You are here: / DEFENSE COUNSEL SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED A MISIDENTIFICATION DEFENSE THROUGHOUT...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED A MISIDENTIFICATION DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL BUT CONCEDED THE ISSUE IN SUMMATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; A WITNESS MAY IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL DESPITE A PROCEDURALLY-DEFECTIVE PRE-TRIAL IDENTIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. During the trial the victim of the robbery twice misidentified the defendant before identifying the defendant, first indicating he did not see the defendant in the courtroom and then indicating a spectator was the assailant. Defense counsel pursued the misidentification defense throughout the trial, successfully challenging the admission of a surveillance video. But in summation defense counsel essentially conceded that defendant was one of the assailants. The Second Department noted that a witness who participated in a procedurally-defective pretrial identification procedure may still identify the defendant at trial if the People demonstrate the in-court identification is based upon the witness’s independent observation of the defendant, here the observations made during the robbery itself:

“A witness may identify the perpetrator of a crime as part of his or her in-court testimony, notwithstanding the existence of a procedurally-defective pretrial identification procedure, provided that the People establish by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification is based upon the witness’s independent observation of the defendant” … . Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, at an independent source hearing, the prosecution proved by clear and convincing evidence that the complainant’s in-court identification of the defendant would be based on his independent observations during the robbery … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel’s confused and contradictory actions, effectively conceding the dispositive issue, deprived the defendant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel … . Given defense counsel’s opening statement and his conduct throughout the course of the trial in advancing his misidentification defense, his decision to abandon his chosen defense midstream in favor of a nebulous and contradictory argument that no forcible taking of property had occurred, “was so unreasonable, inconsistent, and devoid of any possibility of success that it does not even rise to the level of trial strategy” … . Under the circumstances, the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel and is entitled to a new trial. People v Goondall, 2019 NY Slip Op 04721, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE PROPERLY HANDLED A JUROR’S HESITATION WHEN THE JURY WAS POLLED, THE JUROR WAS QUESTIONED BY THE JUDGE OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THE JUROR WAS NOT UNDER IMPROPER PRESSURE AND SENT THE JURY BACK FOR FURTHER DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the trial judge properly handled a juror’s (juror number two’s) hesitation when the jury was polled. Outside the presence of the jury, the judge asked the juror about his reasons for hesitation, determined it was not caused by improper pressure, and sent the jury back for more deliberations:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon juror number two’s hesitation in affirming the verdict. “[T]he jury must, if either party makes such an application, be polled and each juror separately asked whether the verdict announced by the foreman is in all respects his verdict. If . . . any juror answers in the negative, the court must refuse to accept the verdict and must direct the jury to resume its deliberation” (CPL 310.80). Here, the court appropriately conducted an inquiry, outside the other jurors’ presence, into why juror number two hesitated in affirming the verdict, and further obtained clarification as to the reasons he gave … . Juror number two’s responses clarified that the pressure he perceived did not “[arise] out of matters extraneous to the jury’s deliberations or not properly within their scope” … . Further, his responses established that the “verdict [was] not the product of actual or threatened physical harm” … . Accordingly, we agree with the court’s determination to instruct the jury to continue deliberating … . People v Folkes, 2019 NY Slip Op 04719, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ ,

THE NEGATIVE CHARACTER TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY STRUCK, NOT BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE IS GENERALLY INADMISSIBLE, BUT BECAUSE THE WITNESS WAS ONLY FAMILIAR WITH THE DEFENDANT’S CHARACTER IN THE WORKPLACE, WHICH WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the negative character evidence was properly stricken. Negative character evidence (i.e., that the witness never heard that defendant acted in a sexually inappropriate or sexually abusive manner in the workplace) is admissible if it relates to the appropriate community. Here the community the witness testified about was the workplace, which was not the relevant community because the alleged sexual misconduct with a child occurred in secret and outside the workplace:

Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, negative evidence of reputation—i.e., that the witness never heard anyone say anything negative about the defendant—can constitute relevant character evidence … . However, relevant character evidence must be of reputation generally in the community where the crime occurred … . Although that community is more broadly defined in modern times … , the defendant’s reputation in the workplace for lack of sexual impropriety was in no way relevant to whether he sexually abused a child in secret and outside of the workplace. Accordingly, the character evidence was properly stricken, since that evidence was irrelevant. People v Durrant, 2019 NY Slip Op 04716, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/

NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS “FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER” CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined both plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied. The plaintiff was cutting brackets which held up an air duct with an electric saw when the duct came down and plaintiff fell off an A-frame ladder. The fact that plaintiff fell from a ladder did not, standing alone, warrant summary judgment on plaintiff;s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. The defendants did not demonstrate that the ladder provided proper protection or that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the subject ladder was an inadequate safety device for the work in which he was engaged at the time of his alleged accident … . The mere fact that the plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that proper protection was not provided … . The opinion of the plaintiff’s expert failed to establish that the ladder that was provided was an inadequate safety device … .

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The defendants’ expert’s affidavit, in which the expert opined that the subject ladder “was so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection,” is conclusory and unsupported by evidence in the record. The defendants also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his fall because he allegedly failed to use scaffolding that was readily available at the job site  … . In addition, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his fall because he allegedly improperly positioned the ladder … , did not ask his coworker to cut the bracket for him … , and did not demand that his foreman provide scaffolding … . Orellana v 7 W. 34th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04711, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ ,

THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fact that the notice of claim was not verified was properly overlooked:

By notice of motion dated January 6, 2016, the claimants sought leave to amend their notice of intention to file a claim, nunc pro tunc, or, alternatively, for leave to file a late notice of claim. A proposed amended notice of intention to file a claim was included with the motion, and it included the verification which was missing from the original. In the order appealed from, the Court of Claims granted the claimants’ motion for leave to amend their notice of intention to file a claim, nunc pro tunc.

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11(b), a “notice of intention to file a claim shall be verified in the same manner as a complaint in an action in the supreme court.” The Court of Appeals has held that “there is no basis for treating an unverified or defectively verified claim or notice of intention any differently than an unverified or defectively verified complaint is treated under the CPLR in Supreme Court” … . Here, as the Court of Claims found, the defendant was not prejudiced by the omission of a verification. Moreover, the court noted that CPLR 2001 permits an omission or defect to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just … . Ordentlich v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04710, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ ,

UNLESS THE PARTIES OPT OUT BY STIPULATION, A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER MAY BE MODIFIED WITHOUT A DEMONSTRATION OF A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IF A PARTY’S INCOME INCREASES BY 15 % OR MORE AND THREE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE LAST ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that a court can modify child support without a substantial change of circumstances where a party’s income has increased by 15% or more and three years have passed since the last support order:

Section 451 of the Family Court Act allows a court to modify an order of child support, without requiring a party to allege or demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances, where (1) either party’s gross income has changed by 15% or more since the order was entered or modified, or (2) three years or more have passed since the order was entered, last modified, or adjusted (see Family Ct Act § 451[3][b][i]; Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][9][b][2][ii] …). The statutory grounds are not available in the event that the parties specifically opt out of that statutory provision in a validly executed stipulation (see Family Ct Act § 451[3][b]). In this case, the parties, in their stipulation, did not opt out of that statutory provision. Thus, the increase in the father’s gross income of more than 15% was sufficient, by itself, to permit the Family Court to modify his child support obligation … . .Matter of Regan v Regan, 2019 NY Slip Op 04702, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ ,

THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ASSERTING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT MENTION AN ALLEGEDLY MISSING STOP SIGN AS A BASIS FOR LIABILITY, THE MISSING STOP SIGN WAS MENTIONED IN THE POLICE REPORT WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff student was properly allowed file a late notice of claim, which added a cause of action. The infant plaintiff was injured when his school bus was involved in a traffic accident. The initial notice of claim alleged negligence on the of the city and the Department of Education (DOE) in connection with the ownership of the school bus. The late notice of claim alleged a cause of action against the city and the NYC Department of Transportation based upon an alleged missing stop sign. A police report was attached to the original notice of claim and the missing stop sign was mentioned in the report:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]). Although the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim containing the allegation regarding the missing stop sign, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not determinative, as the City defendants acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose and were not substantially prejudiced by the late notice … . M.L. v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04686, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT WHICH COVERED PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD NOT BE SUED BY THE EMPLOYEE AFTER THE INSURER CUT OFF BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff, a security guard for the School District who was injured on the job, did not have a cause of action against District based upon the long-term disability insurer’s (Sun Life’s) decision to terminate her disability benefits. The District was not a party to the contract between Sun Life and the policyholder. Although the Summary Plan Description issued by Sun Life’s predecessor mentioned the insured rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the District was not obligated by the Summary-Plan language:

… [T]he plaintiff contends that, based on the language of portions of the Summary Plan Description, the District subjected itself to ERISA’s statutory scheme governing appeals from denials of claims. …

An insurance policy is a contract to which standard provisions of contract interpretation apply … . “Liability for breach of contract does not lie absent proof of a contractual relationship or privity between the parties”… . “One cannot be held liable under a contract to which he or she is not a party” … .

Here, the District was not a party to the long-term disability policy issued by Sun Life to a different named policyholder. Even assuming the authenticity of the Summary Plan Description excerpts relied upon by the plaintiff, nothing in the record reflects that the District authored, published, or agreed to be bound by the Summary Plan Description, which, by its terms, did not form part of the insurance policy. Nor do the terms of the insurance policy incorporate the provisions of ERISA … . Arroyo v Central Islip UFSD, 2019 NY Slip Op 04669, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ , , , , ,

SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an employee’s personal injury complaint against the NYC Department of Education (DOE), stemming from an elevator accident, should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff-employee first applied to the DOE for line of duty injury paid medical leave pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and was denied. Plaintiff then commenced the personal injury action. The DOE argued that plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by the CBA and, in the alternative, the denial of the line of duty pay should be given res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Supreme Court decided plaintiff had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies. The Second Department held that her injury and the resulting negligence action were not covered by the CBA:

An employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement which provides for a grievance procedure must exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial remedies … or face dismissal of the action …. Here, however, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendants for pain and suffering based upon a negligence theory of liability which is outside the scope of, and is not governed by, the CBA’s “line of duty injury” paid leave grievance provisions… . There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies when the cause of action by the plaintiff is not governed by the CBA … .

The defendants’ contention that dismissal is also warranted on the basis of collateral estoppel and res judicata is without merit … . Collateral estoppel is inapplicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue that the plaintiff seeks to pursue here was necessarily decided by the DOE when it denied the plaintiff’s “line of duty injury” paid leave application … . Likewise, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, also is inapplicable to the plaintiff’s complaint because the relief she seeks could not have been awarded within the context of the prior administrative proceeding … . Shortt v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 04745, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

/ ,

THE NEW JERSEY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVOLVED NEW YORK RESIDENTS (PLAINTIFFS), A TRUCK LEASED BY DEFENDANT NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCK DRIVER FROM PENNSYLVANIA; NO GENERAL PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION OR THE DRIVER; POSSIBLE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION, BUT NOT THE DRIVER, BASED UPON BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied all but one of the defendants’ motions to dismiss premised on lack of personal jurisdiction, pending further discovery. The traffic accident happened in New Jersey. The plaintiffs’ van was struck from behind by a freight truck leased by Finkle (a New Jersey corporation) from Ryder Truck Rental and driven by defendant Larios, a resident of Pennsylvania. All the plaintiffs were residents of New York. The Second Department found that there was no general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, and no long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a])(3) (tortious act outside the state causing injury within the state). However there may jurisdiction against Finkle pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (conducting business within the state):

… [Plaintiffs] have not alleged facts in opposition which would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under New York’s general jurisdiction statute, CPLR 301, over Larios, who was not domiciled in New York, or over Finkle, which was not incorporated in New York and did not have its principal place of business in New York … . …

Under CPLR 302(a)(3), “[t]he situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff” … . Here, since the accident which caused the injuries occurred in New Jersey, CPLR 302(a)(3) does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over these defendants in New York … .

… .Finkle asserted that it is a New Jersey corporation with its business address in New Jersey, and Larios stated that, at the time of the accident, he was transporting a load for the United States Postal Service within the State of New Jersey. However, Finkle admitted that it had terminals at four New York locations at which it parked its vehicles. Based upon these facts, and given Finkle’s failure to submit trip logs, manifests, or other documentary evidence to support its assertion that the load Larios was transporting was being shipped within the State of New Jersey and had no relationship to Finkle’s New York business, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny as premature that branch of the appellants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Finkle, with leave to renew upon completion of discovery. Qudsi v Larios, 2019 NY Slip Op 04742, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

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