You are here: / IN AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, THE WAIVERS OF APPEAL IN TWO...

Search Results

/ ,

IN AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, THE WAIVERS OF APPEAL IN TWO OF THE THREE APPEALS BEFORE THE COURT WERE DECLARED INVALID BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THAT ALL AVENUES OF APPEAL AND COLLATERAL RELIEF ARE CUT OFF BY THE WAIVER; IN ADDITION THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE OMISSION OF THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF AN OFFENSE FROM A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) OR A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL ERROR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge DiFiore, over several concurring and two dissenting opinions, determined that the waivers of appeal in two of the three appeals before the court were invalid. The opinion is an important clarification of the law and is too detailed to fairly summarize here. In a nutshell, a court should not give the defendant the impression that all appellate avenues, including the filing of a Notice of Appeal, collateral relief, and the availability of counsel, are cut off by the waiver of appeal. The court approved the Unified Court System’s Model Colloquy. In addition the Court of Appeals held that the omission of the approximate time and place of an offense from a superior court information (SCI) or a waiver of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect, an important clarification which contradicts many decisions in the lower courts:

… [T]he Model Colloquy for the waiver of right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System’s Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee neatly synthesizes our precedent and the governing principles and provides a solid reference for a better practice. The Model Colloquy provides a concise statement conveying the distinction missing in most shorthand colloquies — that: “[b]y waiving your right to appeal, you do not give up your right to take an appeal by filing a notice of appeal . . . within 30 days of the sentence. But, if you take an appeal, you are by this waiver giving up the right to have the appellate court consider most claims of error,[] and whether the sentence I impose, whatever it may be, is excessive and should be modified. As a result, the conviction by this plea and sentence will normally be final” (NY Model Colloquies, Waiver of Right to Appeal [emphasis added]). There is no mention made of an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal or any purported waiver of collateral or federal relief in the Model Colloquy or to the complete loss of the right to counsel to prosecute the direct appeal … .

* * *

… “[A] purported error or insufficiency in the facts of an indictment or information to which a plea is taken does not constitute a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect and must be raised in the trial court” … . By parity of reasoning, the omission from the indictment waiver form of non-elemental factual information that is not necessary for a jurisdictionally-sound indictment is similarly forfeited by a guilty plea. As relevant here, the legislative history accompanying enactment of CPL article 195 makes plain that the purpose of the written waiver of indictment form is to ensure the defendant had notice of the charges upon which the prosecution by SCI would proceed … . Executed solemnly in open court, the waiver form must memorialize with sufficient specificity the charges for which a defendant waives prosecution by indictment. Here, the statutory notice was accomplished as the six counts of sexual abuse designated in the waiver form were identical to the crimes for which [defendant] was held for grand jury action and originally charged in the local court accusatory instruments. People v Thomas, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545, Ct App 11-26-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT, A PAIN MANAGEMENT PHYSICIAN WHO OPERATED A “PILL MILL,” WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER IN THE DEATHS OF TWO PATIENTS WHO DIED OF OPIOID OVERDOSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion, determined that defendant, a pain-management doctor, was properly convicted of manslaughter, recklessly causing the death of two persons [Haeg and Pappoid] to whom defendant prescribed opioids as part of a “pill mill” operation:

… [W]e conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant acted recklessly. A rational juror could have concluded, based on a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences, that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Haeg and Rappold would take more drugs than prescribed and would die by overdose, and, given defendant’s position as their medical doctor, that defendant’s conduct constituted a “gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” (Penal Law § 15.05 [3]). * * *

The fact that Haeg and Rappold took the substances defendant prescribed for them in a greater dosage than prescribed is neither an intervening, independent agency nor unforeseeable. It is a direct and foreseeable result of defendant’s reckless conduct. As explained, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational juror could conclude that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Haeg and Rappold would take the medications he prescribed at a higher dose than prescribed in order to attain a narcotic high rather than for legitimate pain management, and that they would die as a result. People v Stan XuHui Li, 2019 NY Slip Op 08544, Ct App 11-26-19

 

/ ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TWO CROSS-EXAMINE THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHO IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF THE OFFICERS’ DISHONESTY ARISING FROM OTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defense counsel’s requests to cross-examine the two police witnesses about prior acts of dishonesty. The two officers presented the only evidence which identified the defendant as the shooter in this attempted murder prosecution:

At the suppression hearing held before trial, that officer’s testimony supported defendant’s contention that, in preparing to testify in an unrelated federal criminal proceeding, he had misled the prosecutor in that case with respect to his involvement in a ticket-fixing scheme. … Defense counsel … was not permitted to explore what defense counsel characterized as that officer’s lies to the federal prosecutor regarding those activities.

… [T]he court limited exploration of that officer’s prior bad acts to his participation in the ticket-fixing scheme, and did not permit inquiry with respect to that officer’s deceit of the federal prosecutor.

That ruling was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. * * *

We also conclude that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law in precluding cross-examination of both officers with respect to prior judicial determinations that addressed the credibility of their prior testimony in judicial proceedings. People v Rouse, 2019 NY Slip Op 08522, Ct App 11-25-19

 

/ , ,

BRUTAL, UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON CLAIMANT, AN INMATE, BY CORRECTION OFFICERS WAS DEEMED TO HAVE NO RELATION TO THE DUTIES OF A CORRECTION OFFICER; THEREFORE THE ATTACK WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND THE STATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IS NOT LIABLE UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined that the state’s motion for summary judgment in this assault and battery action by an inmate was properly granted. Claimant was brutally beaten, without cause, by three correction officers and sued the state under a respondeat superior, vicarious liability theory.  The Court of Appeals held the state had demonstrated the officers were not acting within the scope of their employment when they assaulted the claimant:

Correction officers are authorized to use physical force against inmates in limited circumstances not present here, such as in self-defense or to suppress a revolt (see Correction Law § 137 [5]; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a], [b]). DOCCS regulations require correction officers to exercise “[t]he greatest caution and conservative judgment” in determining whether physical force against an inmate is necessary (7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a]). To be sure, correction officers at times use excessive force. Such conduct will not fall outside the scope of employment merely because it violates department rules or policies or crosses the line of sanctioned conduct. Under our multi-factored common-law test for determining respondeat superior liability, an employee’s deviation from directions or governing standards is only one consideration in the analysis. Here, the gratuitous and utterly unauthorized use of force was so egregious as to constitute a significant departure from the normal methods of performance of the duties of a correction officer as a matter of law. This was a malicious attack completely divorced from the employer’s interests.

Further, there is no evidence in the record that DOCCS should — or could — have reasonably anticipated such a flagrant and unjustified use of force, in which, assisted by other officers who immobilized and handcuffed claimant, Wehby [the primary assailant] repeatedly punched and kicked him during a prolonged assault, removing claimant’s protective helmet in order to facilitate more direct blows to his head. As such, based on the uncontested facts, it is evident that claimant’s injuries were not caused by actions taken within the scope of employment and thus, there were no triable issues of fact as to the State’s vicarious liability for assault and battery. Rivera v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08521, Ct App 11-25-19

 

/ , , ,

FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STAY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE STAY WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge dissent, determined an automatic bankruptcy stay tolls the statute of limitations where a party has a pending action at the time the stay was imposed:

New York law tolls the statute of limitations where “the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition” (CPLR 204 [a]). Federal bankruptcy law automatically stays the commencement or continuation of any judicial proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition (see 11 USC § 362 [a]). We must determine whether the bankruptcy stay qualifies as a “statutory prohibition” under CPLR 204 (a), and, if so, whether a party may later avail itself of the toll where, at the time the stay was imposed, that party had a pending action asserting the same claim. … [W]e answer yes to both questions … . * * *

CPLR 204 (a) provides, “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” The result here depends on our reading of the term “commencement.”

Plaintiff argues that it is impossible for defendant to have been prohibited from “commencing” an action because a foreclosure action had been commenced prior to plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing. Application of plaintiff’s rule would be as follows: Because defendant filed the first foreclosure claim and defendant responded by filing a bankruptcy petition, invoking the automatic stay, commencement of that first action was not “stayed” under the statute and the toll is inapplicable. And when defendant filed a second foreclosure action, and plaintiff again responded by again filing a bankruptcy petition that invoked the automatic stay, “commencement” of that second action was not stayed, once again making the toll inapplicable … . * * *

Neither this Court nor the Legislature has restricted the term “commencement” to the first time a party files a complaint asserting a cause of action; instead the term may also include the commencement of subsequent actions asserting the same claim … . Lubonty v U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.., 2019 NY Slip Op 08520, CtApp 11-25-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S RESIDENCE IS CALIFORNIA AND THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION THEREFORE ACCRUED IN CALIFORNIA; UNDER NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, CPLR 202, THE ACTIONS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY ARE UNTIMELY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that California, the residence of the plaintiff, here a residential-mortgage-backed-securities trustee, was where the breach of contract action accrued, not New York. Therefore, pursuant to CPLR 202, New York’s borrowing statute, the action must be timely under both California and New York law. The action was not timely under California law which has a four-year statute for breach of contract:

Defendants argued that as a resident of California, plaintiff suffered economic injury in California, and therefore plaintiff’s causes of action accrued in California for the purposes of CPLR 202. Plaintiff conceded that it was a resident of California. It argued, however, that instead of applying the general rule that an economic injury is suffered where the plaintiff resides to determine where the cause of action accrued, the court should apply a multi-factor analysis. Plaintiff asserted that because it was suing in a representative capacity on behalf of the trusts, it did not suffer real economic loss, and its residence was irrelevant, or at least not the primary consideration, for determining the place of accrual. * * *

We reaffirm that “a cause of action accrues at the time and in the place of the injury” … . Although courts may, in appropriate cases, conclude that an economic loss was sustained in a place other than where the plaintiff resides, we decline to apply the multi-factor analysis that plaintiff proposes. * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff’s residence applies to determine the place of injury in this case. As trustee, plaintiff is authorized to enforce, on behalf of the certificateholders, the representations and warranties in the relevant agreements. Accordingly, it is appropriate for us to look to plaintiff’s residence as the place where the economic injury was sustained and, consequently, where plaintiff’s causes of action accrued for purposes of CPLR 202. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Barclays Bank PLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08519, Ct App 11-25-19

 

/

PETITIONER, A COUNTY CORRECTION OFFICER, WAS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS; AN INMATE, WHO WAS UNSTEADY ON HER FEET AND MAY HAVE BEEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, FELL HEAD FIRST FROM A TRANSPORT VAN ONTO PETITIONER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, over a concurring opinion and a three-judge dissenting opinion, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that petitioner, a Nassau County correction officer, was entitled to performance-of-duty disability retirement benefits. An inmate, apparently under the influence of drugs, was unsteady on her feet and had to be helped from the transport van to the court, and then back to the van. Upon arrival at the jail, when the transport doors were opened, the inmate fell head first out of the van on top of petitioner, who suffered rotator cuff and cervical spine injuries. The applicable statute refers to injury caused by “any act of any inmate.” The majority concluded the act need not be intentional:

Our task … is to give effect to the text [of the statute, Retirement and Social Security Law § 607-c (a) ]. … [E]ven if we were to consider the legislative history, it is inconclusive. While we agree with the dissent insofar as there seemed to have been a desire to provide protections to correction officers because they “come into daily contact with certain persons who are dangerous, profoundly anti-social and who pose a serious threat to their health and safety” (Governor’s Approval Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1996, ch 722 at 9), inmates may be “dangerous” and pose a “serious threat” as much through their involuntary acts as by their voluntary acts.

Here, the inmate took one to two steps, lost her balance, and landed on petitioner, injuring her. Petitioner’s injuries were thus sustained by “any act of any inmate,” i.e., the inmate’s fall on petitioner. Matter of Walsh v New York State Comptroller, 2019 NY Slip Op 08518, CtApp 11-25-19

 

/

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

 

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