You are here: / NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE...

Search Results

/ , ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect:

… [A] motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 seeking to withdraw a plea to an indictment is part of a criminal action or, at the least, “related to a . . . completed criminal action,” so as to come within the statutory definition of a “[c]riminal proceeding” (CPL 1.20[18]; … ). Moreover, in light of the nature of the relief sought in the motion, the motion is, by its nature, criminal, rather than civil … . Accordingly, proper statutory authority under the Criminal Procedure Law must exist in order for the defendant to appeal from the denial of the motion … .

Such statutory authority does not exist. CPL 450.10 only provides that a defendant may appeal as of right from a judgment, sentence, or order made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and thus, does not provide for appellate review, as of right, from an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60, to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Nor does CPL 450.15 allow for such an appeal by permission, as that statute only permits an appeal from orders made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and “[a] sentence . . . not otherwise appealable as of right” (CPL 450.15[3]). Finally, there is no avenue for appeal through CPL 330.20, which permits a party “to proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section” to appeal, by permission, from certain orders rendered under CPL 330.20 (CPL 330.20[21]). The orders specified do not include an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 to withdraw the plea … . People v Delano F., 2019 NY Slip Op 07089, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

/ ,

THE PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS RAISED BY THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE PHOTO ARRAYS USED BY THE WITNESS TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT WAS OVERCOME BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE SHEER NUMBER OF PHOTOS VIEWED BY THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the witness’s identification of the defendant from photographs properly survived the motion to dismiss. The presumption of suggestiveness was overcome by the evidence of the sheer number of photographs shown to the witness. The court also held that rape first degree is a lesser included count of predatory sexual assault which was dismissed by the conviction on the higher court:

… [A]lthough the People did not produce in court the photographic arrays displayed through the use of the photo manager system, which gives rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, the People nevertheless rebutted that presumption and sustained their initial burden through the testimony of the detective, which established that she utilized the various databases applying the description of the perpetrator supplied by the complainant … . The detective testified that the complainant was shown the computer-generated photo arrays a day after the incident occurred and then again three days later. The detective’s unrebutted testimony established that 700 to 1,000 photographs were generated by the photo manager system, which were displayed in smaller arrays of photographs, from which, during the third viewing session, the complainant identified the defendant as the person who assaulted her … . “[W]hen a photographic identification procedure involves showing a witness a preexisting file consisting of a large number of photographs, the sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness'” … . Moreover, the complainant eventually identified the defendant in a lineup. People v Castello, 2019 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

/ ,

IN DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION AND GRANTING MOTHER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE HER CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND EVIDENCE NOT TESTED BY CROSS-EXAMINATION, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for modification of child support should not have been denied and mother’s motion to terminate her child support obligations should not have been granted based on hearsay and evidence not tested by cross-examination:

… [F]ather filed a petition to modify the child support order … . The father asserted, as a change of circumstance, that the child was living with him. The mother moved for summary judgment dismissing the father’s petition, and for termination of her child support obligation, on the ground of parental alienation, contending that the father had unjustifiably frustrated and interfered with her relationship with the child. * * *

The Family Court, in making its determination that the father alienated the child from the mother, improperly relied on inadmissible information that had been provided at court conferences in earlier proceedings before a different judge. The court also improperly relied on hearsay statements and conclusions by an expert, whose credibility was not tested by either party, from an earlier forensic evaluation, and on statements and conclusions by two therapists, whose opinions and credibility were not tested by either party, made at a conference before a different judge … .

Accordingly, we disagree with the Family Court’s determination to grant the mother’s motion for summary judgment and for termination of her child support obligation, we reinstate the father’s petition to modify the child support order … , and we remit the matter to the Family Court … for a hearing on that petition. Matter of McNichol v Reid, 2019 NY Slip Op 07073, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

/ ,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not submit proof of compliance with the filing requirements of RPAPL 1306:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1306, lenders “shall file with the superintendent of financial services . . . within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by [RPAPL 1304]” a form containing certain information regarding the borrower and the mortgage (RPAPL 1306[1]; see RPAPL 1306[2]). RPAPL 1306(1) further states that “[a]ny complaint served in [an action] initiated pursuant to [RPAPL article 13] shall contain, as a condition precedent to such [action], an affirmative allegation that at the time the [action] is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section.”

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of compliance with RPAPL 1306. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lyon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07060, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS A ‘BORROWER’ AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304; THE BANK HAD ARGUED SHE WAS NOT A BORROWER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this foreclosure action was a “borrower” within the meaning of RPAPL 1304 and therefore she was entitled to the required 90-day notice, which she did not receive. That bank argued that she was not a borrower because only her deceased husband signed the note. However she was named on the mortgage and she signed the mortgage:

While RPAPL 1304 provides that the notice shall be sent to the “borrower,” that term is not defined in the statute (see RPAPL 1304). It is undisputed that only the defendant’s deceased husband, Solomon Forman, is identified as a “borrower” in the note which is secured by the mortgage. That is not determinative in this case. In the mortgage instrument, the defendant is referred to as a borrower. On the first page of the mortgage instrument, under the heading entitled “Words Used Often in this Document,” the defendant is identified, along with her husband, as ” Borrower.'” The defendant is also designated as “Borrower” under her signature on the signature page of the mortgage instrument. While the plaintiff contends that this standard mortgage form mischaracterizes the defendant as a borrower, any ambiguities in the language of the document must be construed against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is the party who supplied the document … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Forman, 2019 NY Slip Op 07045, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

/ , ,

VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS POLICE EXCESSIVE-FORCE CASE SET ASIDE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A $200,000 DAMAGES AWARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the verdict awarding plaintiff zero damages for past pain and suffering should have been set aside in this police-excessive-force case (42 USC 1983). The court ordered a new trial unless the parties stipulated to a $200,000 damages award:

Plaintiff sustained injuries when a New York City police officer smashed him in the nose with a bullet-proof shield after entering his apartment to execute a search warrant. After a trial, the jury found that the officer violated plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by using excessive force while arresting him and that the excessive force was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. However, the jury awarded plaintiff no damages for pain and suffering. * * *

However, we find that the jury’s failure to award damages for past pain and suffering is contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation (CPLR 5501[c]; …). The undisputed evidence establishes that plaintiff was in pain the first night after being struck, that for about two weeks after the incident his broken nose and orbital bone fractures were “kind of rough,” that he could only breathe through his mouth, that he had to get medication, that he suffered “really bad” headaches, and that he required reconstructive nasal surgery as a result of his injuries. Shimukonas v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07147, First Dept 10-3-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMMON LAW INDEMNITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim in this ladder-fall case, and the property owner, Church of God, was entitled to common law indemnity because plaintiff’s work was supervised by his apparent employer, Belfor:

Plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder wobbled, flipped, and flopped, causing him to fall, sets forth a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Defendants failed to adduce any evidence rebutting plaintiff’s showing, making summary judgment appropriate.

Plaintiff testified that he was using a Belfor ladder at the time of his fall. Belfor’s deponent, who had no knowledge of the accident, conceded that Belfor had ladders on site, and could not say whether plaintiff’s employer, the subcontractor who furnished labor for the cleaning and debris removal portion of the project, also brought ladders. There were no other subcontractors on site. Belfor’s deponent also testified that Belfor had a site supervisor, the only Belfor employee on site that day, and that he would have been “in the thick of it,” and not performing paperwork or similar administrative tasks. Plaintiff, who wore a Belfor uniform at Belfor’s behest, testified that Belfor employees were “the bosses,” ordering him around. This evidence, taken together, is sufficient to establish that Church of God made a prima facie showing of entitlement to common law indemnity … . Rivera-Astudillo v Garden of Prayer Church of God in Christ, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07033, First Dept 10-1-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S DRUG SALE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversed defendant’s drug-sale conviction as against the weight of the evidence. The police saw a woman approach defendant and the woman had a $10 bag of crack cocaine in her mouth when the police stopped her. The defendant had $10 in his pocket but no drugs on him. No exchange between the two was observed:

Two police officers testified that they observed defendant in a high drug trafficking area. They both saw defendant approach a man and talk to him. The man gave defendant money and there was an “exchange,” but the officers did not see what was exchanged. Shortly thereafter, one of the officers witnessed a woman approach defendant. The officer saw the woman speak to defendant and then touch his hand, but the officer did not see any money or drugs exchanged. Defendant and the woman separated, and the officer approached the woman. The officer identified herself, said that she just saw what happened, and heard the woman chewing on something. She asked the woman to spit out the object, which turned out to be a small bag containing $10 worth of crack cocaine. The officer never saw the woman put the bag in her mouth or even bring her hand to her mouth. The police then arrested the woman and defendant. Defendant did not have any drugs on him, but had $10 in his sweatshirt pocket and other denominations of cash in his pants pocket.

In the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the People did not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that defendant sold cocaine to the woman, which was the only crime charged. The officer who witnessed the transaction acknowledged she did not observe an exchange of anything, including money, drugs or unidentified objects, between defendant and the woman. In addition, the People’s theory that the woman put the bag in her mouth after purchasing it from defendant was contradicted by the officer’s testimony that she never saw the woman put anything into her mouth, or even put her hand to her mouth. Furthermore, the People’s theory that defendant sold two $10 bags, one to the man and the other to the woman, was inconsistent with the cash found on defendant. People v Correa, 2019 NY Slip Op 07017, First Dept 10-1-19

 

/ , ,

RAPE THIRD IS NOT AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF RAPE FIRST; THE VERDICT SHEET INCLUDED AN IMPERMISSIBLE ANNOTATION, MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO THE ANNOTATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined: (1) rape third is not an inclusory concurrent count of rape first; and (2) the verdict sheet included an impermissible annotation. The matter was remitted to determine whether defense counsel consented to the annotation:

… [T]he verdict sheet, which states in relevant part “Fourth Count: Rape in the Third Degree (lack of consent/totality of circumstances),” contains an impermissible annotation. Specifically, the “totality of circumstances” language is impermissible because it is not “statutory language” (CPL 310.20 [2]; see Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Rather, it is language from the pattern jury instructions (see CJI 2d[NY] Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Supreme Court was therefore required to obtain defense counsel’s consent prior to submitting the annotated verdict sheet to the jury … . Although “consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet may be implied where defense counsel fail[s] to object to the verdict sheet after having an opportunity to review it’ “… , here, the record does not reflect whether defense counsel had that opportunity. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine, following a hearing if necessary, whether defense counsel consented to the annotated verdict sheet … . People v Wilson, 2019 NY Slip Op 06900, Fourth Dept 9-27-19

 

/ ,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION OR AS A LIMITED SAFETY SEARCH, MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress a handgun found in his vehicle and a post-seizure statement was properly granted:

… [O]fficers responded to the complainant’s home after receiving a call that he had been threatened by defendant. The complainant told an officer that defendant threatened to shoot him and that he believed the threat was serious because defendant had been in possession of a black handgun prior to the instant incident. Defendant, who was seated in his truck, which was parked in front of the complainant’s home, acknowledged that he had previously said he would shoot the complainant if the complainant entered defendant’s property. Based on that information and defendant’s admissions that he owned a rifle, which was at his home, and that he had a Virginia pistol permit but no New York pistol permit, the officers searched defendant’s person but recovered no weapons. The officers then searched the area near the driver’s seat of defendant’s truck, from which they recovered a loaded handgun. …

The automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits a police officer to ” search a vehicle without a warrant when [the officer has] probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found there’ ” … . [T]he police did not have probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle after they searched him and determined that there was no immediate threat to their safety … , inasmuch as defendant was not alleged to have brandished a gun at the scene, there was inconclusive evidence that he actually threatened the complainant at the scene, defendant did not engage in any suspicious or furtive movements, and the officers did not observe any weapons or related contraband in the vehicle or on defendant’s person … . …

… [T]he officers’ search of defendant’s vehicle was not justifiable as a limited safety search. Probable cause is not required for a limited search of a vehicle ” where, following a lawful stop, facts revealed during a proper inquiry or other information gathered during the course of the encounter lead to the conclusion that a weapon located within the vehicle presents an actual and specific danger to the officers’ safety sufficient to justify a further intrusion’ ” … . However, the Court of Appeals has “emphasized . . . that a reasonable suspicion alone will not suffice” and that “the likelihood of a weapon in the [vehicle] must be substantial and the danger to the officer’s safety actual and specific” … . People v Pastore, 2019 NY Slip Op 06930, Fourth Dept 9-27-19

 

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