You are here: / ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION...

Search Results

/

ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the absence of statutorily-required language in the accusatory instrument precluded sentencing defendant as a felony sex offender:

Although a conviction of attempted dissemination of indecent material to a minor in the first degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 235.22) can be considered a felony sex offense subject to sentencing in accordance with Penal Law § 70.80, the accusatory instrument must specify that the offense is charged “as a sexually motivated felony” (CPL 200.50 [4]; see Penal Law § 130.91 [2]). Here, the accusatory instrument did not contain the requisite language, nor did it make any reference to Penal Law § 130.91. As such, defendant was not subject to the sentencing provisions of Penal Law § 130.91, rendering the imposed sentence illegal. People v Lavelle, 2018 NY Slip Op 08378, Third Dept 12-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDERS (SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT))/DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR (SENTENCING, ALTHOUGH THE CRIME WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED, ATTEMPTED DISSEMINATION OF INDECENT MATERIAL TO A MINOR FIRST DEGREE, CAN BE A FELONY SEX OFFENSE, THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE IN THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT PRECLUDED SENTENCING DEFENDANT AS A FELONY SEX OFFENDER (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction under New York’s terrorism statute, applying a weight of the evidence review, determined that, although the defendant threatened to kill a judge in letters to his wife, there was no proof the threat was made to influence or affect the policy or conduct of a unit of government:

As relevant here, “[a] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense”… .

… [C]ritically missing is evidence demonstrating that defendant intended to influence a policy of a governmental unit by intimidation or coercion or affect the conduct of a governmental unit — a necessary element of the crime of making a terroristic threat … . …

… [T]he letters here do not indicate that defendant, by threatening violent acts, intended to influence the judge’s policy or conduct. Indeed, the record reflects that, in the time between when the two letters were written, defendant was granted visitation by the subject judge. In our view, they reflect defendant’s vented anger towards those individuals involved in his Family Court proceedings … . … [V]iewing the evidence in a neutral light, it cannot be concluded that defendant intended by his actions to influence a governmental policy or affect a governmental unit and, therefore, the verdict finding defendant guilty of making a terroristic threat is against the weight of the evidence … . People v Richardson, 2018 NY Slip Op 08368, Thirid Dept 12-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TERRORISM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/TERRORISM (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, TERRORISM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, TERRORISM, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL A JUDGE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TERRORISM CONVICTION, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE THREAT WAS MADE TO INFLUENCE OR AFFECT THE POLICY OR CONDUCT OF A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department. reversing Supreme Court, determined that the medical malpractice action should have been dismissed as time-barred. Plaintiff alleged a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted during surgery in 1993 and was discovered and removed in 2012. If the stent were a “foreign object,” the action would have been timely. But the stent was deliberately inserted for a medical purpose, although it should have been removed after up to six months. Because the stent was purposely inserted, it was not a “foreign object:”

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the ureteral stent/catheter allegedly inserted in his body was a “foreign object” such that the discovery rule should apply. According to the parties’ experts, a ureteral stent/catheter is a tube that bridges the kidney to the bladder, and is inserted and intentionally left in a patient for up to six months to assist in the draining of the kidney when the ureter is obstructed or when damage to the ureter was repaired and it is healing. The parties’ experts agree that if a ureteral stent/catheter was inserted in the plaintiff’s body during the 1993 procedure, then it was intentionally left in his body for the purpose of assisting in the draining of the kidney. Thus, the device was retained in the plaintiff’s body (if inserted at all) for ” postsurgery healing purposes'” and was not “analogous to tangible items” or “surgical paraphernalia,” such as clamps, scalpels, sponges, and drains, “introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure”… . For these reasons, the ureteral catheter/stent was not a “foreign object,” and the action should have been dismissed as time-barred … . Livsey v Nyack Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 08289, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/FOREIGN OBJECT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED IN PLAINTIFF DURING SURGERY IN 1993 AND WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED IN 2012, ALTHOUGH THE STENT SHOULD HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED, BECAUSE IT WAS INSERTED INTENTIONALLY AND SERVED A SURGICAL PURPOSE IT WAS NOT A ‘FOREIGN OBJECT,’ THEREFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE STENT IN 2012 DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, COMPLAINT DISMISSES AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined; (1) although no appeal lies from a judgment entered by default against the appealing party the contested issues may be reviewed; (2) Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint because plaintiff was not ready to proceed; (3) Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow plaintiff to present a “substitute expert” when the noticed expert could not appear at trial; (4) Supreme Court should not have dismissed the action with prejudice because the dismissal was not on the merits:

Although no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511), an appeal from such a judgment brings up for review ” those matters which were the subject of contest before the Supreme Court'” … . …

“Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(b), a court has the discretion to direct dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiff fails to appear or is not ready to proceed” … . Here, the plaintiff was not ready to proceed to trial due to the unavailability of her expert. …

Pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i), “where a party for good cause shown retains an expert an insufficient period of time before the commencement of trial to give appropriate notice thereof, the party shall not thereupon be precluded from introducing the expert’s testimony at the trial solely on grounds of noncompliance with this paragraph” … . “A determination regarding whether to preclude a party from introducing the testimony of an expert witness at trial based on the party’s failure to comply with CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) is left to the sound discretion of the court” … . Here, since the plaintiff offered only a vague excuse for the unavailability of the intended expert, without offering any details as to when the plaintiff learned of that expert’s unavailability, she failed to establish good cause to offer the testimony of the “substitute expert” … . Moreover, the plaintiff had previously been unprepared to proceed with trial due to, inter alia, the unavailability of experts … .

… “[S]ince dismissal of an action for a default pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 does not constitute a determination on the merits,” the dismissal should have been without prejudice … . Geffner v Mercy Med. Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 08280, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL AND REFUSING TO ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF A ‘SUBSTITUTE EXPERT,’ DISMISSAL WAS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE THE DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON DEFAULT, THE UNDERLYING ISSUES MAY BE REVIEWED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SMALL TABLE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant-store’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell over a small table that was behind a taller table thinking that it was possible to walk behind the taller table:

“Whether a dangerous condition exists on real property so as to create liability on the part of the landowner depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case and is generally a question of fact for the jury” … . Even a condition that is generally apparent “to a person making reasonable use of their senses may be rendered a trap for the unwary where the condition is obscured or the plaintiff is distracted” … . The determination of “[w]hether an asserted hazard is open and obvious cannot be divorced from the surrounding circumstances”… .

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the table at issue was open and obvious and not dangerous given the surrounding circumstances at the time of the accident, including the evidence submitted by the defendants on their motion as to the lighting conditions and the presence of other customers in the area … . Further, the defendants’ own evidence, including the deposition testimony of their employees, demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the space on the side of the table on which the plaintiff was injured could be anticipated as an area of egress by the plaintiff. Elfassi v Hollister Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 08279, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SMALL TABLE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SMALL TABLE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SMALL TABLE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

ANONYMOUS 911 CALL DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS NONTESTIMONIAL IN THAT IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT BUT MERELY ALERTED THE POLICE TO A BURGLARY IN PROGRESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the anonymous 911 was properly admitted into evidence, in part, because the call was nontestimonial:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to admit into evidence at the trial a recording of a 911 emergency telephone call made by an unidentified caller. The recording was admissible under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule  … . Moreover, the admission of the recording did not violate the defendant’s right of confrontation. Since the primary purpose of the statements by the unidentified caller was to obtain an emergency response to a burglary in progress, the statements were not testimonial in nature … . People v Torres, 2018 NY Slip Op 08337, Second Dept 12-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ANONYMOUS 911 CALL DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS NONTESTIMONIAL IN THAT IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT BUT MERELY ALERTED THE POLICE TO A BURGLARY IN PROGRESS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ANONYMOUS 911 CALL DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS NONTESTIMONIAL IN THAT IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT BUT MERELY ALERTED THE POLICE TO A BURGLARY IN PROGRESS (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION, RIGHT OF (CRIMINAL LAW, ANONYMOUS 911 CALL DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS NONTESTIMONIAL IN THAT IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT BUT MERELY ALERTED THE POLICE TO A BURGLARY IN PROGRESS (SECOND DEPT))/TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, ANONYMOUS 911 CALL DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS NONTESTIMONIAL IN THAT IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT BUT MERELY ALERTED THE POLICE TO A BURGLARY IN PROGRESS (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was denied his right to counsel when defense counsel told the court he did not want to be a party to defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea:

The defendant stated that he wished to withdraw his plea of guilty on the grounds that he was innocent and that he was coerced into pleading guilty. His attorney stated that he did not want to be a party to the motion. His attorney further stated: “I fought long and hard to get this. I thought we had this.” The court advised the defendant not to say anything further, and noted that the defendant could be charged with perjury. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and imposed sentence.

The defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected when his attorney took a position adverse to the defendant with respect to his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty… . The Supreme Court should have assigned a different attorney to represent the defendant before it determined the defendant’s motion … . We further note that, in advising the defendant not to say anything further because he could be charged with perjury, the court deprived the defendant of the opportunity to present his contentions … . People v Sarner, 2018 NY Slip Op 08335, Second Dept 12-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW,  DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT HE DID NOT WANT ANY PART OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT))

/

THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that a 2015 Court of Appeals decision holding that a jury cannot be instructed that it could find defendant guilty of both depraved indifference murder and intentional murder of a single victim should not be applied retroactively. Defendant was shooting at another when he struck and killed his accomplice:

In People v Dubarry (25 NY3d at 165), the Court of Appeals addressed “the novel question” of whether the defendant could be subject to multiple liability for a single homicide based on a theory of transferred intent. “The transferred intent theory, codified under Penal Law § 125.25(1), provides that where the resulting death is of a third person who was not the defendant’s intended victim, the defendant may nonetheless be held to the same level of criminal liability as if the intended victim were killed'” … . The Court in Dubarry concluded that the defendant “cannot be convicted of depraved indifference murder and intentional murder on a transferred intent theory in a case involving the death of the same person,” and, “[t]herefore, the trial court erroneously submitted to the jury both charges in the conjunctive rather than in the alternative” … . * * *

… Dubarry established new precedent and constitutes a new rule of law. Consequently, retroactivity analysis is required under this State’s rules … . “Whether a new rule of New York State law is to be given retroactive effect requires an evaluation of three factors: (1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application”… . “The second and third factors are, however, only given substantial weight when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself'” … . …

As to the first factor, the Court of Appeals in Dubarry clarified the proper application of the transferred intent theory, which should be employed, not to multiply criminal liability, “but to prevent a defendant who has committed all the elements of a crime (albeit not upon the same victim) from escaping responsibility for that crime” … . The Court’s purpose was to dispel confusion concerning the application of the separate mens rea of intent and depraved indifference to the same outcome … , and, similar to Policano, to make future homicide prosecutions more sustainable. Furthermore … , “nonretroactivity poses no danger of a miscarriage of justice” … . The other two Pepper factors also weigh in favor of nonretroactivity. … [T]hree of the departments of the Appellate Division permitted the submission of both intentional (transferred intent) and depraved indifference crimes in the conjunctive. Moreover, “[a]ffording retroactivity to [the] defendant would mean that every defendant to whose case it was relevant, no matter how remote in time and merit, would become [a] beneficiary'” … . People v Drayton, 2018 NY Slip Op 08323, Second Dept 12-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT))/DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER (THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT))/TRANSFERRED INTENT  (THE 2015 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH PROHIBITED INSTRUCTING A JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BOTH DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND INTENTIONAL (TRANSFERRED INTENT) MURDER OF A SINGLE VICTIM SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that defendant driver’s allegation that plaintiff driver stopped suddenly in this rear end collision case was not sufficient to create a question of fact:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by averring that he was stopped at a red light for 45 seconds before the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s vehicle in the rear… . In opposition, the defendant averred that the accident occurred after the plaintiff made a sudden stop in the middle of the road. However, the defendant did not submit any evidence as to the distance he had maintained from the plaintiff’s vehicle, or the speed at which he was traveling, prior to the collision. Without such evidence, the assertion that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop was insufficient to rebut the inference that the defendant was negligent … . Auguste v Jeter, 2018 NY Slip Op 08274, Second Dept 12-5-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, REAR END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, REAR END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ( REAR END COLLISIONS, DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT))/REAR END COLLISIONS (DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the town should be held in contempt for failure to erect a fence on town land in accordance with a stipulation. Plaintiff had requested the fence because people were crossing town land to trespass on plaintiff’s property:

“In order to sustain a finding of civil contempt, it is not necessary that the disobedience be deliberate or willful; rather, the mere act of disobedience, regardless of its motive, is sufficient if such disobedience defeats, impairs, impedes or prejudices the rights of a party” … .

In order to adjudicate a party in civil contempt, a court must find: (1) that a lawful order of the court, clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate, was in effect, (2) that the party against whom contempt is sought disobeyed the order, (3) that the party who disobeyed the order had knowledge of its terms, and (4) that the movant was prejudiced by the offending conduct… . The party seeking a finding of civil contempt must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence … .

Here, the plaintiff established by clear and convincing evidence that the so-ordered stipulation clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate to construct a fence… , that the Town had knowledge of the stipulation and nevertheless disobeyed it, and that the plaintiff was prejudiced by the offending conduct.

In opposition, the Town failed to refute the plaintiff’s showing or to offer evidence of a defense such as an inability to comply with the order … . Palmieri v Town of Babylon, 2018 NY Slip Op 08317, Second Dept 12-5-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTEMPT (TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (CONTEMPT, TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO BUILD A FENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))

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