You are here: / WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE...

Search Results

/ ,

WITHOUT PROOF DEFENDANT USED, ATTEMPTED TO USE, OR THREATENED TO USE THE BOX CUTTER FOUND IN HIS POCKET, THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BOX CUTTER MET THE DEFINITION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing defendant’s criminal possession of a weapon conviction, determined the proof that defendant simply possessed a box cutter was not enough:

While feeling around defendant’s waist, the officer felt a metal object in defendant’s shorts. Upon further search, the officer saw the butt end of a box cutter sticking out of the fly of defendant’s underwear. The razor of the box cutter was in its sheath and not exposed. He later tested the box cutter to see if it was sharp, and he was able to cut paper with it. Officer McKeever never saw defendant holding the box cutter and did not see him argue with or threaten anyone. * * *

As the jury was charged, a “dangerous instrument” is “any instrument, article or substance, . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” … . An object “becomes a dangerous instrument when it is used in a manner which renders it readily capable of causing serious physical injury” … .

Here, there was no proof that defendant used the box cutter, attempted to use it, or threatened to use it as required under the plain terms of the statute in order for it to be a dangerous instrument … . People v Knowles, 2019 NY Slip Op 08770, First Dept 12-5-19

 

/

PETITIONER-INMATE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING HIS DISCIPLINARY HEARING; ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WAS ARGUMENTATIVE, REMOVAL FROM THE HEARING WAS NOT WARRANTED; DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the disciplinary determination, held that petitioner-inmate was deprived of his right to be present during the hearing. Respondent removed petitioner from the hearing when petitioner became argumentative and asked that respondent recuse himself because of bias against the petitioner:

“An inmate has a fundamental right to be present at a Superintendent’s hearing ‘unless he or she refuses to attend, or is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals'” … . The record reflects that, early in the hearing, petitioner asked respondent to recuse himself because petitioner had previously filed a complaint against him and perceived him to be biased. Respondent denied petitioner’s recusal request, stating that the complaint would not prevent him from providing petitioner with a fair hearing. Petitioner objected and, thereafter, twice interrupted respondent and complained that respondent had become “hostile” toward him. Respondent directed petitioner to stop interrupting him, warned him that continued interruptions would result in his removal from the hearing and sought petitioner’s acknowledgement that he understood that warning. Petitioner refused to acknowledge the warning, stating that it lacked any basis and that he was “only trying to participate in th[e] hearing.” Respondent then abruptly removed petitioner from the hearing, seemingly because petitioner refused to acknowledge the warning. Although several adjournments were taken that day to secure witnesses, petitioner was never brought back into the hearing. Our review of the record does not demonstrate that petitioner’s briefly argumentative behavior rose to the level of justifying his removal for the entire hearing or that his conduct jeopardized institutional safety and correctional goals … . Matter of Clark v Jordan, 2019 NY Slip Op 08757, Third Dept 12-5-19

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PSYCHIATRIST ALLEGED HE CALLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO TELL HER SHE SHOULD SEE ANOTHER PSYCHIATRIST, THE NEXT SCHEDULED APPOINTMENT WITH DEFENDANT WAS NOT CANCELLED; THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED AND RENDERED THE ACTION TIMELY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the medical malpractice causes of action should not have been dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff’s decedent had seen the defendant psychiatrist for the first time on November 20, 2014 and the next appointment was set up for December 11, 2014. Defendant alleged he called decedent on November 21, 2014 to tell her she should be treated by someone else, but the December 11, 2014 appointment was not cancelled. Decedent committed suicide on November 24, 2014. The action was commenced on May 24, 2017:

Under the continuous treatment doctrine, the period of limitations does not begin to run until the end of the course of treatment if three conditions are met: (1) the patient “continued to seek, and in fact obtained, an actual course of treatment from the defendant physician during the relevant period”; (2) the course of treatment was “for the same conditions or complaints underlying the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim”; and (3) the treatment is “continuous” … . To satisfy the requirement that treatment is continuous, further treatment must be explicitly anticipated by both the physician and the patient, as demonstrated by a regularly scheduled appointment for the near future … . * * *

The question here is whether the statute of limitations began to run on November 20, 2014, when the decedent met with the defendant for a medical appointment, or November 24, 2014, when she died. The Supreme Court concluded that the limited interactions between the defendant and the decedent failed to give rise to a continuing trust and confidence between them upon which the court could conclude that the decedent anticipated further treatment. However, since a further appointment was scheduled and was not cancelled—further treatment of some sort was anticipated, or there is at least a triable issue of fact on that issue … . Hillary v Gerstein, 2019 NY Slip Op 08658, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID ON THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Defendant did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the liquid on the floor:

… [T]he evidence submitted by the defendant in support of its motion failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff to fall. The deposition testimony of the assistant manager of the supermarket, who did not recall if he was working on the date of the accident, and the affidavit of the defendant’s vice president of loss prevention, merely referred to the defendant’s general cleaning and inspection practices. The defendant did not proffer any evidence demonstrating when the specific area where the plaintiff fell was last cleaned or inspected before the accident … . Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the condition on which the plaintiff fell was not visible and apparent, and would not have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection of the area where the plaintiff was injured … . Fortune v Western Beef, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08656, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

/ , , ,

THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE UNDERLYING MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that a California judgment should have been given full faith and credit and the underlying merits should not have been considered:

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the judgment and the order, which obligated the defendants to pay the plaintiff certain amounts, and evidence that the defendants had not paid the amounts awarded therein (see CPLR 3213 …). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense.

The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art IV, § 1) requires that the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state be given full faith and credit in every other state. The purpose of the clause is to avoid conflicts between states in adjudicating the same matters … . “The doctrine establishes a rule of evidence . . . which requires recognition of the foreign judgment as proof of the prior-out-of-State litigation and gives it res judicata effect, thus avoiding relitigation of issues in one State which have already been decided in another” … . “Absent a challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing court, New York is required to give the same preclusive effect to a judgment from another state as it would have in the issuing state” … , and it is precluded from inquiring into the merits of the judgment … .

Here, the defendants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the California court, but instead, sought to relitigate the merits underlying that court’s determination. The Supreme Court should not have considered the defendants’ attack on the merits of the California determination. Balboa Capital Corp. v Plaza Auto Care, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08645, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should not have been granted. Plaintiff demonstrated defendant had a bank account in a New York bank to which the funds defendant borrowed from plaintiff were wired. Plaintiff alleged defendant breached a contract requiring the repayment of the loan:

CPLR 302(a)(1) provides that “a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary . . . who in person or through an agent . . . transacts any business within the state.” “The CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdictional inquiry is twofold: under the first prong the defendant must have conducted sufficient activities to have transacted business in the state, and under the second prong, the claims must arise from the transactions” … . The sufficient activities requirement is satisfied “so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful” … . “Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails [himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” … .

“To satisfy the second prong of CPLR 302(a)(1) that the cause of action arise from the contacts with New York, there must be an articulable nexus . . . or substantial relationship . . . between the business transaction and the claim asserted” … . “This inquiry is relatively permissive, and does not require causation, but merely a relatedness between the transaction and the legal claim such that the latter is not completely unmoored from the former, regardless of the ultimate merits of the claim” … . “CPLR 302(a)(1) is a single act statute and proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never enters New York, so long as the defendant’s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” … . Skutnik v Messina, 2019 NY Slip Op 08725, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

/ , ,

THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE PROCEDURE USED WHEN PLAINTIFF DONATED BLOOD SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO DOCTOR WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCEDURE; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3012-a WAS DUE TO THE GOOD FAITH BELIEF THE ACTION SOUNDED IN COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT AFFORDING PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) the action stemming from alleged negligence in drawing blood donated by plaintiff sounded in medical malpractice, not common law negligence; (2) therefore a certificate of merit was required (CPLR 3012-a); and (3) the failure to provide a certificate of merit does not warrant dismissal of the action, rather the plaintiff should be allowed 60 days to provide the certificate:

… [M]any of the plaintiff’s allegations bear a substantial relationship to the rendition of medical treatment to a particular patient …. The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the defendant failed to properly screen the plaintiff for health problems, obtain her medical history, monitor her physical condition, measure her hemoglobin levels, and keep her at the donation site for a specific period of time to observe any signs of an adverse reaction. The issues of whether the plaintiff needed additional screening, monitoring, or supervision, and whether she was at risk of falling due to a medical condition, involve the exercise of medical judgments beyond the common knowledge of ordinary persons. Only a medical professional would know what factors make a person ineligible to donate blood, how much blood should be drawn, what constitutes the signs and symptoms of an adverse reaction, and how to immediately treat an adverse reaction. Thus, the interaction between the plaintiff and the defendant implicates issues of medical judgment that sound in medical malpractice. * * *

… [A]lthough the complaint was not accompanied by a certificate of merit as required by CPLR 3012-a, dismissal of the complaint is not warranted as the plaintiff’s attorney should be provided with an opportunity to comply with the statute now that it is determined that the statute applies to this particular action … . There is no reason to believe from this record that the plaintiff’s attorney’s failure to file a certificate of merit was motivated by anything other than a good faith assessment that CPLR 3012-a did not apply to the action. The proper remedy at this stage, since the defendant had also sought in its underlying motion “such other and further relief as this court may deem just, proper and reasonable” … , is for this Court to extend the plaintiff’s time to serve a certificate of merit upon the defendant until 60 days after service of this opinion and order.  Only if the plaintiff is recalcitrant in complying with both the statute and this Court’s order may the Supreme Court, in its discretion, then dismiss the complaint … . Rabinovich v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 08724, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS UNLIKELY TO REOFFEND; THEREFORE, DESPITE THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS SEX OFFENSES, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A REDUCTION OF HIS RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying the SORA court, in a comprehensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Austin, determined defendant sex offender was entitled to a downward modification of his risk assessment from level three to level one:

The defendant’s submissions demonstrated that, through his long-term sobriety, strong family support, faith-based and law abiding lifestyle, continuous employment despite his numerous physical disabilities and age, his risk of reoffending is so diminished that a further reduction from his current risk level two to risk level one is appropriate … . * * *

… [I]f a defendant served his or her sentence, rehabilitated himself or herself, and demonstrated no actual likelihood of reoffending, a reduction to a risk level one classification from a level three classification should be a possibility. …

In modifying the Supreme Court’s order which reduced the defendant’s sex offender risk level classification from three to two, and thereby granting the petition to further reduce the defendant’s sex offender risk level designation to a level one, we are not signaling a departure from our strict interpretation of the Guidelines and the legislative history of SORA. Rather, we are following the law, and the policy underlying it, as it applies to this defendant. That is, it is not out of sympathy for his physical condition nor with a blind eye to the defendant’s significant criminal past that we render our determination. Rather, we consider these as well as all of the factors—positive and negative—presented at the hearing on his petition for a downward modification in deciding the singular question presented: Did the defendant establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the risk he poses to the community as a convicted sex offender warrants a downward modification to level one? We answer that question in the affirmative.

To hold otherwise ignores the sincere, positive strides the defendant has made to be a productive, positive member of society. By using the disturbing nature of one’s crime as the tipping point in the analysis of a petition such as the one before this Court comes dangerously close to saying, if not holding, that once one has committed a sex crime and has been designated a sex offender level, there is no way he or she can ever be rehabilitated to a legally sufficient extent to warrant a downward modification to the lowest level of supervision. If that were so, then the cited portions of the Guidelines and Correction Law § 168-o(2), which allow annual reevaluation of a defendant’s risk level after it is initially established, would be rendered without meaning and illusory. People v Davis, 2019 NY Slip Op 08720, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

/ ,

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial:

… [D]uring summation, the prosecutor repeatedly engaged in improper conduct. For instance, the prosecutor denigrated the defense and disparaged the defendant, referring to his self-defense claim as “ridiculous,” “insulting,” and “ludicrous,” and informing the jury that the defendant would “tell you anything” in an effort to “sell you” a story. The prosecutor described the defendant as a “hothead” and a “punk” who could not “take [a] beating like a man” … . Moreover, the prosecutor impinged on the defendant’s right to remain silent before arrest by arguing that he could not have acted in self-defense during the altercation because he did not call the 911 emergency number … . Further, the prosecutor improperly invoked the jury’s sympathy for the complainant … , vouched for the complainant’s credibility … , and interjected her own sense of moral retribution with respect to the complainant’s entitlement to use physical force against the defendant, while misleading the jury as to the law on justification … . People v Dawson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08689, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

/ , ,

ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was not properly served with an Article 78 petition and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over this Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) action. The process server alleged the petition was delivered to an attorney at the DEP who said she was authorized to receive service. The Second Department found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel, based upon the DEP attorney’s assertion she was authorized to receive service, did not apply:

It is undisputed that the petitioner’s process server did not deliver the notice of petition and petition to the Corporation Counsel, or any other “person designated to receive process in a writing filed in the office of the clerk of New York county” (CPLR 311[a][2]). Because the petitioner did not effectuate service in strict compliance with CPLR 311(a)(2), it is irrelevant that the petitioner’s process server allegedly relied upon the representations of an attorney employed by the DEP … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the DEP should not be equitably estopped from asserting the petitioner’s failure to properly serve the DEP with the notice of petition. The doctrine of equitable estoppel should be invoked against governmental entities sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances … . Estoppel against a governmental entity will lie when the governmental entity acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who is entitled to rely and who changes its position to its detriment or prejudice … . The fact that the DEP’s attorney may have identified herself as an agent who was “authorized by appointment to receive service at that address” is far removed from any clear expression of her status as a person designated to receive process on behalf of the City in a writing filed in the New York County Clerk’s office … . There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the petitioner justifiably relied on any misleading conduct by the DEP which would support a finding of equitable estoppel … . Matter of Exxon Mobil Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2019 NY Slip Op 08670, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

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