You are here: / CITY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A RENTAL PERMIT AND LIMITING OCCUPANCY...

Search Results

/ , , , ,

CITY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A RENTAL PERMIT AND LIMITING OCCUPANCY OF RENTAL UNITS TO A “FAMILY” AS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that municipal code provisions requiring a rental permit and limiting the occupancy of rental units to a “family” as defined in the code were not unconstitutionally vague:

The record therefore reflects that the rental occupancy restriction was enacted to, among other things, serve a legitimate governmental interest in diminishing public nuisances created from the overcrowding of dwelling units occupied by transient residents … . Because the ordinance does not favor certain types of families over others, or restrict the size of unrelated persons living as a functionally equivalent family without also restricting the size of a traditional family, it does not suffer from the same constitutional infirmities as the ordinances in McMinn v Town of Oyster Bay (66 NY2d at 549) or Baer v Town of Brookhaven (73 NY2d 942, 943 [1989]). Moreover, the ordinance here contains objective criteria for rebutting the presumption that four or more persons living together in a single dwelling unit who are unrelated by blood, marriage or legal adoption do not constitute the functional equivalent of a traditional family … , and the occupancy restriction bears a reasonable relationship to the goals sought to be achieved by the ordinance. In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs have not established that the challenged provisions of the ordinance are unconstitutional … . Grodinsky v City of Cortland, 2018 NY Slip Op 05236, Third Dept 7-12-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, CITY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A RENTAL PERMIT AND LIMITING OCCUPANCY OF RENTAL UNITS TO A “FAMILY” AS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A RENTAL PERMIT AND LIMITING OCCUPANCY OF RENTAL UNITS TO A “FAMILY” AS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, LANDLORD-TENANT, CITY ORDINANCE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A RENTAL PERMIT AND LIMITING OCCUPANCY OF RENTAL UNITS TO A “FAMILY” AS DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT))

/

COMMUNITY GARDEN ASSOCIATION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A LOT IN THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, THE PERIOD OF TIME THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED IN 2012 WAS PROPERLY TACKED ON (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a concurring opinion, determined plaintiff (Garden) had stated a cause of action for adverse possession of a lot in lower Manhattan used since 1985 as the site of a community garden by an unincorporated association (which was later incorporated in 2012):

In order to establish a claim of adverse possession, a plaintiff must prove that the possession was: (1) hostile and under a claim of right; (2) actual; (3) open and notorious; (4) exclusive; and (5) continuous throughout the 10-year statutory period… . In addition, where, as here, the claim of right is not founded upon a written instrument, the party asserting title by adverse possession must establish that the land was “usually cultivated or improved” or that the land “has been protected by a substantial enclosure” (see former RPAPL 522…). The only elements in dispute here are the “claim of right” and “continuous” elements.

Defendants argue that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts evidencing continuous possession by its predecessor members for the statutory period, through an unbroken chain of privity, by tacking periods between anonymous possessors who are not alleged to have intended to transfer title to the incorporating members. This argument is based on the fact that plaintiff was incorporated in 2012 and defendants’ contention that there is no allegation that plaintiff had the necessary privity with Garden members prior to incorporation. This argument fails, particularly at the pleading stage of this litigation.

It is well settled that an unincorporated association may adversely possess property and later incorporate and take title to it because “[a]lthough the unincorporated society could not acquire title by adverse possession, its officers could for its benefit, and when the corporation is duly organized the prior possession may be tacked to its own to establish its title under the statute of limitations” … . Children’s Magical Garden, Inc. v Norfolk St. Dev., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05223, First Dept 7-12-18

REAL PROPERTY LAW (ADVERSE POSSESSION, COMMUNITY GARDEN ASSOCIATION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A LOT IN THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, THE PERIOD OF TIME THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED IN 2012 WAS PROPERLY TACKED ON (FIRST DEPT))/ADVERSE POSSESSION ( COMMUNITY GARDEN ASSOCIATION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A LOT IN THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, THE PERIOD OF TIME THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED IN 2012 WAS PROPERLY TACKED ON (FIRST DEPT))/ASSOCIATIONS (ADVERSE POSSESSION, COMMUNITY GARDEN ASSOCIATION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A LOT IN THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, THE PERIOD OF TIME THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED IN 2012 WAS PROPERLY TACKED ON (FIRST DEPT))/UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS (ADVERSE POSSESSION, COMMUNITY GARDEN ASSOCIATION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OF A LOT IN THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN, THE PERIOD OF TIME THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED IN 2012 WAS PROPERLY TACKED ON (FIRST DEPT))

/

FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CLOTHES CAUGHT FIRE WHEN SHE STOOD NEAR A PROPANE HEATER, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARNING WAS ADEQUATE AND WHETHER FAILURE TO WARN WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the “failure to warn” cause of action in this products liability case was properly denied. Plaintiff’s clothing caught fire when she stood near a propane heater manufactured and sold by defendants:

Plaintiff submitted the pertinent ANSI standard for warning labels on unvented propane heaters, which specifies certain language to be used in such warnings and establishes minimum heights for the warning’s lettering and a minimum distance at which the warnings must be legible. Plaintiff further submitted photographs of the warning label on an exemplar heater matching the one at issue here, supported by an affidavit from the professional photographer who took the pictures…. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted in his affirmation that these letter heights are significantly smaller than the ANSI standard’s minimum requirements and are therefore too small and inconspicuous to comply with that standard or to constitute an adequate warning label. * * *

… .[P]laintiff’s testimony that she did not look at the heater immediately before the accident does not establish as a matter of law that she would not have seen and read sufficiently conspicuous warnings on prior occasions and heeded them at the time of the accident. Palmatier v Mr. Heater Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05238, Third Dept 7-12-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CLOTHES CAUGHT FIRE WHEN SHE STOOD NEAR A PROPANE HEATER, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARNING WAS ADEQUATE AND WHETHER FAILURE TO WARN WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT))/FAILURE TO WARN (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CLOTHES CAUGHT FIRE WHEN SHE STOOD NEAR A PROPANE HEATER, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARNING WAS ADEQUATE AND WHETHER FAILURE TO WARN WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT))/PROPANE HEATER (PRODUCTS LIABILITY, FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CLOTHES CAUGHT FIRE WHEN SHE STOOD NEAR A PROPANE HEATER, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARNING WAS ADEQUATE AND WHETHER FAILURE TO WARN WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT))

/

WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s plea to a superior court information (SCI), determined the SCI did not contain a charge held for the action of a grand jury or a lesser included offense. Therefore the SCI was jurisdictionally defective:

… [T]he waiver of indictment and SCI were jurisdictionally defective because the crime charged in the SCI was not “an[] offense for which . . . defendant was held for action of a grand jury” … , nor was it a lesser included offense of the crimes charged in the felony complaints. On this latter point, “a defendant may waive indictment and plead guilty to an SCI that names a different offense from that charged in the felony complaint only when the crime named in the SCI is a lesser included offense of the original charge”… . “A crime is a lesser included offense of a charge of a higher degree only when in all circumstances, not only in those presented in the particular case, it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly, by the very same conduct, committing the lesser offense”… .

Reckless endangerment in the first degree is not a lesser included offense of either menacing a police officer or criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree because it would be entirely possible to possess or display the weapons required to commit either of the greater crimes, i.e., menacing a police officer (see Penal Law § 120.18) or criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree … , without concomitantly “recklessly engag[ing] in conduct [that] creates a grave risk of death to another person” — a required element of reckless endangerment in the first degree … . People v Hulstrunk, 2018 NY Slip Op 05234, Third Dept 7-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT))/WAIVER OF INDICTMENT (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT))/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI)  (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT))/RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT  (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT))/MENACING A POLICE OFFICER (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, THE SCI DID NOT CONTAIN A CHARGE HELD FOR THE ACTION OF A GRAND JURY OR A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT))

/

IT IS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR DEFENDANT TO NOT BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR WHICH RESULTS IN GRANTING A PEREMPTORY OR FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, AN ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A FACT WITNESS WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department affirmed defendant’s conviction and noted (1) it is not reversible error if defendant is not present at a sidebar which results in the grant of a peremptory or for cause challenge to a juror, and (2) an order of protection cannot be issued on behalf of someone who did not actually witness the crime (here a shooting):

Even if defendant was erroneously excluded from the sidebar conferences, “the error is not reversible if that potential juror has been excused for cause by the court or as a result of a peremptory challenge by the People”… . Because the record makes clear that juror Nos. 104 and 220 were dismissed for cause, remittal for a reconstruction hearing … or reversal for a new trial is not necessary … . * * *

A court may enter an order of protection for the benefit of a witness “who actually witnessed the offense for which defendant was convicted” (…see generally CPL 530.13 [4] [a]). Although Galaska testified that, on the date in question, he saw people screaming and arguing outside his apartment and the victim taking pictures, he further stated that he did not see who shot the victim and also admitted that he did not recognize any of the individuals who were arguing. Because Galaska did not witness the shooting, the order of protection issued in his favor must be vacated. People v Myers, 2018 NY Slip Op 05225, Third Dept 7-12-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (IT IS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR DEFENDANT TO NOT BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR WITH RESULTS IN GRANTING A PEREMPTORY OR FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, AN ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A FACT WITNESS WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING (THIRD DEPT))/SIDEBARS (CRIMINAL LAW, (IT IS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR DEFENDANT TO NOT BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR WITH RESULTS IN GRANTING A PEREMPTORY OR FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, AN ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A FACT WITNESS WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING (THIRD DEPT))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, (IT IS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR DEFENDANT TO NOT BE PRESENT AT A SIDEBAR WITH RESULTS IN GRANTING A PEREMPTORY OR FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR, AN ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A FACT WITNESS WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING (THIRD DEPT))/ORDERS OF PROTECTION (CRIMINAL LAW, AN ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR A FACT WITNESS WHO DID NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE SHOOTING (THIRD DEPT))

​

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the general contractor’s (Harbour’s) motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged that Harbour removed a tank and exposed a dangerous opening in a metal plate. Plaintiff alleged, while working at the site, he stepped backwards into the opening and fell, hitting his head on the concrete floor. The First Department held there was a question of fact whether Harbour launched an instrument of harm by not taking remedial measures to make the area safe after removing the tank. The fact that the opening was obvious and plaintiff knew about it did not warrant summary judgment in favor of the defendants:

Although both defendants argue that the exposed opening in the metal plate was open, obvious, readily observable and known to plaintiff, a property owner has a nondelegable duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, taking into account the forseeability of injury to others … . Moreover, although a defect or hazard may be discernable, this does not end the analysis, or compel a determination in favor of the property owner … . Plaintiff’s awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate a duty to warn of the hazard, but only goes to the issue of comparative negligence … . Given the exposed opening’s proximity to equipment that required service, the circumstances of plaintiff’s accident present an issue of fact of not only whether the condition was open and obvious, but also whether it was inherently dangerous… . Some hazards, although discernable, may be hazardous because of their nature and location … . Defendants did not establish that the exposed opening – given its location in the floor near other mechanical equipment in the pump room – was not only open and obvious, but that there was no duty to warn, and that the condition was not inherently dangerous … .

A contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a noncontracting third party (Espinal 98 NY2d at 138]). One exception to this broad rule is where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, “launche[s] a force or instrument of harm” (Espinal at 140). We depart from the dissent in finding that Harbour failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not owe plaintiff a duty of care and that it did not negligently cause, create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. Farrugia v 1440 Broadway Assoc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05222, First Dept 7-12-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (TORT LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))/OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SLIP AND FALL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, determined defendant’s conviction for identity theft was not against the weight of the evidence. The defendant had tried to purchase items from a store using a credit card and driver’s license with a fictitious name. The First Department had reversed the conviction finding that, because the name was fictitious, defendant had not assumed the identity of another. The Court of Appeal held that using a fictitious name was prohibited by the identity theft statute:

On appeal, we modified to the extent of vacating the conviction for identity theft, and otherwise affirmed … . We reasoned that in order to establish the crime, a defendant had to both use the victim’s personal identifying information and assume the victim’s identity. We reasoned that while defendant had used the victim’s personal identifying information, he had not assumed her identity, but rather, that of a fictitious person.

The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that defendant had assumed the identity of the victim within the meaning of the statute. The Court rejected defendant’s argument that “the requirement that a defendant assumes the identity of another is not a separate element of the crime,” explaining that the statutory language “simply summarizes and introduces the three categories of conduct through which an identity may be assumed” … . People v Roberts, 2018 NY Slip Op 05220, First Dept 7-12-18

CRIMINAL LAW (UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTITY THEFT, UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTITY THEFT, UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))/IDENTITY THEFT  (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTITY THEFT, UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in the interest of justice, determined the prosecutor deprived defendant of a fair trial by improper cross-examination of the sole defense witness:

The prosecutor repeatedly injected her own credibility into the trial while cross-examining the complainant’s grandmother, who was the sole witness for the defense other than the defendant, about pretrial out-of-court statements the grandmother made to the prosecutor concerning the complainant’s outcry … . Given the importance of the grandmother’s testimony to the defense, this conduct deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial … . People v Moulton, 2018 NY Slip Op 05203, Second Dept 7-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT,  IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SOLE DEFENSE WITNESS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to suppress credit cards taken from his wallet after he was placed under arrest after a traffic stop should have been granted. The defendant was arrested after a police officer saw what looked like marijuana in a plastic bag on the floor of the car. Defendant was charged with possessing forged credit cards:

While the police officer’s search of the defendant’s pockets was justified since it arose from a search incident to a lawful arrest… , the subsequent search of the defendant’s wallet was akin to searching a small bag or change purse and was unlawful. “The protections embodied in article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution serve to shield citizens from warrantless intrusions on their privacy interests, including their personal effects”… . “[E]ven a bag within the immediate control or grabbable area’ of a suspect at the time of his [or her] arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to the arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag”… . The proof adduced at the suppression hearing failed to establish the presence of such circumstances … . People v Geddes-Kelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 05195, Second Dept 7-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (TRAFFIC STOP,  ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (TRAFFIC STOP, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC STOPS (EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))/WALLETS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON INCIDENT TO ARREST WAS PROPER, THE SEARCH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S WALLET WAS NOT, CREDIT CARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ , ,

PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Although the defendant told the police he went to the victim’s house intending to kill him, there was evidence the gun went off when the victim grabbed the gun. The Second Department also noted the prosecutor improperly tried to elicit the jury’s sympathy for the victim:

… [T]he prosecutor’s comments in his opening statement about the grand jury’s indictment were improper. The prosecutor’s comments in his opening statement about the victim and his family, which could only have been intended to evoke the jury’s sympathy, were also improper… . Further, the prosecutor elicited certain testimony from the medical examiner and the victim’s father about the victim’s personal background and the victim’s family that was irrelevant to the issues at trial, and was likewise intended to evoke the jury’s sympathy … . Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, the prosecutor’s improprieties did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that any error contributed to his convictions … . …

Here, the court should have granted the defendant’s request to charge manslaughter in the second degree (reckless manslaughter) as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree (intentional murder). Reckless manslaughter is a lesser included offense of intentional murder in the second degree … . Moreover, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant did not intentionally pull the trigger at the time the gun was fired … .  People v Cherry, 2018 NY Slip Op 05190, Second Dept 7-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, LESSER INCLCUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE,  A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (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