You are here: / THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS A...

Search Results

/0 Comments/ ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN DETAIL; TWO HANDGUNS AND HEROIN FOUND IN HIDDEN COMPARTMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the search of defendant’s vehicle was not a valid inventory search. Two handguns and heroin found in hidden compartments were suppressed by the Third Department:

Although the failure to admit into evidence the relevant tow, impound or inventory search protocols is not automatically fatal, the People’s additional failure “to ask any substantive questions of the [state troopers] to establish that the policy was sufficiently standardized, that it was reasonable and that the [state troopers performing the search] followed it in this case” does become fatal … . Despite the fact that the testimony of the state troopers confirmed their general understanding of the purpose and legitimate objectives served by an inventory search, their testimony also demonstrated a lack of familiarity with any departmental protocol on how to conduct such a search or whether any protocol even existed — must less a procedure that limited their discretion … . Indeed, there was no testimony establishing the circumstances under which troopers could remove paneling or pry into compartments, such as under the steering wheel column or dashboard … . Nor was there any testimony regarding when a canine unit could be used to assist with an inventory search — and, even assuming such a protocol did exist, it would remain unclear how a canine unit could satisfy the legislative objectives required by law under the circumstances here, where defendant was in custody and the vehicle had already been towed to the State Police barracks … . While inventory search protocols either allowing or disallowing exploration into the compartment of a steering wheel column or the use of a canine unit could be “equally permissible,” having “no policy whatever” is what causes the subject search to not be “sufficiently regulated to satisfy the Fourth Amendment” … .

Moreover, the inventory form generated by the search included the loaded revolver that was found at the barracks — although the form indicated that the inventory search had been completed prior to the tow to the barracks. This fact, coupled with the realization that the items listed on the inventory form were almost entirely the hidden contraband — and not the bag on the back seat containing the Suboxone pills and loose bullet, or the other clothing and perishables testified to be in the vehicle — indicates the troopers’ search was not designed to produce a usable inventory to guard against claims of lost property or for officer safety, but to list evidence of a crime … . Accordingly, County Court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence of heroin and the two handguns. People v Russ, 2026 NY Slip Op 03475, Third Dept 6-3-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an in-depth discussion of the criteria for a valid inventory search, not met here.

 

/0 Comments/

THE STAY ON A NEW YORK ACTION TO RECOVER A NAZI-LOOTED PAINTING, PENDING A SWISS RULING ON THE IDENTITY OF THE HEIRS TO THE PAINTING, VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined a stay on a New York action seeking the return of a Nazi-looted painting should be vacated in the interest of just. The action had been stayed pending a Swiss ruling on the identity of the heirs to the painting. That ruling has yet to be made. The facts of the case are complex and cannot be fairly summarized here. Estate of Margaret Kainer v Christies Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03506, First Dept 6-4-26

 

/0 Comments/ ,

DISMISSAL OF A MOTION BECAUSE THE PAPERS DID NOT INCLUDE A WORD-COUNT CERTIFICATION WARRANTED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL TO CONSIDER THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court’s denial of a motion because the papers failed to include a word-count certification warranted reversal a remittal to consider the merits of the motion:

The Supreme Court should have overlooked the appellants’ failure to submit a word count certification with their motion for summary judgment, as no substantial right of any party was prejudiced … . Accordingly, we reverse. Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion, we remit the matter … for a new determination on the merits of the motion. Hodges v 37-11 30th St., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03428, Second Dept 6-3-26

 

/0 Comments/ ,

THAT PLAINTIFF IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT HAVE A PROPER DRIVER’S LICENSE DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the fact that plaintiff in this traffic accident case did not have a proper driver’s license at the time of the accident did not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence:

… [T]hat plaintiff was driving without a proper driver’s license does not provide a basis for finding an issue of fact as to comparative negligence (see Huff v Rodriguez, 88 AD3d 1274, 1275 [4th Dept 2011] …”[“the absence or possession of a driver’s license is not relevant to the issue of negligence”]). Torres v Occhino, 2026 NY Slip Op 03412, First Dept 6-2-25

Practice Point: In a traffic accident case, the fact that plaintiff did not have a proper driver’s license does not raise a question of fact about plaintiff’s purported comparative negligence.

 

/0 Comments/

SUPREME COURT HAD RULED THAT, AT THE TIME HE WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A TASK COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF’S TASK AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT IS NOT DISPOSITIVE; THE LABOR LAW COVERS ALL TASKS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE RELEVANT WORK, HERE THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s activities were within the scope of the Labor Law when he was struck by a falling object. Plaintiff was struck when returning to the truck he had just moved. Defendants successfully argued below that, at the time of his injury, plaintiff was not engaged in work covered by the Labor Law. The First Department disagreed:

Plaintiff was injured when an object, alleged to be a pallet or a skid, fell on his head while he was working as a garbage truck driver at an active construction site owned by defendant MIP One Wall Street Acquisition LLC and where defendant J.T. Magen & Company Inc. was the general contractor. Plaintiff’s employer, Independence Carting, had contracted with J.T. Magen to perform Saturday carting services at the site. Plaintiff drove the garbage truck to the loading area where J.T. Magen laborers tasked with debris removal at the construction site loaded construction debris onto the truck while plaintiff operated the truck’s compacting machinery. J.T. Magen laborers directed plaintiff to move the garbage truck to another location in the loading dock area for additional construction debris to be loaded. At this second location, plaintiff exited the truck to check its position. When returning to the truck he was hit on the head by an object alleged to be a pallet or skid that fell from an elevated platform adjacent to plaintiff’s truck.

Plaintiff’s task at the exact moment of his accident is not dispositive of whether he was engaged in a protected activity … . “Rather, the inquiry includes whether the plaintiff’s employer was contracted to perform the kind of work enumerated in the statutes . . . and whether the plaintiff was performing work ‘necessary and incidental to’ a protected activity” … . Here, plaintiff was performing construction debris removal services at the construction site pursuant to a contract between J.T. Magen and his employer. The record establishes that the work he was performing was necessary and incidental to construction-related cleaning for an active construction site … . Therefore, plaintiff was protected by the Labor Law. Lapinski v MIP One Wall St. Acquisition LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 6-2-26

Practice Point: The exact task performed by a worker at the time of an accident is not dispositive of whether the accident is within the scope of the Labor Law. Here plaintiff’s employer was hired by the general contractor to remove debris from a worksite. The fact that the plaintiff was struck by a falling object after moving a truck at the request of employees of the general contractor did not take the accident out of the scope of the Labor Law.

 

/0 Comments/

CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF INADVERTENT OMISSIONS FROM THE FORM RB-89; CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AND GIVEN 20 DAYS TO CURE THE OMISSIONS; OR THE OMISSIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board should not have denied the application based on inadvertent omissions from the form RB-89:

… [T]he Legislature has made clear that “[n]otwithstanding anything contained in 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b)[,] . . . a mistake, omission, defect and/or other irregularity in a [form RB-89] accompanying an application for administrative review . . . shall not be grounds for denial of said application” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 23-a [1] …). The Board is instead directed to either notify the party seeking review about such a problem in writing and give the party 20 days to correct it, or disregard the problem altogether if the substantial rights of the relevant parties are not impacted by it (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 23-a [3]). There is no indication here that the Board notified claimant in writing of the deficiencies in her initial form RB-89 and, after the carrier pointed them out, claimant provided proof that the defects in the form were inadvertent and that the application had been filed and served in a timely manner. The carrier made no effort to challenge that proof, nor did it argue that it had been prejudiced in any way by the flaws in the initial form RB-89 submitted by claimant. To be sure, Workers’ Compensation Law § 23-a “addresses technical defects in the contents of applications for Board review rather than the associated service requirements,” and nothing prohibits the Board from denying applications where the latter are not satisfied … . This record shows that claimant did satisfy all filing and service requirements and only failed to note that fact on her initial form RB-89, however, and “the Board’s regulations requiring that an application for Board review be filled out completely and/or correctly may not abdicate, contravene or be inconsistent” with the provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 23-a … . Thus, as the Board’s denial of claimant’s application ran afoul of Workers’ Compensation Law § 23-a and its underlying goal of ensuring that “small mistake[s] on a cover sheet should not be cause for a full denial of an appeal,” it constituted an abuse of discretion and cannot stand … . Matter of Price v Premium Brands Opco, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03346, Third Dept 5-28-26

Practice Point: Workers’ Compensation Law section 23-a prohibits the denial of an application based on inadvertent omissions from the Form RB-89.​

 

/0 Comments/ ,

THE SORA RISK-LEVEL GUIDELINES CONSIDER A SEX OFFENDER’S YOUTH (UNDER 20) AS AN AGGRAVATING FACTOR WARRANTING AN ASSESSMENT OF TEN POINTS; HERE DEFENDANTS ARGUED THEIR YOUTH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A MITIGATING FACTOR; THAT ISSUE CAN ONLY BE ADDRESSED BY THE LEGISLATURE, NOT THE COURTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the defendants’ young age at the time of the offenses (below 20) was adequately taken into account by the SORA risk-level guidelines in that the guidelines assess additional points based on an offender’s youth. In other words, the guidelines consider the offender’s youth as an aggravating factor for which 10 points is assessed. The defendants’ argument that their youth should be a mitigating factor can only be addressed by the legislature, not the courts:

Defendants’ argument that scientific research suggests that young age at the time of offense lowers the risk of reoffense and so is a mitigating factor meriting a downward departure amounts to a policy dispute with the legislature’s instruction to the Board to consider that factor, and with the Board’s corresponding decision to include age below 20 at the time of first offense as a basis for the assessment of ten points in the RAI [risk assessment instrument]—not an argument that the RAI does not “fully capture the nuances of [their] case” … . It is the Board that has a “legislative mandate to promulgate” the Guidelines … , and disagreement with the basis on which a factor is premised or with the manner in which the Board implements that mandate is “for the legislature and the Board to consider, and not within the scope of this Court’s authority” … . Indeed, ” ‘[t]he constitutional principle of separation of powers . . . requires that the Legislature make the critical policy decisions’ ” … . Here, the legislature did that by instructing the Board to consider as “indicative of a high risk of repeat offense” “the age of the sex offender at the time of the commission of the first sex offense” (Correction Law § 168-l [5] [a] [v], [d]). The Board, based on its expertise and experience and within the exercise of its discretion, in turn implemented this legislative directive by requiring the assessment of points under risk factor 8 where an offender committed a first sex offense before the age of 20 … . There is no legal basis for reaching the opposite conclusion in the guise of a judicially-fashioned “mitigating” factor. The legislature, and in turn the Board, may of course reconsider this approach to age as an indicator of likelihood of reoffense. People v Carnegie, 2026 NY Slip Op 03379, CtApp 5-28-26

Practice Point: A defendant seeking a downward departure from the SORA risk-level assessment cannot argue the defendant’s youth as a mitigating factor. The guidelines consider a defendant’s youth as an aggravating factor requiring the assessment of ten points. Only the legislature can change the guidelines.

 

/0 Comments/ ,

ALTHOUGH A DEFENDANT CAN PROPERLY REQUEST A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT BASED ON HIS “RELEASE ENVIRONMENT.” I.E., GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, STRONG FAMILY SUPPORT, ETC., THE DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE “RELEASE ENVIRONMENT” WAS NOT ADEQUATELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE GUIDELINES AND HIS “RELEASE ENVIRONMENT” REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF REOFFENDING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro. over a three-judge concurrence, affirming the Appellate Division, determined that a defendant’s “release environment” can be considered as a basis for a downward departure, but that the Appellate Division properly found defendant did not demonstrate his “release environment” made his reoffending less likely and his “release environment” had been adequately accounted for by the Guidelines:

In support of his downward departure request, defendant emphasized that he had been living offense-free in the community for the 3½ years since his release from incarceration and argued that there were mitigating factors not adequately accounted for by the Guidelines, including, as relevant here, his gainful full-time employment and strong family support. He explained that he had worked as a food delivery driver, obtained his commercial driver’s license, become a full-time truck driver, and eventually purchased his own tractor-trailer and founded a freight trucking business. Additionally, defendant supplemented his income by working nights and weekends parking cars as a production assistant on film sets. He viewed his recent history of full-time employment as a significant contributor to a reduced risk of reoffense, characterizing his past crimes as being “financially motivated.” In further support of this proposed mitigating factor, defendant cited to statistics documenting the difficulties faced by many formerly incarcerated people, especially sex offenders, in obtaining employment, as well as a publication concerning the importance of structured, full-time employment in preventing recidivism. To establish his alleged strong family support network, defendant referenced his committed relationship with the mother of his young child, and submitted brief letters from four family members and a former landlord asserting that he was a family-oriented man who had been rehabilitated. He also cited to Appellate Division caselaw treating strong family support as a mitigating factor. Defendant maintained that a departure to risk level one would provide adequate supervision and community notification, without overestimating his likelihood of reoffense. * * *

The potentially risk-reducing effects of … steady employment in an appropriate setting or housing with, or in close proximity to, supportive family or friends …can be asserted as mitigating circumstances … so long as the offender can establish that those circumstances are present to a degree not adequately accounted for by the Guidelines … . * * *

The Appellate Division did not err or abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a downward departure. Significantly, the Court did not expressly reject defendant’s proposed mitigating factors as a matter of law, but went on to conclude that he failed to meet his burden of establishing that the proposed mitigating factors existed in this case. … [T]he Court … concluded … defendant failed * * * to demonstrate how “his support system” would reduce his risk of reoffense … . People v Green, 2026 NY Slip Op 03378, CtApp 5-28-26

Practice Point: A defendant’s “release environment” (gainful employment, family support, etc.) can be considered by a SORA court as a mitigating factor supporting a downward departure. Here the SORA court properly considered defendant’s “release environment” but determined his environment was adequately taken into account by the guidelines and defendant did not demonstrate how his “release environment” would make his reoffending less likely.​

 

/0 Comments/ ,

HERE THE SORA RISK-LEVEL GUIDELINES DID NOT ADEQUATELY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DEFENDANT’S ATYPICAL CRIMINAL HISTORY; THEREFORE AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL ONE TO LEVEL TWO WAS APPROPRIATE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming the SORA court and the Appellate Division, determined the SORA risk-level guidelines did not adequately take into account the defendant’s criminal history which supported an upward departure to a level two sex offender:

… [A]n offender’s prior criminal history can warrant an upward SORA departure in an appropriate case. Although such history is plainly a factor “of a kind” contemplated by the Guidelines under risk factors 9 and 10, an offender’s atypical prior criminal history may be an aggravating factor “to a degree” for which the Guidelines inadequately account … .

This case proves the point. The timing, nature, and extent of defendant’s three sex offenses and violent felony supply record support for the affirmed finding that defendant’s prior criminal history was indeed atypical. Risk factor 9 relevantly assesses the maximum 30 points for a prior “violent felony, . . . misdemeanor sex crime, or endangering the welfare of a child, or any . . . sex offense” (Guidelines, risk factor 9 [emphasis added]). Defendant’s prior conviction of attempted first-degree robbery, or either of his two prior convictions of forcible touching, would thus have each independently yielded 30 points under this factor. Defendant stood convicted of all three crimes, yet he was assessed the same number of points under this factor as a defendant previously convicted of just one of them. Likewise, risk factor 10 assesses the maximum 10 points for committing the instant offense within three years at liberty after committing a felony or sex crime. Here, defendant committed the instant offense after eight months at liberty following his commission of a prior felony, yet he was assessed the same number of points under this factor as a defendant who abstains from reoffending for more than four times as long. Given these facts, the lower courts did not err in concluding that risk factors 9 and 10 inadequately accounted for defendant’s prior criminal history as an aggravating factor. People v Townsend, 2026 NY Slip Op 03377, CtApp 5-28-26

Practice Point: Where the SORA risk-level guidelines do not adequately take into account a defendant’s atypical criminal history, an upward departure is appropriate.

 

/0 Comments/ ,

A CONTRACT WHICH ALLOWS A PARTY “SOLE DISCRETION” TO ASSIGN A LOAN IS CONSTRAINED BY THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED THE ASSIGNMENT WAS PART OF A “BACKROOM DEAL” TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND BENEFIT FROM A RESULTING WINDFALL; THE BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS REINSTATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge partial dissent, reversing (modifying) thee Appellate Division, determined the cause of action alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should not have been dismissed. The complex facts of the case center around loans and contracts to develop a luxury residential tower. Under the Pledge Agreement at issue the defendant, Apollo, had “sole discretion” to assign a “junior mezzanine loan.” The majority concluded that the “sole discretion” did not override the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff alleged the assignment of the loan to “Spruce” was part of a “backroom deal” to push plaintiff out of the project’s capital structure and benefit from a resulting windfall:

We concur with the prevailing view among the Appellate Division departments—that a party’s “sole discretion” with respect to a right does not exculpate that party from complying with the implied covenant with respect to that right. Although “parties to a contract are basically free to make whatever agreement they wish, no matter how unwise it might appear to a third party . . . [t]here exists an unavoidable tension between the concept of freedom to contract . . . and the equally fundamental belief that an enlightened society must to some extent protect its members from the potentially harsh effects of an unchecked free market system” … . In light of those competing interests, “rightly or wrongly, society has chosen to intervene in various ways in the dealings between private parties,” for example by “mandating the express or implicit inclusion of certain substantive or procedural provisions in various types of contracts” … . Indeed, one of those implicit substantive provisions is the implied covenant, which has the primary purpose of ensuring that “neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract,” when that conduct is “inconsistent with the other terms of the contractual relationship,” and yet not negotiated for in advance … .

This doctrine is even more important “where a contract contemplates the exercise of discretion,” or in other words awards one party the freedom to act in ways the contract may not directly foresee … . Accordingly, the implied covenant obligates the party with discretion act in good faith, and “not [] arbitrarily or irrationally,” when “exercising that discretion” … . A promisor’s discretion may not be used to violate a promise that “a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding w[as] included” … . 111 W. 57th Inv. LLC v 111 W57 Mezz Inv. LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03376, CtApp 5-28-26

Practice Point: A contract provision allowing a party “sole discretion” to take certain actions is constrained by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. i.e., a party cannot exercise discretion in a way that frustrates another party’s rights under the contract.

 

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