You are here: / THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A RAZOR BLADE PARTIALLY WRAPPED...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A RAZOR BLADE PARTIALLY WRAPPED IN TAPE WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People did not prove that defendant possessed a razor blade partially wrapped in tape with the intent to use it unlawfully against another:

Penal Law § 265.15(4) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he possession by any person of any . . . weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another.”

“The presumption of unlawful intent under Penal Law § 265.15(4), like all statutory presumptions in New York, is a permissive presumption, meaning that [it] allows, but does not require, the trier of fact to accept the presumed fact, and does not shift to the defendant the burden of proof'” … . “Before the presumption may apply, the People must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the predicate fact or facts the statute requires be proved'” … . “If the People succeed in this endeavor, they are entitled to rely on the presumption, which form[s] part of the support for [their] prima facie case’ against the defendant” … . “The presumption may be rebutted by any evidence in the case; that is, evidence presented by the defendant or the People” … “Evidence rebutting the presumption will not negate the existence of a prima facie case; rather it presents an alternate set of facts, or inferences from facts, to the jury. The jury then has the right to choose between the two versions'” … . …

… [T]he People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the razor blade recovered from the defendant was “designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon” … . There was no testimony by the detectives indicating that they knew based on their experience that the primary use of this type of instrument, by virtue of being wrapped in black tape, was as a weapon, or that they attempted to ascertain from the defendant the manner in which he utilized the blade … . Furthermore, there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant considered the instrument to be a weapon … . People v Rodgers, 2019 NY Slip Op 06002, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , ,

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO FELT POLICE OFFICERS WOULD NOT LIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IN DEFENDANT’S HOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and granting a new trial, determined that a defense for-cause challenge to a juror should have been granted, unwarned statements made by the defendant in his home were in response to custodial interrogation, and the statements made at the police station were made after defendant had invoked his right to counsel:

… [B]y repeatedly insisting that police officers were unlikely to lie under oath because doing so would endanger their pensions, the prospective juror “cast serious doubt on [her] ability to render a fair verdict under the proper legal standards” and to follow the court’s instructions concerning, at a minimum, issues of witness credibility … . The court was therefore “required to elicit some unequivocal assurance from the . . . prospective juror[] that [she was] able to reach a verdict based entirely upon the court’s instructions on the law” … . No such assurances were obtained from the prospective juror, …

… [I]t is undisputed that defendant was ordered out of his bedroom by police officers in the middle of the night, directed to remain in a vestibule outside his apartment, and thereafter subjected to pointed, accusatory questions for about an hour. Under those circumstances, we agree with defendant that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have felt free to leave, and that he was thus in custody during the questioning … . …

… [D]efendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel by stating “I think I will take the lawyer” or “I think I need a lawyer” … . Thus, we agree with defendant that his statements following his unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel at the police station should have been suppressed as well … . People v Hernandez, 2019 NY Slip Op 05844, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , , , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THE ATTORNEY HAD ATTEMPTED TO REMEDY THE FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS IN AN ESTATE MATTER AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN; ABSENCE OF AN EXPERT’S REPORT FROM THE RECORD ON APPEAL PRECLUDED A RULING ON THE RELATED ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this legal malpractice action. The attorney had attempted to remedy the failure to file objections in an estate matter after the statute had run. The Fourth Department noted that plaintiff’s expert’s report was missing from the record on appeal and therefore plaintiff was unable to argue on appeal that he had raised a related question of fact (concerning damages) before Supreme Court. Defendant had argued the damages were speculative (requiring dismissal) and Supreme Court did not rule on the issue (because the case was dismissed as untimely). The matter was remitted for a ruling on the damages issue:

We are unable to review plaintiff’s contention that he raised a triable issue of fact with respect to … damages by submitting an expert report inasmuch as plaintiff failed to include that document in the record on appeal. Thus plaintiff, as the party raising this issue on his appeal, “submitted this appeal on an incomplete record and must suffer the consequences” … . …

Defendant met his burden … by establishing that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214 [6]), that the estate cause of action accrued on November 1, 2010, the last date on which to file objections to the accounting …, and that the estate cause of action was therefore untimely when this malpractice action was commenced on November 15, 2013. “The burden then shifted to plaintiff[] to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine” … .

We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to do so. It is well settled that, in order for the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … . Here, plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant made several unsuccessful attempts to file the objections within the weeks after the deadline and that he made preparations to appear at a scheduled conference on the objections on November 23, 2010. Those efforts could be viewed as “attempt[s] by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … , and thus plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. Leeder v Antonucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 05898, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

POLICE OFFICERS’ TESTIMONY BASED UPON DEBRIEFING GANG MEMBERS WAS INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY AND THE POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WERE QUALIFIED AS GANG EXPERTS, ACTED AS IMPERMISSIBLE SUMMATION WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the testimony of two police officers (qualified by the court as gang experts( about information gleaned from interviewing gang members was testimonial hearsay, in violation of Crawford, and the police experts acted as summation witnesses, in violation of Iona:

During the trial, the Supreme Court declared Detective Adam Georg an expert “in the hierarchy, practices, [and] languages of the S.N.O.W. Gang and other gangs.” Similarly, the court declared Lieutenant Robert Bracero an expert “in the history, hierarchy, practices and language of the S.N.O.W. Gang and rival gangs.” Georg testified that his knowledge of the S.N.O.W. Gang was derived from, among other things, approximately 70 to 80 debriefings of S.N.O.W. Gang members, many of whom had been arrested and were in custody at the police station or in jail. Similarly, Bracero testified that he debriefed approximately 50 S.N.O.W. Gang members after their arrests. * * *

… [T]he defendant contends that Georg’s and Bracero’s testimony violated Crawford v Washington (541 US 36) by permitting the introduction into evidence of out-of-court testimonial statements made by absent witnesses who were never subjected to cross examination … , and that Georg’s testimony also ran afoul of the proscription against police experts acting as summation witnesses, in violation of People v Inoa (25 NY3d 466, 474-475). …

… .[F]or the reasons set forth in our decision and order on appeal by one of the codefendants (People v Jones, 166 AD3d 803), the testimony of Georg and Bracero violated Crawford and Inoa. Since the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the errors, was far from overwhelming, these errors were not harmless … . People v Campbell, 2019 NY Slip Op 05992, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WHO KIDNAPPED HER BIOLOGICAL CHILD WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM SORA REGISTRATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid but rejected her argument that she was exempt for SORA registration because she is the parent of the kidnapping victim, who had been adopted by a family:

The victim of the kidnapping was defendant’s biological child, who had been removed from defendant’s care more than eight years earlier following allegations of abuse concerning the victim’s sibling. Defendant surrendered her parental rights to both the victim and the victim’s sibling, and the children were adopted by a family.

“SORA defines sex offender’ to include any person who is convicted of’ any of a number of crimes listed in the statute . . . SORA requires all people included in this definition to register as sex offenders” … . The list of offenses provided in the statute includes “section 135.05, 135.10, 135.20 or 135.25 of [the Penal Law] relating to kidnapping offenses, provided the victim of such kidnapping . . . is less than seventeen years old and the offender is not the parent of the victim” … . Although we have not yet had the occasion to address whether a biological parent who has surrendered his or her parental rights and whose child has been adopted is entitled to the benefit of the parent exemption set forth in the SORA statute, in People v Brown (264 AD2d 12 [4th Dept 2000]), this Court determined that, in a prosecution for kidnapping, such a person could not assert as an affirmative defense that he or she was a relative of the victim … inasmuch as a biological parent’s status as a “parent” with respect to an adopted child was terminated ” in all respects’ ” by an order of adoption … . Applying that same reasoning here, we conclude that defendant, the biological mother of an adopted child who she kidnapped, is not a parent of the victim for the purposes of SORA, and thus defendant is not exempt from SORA registration. People v Weir, 2019 NY Slip Op 05896, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether the note set forth the actual agreement between the parties:

“Because the thrust of a reformation claim is that a writing does not set forth the actual agreement of the parties, generally . . . the parol evidence rule . . . [does not] appl[y] to bar proof, in the form of parol or extrinsic evidence, of the claimed agreement” … . Nevertheless, “there is a heavy presumption that a deliberately prepared and executed written instrument manifest[s] the true intention of the parties’ . . . and a correspondingly high order of evidence is required to overcome that presumption” … . “The proponent of reformation must show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake . . . exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties’ ” … . …

… [D]efendant here set forth, in detail, the basis for his contention that both parties reached an agreement different from that set forth in the note. The affidavits of the CIO [plaintiff’s chief investment officer] and defendant contain the identical assertion that both parties—plaintiff via the CIO and defendant—agreed that plaintiff’s right to secure repayment of the loan would be limited to defendant’s stock interest … . The affidavits of the CIO and defendant are based upon personal knowledge and state in detail their understanding of the negotiations and the resulting agreement. Moreover, the CIO averred that he negotiated the loan on behalf of plaintiff at the time he was its chief investment officer, and he concluded that the terms of the note did not reflect what the parties had intended. Thus, in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, we conclude that defendant submitted the requisite “high level” of proof required to raise a triable issue of fact regarding mutual mistake. Stache Invs. Corp. v Ciolek, 2019 NY Slip Op 05856, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING BECAUSE ESSENTIAL FACTS WERE IN DISPUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in an appeal by the People, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment in the furtherance of justice should not have been granted without a hearing because the facts were in dispute. The Second Department also noted that the defendant had demonstrated good cause for bringing the motion after the 45-day deadline:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have decided the motion without conducting a hearing. CPL 210.40 authorizes the court to dismiss an indictment or any count thereof in furtherance of justice, as a matter of judicial discretion, when, after considering certain enumerated factors, the court finds “the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment or count would constitute or result in injustice”… . In deciding such a motion, “a court must strike a sensitive balance between the individual and the State’ interests to determine whether the ends of justice are served by dismissal of the indictment” … . “Such a value judgment hinge[s] on the production of facts in the possession of the prosecution and the defendant'”… . CPL 210.45 requires a hearing when the facts essential to the determination of a motion made pursuant to CPL 210.40 are in dispute … . Here, since the essential facts were in dispute, the court should have conducted a hearing before making its findings of fact … . People v Burke, 2019 NY Slip Op 05991, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

THE REMAINDER BENEFICIARIES’ ACTION ALLEGING THE EXECUTOR’S VIOLATION OF A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT, WHICH REQUIRED THE EXECUTOR TO KEEP THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE DECEASED’S BUSINESS IN A SEGREGATED ACCOUNT UNTIL THE DAUGHTERS’ REMAINDER INTERESTS WERE DETERMINED, DID NOT VIOLATE THE IN TERROREM CLAUSE OF THE WILL WHICH PROHIBITED THE DAUGHTERS FROM CONTESTING THE WILL, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the daughters of the deceased, remainder beneficiaries, did not violate the in terrorem clause of the will by bringing an action against the executor alleging the executor’s violation of a standstill agreement.  In the standstill agreement with the executor (Anna Marie, the deceased’s wife), Anna Marie agreed to hold the proceeds from the sale of the deceased’s interest in a business in a segregated bank account while Anna Marie and the daughters determined the daughters’ interests in the liquidated assets as remainder beneficiaries of Anna Marie’s life estate:

The will included an in terrorem clause which provided for the revocation of the interest of any beneficiary who “institute[s] . . . any proceedings to set aside, interfere with, or make null any provision of this Will, . . . or shall in any manner, directly or indirectly, contest the probate thereof.” The will left the “rest, residue, and remainder” of the decedent’s estate to Anna Marie, absolutely, “to the exclusion of any children of mine.” * * *

… [T]the daughters alleged in the Supreme Court action that Anna Marie breached her fiduciary duty as executor and holder of the life estate in the decedent’s interest in Brady Avenue by taking possession of the entire proceeds of the sale to the exclusion and detriment of the daughters as remainder beneficiaries. The daughters have not lodged any contest to the validity of the will, or otherwise interfered with its provisions granting Anna Marie discretion to dispose of estate assets in her capacity as executor. Moreover, the claim that Anna Marie violated the standstill agreement did not implicate any challenge to the will. Thus, we disagree with the determination of the Surrogate’s Court that the daughters violated the in terrorem clause of the will and forfeited their legacies under the will … . Matter of Sochurek, 2019 NY Slip Op 05987, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY, THE VERIFICATION WAS VALID BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAD FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS; IN ADDITION, ANY DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION WERE WAIVED BY RESPONDENTS; PRIOR ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO THE PETITION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE EDUCATION LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENSION OF A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the verification of an Article 78 petition by petitioner’s attorney was valid because the attorney had first hand knowledge of the contents and, even if the verification was invalid, the respondent had waived any objection to it. The matter concerns the suspension of a school principal which had been the subject of arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitration was not an obstacle to these proceedings brought pursuant to the Education Law because the issues are not the same.  The issue involved in the Article 78 petition, an interpretation of Education Law 2566 (6), was not the kind of issue which must first be brought before the Commissioner of Education:

Although the verification requirement of CPLR 7804 (d) must ordinarily be completed by a party, a verification “may be made by [a party’s] attorney [where, as here,] all the material allegations of the pleading are within the personal knowledge of . . . [that] attorney’ ” …  Moreover, a party challenging the sufficiency of a verification is required “to give notice with due diligence to the attorney of the adverse party that he [or she] elect[ed]’ to treat the petition as a nullity” … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that the verification by petitioner’s attorney was insufficient, we conclude that respondents waived any challenge to the petition on that ground by failing to make the requisite diligent efforts and instead waiting a month before seeking dismissal of the petition on that basis … . …

… .[A]lthough Education Law § 310 provides … that any party aggrieved by an official act or decision of school authorities “may appeal by petition to the [C]ommissioner of [E]ducation,” the Commissioner exercises primary jurisdiction only where the matter involves an issue requiring his or her specialized knowledge and expertise … . Petitioner’s contention regarding section 2566, however, requires no more than the interpretation and application of the plain language of that statute for which no deference to the Department of Education is required … . Matter of Buffalo Council of Supervisors & Adm’rs, Local #10 v Cash, 2019 NY Slip Op 05895, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO VACATE THE ADOPTION OF HER CHILD BY HER FORMER HUSBAND PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) BECAUSE THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO CHILDREN REMOVED FROM A PARENT’S CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined mother did not have standing to bring an action pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to vacate an order of adoption in favor of her former husband. Mother alleged the adoption was not accomplished in compliance with the ICWA. The ICWA only applies to a parent from whose custody the child was removed and the child had not been removed from mother’s custody:

… [A]lthough the adoption proceeding involved the voluntary termination of the birth father’s parental rights to the subject child, the plain language of both 25 USC § 1914 and 25 CFR 23.137(a) is clear that only the child, the parent or Indian custodian from whose custody the child has been removed, and the Indian child’s tribe have standing to allege a violation of sections 1911, 1912, or 1913 of the ICWA . Since the mother does not fall in… to any of those categories, she lacked standing to allege a violation of sections 1911, 1912, or 1913 of the ICWA … . “[T]he language of [section] 1914 …  limits standing to challenge state-law terminations of parental right to parents from whose custody such child was removed'” … . Matter of Connor (Mariann D.–Jacob D.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05979, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

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