You are here: / THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO...

Search Results

/ , ,

THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the denial of defendant’s request to present an alibi witness was reversible error, despite the fact that a notice of alibi had not been served. The People had opened the door at trial, creating the need to call the alibi witness:

Pursuant to CPL 250.20 (3), “[i]f at the trial the defendant calls such an alibi witness without having served the demanded notice of alibi, . . . the court may exclude any testimony of such witness relating to the alibi defense.” Precluding a criminal defendant from proffering evidence in support of his or her own case implicates the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment… , and, although CPL 250.20 (3) explicitly states that the trial court’s decision to permit a late notice of alibi is discretionary, preclusion is only an appropriate penalty “in the most egregious circumstances”… . When a defendant’s “omission was willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage that would minimize the effectiveness of cross-examination and the ability to adduce rebuttal evidence, it would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the Compulsory Process Clause simply to exclude the witness'[s] testimony”… .

… [A]lthough defendant did not serve an alibi notice in response to the People’s demand for same, defendant did not intend to call an alibi witness except that the People — knowing that defendant had testified to having an alibi during the grand jury but that he had not presented that defense at trial — directly elicited testimony … about what defendant was doing on the night of the shooting. In response to follow-up questions by the People, [the witness] provided the alibi witness’s first name and generally discussed that defendant was friends with this person. The People’s question regarding what defendant was doing the night of the shooting was the first reference to defendant’s alibi during the trial, and defendant thereafter sought permission to call his friend … as a witness for the first time. The People, despite raising and pursuing this line of questioning, objected because defendant had not served an alibi notice. Defendant argued that the People opened the door and created the issue and, as a result, defendant should not be precluded from calling Steward. We agree. People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 07972, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE (CRIMINAL LAW, ALIBI WITNESS, THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/ALIBI WITNESS (THE PEOPLE OPENED THE DOOR AT TRIAL CREATING THE NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO CALL AN ALIBI WITNESS FOR WHOM THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT SERVED A NOTICE, THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IMPLICATED THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

ONLY SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, NOT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUSTIFIES REMOVAL OF NAMED EXECUTORS, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that the petition seeking letters of administration on the ground that respondents, who were the named executors, had conflicts of interest and had breached their fiduciary duties, should not have been granted. The court explained that named executors can be removed only for serious misconduct, not conflicts of interest. The matter was sent back for a hearing:

“‘[I]t is actual misconduct, not a conflict of interest, that justifies the removal of a fiduciary'”… . Simply put, “a conflict does not make a fiduciary ineligible under SCPA 707, and public policy zealously protects the decedent’s right to name a fiduciary, even one with a conflict” … . Thus, petitioners’ remedy for the alleged conflict of interest lies not in the ineligibility provisions of SCPA 707, but in the provisions of SCPA 702 authorizing the issuance of limited and restricted letters of administration under certain enumerated circumstances.

To that end, SCPA 702 (9) specifically provides for the issuance of limited letters of administration to a party for the purpose of commencing “any action or proceeding against the fiduciary, in his or her individual capacity, or against anyone else against whom the fiduciary fails or refuses to bring such a proceeding.” Indeed, this subdivision is designed to preserve a decedent’s choice of fiduciary “by permitting the appointment of a second limited administrator instead of requiring the disqualification or removal of original fiduciaries where their conflicts of interests preclude them from pursuing claims against themselves or others to the prejudice of other persons interested in the estate” … . For these reasons, we conclude that the conflict alleged did not render respondents ineligible to serve as fiduciaries of decedent’s estate under SCPA 707. Matter of Bolen, 2018 NY Slip Op 08001, Third Dept 11-21-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (EXECUTORS, ONLY SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, NOT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUSTIFIES REMOVAL OF NAMED EXECUTORS, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, EXECUTORS, ONLY SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, NOT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUSTIFIES REMOVAL OF NAMED EXECUTORS, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/EXECUTORS (TRUSTS AND ESTATES, ONLY SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, NOT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, JUSTIFIES REMOVAL OF NAMED EXECUTORS, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

/

IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined that claimant, a railroad employee injured on the job, could only be found eligible for Workers’ Compensation benefits if all the relevant parties consented to waive federal jurisdiction under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), which otherwise preempts the Workers’ Compensation Law. The matter was sent back to the Workers’ Compensation Board:

FELA preempts state law remedies, including workers’ compensation claims, “for railway employees injured in the course of employment when any part of that employment furthers interstate commerce” … . An exception is contained in Workers’ Compensation Law § 113, which empowers the Board to award workers’ compensation benefits if “the claimant, employer and insurance carrier waive their federal rights and remedies” … . This can be accomplished with an explicit waiver by all parties or, alternatively, when conduct such as ” representation of the employer by experienced counsel; utilization by the parties of the [B]oard’s machinery at a series of hearings resulting in a series of awards; and payment and acceptance of those awards” demonstrates an implied waiver … . Absent “a joint waiver or agreement evidencing an intention to be bound by” a workers’ compensation award in lieu of the otherwise exclusive FELA remedy, the workers’ compensation claim cannot proceed … . Matter of McCray v CTS Enters., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07997, Third Dept 11-21-18

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT))/FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA) (IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT))/RAILROAD WORKERS (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, IN ORDER FOR THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BENEFITS, ALL PARTIES WOULD HAVE TO WAIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY ACT (FELA), MATTER SENT BACK (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that the arbitration proceeding conducted by Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) had a collateral estoppel effect upon subsequent proceedings concerning the same matter conducted by the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. Petitioner was accused of providing marijuana to a resident of a group home for persons with developmental disabilities. The OPWDD arbitration concluded petitioner was not guilty. However the Justice Center essentially sustained the charges. The central question was whether the OPWDD and the Justice Center were in privity, such that the Justice Center must accept the outcome of the OPWDD arbitration:

Collateral estoppel applies to arbitration proceedings, and when the doctrine’s requirements are satisfied, “[an] arbitrator’s factual findings must be accorded collateral estoppel effect” … .

…[T]the Justice Center shared interests with OPWDD in the disciplinary proceeding stemming from its fundamental statutory obligation to “protect[] . . . vulnerable persons who reside in or receive services from [state-operated] facilities” and “assur[e], on behalf of the state, that vulnerable persons are afforded care that is of a uniformly high standard” … . The Justice Center directly served these purposes by participating as counsel in the disciplinary proceeding conducted by OPWDD pursuant to its governing regulations and the pertinent collective bargaining agreement to determine whether petitioner should be terminated from her employment working with vulnerable persons… . …

… The Justice Center is required by statute to develop the code of conduct that governs OPWDD employees such as petitioner who regularly work with vulnerable persons in facilities like the group home at issue here … . …

… [T]he OPWDD form that was used to report the incident … included a section indicating that the Justice Center had been notified and providing the date, time and identification number of the notification … . The Justice Center’s subsequent investigation of the incident was carried out by an investigator who testified that he was employed by OPWDD. Matter of Anonymous v New York State Justice Ctr. for The Protection of People With Special Needs, 2018 NY Slip Op 07996, Third Dept 11-21-18

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/ARBITRATION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (ARBITRATION, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ARBITRATION, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIED TO OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES’ (OPWDD’S) ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOUND PETITIONER WAS NOT GUILTY OF SUPPLYING MARIJUANA TO A RESIDENT OF A GROUP HOME FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WERE BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE OPWDD ARBITRATION (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the child did not receive effective assistance of counsel in this proceeding to modify visitation. Mother sought to eliminate the scheduled visitation with father and allow the child to visit father as the child wished. Family Court denied the petition:

To effectively represent and protect a child’s interests, the attorney for the child’s role is twofold: (1) help the child express his or her wishes to the court, and (2) take an active role in the proceedings … . By meeting with the child and informing Family Court that the child did not want to continue visitation as ordered, and by requesting and participating in the Lincoln hearing, the trial attorney for the child met the first objective. Given the mother’s limited testimony, however, Family Court understandably characterized the record as “thin.” In our view, the attorney for the child should have taken a more active role in the proceedings by presenting witnesses that could speak to the child’s concerns and/or conducting a more thorough cross-examination of the mother. During his brief cross-examination of the mother, for example, the trial attorney for the child did not attempt to elicit any further information about his client’s behavior and demeanor relative to his visits with the father. On this record, we agree with the argument made by the appellate attorney for the child that the trial attorney for the child did not provide effective assistance. Consequently, the order dismissing the petition should be reversed and the matter remitted to Family Court for further proceedings, including a new fact-finding hearing. Matter of Payne v Montano, 2018 NY Slip Op 07990, Third Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW,  CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAMILY LAW, CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MOTHER SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF VISITATION WITH FATHER BASED UPON THE CHILD’S REACTIONS TO VISITS WITH FATHER, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES THROUGH QUESTIONING THE CHILD AND CROSS-EXAMINING MOTHER (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined father had been denied his right to counsel in this modification of custody proceeding for the reasons explained in Matter of Hensley v DeMun, 163 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2018]:

For the reasons stated in Matter of Hensley v DeMun (supra) – the appeal by the father regarding Supreme Court’s resolution of the two petitions filed by the mother of the nonsubject child – we find that the father was denied the right to counsel, and we must therefore reverse and remit for further proceedings. Matter of DeMun v DeMun, 2018 NY Slip Op 07987,  Third Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction under a weight of the evidence analysis, determined that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Geroulakis, was incredible and unreliable:

On cross-examination, Geroulakis’s testimony was incredible and unreliable. Geroulakis denied that, at the first trial, he had identified the defendant as the shorter man at the souvlaki stand. When Geroulakis was confronted with his testimony from the first trial, he responded, “I remember they told me who is who, who stabbed me and who stabbed Jimmy.” Significantly, investigating detective Robert W. Henning testified that Geroulakis told him that he had argued with the shorter man, that they pushed and shoved each other, that the man “pulled out a knife” and stabbed Geroulakis “in the right thigh area” and then walked over to the car, reached in, and “stabbed [Zisimopoulos] in the abdomen.” After reading his interview notes, Henning confirmed that Geroulakis stated that the same person stabbed both Geroulakis and Zisimopoulos. Furthermore, on cross-examination, Geroulakis testified that he did not remember what the man whom he identified as the defendant was wearing and denied previously describing the man as wearing a long-sleeved black shirt. Geroulakis recalled telling a detective only that “some were wearing black and one was wearing long sleeves.” Geroulakis acknowledged that, in 2009, he had testified that the taller man wore a black shirt with long sleeves. A video-still from one of the clubs that the defendant visited in the early morning of the day of the incident revealed that the defendant was wearing a light-colored shirt with horizontal stripes and sleeves to the elbows. In addition, Detective Constantine Papadopoulos testified that the defendant had the same tattoo on his right arm at the time of trial that he had at the lineup, and Detective David Beutel testified that the defendant had tattoos on both of his arms. Geroulakis, however, testified that the arms of the two men who allegedly stabbed Zisimopoulos were bare and that he did not observe any tattoos.

Moreover, Geroulakis’s motive to identify the defendant as one of the people who stabbed Zisimopoulos is apparent from his exaggerated testimony at the second trial. It was only at second trial, nine years after the incident, that Geroulakis testified that he had observed the defendant, the taller of the two men, twice: once at the souvlaki stand and once by the car at the time of the stabbings. On cross-examination, however, Geroulakis admitted that, at the first trial, he stated that he recognized only the shorter man from the souvlaki stand, not the defendant. Despite this admission, Geroulakis continued to insist at the second trial that both the defendant and the shorter man were at the souvlaki stand.

Based on the weight of the credible evidence, we find that the jury was not justified in finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Andujar, 2018 NY Slip Op 08028, Second Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the appeal in this child neglect/temporary matter removal had been rendered moot by a disposition which returned the child and the exception to the mootness doctrine, which would allow consideration on appeal, did not apply. The dissent argued that the exception to the mootness doctrine was applicable:

Family Court … rejected respondent’s offer to consent to the continued removal without also admitting that the removal was “necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health”… . Family Court made such a finding at the conclusion of the hearing and issued an order continuing the temporary removal. …

Following the issuance of the appealed-from order, respondent agreed to a resolution in which the violation petition was withdrawn, the neglect petition was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and the child returned to respondent’s care. Contrary to her contention, these developments rendered her appeal moot…  She further argues that this case presents an issue that is “likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question” so as to fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine, pointing to Family Court’s refusal to allow her to waive the removal hearing and consent to the continued removal absent an admission of imminent risk … . Appeals from temporary removal orders are often rendered moot when the petition is disposed of before an appeal on the temporary order is decided … , but issues arising from such orders need not evade review considering the preference available for appeals from orders issued under Family Ct Act article 10 …  More importantly, the law is clear that any order of temporary removal must include a finding that removal “is necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child’s life or health” … . The contention that this requirement can be waived at respondent’s convenience is not “sufficiently substantial to warrant [invoking] the exception to the mootness doctrine” … .

From the dissent:

While we agree with the majority that this appeal is moot, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies. The substantive issue presented is whether a respondent in a proceeding under Family Ct Act article 10, part 2 may consent to the temporary removal of his or her child. The record shows that Family Court interpreted both Family Court §§ 1022 and 1027 as requiring the court to make a factual finding that a child is in imminent danger before issuing a temporary removal order. That is certainly the case in a contested proceeding… . The distinct question here, however, is whether a parent may consent to the temporary removal, obviating the need for either an admission of wrongdoing or a hearing eliciting facts of imminent risk as required by Family Court. Given the court’s position, it is evident that the issue will readily recur in proceedings before that court. Moreover, appeals from temporary removal orders are routinely found to be moot because a disposition is reached before an appeal is decided … . Because the procedures surrounding the removal of children from their parents are manifestly of public importance, we consider the consent issue important to resolve. It also appears to be novel. As such, we are persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine should be applied … . Matter of Tyrell FF. (Jaquasisa GG.), 2018 NY Slip Op 07985, Third Dept 11-21-18

FAMILY LAW (APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, EXCEPTION TO (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, APPEAL RENDERED MOOT BY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT – TEMPORARY REMOVAL PROCEEDING AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED A NOVEL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED CONCERNING CONSENT TO THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department agreed with Supreme Court that the real estate purchase contract, although some terms were missing, satisfied the statute of frauds, Therefore the motion to dismiss the action for specific performance was properly denied. However, Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment because plaintiff failed to demonstrate he had the financial ability to purchase the property on the law date:

“Only reasonable certainty, not absolute certainty, as to the terms of the agreement is required” … . Here, the essential terms of the contract were explicitly contained in the agreement, thus satisfying the requirements of the statute of frauds. The agreement is subscribed by the parties to be charged, identifies the parties to the transaction, describes the property to be sold with sufficient particularity, and states the purchase price, the down payment received, and how the purchase price was to be paid … . Additionally, while some terms, such as the closing date, the quality of title to be conveyed, and the risk of loss between the contract and the closing, are not included within the agreement, the remaining terms are clear and enforceable and, thus, the law will serve to fill in those missing provisions … . …

… [T]he plaintiff’s submissions failed to demonstrate that he had the financial ability to consummate the sale of the property on January 25, 2016, the date which he had set for the closing in his time-is-of-the-essence letter to the defendant. The plaintiff’s submissions highlighted, rather than eliminated, triable issues of fact as to whether he possessed the funds necessary to consummate the sale. In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff did not meet his prima facie burden on his motion, and thus, the motion should have been denied without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . O’Hanlon v Renwick, 2018 NY Slip Op 08027, Second Dept 11-21-18

REAL ESTATE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant’s affidavit raised sufficient factual questions which could not be answered from the record to warrant a hearing. Defendant alleged he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the marijuana conviction:

“Although a hearing on a CPL 440.10 motion is not always necessary, a hearing is required where the defendant bases the motion upon nonrecord facts that are material and, if established, would entitle the defendant to relief”… . In support of his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant tendered his own affidavit, wherein he asserted that he had completed his prison sentence and period of postrelease supervision and that he was being held at a federal detention facility pending deportation proceedings. He stated that trial counsel failed to inform him of the immigration consequences of being convicted as charged and that, had he been so informed, he would have asked trial counsel “to explore the possibility of a plea bargain rather than take the case to trial, even though [he] continued to maintain [his] innocence.” He further stated that trial counsel’s failure to present him with any plea offer, or to inform him of potential deportation consequences, “caused [him] to forgo any discussion of a plea bargain.” People v Blackman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07982, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS MARIJUANA CONVICTION (THIRD 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