You are here: / WIFE’S STATUS AS A BENEFICIARY OF AN ANNUITY PAID TO THE HUSBAND...

Search Results

/ , ,

WIFE’S STATUS AS A BENEFICIARY OF AN ANNUITY PAID TO THE HUSBAND WAS REVOKED BY OPERATION OF THE ESTATES, POWERS AND TRUST LAW (EPTL) UPON DIVORCE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined an annuity paid to the husband in settlement of a medical malpractice action was not payable to the former wife (Malizia), as a beneficiary of the annuity, because her status as a beneficiary was revoked upon divorce, pursuant to the Estates, Powers and Trust Law (EPTL):

EPTL 5-1.4 (a) provides that, “[e]xcept as provided by the express terms of a governing instrument, a divorce . . . revokes any revocable (1) disposition or appointment of property made by a divorced individual to, or for the benefit of, the former spouse.” Malizia’s argument that EPTL 5-1.4 does not apply to the annuity is unavailing. Although an annuity is not specifically identified as a governing instrument by EPTL 5-1.4 (f) (5), the statute expressly indicates that the list is illustrative and not exhaustive. An annuity is a testamentary substitute that operates similarly to the examples of governing instruments that are specifically named in the statute by providing for the disposition of property at death … . In that regard, the annuity specifically provided for payment of the monthly installments to decedent during his lifetime, and the beneficiary designation constituted a disposition of a property interest to the named beneficiary at decedent’s death, i.e., the right to receive any guaranteed payments required to be made after his death. The statute was enacted to prevent the inadvertent disposition of such property to a former spouse following termination of a marriage by creating a conclusive and irrebuttable presumption that any revocable disposition of property to a former spouse is automatically revoked upon divorce … . United States Life Ins. Co. In The City of New York v Shields, 2019 NY Slip Op 02593, Third Dept 4-4-19

 

/

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated because the waiver of indictment and superior court information were defective. The time of the offense was not indicated:

We agree with defendant’s contention that, because there was not strict compliance with the statutory mandates of CPL 195.20, his waiver of indictment is invalid, thereby requiring reversal of the judgment of conviction … . The plain language of CPL 195.20 requires that a waiver of indictment include the date and approximate time of the charged offense. Although the waiver of indictment and the SCI, when filed together, may be read as a single document in order to satisfy the requirements of the statute, here, neither the waiver of indictment nor the SCI properly indicate the time of the charged offense … . Moreover, this is not “a situation where the time of the offense is unknown or, perhaps, unknowable” so as to excuse the absence of such information … . People v Titus, 2019 NY Slip Op 02588, Second Dept 4-4-19

Because defendant’s admission to a violation of probation was induced by the explicit promise his sentence for the probation violation would run concurrently with the sentence for attempted burglary, which was reversed above, defendant’s plea to the probation violation was vacated as well.  People v Titus, 2019 NY Slip Op 02589, Third Dept 4-4-19

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT HAD SERVED HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE BY THE TIME THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED, THE IMPOSITION OF MORE PRISON TIME UPON HIS SUBSEQUENT PLEA TO THE ASSAULT SECOND CHARGE VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT REQUESTING TIME SERVED, BECAUSE THE ERROR AFFECTED THE VOLUNTARINESS OF DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and set aside the sentence should have been granted. The court noted that the waiver of appeal did not apply because the alleged error affected the voluntariness of the guilty plea. At the time defendant’s assault second conviction was overturned he had completed his sentence. When he subsequently pled guilty to the assault second charge more prison time was imposed. That violated the prohibition against double jeopardy (punished twice for the same offense). Defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing defendant must be sentenced to time served:

At the time of remittal, it was clear that, more than 15 years earlier, defendant had been sentenced to seven years in prison for his conviction of assault in the second degree, which was the maximum permissible sentence for a second violent felony offender convicted of that crime … . It was also clear that his assault conviction had been overturned on appeal. These facts and circumstances alone would have alerted a reasonably competent attorney to the possibility that any subsequent sentence that included additional prison time might violate the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments and, by extension, prompted an inquiry into the amount of time that defendant had already served in prison on his 2001 assault conviction. It is evident from the record that defense counsel did not recognize or investigate the obvious potential double jeopardy concern at the time of remittal for, if she had, she would have determined — as the People concede — that defendant had already served the maximum permissible prison term for assault in the second degree and, therefore, could be sentenced only to time served … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 02586, Third Dept 4-4-19

 

/ ,

PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO MURDER AFTER MURDER TRIAL RESULTED IN MANSLAUGHTER AND GANG ASSAULT CONVICTIONS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined prosecuting defendant for conspiracy to commit murder, after a trial for the murder resulted in a conviction for manslaughter and gang assault, did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy:

Defendant’s prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder, after a prior prosecution for the actual murder resulted in a trial conviction for manslaughter and gang assault, did not violate the federal or state double jeopardy prohibitions, because conspiracy is not the same offense, for double jeopardy purposes, as murder, manslaughter, or gang assault … . “The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not” (Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299, 304 [1932] [citations omitted]). Neither the fact that the evidence at the homicide trial would have also supported a conspiracy charge, nor the fact that defendant had been alleged to have acted in concert with other persons, has any relevance under the Blockburger test. People v Herrera, 2019 NY Slip Op 02631, First Dept 4-4-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS-HOMEOWNERS DIRECTED HIM TO REMOVE HIS BOOTS WHILE WORKING, PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON STAIRS BECAUSE HE WAS WEARING ONLY SOCKS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-homeowners’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this Labor Law 200 action. Someone told plaintiff to take off his boots while working in the home and he slipped and fell on the stairs. Plaintiff did not demonstrate that it was the defendants who told him to remove his boots:

Plaintiff claims that he was injured after slipping and falling on slippery stairs because he was directed to remove his boots while working. Defendants established prima facie that they did not exercise supervisory control over the means and methods of plaintiff’s work … . Their principals, the homeowners, testified that they were not home on the day of the accident and that they never asked any workers to remove their boots. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the man from whom he received the instruction to remove his boots had apparent authority to direct his work … . Plaintiff was unable to identify the man, the man’s employer, or the man’s relationship to the homeowners. Moreover, plaintiff testified that at first he refused to take his boots off. Plaintiff called his supervisor who warned him that if he did not remove his boots he would be fired. As such, plaintiff’s supervisor gave the ultimate direction to remove his boots, which establishes that the employer exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work.

The record also shows that the stairs were not in a dangerous condition … . Plaintiff himself testified that there were no observable defects on the stairs, that they were not wet, and that they were free of chips and cracks. He admitted that he slipped solely because he was wearing socks with no boots … . Antonio v West 70th Owners Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02626, First Dept 4-4-19

 

/ ,

JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE CONVICTED ON A THEORY THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THIS ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S HAVING COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in the interest of justice, determined the jury instructions in this animal cruelty case allowed a conviction on a theory that was not included in the indictment. A new trial was ordered, despite defendant’s having served his sentence:

As the People essentially concede, the court’s jury charge constructively amended the indictment … . The indictment was limited to a theory that defendant personally mistreated his dog. However, the court read Agriculture & Markets Law § 353 to the jury almost in its entirety, including a provision that would allow the jury to convict defendant if he merely permitted another person to mistreat his dog. Unlike ordinary accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00, this theory of “permitting” is an entirely different way of committing the crime from personally mistreating the animal. This error was not harmless, because there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant took the blame for his dog’s condition to cover for his uncle, who lived with defendant and made inconsistent statements about whether he witnessed defendant beating the dog.

However, the fact that defendant has completed his sentence does not warrant dismissal of the indictment. That approach is suitable only in cases of “relatively minor crimes”  … , and this case involves “serious” allegations  …of abusing an animal. Accordingly, we remand for a new trial. People v Gentles, 2019 NY Slip Op 02623, First Dept 4-4-19

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT STATED VALID COUNTERCLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant had stated counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, breach of a fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation in this breach of contract action:

Sharbat’s [plaintiff’s] statements that he had “massive investors” who were prepared to invest in defendant and that he “had obtained high-value investors for [defendant] in Israel,” while partially hyperbolic, make concrete factual representations that go beyond mere puffery. Simply stated, Sharbat asserted that he had investors lined up and ready to go, when in fact he had none. Since plaintiffs were retained by defendant to bring investors in, these statements constitute misrepresentations of material facts for purposes of the fraudulent inducement counterclaim … . …

[The] allegations plead a broker-principal relationship sufficient to impose a fiduciary duty on plaintiffs vis-a-vis defendant … . Plaintiffs’ fiduciary role carried with it a duty to disclose material facts … . …

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs negligently misrepresented that they were able to represent it in obtaining investors and facilitating the issuance of securities to raise capital for it, that they were skilled in obtaining financing from “high-value investors,” that they “had qualified, high-value investors who were to invest in [defendant],” and that plaintiffs themselves were qualified to invest in defendant. … These allegations state a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation … . Solomon Capital, LLC v Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02621, First Dept 4-4-19

 

/ , ,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SPECULATION ABOUT THE RESULT OF A HEARING HAD THE LAW FIRM APPEARED IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff law firm’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice counterclaim should have been granted. Apparently plaintiff failed to appear at a hearing on a temporary restraining order (TRO):

… [P]laintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment in the legal malpractice counterclaim by showing that defendants could not prove that but for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the TRO hearing the hearing court would have denied the TRO or set a shorter return date … . Defendants speculate that had plaintiff appeared at the TRO hearing, injunctive relief may have been denied or the hearing court may have adjourned the case to an earlier date. Such speculation is insufficient to sustain a claim for legal malpractice … . Salans LLP v VBH Props. S.R.L., 2019 NY Slip Op 02611, First Dept 4-4-19

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED WHEN THE POLICE SEARCHED A BAG ON THE FLOOR NEAR HIM, THE KNIFE IN THE BAG SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, JUDGE PROPERLY PROCEEDED TO TRIAL WITHOUT A COMPETENCY EXAM ORDERED BY ANOTHER JUDGE AFTER DEFENDANT REFUSED TO BE EXAMINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the warrantless search of a bag next to defendant was not justified as a search of the “grabbable” area because defendant was handcuffed. Admitting the knife in evidence was harmless error, however. Another judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 competency exam, but, after the defendant refused to be examined, the trial judge properly commenced the trial without the ordered examination. The defendant had a long history of psychiatric problems, but the most recent exam deemed him competent:

In the circumstances presented, the court did not err when it determined that defendant’s trial would commence notwithstanding that a different judge had ordered a sixth CPL article 730 examination, which had not yet been conducted because the defendant refused to be examined … . The court acted within its discretion to decline to repeatedly issue force orders to compel defendant’s submission to the extant competency examination order. Furthermore, the court considered the long history of examinations in this case and its own observations of defendant over its prolonged history. We find nothing in People v Armlin (37 NY2d 167 [1975]) that prohibits a court from considering changed or extraordinary circumstances in denying a previously granted examination, particularly given defendant’s profound lack of cooperation and a recent examination finding him competent.

We find that the trial court should have suppressed the 12 inch knife recovered by the police during a warrantless search of defendant’s bag. Although at the time of the search the bag was on the floor within the “grabbable area” next to defendant, he was standing with his arms handcuffed behind his back … . These circumstances do not support a reasonable belief that the defendant could have either gained possession of a weapon or destroyed evidence located in the bag. Police did not show any exigency to justify the warrantless search of the bag … . People v Washington, 2019 NY Slip Op 02610, First Dept 4-4-19

 

/

GIVING A SECOND ALLEN CHARGE AND ALLOWING THE JURY TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING TO 5 OR 6 PM ON A FRIDAY, KNOWING THAT THREE JURORS HAD TRAVEL PLANS FOR MONDAY, DID NOT CONSTITUTE COERCING THE VERDICT, PROVIDING BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS WAS NOT IMPROPER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined (1) the trial judge’s giving two Allen charges and allowing the jury to continue deliberations to 5 or 6 pm, at the jury’s request, on a Friday, knowing that three jurors could not continue deliberating on Monday because of travel plans, did not constitute coercing a verdict, and (2) providing the jurors with both written and oral jury instructions, without objection, was not improper:

The substance of an Allen charge is not coercive if it is “appropriately balanced and inform[s] the jurors that they [do] not have to reach a verdict and that none of them should surrender a conscientiously held position in order to reach a unanimous verdict” … . Here, the trial court’s repeated Allen charge included an instruction that the jurors were to “make every possible effort to arrive at a just verdict,” thereby implicitly instructing the jurors that they were not required to reach a verdict if they did not all agree that the verdict was just. Further, the trial court advised the jury that it “was not asking any juror to violate his or her conscience or to abandon his or her best judgment.” …

Defendant … contends that the trial court coerced the verdict by acceding to the request made in Court Exhibit XIII for more time to deliberate on the day of the verdict without immediately addressing the scheduling conflicts set forth in the same jury note in which the request was made. … As the record reflects, the trial court construed Court Exhibit XIII as meaning that the jurors thought that they could quickly resolve any remaining differences among them and agree upon a verdict within hours that same day, and therefore permitted them to do so. Thus, there was no need for the court to address the traveling plans of some jurors for the following week because this did not appear to be a problem at the time. People v Muhammad, 2019 NY Slip Op 02609, First Dept 4-4-19

 

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