You are here: / JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S LATE RESPONSE...

Search Results

/ ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE COURT’S MOTION TIMETABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge should not have refused to consider a late response to the defense motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds (CPL 30.30):

Clearly, trial courts have considerable discretion in administering litigation and managing their dockets … . We agree with the dissent that parties are obligated to honor court-imposed deadlines. However, it is also axiomatic that justice is best served when cases are decided on the merits. …

Here, the People sought to file their opposition papers on the decision date, some 15 days after the due date. This was not the situation in People v Cole, 73 NY2d 957 [1989], which was cited by the motion court, where the People failed to submit any opposition papers. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that there was any history of dilatory conduct or a blatant disregard of court directives on the part of the People. Rather, this appears to be an isolated lapse.

While we are certainly cognizant of the frustration occasioned by the failure of the People to adhere to the motion schedule, summarily granting the defense motion to dismiss without considering the merits of the response the People had prepared was improper. As the People argue, the charges here are serious. Defendant was indicted on numerous weapons possession charges. Dismissal of those charges without a full and complete determination of the motion to dismiss on its merits was unduly harsh. Less drastic remedies, including charging the People for the 15-day delay, were available … . People v Lora, 2019 NY Slip Op 08478, First Dept 11-21-19

 

/ ,

MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT EACH CLAIMED THE OTHER POSSESSED THE COCAINE FOUND IN THE CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s (Maldonaldo’s) trial should have been severed from the co-defendant’s trial;

… [W]e agree with defendant that his motion for a separate trial should have been granted (see CPL 200.40 [1]). “[S]everance is compelled where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer [the] defendant’s guilt” … . Through counsel and by testifying on his own behalf, Maldonado denied knowledge of the cocaine’s existence in his car and instead pointed the finger at defendant. Specifically, he testified that defendant had brought the Bugles chip bag into the car, that he did not know the contents of that bag, that he would not have allowed the bag in his car if he did and that defendant had his hands in the area where the bag was later discovered when the traffic stop was initiated. In contrast, defendant argued — through counsel and without testifying — that he lacked knowledge of the cocaine’s presence in the car and that the cocaine must have belonged to Maldonado, given that it was found in Maldonado’s car and that he had a criminal history involving drug possession and distribution — a subject brought out during cross-examination of Maldonado. By seeking to implicate each other, defendant’s and Maldonado’s defenses were clearly antagonistic, mutually exclusive and irreconcilable, and created “a significant possibility that the jury unjustifiably concluded by virtue of the conflict itself that both defenses were incredible and gave undue weight to the [People’s] evidence” … . People v Colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 08449,Third Dept 11-21-19

 

/ ,

THE LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED THE ASSAILANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE WAS NOT AN INTRUDER AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE, THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum with no discussion of the facts, over a dissent, determined the landlord’s (NYC Housing Authority’s) motion for summary judgment in this third-party assault case was properly granted. The dissenter argued the Housing Authority did not demonstrate the assailant was not an intruder:

… [T]he New York City Housing Authority met its initial burden of demonstrating that no material triable issues of fact exist through its showing that plaintiff’s assailant was likely not an intruder. In response, plaintiff failed to adduce any admissible evidence from which a jury could conclude, without engaging in speculation, that her assailant was an intruder and, concomitantly, whether defendant’s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of her injuries … . Laniox v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08448, CtApp 11-21-19

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED THE COLLATERAL SUPPORTING A POSTED BAIL BOND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THE ACCUSED’S RETURN TO COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion when it reviewed the collateral for a bail bond which had been posted by an insurer and found the collateral insufficient:

“Following the posting of a bail bond,” CPL 520.30 (1) permits a court to “conduct an inquiry for the purpose of determining,” among other things, “the value and sufficiency of any security offered[] and whether any feature of the undertaking contravenes public policy.” The statute also allows inquiry “into other matters appropriate to the determination, which include but are not limited to” six enumerated factors (CPL 520.30 [1]). For instance, the court has broad discretion to examine “[t]he background, character and reputation of any person who has indemnified or agreed to indemnify an obligor upon the bond” (CPL 520.30 [1] [d]) and the source of any property that will be used as indemnification as well as “whether any such money or property constitutes the fruits of criminal or unlawful conduct” … . * * *

The insurance company … has a financial incentive in obtaining a defendant’s release on bail so that it may retain its premium. This incentive is separate from the insurance company’s interest in securing the defendant’s return to court to avoid forfeiting its pledged security. The court, on the other hand, is concerned only with the defendant’s continued appearances.

Supreme Court … correctly interpreted the statute and did not abuse its discretion when it disapproved the insurance company bail bond package on public policy grounds, specifically that the limited collateral pledged failed to adequately ensure [the accused’s] return to court … . People ex rel. Prieston v Nassau County Sheriff’s Dept., 2019 NY Slip Op 08447, CtApp 11-21-19

 

/ , ,

ZONING LAWS WHICH PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM USING HIS RURAL-DISTRICT LAND TO HOST A LARGE, THREE-DAY MUSIC AND CAMPING EVENT DID NOT VIOLATE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND WERE NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that the town zoning laws which prohibited a landowner from holding a three-day music and camping on his rural property did not unconstitutionally restrict his First Amendment rights and were not void for vagueness:

Defendant Ian Leifer owns a 68-acre property containing a single-family home and undeveloped land within the boundaries of plaintiff Town of Delaware. In 2016, he planned to sponsor on the property a three-day event named “The Camping Trip” — which he had hosted twice before in previous years — over the course of an August weekend. … Meals would be provided at the site through food truck vendors and a religious nonprofit organization would lead in Jewish religious ceremonies. … [P]reparations included off-site parking at a local school and rental of shuttle buses to transport attendees to the event site, a party tent for inclement weather, security at both the parking lot and event, $2,000,000 event insurance, 16 portable toilets, a 30-cubic-yard dumpster, EMTs on site and an ambulance on standby. * * *

None of the principal or accessory uses specifically permitted in the Rural District encompass defendant’s three-day outdoor music and camping festival. Such an event cannot reasonably be characterized as a customary accessory use associated with defendant’s single-family residence. … [U]nless the provisions are unconstitutional, his proposed use is clearly prohibited in the Rural District under the Town of Delaware Zoning Law and the Town was entitled to enjoin the event … . * * *

Defendant’s constitutional challenges … largely focus on a single land use defined in the Zoning Law that is prohibited in the Rural District but permitted in other zoning districts: the “theater” land use. This approach misses the mark because the Town did not rely exclusively on the theater provision but cited the Zoning Law as a whole to show that certain uses are prohibited in a Rural District but expressive aspects of the event, such as the musical presentations, are permitted in other districts. Considering this context, neither the theater provision, nor the Zoning Law as a whole, violates defendant’s constitutional rights. Town of Del. v Leifer, 2019 NY Slip Op 08446, CtApp 11-21-19

 

/ , ,

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 230 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR MALICIOUS REPORTING OF INSURANCE FRAUD BY A PHYSICIAN TO THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CONDUCT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined that Public Health Law 230 (11) (b) does not create a private right of action. Plaintiff surgeon provided medical care to four patients injured in an automobile accident and submitted claims for payment to the defendant insurer. The insurer fully or partially denied the claims and then filed complaints against plaintiff with the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) alleging insurance fraud. The OPMC declined to discipline plaintiff. Plaintiff then sued defendant insurer for bad-faith and malicious reporting in violation of Public Health Law 230 (11) (b). The Court of Appeals noted a split of authority in the 1st and 2nd Departments re: whether a violation of this statute give rise to a private right of action:

Public Health Law § 230 (11) (b) does not expressly create a cause of action authorizing licensees to commence civil litigation against a complainant that files an allegedly bad-faith and/or malicious report with OPMC (compare Public Health Law § 230 [10] [j] [creating an express right to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding in certain instances]). Consequently, “recovery may be had . . . only if a legislative intent to create such a right of action is fairly implied in the statutory provision[] and [its] legislative history” … . …

We have consistently identified three “essential factors” to be considered in determining whether a private right of action can be fairly implied from the statutory text and legislative history: “(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme”… . Critically, all three factors must be satisfied before an implied private right of action will be recognized … . Applying these factors here, we conclude that the legislature did not intend to create a right of action under Public Health Law § 230 (11) (b). Haar v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 08445, CtApp 11-21-19

 

/

PLEA TO ASSAULT FIRST WAS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE INTENT TO INFLICT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY WAS NOT STATED IN THE ALLOCUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment, determined the plea to assault first was defective because the intent to inflict serious physical injury was not stated in the allocution:

During the plea colloquy, the Supreme Court stated, and the defendant admitted, the elements of assault in the first degree as including an intent to inflict physical injury and conduct which in fact causes physical injury. However, the crime of assault in the first degree, as defined in Penal Law § 120.10(1), requires an intent to inflict serious physical injury and conduct which in fact causes serious physical injury. Under the circumstances, since the defendant admitted harboring an intent and inflicting an injury other than those required for the commission of assault in the first degree, the defendant’s plea of guilty must be vacated, as her allocution failed to make out the requisite elements of that crime … . People v Steele-Warrick, 2019 NY Slip Op 08428, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

/

PROBATION ONLY IS NOT A LEGAL SENTENCE FOR ASSAULT SECOND; ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN FAVOR OF A PERSON WHO WAS NOT A VICTIM OR WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant could not be sentenced to probation only for assault and Supreme Court should not have issue an order of protection in favor of a person who was not a victim or a witness:

Penal Law § 60.05(5) mandates that a person convicted of the class D violent felony offense of assault in the second degree be sentenced to a term of imprisonment … . Such a sentence could consist of a determinate term of imprisonment of at least two years and no more than seven years … , or alternatively, a definite term of imprisonment of one year or less under Penal Law § 70.00(4) or an intermittent term of imprisonment under Penal Law § 85.00 … . Moreover, a split sentence of imprisonment and probation is also authorized … .

Consequently, as the defendant argues and the People concede, the defendant’s sentence of a term of probation only with respect to his conviction of assault in the second degree was illegal, and the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County for resentencing or to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty … .

The defendant, a first time felony offender, requests that his sentence be equivalent to the amount of time that he has already served in connection with this conviction. Such a sentence would be a legal sentence if the sentencing court, in considering the circumstances of the crime and the defendant’s character, deems such a sentence to be proper … .

Further, as the defendant argues and the People concede, the Supreme Court had no authority to issue an order of protection in favor of an individual who was neither a victim of nor a witness to the crime to which the defendant pleaded guilty … . People v Ferguson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08424, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE TOWN DEMONSTRATED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SIDEWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TOWN CLERK’S RECORDS WERE SEARCHED; TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the town did not demonstrate that it did not receive written notice of the alleged sidewalk defect in this slip and fall case. The town’s motion for summary judgment was therefore properly denied:

In support of its motion for summary judgment, the Town submitted the deposition testimony of a project supervisor for the Town’s Department of Public Works, who testified that he directed an administrative aide to perform a record search of “the Town’s complaint database.” The Town also submitted an affidavit from the administrative aide for the Department of Public Works who conducted the search. The administrative aide stated that her duties included “searching the official records of the Department of Public Works” to determine “whether the Department of Public Works ha[d] been provided with any prior written notice” of any defects in the area where the incident occurred. The administrative aide stated that her search revealed that “the Town was not in receipt of any written notice or written complaints.”

While this evidence established, prima facie, that the Town’s Department of Public Works did not have prior written notice of the alleged defect in the sidewalk, neither the deposition testimony nor the affidavit state specifically that the Town Clerk’s records were searched for prior written notice of the alleged defect … . The Town’s failure to provide specific evidence that the records of both the Department of Public Works and the Town Clerk were searched for prior written notice constitutes a failure to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Otto v Miller, 2019 NY Slip Op 08417, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

/ ,

REPORTS BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S CONVICTION REVIEW UNIT (CRU) EXONERATING CONVICTED PERSONS ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL); AN EXONERATED PERSON MAY WAIVE THE SEALING REQUIREMENT (CPL 160.50) AND CONSENT TO DISCLOSURE OF A REPORT; THE RELEASED REPORT HERE IS SUBJECT TO REDACTION DETERMINED IN AN IN CAMERA REVIEW BY A JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, determined: (1) the redacted report of the District Attorney’s Conviction Review Unit (CRU) concerning the exoneration of Jabbar Washington was properly made available to the New York Times because Washington consented to the unsealing of the document (CPL 160.50(a)(d)); (2) absent such consent, the CRU reports are exempt from disclosure under FOIL; and (3) the redaction of the Washington report should be reviewed by a judge (in camera review):

CPL 160.50 does not define what constitutes an official record relating to an arrest or prosecution, and the Court of Appeals has held that “bright line rules are not wholly appropriate in this area” … . …

… [ T]he CRU’s final reports constitute official records created in connection with the arrest and prosecution of the persons whose convictions were ultimately vacated through the conviction review process. At the time the reports were created, the subjects of the reports stood convicted as the result of prosecutorial action. The reports are “official records” in that they were created by the DA’s office itself for the purpose of scrutinizing the propriety of each of the subject convictions. …

… [T]hat the CRU’s reports might serve a broader public purpose in leading to reform of police agencies or prosecutors’ offices, is not a basis to overlook the protections endowed by CPL 160.50 to the individuals exonerated through the CRU’s work. Matter of New York Times Co. v District Attorney of Kings County, 2019 NY Slip Op 08410, Second Dept 11-20-19

 

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