You are here: / THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE...

Search Results

/

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed the Superior Court Information (SCI) because there was no reference to the time of the offense:

A waiver of indictment must be executed in strict compliance with the requirements of CPL 195.20, which provides, as pertinent here, that it shall include the “approximate time . . . of each offense to be charged in the [SCI]” … . Although “courts may read both [the SCI and the waiver of indictment] together, as a single document, to satisfy the requirements of CPL 195.20,” it is undisputed that here neither contained any reference to the time of the offense … . Further, this is not a case “where the time of the offense is unknown, or, perhaps, unknowable so as to excuse the absence of such information” … . Indeed, a specific time was provided in the felony complaint. People v Vaughn, 2019 NY Slip Op 04500, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISKS OF CONTINUING TO BE REPRESENTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE JUDGE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INFORMED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FORMER AND CURRENT CLIENTS WOULD BE WITNESSES AT DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the judge did not adequately inform defendant of the risks of continuing to be represented by defense counsel in the plea proceedings after defense counsel and the judge had been informed of a conflict of interest should the matter go to trial. Several persons who would be called as witnesses by the People were former or current clients of defense counsel:

Once informed of the conflict, County Court had a duty to inquire whether defendant understood the risks of defense counsel’s continued representation and, knowing those risks, was choosing to waive the conflict … . However, the court did not make such an inquiry. Rather, the court merely informed defendant, while simultaneously reiterating the plea agreement that defense counsel had secured for him, that defense counsel would “probably” have a conflict if the matter continued. Therefore, defense counsel’s conflicted representation of defendant, absent a proper and informed waiver, deprived defendant of his right to the effective assistance of counsel … . People v Marshall, 2019 NY Slip Op 04499, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

/

THE SENTENCING COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED AN ARMED FELONY, WHICH CAN DISQUALIFY A DEFENDANT FROM THE STATUS, THE STATUTORY FACTORS WHICH WOULD NONETHELESS ALLOW YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS MUST BE CONSIDERED AND PLACED ON THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court did not follow the correct procedure with respect to whether the defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. Although the defendant pled guilty to an armed felony, which can render him ineligible for youthful offender status, the court was required to consider the factors which would render him eligible despite the armed felony and to do so on the record:

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that, “when a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony . . ., and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3). The court must make such a determination on the record ‘even where the defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request’ pursuant to a plea bargain”… . If the court determines that the offender is not an eligible youth, the inquiry is at an end; however, “if the court determines that the defendant is an eligible youth based on the presence of one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors, . . . [t]he court [then] must exercise its discretion a second time to determine whether the eligible youth should be granted youthful offender treatment pursuant to CPL 720.20 (1)” … . …

The record before us does not conclusively establish that Supreme Court reached a determination, as required by CPL 720.10, regarding defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender treatment in the first instance. The court made no mention of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3) and, instead of first determining defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender treatment pursuant to that statute, appears to have moved to the second step and determined that youthful offender treatment was inappropriate under CPL 720.20. People v Colon, 2019 NY Slip Op 04498, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

/

A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CHARGING DOCUMENT AFTER AN INDICTMENT HAS COME DOWN; IN ADDITION THE SCI HERE WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL CHARGE OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and dismissing the Superior Court Information (SCI), determined the SCI was an improper vehicle for defendant’s guilty plea because the grand jury had already handed down an indictment. In addition the SCI was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include the original charge or a lesser included offense:

CPL 195.10 (2) (b) provides that a defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by a SCI in “the appropriate superior court, at any time prior to the filing of an indictment by the grand jury.” However, “waiver of indictment attempted after a [g]rand [j]ury actually indicts is generally invalid under CPL 195.10 (2) (b) because the plain words of the statute require a waiver be made prior to the filing of an indictment” … .

It is well settled that the general purpose and objectives of constitutional and statutory boundaries with respect to the waiver of indictment are to permit a defendant “to go directly to trial without waiting for a grand jury to hand up an indictment, [thereby] affording a defendant the opportunity for a speedier disposition of charges [and] eliminating unnecessary [g]rand [j]ury proceedings” … . When the grand jury has already acted, and those motivations are no longer present, waiver of indictment is not authorized, even where defendant has consented to the devised procedure … .

Here, an indictment had been filed — to which defendant pleaded guilty — prior to defendant agreeing to be prosecuted by way of an SCI. Although the indictment was subsequently dismissed, the dismissal was not due to any defect requiring such dismissal (see CPL 210.20), County Court did not authorize resubmission of the charge to the grand jury (see CPL 210.45 [9]) and a new felony complaint was never filed. Therefore, defendant was not placed on a formal preindictment procedural track … . People v Eggleston, 2019 NY Slip Op 04497, Second Dept 6-6-19

 

/ ,

THE PARKER WARNINGS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY WARN DEFENDANT HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE ENHANCED IF HE WERE ARRESTED BETWEEN THE PLEA AND SENTENCING, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE ENHANCED SENTENCE ON THAT GROUND, MATTER REMITTED FOR SENTENCING TO THE AGREED TERM OR FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the Parker warnings [notifying defendant of the enhanced sentencing consequences of misconduct between the plea and the sentencing] were inadequate and defendant’s counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue. Defendant’s sentence was five years longer than the sentence promised at the time of the plea because he was rearrested. The Parker warnings did not clearly inform defendant his sentence would be enhanced if he was rearrested. The failure to preserve the error was excused because of the ineffective assistance. The Parker warnings, in relevant part, were as follows: ” COURT: Don’t get in any trouble at the jail, don’t get rearrested, don’t get involved with contraband, or break the law, or anything like that in jail, you can do that? DEFENDANT: Yes, sir COURT: Thirdly, the [P]robation [D]epartment is going to be in to see you. They are going to do a presentence report. I ask you to be cooperative with them and honest with them and continue to express the remorse that you show here today because if you don’t cooperate with them, and if you are not honest with them, or if you don’t continue to accept remorse and responsibility for what you did then your plea will stand and I will be free to impose a sentence of 25 years to life and say things to make sure that you never see parole, so, please, cooperate with your probation officer:”

… [C]ounsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the enhanced sentence on the ground that County Court did not insure that defendant was fully aware of the consequences of being rearrested prior to sentencing. A successful challenge to the enhanced sentence would have resulted in County Court having to either impose the agreed-upon sentence or provide defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . … People v Hunter, 2019 NY Slip Op 04496, Third Dept 6-6-19

​

/ ,

PLAINTIFF, WHICH PUT UP ITS EQUITY INTERESTS IN 11 PROPERTIES TO SECURE A $71 MILLION LOAN FROM DEFENDANT, SUED TO DECLARE VOID THE UCC NONJUDICIAL SALE OF THE PROPERTIES BY DEFENDANT, THAT ASPECT OF THE SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined defendant’s cause of action seeking to declare void the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sale of plaintiff’s property, which was put up as collateral for a loan made to plaintiff by defendant, should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, Atlas, put up its equity interest in 11 properties as collateral for a $71 million loan from defendant, Macquarie. Atlas and Macquarie were unable to agree on an extension of time for repayment of the loan. After a UCC nonjudicial sale held by Macquarie, at which Atlas submitted bids, another buyer outbid Atlas. Atlas sued to void the sale:

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governs the enforcement of a creditor’s security interest. “The underlying purposes and policies of the [UCC] as a whole are to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage, and agreement of the parties; and to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions” … . Here, plaintiff … (Atlas), the debtor, is asking this Court to unwind a UCC sale of the equity interest in 11 commercial properties, which was collateral for Atlas’s $71 million mezzanine loan, borrowed from defendant … (Macquarie), the secured creditor. It is difficult to see how such an action would simplify the laws governing commercial transactions. Rather, if UCC sales could be unwound, it would only serve to muddy the waters surrounding nonjudicial sales conducted pursuant to article 9 of the UCC, and to deter potential buyers from bidding in nonjudicial sales, which would, in turn, harm the debtor and the secured party attempting to collect after a default. Moreover … Atlas’s argument does not have support in the plain reading of the UCC nor in existing case law. Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower, LLC v Macquarie Tex. Loan Holder LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04495, First Dept 6-6-19

 

/ , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND VACATED THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, held that Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and vacated the default judgment as untimely, Plaintiff had timely moved for a default judgment. Although sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right, the First Department deemed the notice of appeal as a motion for leave to appeal:

An order issued sua sponte is not appealable as of right (see Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). However, given the nature of the motion court’s sua sponte relief in dismissing the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), we deem the notice of appeal to be a motion for leave to appeal, and grant such leave (…CPLR 5701[c]).

The record is clear that plaintiff had moved for a default judgment within one year, and thus, the motion court’s sua sponte vacature of the judgment and dismissal of the complaint as untimely was in error … . In view of this decision, the merits of defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment are no longer moot and it is remanded back to the trial court for consideration on the merits. New Globaltex Co., Ltd. v Zhe Lin, 2019 NY Slip Op 04456, First Dept 6-6-19

 

/ ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, CLOTHING AND SHELTER; EVIDENCE SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT, DESPITE MOTHER’S HOME-SCHOOLING EFFORTS, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department reversed Family Court’s finding of neglect and derivative neglect for failure to provide adequate food, clothing and shelter, The evidence, i.e., the caseworker’s progress notes and the testimony of a police officer based upon a single visit, was deemed insufficient. However, the majority, over a two-justice dissent, found the evidence of educational neglect and derivative neglect sufficient. The older children were not attending school, but the college-educated mother was home-schooling them:

Although the mother’s living conditions were unsuitable, the record presents no basis for a conclusion that the children’s “physical, mental or emotional condition ha[d] been impaired or [wa]s in imminent danger of becoming impaired” as a result of their exposure to such environment (Family Court Act § 1012[f][i]). The officer’s testimony provided no information about the physical or mental condition of the children at the time of her visit, and petitioner did not introduce the results of the medical examination of the children conducted on the day when they were first removed from the home. …

The court found that the mother did not establish that she was qualified to teach, especially with respect to elementary-school-aged children. The mother admitted that she knew her educational plan was not approved by the Board of Education, yet, she never followed up with an approved individual home instruction plan as required by the Board of Education. The court found that the mother failed to show that her instruction was substantially equivalent to that in public school, and that the children were educated for at least as many hours as provided in public school … . The court further found that the mother’s use of college-level textbooks and testing the children using high school examination tests did not constitute appropriate education for elementary-school-aged children. We defer to these findings of the Family Court.  Matter of Puah B. (Autumn B.–Hemerd B.), 2019 NY Slip Op 04451, First Dept 6-6-19

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1), A MUNICIPALITY’S MAINTENANCE OF LIGHT POLES IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION TO WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY, THE MUNICIPALITY’S ‘LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE’ DEFENSE COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance when he was injured, which is not actionable pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1). The Third Department further determined that a municipality’s maintenance of light poles is a proprietary function subject to ordinary standards of negligence which is not protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity. The court further held that the “lack of written notice” defense was not a question of law which the municipality could raise for the first time on appeal. The plaintiff was repairing burned out lights which were on strands of decorative lights attached to a light pole. The strands of decorative lights were not fixtures within the meaning of the Labor Law:

… Merchants [a non-profit which had wrapped decorative lights around city light poles] hired plaintiff, as an independent contractor, to replace light strands located on 36 light poles because many of the light bulbs had become inoperable. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a 16-foot aluminum-rung extension ladder when the pole that it was leaning on suddenly fell over. …

… [R]replacement of the light strands, which was necessary because numerous bulbs had burned out, constituted routine maintenance that is outside the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . …

… [A]lthough replacement of a light fixture on a lighting pole is a repair within the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … , under the facts herein, the light strands cannot be considered a fixture. …

Although a municipality may enjoy qualified immunity from liability arising from highway planning and design decisions … , that doctrine does not shield a municipality from liability arising from negligent maintenance. Gutkaiss v Delaware Ave. Merchants Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04527, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate compliance with the service of process requirements of the Limited Liability Company Law:

“The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process” … . Proof of service, often in the form of an affidavit of service (see CPLR 306 [d]), must include “the papers served, the person who was served and the date, time [and] address [of such service], . . . and set forth facts showing that the service was made by an authorized person and in an authorized manner” … . Additionally, “[b]ecause service of process is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants, courts require strict compliance with the statutory methods of service” … . As relevant here, “[s]ervice of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic limited liability company . . . shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or his or her deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, . . . duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee” … . …

Although plaintiffs proffered an unsigned receipt of service purportedly generated by the Office of the Secretary of State, that receipt did not set forth the papers served, whether duplicate copies of those papers were delivered to the Secretary of State, the time of service or facts showing that service was made by an authorized person (see Limited Liability Company Law § 303 [a]; CPLR 306 [a], [d]). Cedar Run Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04528, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

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