You are here: / A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT IS NOT AN ‘INTERNET IDENTIFIER’ WITHIN THE...

Search Results

/ ,

A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT IS NOT AN ‘INTERNET IDENTIFIER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CORRECTION LAW, THEREFORE DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IS NOT A CRIME (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant, a sex offender, did not violate the Correction Law by failing to disclose his Facebook account. The Facebook account was not an “internet identifier” which must be disclosed under the Correction Law:

… [T]he Appellate Division correctly concluded that Facebook is not an “internet identifier,” and that the existence of a Facebook account—as opposed to the internet identifiers a sex offender may use to access Facebook or interact with other users on Facebook—need not be disclosed to DCJS [Division of Criminal Justice Services] pursuant to Correction Law § 168-f (4). As the People concede, this was the legal theory upon which the indictment was based. The indictment therefore accuses defendant of performing acts that “simply do not constitute a crime” and is jurisdictionally defective … . People v Ellis, 2019 NY Slip Op 05183, CtApp 6-27-19

 

/

CLAIMANT HAD THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CARRIER’S CONSULTANT, WHO DETERMINED CLAIMANT SUFFERED A 40% SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE, DESPITE THE FACT CLAIMANT NEVER FILED A COMPETING MEDICAL OPINION (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department determined claimant’s counsel’s request to cross-examine the carrier’s consultant, who concluded claimant suffered a 40% schedule loss of use, should not have been denied on the ground claimant had not filed a competing medical opinion (C-4.3 form):

12 NYCRR 300.10 (c) provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen the employer or its carrier or special fund desires to produce for cross-examination an attending physician whose report is on file, the referee shall grant an adjournment for such purpose.” As the Board correctly noted, although a claimant’s right to cross-examine a carrier’s consulting physician is not expressly referenced in the cited regulation, it “is permitted under tenets of due process” … . In this regard, a “claimant’s request for cross-examination is not invalidated by the failure to produce a C-4.3 [form]” … , but this right may be waived if not asserted in a timely manner … . Notably, “[t]he only requirement is that the request for such cross-examination must be timely made at a hearing, prior to the WCLJ’s ruling on the merits” … . Matter of Ferguson v Eallonardo Constr., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05255, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

/

PAROLE BOARD MAY CONSIDER SUCH FACTORS AS REMORSE AND INSIGHT INTO THE OFFENSE, EVEN THOUGH THOSE FACTORS ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, affirming the denial of release on parole, noted that the parole board may properly consider remorse and insight into the offense, even though those factors are not listed in the statute:

Petitioner argues that the Board improperly questioned him regarding both what caused him to commit the crimes and why he initially failed to accept responsibility, resulting in the two young victims having to testify in court against him. “[W]hile the Board may not consider factors outside the scope of the applicable statute . . ., it can consider factors — such as remorse and insight into the offense — that are not enumerated in the statute but nonetheless relevant to an assessment of whether an inmate presents a danger to the community” … . As the Board’s questions challenged by petitioner were aimed at petitioner’s remorse, his acceptance of responsibility and insight into the crimes, they were not improper … and did not deprive petitioner of a fair hearing. Matter of Payne v Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 05242, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

/ ,

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the superior court information (SCI) to which defendant pled guilty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include the time of the offense. The error survives the guilty plea and waiver of appeal and is not subject to the preservation requirement:

… [T]he People concede and we agree that the waiver of indictment is invalid and the SCI is jurisdictionally defective for failure to set forth the approximate time of the offense in accordance with CPL 195.20 … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 05236, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AT SENTENCING RAISED THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE REQUIRING FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, ISSUE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea,  determined defendant’s statements at sentencing, indicating that he was intoxicated at the time he committed the crimes (assault), required further inquiry by the court. The Third Department noted that the issue constitutes an exception to the preservation requirement:

The statements made by defendant at sentencing, which raised the possibility of an intoxication defense and called into question the intent element of assault in the first degree (see Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), were sufficient to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation requirement, thereby imposing a duty of further inquiry upon County Court “to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary” … . … [D]efendant did not say anything during the course of the plea colloquy that suggested a possible intoxication defense  … , and defendant’s statements at sentencing contradicted his sworn admissions during the plea colloquy … . However, “statements made by a defendant that negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered, raise the possibility of a [particular] defense or otherwise suggest an involuntary plea require[] the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . County Court did not pursue either of those avenues here. People v Skyers, 2019 NY Slip Op 05233, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

/ , ,

PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE REPRESENTED DEFENDANT AND THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the public defender’s office represented both the defendant and the confidential informant (CI) creating a conflict of interest. Although the issue was apparently not preserved, the appellate court considered the issue in the interest of justice:

“A defendant is denied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment when, absent inquiry by the court and the informed consent of [the] defendant, defense counsel represents interests which are actually in conflict with those of [the] defendant” … . “Discussions of the effect of a lawyer’s conflict of interest on a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel distinguish between a potential conflict and an actual conflict” … . “An actual conflict exists if an attorney simultaneously represents clients whose interests are opposed and, in such situations, reversal is required if the defendant does not waive the actual conflict. In contrast, a potential conflict that is not waived by the accused requires reversal only if it operates on or affects the defense” … .

Here, the People concede that the Public Defender’s office was simultaneously representing both defendant and the CI during the pendency of this criminal action, and defendant and the CI had opposing interests. Inasmuch as defendant never waived the conflict, reversal of the judgment is warranted … . People v Palmer, 2019 NY Slip Op 05228, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

/ , ,

THE CITY’S STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTION WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WERE DONE IN THE SUMMER WHEN NO SCHOOL CHILDREN USED THE INTERSECTION, THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THE STUDIES HAD CONCLUDED NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WAS NECESSARY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the city’s motion for summary judgment in this intersection pedestrian traffic accident case should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff, the eight years old, attempted to cross the street, Avenue J, to get on his school bus when he was struck by a vehicle. The city submitted evidence that a studies of the intersection had been done which found that no traffic control device was required. Therefore, the city argued, and Supreme Court agreed, it was entitled to qualified immunity precluding suit:

… [I]n the field of traffic design engineering, the [governmental body] is accorded a qualified immunity from liability arising out of a highway planning decision” … . Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a governmental body may not be held liable for a highway safety planning decision unless its study of the traffic condition is plainly inadequate or there is no reasonable basis for its traffic plan . Immunity will apply only “where a duly authorized public planning body has entertained and passed on the very same question of risk as would ordinarily go to the jury” … .

Here, the City failed to sustain its prima facie burden on the issue of qualified immunity. The City established that, in response to citizen complaints, it had conducted studies of the subject intersection in 2005 and 2007 and concluded that no traffic control device on Avenue J was warranted. However, the City did not establish that those studies, which took place in the summertime, were conducted at times when the subject schools were in session. The City also failed to establish that the studies addressed the specific concern of schoolchildren crossing Avenue J to reach awaiting buses and, thus, did not establish that it had entertained and passed on the very same question of risk that is at issue in this case … . Tyberg v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 05177, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF HOMEOWNER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS MADE TO AN UNLICENSED HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR FOR WORK PERFORMED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS UNLICENSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to the return of payments made to defendant unlicensed contractor for work performed. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on that cause of action should not have been granted:

Although an unlicensed contractor may not enforce a home improvement contract against a homeowner or seek recovery in quantum meruit for work performed … , here, the defendant is not seeking to enforce the parties’ contract or to recover in quantum meruit. Rather, the plaintiff homeowner is seeking to recover money already paid to the defendant pursuant to the contract. Where a homeowner receives the benefit of the services of an unlicensed contractor, he or she is not entitled to recoup payments made for such services solely on the basis that the defendant was unlicensed … . “The parties, in these circumstances, should be left as they are” … . Rusin v Design-Apart USA, Ltd., 2019 NY Slip Op 05172, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, INSTEAD THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED AS ‘PREMATURE,’ MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department Supreme Court should have considered defendant’a application for a downward departure and remitted the matter:

The Supreme Court is required to make a determination with respect to a defendant’s risk level 30 calendar days prior to discharge, parole, or release (see Correction Law § 168-n). As part of its determination with respect to a defendant’s risk level, the court may depart downwardly from the presumptive risk level. A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of “(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence” … . If the defendant makes that twofold showing, the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the mitigating factor to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an overassessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism … .

As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court should not have denied the defendant’s application for a downward departure as premature, but instead, should have addressed the merits of the application … . People v Powell, 2019 NY Slip Op 05170, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

/ , ,

COUNTY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT A LATE NOTICE OF HIS INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined County Court abused its discretion by not allowing defendant to serve a late notice of his intent to offer psychiatric evidence:

“Psychiatric evidence is not admissible upon a trial unless the defendant serves upon the people and files with the court a written notice of his intention to present psychiatric evidence. Such notice must be served and filed before trial and not more than thirty days after entry of the plea of not guilty to the indictment. In the interest of justice and for good cause shown, however, the court may permit such service and filing to be made at any later time prior to the close of the evidence” (CPL 250.10[2]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence he proffered, in opposition to the People’s motion, for the purpose of negating intent, constituted “psychiatric evidence” under the statute (CPL 250.10[1] … ). The defendant failed to provide the People with timely notice of his intent to offer this evidence. However, the determination as to whether late notice should be permitted is a discretionary one, which requires the court to weigh the defendant’s constitutional right to present witnesses in his own defense against the prejudice to the People arising from late notice … .

Here, the record indicates that the trial court failed to exercise any discretion over whether to permit the defendant to serve late notice of his intent to offer psychiatric evidence … . Exercising our own discretion, we conclude that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the defendant should have been granted permission to serve late notice, and the People’s preclusion motion therefore should have been denied. The evidence that the defendant previously had suffered auditory hallucinations had high probative value to corroborate the defendant’s testimony that he entered the home with the intent to aid a woman who was yelling, rather than to damage the house … . Further, the preclusion of testimony regarding those portions of the defendant’s conversation with the responding officer which involved his past auditory hallucinations, and his resultant hospitalization, deprived the jury of the full context of the interaction. Any prejudice to the People was substantially outweighed by the defendant’s extremely strong interest in presenting the evidence … . People v Morris, 2019 NY Slip Op 05160, Second Dept 6-26-19

 

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