You are here: / PROBATION SENTENCE WHICH EFFECTIVELY EXTENDED THE PROBATION-PERIOD TO SIX...

Search Results

/

PROBATION SENTENCE WHICH EFFECTIVELY EXTENDED THE PROBATION-PERIOD TO SIX YEARS WAS ILLEGAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that defendant’s probation sentence was illegal because it exceeded five years. Defendant’s probation was continued after the violation:

When a probation violation is sustained and the court continues the sentence, the court may extend the sentence for a period constituting the time from when a defendant is declared delinquent to when a determination is made on such delinquency, which in this case was from September 2016 to September 2017 (see CPL 410.70 [5]). The record reflects that defendant was originally sentenced to the maximum term of probation of five years (see Penal Law § 65.00 [3] [a] [i]), and County Court continued that sentence. Although the court was authorized to extend the sentence to account for the time between September 2016 and September 2017 (see CPL 410.70 [5]), by doing so in this case and having defendant’s probation end in 2022, it impermissibly expanded the term of probation beyond the statutory maximum. In other words, assuming that defendant served the whole term of probation, he would have been on probation from September 2015 to September 2016 and then again from September 2017 to September 2022, which is six years total. Given that the sentence imposed was illegal, the matter must be remitted for resentencing. People v Vanhyning, 2019 NY Slip Op 08451, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/ ,

SANDOVAL RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A 1991 BURGLARY WAS ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD FOR THE LAST 23 YEARS; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined County Court should not have ruled defendant could be cross-examined about a 1991 burglary conviction in this assault, DWI and reckless driving case arising from a single car accident. The defendant’s record had been unblemished for 23 years, when he was released from prison. The defendant argued that, but for the Sandoval ruling, he would have testified. The Third Department found the error harmless, however:

In gauging whether a conviction is too remote, courts often consider the period of time during which the defendant was incarcerated, as County Court did here. For instance, in People v Wright (38 AD3d 1004 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 853 [2007]), this Court allowed inquiry about 20-year-old rape and robbery convictions where the defendant had been released from prison “only nine months prior to the present offense” … .

By comparison, here, defendant had been released from prison for 23 years, with an unblemished record leading up to this event. Under these circumstances, we conclude that County Court abused its discretion in allowing inquiry into the 1991 conviction, which was simply too remote … . People v Cole, 2019 NY Slip Op 08452, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/ ,

BASED UPON EXECUTIVE LAW 63 AND TWO EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED BY GOVERNOR CUOMO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND CHARGE PERJURY ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY A DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEFORE A GRAND JURY CONVENED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE THE POLICE SHOOTING OF AN UNARMED CIVILIAN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant, a district attorney, could be prosecuted by the Attorney General (OAG) for perjury allegedly committed by the district attorney before a grand jury convened by the Attorney General. The grand jury was convened to investigate whether the district attorney had engaged in misconduct when investigating the police shooting of an unarmed civilian. The authority of the Attorney General’s investigation and indictment is Executive Law 63 and two Executive Orders issued by Gov. Cuomo:

Executive Law § 63 (13) provides that the Attorney General “shall . . . [p]rosecute any person for perjury committed during the course of any investigation conducted by the [A]ttorney[][G]eneral pursuant to statute . . . [and] [i]n all such proceedings, the [A]ttorney[][G]eneral may appear . . . before any court or any grand jury and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties necessary or required to be exercised or performed in prosecuting any such person for such offense.” * * *

Although Executive Law § 63 (2) permits and requires the Governor to define — in the pertinent executive order — the scope of OAG’s authority regarding a particular investigation or prosecution … , the investigation is still conducted pursuant to that statute, albeit within a scope defined by the executive order. The Legislature, by enacting Executive Law § 63 (2), statutorily gave power to the Governor to call upon OAG to conduct investigations. That the statute and executive order must necessarily work in tandem does not diminish or eliminate the statute as a source of authority for OAG to conduct the investigation.

Here, as typical under these situations, OAG obtained authority to conduct the 2017 grand jury investigation through a combination of Executive Law § 63 (2) and EO163. The statute gives OAG power, but only when the Governor “require[s]” OAG to act … . Relatedly, the Governor would have no authority to give powers to the Attorney General — through an executive order or otherwise — without the Legislature having granted the Governor that ability. Indeed, the Court of Appeals has noted “that the Attorney[]General has no general authority to conduct [criminal] prosecutions and is without any prosecutorial power except when specifically authorized by statute” … . Therefore, we reject the conclusion that the phrase “pursuant to statute” excludes investigations conducted by OAG pursuant to an executive order issued by the Governor under the authority granted to him by statute, namely, Executive Law § 63 (2). OAG’s authority to investigate defendant was derived from that statute, at least indirectly through the conduit of an executive order issued thereunder. People v Abelove, 2019 NY Slip Op 08453, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/ , , , ,

FOUR CLASSES PROPERLY CERTIFIED TO BRING CLASS ACTION SUITS BASED UPON THE CONTAMINATION OF AIR, WATER, REAL PROPERTY AND PEOPLE WITH TOXIC CHEMICALS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that Supreme Court properly certified four classes bring class action suits against a manufacturer alleging the contamination of water, air, real property and people with toxic chemicals, PFOA and PFOS:

Plaintiffs, residents of the Town, commenced this action as a proposed class action, alleging that defendant’s use and improper disposal of PFOA and PFOS caused personal injury and property damage. In their complaint, plaintiffs proposed four classes: (1) a public water property damage class; (2) a private well water property damage class; (3) a private well nuisance class; and (4) a PFOA invasion injury class. Generally, the putative class members were individuals who owned or leased property in the Town or who ingested contaminated municipal or well water or inhaled PFOA or PFOS particulates in the Town and had demonstrable evidence of elevated levels of the chemical in their blood system. * * *

We agree with Supreme Court’s determination that, in addition to those questions common to the property classes, the answers to certain additional common questions will be applicable to all members of the invasion injury class, for example: (1) whether medical monitoring is an available remedy; (2) the extent of the health hazard presented by exposure to PFOA; and (3) whether the members of the class are at significant increased risk for disease based on the excess accumulation of PFOA in their bodies. Although defendant contends that there are myriad factual questions that are not common to the class, we do not agree that those predominate. Importantly, this is not a case where there is an issue of fact regarding exposure — rather, each class member must establish exposure and accumulation through blood work … . Burdick v Tonoga, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08461, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/ , ,

THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s employment discrimination claim should not have been dismissed without a hearing by the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR):

SDHR is free to dismiss a complaint without conducting a formal hearing where it finds no probable cause to conclude that an employer engaged in discriminatory practices, and we will only disturb that determination “if it is arbitrary, capricious or lacks a rational basis” … . Those flaws are present in a determination that stems from “an inadequate or abbreviated investigation” by SDHR … , such as one in which the agency does not afford the complainant “a full and fair opportunity to present evidence on his [or her] behalf and to rebut the evidence presented by the employer” … . Petitioner argues, among other things, that she was deprived of that opportunity when SDHR refused to consider her response to the notes of a one-party conference at which various individuals associated with [the employer] gave their accounts of her tenure with the firm.

We agree. … [T]he determination must be annulled and the matter remitted so that SDHR may conduct an investigation that is “neither abbreviated nor one-sided” and affords petitioner “a full and fair opportunity to . . . rebut the submissions of [the employer] in opposition to her complaint” … . Matter of Hong Wang v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2019 NY Slip Op 08463, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF’S JUMPING FROM A STALLED ELEVATOR WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s jumping out of a stalled elevator was an unforeseeable consequence of the elevator malfunction:

Plaintiff was injured when she attempted to exit a service elevator in the building where she worked after the elevator stalled near the top floor of the building. A coworker testified that the elevator shook and the lights went out for a few seconds. Plaintiff testified that she used the intercom in the elevator to contact the building’s doorman, who said he would call the elevator mechanic. A few minutes later, another coworker, who was also in the stalled elevator, pried the door open. Plaintiff saw that the elevator was about 2½ feet above the floor level, and decided to jump out, believing she could do so safely. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s act of jumping from the stalled elevator was an unforeseeable, superseding cause of her accident, which terminates any potential liability of defendant elevator maintenance company for negligent maintenance or repair of the elevator … . Given the evidence that the elevator had been stalled for only a few minutes and that the doorman had been contacted, there was no emergency situation necessitating plaintiff’s jump from the elevator … . Estrella v Fujitec Am., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08501, First Dept 11-21-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ECONOMIC DISTRESS VOIDED THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the criteria for the doctrine of economic duress to void a contract were not met by the defendants. The defendants had entered an agreement to purchase four McDonald’s restaurants from plaintiffs. The defendants alleged they agreed to an amendment of the contract because of the actions of the plaintiffs which amounted to economic distress:

A party seeking to void a contract on the basis of economic duress must show that he or she was compelled to agree to it because of a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of his or her free will … . “The existence of economic duress is demonstrated by proof that one party to a contract has threatened to breach the agreement by withholding performance unless the other party agrees to some further demand” … . A mere threat to breach a contract, however, does not amount to economic duress if the party who has been threatened can obtain performance of the contract from another source and pursue normal legal remedies for a breach of contract … . …

As the parties relying on economic duress, defendants bore the burden of proving that the agreement could not have been performed by another party. Defendants, however, failed to tender any proof in this regard. …

The record also fails to establish that other legal remedies were not available to defendants. Indeed, [one defendant] testified that, before agreeing to the amendment, [defendants]  weighed whether to take possession of the restaurants and then sue to have the original agreement enforced or not to take possession and then sue plaintiffs for specific performance. The fact that neither of those options was ultimately desirable does not mean that defendants did not have available legal remedies. Because defendants could resort to legal recourse, they cannot claim economic duress … . CRG at Arnot Mall, Inc. v Feehan, 2019 NY Slip Op 08467, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/ ,

NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER, A KENTUCKY RESIDENT, IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION: THE COUPLE HAD NOT LIVED TOGETHER IN NEW YORK STATE FOR 23 YEARS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over father, a Kentucky resident, in this divorce action. The couple had last lived in New York in 1995 and had resided in Kentucky from 2003 to 2015:

Assuming, without deciding, that the wife established one of the predicates for jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (b), we find that the quality and nature of the husband’s activities in New York were such that it would be unreasonable and unfair to require him to defend an action in this state. Although the parties married in New York in 1991 and resided here until 1995, they have not resided together in this state in over 23 years. From 2003 until 2015, the parties resided together in Kentucky, where, at the time of commencement of this action, the husband was employed as a university professor and the parties owned real property. With the husband’s consent, the wife moved to New York with the parties’ son  in August 2015 and, as vaguely asserted by the wife, the husband has visited them in New York. The parties have not rented or purchased a home in New York. Rather, the wife and the son have lived rent-free with the wife’s parents, with the husband providing additional financial support. In our view, the husband’s contacts with New York are insufficient to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him … .Accordingly, Supreme Court should have granted the husband’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Crosby v Crosby, 2019 NY Slip Op 08469, Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/ ,

A PERSON NOT NAMED ON THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, NOTWITHSTANDING CORRESPONDENCE REQUESTING THAT HE BE ADDED TO THE DOCUMENTS AS A BORROWER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme, determined that a person who was not named as a borrower on the note and mortgage was not entitled to notice of the foreclosure action pursuant to RPAPL 1304. The plaintiff mortgage company’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted:

The record contains correspondence that reveals that a representative from Monroe Title, the title insurer for PHH Mortgage, recognized that Robert Johnson, not Brad Johnson, was the party making all payments on the mortgage. …The record also contains two letters … , on Robert Johnson’s behalf, to PHH Mortgage representative …, wherein [the writer] requests that the mortgage be modified to list Robert Johnson as the borrower. However, despite these communications, the modification did not occur and Brad Johnson continued to be the sole signatory on both instruments. Inasmuch as it is evident from the record that Brad Johnson is the only individual listed as a borrower on all relevant documents, including the note and mortgage, Robert Johnson was not a borrower and was not entitled to RPAPL 1304 notices  … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08472. Third Dept 11-21-19

 

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