You are here: / DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD...

Search Results

/ , ,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty had he been told by his attorney that deportation was mandatory:

… [W]e agree with the defendant’s contention that the legal representation he received at the plea proceeding was deficient inasmuch as the plea minutes show that the defendant’s counsel, who was aware that the defendant was a noncitizen, advised him only that pleading guilty to a drug felony “may affect his [immigration] status” (emphasis added). Such advice was erroneous given that a felony drug conviction involving cocaine made the defendant’s deportation mandatory … , and where, as here, the deportation consequence is clear, counsel’s duty to give correct advice is equally clear … .

In order for the defendant to obtain vacatur of his plea of guilty based on a Padilla violation, he must also establish that ” there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial'” … . The Supreme Court, in its report, expressed the view that the evidence in the record, as supplemented by the defendant’s testimony at the hearing conducted upon remittal, evinced a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for counsel’s incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea, and would have insisted instead on going to trial. We agree, and discern no reason to disturb the credibility determinations made by the court … . People v Loaiza, 2018 NY Slip Op 01201, Second Dept 2-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s silence after defendant real estate broker’s counteroffer for the brokerage fee, coupled with plaintiff’s going ahead to enter the lease procured by the broker, constituted acceptance of the counteroffer:

…[T]he plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to a judgment declaring that the brokerage commission due was five percent of the rent for the first five years of the lease agreement by submitting evidence that the defendant did not reject the counteroffer, but instead proceeded to have its client enter into the lease agreement. “While mere silence, when not misleading, cannot be construed as acceptance, a counteroffer may be accepted by conduct”… . The defendant’s conduct of moving forward with the lease agreement upon receiving the plaintiff’s counteroffer established that the objective manifestation of the parties’ intent was an agreement to the brokerage rate set forth in the counteroffer … . Gator Hillside Vil., LLC v Schuckman Realty, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-21-18

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/COUNTEROFFER  (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (BROKERAGE FEE, CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/SILENCE (CONTRACT LAW, COUNTEROFFER, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this personal injury action, based upon a release signed by the plaintiff, was properly denied. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit which, together with the complaint, raised the issue whether the release was procured by fraud:

“In resolving a motion for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), the plaintiff’s allegations are to be treated as true, all inferences that reasonably flow therefrom are to be resolved in his or her favor, and where, as here, the plaintiff has submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion, it is to be construed in the same favorable light” … . “A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of . . . [a] release” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss a complaint on the basis of a release “should be denied where fraud or duress in the procurement of the release is alleged” … .

Here, in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants submitted an affidavit of their insurance carrier’s claims representative and a copy of the release signed by the plaintiff, which, by its terms, barred the instant action against them … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to raise a question of fact as to whether the defendants procured the release by fraud, whether the release was signed by the plaintiff under circumstances which indicate unfairness, and whether it was “not fairly and knowingly made” … . Sacchetti-Virga v Bonilla, 2018 NY Slip Op 01210, Second Dept 2-21-18

CONTRACT LAW (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/RELEASES (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (RELEASES, ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (a)(5) (ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT))

/ ,

VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating defendant’s sentence of probation, determined the finding that defendant had violated a condition of probation was improperly based entirely on grand jury minutes, which constituted hearsay:

A finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant has violated a condition of probation … may not be based on hearsay evidence alone … . Here, on several occasions during the probation revocation hearing, the court indicated that its determination that defendant had violated probation by traveling outside the jurisdiction without permission, and by failing to lead a law abiding life, was based solely on the grand jury minutes related to his 2012 indictment (which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and did not result in a conviction) … . One of these statements, in which the court stated that “the government prevailed by the properly unsealed and complete [g]rand [j]ury minutes,” occurred directly after defense counsel explicitly argued that the court could not base a finding of a violation solely on the grand jury minutes, which constituted hearsay.

Based on this record, regardless of whether there was other evidence in the record that might have satisfied the requirement for “a residuum of competent legal evidence” … , we are compelled to find that the court’s determination was based on hearsay alone and therefore cannot stand. People v Hubel, 2018 NY Slip Op 01154, First Dept 2-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/GRAND JURY MINUTES (HEARSAY, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/PROBATION (VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))

/

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the request that the jury be instructed on the justification defense in this manslaughter case should have been granted. There was evidence that the decedent, Cabbagestalk, was aggressively striking the defendant and trying to grab a gun defendant was holding:

… [A] jury could conclude that defendant reasonably believed that Cabbagestalk, who was younger and taller than defendant, and just two feet away, would gain control of defendant’s gun … . A jury could also reasonably conclude that Cabbagestalk’s statement to defendant — “[Y]ou going to pull a gun out, you better use it” — constituted a threat that if defendant did not use the gun, Cabbagestalk would take the gun and use it to shoot defendant. This is particularly true in light of the evidence that Cabbagestalk was advancing toward defendant, throwing punches at his face, and grabbing for the gun at the same time he made the threat. People v Brown, 2018 NY Slip Op 01173, First Dept 2-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT))

/

DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defense counsel had relied, during voir dire, on the People’s representation that the complainant could not be located and would not testify. After voir dire, but before opening statements, defense counsel was informed the complainant had been found and would testify:

The People had omitted the complainant from their witness list because they were unable to locate him in the two years between the incident and the trial. However, after the jury was selected, and just before opening arguments, they advised the court that they had located the complainant, and the court permitted him to testify the next day.

Defense counsel clearly “relied to her detriment on her expectation that the People would not call this witness,” the sole eyewitness to the incident, and was substantially prejudiced by the change of course… . Defense counsel had used voir dire to question jurors about other issues, including their ability to evaluate videotape evidence, believing that this would be the main evidence in the case, and she had not questioned prospective jurors about their ability to impartially evaluate a victim’s testimony. In addition, because the defense had represented to the jury during voir dire that no complainant would appear, the complainant’s appearance at trial would undermine the defense’s credibility.

Thus, as counsel pointed out, her questioning and selection of jurors was geared entirely to a trial without the complainant’s testimony, and was totally unsuited to a trial with his testimony. People v Kyser, 2018 NY Slip Op 01160, Frist Dept 2-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/VOIR DIRE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/WITNESSES (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

/ , ,

INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, affirmed the appellate division’s ruling that the complaint by an indenture trustee stated causes of action on behalf of noteholders for fraudulent conveyances under a corporate veil-piercing theory. The court explained the issues before it as follows:

On this appeal we must determine whether an indenture trustee may seek recovery on behalf of noteholders for defendants’ alleged fraudulent redemptions intended to siphon off assets, leaving corporate obligors unable to pay the noteholders. The indenture at issue authorizes the trustee to “pursue any available remedy to collect . . . the payment of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Notes,” and thus empowers that trustee to proceed at law and in equity to recover losses incurred by all noteholders from the unpaid notes. As such, the trustee may assert causes of action to recover pro-rata losses caused by defendants’ scheme to render the note debtor insolvent. The trustee may also seek to pierce the corporate veil and impose corporate obligations on defendants under an alter ego theory of liability based on properly pleaded factual allegations — here that defendants created, for unlawful purposes, a corporate structure over which they exercised complete control and domination, and which they used to incur corporate debt so they could distribute the loan proceeds to themselves through fraudulent transfers, leaving the corporation unable to pay its creditors. * * *

The [appellate division properly] concluded that the relevant language of the indenture “confers standing on the trustee to pursue . . . the fraudulent conveyance and other . . . claims, which seek recovery solely of the amounts due under the notes, for the benefit of all noteholders on a pro rata basis, as a remedy for an alleged injury suffered ratably by all noteholders by reason of their status as noteholders” … . The court also [properly] found that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action against these defendants under a veil-piercing theory … . Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Bonderman, 2018 NY Slip Op 01149, CtApp 2-20-18

SECURITIES (INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP))/DEBTOR-CREDITOR (INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP))/CORPORATION LAW  (INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP))/INDENTURE TRUSTEE  (INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP))/FRAUD  (INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP))/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP))

/ , , ,

COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined that the complaints stated causes of action against the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO),  and National Grid Electric Services LLC based upon defendants’ failure to shut down the power in advance of landfall by Hurricane Sandy. Plaintiffs alleged the failure to shut down the power resulted in fires which destroyed their property. The complaints alleged the defendants acted in a proprietary, not governmental, capacity and therefore were not entitled to governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants, at this pre-answer stage, had not met their burden of demonstrating their actions were governmental:

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as asserted against them on the ground that LIPA was immune from liability based on the doctrine of governmental function immunity, and that LILCO and National Grid were entitled to the same defense. Specifically, LIPA argued, among other things, that the actions challenged were taken in the exercise of its governmental capacity and were discretionary, and, even if they were not discretionary, plaintiffs’ failure to allege a special duty in the complaints amounted to a failure to state viable claims. Plaintiffs opposed the motions on the ground that defendants’ actions were proprietary, not governmental, and that special duty rules did not apply. Supreme Court denied the motions to dismiss in three substantially similar orders. * * *

… .[P]laintiffs’ allegations concern the provision of electrical power by defendants, a service that traditionally has been provided by private entities in the State of New York. In fact, LIPA itself was created to replace LILCO which, at the time, was an “investor owned utility” (Public Authorities Law § 1020-a). This takeover was anomalous and, when the legislation creating LIPA was enacted, the New York State Public Service Commission — the agency charged with ensuring safe and reliable utility service throughout the State — observed that, “[i]n New York State we have generally adopted a system of private ownership subject to close regulation” … . …

… [W]e cannot say, as a matter of law based only on the allegations in the amended complaints, as amplified, that LIPA was acting in a governmental, rather than a proprietary, capacity when engaged in the conduct claimed to have caused plaintiffs’ injuries. Connolly v Long Is. Power Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 01148, CtApp 2-20-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (IMMUNITY, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/IMMUNITY (GOVERNMENTAL, COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (ELECTRIC POWER,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/UTILITIES (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))/ELECTRIC POWER (GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY,  COMPLAINTS AGAINST LONG ISLAND ELECTRIC POWER PROVIDERS STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO SHUT DOWN POWER BEFORE LANDFALL BY HURRICANE SANDY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AT THIS PRE-ANSWER STAGE (CT APP))

/

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, determined that the failure to raise a compulsory counterclaim in a federal action precluded a subsequent state action based upon the same counterclaim. In the federal action, investors sued Paramount pictures for securities fraud (federal question), common law fraud (state question) and unjust enrichment (state question). Paramount did not make any counterclaims, relying on a contractual waiver of liability (covenant not to sue). The federal district court found the waiver was binding and dismissed the investors’ actions. Then Paramount sued in state court, seeking $8 million in attorney’s fees. The opinions, dealing in depth with the underpinnings of claim preclusion and issue preclusion, as well as the applicability of federal law in this context, cannot be fairly summarized here:

Pursuant to federal principles of claim preclusion — the applicable rules of decision in this case (Semtek, 531 US at 507) — Paramount’s covenant not to sue claim is transactionally related to the investors’ claims in the federal case, amounting to the same “claim” for purposes of res judicata. As such, Paramount’s claim should have been asserted in the parties’ prior federal action. Because it was not, it is now barred. Paramount Pictures Corp. v Allianz Risk Transfer AG, 2018 NY Slip Op 01150, CtApp 2-20-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))/RES JUDICATA (COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))/CLAIM PRECLUSION COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))/COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM  (COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM IN FEDERAL ACTION WAS NOT RAISED, FEDERAL CLAIM PRECLUSION RULES PROHIBITED A SUBSEQUENT STATE ACTION BASED UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP))

/ ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether a resident exercised independent judgment in this medical malpractice case, making the resident and his employer (the hospital) potentially liable. Plaintiff’s decedent was intoxicated when given Valium:

Plaintiff’s decedent was brought into St. Barnabas Hospital by the police in an intoxicated and agitated condition. He was then chemically sedated with Valium. Two and one-half hours later, he “flatlined,” and, while resuscitative efforts were made, he did not awaken and was declared “brain dead” four days later.

Appellants contend that Dr. McGrath cannot be held liable for medical malpractice because, as a resident, he did not exercise independent medical judgment when he chose the type and dosage of sedative to use on decedent. However, the deposition testimony of the attending physician, defendant Dr. Rao, raised an issue of fact as to whether Dr. McGrath was permitted to, and in fact did, exercise independent medical judgment in deciding on the amount and type of sedation to administer, so that he may be held liable, and St. Barnabas Hospital may be held vicariously liable … . Burnett-Joseph v McGrath, 2018 NY Slip Op 01137, First Dept 2-15-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/RESIDENTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT))/HOSPITALS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST 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