You are here: / CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN ‘EXCESSIVE SENTENCE’...

Search Results

/ , ,

CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN ‘EXCESSIVE SENTENCE’ APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that Criminal Procedure Law 450.10(1), which purports to prohibit an “excessive sentence” appeal after a guilty plea, is unconstitutional in that it limits the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division, in violation of the NYS Constitution. But the court went on to find that defendant's waiver of appeal was valid and precluded contesting his sentence:

CPL 450.10(1) provides a criminal defendant with the right to appeal a judgment “unless the appeal is based solely upon the ground that a sentence was harsh or excessive when such sentence was predicated upon entry of a plea of guilty and the sentence imposed did not exceed that which was agreed to by the defendant as a condition of the plea.” As the People acknowledge, the Court of Appeals has held that this provision is unconstitutional because “it imposes a limitation or condition on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of Supreme Court in contravention of NY Constitution, article VI, § 4(k)” … . * * *

Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood that the appeal waiver was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty and that the defendant was voluntarily relinquishing that right in consideration for the promised sentence … . Furthermore, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right … . People v Swen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05949, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (APPEALS, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a dissent, reversed defendant's convictions for reckless endangerment and reckless assault. Defendant had picked up a gun that his friend (Morales) had brought to his house. In handling the gun it went off injuring his friend's leg. His friend was asleep when the gun fired. Defendant immediately said he was sorry, put the gun in a garbage can and accompanied his friend to the hospital. The Second Department determined the convictions were against the weight of the evidence because there was insufficient proof that defendant acted recklessly:

… [T]he People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his conduct would cause physical injury to another person. The People did not introduce evidence that the defendant was familiar with weapons, or the particular gun. Indeed, the gun was brought to the defendant's home by Morales, and it is undisputed that the gun discharged as the defendant handled it out of curiosity. There was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant knew the gun was loaded with live ammunition, or even knew how the particular gun operated. There was no evidence introduced that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk that the gun might misfire … . Indeed, Morales testified that the defendant appeared “scared” when the gun discharged and that the defendant immediately stated that he was “sorry.” The defendant attempted to dispose of the gun and helped the victim get medical care. Contrary to the People's contention, there was no testimony that the defendant was pointing the gun at Morales when it discharged, and there was no evidence introduced establishing that the only way the pellets could have struck Morales's leg was by pointing the gun directly at Morales. People v Marin, 2018 NY Slip Op 05942, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/RECKLESSNESS (CRIMINAL LAW, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's motion to suppress a handgun and statements should not have been granted in this street stop case. The Second Department found that the officer who stopped the defendant properly responded to an escalating situation which culminated in the defendant's flight and abandonment of a backpack containing the handgun:

There is no dispute that upon receiving a radio transmission of an anonymous tip that a man of a specific description wearing a black backpack and possessing a gun was traveling on the B6 bus toward Canarsie, the responding police officer had a common-law right of inquiry upon encountering the defendant exiting that bus and matching the description … . The responding officer testified at the suppression hearing that he approached the defendant and asked something to the effect of, “Hey, what's up, man, you know, you got a second for the police?” The defendant's eyes widened, he appeared visibly nervous, and he started to back up. The defendant then thrust his right hand in his right pants pocket and refused to comply with the officer's command to remove it. These actions by the defendant escalated the encounter to justify the officer drawing his weapon, placing it across his own chest in a “depressed position,” and attempting to forcibly remove the defendant's hand from his pocket as a self-protective measure … . Further, the defendant's subsequent flight, coupled with all of the other indicia of criminality, justified the police pursuit …  and, ultimately, the recovery of a semi-automatic handgun from the defendant's backpack, which he abandoned in a nearby bodega … . People v King, 2018 NY Slip Op 05941, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/STREET STOPS (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE  (POLICE OFFICER RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO AN ESCALATING SITUATION AFTER A STREET STOP, MOTION TO SUPPRESS ABANDONED HANDGUN AND STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defamation action, based upon a complaint made to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was properly dismissed. The complaint did not include the allegedly defamatory statement (a pleading failure) and the statement enjoyed qualified privilege. A remark posted on the Internet, which stated that defendant (Studer) had “seen and heard” horror stories about plaintiffs' treatment of animals, was nonactionable opinion:

… [W]ith respect to the plaintiffs' contention that Studer was liable for defamation based on the statements she made to the SPCA, since the amended complaint failed to set forth “the particular words complained of,” that branch of Studer's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the defamation cause of action as was based on those statements should have been granted (CPLR 3016[a]…). In any event, the record supports the Supreme Court's determination that Studer demonstrated, prima facie, that the allegedly defamatory statements enjoyed a qualified privilege. Protection from defamation is afforded where the person making the statements does so fairly “in the discharge of some public or private duty, legal or moral, or in the conduct of his [or her] own affairs, in a matter where his [or her] interest is concerned” …  Here, since the evidence establishes that Studer made the statements to the SPCA in a good faith effort to obtain the aid of a law enforcement agency in addressing a potentially unsafe environment which children in her community frequented, the statements are subject to a qualified privilege … . …

We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination to reject the plaintiffs' contention that Studer was liable for defamation based on the Internet post. Studer established, prima facie, that this post constituted a nonactionable expression of opinion inasmuch as it consisted of imprecise, subjective characterizations which could not be objectively verified … . New York Horse Rescue Corp. v Suffolk County Socy. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2018 NY Slip Op 05934, Second Dept 8-29-18

DEFAMATION (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION PLEADING INSUFFICIENT, STATEMENT ENJOYED QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, INTERNET POST WAS NONACTIONABLE OPINION (SECOND DEPT))

/

POSSIBLE CONFUSION ABOUT WHICH MICHAEL YACUBICH AT THE SAME ADDRESS WAS THE “MIKE YACUBICH” SEEKING TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR ASSEMBLY WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR INVALIDATING THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court , determined petitioner's designating petition for the nomination of the Republican Party as a candidate for the Assembly should not have been invalidated on the ground that there were two voters registered at petitioner's address with similar names (father and son). Father and son are named Michael Yacubich and petitioner sought to be placed on the ballot as Mike Yacubich:

The Board exceeded its authority when it invalidated the designating petition on the ground that it could not identify which registered voter was the candidate. As amplified by the testimony of one of the Commissioners, the Board perceived that the similarity between the two names was confusing. “[B]oards of election have no power to deal with questions of fact or with objections involving matters not appearing upon the face of the petition, and . . . such extrinsic matters, if any, are to be determined in court proceedings only” … . “[T]he board's power to determine the validity of a [designating or] nominating petition extends only to ministerial examination and the board may not go behind a petition designating candidates for primary election” … . Candidates are permitted to run for office using a familiar name or nickname … . Similar to objections raising allegations of fraud  … , the issue of whether a candidate's name is confusing because it is similar to another voter's name involves a matter extrinsic to the designating petition itself and, thus, is a matter for judicial consideration and not for the Board of Elections. Accordingly, the Board lacked the authority to rule on the objection based upon its perception that the petition was confusing because of the candidate's name, which should have been raised through a judicial proceeding to invalidate. Matter of Yacubich v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 2018 NY Slip Op 05912, Second Dept 8-24-18

ELECTION LAW (POSSIBLE CONFUSION ABOUT WHICH MICHAEL YACUBICH AT THE SAME ADDRESS WAS THE “MIKE YACUBICH” SEEKING TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR ASSEMBLY WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR INVALIDATING THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

POSSESSION OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE OF A CHILD CONVICTIONS REVERSED, PHOTOGRAPHS DID NOT MEET STATUTORY CRITERIA, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION IN THIS RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, AND POSSESSION OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD PROSECUTION, THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE REVERSED BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITS UPON WHICH THE PROSECUTION RELIED WERE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, affirmed defendant's conviction and long prison sentence for rape, criminal sexual act, possessing a sexual performance by a child and criminal solicitation. Three of the four possession of a sexual performance by a child were reversed because the “the lewd exhibition of the genitals” element was not present, only the victim's bare chest was depicted. The dissenting justice argued that the photographic exhibits were not supported by a proper foundation and should not have been admitted. With the photographs deemed inadmissible, the dissent would have reversed defendant's convictions:

From the dissent: The People's foundational questioning here, generously described by the majority as “brief,” was wholly lacking in substance. Although the People asked appropriate witnesses, including the victim, to identify the subject matter of the photographs to which they had knowledge, little or no additional information was elicited. Fatally, the People did not elicit any testimony that could establish that any of the photographs fairly and accurately depict the subject matter identified therein … . …

Specifically, with respect to the 16 photographic exhibits depicting the victim in various stages of undress, the People simply asked the victim whether each photograph “look[ed] familiar.” Contrary to the assertions of the majority, the victim's general testimony identifying herself as the person depicted in those photographs was insufficient to properly authenticate them. Even if the victim's testimony demonstrated that the photographs admitted into evidence were a fair representation of the photographs that she took or were taken of her, as the majority contends, no one testified that the admitted photographs had not been altered or that they were true and accurate representations of the photographs actually recovered from defendant's cell phone and computer … . There was simply no sworn testimony to refute the possibility that the photographs had been manipulated.

Although not discussed by the majority in detail, the remaining 10 photographic exhibits allegedly depict a motel room, different areas in the victim's bedroom and defendant's home computers, vehicle and residence. These photographs were offered into evidence to corroborate the victim's testimony, to provide background information and/or to allow the jury to assess whether the photographs of the victim were taken in either the motel room or the victim's bedroom. As with the photographs of the victim, the People did not elicit any testimony whatsoever to establish that these photographs fairly and accurately represented the subject matter depicted therein, as required … . People v Pendell, 2018 NY Slip Op 05899, Third Dept 8-23-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, PHOTOGRAPHS, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IN THIS RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, AND POSSESSION OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD PROSECUTION, THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE REVERSED BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITS UPON WHICH THE PROSECUTION RELIED WERE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PHOTOGRAPHS, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IN THIS RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, AND POSSESSION OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD PROSECUTION, THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE REVERSED BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITS UPON WHICH THE PROSECUTION RELIED WERE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (THIRD DEPT))/PHOTOGRAPHS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IN THIS RAPE, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, AND POSSESSION OF SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD PROSECUTION, THE DISSENT WOULD HAVE REVERSED BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITS UPON WHICH THE PROSECUTION RELIED WERE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff's suit for payment on a contract was not precluded by the six-month statute of limitations in the contract. Plaintiff AWI contracted with defendant Whitestone to provide security at construction sites. Both Whitestone and AWI were named in a prevailing wage class action commenced by AWI workers. Whitestone, pursuant to a contractual provision, refused to pay AWI until the wage action was resolved. The case was not resolved within the six-month limitations period:

[AWI argues] on appeal that the contractual limitations provision is unenforceable because it enables the scenario where, even though a claim has not accrued by the time six months have passed since the last time physical work was performed, it is still time-barred. AWI is essentially arguing that, in light of Whitestone's stated position that payment was not due to AWI until such time as the Wage Action was resolved, it should not have been subjected to the “catch-22” of having to file a lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations where the claim was not yet ripe for adjudication. AWI analogizes to Executive Plaza, LLC v Peerless Ins. Co. (22 NY3d 511 [2014]). In that case, the defendant insurer issued a fire policy to the plaintiff insured which required the plaintiff to commence suit under the policy within two years of a fire. The policy further required the plaintiff, if seeking to recover replacement cost, to forbear on making any such claim until the property had actually been replaced. When the plaintiff's property burned down, it diligently acted to replace the property, but it recognized that the process would take more than two years. In an effort to protect its rights, it commenced an action on the two-year anniversary of the fire. The defendant successfully moved to dismiss the action as premature. When the replacement was complete, the plaintiff commenced a new action. The defendant removed the action to federal district court and moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. After the court granted the motion, the Second Circuit certified a question to the Court of Appeals asking whether the limitations period was enforceable.

The Court of Appeals held that it was not. While recognizing the inherent reasonableness of contractually truncated statutes of limitations, the Court held that “[a] limitation period' that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim” … . * * *

.. [W]we find that, under the circumstances, the limitations period cannot serve to bar AWI's claim … . AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v Whitestone Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05907, First Dept 8-23-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CONTRACT LAW, SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SIX-MONTH CONTRACTUAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED BEFORE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND WILL NOT BE ENFORCED TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT ON THE CLAIM (FIRST DEPT))

/ , , , , ,

THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, over a partial dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) had standing to challenge a Local Law which placed a two-year moratorium on the conversion of hotels to condominiums or other residential uses. The court further determined that the REBNY did not have standing to challenge the statute under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The REBNY alleged that 29 of its members owned hotels subject to the law:

Owners of real property who are subjected to a new zoning classification or other use restriction are “presumptively affected by the change” and “therefore technically have standing” to assert claims … .

Accepted as true for purposes of these CPLR 3211 motions, REBNY’s assertion that its member hotel owners are currently negatively affected by the moratorium is sufficient to establish standing in the plenary action and in the article 78 proceeding under ULURP [the City Charter’s Uniform Land Use Review Process] … . * * *

REBNY’s claimed environmental harm is nothing more than economic harm (i.e., the reduction in property values, the loss of business opportunities and the added expense of applying for a waiver under Local Law 50). REBNY’s own filings reflect that the organization’s constitution mentions the environment only once, and only insofar as the environment relates to economic impact. The affidavit by REBNY’s president does not salvage REBNY’s standing argument. The president claims that “SEQRA is a concern” for all REBNY members in “proximity” to the hotels due to potential impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, waste disposal and demand for public services. This argument … fails to establish injury separate and apart from injury to the general public … . Matter of Real Estate Bd. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 05906, First Dept 8-23-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STANDING, THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT)).STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/LAND USE (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/HOTELS  (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))/CORPORATION LAW (THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, WHOSE MEMBERS OWN HOTELS, HAD STANDING TO CONTEST A LOCAL LAW PLACING A TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM OF THE CONVERSION OF HOTELS TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LAW UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ALLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AND DID NOT ALLEGE HARM SEPARATE AND APART FROM INJURY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged his thumb was crushed when attempting to lift a roof cutting machine over a parapet at the edge of the roof in order to drop the machine to insulation material ten feet below. Three affidavits from an eyewitness (Vera) were submitted, including an affidavit submitted with the reply. The defendant argued conflicts in the affidavits created a question of fact. But the court saw no conflicts:

The motion court properly accepted Veras’s second, clarifying affidavit in plaintiff’s submission on reply. The second affidavit merely amplified the factual recitation set forth in Veras’s initial affidavit, which had been procured and drafted by the defense and omitted the pertinent detail that the workers were actually in the process of lowering the machine from the roof, and not engaged in pushing it across the flat roof, when the accident occurred. Veras’s second affidavit was a proper response to defendant’s submission, and did not contradict the statement in his first affidavit …  Nor could Veras’s second affidavit be rejected as raising a feigned issue of fact … , especially since it comported with all of the other eyewitness testimony in the case, as well as with Veras’s own early unsworn statement, and explained the ambiguity arising from the omission of additional details in his first affidavit.

We have recognized the distinction in Labor Law § 240(1) cases between contradictory evidence and evidence that is subject to explanation in granting partial summary judgment on liability to a plaintiff… .

Here, Veras’s three statements, when taken together and along with those of the three other eyewitnesses and that of plaintiff, provided a detailed and consistent recounting of the accident as having occurred during the lowering of the machine. Cuevas v Baruti Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05905, First Dept 8-23-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an action for false arrest and related causes of action, all of which were dismissed, noted that an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot, as a matter of public policy, be brought against a municipality:

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress with respect to the City, as “public policy bars claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress against a governmental entity”… . Moreover, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing that cause of action insofar as asserted against [the arresting officer] by establishing that [the officer]i did not engage in extreme or outrageous conduct … . Ball v Miller, 2018 NY Slip Op 05813, Second Dept 8-22-18

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (MUNICIPAL LAW, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (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