You are here: / Appeals
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “making a terroristic threat” conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence, Defendant’s brother was incarcerated. Defendant was concerned that his brother was being harassed by corrections officers. Defendant allegedly called the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and said he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother:”

…”[A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when[,] with intent to . . . affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, . . . he or she threatens to commit . . . a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Penal Law article 490 was enacted following the September 11, 2001 attacks and was “specifically designed to combat the evils of terrorism” … . Accordingly, “[t]he concept of terrorism has a unique meaning and its implications risk being trivialized if the terminology is applied loosely in situations that do not match our collective understanding of what constitutes a terrorist act” …  ….

… [T]he evidence fails to establish that defendant “cause[d] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission” of an offense under the factual circumstance presented here (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Neither the first investigator nor the supervisor took any actions to warn the correctional facility or any other agency or individuals of the threat. While a notice was eventually issued, this was not done until well after the initial threat was made. None of the witnesses provided any testimony that they or anyone else had a reasonable expectation or fear that the threat would be imminently carried out, nor did their actions indicate any such belief. People v Santiago, 2022 NY Slip Op 04196, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s statement he would “blow an officer’s head off” “if they touch my brother” did not cause the investigators who heard the statement to expect or fear the imminent commission of the offense, which is an element of “making a terroristic threat.” Defendant’s conviction was therefore against the weight of the evidence. The decision cautions against interpreting the “terroristic threat” statute loosely.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s criminally negligent homicide conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s failure to see the victim’s vehicle on the side of the highway until it was too late did not rise to the level of criminal negligence (legally insufficient evidence). The victim was in a pickup truck with a sign on the back warning drivers that roadwork was being done ahead:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” … . “A defendant acts with criminal negligence in this context when the defendant ‘fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk’ that death will result” … . “That ‘risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation'” … . “[C]riminal liability cannot be predicated on every act of carelessness resulting in death[;] . . . the carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and that . . . carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s general sense of right and wrong” … . As such, a defendant must “engage[] in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death” … . Importantly, “nonperception of a risk, even if death results, is not enough” … . …

… [T]he Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he unexplained failure of a driver to see the vehicle with which he [or she] subsequently collided does not, without more, support a conviction for the felony of criminally negligent homicide” … . People v Faucett, 2022 NY Slip Op 04195, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: This case includes a detailed description of the criteria for criminal negligence. In the context of a traffic accident, the defendant’s unexplained failure to see the other vehicle until it was too late, without more, does not constitute criminal negligence.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the defendant made statements during the plea allocution which negated elements of criminal possession of a weapon. At that point, the sentencing judge should have made an inquiry. This issue falls within an exception to the preservation requirement:

Penal Law § 265.03 (3) requires the possession of a “loaded firearm,” meaning “an operable gun with either live ammunition in the gun or held on [the defendant’s] person” with the gun … . … [D]efendant negated that element at sentencing when he stated that the handgun in question was in his bedstand drawer, not on his person, and that it “wasn’t loaded.” At that point, it was incumbent upon County Court to either “conduct a further inquiry or give . . . defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . People v Reese, 2022 NY Slip Op 04194, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: When a defendant makes statements during the plea allocution which negate an element of the charged offense, the judge must make an inquiry or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the plea. The error need not be preserved for appeal.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

HERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) AFTER HE HAD BEEN INDICTED; THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS INVALID AND THE SCI WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR IS JURISDICTIONAL AND NEED NOT BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s judgment by guilty plea and dismissed the superior court information (SCI). A defendant cannot be prosecuted by an SCI after indictment (defendant here had already been indicted. The error is jurisdictional and need not be preserved by objection. The issue is not forfeited by a guilty plea:

As the Court of Appeals has observed, “[g]iven the objective and the plain language of CPL 195.10 (2) (b), the conclusion is inescapable that waiver cannot be accomplished after indictment . . ., even where it is the defendant who orchestrates the scenario” … .

Here, at the point in time when defendant agreed to be prosecuted by way of an SCI, defendant already had been indicted and the matter was scheduled for trial. Although the indictment subsequently was dismissed, there is no indication in the record that the dismissal was occasioned by a defect in the indictment itself (see CPL 210.20) or that Supreme Court authorized resubmission of the charge to the grand jury (see CPL 210.45 [9]), and it does not appear that a new felony complaint was filed. “Therefore, defendant was not placed on a formal preindictment procedural track” … . Under these circumstances, the waiver of indictment is invalid and the resulting SCI must be dismissed … . People v Michalski, 2022 NY Slip Op 04190, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was already indicted when he waived indictment and pled guilty to a superior court information (SCI). That was a jurisdictional error which need not be preserved by objection.

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

COUNTY COURT DISMISSED THE PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND COUNT; THE PEOPLE APPEALED; COUNTY COURT THEN STAYED ITS DISMISSAL, HELD A TRIAL, AND DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED; AFTER THE CONVICTION THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL WAS DISMISSED AS MOOT; THE DEFENDANT APPEALED; THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO STAY THE DISMISSAL AND GO TO TRIAL ON THAT COUNT; THE CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s promoting-prison-contraband conviction, determined the trial judge, who had initially dismissed the promoting-prison-contraband count, subsequently stayed the dismissal and promoting-prison-contraband count went to trial with other charges. Apparently the judge stayed the dismissal of the charge because the People had appealed the dismissal. After the trial, the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Then the defendant appealed and argued the judge did not have the statutory authority to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count:

We agree with defendant that County Court improperly stayed its dismissal order. The People had appealed to this Court pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1). In pertinent part, that provision authorizes the People to appeal, as of right, from an order that dismissed an accusatory instrument or a count thereof pursuant to CPL 210.20. Except as provided for in CPL 460.40, the taking of an appeal from a judgment, sentence or order does not automatically stay the execution thereof. With respect to appeals by the People to an intermediate appellate court, an automatic stay results only in the case of an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1-a) “from an order reducing a count or counts of an indictment or dismissing an indictment and directing the filing of a prosecutor’s information” or an appeal pursuant to CPL 450.20 (1) “from an order dismissing a count or counts of an indictment charging murder in the first degree” (CPL 460.40 [2]). Plainly, none of those circumstances are present. * * *

… [T]here was no statutory authorization for a stay of County Court’s dismissal order. Without a stay, the bench trial should not have included the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and, thus, there should have been no occasion for defendant to be convicted of the lesser included offense of promoting prison contraband in the second degree. Accordingly, we vacate that conviction. People v Felli, 2022 NY Slip Op 04192, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: With certain exceptions in CPL 460.40, the dismissal of a count cannot be stayed when the People appeal the dismissal. Here the judge dismissed a count, the People appealed, the judge then stayed the dismissal, held a trial, defendant was convicted of the count, and the People’s appeal was dismissed as moot. Because the judge had no authority pursuant to CPL 460.40 to stay the dismissal and go to trial on the dismissed count, the conviction was vacated.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION, THE MAJORITY DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT MADE A PROPER INQUIRY OF A JUROR WHO, DURING DELIBERATIONS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, REVEALED SHE WAS A RAPE VICTIM; DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE; THE DISSENTING JUDGE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department refused to consider whether County Court properly handled an “outburst by a juror during deliberations” because the issue was not preserved by objection. The dissenting justice would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial:

From the dissent:

The foreperson said it best — “how did you get this far if that’s the case? . . . you shouldn’t be here.” The foreperson said this to one of the jurors, who was in seat No. 6, after this juror revealed during deliberations that she was a victim of rape — one of the crimes for which defendant was being tried. Juror No. 6 had not disclosed this fact during voir dire or on the juror questionnaire. In any event, County Court proceeded to question each juror, including juror No. 6, to determine if any of them was grossly unqualified. Such inquiry, however, was not “probing and tactful” … and, consequently, the court failed to ensure that the finding of guilt was the product of a fair and impartial jury. * * *

In my view, County Court’s inquiry did not meet the probing and tactful standard. Based on the allegations of rape made against defendant, juror No. 6’s revelation of being a rape victim and the doubt expressed by the foreperson about juror No. 6’s impartiality, it was incumbent upon the court, at the very least, to ask juror No. 6 about being a rape victim. Indeed, the court intended on asking juror No. 6 about being a sexual assault victim but, for some reason that is not apparent in the record, it never did. Merely asking whether juror No. 6 was a crime victim did not address the emotionally charged situation that the foreperson brought to the court’s attention. The court’s inquiry was therefore flawed from the outset. People v Rivera, 2022 NY Slip Op 04050, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Because the issue was not preserved for appeal by objection, the majority refused to consider whether Count Court made a proper inquiry when a juror revealed during deliberations, for the first time, she was a rape victim, Defendant was charged with rape. The dissenting justice would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE MAJORITY REFUSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER COUNTY COURT PROPERLY DISCHARGED A JUROR WHO FAILED TO APPEAR BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY OBJECTION; TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department refused to consider whether the court properly discharged a juror because the issue was not preserved by objection. The two dissenting justices would have ordered a new trial in the interest of justice:

From the dissent:

If a juror is unable to continue serving due to an illness, “the court shall make a reasonably thorough inquiry concerning such illness . . . and shall attempt to ascertain when such juror will be appearing in court” (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]). * * *

… [O]n the day at issue and approximately 30 minutes after the scheduled start of the trial, County Court noted that juror No. 1 was not present. The court remarked, “She did leave sick yesterday,” and, after such remark, stated that it was necessary to replace juror No. 1 with an alternate juror. …

… [T]here was no reasonably thorough inquiry — let alone, any inquiry — as to juror No. 1’s absence. Although juror No. 1 was apparently ill on the day when she was selected for service, the court did not bother to learn if she continued to be ill. It seems that the court merely speculated that, because juror No. 1 was ill the day before, she continued to be ill and that was the reason why she did not show up at the scheduled time for the start of the trial. Such speculation, however, does not meet the standard of conducting a reasonably thorough inquiry. … [E]ven if it could be said that the court did make a reasonably thorough inquiry, the court still failed to ascertain when juror No. 1 would return to court. The record discloses that, prior to discharging juror No. 1, the court neither heard from nor reached out to her to see if she would not be making it for the trial or if she was en route to the courthouse … . People v Colter, 2022 NY Slip Op 04055, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: Here the issue whether County Court properly discharged a juror was not considered by the majority because the issue was not preserved by objection. The two dissenters argued the court did not conduct a proper inquiry to determine why the juror had not appeared and whether the juror would appear. The dissenters would have considered the issue in the interest of justice and ordered a new trial.

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the Board did not explain its decision to deny coverage of 25 medical bills based on the conclusion the bills did not relate to claimant’s medical condition:

Although, “the Board has the exclusive province to resolve conflicting medical opinions” and to evaluate medical evidence before it, and its factual determinations on causal relationship will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence in the record, its decision here fails to indicate what medical opinions or reports formed the basis for the conclusions reached regarding causal relationship … . It is further noted that many of the bills or supporting records include multiple diagnoses and charges, with some of the diagnoses appearing to match the established conditions, such as treatment for a urinary tract infection. No basis is provided for denying compensability for portions of the bills related to established conditions, i.e., for denying payment for the entire medical bill based upon the inclusion of non-compensable treatment in the bill or records.

By failing to provide the reasons for its rulings or the basis upon which the determination was made, the WCLJ [Workers’ Compensation Law Judge] and the Board “failed to satisfy [their] obligation to provide some basis for appellate review” … . Matter of Sequino v Sears Holdings, 2022 NY Slip Op 04070, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: When the Workers’ Compensation Board fails to adequately explain its denial of coverage for medical bills it concluded were not related to claimant’s medical condition, appellate review by a court is not possible and the matter must be remitted.

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

FAMILY COURT HELD A HEARING IN THE MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING BUT DID NOT STATE IN ITS DECISION THE FACTS RELIED UPON TO DENY THE PETITION; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE, REVERSED FAMILY COURT, AND GRANTED MOTHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition to modify custody should have been granted. Family Court held a hearing but did not, in its decision, state the facts relied upon to deny the petition. Because the record was sufficient, the Second Department exercised its authority to review the evidence and make its own determination:

… [T]o facilitate effective appellate review, the hearing court “must state in its decision ‘the facts it deems essential’ to its determination” … .

… [W]hile the Family Court stated in its decision that the allegations in the mother’s petition “largely stem from the difficulties that the parties have in co-parenting which predate her petition,” and that “both parties contribute to continuing the conflict between one another,” the court did not identify the facts adduced at the hearing that supported its denial of the mother’s petition. … . …

The evidence at the hearing showed that, on numerous occasions after the issuance of the 2018 custody order, the father, in the child’s presence, denigrated the mother and behaved inappropriately toward her … . The father consistently failed to make the child available for telephone and video calls with the mother as required by the original custody order, routinely ignored the mother’s attempted communications with the child, and repeatedly failed to adhere to the court-ordered parental access schedule … . The hearing testimony established that the father not only refused to foster a good relationship between the mother and the child—he expressly testified that he did not believe he had an obligation to do so—but actively sought to thwart such a relationship. “Parental alienation of a child from the other parent is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child[ ] as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as custodial parent” …

… [T]he father demonstrated a lack of interest in the child’s education and development by, among other things, refusing to have the child evaluated for learning disabilities or treated for his speech impediment … . … [T]he father failed to respond to the mother’s inquiries about the child’s health, education, and safety. Matter of Smith v Francis, 2022 NY Slip Op 04026, Second Dept 6-22-22

Practice Point: After a hearing on a petition to modify custody, Family Court, in its decision, must, but did not, state the facts relied upon in making its ruling denying the petition. The appellate division exercised its authority to review the evidence and make its own determination (reversing Family Court and granting mother’s petition for residential custody).

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined Supreme Court did not have the discretion to grant leave to amend a complaint which had been dismissed by the First Department for lack of standing. After the appeal, plaintiff had cured the standing defect and Supreme Court allowed the amendment after the time-period to commence a new action (CPLR 205(a)) had expired:

This appeal raises the interesting question of whether a trial court has the discretion to grant a plaintiff leave to amend a complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) … , after the Appellate Division has already ordered the complaint dismissed, with direction to enter judgment. We dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs, as non-managing members of a manager-managed Delaware limited liability company, lacked capacity … or standing to act on behalf of the Company when they obtained a Certificate of Revival of the Company before filing a second amended complaint. After plaintiffs purportedly remedied this deficiency of proper standing, they sought to revive the dismissed action by seeking leave to file a third amended complaint. As aforementioned, after we had already ordered the complaint dismissed, the motion court granted plaintiffs leave to file the third amended complaint. At the time plaintiffs sought leave to amend, the time to commence a new action had expired, including the six-month grace period provided by CPLR 205(a). … Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court lacked discretion to grant plaintiffs leave to amend a complaint that had already been dismissed by this Court. * * *

Given this Court’s outright dismissal of the claims based on a finding of lack of standing, there was no action pending when plaintiffs moved for leave to file the third amended complaint. Thus, the trial court lacked any discretion or authority to grant plaintiffs such leave, where we had properly dismissed the second amended complaint before plaintiffs filed the motion to amend … .Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 2022 NY Slip Op 03987, First Dept 6-21-22

Practice Point: Once the complaint was dismissed for lack of standing by the First Department, there was no pending action. Once the time for commencing a new action pursuant to CPLR 205(a) had expired plaintiff was out of luck. Supreme Court did not have the discretion to grant plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint after it had been dismissed by the First Department.

 

/0 Comments/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy