You are here: / THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WERE EITHER NOT...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WERE EITHER NOT EXPLAINED OR WERE WRONGLY EXPLAINED, THE WAIVER WAS INVALID, THE INITIAL COMMUNICATION BY THE POLICE OFFICER WAS NOT A LEVEL ONE DE BOUR INQUIRY, THE SWITCHBLADE DEFENDANT THREW AWAY WHEN THE COMMUNICATION WAS MADE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined (1) defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the nature and consequences of the waiver were either not explained or were wrongly explained, and (2) the police officer’s (Conaghan’s) initial communication with defendant when the officer was sitting in a moving police vehicle was not a level one De Bour inquiry. Therefore the switchblade defendant threw away upon the officer’s communication was properly admitted in evidence:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the comment, “fellas, how you doing tonight,” constituted a greeting and not a level-one De Bour inquiry … . Conaghan testified at the suppression hearing that, when he asked the defendant and the two other males how they were doing, the window to the vehicle was already rolled down and his partner did not stop the vehicle. He also testified that he often greeted people on the street in this manner. Moreover, the credibility determinations of a court following a suppression hearing are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record … . A review of the record supports the court’s finding that Conaghan’s testimony was credible.

Since there was no impermissible request for information by Conaghan, the defendant’s “unprovoked and wholly voluntary” act of throwing the switchblade was not in direct and immediate response to any illegal actions by the police … . The recovery of the switchblade was not tainted by any illegality, because no illegal inquiry occurred … . People v Birch, 2019 NY Slip Op 02716, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

/ ,

DISTRIBUTOR’S AND SELLER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT DESIGN ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S OWN ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AND THE DANGER WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the distributor’s (Skyfood’s) and seller’s (E & A’s) motions for summary judgment in this products liability and negligent design action should have been granted. Plaintiff lost several fingers when he tried to remove a piece of cheese from a meat grinder being used to grate cheese by reaching into the hopper without turning the machine off. The court held that the plaintiff’s own actions constituted to sole proximate cause of the injury and the danger was open and obvious (no duty to warn):

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Skyfood’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging strict products liability and negligent design insofar as asserted against it. Skyfood established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action by submitting, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of the plaintiff and the affidavit of an expert, which showed that the plaintiff’s own conduct of knowingly placing his hand into the hopper of the operating cheese grater without turning it off was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … .

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of the separate motions of Skyfood and E & A which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging failure to warn insofar as asserted against each of them. Skyfood and E & A made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing those causes of action insofar as asserted against them by establishing, as a matter of law, that they had no duty to warn the plaintiff of the open and obvious danger of knowingly placing his hand into a cheese grater in close proximity to its spinning blade … . Hernandez v Asoli, 2019 NY Slip Op 02688, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

/ ,

WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT WAS AFFIXED TO THE NOTE, A STANDING REQUIREMENT, WAS NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS ON APPEAL AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, determined that the plaintiff had established standing to bring the foreclosure action. The issue whether the endorsement was affixed to the note, the issue raised by the dissent, was not raised on appeal, according to the majority, and therefore could not be considered:

We disagree with our dissenting colleague on the issue of whether the plaintiff established that the note was properly endorsed pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and, thus, validly transferred to it. The defendants’ brief, at most, mentions in passing UCC 3-202(1) along with other boilerplate legal discussion, but then relates the UCC provision to an argument that the plaintiff failed to prove the authority of the assignor to negotiate the note. Further, in challenging the endorsement itself, the defendants focus in their brief on the plaintiff’s failure to establish the signature and authority of David A. Spector, whose name is on the endorsement, and the plaintiff’s failure to prove the chain of assignments, but the defendants do not actually raise the issue of the affixation of the endorsement to the note. The defendants’ brief focuses almost entirely upon the enforceability of the assignment, not the issue of physical possession of the note or endorsement. To the extent physical possession is argued by the defendants, their argument is that the plaintiff failed to prove when the note was received and the circumstances of its delivery, without raising any issue about this particular endorsement being firmly affixed to the note. As a result, the dispositive basis of the dissent, having not been argued on appeal, is simply not before us to consider. It is not appropriate for us to decide an appeal “on a distinct ground that we winkled out wholly on our own” … , where no party has had notice and an opportunity to be heard on this ground. Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Molini, 2019 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

/ , ,

ALLEGATIONS THAT A POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTERCLAIMS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING FRAUD, DURESS, COERCION AND UNCONSCIONABILITY DISCUSSED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, dealt with the analytical criteria for motions to dismiss counterclaims and affirmative defenses in the context of a postnuptial agreement which was alleged to have been tainted by fraud, coercion, duress and unconscionability. The “unconscionable” allegations survived the dismissal motion. The decision covers all these substantive and procedural issues in some depth and cannot, therefore, be fairly summarized here:

An unconscionable agreement is “one such as no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other, the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … . Because of the fiduciary relationship between spouses, postnuptial agreements “are closely scrutinized by the courts, and such agreements are more readily set aside in equity under circumstances that would be insufficient to nullify an ordinary contract”  … . “To warrant equity’s intervention, no actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the [agreement] is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other’s overreaching” … . “Although courts may examine the terms of the agreement as well as the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there has been overreaching, the general rule is that [if] the execution of the agreement . . . be fair, no further inquiry will be made'” … .

Here, at this stage of the action, the defendant’s pleadings, as amplified by his submissions in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion and in support of his cross motion … , are sufficient to allege both procedural and substantive unconscionability. Shah v Mitra, 2019 NY Slip Op 02739, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION DEFENDANT RECEIVED A LETTER ALLEGEDLY REQUESTING THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO BEFORE AND AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BE PRESERVED AS THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MAILING, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to the “presumption of receipt” with respect to a letter alleged to have been sent to the defendant requesting that surveillance video from 6 hours before to 2 hours after plaintiff’s slip and fall be preserved. Only a two-minute clip showing plaintiff’s fall had been preserved and Supreme Court had precluded the defendant from presenting video evidence as a sanction for spoliation pursuant to CPLR 3126:

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish that the defendant failed to preserve all of the surveillance video footage taken on the date of the accident after the defendant was placed on notice that the evidence might be needed for future litigation … . The letter dated February 23, 2016, which was submitted for the first time with the plaintiff’s reply papers, may be considered, since the defendant had an opportunity to respond and submit papers in surreply … . However, the defendant denied receiving this letter and we reject the plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to the presumption of receipt. The mere assertion in the reply affirmation of the plaintiff’s attorney that the letter dated February 23, 2016, was “sent” to the defendant, unsupported by someone with personal knowledge of the mailing of the letter or proof of standard office practice or procedure designed to ensure that the letter was properly addressed and mailed, was insufficient to give rise to the presumption of receipt that attaches to letters duly addressed and mailed … . Sanders v 210 N. 12th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02737, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

/ ,

HYPERLINK TO A 2007 ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY ARTICLE IS NOT A REPUPLICATION OF THE ARTICLE WHICH WOULD START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING AGAIN, THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT),

The First Department determined a hyperlink in an email to an allegedly defamatory article is not a republication of the article which would start the statute of limitations running again. The defamation action was therefore time-barred:

… [t]he email sent by defendant to New Yorker magazine subscribers in April 2017 containing a hyperlink to an article published in the magazine in July 2010 does not constitute republication of the article … . The article was unmodified and had been continuously archived on the same website since the printed version was first published. Moreover, it is not alleged that the 2017 email, which included the link to the article in controversy, contained any defamatory statements about plaintiff. A reference to an article that does not restate the defamatory material is not a republication of the material … . Biro v Condé Nast, 2019 NY Slip Op 02615 [171 AD3d 463], First Dept 4-4-19

 

/ , ,

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

 

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