You are here: / PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER A TAX FORECLOSURE...

Search Results

/ , ,

PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner was not entitled to the surplus proceeds after a tax foreclosure sale:

We reject petitioners’ contention that they have a right to the surplus proceeds of the foreclosure sale. As respondent correctly contends, petitioners’ application for surplus proceeds was improperly predicated upon provisions of RPAPL article 13 that apply to surplus monies arising from the sale of property in mortgage foreclosure proceedings (see e.g.RPAPL 1361 [1]). RPAPL article 13, entitled “Action to Foreclose a Mortgage,” does not apply to properties acquired by a tax district pursuant to an in rem foreclosure proceeding under RPTL article 11. Thus, petitioners’ reliance on RPAPL article 13 and cases involving mortgage foreclosures is misplaced … . …

Moreover, petitioners are not entitled to surplus proceeds under RPTL article 11. Contrary to petitioners’ assertion that RPTL article 11 is “silent” regarding any remaining interest that former property owners may have, such as entitlement to surplus proceeds upon the sale of the property following a default judgment of foreclosure, the statute provides that, when property owners neither redeem the property nor interpose an answer, the tax district is entitled to a deed conveying an estate in fee simple absolute and the property owners are “barred and forever foreclosed of all . . . right, title, interest, claim, lien or equity of redemption” that they may have had in the property (RPTL 1136 [3] …). Where the tax district obtains a valid default judgment of foreclosure, which is presumed here given that the default judgment is not subject to challenge on this appeal, the formr property owners are not “entitled to any compensation upon the resale of the property” … , and the tax district may “retain . . . the entire proceeds from [the re]sale” … . Matter of Hoge v Chautauqua County, 2019 NY Slip Op 04821, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

/

THE STATUTE WHICH CRIMINALIZES AN ASSAULT ON A PERSON 65 OR OLDER BY A PERSON MORE THAN TEN YEARS YOUNGER DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF THE ASSAILANT KNEW THE AGE OF THE VICTIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that the statute which criminalizes a younger person’s causing injury to a person 65 or older does not require proof that attacker know the victim is 65 or older:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [12]). The conviction arises out of a physical altercation that occurred when defendant and his friend encountered the victim in the parking lot of a tavern shortly after the victim interacted with the friend’s girlfriend at the bar. At the time of the altercation, defendant was 31 years old and the victim was 69 years old. Defendant contends that County Court erred in determining that Penal Law § 120.05 (12) did not require the People to prove that he knew that the victim was 65 years of age or older. We reject that contention. * * *

Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, nothing in the statutory text requires that the actor know the age of the injured person; rather, by providing that the defendant must act “[w]ith intent to cause physical injury to a person who is [65] years of age or older” and must cause “such injury to such person,” the statute simply requires that the person whom the actor intentionally injures be, as a matter of fact, 65 years of age or older (§ 120.05 [12] [emphasis added]). That reading is consistent with the pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, which provide that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, with respect to the age element, the injured person was 65 years of age or older at the time of the crime (see CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 120.05 [12]) . People v Burman, 2019 NY Slip Op 04820, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR DISCUSSION WITH A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; UPON RETRIAL AN ADULT WITNESS SHOULD NOT TESTIFY WHILE ACCOMPANIED BY A THERAPY DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not waive his right to be present when a prospective juror told the judge and attorneys that she was not sure she had completely answered a voir dire question. Defendant was not in the courtroom when the judge asked defense counsel if he wanted his client present and defense counsel said he was “okay with it.” The juror then said that her son was a convicted felon. The Fourth Department also held that upon retrial an adult witness should not be allowed to testify accompanied by a therapy dog:

Initially, we conclude that the situation at issue here constituted a material stage of trial inasmuch as the prospective juror volunteered information about her son’s status as a convicted felon. This information was relevant to a question asked earlier during voir dire: “Have any of you or anyone close to you been a victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, been accused of a crime, or participated in any way in a criminal proceeding?” That question was intended to be relevant to, inter alia, potential bias … . …

We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, defendant did not waive his right to be present. It is well established that a defendant has the right to be present at every material stage of a trial, including matters such as questioning prospective jurors regarding bias … . “It is equally clear, however, that such right may be voluntarily waived by a defendant or the defendant’s attorney’ ” and that “a defendant’s waiver in this regard may be either express or implied” … . Here, without defendant being physically present in the courtroom, and with counsel simply stating to the court, “I’m okay with [his absence],” we perceive no basis to conclude that there was either an implicit or explicit waiver. Defendant’s absence from the courtroom when the prospective juror raised the issue of potential bias made it impossible for him to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to be present … . People v Geddis, 2019 NY Slip Op 04819, Fourth Dept 6-14-19

 

/ , ,

THE RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, A POST-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDING MIGHT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LEFT OPEN BY THE TRIAL RECORD; ANY ERROR IN ADMITTING DNA EVIDENCE WHERE CONSENT, NOT IDENTITY, IS THE ISSUE IS HARMLESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a dissent, determined (1) the record was insufficient to demonstrate defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel and (2) because the DNA evidence was not offered to identify the defendant any error in introducing it was harmless. The defendant argued that defense counsel did not review the surveillance video the People provided and pursued a theory at trial that was at odds with the video evidence. In addition, defense counsel told the jury in his opening statement that defendant would testify (he did not testify), The defendant, who worked at a hotel, unlocked a hotel-room door for a couple who were drunk. At some point defendant had sexual contact with the woman while the man slept. Defendant said the sexual contact was consensual. The video evidence contradicted the time-line the defendant had described. The majority concluded the record evidence was not sufficient to conclude that defense counsel did not review or did not understand the significance of the video evidence, and the failure to call the defendant as a witness did not prove ineffective assistance as a matter of law. To make a sufficient record, a 440 motion would be necessary:

Mr. Lopez-Mendoza argues that his attorney’s opening statement undermined his case by promising the defendant would take the stand and making arguments contradicted by video evidence, then failing to call defendant to the stand and closing with a new version of events. The ineffective assistance, he argues, was caused by either his attorney’s failure to review the video evidence or his failure to understand its importance. Either way, Mr. Lopez-Mendoza contends, that failure proved disastrous.

The defendant “bears the ultimate burden of showing . . . the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s challenged actions” … . The record here is insufficient to make that showing. Although “[i]t simply cannot be said that a total failure to investigate the facts of a case, or review pertinent records, constitutes a trial strategy resulting in meaningful representation”… , the limited record in this case does not conclusively establish that counsel was ineffective. On its own, the decision not to call a witness after promising to do so does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law … . * * *

“[T]he lack of an adequate record bars review on direct appeal . . . wherever the record falls short of establishing conclusively the merit of the defendant’s claim” … . Here, it is “essential[] that an appellate attack on the effectiveness of counsel be bottomed on an evidentiary exploration by collateral or post-conviction proceeding brought under CPL 440.10” … . Such a proceeding could answer the questions left open on this record, including whether counsel reviewed the video evidence at all, or whether he may have misunderstood that the evidence was flatly inconsistent with his opening argument. People v Lopez-Mendoza, 2019 NY Slip Op 04759, CtApp 6-13-19

 

/ ,

IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY CONCEDED GUILT AND URGED JURY NULLIFICATION ON THE BURGLARY CHARGE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BREAK-IN AND THE STOLEN ITEMS WERE NOT WORTH MUCH, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT DEFENDANT RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel because counsel effectively conceded defendant stole items from the lobby of an apartment building. Defense counsel argued defendant was overcharged (burglary) because, although defendant had no right to be in the lobby, there was no break-in and the stolen items were of minimal value. The Court of Appeals noted that it has held that a defendant cannot argue jury nullification to the jury:

… [I]n People v Weinberg, we concluded that defendant’s argument that “he should have been permitted by the trial court to present the concept of jury nullification during summation is foreclosed by our holding in People v Goetz” (83 NY2d 262, 268 [1994]). Relying on Goetz, we explained that “[p]ermitting defense counsel instead [to en]courage the jury to abdicate its primary function would directly contravene the trial court’s authority, recognized [in] Goetz, to instruct the jury that they must follow and properly apply the law” (id.).

We cannot say that, on this record when viewed in totality, defendant was provided with less than meaningful representation. Here, defense counsel was eminently familiar with the facts of the case and the evidence elicited, including the details of the surveillance video and the photographic exhibits. Given the truly overwhelming evidence against his client on all the charges, and constrained by the limited legitimate defense strategies available, counsel raised what he reasonably perceived could be factual issues in the case, such as the method of defendant’s entry into the building. Counsel’s performance included cogent opening and closing arguments, a motion to dismiss after the People’s case-in-chief, and thorough cross-examinations of the People’s witnesses. Moreover, the trial court did not curb counsel’s jury nullification summation arguments. As a result, the whole record of counsel’s performance demonstrates that defendant has failed to sustain his burden that he was deprived of meaningful representation … . People v Mendoza, 2019 NY Slip Op 04758. CtApp 6-13-19

 

/ ,

ELECTION LAW 3-222 WHICH PROHIBITS DISCLOSURE OF VOTED BALLOTS FOR TWO YEARS AFTER AN ELECTION APPLIES BOTH TO PAPER BALLOTS AND ELECTRONIC BALLOTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeal, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over two dissenting opinions (three dissenting judges), reversing the Appellate Division, determined that Election Law 3-222 (2), which prohibits, for two years, the disclosure of “voted ballots” absent a court order of legislative committee direction, prohibits the disclosure of the electronic form of the ballots:

Public Officers Law § 87(2)(a), the FOIL exemption at issue, provides that an agency may deny access to records that are “specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute.” While an applicable “state or federal statute” need not “expressly state it is intended to establish a FOIL exemption, we have required a showing of clear legislative intent to establish and preserve that confidentiality which one resisting a FOIL disclosure claims as protection” … . Respondents assert that Election Law § 3-222 creates such an exemption. To determine whether Election Law § 3-222 reflects the requisite legislative interest in confidentiality, we must interpret the statute. * * *

… . [T]he rule in Election Law § 3-222(2) that “voted ballots” are protected from examination during the first two years after an election absent court order or direction from a relevant legislative committee extends to electronic copies of those ballots. The same is true of absentee and military ballots, which are “voted ballots” under subsection (2) and, along with their envelopes, are also specifically protected in subsection (3). Matter of Kosmider v Whitney, 2019 NY Slip Op 04757, CtApp 6-13-19

 

/ ,

‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AFTER A YEAR’S ABSENCE DUE TO ON THE JOB INJURY, CIVIL SERVICE LAW 71 DOES NOT APPLY TO ‘LABOR CLASS’ EMPLOYEES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined section 71 of the Civil Service Law, which provides for the reinstatement of an employee after a one-year absence from work due to an injury, did not apply to petitioner (Jordan), a so-called “labor class” employee of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA):

Petitioners argue, as they did below, that “employee” is unqualified in the statute and so we should apply that term broadly, consistent with its plain meaning. NYCHA counters that, although “employee” is undefined in the Civil Service Law, section 71 uses terms of art normally not associated with the labor class, including “preferred eligible list” and “grade.” Both are fair points, and therefore to resolve any ambiguity, we turn to the history and the purpose of the statute in resolving this issue.

Our task here is made easier by the fact that we have already articulated section 71’s purpose. Twenty-five years ago, in Allen v Howe, we said that section 71 “w[as] adopted to address the difficult situation created by the prolonged absence of a civil service employee” due to injury (84 NY2d 665, 671 [1994]). Under Civil Service Law § 75, delineated groups of employees “shall not be removed . . . except for incompetency or misconduct after a hearing.” This section left a governmental employer unable to fill a vacancy created by an extended absence due to injury without a “resignation” or the “institut[ion] of disciplinary hearings” (id.). Section 71 was designed to remove the procedural hurdle imposed by section 75 by allowing a “State governmental employer” to terminate an employee without “resort to a disciplinary proceeding” and providing the injured employee a mechanism for later reinstatement (id.).

Including Jordan within the coverage of section 71 would not serve that legislative purpose. As a labor class employee, Jordan was not entitled to a disciplinary hearing before she was terminated and NYCHA did not face the dilemma that led to passage of section 71. Moreover, even if NYCHA was forced to rehire Jordan, she could have been lawfully terminated the next day—”an absurd result that would frustrate the statutory purpose” … . Therefore, we hold that NYCHA did not violate Section 71 when it refused to reinstate Jordan. Matter of Jordan v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 04756, CtApp 5-13-19

 

/ ,

LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE SUBSTANCE REFERENCED IN THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS COCAINE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in an appeal by the People, affirmed County Court’s dismissal of the indictment because there was legally insufficient evidence that the substance involved was cocaine:

“‘Legally sufficient evidence’ means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof” (CPL 70.10 [1] …). “The reviewing court must consider whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted — and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence — would warrant conviction” … . “[I]n a drug-related prosecution[, as we have here,] the People’s case is legally sufficient if the evidence provides a ‘reliable basis’ for inferring the presence of a controlled substance” … . “More than conclusory assertions that the defendant possessed a drug are required at the [g]rand [j]ury stage” … . …

The evidence presented to the grand jury consisted of sparse testimony from the CI and an investigator involved in the controlled transactions, with most of the substance of that testimony having been supplied through leading questions. As to the first transaction, the CI testified, in a conclusory manner, that he believed the substance to be crack cocaine, without providing any description of the substance or explanation for his belief … , and, with respect to the second transaction, the CI did not express any belief as to the nature of the substance he received from defendant … . Additionally, although the investigator testified that he received white chunky substances from the CI, his testimony surrounding the testing of those substances was sorely lacking. He did not provide any detail as to his training and experience in field testing, explain how field testing occurs or specifically identify what he did in this case to determine that both substances were cocaine. People v Carlin, 2019 NY Slip Op 04788, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

/

ATV’S ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (1) (FIRST DEGREE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER); CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (3) DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department dismissed certain counts of the indictment which stemmed from an accident involving an ATV (all-terrain vehicle). A passenger in the ATV, driven by defendant, was thrown from the ATV and killed. Defendant was alleged to have been driving while intoxicated and was convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, aggravated driving while intoxicated and driving while intoxicated. The Third Department determined that one of the first degree vehicular manslaughter counts must be dismissed because ATV’s are not motor vehicles within the meaning of that statute (Penal Law 125.13 (1)).  The court also found that three concurrent inclusory counts must be dismissed:

ATVs are specifically excluded by the plain language of the relevant definition of motor vehicle. As relevant herein, the Penal Law defines “vehicle” to include a “motor vehicle,” which is further defined in the Vehicle and Traffic Law as “[e]very vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power, except. . . [ATVs] as defined in [Vehicle and Traffic Law] article [48-B]” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 …; see Penal Law § 10.00 [14]). This specific exclusion of ATVs from the definition of motor vehicle is further evident from two statutes that contain provisions that would be unnecessary if ATVs were included in the definition of motor vehicle. First, the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree contains separate provisions for incidents that arise from the operation of motor vehicles (see Penal Law § 125.12 [1]) and ATVs (see Penal Law § 125.12 [3]) and, second, the Vehicle and Traffic Law contains a provision specifically providing that ATVs are motor vehicles for the purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law article 31, which prohibits the intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2404 [5]). Thus, we are constrained to conclude that ATVs are not motor vehicles for purposes of the Penal Law. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence does not support defendant’s conviction for vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.13 (1) (count 1). * * *

Defendant contends that his convictions under counts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under count 2 (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). “Concurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” (CPL 300.30 [4]). The People concede that defendant’s conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under count 2 requires that counts 3, 4, 6 and 7 be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts. However, they accurately note that count 5 — charging aggravated driving while intoxicated — is not an inclusory concurrent count of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree as charged pursuant to Penal Law § 125.13 (3) in count 2 because it is possible to commit the latter without also committing the former … . People v Wager, 2019 NY Slip Op 04786, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff, who is five feet seven inches tall, was injured when a six-foot high stack of scaffold partially fell over. The difference between the plaintiff’s height and the height of the stacked scaffolds was deemed de minimus:

In a previous appeal from an order deciding the parties’ motions for summary judgment, we determined that the scaffolding frames, estimated to be about six feet tall, established an elevation differential, but that questions of fact remained as to plaintiff’s actual height, “the number of scaffolds stacked in the pile that collapsed, the weight of each scaffold and the manner in which the scaffold(s) struck plaintiff” … . These details are significant because “[i]n determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimus, we must consider not only the height differential itself, but also ‘the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent'” … . …

To support their motion, defendants submitted the affidavit of Ernest Gailor, an engineer. Gailor opined that “the [five]-inch differential between the top of . . . plaintiff’s head and the maximum height of [the] frames . . . did not significantly contribute to the ‘total’ force at impact of the offending frame as it struck plaintiff.” * * *

In our view, defendants’ submissions established a prima facie basis to conclude that the elevation differential here was de minimus and that plaintiff’s claim falls outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Wright v Ellsworth Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04803, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

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