You are here: / SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER...

Search Results

/ ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to Supreme Court, noted that Supreme Court did not rule on defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal:

Defendant … contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction with respect to the weapon possession counts and that the court thus erred in denying his motion for a trial order of dismissal. At the close of the People’s case, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal on the ground that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his possession of certain weapons, and the court reserved decision. Defendant renewed his motion at the conclusion of all the evidence, and the court again reserved decision. There is no indication in the record that the court ruled on defendant’s motion. We do not address defendant’s contention because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion  … . People v Bennett, 2020 NY Slip Op 00957, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF THE MOTORCYCLE, WHO HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant driver of the motorcycle (Baker) could have avoided this intersection traffic accident case. The motorcycle had the right-of-way and collided with defendants’ (Willow Bend’s) truck. Plaintiff was a passenger on the motorcycle. Willow Bend’s cross motion against the driver of the motorcycle (Baker Estate) should not have been dismissed:

We agree with the Willow Bend defendants that the court erred in granting that part of the motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Willow Bend defendants’ cross claim. In moving for summary judgment, the Baker Estate had the initial burden of establishing, as a matter of law, that Baker “was operating [the motorcycle] in a lawful and prudent manner and that there was nothing that [Baker] could have done to avoid the collision” … . “[I]t is well settled that drivers have a duty to see what should be seen and to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident” … . “[U]nder the doctrine of comparative negligence, a driver who lawfully enters an intersection may still be found partially at fault for an accident if he or she fails to use reasonable care to avoid a collision with another vehicle in the intersection” … . We conclude that the Baker Estate failed to meet that burden, inasmuch as its own submissions in support of the motion raised a triable issue of fact … .

Although the Baker Estate established that Baker had the right-of-way as he approached the intersection, the Baker Estate submitted the deposition testimony of Baker and plaintiff, who each testified that, before the collision, Baker applied his brakes but did not attempt to steer around the dump truck. Baker further testified that he did not use his horn. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Willow Bend defendants, that testimony raises an issue of fact whether Baker exercised reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid an accident … . Carroll v Willow Bend Farm LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00954, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PLACEMENT OF A RUG CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof did not establish the placement of a rug was a dangerous condition in this slip and fall case:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she allegedly tripped and fell on a rug while walking through a restaurant owned and operated by defendant. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We therefore reverse the order, grant the motion, and dismiss the complaint. “Although the issue whether a certain condition qualifies as dangerous or defective is usually a question of fact for the jury to decide . . . , summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate where a plaintiff fails to submit any evidence that a particular condition is actually defective or dangerous’ ” … . Here, defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that the placement of the rug in the restaurant did not constitute a dangerous condition, and in opposition plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Glosek v Bella Pizza, 2020 NY Slip Op 00933, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/ ,

DECISION WHETHER TO ADMIT OR DENY ALLEGATIONS IN A PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IS RESERVED TO DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that the decision whether to admit or deny the allegations in a predicate felony statement is reserved to the defendant personally, not defense counsel:

… [W]hether to admit or controvert the allegations in a predicate felony statement is a “fundamental” decision “comparable to how to plead and whether to waive a jury, take the stand or appeal,” and it is “therefore reserved to the accused” personally … . Thus, the court did not violate defendant’s right to counsel by accepting his personal decision to controvert the allegations in the People’s predicate felony statement notwithstanding defense counsel’s contrary views and advice … . Defendant’s related assertion that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately apprise him of the ramifications of contesting the predicate felony statement is belied by the record … . People v Favors, 2020 NY Slip Op 00968, Fourth Dept 2-7-20

 

/ ,

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

 

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