You are here: / STOP AND ARREST OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO NYC’S STOP AND FRISK POLICY...

Search Results

/ , ,

STOP AND ARREST OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO NYC’S STOP AND FRISK POLICY STATED VALID CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the allegations describing the stop and arrest of the plaintiff pursuant to NYC’s stop and frisk policy stated causes of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against the individual officers and the city:

The complaint, as amplified by plaintiff’s opposition papers, alleges that, on February 13, 2013, plaintiff and a friend, both black men, were driving in a luxury sports car in the Bronx. They were not driving recklessly or violating any traffic laws. Nevertheless, they were pulled over by the police, and five or six officers, including the individual defendants, removed them from the car and searched them and the car. The police found marijuana in the friend’s pocket, but recovered no other contraband, either in the car or on plaintiff’s person. Nevertheless, plaintiff was arrested and held for two days. Charges against him were dismissed in October 2013.

The complaint alleges further that, during this time period, the New York City Police Department employed a “stop and frisk” policy, pursuant to which every year the police stopped hundreds of thousands of overwhelmingly and disproportionately minority persons, including black men, and subjected them to searches, for no reason other than that they were in supposedly high-crime areas. The complaint alleges that the “stop and frisk” policy, rather than some constitutionally cognizable cause, was the reason plaintiff was detained, searched, and arrested. To prove the existence of this policy, plaintiff submitted, among other things, the New York City Bar Association’s 24-page “Report on the NYPD’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy,” dated May 2013, which examined the policy and made recommendations for its reform and the protection of city residents’ civil liberties.

The foregoing states a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 against the individual defendants … . At this procedural juncture, it is not necessary for plaintiff to allege that any of the individual defendants did any more than participate in his unlawful arrest.

By alleging the existence of an extraconstitutional municipal “stop and frisk” policy, and that the individual defendants unlawfully arrested plaintiff pursuant to that policy, the complaint states a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 against the City … . Smith v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01828, First Dept 3-14-19

 

/ ,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEATBELTS IN A TAXICAB VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND IS NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the failure to provide seatbelts in  taxicab violates the Vehicle and Traffic Law and constitutes negligence:

The failure to provide seatbelts in a taxicab is a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 383, and constitutes negligence as a matter of law … . Where an injured party fails to wear an available seatbelt, such failure would go to damages, not liability … . That is not the case when the vehicle owner fails to provide seatbelts in the first instance … . Grant v AAIJ African Mkt. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 01823, First Dept 3-14-19

 

/ ,

HANDCUFFING THE DEFENDANT PENDING IDENTIFICATION BY THE UNDERCOVER OFFICER AMOUNTED AN ARREST WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined handcuffing the defendant pending identification by the undercover officer amounted to an arrest without probable cause. Defendant’s motion to suppress the identification and the buy money should have been granted:

The hearing court expressly determined that the police detention of defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion, but that probable cause did not exist until the undercover officer who allegedly bought drugs from defendant made an identification. Because the record provides no reason for the officers to have concluded that defendant, a suspect in a street drug sale, was armed or dangerous, or likely to resist arrest or flee, handcuffing him was inconsistent with an investigatory detention and elevated the intrusion to an arrest not based on probable cause … . Accordingly, the undercover officer’s identification of defendant and the buy money recovered as a result of the unlawful arrest should have been suppressed, and defendant is entitled to a new trial preceded by an independent source hearing … . People v Perez, 2019 NY Slip Op 01822, First Dept 3-14-18

 

/ , ,

THERE IS NO APPEAL FROM A DEFAULT STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO APPEAR, MUST MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the appeal, explained that where a party in default for failing to appear wishes to appeal, the party must first move to vacate the default:

Respondent appeared by telephone before the Support Magistrate for arraignment, an appearance and a hearing, following which the Support Magistrate concluded that respondent had willfully violated the support order and recommended that he be incarcerated. The matter was referred to Family Court for confirmation. Respondent requested permission to give electronic testimony. Family Court denied that application both in writing and orally and directed, on the record, that respondent must appear in person for the hearing. When respondent did not appear, the court conducted the hearing in his absence, found that he willfully violated the support order and committed him to jail for 180 days. Respondent appeals.

Family Court properly found respondent in default … . Although respondent’s counsel appeared and offered the explanation that respondent could not afford to travel to New York, the court had already heard and rejected that excuse in connection with respondent’s application to give electronic testimony and directed him to appear in person for the hearing. When respondent failed to do so, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding him in default  … . “[T]he proper procedure would be for [respondent] to move to vacate the default and, if said motion is denied, take an appeal from that order” … . Because no appeal lies from an order entered on default, we must dismiss this appeal … . Matter of Ulster County Support Collection Unit v Beke, 2019 NY Slip Op 01864, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

/

COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE FACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, DEFENDANT HAD MADE ALL PRIOR APPEARANCES AND NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE AT THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined County Court did not consider the appropriate factors before ordering the trial in defendant’s absence. Defendant had made all prior appearances and no effort was made to secure his presence:

Defendant had been present at all prior appearances, and there was no explanation for his failure to appear at trial. Defendant’s counsel stated that he had been calling defendant for a week without success. That morning, counsel had contacted local jails and hospitals looking for defendant. Despite counsel’s request for an adjournment, County Court concluded that defendant had been warned of the consequences of failing to appear and had voluntarily decided to be absent. The court then issued a bench warrant and immediately began the trial.

County Court abused its discretion in conducting the trial in defendant’s absence, as the record does not reflect that the court considered the appropriate factors. Nothing in the record indicates any difficulty in rescheduling the trial, fear that evidence or witnesses would be lost or that further efforts to locate defendant would be futile … . “Moreover, the fact that trial was commenced immediately after issuance of a bench warrant demonstrates only a minimal effort to locate defendant prior to trial” … . The court did not provide even a short adjournment for execution of the warrant or a determination as to whether defendant could be located within a reasonable time … . Because the court violated defendant’s right to be present at his trial, we reverse. People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 01858, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

/ ,

CONFLICTING PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS REQUIRED A COMPETENCY HEARING, EVEN IF ONE OF THE PSYCHIATRISTS HAD CHANGED HIS OR HER MIND (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined a hearing was required to assess defendant’s competency to stand trial because conflicting reports from the two psychiatric evaluations. The fact that one of the psychiatrists apparently changed his or her opinion was deemed irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a reconstruction hearing:

… [T]here can be no dispute that, after receiving conflicting examination reports, County Court failed to conduct a competency hearing. Although the People rely on defense counsel’s representation that the psychiatric examiner who filed a report stating that defendant was not competent to stand trial had changed his mind, this representation and subsequent withdrawal of the request for a hearing did not relieve the court of its statutory duty to conduct a hearing pursuant to CPL 730.30 (4) for the purpose of determining defendant’s mental capacity to stand trial … . We agree with the dissent that, pursuant to CPL 730.30 (2), a competency hearing need not always be held “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that each psychiatric examiner is of the opinion that the defendant is not an incapacitated person” (emphasis added). However, we do not agree that CPL 730.30 (2) applies when the record demonstrates that the court has been provided with two conflicting examination reports, even if the defendant’s attorney represents that one of the examiners has since changed his or her opinion.

Given the circumstances present here, reconstruction of defendant’s mental capacity at the time of his violation hearing should be possible by means of “contemporaneous observation and records” … . People v Vandegrift, 2019 NY Slip Op 01854, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

/ , ,

SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR STATEMENTS MADE WHILE A CANDIDATE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the Supremacy Clause did not preclude a New York State civil suit for defamation against President Trump. In response to allegations by the plaintiff that Donald Trump had made unwanted sexual advances, then candidate Trump made statements denying the allegations (made by plaintiff and other women), calling them false and outright lies saying, for example, “all of these liars will be sued after the election is over:”

… [T]he current sitting President attempts to shield himself from consequences for his alleged unofficial misconduct by relying upon the constitutional protection of the Presidency. We reject defendant President Trump’s argument that the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution prevents a New York State court – and every other state court in the country – from exercising its authority under its state constitution. Instead, we find that the Supremacy Clause was never intended to deprive a state court of its authority to decide cases and controversies under the state’s constitution.

… [T]he Supremacy Clause provides that federal law supersedes state law with which it conflicts, but it does not provide that the President himself is immune from state law that does not conflict with federal law. Since there is no federal law conflicting with or displacing this defamation action, the Supremacy Clause does not provide a basis for immunizing the President from state court civil damages actions. Moreover, in the absence of a federal law limiting state court jurisdiction, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, it follows that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendant and properly denied his motion to dismiss. Zervos v Trump, 2019 NY Slip Op 01851, First Dept 3-14-19

 

/

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING ON AN HVAC SYSTEM, THE WORK WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s work on an HVAC system was routing maintenance, not covered by Labor Law 241 (6):

The plaintiff allegedly injured his back when he was performing a seasonal “start-up” of a cooling tower on the defendant’s HVAC system, which consisted of transitioning the HVAC system from heating to cooling. The company the defendant was employed by had done this work on a yearly basis for the past 10 years. As part of the work, the plaintiff and his coworker needed to reinstall a circulation pump on the HVAC tower, which had been removed for the winter months. To do so, the plaintiff tied a rope around the circulation pump, which weighed approximately 100 pounds, passed the rope over the top of an overhead beam, and pulled from the other side to raise the pump about three to five feet off the ground so his coworker could install it in the cooling tower. The plaintiff held the pump in the air for about 20 or 25 minutes while his coworker attempted to install it, but felt pain in his back and was unable to hold it any longer. The plaintiff allegedly needed back surgery as a result of the incident. …

Although maintenance work performed in connection with construction, demolition, or excavation work is included under Labor Law § 241(6), “[r]outine maintenance is not within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6)” … . The Labor Law “does not cover routine maintenance in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context” … . Byrnes v Nursing Sisters of the Sick Poor, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01736, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

/ ,

PROVISION IN MORTGAGE WHICH GAVE BORROWER RIGHT TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF BANK FROM ACCELERATING THE DEBT BY FILING A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined that a reinstatement provision in a mortgage which gives the borrower the option to de-accelerate the debt did not preclude the plaintiff bank from accelerating the debt, rendering the foreclosure action time-barred:

This appeal presents an issue of first impression for this Court. The plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action contends that it lacked the authority to exercise its contractual option to accelerate the maturity of the entire balance of the loan it seeks to recover. The plaintiff argues that it was prevented from validly accelerating the debt by virtue of a reinstatement provision in the subject mortgage which gives the borrower the option, under certain circumstances, to effectively de-accelerate the maturity of the debt. The plaintiff further argues that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the borrower’s rights under the reinstatement provision in the subject mortgage were extinguished. * * *

… .[T]he defendant demonstrated that the subject mortgage provided the plaintiff with the right to require the defendant to immediately pay “the entire amount then remaining unpaid under the Note and [mortgage]” if the plaintiff first satisfied certain conditions set forth in the mortgage. The defendant’s evidentiary submissions established that the plaintiff complied with those conditions … , and then validly exercised its option to accelerate the entire remaining balance due under the note by filing the summons and complaint in the first foreclosure action in June 2010 … . Accordingly, since this action was not commenced until October 2016, the defendant established, prima facie, that the time in which to commence this action has expired (see CPLR 213[4]). * * *

… [T]the extinguishment of the defendant’s contractual right to de-accelerate the maturity of the debt pursuant to the reinstatement provision in paragraph 19 of the mortgage was not a condition precedent to the plaintiff’s acceleration of the mortgage … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Dieudonne, 2019 NY Slip Op 01732, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

/ , ,

PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate that the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were met:

… Lechtanski [the loan servicer representative] did not have personal knowledge of the purported mailing and failed to make the requisite showing that he was familiar with the plaintiff’s mailing practices and procedures, and therefore, did not establish “proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the copy of the notice annexed to the Lechtanski affidavits, while bearing a notation “VIA CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL,” bears no indicia of actual mailing such as postal codes and was unaccompanied by any mailing receipts or tracking information … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Taylor, 2019 NY Slip Op 01817, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

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