You are here: / Bruce Freeman

Entries by Bruce Freeman

, , ,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS 19 WHEN ARRSTED FOR HAVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON HIS PHONE, AND WHO HAD NEVER COMMITTED ANY OTHER OFFENSES, WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO SORA RISK-LEVEL ONE; COUNTY COURT APPLIED THE WRONG EVIDENTIARY STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined (1) County Court erred when it applied the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard, as opposed to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard to the SORA risk assessment proceeding, and (2) defendant in this child pornography case was entitled to a downward departure to level one. Defendant, who was […]

, , ,

THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SURROUNDING THE BUS-VEHICLE COLLISION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE TEN MONTH DELAY IN FILING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the respondent city in this bus-vehicle accident case had timely knowledge of the essential facts of the incident and therefore was not prejudiced by the late notice of claim. The court noted that law office failure is not an adequate excuse for failing to timely file a […]

PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had exercised due diligence in attempting to serve defendant and was entitled to a second extension of time to serve the defendant: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff a second extension to serve Dr. Hanandeh under CPLR 306-b, as plaintiff established good cause for […]

, ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SEE THE CAR HE COLLIDED WITH AND FAILED TO TIMELY BRAKE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR A CRIMINALLLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION; THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND RULED ON AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE “LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT” VERSUS “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” STANDARDS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction in this traffic accident case, determined the evidence was legally insufficient. The Third Department noted the issue was preserved by a written motion to dismiss submitted at the close of the People’s case and ruled upon after the close of defendant’s case. The Third Department also […]

A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CLASS A FELONY CANNOT WAIVE INDICTMENT AND PLEAD TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION PURSUANT TO CPL 195.10 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the superior court information, determined defendant was not eligible to waive the indictment and plead to a superior court information because the controlling statute does not apply to A felonies. Defendant was charged with an A-II felony: Defendant’s primary contention is that the […]

, ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WAS ENTITLED TO A REDUCED SENTENCE UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS NOT UNDULY HARSH (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant was entitled to resentencing in this manslaughter case under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA). The dissenters agreed that defendant met the DVSJA criteria for a reduced sentence, but argued the sentence that was imposed was not unduly harsh: … [W]e disagree […]

, ,

THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE STATE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF FRACTURED HER ANKLE AND FAILED TO REPAIR IT; NONJURY VERDICT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing a nonjury verdict in the Court of Claims, determined the evidence demonstrated the defendant (NYS) had constructive notice of the pothole where plaintiff fractured her ankle in September 2017: All four DOT [Department of Transportation] witnesses acknowledged that they did not know how long the pothole existed prior to [plaintiff’s] accident. […]

, ,

A “HIGH COST LOAN” AS DEFINED BY THE BANKING LAW IS A DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the loan in this foreclosure action violated the Banking Law such that there is a defense to foreclosure pursuant to RPAPL 1302(2): RPAPL 1302(2) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]t shall be a defense to an action to foreclose a mortgage […]

RESTORATION OF AN ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AFTER FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE IS AUTOMATIC IF NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED AND NO ORDER OF DISMISSAL HAS BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar after plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue should should have been granted. No 90-day notice had been served and no order of dismissal had been issued: When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of […]

,

THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING THE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE OF PROCESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should have been dismissed because plaintiff did not demonstrate the process server exercised diligence because resorting to “nail and mail” service: The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be […]

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