You are here: / MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT...

Search Results

/ ,

MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother had demonstrated that father’s violation of the separation agreement was willful, entitling mother to attorney’s fees:

Family Court’s determination that the mother failed to prove a willful violation is not supported by the record or the law. The mother’s testimonial and documentary submissions were amply sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the father’s delays and failures to satisfy his obligations were willful violations, thus shifting the burden to him to demonstrate his inability to pay … . In response, the father made no effort to show that he could not meet his obligations; indeed, he admitted that he did not make the orthodontic payment or turn over the tax information until he was ordered to do so. Accordingly, he failed to satisfy his burden… . Family Court thus erred in dismissing the mother’s objections. Contrary to the court’s determination, the fact that the father had paid his obligations by the time of the hearing — at least in part, because he was ordered to do so — does not negate the evidence that he repeatedly delayed in fulfilling some of his responsibilities and completely avoided others, forcing the mother to make repeated efforts to obtain his compliance and, finally, to commence this proceeding. Matter of Shkaf v Shkaf, 2018 NY Slip Op 04052, Third Dept 6-7-18

FAMILY LAW (SEPARATION AGREEMENTS, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, (SEPARATION AGREEMENTS, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT))/SEPARATION AGREEMENTS (VIOLATION, ATTORNEY’S FEES,  MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, SEPARATION AGREEMENTS, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED FATHER WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT))

/

SUSPENDED JUDGMENT COMMITTING RESPONDENT TO JAIL FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined a suspended judgment should not have been revoked without a hearing:

… [R]espondent consented to an order confirming the Support Magistrate’s finding that he willfully violated his child support obligation. Family Court suspended judgment on the condition that respondent make certain minimum payments. After respondent failed to make the requisite payments, petitioner, in November 2015, filed a violation petition against him. Following an appearance in April 2016, it was revealed that respondent had been recently employed and the child support payments had been made. As a consequence, Family Court continued to suspend judgment and the matter was adjourned. At a November 2016 appearance, petitioner advised Family Court that, although it had been receiving payments directly from respondent’s employer, such payments had ceased in early October 2016. Inasmuch as respondent failed to personally appear in November 2016, a warrant was issued for his arrest. At an appearance on January 4, 2017, respondent’s counsel requested a hearing to call respondent’s employer as a witness to determine why payments were not being made to petitioner. Respondent’s counsel inquired whether he should subpoena the employer and, although Family Court did not explicitly respond to this inquiry, the court noted that a hearing “could at least start.” At the January 17, 2017 appearance, Family Court refused to let respondent call the subpoenaed witness. Family Court noted that a hearing was unnecessary because respondent did not dispute that payments had not been made and, therefore, good cause existed to revoke the suspended judgment. Family Court sentenced respondent to a 90-day jail term and imposed a purge amount of $3,507.50. …

Family Court erred in revoking the suspended judgment without first conducting an evidentiary hearing … . Given respondent’s liberty interest at stake … , he was entitled to present witnesses on the issue of whether good cause existed to revoke the suspended judgment … . Matter of Madison County Support Collection Unit v Campbell, 2018 NY Slip Op 04049, Third Dept 6-7-18

FAMILY LAW (SUSPENDED JUDGMENT COMMITTING RESPONDENT TO JAIL FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/CHILD SUPPORT (SUSPENDED JUDGMENT COMMITTING RESPONDENT TO JAIL FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/SUSPENDED JUDGMENT (FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, SUSPENDED JUDGMENT COMMITTING RESPONDENT TO JAIL FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

/

DURATION OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION FOR A BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER AND A STEPGRANDFATHER EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department discussed the allowed duration of orders of protection for a biological grandfather and a stepgrandfather:

Family Ct Act § 1056 (4) provides that “[t]he court may enter an order of protection[,] independently of any other order made under this part, against a person who was a member of the child’s household or a person legally responsible . . . and who is no longer a member of such household at the time of the disposition and who is not related by blood or marriage to the child or a member of the child’s household. [Such] order of protection . . . may be for any period of time up to the child’s eighteenth birthday.” Because Harold J. is the biological grandfather of Annabella and Caleb J., the orders of protection as to these children must be modified to reflect an expiration date … one year from disposition of the matter … .​

The familial relationship between Makayla and Harold J. warrants slightly more analysis as Harold J. is not Makayla’s biological grandfather, but rather is related to her through his son’s marriage to Makayla’s mother. This raises the issue of whether a stepgrandparent is related to a stepgrandchild by marriage for the purposes of Family Ct Act § 1056 (4). We conclude that they are not. This conclusion is supported by the specific language in the statute, “related by . . . marriage” … , rather than the broader and more inclusive concept of “affinity,” which is used elsewhere in the Family Ct Act … . Further, a stepgrandparent has no enforceable legal right to have contact with a stepgrandchild as a stepgrandparent lacks standing to pursue visitation … . Thus, although Family Ct Act § 1056 (4) limits the duration of orders of protection against a stepparent who is related to a child by and through his or her own marriage to the child’s mother or father, these limitations do not apply to a stepgrandparent, whose relationship to the child is attenuated. Therefore, because Harold J.’s relationship to Makayla is not established by his own marriage, but rather through his son’s marriage, it was statutorily permissible, in this regard, for Family Court to issue an order of protection until Makayla’s eighteenth birthday. Our analysis does not end here, however, as Family Ct Act § 1056 (4) prohibits orders of protection until a child’s eighteenth birthday if the order is against someone who is related by blood or marriage to a member of the child’s household. Therefore, if, at the time of disposition, Makayla resided in the same household as Annabella and Caleb J., the order of protection as to Makayla could not exceed one year … . Inasmuch as we cannot discern from the record whether this is the case, the matter must be remitted for the purpose of making this determination. Matter of Makayla I. (Caleb K.), 2018 NY Slip Op 04047, Third Dept 6-7-18

FAMILY LAW (ORDERS OF PROTECTION, DURATION OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION FOR A BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER AND A STEPGRANDFATHER EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/ORDERS OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW, DURATION OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION FOR A BIOLOGICAL GRANDFATHER AND A STEPGRANDFATHER EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a complex decision not fully summarized here, determined the provision of the Education Law which allows the appointment of a receiver to take over allegedly failing schools does not violate the Contract Clause of the US Constitution:

… [W]here a statute or regulation impairs a private contract, courts will defer to a legislature’s rationale with regard to its necessity … . Less deference is warranted where the statute or regulation “is self-serving and impairs the obligations of [the state’s] own contracts” because “a [s]tate is not completely free to consider impairing the obligations of its own contracts on a par with other policy alternatives” … . Less deference may be warranted even where, as here, the state is not a party to an impaired public contract … . “[F]or an impairment to be reasonable and necessary under less deference scrutiny, it must be shown that the state did not (1) consider impairing the contracts on par with other policy alternatives or (2) impose a drastic impairment when an evident and more moderate course would serve its purpose equally well nor (3) act unreasonably in light of the surrounding circumstances” … .

Assuming without deciding that the less deferential standard applies, we find that Education Law § 211-f (8) is reasonable and necessary both on its face and as applied. In context, the receivership agreement was necessary in order to implement available methods to address the immediate issues that were facing the struggling or persistent struggling schools. The statute provides that the Superintendent must act in accordance with the existing CBA [collective bargaining agreement], and, where, as here, a receivership agreement is requested, the statute limits the scope of the agreement — and impairment. No modification or impairment can be unilaterally imposed but instead must be negotiated. As applied, although an agreement was not reached with regard to all issues, the modifications imposed were applicable to the affected schools only for the time limited by the statute. In sum, because the statute and the agreements apply prospectively and limit the scope, application and duration of any modifications to existing agreements, while prohibiting any adverse financial impact, we find that it was reasonably designed and necessary to further the goal of helping students to succeed … . Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. v Elia, 2018 NY Slip Op 04061, Third Dept 6-7-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONTRACT LAW, PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/FAILING SCHOOLS (PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))/RECEIVERS (FAILING SCHOOLS, (PROVISION OF THE EDUCATION LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER ALLEGEDLY FAILING SCHOOLS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

DEFAMATION AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated causes of action for malicious prosecution and defamation   Defendant, Goyer, was the town deputy clerk and plaintiff was the town supervisor.  Goyer had filed a harassment complaint against plaintiff alleging he physically prevented her from entering a conference room at the town hall. Plaintiff was acquitted and then brought this lawsuit:

Accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, as we must, the complaint adequately alleges that Goyer “knowingly provided false information to the police” and such allegations are “sufficient to state that the complainant initiated the proceeding by playing an active role in the other party’s arrest and prosecution” … .  …

The incident report — which was attached to and incorporated into the complaint — indicates that, on the evening in question, Goyer attempted to enter a conference room at the Town Hall when plaintiff stepped to the side and blocked her from entering. Goyer indicated that, when she attempted to then go around him, plaintiff “put his arm up in front of [her] to block [her]” and “reached in front of [her,] grabbed [certain office supplies and] tried to pull them out of [her] hand” while screaming “[g]et out” and “[y]ou can’t come in here.” The statements contained in the information, supporting deposition and incident report were thereafter “published and/or republished to the press.” Inasmuch as these statements provide allegations of fact indicating that plaintiff subjected Goyer to unwanted physical contact while at the Town Hall, on the night of a Town Board meeting, at a time when plaintiff was acting in his official capacity as Town Supervisor, they provide “more than a general reflection upon [plaintiff]’s character or qualities” … . Higgins v Goyer, 2018 NY Slip Op 04067, Third Dept 6-7-18

DEFAMATION (DEFAMATION AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (DEFAMATION AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department withheld decision and directed the People to provide defense counsel with certain trial exhibits counsel was unable to access prior to perfecting the appeal:

Defendant contends, among other things, that the People deprived him of an opportunity to develop an effective argument on appeal by failing to provide him with certain video and photographic exhibits that were introduced into evidence at trial in a format that he could readily view … . Specifically, defendant avers that, although the People provided him with copies of 14 DVDs introduced as exhibits at trial, he was unable to view the contents of exhibit Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 108.

Defendant has a “fundamental right to appellate review of a criminal conviction” … and, to that end, it is well-settled that the People “‘must provide a record of trial sufficient to enable a defendant to present reviewable issues on appeal'” … . Here, there is no dispute that the subject exhibits were admitted into evidence, were viewed by the juries at both of defendant’s trials and are now a part of the record from which defendant may prepare his appellate arguments and this Court may conduct meaningful appellate review. Based upon our own efforts to view these exhibits, we find defendant’s observation to have merit. People v Haggray, 2018 NY Slip Op 04036, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in an appeal by the People of a suppression ruling, determined the suppression motion should have been denied in its entirety. Defendant never made a motion to suppress information taken from his cell phone. Yet County Court apparently speculated that the police must have searched defendant’s cell phone before the Miranda warnings were given:

… [T]he detectives approached defendant outside his place of employment and asked him to accompany them to the police station. Defendant voluntarily agreed and they drove him to the station without placing him in handcuffs. The videotaped statement indicates that, during the ride and before entering the interview room, they engaged in general conversation regarding defendant’s background, education, employment and family life, but did not discuss the criminal investigation. Inside the interview room, defendant was initially not restrained. The detectives asked if he would like water and provided him a drink. Later, they obtained a cigarette and allowed him to smoke it, and permitted him to make a phone call. At the beginning of the conversation in the interview room, a detective administered Miranda warnings and defendant stated that he was willing to talk to them and answer questions. Defendant was not threatened or coerced during the interview.

County Court did not rely on these facts, but instead focused on what it deemed “the troubling and unavoidable issue that, prior to entering the interview room and prior to Miranda warnings, . . . defendant’s phone had already been seized by the police.” The court highlighted the People’s failure at the hearing to address this seizure of the phone even though, as discussed above, the People were not on notice that anything related to the phone was being challenged by defendant. The court chastised the People for failing to acknowledge or explain “the circumstances under which . . . defendant’s phone was seized and potentially searched, pre-Miranda.” The record contains no factual support for, and actually belies, the court’s speculative assertion that the phone was searched before Miranda warnings were administered, because the video shows that, when the detective eventually brought the phone into the interview room and obtained defendant’s consent to look at some of its features, defendant had to unlock the phone with either a password or swiping pattern. People v Moore, 2018 NY Slip Op 04042, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, PEOPLE’S APPEAL,  DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SUPPRESSION, DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT))

/ ,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial two-justice dissent, determined the evidence did not support the serious physical injury element of assault first and reduced the conviction to attempted assault first. The victim was shot in the leg. The dissenters argued the serious physical injury element had been proven. The majority focused on weaknesses of the evidence of serious physical injury and found it deficient under a weight of the evidence analysis:

… [T]he weight of the evidence does not support a finding that the victim sustained a serious physical injury. Serious physical injury is defined as a “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” … . As to whether the victim sustained a physical injury that created a substantial risk of death, the victim testified that, following the shooting, he was in “miraculous pain,” he underwent two surgeries, his tibia bone was “shattered” and pins were inserted to hold the bones in place. The pins, however, were removed four months after their insertion, at which point the pain subsided. The victim then wore a cast on his leg for 1½ months. Although the victim’s injuries are by no means trivial, they fall short of constituting injuries that create a substantial risk of death. There was no evidence that the victim lost consciousness after being shot or that a vital organ was damaged. Nor was there any proof, lay or medical, indicating that the victim’s injuries caused a substantial risk of death or were life threatening … .

* * * … [A]lthough the victim’s testimony and the photographs show a significant injury immediately following the shooting, there was no corresponding proof regarding its long-term effects … . …​

As to whether the victim sustained a serious and protracted disfigurement, we note that the victim showed his scar to the jury. There was, however, no contemporaneous description of what the jury saw to demonstrate the extent of such scarring, nor can such extent be discerned from the photographs entered into evidence … . People v Marshall, 2018 NY Slip Op 04038, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/ASSAULT (SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ( UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY IN THIS ASSAULT FIRST PROSECUTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT))

/ , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant’s attorney erroneously told defendant a certificate of relief from civil liabilities would protect defendant from deportation:

Defendant pleaded guilty to a felony relating to the sale of drugs in return for a promised sentence of five years’ probation with a certificate of relief from civil disabilities. The record establishes that defense counsel advised defendant that even though this type of conviction would be likely to result in deportation, the certificate of relief would protect him from that consequence. Counsel’s advice about the effect of the certificate was clearly erroneous because defendant’s conviction was a deportable offense, from which a certificate of relief provides no shield. The plea and sentencing minutes, including statements made by counsel, corroborate defendant’s claim that he was misadvised about the certificate.

Defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial had he known that the plea would have rendered him deportable despite the certificate… . Statements he made during the plea proceeding and the hearing support his claims that he pled guilty because the plea offer involved no jail time and because he was misled as to the immigration consequences. People v Rosario, 2018 NY Slip Op 04114, First Dept 6-7-18​

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/GUILT PLEA (VACATE, MOTION TO, DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES  (DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY TOLD BY HIS ATTORNEY A CERTIFICATE OF RELIEF FROM CIVIL DISABILITIES WOULD PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

/ ,

WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the court should have conducted a searching inquiry into defendant’s representing himself when he indicated he wished to testify at the grand jury at his first and second appearances in court:

… [D]efendant appeared in City Court for arraignment on a felony complaint and a misdemeanor information charging him with the offenses for which he was later indicted. Defendant, as is relevant here, stated that he wished to represent himself and testify before the grand jury. He remained unrepresented at a second appearance three days later and reiterated his desire to appear before the grand jury. The indictment was handed up shortly thereafter, and it appears that the People disregarded defendant’s desire to testify before the grand jury because he failed to make a written demand as required … . …​

“[D]efendant’s indelible right to counsel . . . attached when the felony complaint against him was first filed” …  and, while he could waive that right and proceed pro se, the waiver would be invalid absent a “searching inquiry” by City Court to discern whether defendant understood and “appreciated the ‘dangers and disadvantages’ of” self-representation… . There was no inquiry conducted here, leaving the record silent as to whether “defendant ‘acted with full knowledge and appreciation of the panoply of constitutional protections that would be adversely affected by counsel’s inability to participate'” so as to constitute a valid waiver … . Defendant should therefore not have been permitted to proceed pro se … . It follows that defendant was deprived of an opportunity to consult with counsel — who could have assisted defendant in deciding whether to appear before the grand jury and made an effective demand to appear in the event he chose to do so — and this “deprivation of defendant’s constitutional right to counsel requires the dismissal of the indictment” … . People v Trapani, 2018 NY Slip Op 04041, Third Dept 6-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (THIRD DEPT))/GRAND JURY ( WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT AT HIS FIRST TWO APPEARANCES THAT HE WISHED TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT DEFENDANT WAS ATTEMPTING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AND CONDUCTED A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS (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