You are here: / DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant should be given the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds because he was not adequately warned of the deportation consequences:

Defendant was deprived of effective assistance when his counsel failed to advise him that his guilty plea to an aggravated felony would result in mandatory deportation, and instead merely advised him that deportation was a possibility … .

Defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been made aware of the deportation consequences of his plea (see id.), and we hold the appeal in abeyance for that purpose. People v Rodriguez, 2018 NY Slip Op 07061, First Dept 10-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD MERELY THAT DEPORTATION WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT WAS MANDATORY, HE IS ENTITLED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint stated causes of action for promissory estoppel and a constructive trust. Plaintiff alleged that his mother removed him from her will, not to disinherit him, but to prevent his former wife from sharing in the estate.  Plaintiff and defendant are brother and sister. The agreement regarding the disposition of the estate made between plaintiff and defendant violated the statute of frauds. However promissory estoppel may be applicable:

The amended complaint alleges that, both before the mother’s death and subsequent to it, plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement whereby, essentially, defendant would be the sole heir to the estate, and would, among other things, give plaintiff his 50% share after completion of plaintiff’s divorce, and, until the final transfer of his share of the estate, defendant would maintain a life insurance policy of at least $5 million, with plaintiff as the sole beneficiary. Giving the complaint “the benefit of every possible favorable inference” … , it may be inferred that this oral agreement was in furtherance of the mother’s wishes, as her decision to remove plaintiff from the will was for the sole purpose of denying the former wife any access to the estate, and not an affirmative wish to disinherit plaintiff. In furtherance of the oral agreement, following the mother’s death, plaintiff paid the estate tax from his share of the mother’s life insurance policy.

… “[W]here the elements of promissory estoppel are established, and the injury to the party who acted in reliance on the oral promise is so great that enforcement of the statute of frauds would be unconscionable, the promisor should be estopped from reliance on the statute of frauds” … .

Plaintiff here has also sufficiently alleged the elements of his constructive trust claim … . Castellotti v Free, 2018 NY Slip Op 07045, First Dept 10-23-18

CONTRACT LAW (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROTHER AND SISTER TO SHARE MOTHER’S ESTATE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST (FIRST DEPT))

/ , , ,

MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two judge dissent, determined that missing the deadline for filing an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals does not deprive defendant of his or her constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel or due process. Therefore the defendant is not entitled to a writ of error coram nobis or an exception to the time limits in Criminal Procedure Law 460.30:

In People v Andrews (23 NY3d 605, 616 [2014]), we held that counsel’s failure to file a timely criminal leave application (CLA) to this Court within the thirty-day statutory time frame provided by CPL 460.10 (5) (a), or move pursuant to CPL 460.30 within the one-year grace period for an extension to cure the error, does not deprive a defendant of a constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel or due process under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In the absence of a constitutional violation, a defendant cannot resort to coram nobis to abrogate the one-year time limitation on the remedy provided in CPL 460.30 for the improper conduct of his or her attorney in failing to file a timely CLA. We left open the question of whether a more protective rule should be recognized under the New York State Constitution (id. at 616). Today, we hold the same rule applies under article I, section 6 of the New York State Constitution. Thus, defendant is not entitled to a writ of error coram nobis to bypass the limitation set by the legislature in CPL 460.30 in which to file a CLA seeking leave to appeal to this Court. * * *

Given our history paralleling our jurisprudence with that of the federal courts in affording defendants meaningful review on appeals, and without any reason to deviate from that tradition today, we hold that there is no state constitutional right to legal representation on an application for leave to appeal to this Court. People v Grimes, 2018 NY Slip Op 07038, CtApp 10-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (APPEALS, MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP))/CORAM NOBIS (MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (APPEALS, MISSING THE DEADLINES FOR APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR AN EXCEPTION TO CPL 460.30 BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OR A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (CT APP))

/

SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a concurring opinion, a partial dissent and a dissent, determined that General Business Law 518 requires businesses to post the total price charged to customers using credit cards, which can be higher than that charged to customers who pay cash:

Plaintiffs are five merchants who allege that they wish to engage in differential pricing and to inform customers of their practice by stating the cash price in dollars and cents and the credit card price as a percentage or dollars-and-cents amount, reflecting only the additional charge for credit card purchases and not the total dollars-and-cents price for such purchases. The point is best illustrated by examples. Plaintiffs wish to tell their customers, for example, that “a haircut costs $10.00, and if you pay with a credit card you will pay 3% extra” or “a haircut costs $10.00, and if you pay with a credit card you will pay an additional 30 cents.” … This practice, “listing one price and a separate surcharge amount,” has been described as “a single-sticker regime” … or a “single-sticker-price scheme” … , and we refer to it similarly. The merchants have challenged GBL § 518 as a violation of their First Amendment rights, to the extent that it allows them to charge credit card users higher prices but prohibits them from describing the price difference as they wish. * * *

… [W]e conclude that a merchant complies with GBL § 518 if and only if the merchant posts the total dollars-and-cents price charged to credit card users. In that circumstance, consumers see the highest possible price they must pay for credit card use and the legislative concerns about luring or misleading customers by use of a low price available only for cash purchases are alleviated. To be clear, plaintiffs’ proposed single-sticker pricing scheme — which does not express the total dollars-and-cents credit card price and instead requires consumers to engage in an arithmetical calculation, in order to figure it out — is prohibited by the statute. Expressions Hair Design v Schneiderman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07037, CtApp 10-23-18

CONSUMER LAW (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))/CREDIT CARDS  (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 518 (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))

/ ,

SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had the right of first refusal on the sale of a car wash. Defendant sellers’ attempt to put a restriction on the deed to prohibit the operation of a car wash on the property was deemed a deliberate, bad faith effort to defeat plaintiff’s first refusal rights:

The inclusion of the deed restriction within the purchase agreement was precisely targeted to prevent plaintiff — which defendants knew was in the car wash business and had entered into the right of first refusal as a means of preserving its opportunity to operate a car wash on the property — from exercising its first refusal rights. We find that [the] documentation conclusively demonstrates that defendants improperly structured their agreement to defeat plaintiff’s first refusal rights …. As defendants did not disavow these submissions, or the intent contained therein, they failed to meet their burden to raise an issue of fact in this regard. Under the circumstances presented here, the purchase agreement was thus entered into in bad faith as a matter of law … .

Accordingly, as plaintiff demonstrated a right to enforcement of the contract, its cross motion for partial summary judgment should have been granted, and the complaint and cross claims should not have been dismissed. Clifton Land Co. LLC v Magic Car Wash, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07027, Third Dept. 10-18-18

CONTRACT LAW (SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (CONTRACT LAW, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/BAD FAITH (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, SELLERS STRUCTURED THEIR OFFER TO SELL PROPERTY WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, SELLERS EXHIBITED BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the Commissioner of Health’s determination, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, sent the matter back with instruction to consider whether there was a conflict between the Medicaid (Department of Social Services, DSS) regulations and the Department of Heath’s (DOH’s) guidelines. If there is a conflict, the regulations prevail. Petitioner’s request for osseous surgery to reconstruct her jaw after damage caused by cancer treatments was denied. The Commissioner had determined the surgery was not covered:

Medicaid does not cover every medically necessary procedure; “medical necessity and coverage are distinct concepts” … . A “medical necessity” analysis is only required and relevant when the requested procedure is covered in the first place. Thus, the initial question is whether osseous surgery is covered by New York’s Medicaid program. * * *

The Commissioner committed an error of law when he determined, based on the Medicaid dental manual and without recognizing a potential conflict between the manual and the regulations, that osseous surgery cannot be a covered service under Medicaid. Due to this error, respondents did not reach other issues. Specifically, there was no determination as to whether petitioner established that her request for prior approval of that surgery should be granted pursuant to the regulation as a “dental service[] required for . . . the relief of pain” (18 NYCRR 506.2 [b] [1]). If she did not meet her burden, there is no conflict between the regulation and guidelines, so the Medicaid dental manual would prevent approval of the surgery. If petitioner did establish that the surgery is required to relieve her pain (which would, perforce, mean that the surgery was medically necessary), the regulations would prevail and the Commissioner must approve the surgery as covered by Medicaid. Because this issue requires factual findings and falls within DOH’s expertise, it should be decided by the agency in the first instance … . Matter of Rovinsky v Zucker, 2018 NY Slip Op 07026, Third Dept 10-18-18

MEDICAID (MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (MEDICAID COVERAGE, MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurance  policy was properly authenticated and the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for the property damage at issue and dismissed the complaint:

The insurance policy submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficiently authenticated by the sworn affidavit of defendant’s president, who stated that, based upon his review of defendant’s files, defendant’s proffer was a “full and complete copy” of the insurance policy issued to plaintiffs … .

… [W]e find that the terms of the policy conclusively refute plaintiffs’ claim that defendant is obligated to cover the structural damage caused to their barn by Calhoun’s operation of their tractor and hay baler. By its unambiguous terms, the policy insured plaintiffs only against direct physical loss caused to the barn by 11 specifically delineated perils. Accepting the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint as true and affording them the benefit of every possible favorable inference… , the alleged cause of the structural damage here — the tractor and hay baler “br[ea]k[ing] through the barn floor” — does not fall under one of the covered perils. The section of the policy cited by plaintiffs as providing coverage is inapplicable, as that section applies solely to liability insurance coverage arising out of third-party claims made against plaintiffs. Accordingly, as the insurance policy conclusively disposes of plaintiffs’ claim, defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) should have been granted and the complaint dismissed … . Calhoun v Midrox Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 07024, Third Dept 10-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND IT EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s petition requesting a de novo jury trial on whether defendant is mentally ill should have been granted. The First Department held that the exception to the mootness doctrine applied to allow appeal, the denial of the petition was appealable as of right, and the remarks of defense counsel and the testimony of the defense expert at the hearing to the effect defendant is mentally ill did not waive defendant’s right to a trial de novo:

This case satisfies the exception to the mootness doctrine because there is “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . Commitment and retention proceedings generally involve orders of short duration, which typically evade review … . Moreover, the issue before us is substantial, as it requires us to decide whether statements by defendant’s counsel and his expert could operate to deprive a defendant of his statutory right to demand a jury trial de novo on the “basic liberty issue” of whether he can be confined … . …

… [T]there can be no serious dispute that the order of the motion court, which denied defendant the opportunity to present his case before a jury, as provided for under CPL 330.20(16), affected a substantial right. * * * Since the motion court’s order affected a substantial right of defendant, we hold that his appeal is properly before us as one taken as of right under CPLR 5701(a)(2)(v). * * *

Here, defendant timely expressed his dissatisfaction with a recommitment order that was based on a threshold finding that he had a mental illness. Once defendant met those core requirements, he was entitled to a de novo trial at which a jury would decide whether he was mentally ill based on the evidence then existing. Matter of New York State Off. of Mental Health v Marco G., 2018 NY Slip Op 06998, First Dept 10-18-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CPL 330.20, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 330.20, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))

/ , , , ,

REVERSING SUPREME COURT THE THIRD DEPT NOTED THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION AND DID SO IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN IN THIS ZONING AND BUILDING CODE VIOLATION CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint in this zoning and building code violation case should not have been dismissed by the court sua sponte, and the court should not have awarded summary judgment to the defendant property owner. The Third Department noted that summary judgment may be awarded on an upleaded cause of action in the absence of prejudice and awarded summary judgment in favor of the town (plaintiff):

… [P]laintiff established the material facts through an affidavit by its Code and Zoning Enforcement Officer, who detailed the zoning and building code violations found on defendant’s property and averred that defendant had not remedied them after being served with orders to do so. The statements in the affidavit were corroborated by documentary and photographic evidence, and defendant submitted no opposition that might have raised material questions of fact. Supreme Court correctly observed that the complaint did not name a cause of action or identify the legal basis for the relief requested, and plaintiff’s motion papers suffered from the same problem. Plaintiff now points to authority for the relief sought by it (see Executive Law § 382 [3]; Village Law § 7-714 …), however, and summary judgment may be granted on an unpleaded cause of action “where the proof supports such a cause of action and the opposing party has not been misled to its prejudice” … . The evidence substantiates plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief sought — relief that plaintiff has consistently sought and was narrowed in its notice of motion for summary judgment — and there is no indication that defendant was prejudiced by the failure to identify the statutes authorizing it sooner. Thus, we grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and remit so that Supreme Court may fashion an appropriate remedial order. Village of Sharon Springs v Barr, 2018 NY Slip Op 07022, Third Dept 10-18-19

 

/

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS WERE PROPERLY REDUCED BY OVER $20 MILLION BUT THE COURT CANNOT REDUCE THE ASSESSMENTS BELOW THE AMOUNTS REQUESTED IN THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department upheld the reduction in the assessed value of petitioner’s property by over $20 million, but noted the court cannot reduce the assessment to an amount lower than that requested in the petition:

Supreme Court erred when it valued the property below the amount that petitioner requested in the petitions. As relevant here, “an assessment may not be ordered reduced to an amount less than that requested by the petitioner in a petition or any amended petition” (RPTL 720 [1] [b]…). In its RPTL article 7 petitions, petitioner sought to reduce the 2015 assessed value of the property to only $28 million and the 2016 assessed value to only $25 million. As Supreme Court assessed the property for the 2015 tax year at $27,912,000 and for the 2016 tax year at $24,483,000, the orders and judgments must be modified, accordingly.  Matter of Champlain Ctr. N. LLC v Town of Plattsburgh, 2018 NY Slip Op 07021, Third Dept 10-18-18

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS WERE PROPERLY REDUCED BY OVER $20 MILLION BUT THE COURT CANNOT REDUCE THE ASSESSMENTS BELOW THE AMOUNTS REQUESTED IN THE PETITION (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