You are here: / FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT UPHELD, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, ASSAULT SECOND...

Search Results

/ ,

FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT UPHELD, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF BREATHING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this Family Law family offense proceeding, determined the evidence supported harassment second, but did not support one count of sexual misconduct, assault in the second degree, or criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation. Petitioner admitted that she expected payment for sex and did not demonstrate a lack of consent with respect to one of the sexual misconduct counts. Biting petitioner’s ear during sex did not constitute assault second (teeth being the dangerous instrument). And restricting petitioner’s breathing during sex was not a crime because respondent stopped immediately when petitioner expressed discomfort. With respect to harassment, the court wrote:

The record shows, inter alia, that respondent threatened petitioner that he would take the steps necessary to cause her to lose her immigration status and rights to the child if she stopped prostituting herself to him, thereby evincing respondent’s intent to harass and alarm petitioner (Penal Law § 240.26[3]) and his inducing petitioner to engage in a sexual relationship with him by instilling fear in her … . Matter of Irena K. v Francesco S., 2019 NY Slip Op 05066, First Dept 6-25-19

 

/ ,

THE FACTS SUPPORTED CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON AND MURDER, DEFENDANT WAS SEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE WEAPON SEVERAL MINUTES BEFORE THE DEFENDANT APPROACHED THE VICTIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction, noted that the consecutive sentences for possession of a weapon and murder were supported by the facts:

“So long as a defendant knowingly unlawfully possesses a loaded firearm before forming the intent to cause a crime with that weapon, the possessory crime has already been completed, and consecutive sentencing is permissible”… . Here, the record supports Supreme Court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Video surveillance evidence showed defendant in possession of the gun several minutes before approaching the victim, supporting the conclusion that defendant possessed the weapon for a sufficient period of time before forming the specific intent to kill. Thus, consecutive sentencing was permissible. People v Malloy, 2019 NY Slip Op 05061, CtApp 6-25-19

 

/ , ,

SURVEILLANCE VIDEO CONSTITUTED BRADY MATERIAL WHICH COULD HAVE AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR HAD SEEN THE VIDEO BUT TOLD THE JURY NO VIDEO EXISTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People’s failure to turn over to the defense a surveillance video which captured people (not the defendant) present at the time the victim was shot, as well as the victim falling, required a new trial. The prosecutor had seen the video and considered it irrelevant. In her summation, the prosecutor said there was no video of the incident:

In New York, where the defense “did not specifically request the information, the test of materiality is whether there is a reasonable probability that had it been disclosed to the defense, the result would have been different'” … . Defendant concedes that the “reasonable probability” standard applies here. In determining materiality, the “question is not whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence” … . The “defendant need not demonstrate that after discounting the inculpatory evidence in light of the undisclosed evidence, there would not have been enough left to convict” … . Defendant need only show that “the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict” … . * * *

It requires no frame-by-frame review to grasp that the video would have become the focal point of defendant’s trial. It would have set the scene of the murder, identified other potential witnesses, served to impeach eyewitness testimony, and provided a basis for an argument that other suspects might have been involved in the shooting. Instead of playing that role at trial, the video was withheld from the defense and the jury was told it did not exist. The aggregate effect of the suppression of this evidence undermines confidence in the verdict and therefore defendant is entitled to a new trial. People v Ulett, 2019 NY Slip Op 05060, CtApp 6-26-19

 

/ , ,

THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A DIVORCE DOES NOT RENDER ONE FORMER SPOUSE THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF THE OTHER, THEREFORE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO DOCKETS A JUDGMENT DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITY PURSUANT TO CPLR 5203 OVER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the 2015 judgment of divorce which awarded the wife, Andrea, a percentage of marital property, a home worth $5 million, did not make Andrea a judgment creditor such that the failure to docket the judgment of divorce gave priority to a judgment debtor, Pangea, who had docketed a 2016 judgment:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has certified the following question to us: “If an entered divorce judgment grants a spouse an interest in real property pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236, and the spouse does not docket the divorce judgment in the county where the property is located, is the spouse’s interest subject to attachment by a subsequent judgment creditor that has docketed its judgment and seeks to execute against the property?” We answer that question in the negative. * * *

Pangea’s conception of Andrea as judgment creditor is utterly incompatible with our legislature’s dramatic revision of the Domestic Relations Law in 1980. By incorporating the concept of “marital property” into Domestic Relations Law § 236, “the New York Legislature deliberately went beyond traditional property concepts when it formulated the Equitable Distribution Law” … . … Marital assets are not owned by one spouse or another, and the dissolution of a marriage involving the division of marital assets does not render one ex-spouse the creditor of another. Courts are empowered “not only to make an equitable disposition of marital property between [the spouses], but also to make a distributive award in lieu of or to supplement, facilitate or effectuate the division or distribution of property where authorized in a matrimonial action, and payable in a lump sum or over a period of time” … . …

Andrea therefore cannot properly be considered a judgment creditor of John [her ex-husband]. Thus, CPLR 5203 (a), by its plain terms, has no application here, and Pangea can claim no priority. Pangea Capital Mgt., LLC v Lakian, 2019 NY Slip Op 05059, CtApp 6-25-19

 

/ , ,

BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY DEREGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that “plaintiffs’ apartments, which are located in buildings receiving tax benefits pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g, are [not] subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL … .”:

The legislature’s intention, as reflected in the language of the statute at issue here, is clear and inescapable. During “the entire period for which the eligible multiple dwelling is receiving” RPTL 421-g benefits, it “shall be fully subject to control” under the RSL, “notwithstanding the provisions of” that regime or any other “local law” that would remove those dwelling units from such control, “unless exempt under such local law from control by reason of the cooperative or condominium status of the dwelling unit” (RPTL 421-g [6] …) … . The statute does not say that eligible units shall be fully subject to “the provisions of” any local law for the stabilization of rents. Put differently, the notwithstanding clause of the statute evinces the legislature’s intent that any “local law for the stabilization of rents” that would exempt the unit from “control under such local law” does not apply to buildings receiving RPTL 421-g benefits, with the sole exception being for cooperatives and condominiums … . Kuzmich v 50 Murray St. Acquisition LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05057, CtApp 6-25-19

 

/ ,

JUDGE WHO DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT COULD DECIDE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON A PURELY LEGAL QUESTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined it was appropriate for a judge to decide a summary judgment motion, despite the fact that another judge heard the oral argument:

The fact that oral argument was held before a different Justice than the Justice who ultimately decided the motion for summary judgment is not a proper basis for vacating the order granting summary judgment. Although Judiciary Law § 21 provides that a Supreme Court Justice “shall not decide or take part in the decision of a question, which was argued orally in the court, when he was not present and sitting therein as a judge,” reversal is not warranted on this ground, because the Justice who granted the motion decided a purely legal question … . Marti v Rana, 2019 NY Slip Op 05011, First Dept 6-20-19

 

/ , , , ,

DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA) ACTION BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PASSENGER PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendant railroad’s motion for summary judgment in this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) by a railroad employee assaulted by a passenger was properly denied. The court explained the evidentiary criteria under the FELA:

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) (45 USC § 51 et seq.) provides that operators of interstate railroads shall be liable to their employees for on-the-job injuries resulting from the railroad’s negligence. In an action under FELA, “the plaintiff must prove the traditional common-law elements of negligence: duty, breach, damages, causation and foreseeability” … . However, these elements are “substantially relaxed” and “negligence is liberally construed to effectuate the statute’s broadly remedial intended function” … . A claim under FELA “must be determined by the jury if there is any question as to whether employer negligence played a part, however small, in producing plaintiff’s injury” … . “A case is deemed unworthy of submission to a jury only if evidence of negligence is so thin that on a judicial appraisal, the only conclusion that could be drawn is that negligence by the employer could have played no part in an employee’s injury” … .

To establish the element of foreseeability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the defective condition (id.). However, notice generally presents an issue of fact for the jury … . “As with all issues under FELA, the right of the jury to pass on this issue must be liberally construed, with the jury’s power to draw inferences greater than in a common-law action” … .

Under the foregoing relaxed standard, there is sufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning defendant’s actual or constructive notice of a risk of assault to conductors on the New Haven Line. Plaintiff testified that she was previously assaulted by a passenger, and that there was an ongoing problem of physical intimidation by large groups of adolescents refusing to pay their fares, which caused her to fear for her safety. Plaintiff also testified that she has called the MTA’s rail traffic controllers for police assistance at least 250 times to deal with abusive passengers; another conductor was punched in the face and knocked out on the New Haven Line; a passenger attempted to stab and rob another conductor on the Harlem Line. Stephney v MTA Metro-N. R.R., 2019 NY Slip Op 05004, First Dept 6-20-19

 

/

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, stemming from falling from a roof he was working on, should have been granted with respect to the property owner (Bruckner) and the general contractor (Metro). There was a question of fact whether Western, which leased the property, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner for Labor Law purposes. However, the property manager, Ashkenazy, had no authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work and was not liable under Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) or 200:

An issue of fact exists as to whether Western, the lessee, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner, for Labor Law purposes. Record evidence showing that Western was responsible for renovating the premises, including the roof, and had retained Metro as the general contractor for the renovation work, raises an issue of fact as to whether Western had the authority to supervise and control the work site … . The testimony of Western’s director of merchandising that he was not involved with the construction work is insufficient to excuse Western from liability, where he had no knowledge of, and could not testify to, the lease arrangements between Western and Bruckner, as well as the arrangement between Western and Metro … .

Ashkenazy had no involvement with the construction work, and was onsite only to check on its progress, and to ensure it did not interfere with the other tenants. The belief of its “Director of Property Management” that he may have been able to stop work at the job site “[w]ith proper notice I guess as per the lease” is too equivocal to raise an issue of fact. Because there was no evidence that Ashkenazy had authority to supervise or control the work site, the Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be dismissed against it … . Ashkenazy is also entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim because, for the same reasons, it is not an “owner” or “agent” under that statute … . Without authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work, Ashkenazy also may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence principles in this case involving the means and method of plaintiff’s work … . Reyes v Bruckner Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05003, First Dept 6-20-19

 

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DE-ACCELERATED THE MORTGAGE RENDERING THE INSTANT ACTION TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether the discontinuance of a prior foreclosure action de-accelerated the mortgage. If the mortgage was not de-accelerated the instant action would be time-barred:

Acceleration only takes place when the holder of the note and mortgage takes “affirmative action . . . evidencing the holder’s election” to do so … . This may be accomplished in the form of a notice to the borrower … . Affirmative action can also occur when the first foreclosure action is commenced … . The prior foreclosure action sought the accelerated mortgage amount.

There is an issue of fact in this particular case regarding whether plaintiff’s discontinuance of the prior foreclosure action de-accelerated the mortgage … . We note that neither the motion seeking discontinuance or the order entered granting that relief provided that the mortgage was de-accelerated or that plaintiff would now be accepting installment payments from the defendant … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Charles, 2019 NY Slip Op 04997, First Dept 6-20-19

 

/ ,

13-YEAR-OLD WHO, AS A FIRST OFFENSE, PARTICIPATED IN AN ASSAULT (USING A MINI OR SOUVENIR BASEBALL BAT) OF A COUPLE BY HER FATHER AND HER FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND PROPERLY ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT AND SENTENCED TO A 12-MONTH PERIOD OF PROBATION WITH MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND SCHOOL MONITORING, STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the juvenile delinquent adjudication, the 12-month probation period, mental health services and school monitoring were appropriate. The dissenters argued an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) was the appropriate disposition for this first offense. Appellant was 13 when her father, her father’s girlfriend and an unidentified man assaulted a couple. The father was panhandling in the subway and the couple had allegedly refuse to give the father money. Appellant apparently participated in the assault by striking the woman with a mini or souvenir baseball bat:

Although this was appellant’s first arrest, she was a participant in an unprovoked violent attack on two strangers. There is no dispute that appellant’s father instigated the attack. In the ensuing melee, appellant repeatedly struck the female complainant with a mini or souvenir baseball bat, while the father’s girlfriend continuously punched the complainant. Appellant continued the attack by joining her father and his girlfriend in chasing the two complainants, who were able to seek refuge in a restaurant where they called 911. After the police arrived, the complainants were transported by ambulance to the hospital to be treated for their injuries. The female complainant suffered from anxiety after the attack and continuing to the time of trial, and intended to relocate to another borough as a result of the attack. The dissent parses the incident focusing on the injuries inflicted by appellant, but as part of a group assault she is responsible for the consequences of the attack.

In addition to the seriousness of the offense, the available information supported the conclusions that appellant would benefit from engagement in mental health services and monitoring with regard to her school attendance and her academic performance and that she was in need of a longer period of supervision than the six-month period that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal would have provided … . We find no abuse of discretion in the decision of the court, which heard the evidence and observed appellant throughout the proceedings. We note that appellant may seek relief from the juvenile delinquent adjudication when she reaches the age of 17 … . Matter of A.V., 2019 NY Slip Op 04996, First Dept 6-20-19

 

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