihood of irreparable injury from the loss of goodwill that would occur if defendants were to cease operations by prematurely terminating the lease. The “loss of goodwill and damage to customer relationships, unlike the loss of specific sales, is not easily quantified or remedied by money damages” … and may warrant a finding of irreparable injury in cases such as those involving unfair competition tort claims … , the proposed demolition or alteration of the premises … , or the issuance of a Yellowstone injunction, in which it is a tenant, not the landlord, who seeks to enjoin the termination of a lease … . No such scenario is implicated here and, moreover, as already noted, the specific injury complained of by plaintiff was accounted for by the terms of the lease agreement. …

… [W]we conclude that the harm defendants will suffer if forced to keep their 6,000-square-foot store open against their will is greater than the injury plaintiff will suffer from the loss of one tenant in the mall, especially because plaintiff may still recoup its loss via the liquidated damages provision. Eastview Mall, LLC v Grace Holmes, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02447, Fourth Dept 4-24-20

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF STABBING THE VICTIM AT A CROWDED PARTY BUT NO ONE SAW DEFENDANT WITH A KNIFE; DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined that the defense request fot eh circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been granted. It was alleged defendant stabbed the victim but no one saw the defendant with a knife:

The victim was stabbed five times at a crowded house party where there were multiple ongoing fights, and the evidence established that the victim was involved in physical altercations with at least two other partygoers. One of the wounds was almost five inches deep, meaning that the blade of the knife must have been at least five inches long. None of the witnesses who observed defendant fighting with the victim observed anything in defendant’s hand during the altercation, and no blood was discovered in the room in which defendant and the victim engaged in their altercation. All of the evidence at trial required the jury to infer that defendant was the perpetrator who had the knife and that he used that knife to stab the victim. We thus conclude that a circumstantial evidence instruction was warranted … . Contrary to the People’s contention, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . People v Swem, 2020 NY Slip Op 02435, Fourth Dept 4-24-20

 

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