You are here: / PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED VIOLATION OF...

Search Results

/ , , ,

PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THE ISSUE SURVIVES THE FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA AND THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for a violation of the Correction Law, determined that the plea allocution negated an essential element of the offense. Because the voluntariness of the plea was called into question the issue survived the failure to move to withdraw the plea and the waiver of appeal:

A sex offender is required to register with the Division “no later than ten calendar days after any change of address” and to pay a fee of ten dollars “each time such offender registers any change of address” (Correction Law § 168-f[4]). A sex offender who fails to so register within the required time period is guilty of a felony (seeCorrection Law § 168-t).

As the defendant contends, his factual allocution during the plea proceeding negated an essential element of the offense charged, thereby casting significant doubt upon his guilt. Specifically, the defendant indicated that he provided the Division with the address of a homeless shelter that he was using, although he acknowledged that there were some nights when he could not stay in the shelter. He explained “sometimes if you don’t get there in time all the beds are taken, so sometimes you get turned away.” On those days, the defendant asserted, he stayed at a friend’s house instead. These statements tended to demonstrate that the defendant did not, in fact, change his address and thus, was not required to notify the Division … . People v Wright, 2019 NY Slip Op 05428, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO FURTHER INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT SENTENCE HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT BASED SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION SHE DID NOT COMPLETE A MENTAL HEALTH COURT PROGRAM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to further inquiry into whether she violated the terms of her plea agreement. Defendant was not sentenced in accordance with the agreement based solely on the prosecutor’s assertion she had not successfully completed a Mental Health Court program:

The County Court failed to conduct an inquiry sufficient to assure that the defendant had, in fact, violated the terms of the plea agreement and that the information upon which it based the sentence was reliable and accurate … . Thus, we remit the matter … for a sufficient inquiry and a new determination as to whether the defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement, and for resentencing thereafter.

Moreover, as acknowledged by the People, the County Court should not have pronounced sentence without first receiving a presentence investigation report … . People v Dimon, 2019 NY Slip Op 05417, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

/ , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING HIS MOTHER’S ESTATE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION MAY BE A WITNESS, UNDER THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE CASE, DISQUALIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE WAS NOT REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although the attorney representing his mother’s estate in the medical malpractice/wrongful death action may be a witness, the advocate-witness rule, under the particular facts of this case, did not require disqualification:

… [T]he advocate-witness rules contained in the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) provide guidance, but are not binding authority, for the courts in determining whether a party’s attorney should be disqualified during litigation  … . Rule 3.7(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct … provides that, in general, “[a] lawyer shall not act as advocate before a tribunal in a matter in which the lawyer is likely to be a witness on a significant issue of fact.” There is an exception to this rule when “disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client”… . Further, the advocate-witness rule generally does not control where the attorney is also a litigant … . However, estate representatives represent the interests of the estate’s beneficiaries, rather than their own. Therefore, generally, the advocate-witness rule will prevail over a fiduciary-attorney’s right to self-representation … . …

Here, the other distributee affirmed that his interests in the lawsuit are identical to those of the plaintiff, whom he wished would remain as attorney for the estate. Accordingly, while the plaintiff is not a party in his individual capacity, his personal property interests as one of two distributees of the estate are at stake (see EPTL 5-4.4[a] …), and his interests appear to be identical to those of the estate … . Furthermore, the plaintiff affirmed that his attempt to retain different counsel for the estate was unsuccessful, such that his disqualification as counsel would essentially foreclose the claim, working substantial hardship on the estate and its distributees … . Greenberg v Grace Plaza Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 05390, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

/ ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THAT THE VALUE OF COMMON AREAS OF A DEVELOPMENT OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY PETITIONER HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION WAS ZERO FOR PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES BECAUSE OF ENCUMBRANCES AND RESTRICTIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE COMMON AREAS HAD BEEN RAISED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment finding that the value of the common areas of a development owned and maintained by petitioner homeowners’ association was zero because of encumbrances and restrictions on the property. Petitioner sought a reduction of the tax assessments pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL)  article 7. The town and the village had assessed the value of the common areas in the millions of dollars:

… [T]he declaration of protective covenants purports to impose a servitude upon the common area parcels in the nature of an easement or covenant that runs with the land; however, petitioner’s bylaws specifically state that individual lot owners “shall have a license to use the [c]ommon [a]reas.” To the extent that the corresponding deeds to the individual lot owners recite that each conveyance was made subject to both the declaration of protective covenants and petitioner’s bylaws, we now reiterate that “[s]uch a conflict in terminology does not lend itself to summary relief” … . …

… [P]etitioner failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the assessed property values of the individual lot owners within the development already include an enhanced value or premium sufficient to cover or offset the value of petitioner’s common area parcels. …

Nor did petitioner sufficiently establish that the subject common area parcels have zero or only nominal value. Indeed, “[i]t is possible that a parcel is so interwoven with a dominant estate that it has no extrinsic value that is available for tax purposes. If, however, it is shown that a servient parcel[, i.e., the common area parcels,] has substantial value, the land can be taxed despite its relationship to a dominant estate owned by a member of a community development” … . Matter of The Assn. of Prop. Owners of Sleepy Hollow Lake, Inc. v McBride, 2019 NY Slip Op 05371, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ASSERT THE BANK LACKED STANDING IN HIS ANSWER AND DID NOT OPPOSE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STANDING ISSUE AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have, sua sponte, denied plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action on the ground the bank did not establish standing. The bank need not affirmatively demonstrate standing absent the defendant’s assertion that the bank lacked standing. Here the defendant did not address the bank’s standing in his answer and did not oppose the motion for summary judgment:

… [A]s a general matter, a plaintiff need not establish its standing (i.e., that it held and/or owned the note at the time the action was commenced) as an essential element of the cause of action. Rather, it is only where the plaintiff’s standing is placed in issue by the defendant that the plaintiff must shoulder the additional burden of establishing its standing to commence the action, a burden satisfied by evidence that it was the holder or assignee of the underlying note at the time the action was commenced” … .

In the present case, the defendant did not raise the issue of standing by asserting lack of standing as an affirmative defense in his answer or moving to dismiss the complaint on that ground in a pre-answer motion to dismiss … . Inasmuch as the defendant “failed to . . . raise the issue, it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to, sua sponte, do so on the defendant[‘s] behalf” … . The issue of standing was not properly before the Supreme Court … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Matzen, 2019 NY Slip Op 05386, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

/

SPECIAL FUND IS LIABLE FOR DEATH BENEFITS WHERE THE CLAIM WAS TRANSFERED TO THE SPECIAL FUND BEFORE THE FUND WAS CLOSED IN 2014 AND THE CLAIMANT DIED AFTER THE FUND WAS CLOSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined that the Special Fund remained liable for death benefits if the matter had been transferred to the Special Fund before the 2014 closure of the fund. Here the asbestosis case was transferred to the Special Fund in 2011 and the claimant died in 2017:

… [T]he imposition of liability on the Special Fund in this case is not precluded by the statutory amendment [closing the Special Fund], given that liability was transferred to the Special Fund in December 2011, well before the January 1, 2014 closure date. The record does not indicate any violation of the plain language of the statutory sentence at issue. Indeed, the record does not contain a copy of any application by the employer for transfer of liability of a claim to the Special Fund, nor any indication that such an application was filed after January 1, 2014. Thus, the record does not support a finding of a violation of the statute prohibiting the Board from accepting, after the cut-off date, any application by an employer or carrier for transfer of liability of a claim to the Special Fund (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a [1-a]).

This conclusion is supported by our decision in Matter of Misquitta v Getty Petroleum (150 AD3d 1363[2017]), which involved a factual situation similar to that presented here. In Misquitta, the decedent had an established workers’ compensation claim that had been transferred to the Special Fund prior to his death and, after his death, his widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. While acknowledging that the consequential death claim was separate and distinct from the decedent’s original claim, this Court ruled that “where . . . liability for a claim has already been transferred from the carrier to the Special Fund and the employee thereafter dies for reasons causally related to the original claim, the Special Fund remains liable for the claim for death benefits” … . Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05369, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

/

HOTEL WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS STABBED TO DEATH AT A PARTY AT THE HOTEL, THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE HOTEL AND THERE WAS NO SECURITY ON THE NIGHT OF THE STABBING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined that the facts of this case supported a finding that the hotel (Howard Johnson) where plaintiff’s decedent was stabbed to death was negligent as a matter of law. There was an extensive history of criminal acts, including assaults, at the hotel and there was no security on the night of the stabbing:

… [I]n certain “rare” cases ,,, , a plaintiff may be awarded summary judgment on the issue of a defendant’s negligence where “there is no conflict at all in the evidence” and “the defendant’s conduct fell far below any permissible standard of due care” … . The case at bar presents such an instance where there is no triable issue of fact as to the defendant’s negligence, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment on the issue of liability on the first and third causes of action insofar as asserted against Howard Johnson.

“A possessor of real property is under a duty to maintain reasonable security measures to protect those lawfully on the premises from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties” … . This includes the common-law duty to take “minimal precautions” to protect tenants and visitors from foreseeable harm, including foreseeable criminal conduct by a third person … . “To establish foreseeability, there is no requirement that the past experience of criminal activity be of the same type as that to which the plaintiff was subjected, but the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based on prior occurrences of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location” … . “[T]he duty to employ protective measures arises when it is shown that the possessor of the property either knows or has reason to know from past experience that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons . . . which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor'” … . Davis v Commack Hotel, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05385, Second Dept 7-3-19

 

​

/ , , ,

THE CLAUSE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH STATED THE AGREED FIREFIGHTER STAFFING LEVEL WAS 36 DID NOT BARGAIN AWAY THE MUNICIPALITY’S RIGHT TO ELIMINATE POSITIONS, THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY’S REFUSAL TO FILL A FIREFIGHTER VACANCY WAS NOT ARBITRABLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence which argued an additional ground for reversal, determined that the municipality had not bargained away (in the collective bargaining agreement [CBA]) its right to eliminate positions or lay off workers for economic reasons. Therefore the municipality’s refusal to fill a vacant firefighter position was not arbitrable (against public policy):

The clause [in the CBA] at issue requires petitioner to fill vacancies as soon as possible to maintain “agreed upon” staffing levels, which, at the effective date of the contract, was 36 firefighters. However, the operative clause does not contain the explicit term precluding downward readjustment of that agreed-upon minimum level that was present in Matter of Burke v Bowen [40 NY2d 264]. Rather, the clause at issue authorizes petitioner to unilaterally eliminate equipment or close a station on 30 days’ notice and requires that the parties bargain the impact of any such change. We conclude that this clause, considered in its entirety, does not meet the “stringent test” necessary to establish that petitioner “bargain[ed] away its right to eliminate positions or terminate or lay off workers for budgetary, economic or other reasons” … . Accordingly, the dispute is not arbitrable for reasons of public policy. Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen’s Assn.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05367, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S NEW COUNSEL FILED A SECOND COMPLAINT ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AS THE FIRST COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE CERTAIN INTENTIONAL TORTS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN OUT, DISMISSAL OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT REQUIRED, CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO COMPLAINTS WAS ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that dismissal of a second complaint arising out of the same facts as the first complaint, filed two months earlier, was not required. Plaintiff had hired new counsel 13 days before the statute of limitations ran out. The first complaint mentioned both intentional and negligent conduct. The second complaint fleshed out specific intentional torts:

CPLR 3211 (a) (4) does not require a trial court to dismiss an action upon the ground that another similar action is pending, instead allowing it to “make such order as justice requires” … . … “[t]he purpose of the defense of the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause is to prevent a party from being harassed or burdened by having to defend a multiplicity of suits” . In our view, the reasons stated by plaintiff for commencing this action rather than moving for leave to amend the first complaint are not…  so clearly inadequate that dismissal was required to serve that purpose … . …

We note that Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff that there was insufficient time to pursue a motion for leave to amend pursuant to CPLR 2214 (b). As the court observed, it was possible that plaintiff could have obtained timely relief by bringing a request for leave to amend the first complaint via an order to show cause … . Nevertheless, even if counsel erred in failing to pursue that course, dismissal of this action is too harsh a consequence.

Where, as here, relief is required under CPLR 3211 (a) (4) to correct similar pending actions, “consolidation or joint trial is permissible and in many instances preferable to dismissal”… . In his opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff requested such relief as an alternative remedy. Thus, the requirement for notice to defendant before consolidation is ordered has been satisfied (see CPLR 602 [a] … ). Accordingly, we direct Supreme Court to consolidate this action with the first action, and remit for that purpose. LaBuda v LaBuda, 2019 NY Slip Op 05366, Third Dept 7-3-19

[​Note that it may have been possible for the plaintiff to file a copy of the proposed supplemental summons with a motion to amend the complaint which would have tolled the statute of limitations. (see Karagiannis v North Shore Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 80 AD3d 569, 569 [2d Dept 2011])]

 

/ , , ,

THE DOCTRINES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA APPLY TO THE ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER DID NOT ABUSE A MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RECIPIENT, THE CONTRARY SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the administrative law judge (ALJ), determined that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata applied to the original arbitrator’s finding that petitioner, a security assistant employed by the Office of Mental Health (OMH), did not abuse a mental health service recipient. The arbitrator found that the service recipient was the aggressor. The proceedings before the ALJ, which found that petitioner had abused the service recipient, were annulled:

The fundamental point here is that the arbitrator reviewed the underlying event and determined that the service recipient fell to the floor and was the sole aggressor. As such, we conclude that respondent was precluded under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel from relitigating the question of whether petitioner physically abused the service recipient by pushing her to the floor. It follows that his petition to annul respondent’s determination should be granted and the determination annulled. The matter must be remitted to respondent for amendment of the findings to state that the report is unsubstantiated and for compliance with the requirements of Social Services Law § 494. Matter of Anonymous v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People With Special Needs, 2019 NY Slip Op 05364, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

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