You are here: / EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S...

Search Results

/ , ,

EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) HAD BEEN IMPOSED ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BECAUSE THE LAW CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF PRS IS NOW CLEAR, SUPPRESSING THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE NO DETERRENT EFFECT AND IS NOT THEREFORE NECESSARY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the ammunition seized during a warrantless parole search of defendant’s residence, and which was connected to a shooting, was not subject to suppression. At the time of the search, defendant’s post release supervision (PRS) had been imposed administratively and not by a judge–a procedure which has since been rendered invalid by statute. The Fourth Department held that, under these facts, the exclusionary rule, which usually requires suppression of the fruits of a warrantless search, would have no deterrent effect and need not be applied:

… [T]he improper conduct sought to be deterred by application of the exclusionary rule in this case is the unauthorized administrative imposition of PRS by a state entity rather than a sentencing judge. In that regard, defendant contends that the state criminal justice system disregarded the Second Circuit’s decision in Earley v Murray (451 F3d 71 [2d Cir 2006]), which held that the administrative imposition of PRS is unconstitutional … , and he contends that application of the exclusionary rule here is necessary to deter similar “misconduct” in the future. We reject that contention.

First, when the parole search took place, in 2007, the issue whether it is proper for the state to administratively impose PRS had not yet been settled … . Second, and more importantly, it is now settled as a matter of state statutory law that only a court may lawfully pronounce a term of PRS as a component of a sentence … and, consequently, all the relevant government actors are now well aware of the law. Under the circumstances, the deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule is marginal or nonexistent … . People v Lloyd, 2019 NY Slip Op 05855, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CONCERNING THE HEIGHT OF HOUSES BECAUSE THE TERM ‘ONE AND A HALF STORIES’ WAS AMBIGUOUS AS TO HEIGHT; HOWEVER THE CLAIMS ALLEGING VIOLATION OF SETBACK RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing claims that defendant had violated certain restrictive covenants when defendant’s house was constructed should not have been granted. The court noted that plaintiff did not prove defendant violated the covenant restricting the height of a house to one and a half stories. The use of the term “stories” was deemed ambiguous as a measure of height. However the proof demonstrated violations of the required setbacks and Supreme Court should not have dismissed those claims because other properties in the subdivision were in violation or because the house was already built:

… “[T]he words not more than one and one-half stories in height’ are ambiguous in scope,” and because the defendants, who were seeking to enforce the covenant, “failed to present . . . clear and convincing proof with respect to what number of feet constitutes a story in height,’ the scope of the covenant is uncertain, doubtful, or debatable,’ thus rendering it unenforceable as applied to plaintiff’s residence” … . …

Although the court determined that there was a violation of at least one of the covenants and restrictions here, it granted the motion on the ground that plaintiff could not seek equitable relief because she did not seek such relief against other property owners within the subdivision regarding their alleged violations of the same covenants and restrictions. That was error. Plaintiff is “entitled to ignore inoffensive violations of the restriction[s] without forfeiting [her] right to restrain others which [she] find[s] offensive” … . Moreover, the court’s reluctance to grant equitable relief where, as here, the house has already been built was not a valid basis for granting defendant’s motion. Defendant “proceeded with construction of the [house] with knowledge of the restrictive covenants and of plaintiff[‘s] intention to enforce them” … . Kleist v Stern, 2019 NY Slip Op 05888, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , , , ,

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COUNTY CLERK TO RECORD A MORTGAGE, THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH HAD ALLEGEDLY BEEN LOST; AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT IS AN APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR THE SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADMISSIBLE FORM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank was entitled to an order requiring the county clerk to accept a copy of a mortgage for recording (the original allegedly had been lost and was never recorded). The Second Department further determined that an attorney affidavit was an appropriate vehicle for the submission of the documents to be recorded, which were in admissible form:

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the first cause of action, which sought an order directing the Suffolk County Clerk to accept a copy of the mortgage for recording. The County Clerk has a statutory duty that is ministerial in nature to record a written conveyance if it is duly acknowledged and accompanied by the proper fee (see Real Property Law §§ 290[3]; 291; County Law § 525[1]). “Accordingly, the Clerk does not have the authority to refuse to record a conveyance which satisfies the narrowly-drawn prerequisites set forth in the recording statute” … . Here, the copy of the mortgage submitted on the motion, which is notarized, was subject to recording … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the complaint adequately stated a cause of action for this relief … , and the plaintiff’s failure to submit an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the facts was not fatal to the motion. The affidavit or affirmation of an attorney, even if he or she has no personal knowledge of the facts, may serve as the vehicle for the submission of acceptable attachments which provide evidentiary proof in admissible form, e.g., documents and transcripts … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Wright, 2019 NY Slip Op 05966, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED FROM 12 TO FIVE YEARS BASED UPON THE PLEA OFFERS, THE LACK OF PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, AND THE VICTIMS’ OPPOSITION TO INCARCERATION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department reduced defendant’s sentence from 12 to five years, taking into account the plea offers of probation only and five years, the lack of any prior felony convictions, her mental health problems, and the victims’ opposition to incarceration:

… [T]he 12-year term of incarceration imposed on the count of burglary in the first degree is unduly harsh and severe. Before indictment, defendant was offered the opportunity to plead to a charge for which probation was a sentencing option. After indictment, she was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to the charges with a sentence promise of five years. At the time of the latter offer, all of the relevant facts were known to the court, including those related to defendant’s history of mental illness. The victims of the offenses were defendant’s parents, and they opposed a lengthy prison sentence, contending that she needed treatment not incarceration. Indeed, defendant’s mother stated at sentencing that her daughter needed mental health treatment and that “jail [was] not the answer.”

Moreover, all of defendant’s prior convictions, none of which were felonies, were committed within three years of these offenses and only after defendant began to suffer from significant mental health issues. Under the circumstances of this case, where no new facts were set forth during the nonjury trial and the victims were opposed to incarceration, we conclude that the sentence on the burglary count should be reduced to a determinate term of incarceration of five years … . People v Mccoy, 2019 NY Slip Op 05851, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , ,

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION AS AN ASSET IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not have the legal capacity to sue in this slip and fall case because the action was not listed as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding:

“The failure of a party to disclose a cause of action as an asset in a prior bankruptcy proceeding, which the party knew or should have known existed at the time of that proceeding, deprives him or her of the legal capacity to sue subsequently on that cause of action'” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not disclose, in the bankruptcy petition that she filed in October 2015, the existence of the cause of action to recover damages for personal injuries that she had previously asserted against the defendant. The defendant established, prima facie, that when the petition was filed, the plaintiff knew or should have known of the existence of her cause of action, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to that prima facie showing … . Jean-Paul v 67-30 Dartmouth St. Owners Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 05965, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , , , ,

NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS BROUGHT BY A DISABLED FORMER POLICE OFFICER CONCERNING GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to all defendants in this action by a disabled former police officer concerning claims for General Municipal Law 207-c benefits:

With respect to the City defendants, … we conclude that the court properly dismissed the negligence and gross negligence causes of action against them inasmuch as they were entitled to governmental function immunity based on the discretion they are afforded in administering payments of General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits … . Although plaintiff’s negligence and gross negligence causes of action involved the health care services that he was receiving, the City defendants were engaged in a governmental function because they were merely administering the payment of General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, i.e., they did not actually provide plaintiff with health care services ;;; . Moreover, the City defendants were entitled to immunity inasmuch as the administration of section 207-c benefits involved the exercise of their discretion and the record establishes that the City defendants denied payment of the disputed claims for benefits after actually exercising this discretion … .

… Plaintiff was not a party to the contracts between [the remaining] defendants and City defendants, and therefore liability may be established where, inter alia, “the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of [its] duties, launches a force or instrument of harm” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). Here, the undisputed evidence established that the [defendants] did not have authority to deny payment of plaintiff’s claims for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. That authority rested, at all relevant times, with the City defendants. Thus, it cannot be said that these defendants launched any “instrument of harm” because they never made the decision to deny any of plaintiff’s claims for payment of medical care and treatment. …

… [W]e note that plaintiff, as a public employee, may not sue his employer under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, as plaintiff has done here … . Where, as here, plaintiff’s causes of action are “related to the terms, conditions and privileges of his employment[, i.e., his entitlement to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c, they] are covered by Title I” and not Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act … . Vassenelli v City of Syracuse, 2019 NY Slip Op 05878, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED IN THIS OUT-OF-STATE ASBESTOS-RELATED INSURANCE ACTION, THE NONPARTY HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE INSURER AND MAY POSSESS RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HOW THE INSURANCE POLICIES WERE INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to quash a nonparty subpoena in this out-of-state asbestos-related insurance action should not have been granted:

“CPLR 3101 (a) (4) allows a party to obtain discovery from a nonparty, and provides that [t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof’ ” … . The phrase “material and necessary” in CPLR 3101 “must be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity’ ” …

“An application to quash a subpoena should be granted [o]nly where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious . . . or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … , and the burden is on the party seeking to quash a subpoena to make such a showing … . …

“[A] witness’s sworn denial of any relevant knowledge …” … is insufficient, standing alone, to establish that the discovery sought is utterly irrelevant to the action or that the subpoena, if honored, will obviously and inevitably fail to turn up relevant evidence  … . … [The nonparty’s] deposition testimony is … potentially relevant because she has personal knowledge of how [the insurer] interpreted and enforced similar “consent” provisions of other excess policies while she was employed by [the insurer]. Matter of Barber v Borgwarner, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05850, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant M & M was not a property owner in the context of Labor Law 240 (1) or 241 (6) and therefore was entitled to summary judgment. The Fourth Department noted that an issue on which Supreme Court reserved decision is not appealable:

For purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) liability, “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a [party] who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for [its] benefit’ ” … . ” [The owner] is the party who, as a practical matter, has the right to hire or fire subcontractors and to insist that proper safety practices are followed’ ” … . “The key factor in determining whether a non-titleholder is an owner’ is the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed and it is the right to control the work that is significant, not the actual exercise or nonexercise of control’ ” … .

Here, M and M met its initial burden of establishing that it was not an owner for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) because its submissions established that “it was an out-of-possession lessee of the property [that] neither contracted for nor supervised the work that brought about the injury, and had no authority to exercise any control over the specific work area that gave rise to plaintiff’s injuries’ ” … . Thompson v M & M Forwarding of Buffalo, N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05875, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

/ ,

FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN ONE YEAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff bank had abandoned the foreclosure action by failure to move for a default judgment within one year. The bank’s participation in mandatory settlement conferences did not constitute the initiation of an action for a default judgment:

CPLR 3215(c) provides, in part, that if the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the defendant’s default, “the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion” … . “The language of CPLR 3215(c) is not, in the first instance, discretionary, but mandatory, inasmuch as courts shall’ dismiss claims … for which default judgments are not sought within the requisite one-year period, as those claims are then deemed abandoned” … . However, the failure to timely seek a default judgment may be excused if “sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” … . To establish sufficient cause as required by CPLR 3215(c), a plaintiff must proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in timely moving for a default judgment and demonstrate that it has a potentially meritorious cause of action … .

… [A]fter this action was released from the mandatory foreclosure settlement conference part in July 2016, the plaintiff was authorized to proceed with the prosecution of this action. However, despite the fact that the appellants failed to answer or otherwise appear in the action after being served with process, the plaintiff took no steps to initiate proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against the appellants. The plaintiff’s participation in the mandatory foreclosure settlement part conferences did not constitute the initiation of proceedings for the entry of a default judgment. Moreover, more than one year passed from the time that the plaintiff was authorized to resume prosecution of this action prior to the appellants moving in October 2017 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned …. In light of the plaintiff’s failure to meet its burden to show sufficient cause why the complaint should not be dismissed as abandoned, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether the plaintiff demonstrated that it had a potentially meritorious cause of action … . HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Slone, 2019 NY Slip Op 05963, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

/

ADVERSE POSSESSION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS LAKE FRONT PROPERTY DISPUTE, THE USE OF THE LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ adverse possession affirmative defense should have been granted. The disputed land is a so-called stub trail which allows access to a lake and which is owned by a third-party (Hillcrest). Defendants’ use and maintenance of the property was deemed permissive (i.e., not hostile) as the stub trails were to be used by all the property owners in the subdivision for lake access:

We agree with plaintiff that it met its initial burden on the cross motion of establishing as a matter of law that defendants’ use of the disputed property was not hostile and instead was permissive … , and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . The hostility element “is satisfied where an individual asserts a right to the property that is adverse to the title owner and also in opposition to the rights of the true owner’ ” … . ” Possession is hostile when it constitutes an actual invasion of or infringement upon the owner’s rights’ ” … . However, “[w]hen the entry upon land has been by permission or under some right or authority derived from the owner, adverse possession does not commence until such permission or authority has been repudiated and renounced and the possessor thereafter has assumed the attitude of hostility to any right in the real owner” … . “The purpose of the hostility requirement is to provide the title owner notice of the adverse claim through the unequivocal acts of the usurper’ ” … . …

The … deed demonstrated that defendants’ use of the disputed property was permissive pursuant to the terms of that deed, which allowed property owners around Rushford Lake to use the stub trail at issue that was owned by Hillcrest. The acts of defendants in mowing the lawn, removing weeds, adding fill to the area, and planting trees were fully consistent with the intent of the … deed, which was to allow property owners to use the trails and stub trails and improve them when needed. The acts of defendants did not give Hillcrest a cause of action in ejectment inasmuch as Hillcrest was required under the terms of the deed to allow property owners such as defendants to use and maintain the trail … . Parklands E., LLC v Spangenberg, 2019 NY Slip Op 05849, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

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