You are here: / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTIONS ON...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTIONS ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE-OF-COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of defendant’s motion to vacate his attempted murder convictions, determined defendant’s counsel (Lee) was not ineffective for failure to raise a medical-condition defense. Defendant argued he was incapable of running because of a gunshot wound. Several witnesses to the shooting testified the shooter ran after the victims:

It is unclear from the record as to whether Lee was informed of the existence of such a defense and that he ignored it without investigation. The record is devoid of any evidence, including an affidavit from counsel Brown [defendant’s prior attorney], as to whether Brown followed up on securing the medical records or whether he informed Lee of their existence and possible significance. While Lee testified that he had no recollection of the specifics of the case and therefore of being told of such a defense, he testified that it was his custom and practice to discuss and investigate possible defenses with his clients. Defendant also testified that he discussed various defenses with Lee, which Lee followed up on.

… [I]t is of note that defendant did not assert the defense of medical impossibility, and Lee’s alleged ineffectiveness in not presenting it, in defendant’s appeal of his conviction on October 16, 2001, his pro se CPL 440 motion dated October 6, 2004, or his habeas corpus petition dated February 22, 2006. While Supreme Court acknowledged that it was “troubling that the issue was not raised in the habeas corpus application,” it nevertheless dismissed the People’s argument … . The significance of defendant’s failure to raise the issue for over 19 years is two-fold. First, had defendant raised the issue earlier, Lee’s recollections as to what he did and did not do would certainly have been clearer. More importantly, Lee’s case files would be available for review and scrutiny. Despite Supreme Court’s recognition that “the loss of Lee’s file makes it impossible to prove that” Lee was in possession of the medical records or was aware of the records, it nevertheless improvidently concluded that Lee “conducted no investigation” and “did not look for an expert or for the treating doctor to consult about the injury and its consequences.”

Assuming Lee was informed of the existence of such a defense, defendant failed to overcome a “presumption” that the challenged action “might be considered sound trial strategy,” and demonstrate the “absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for the alleged shortcomings … . People v Brown, 2024 NY Slip Op 06550, First Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Although fact-specific, this opinion provides in-depth analysis of several issues raised in defendant’s motion to vacate his convictions, including ineffective assistance for failure to raise a defense, newly discovered evidence and actual innocence.

 

/ , , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY DIVESTS THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, STAYS THE PROCEEDINGS AND TERMINATES THE REPRESENTATION OF THE DECEASED’S ATTORNEY; ANY ORDERS ISSUED OR APPEALS TAKEN ARE VACATED OR DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and terminates the representation of the attorney for the deceased person:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015 (a)[, and] any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” … . Here, the Supreme Court erred in considering the separate motions of the LMB defendants and Bear Stearns pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them because the motions were made after [plaintiff] Roe’s death and prior to any substitution of a personal representative of his estate (see id. § 1015 …). Accordingly, so much of the order … as granted the separate motions of the LMB defendants … to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them must be vacated as a nullity (see CPLR 1015 …), and the appeal taken by the plaintiff Cheryl Lee from so much of the order … granting those branches of the LMB defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the first, third, and sixth causes of action must be dismissed.

Furthermore, the death of a party also terminates an attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party … . Thus, Roe’s former attorneys lacked the authority to file either the cross-motion or this appeal on his behalf. Accordingly the appeal purportedly taken on Roe’s behalf must be dismissed … . Lee v Leeds, Morelli & Brown, P.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 06624, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction, stays the proceedings until a substitution is made, and terminates the representation of the attorney for the deceased. Any orders issued or appeals taken after the party’s death and before substitution must be vacated or dismissed.​

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NO “ESPINAL” EXCEPTIONS WERE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT OR DEMONSTRATED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT MAKE THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant snow-removal contractor was entitled to summary judgment in this parking-lot slip and fall case. The defendant demonstrated plaintiff was not a party to the snow-removal contract with the owner of the parking lot, a nursing home. The plaintiff had not alleged in the complaint that any “Espinal” exception applied and was unable to raise a question of fact on the “Espinal” issue in response to defendant’s summary judgment motion:

“‘As a general rule, a limited contractual obligation to provide snow removal services does not render the contractor liable in tort for the personal injuries of third parties'” … . However, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to the general rule: “(1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his [or her] duties, launche[s] a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced the other party’s duty to maintain the premises safely” …  * * *

… [T]he defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by submitting evidence that the plaintiff was not a party to the snow removal contract … . Since the plaintiff did not allege facts in the pleadings that would establish the possible applicability of any of the Espinal exceptions, the defendants were not required to affirmatively demonstrate that these exceptions did not apply to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact based on any of the Espinal exceptions. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants launched a force or instrument of harm. The affidavit of a former coworker that the plaintiff relied upon was insufficient because it only addressed the general conditions of the parking lot and not the cause of the specific ice on which the plaintiff allegedly was injured … . The plaintiff also failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants entirely displaced the nursing home’s duty to maintain the parking lots. The affidavit of the former assistant to the head administrator of the nursing home that the plaintiff submitted failed to address the language in the snow removal contract that provided that the nursing home retained some duties and responsibilities to maintain the parking lots … . Brito-Hernandez v Superior Contr., 2024 NY Slip Op 06619, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of all the issues relevant to suing a snow-removal contractor for a slip and fall. Are any “Espinal” exceptions raised or applicable? Did the snow-removal contract make the contractor completely responsible for maintenance of the parking lot, or did the property-owner retain some responsibility?

 

/ , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS FOR DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND HIS RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CONTINUED DETENTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined several 42 USC 1983 causes of action against individual police officers should not have been dismissed. The Second Department noted allegations that individual police officers violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights need not be based upon a municipal policy or custom. Plaintiff alleged the officers fabricated evidence and conspired with the district attorney’s office to deprive him of his right to a fair trial and his right to be free from continued detention:

The plaintiff alleged … that the individual defendants, with knowledge that the plaintiff was not guilty, improperly caused the neup witness to identify the plaintiff as the shooter and thereafter caused him to be prosecuted. … [T]he allegations in the complaint were sufficient to plead the personal involvement of the individual defendants in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial … . Moreover, the Supreme Court improperly concluded that this cause of action was defective for failing to satisfy the “policy or custom” standard. Since the plaintiff was asserting a cause of action against the individual defendants in their individual capacities for an alleged constitutional violation … he was not required to allege facts satisfying that standard … . * * *

… [T]he complaint sufficiently stated a viable cause of action alleging a violation of the plaintiff’s right to be free from continued detention insofar as asserted against the individual defendants. The complaint alleged that the individual defendants knowingly concealed, among other things, evidence regarding the improper lineup identification, thereby “suppress[ing] evidence that was favorable to the plaintiff during the criminal proceeding” … . …

[U]nder the intra-corporate or intra-enterprise conspiracy doctrine,” and subject to certain exceptions, employees of “a public entity generally cannot conspire with [other] employees or agents” of the same entity, since “all are considered a single entity” … . Here, however, the doctrine is inapplicable because the plaintiff alleged that the individual defendants, members of the New York City Police Department, conspired with employees of a distinct governmental entity, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office … . Pressley v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 06563, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Causes of action asserting the violation of constitutional rights by individual police officers, as opposed to by the police department as a municipal entity, need not allege the violations were pursuant to a department policy or custom.

Practice Point: Although a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights cannot be based upon an agreement among police officers in a single department, it can be based upon an agreement among police officers and district attorneys.

 

/ ,

PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was performing repairs, not routine maintenance, when he was injured, entitling him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

“Delineating between routine maintenance and repairs is frequently a close, fact-driven issue . . . , and that distinction depends upon whether the item being worked on was inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work . . . , and whether the work involved the replacement of components damaged by normal wear and tear” … . Here, the testimony submitted by plaintiffs established, and the court found, that the rubber flashing was malfunctioning and inoperable prior to replacement and that the work being performed by plaintiff at the time of the accident was necessary to restore the proper functioning of the roof. To the extent that defendant asserts that the flashing plaintiff was repairing at the time of his fall was not actively leaking, such a contention is immaterial to whether plaintiff was performing a protected activity, inasmuch as it would be “[in]consistent with the spirit of the [Labor Law] to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the general context of the work” … .

Further, contrary to the court’s determination, we agree with plaintiffs that the rubber flashing was not merely a “component” of a ventilation system and instead was an integral part of a proper functioning roof. Here, plaintiff was performing roofing repair to ensure that the roof of the concession stand was no longer leaking—precisely the type of work that we have long held to be protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Verhoef v Dean, 2024 NY Slip Op 06465, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was repairing the roof when he was injured. He was not performing routine maintenance. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

/ ,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND COLLUSION” PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 487 WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMON LAW FRAUD; THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW A PARTY WAS MISLED BY THE ATTORNEY’S INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against an attorney (Moore) for “deceit and collusion” within the meaning of Judiciary Law 487:

Judiciary Law § 487 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n attorney or counselor who . . . [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” In essence, the statute “imposes liability for the making of false statements with scienter” … . However, “Judiciary Law § 487 is not a codification of common-law fraud and therefore does not require a showing of justifiable reliance” … . Stated another way, “liability under the statute does not depend on whether the court or party to whom the statement is made is actually misled by the attorney’s intentional false statement” … ; i.e., the statute “focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” … .

… [P]laintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that, from the time he became the client’s attorney, Moore engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he advocated for the validity of a fraudulent deed, and oversaw the revision of fraudulent surveys based upon that deed. Plaintiffs alleged that Moore was in possession of documents and correspondence establishing that the deed was the fraudulent product of the client and defendant Aaron I. Mullen, an attorney who had previously represented the client, and that Moore failed to disclose those items despite receiving a valid discovery demand for them. Plaintiffs also alleged that Moore instituted a CPLR article 78 proceeding based upon the allegedly fraudulent deed and that he attached the deed to the petition. Plaintiffs further alleged that Moore participated in the client’s fraud, and did so intentionally and with knowledge of the client’s fraud, to plaintiffs’ detriment of more than $100,000 in legal fees and expenses. Ostrander v Mullen, 2024 NY Slip Op 06461, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A Judiciary Law 487 action against an attorney focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not whether the deceit was successful.

 

/ , ,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE COUNTY SHERIFF SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL COURT WHICH ISSUES A SECURING ORDER FOR A NONQUALIFYING OFFENSE VIOLATES THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY INVOLVING THE SHERIFF WHO IS BOUND TO OBEY A COURT’S SECURING ORDER; THE REAL DISPUTE IS WITH THE COURT WHICH ISSUES THE ORDER IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF A STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the declaratory judgment action, determined there was no justiciable controversy. Plaintiff sued the County Sheriff seeking a declaration that “assigning a local court to arraign a criminal defendant with two previous felony convictions violates the constitutional rights of the accused because local courts lack the ability to order release or set bail under those circumstances.” The issue arose because of a conflict among provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law:

… City Court issued a securing order that committed [defendant] to the custody of the Sheriff on the basis of CPL 530.20 (2) (a) (double predicate provision). The double predicate provision states that a city, town, or village court (hereinafter, local court) may not order release on recognizance or bail when the criminal defendant, like plaintiff, has two previous felony convictions. Plaintiff further alleged that the double predicate provision conflicts with CPL 510.10 (4) (qualifying offense provision), which limits the court’s ability to issue a securing order imposing bail or remand to situations in which the criminal defendant stands charged with an enumerated qualifying offense (see also CPL 510.10 [3]). * * *

We conclude that plaintiff’s allegations fail to “demonstrate the existence of a bona fide justiciable controversy” inasmuch as there is no “real dispute between adverse parties, involving substantial legal interests for which a declaration of rights will have some practical effect” … . … “[T]he heart of the dispute is not any action taken by the Sheriff but rather whether the local . . . court must remand a given [criminal] defendant such as [plaintiff] to the custody of the Sheriff.” * * * Plaintiff’s real dispute is with the local court that issues a securing order ostensibly in violation of the qualifying offense provision, not with the Sheriff who is bound to obey the securing order. Where, as here, “there is no genuine dispute between the parties, the courts are precluded, as a matter of law, from issuing a declaratory judgment” … . Parker v Hilton, 2024 NY Slip Op 06456, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff’s dispute was not with the Sheriff, who is bound to obey a securing order, but was with the local court that issued the securing order which ostensibly violated a statute and the accused’s constitutional rights. Therefore there was no justiciable controversy between plaintiff and the Sheriff.

 

/

THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS SUSPENDED DURING THE COVID TOLLS, RENDERING THE ACTION TIMELY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the slip and fall action was timely brought because the running of the statute of limitations was suspended during the COVID tolls:

On March 20, 2020, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8, which tolled “any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to . . . the civil practice law and rules” … . Then-Governor Cuomo issued a series of nine subsequent executive orders that extended the tolling period, eventually through November 3, 2020 … . “A toll does not extend the statute of limitations indefinitely but merely suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for a finite and, in this instance, readily identifiable time period” … . “[T]he period of the toll is excluded from the calculation of the time in which the plaintiff can commence an action” … .

Here, 651 days of the 1,096-day limitation period had elapsed by the time the toll began on March 20, 2020. Upon the expiration of the toll on November 3, 2020, the remaining 445 days of the limitation period began to run again, expiring on January 22, 2022. Thus, the action was timely commenced on June 17, 2021 … . Jackson v Goodfellas Pizzeria, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06454, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: The COVID tolls suspended the running of statutes of limitations from March 20, 2020, to November 3, 2020.

 

/ ,

THE POLICE WERE AWARE THAT NO ONE ELSE WAS IN THE RESIDENCE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT LEFT THE RESIDENCE AND WAS ARRESTED; THERE WERE NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE HOUSE AFTER DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE WEAPONS SEIZED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to suppress the weapons seized when the police did a “protective sweep” of defendant’s residence should have been granted. Defendant’s wife and daughter had left the residence and told the police, who were outside the residence, only the defendant was inside. Defendant eventually left the residence and was arrested. Only then did the police enter for the “protective sweep:”

… [W]e conclude that there were no emergency or exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the residence. Once defendant’s daughter exited the dwelling, the officers knew from defendant’s wife that no one else was in the dwelling except defendant. None of the officers at the scene witnessed anything that would lead them to suspect that there was another person in the residence. The “mere possibility” that a person could be inside the premises did not justify the search … . We also note that there was no indication that defendant had shot or injured anyone prior to the officers’ arrival at his residence, and at no time had defendant threatened the police or anyone else at the residence. Under the circumstances, there was no legitimate reason for the police not to apply for a search warrant before entering the house. People v Swank, 2024 NY Slip Op 06449, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A “protective sweep” of a residence that the police know to be vacant amounts to a warrantless search in the absence of exigent circumstances.

 

/ , ,

SMI, A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, RAISED A SEQRA CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF SENECA FALLS; ALTHOUGH SMI ALLEGED THE NEW FACILITY WOULD CAUSE IT ECONOMIC LOSS, SMI DID NOT ALLEGE IT WOULD SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY; THEREFORE SMI DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined SMI, the owner of a solid waste management facility, did not have standing to challenge, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a local law allowing the construction of a solid waste management facility in the Town of Seneca Falls. SMI’s claim it would suffer economic loss if the new facility is constructed was not enough to confer standing:

Those seeking to raise a SEQRA challenge must establish both “an environmental injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large, and . . . that the alleged injury falls within the zone of interests sought to be protected or promoted by SEQRA” … .

… Although “[a] property owner in nearby proximity to premises that are the subject of [an agency] determination may have standing to seek judicial review without pleading and proving special damages, because adverse effect or aggrievement can be inferred from the proximity” … , the “status of neighbor does not . . . automatically provide the entitlement . . . to judicial review in every instance” … . The petitioner must also establish “that the interest asserted is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute” … .

Here, SMI failed to establish, or even allege, that it had suffered or would suffer an environmental injury. SMI submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of its managing director, who averred only that SMI would suffer economic injuries if the local law was not annulled. Although SMI, as the owner of a solid waste management facility, is entitled to a presumption that it would, in fact, suffer such economic harm, it failed to establish that it has standing to raise a SEQRA challenge because economic injury does not fall within the zone of interest SEQRA seeks to protect … . Matter of Seneca Meadows, Inc. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2024 NY Slip Op 06435, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing, a party bringing a SEQRA challenge must demonstrate an environmental injury which is in some way different from that of the public at large. Here no environmental injury was alleged. Therefore standing was not demonstrated.

 

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