, , ,

UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined, in the interest of justice (error not preserved), the defendant was deprived of his right to confront a witness against him. A witness to the stabbing, Torres, could not be located and did not testify at the trial. Before it was clear Torres would not testify, two officers had already testified to facts that made it obvious Torres had identified the defendant as the perpetrator:

​

The record reveals … that the trial court understood full well the risk that the jurors, based on the detailed testimony of the arresting officers, might conclude that Torres—now a nontestifying witness—had identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators. Before summations, the court expressly warned both sides: “if I find that either of you are making any representation to this jury that Mr. Jose Torres made an identification of the defendant you will regret it.” Later, the court again warned the prosecutor in the following terms: “[S]ince Jose Torres did not testify, there is no way you are going to argue to this jury or infer to this jury in any way, shape or form that Jose Torres made an identification. Because that’s clearly the only import of your subsequent questioning about what did you do afterwards? Of course, the defendant got arrested. So it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand Jose Torres obviously identified something in this case.”

Both sides followed the court’s instructions during summations. However, during the jury’s deliberations, the jurors specifically requested a readback of [a police officer’s] testimony regarding “what Jose Torres told him relating to the perpetrator’s identification and what happened when he identified the defendant.” The requested testimony was read to the jury without any limiting instruction.

Under the unusual circumstances presented, the jury’s note demonstrates that the risk foreshadowed by the trial court had materialized, namely, that the jury had inferred from the arresting officers’ testimony that Torres had identified the defendant as one of Rivera’s attackers. Although neither side can be faulted for the introduction of the arresting officers’ testimony at a time when everyone believed in good faith that Torres would testify, once it became clear that Torres would not be produced as a witness, the arresting officers’ testimonial hearsay regarding the information conveyed to them by Torres violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him … . People v Tavarez, 2017 NY Slip Op 07756, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  (UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFRONTATION, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (CRIMINAL LAW, UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT)

,

ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest in the interest of justice (error not preserved), determined the arrest was not authorized. The complainant told the police a man in a white BMW had pointed a gun at him. When the complainant saw the defendant and another man standing near a white BMW he said “that’s them.” Because the officers did not know which of the two men pointed the gun at the complainant, they did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant at the time he fled:

​

A person is guilty of resisting arrest when he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer from effectuating an authorized arrest of himself or herself or another person … . “A key element of resisting arrest is the existence of an authorized arrest, including a finding that the arrest was premised on probable cause” … . Although the defendant’s contention that the prosecution failed to present legally sufficient evidence of an authorized arrest is unpreserved for appellate review … , we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we agree with the defendant that the evidence was not legally sufficient to establish the element of authorized arrest because, as a matter of law, the evidence failed to establish that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Generally, information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of a specific crime is legally sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest … . However, at the time that the complainant pointed to the defendant and [another] and stated “that’s them,” the police officers had only been informed that one individual pointed a firearm at the complainant. Therefore, under the circumstances presented here, the officers could not have concluded that it was more probable than not that the defendant … had been driving the white BMW and pointed a firearm at the complainant. Accordingly, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the crime of resisting arrest. People v Andrews, 2017 NY Slip Op 07747, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS  (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/RESISTING ARREST (ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))/ARREST (PROBABLE CAUSE, ARREST WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, CONVICTION FOR RESISTING ARREST REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (ERROR NOT PRESERVED) (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the denial of youthful offender status was not appealable as it was encompassed by the waiver of appeal. The Fourth Department further determined the purported waiver of defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation was not valid because there was no relationship between the waiver and the sexual-abuse offense to which defendant pled guilty. The invalid conditions allowed searches of his person, home and personal property, breath, blood and urine testing, and prohibited use or possession of alcohol:

​

Defendant … contends that various conditions of his probation are not authorized by Penal Law § 65.10. We agree with defendant that his contention is not precluded by the waiver of the right to appeal and does not require preservation inasmuch as his challenges to those conditions implicate the legality of the sentence … . We agree with defendant that the document he signed requiring him to consent to waive his Fourth Amendment right protecting him from unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, home, and personal property, and to submit to chemical tests of his breath, blood, or urine, is not enforceable because it was not related to the probationary goal of rehabilitation … . The waiver and consent to search was ostensibly based on defendant’s acknowledgment that his criminal behavior was related to drug/alcohol abuse, but in fact there was no evidence that defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs when he committed the offense or had a history of drug or alcohol abuse … . For similar reasons, we agree with defendant that special condition nine of the conditions of probation, which required him to abstain from the use or possession of alcoholic beverages and to submit to appropriate alcohol testing, is also not enforceable and must be stricken. People v Saraceni, 2017 NY Slip Op 06732, Fourth Dept 9-29-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (PROBATION CONDITIONS, WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (PROBATION CONDITIONS, WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID (FOURTH DEPT))/PROBATION (WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/SEXUAL ABUSE (PROBATION CONDITIONS, WAIVER OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS CONDITION OF PROBATION INVALID, DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ENCOMPASSED BY WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the failure to file a predicate felony statement required resentencing, despite the failure to preserve the issue by an appropriate motion:

Defendant contends, among other things, that the resentence is invalid because a predicate felony statement was not filed in accordance with CPL 400.21 (2) before he was sentenced as a second felony drug offender … . Although this claim has not been preserved for our review due to defendant’s failure to make an appropriate motion … , under the particular circumstances presented, we exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to take corrective action … . The People concede and the record reveals that a predicate felony statement was never filed as is required by CPL 400.21 (2). In addition, there is no indication that defendant had notice that he would be sentenced as a second felony drug offender when he admitted to the probation violations or at resentencing. Consequently, defendant did not have an opportunity to contest his prior convictions. In view of this, the resentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for resentencing … . People v Fenner, 2017 NY Slip Op 06483, Third Dept 9-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PREDICATE FELONY, SENTENCING, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT, PRESERVATION, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT, FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))/PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT (FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this foreclosure action should not have been dismissed because issue was never joined. Even though the defense was first raised in the reply papers, it could be considered on appeal because the issue is apparent on the face of the record and the lower court would have been required to address it:

… [T]he Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 unless the plaintiff filed a note of issue or otherwise moved for entry of a judgment within 90 days. The action was thereafter administratively dismissed … .

… [T]he plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate the conditional order of dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar. … [T]he Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to present a reasonable excuse for not complying with the conditional 90-day order to dismiss and that the delay since the time that the referee was appointed was substantial. …

… [D]ismissal of the action pursuant to the … conditional order was improper, as issue was never joined inasmuch as none of the defendants served an answer to the complaint… .. Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met here, the Supreme Court was without power to dismiss the action pursuant to that statute … .

Although the plaintiff did not raise, until its reply papers, the argument that this action was improperly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 because issue had not been joined, we may consider it on appeal since the reply papers did not present new facts but only raised an issue of law which appeared on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if brought to the attention of the Supreme Court at the proper juncture … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ricketts, 2017 NY Slip Op 06475, Second Dept 9-13-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE WAS FIRST RAISED IN REPLY PAPERS, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FAMILY COURT EXERCISED THE PROPER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, THE MOOTNESS EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Family Court gave proper consideration to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in evaluating the termination of parental rights. The main issue raised at the permanency hearing was “to what degree the [foster care] agency was required to accommodate the parents’ cognitive disabilities when discharging its obligation to pursue the goal of return to parent.” The First Department also found that the mootness exception applied to the appeal (the issue is likely to come up again):

​

While Family Court correctly determined that the ADA is not applicable to this proceeding (see Matter of La’Asia Lanae S., 23 AD3d 271 [1st Dept 2005]), the law makes clear, as Family Court recognized and the parties in this case agreed, that “the agencies’ efforts towards a permanency plan must be tailored to the particular circumstances and individuals in a given case” … . As the Family Court held in La’Asia  … (91 Misc 2d 28, 42-43 …) , in the context of termination of parental rights actions, a court may properly look to the ADA’s standards for guidance in evaluating whether “diligent efforts” were made by the agency under Social Services Law § 384-b(7). The Family Court here acknowledged that it was required to consider the mother’s special needs when determining if the agency’s efforts were reasonable in this case. After evaluating the agency’s efforts in that light, the court found that the agency satisfied its obligation to tailor its efforts to the mother’s needs … and that the agency’s reunification efforts were reasonable under the circumstances … .

In precluding litigation of ADA claims during the permanency hearing, but considerate of its purpose to guide the reasonable efforts analysis, the Family Court properly complied with the requirements as set forth by the court in the La’Asia case. Matter of Lacee L. (Stephanie L.–Dekodia L.), 2017 NY Slip Op 06418, First Dept 9-12-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT EXERCISED THE PROPER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, THE MOOTNESS EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/PARENTAL RIGHTS (FAMILY COURT EXERCISED THE PROPER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, THE MOOTNESS EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (MOOTNESS EXCEPTION, FAMILY COURT EXERCISED THE PROPER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, THE MOOTNESS EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/MOOTNESS EXCEPTION  (APPEALS, FAMILY COURT EXERCISED THE PROPER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, THE MOOTNESS EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)  (FAMILY COURT EXERCISED THE PROPER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, THE MOOTNESS EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))

,

PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, determined the People had demonstrated the search of defendant’s car was a valid inventory search, despite the expectation contraband would be found. The defendant’s argument the search was a ruse depended upon the credibility of the police witnesses, a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be reached by the Court of Appeals:

​

“[T]he People met their burden of establishing that the [inventory] search was in accordance with procedure and resulted in a meaningful inventory list” and that the primary objectives of the search were to preserve the property located inside the vehicle and to protect police from a claim of lost property … . The fact that the officers knew that contraband might be recovered does “not invalidate the entire search” … . “The inventory here, while not a model, was sufficient to meet the constitutional minimum” … .

The determinations of the lower courts regarding the credibility of the officers and whether the inventory search was a ruse to look for contraband present mixed questions of law and fact … . A mixed question is presented when “the facts are disputed, where credibility is at issue or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference[s] to be drawn” … . Inasmuch as there is record support for the lower courts’ conclusion that the primary purpose of the search was to inventory the property located in the vehicle, that issue is beyond further review by this Court … . People v Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 06415, CtApp 9-12-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/INVENTORY SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/APPEALS (COURT OF APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, INVENTORY SEARCH, PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID, DESPITE EXPECTATION CONTRABAND WOULD BE FOUND, CREDIBILITY OF POLICE WITNESSES BEYOND REVIEW BY COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))

, ,

PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof did not support assessing 15 points for excessive drug and alcohol use. Defendant’s risk level was reduced from three to two. Although the error was not preserved, the court reviewed it in the interest of justice:

“In order to demonstrate that an offender was abusing [drugs or] alcohol at the time of the offense,’ the People must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offender used [drugs or] alcohol in excess either at the time of the crime or repeatedly in the past” … . Here, although the People offered evidence that the defendant used drugs after the time of the offense, the People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant used alcohol or drugs in excess either at the time of the offense or repeatedly in the past … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed the defendant 15 points under risk factor 11. People v Madison, 2017 NY Slip Op 06200, Second Dept 8-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SORA (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, PROOF DID NOT JUSTIFY ASSESSMENT FOR DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, RISK LEVEL REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the trial judge did not follow the O”Rama procedure when addressing two notes sent out by the jury. Although the error was not preserved by objection, it was deemed a mode of proceedings error. The notes asked for a readback of testimony and instructions on the charged offense. Although the judge complied with the requests, the jury notes were not marked as exhibits, were not read to counsel, and counsel were not given an opportunity to respond to the notes outside the presence of the jury:

In People v O’Rama, the Court of Appeals set forth the procedure for handling communications from the jury in accordance with CPL 310.30. “The Court of Appeals held that whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel'” … . ” After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses. The court should then ordinarily apprise counsel of the substance of the responsive instruction it intends to give so that counsel can seek whatever modifications are deemed appropriate before the jury is exposed to any potentially harmful information. Once the jury is returned to the courtroom, the communication should be read in open court'”… . Where a trial court fails to provide counsel “with meaningful notice of the precise content of a substantive juror inquiry, a mode of proceedings error occurs, and reversal is therefore required even in the absence of an objection” … .

Here, although the defendant failed to object to the manner in which the Supreme Court handled the two notes, under the circumstances of this case, the court violated O’Rama and committed a mode of proceedings error, obviating the need for preservation, by failing to provide the defendant with notice of the “precise contents” of the notes prior to giving its responses … . People v Webster, 2017 NY Slip Op 06198, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/JURY NOTES  (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))/O’RAMA PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO FOLLOW O’RAMA PROCEDURE FOR JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL, MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT))  

, , ,

LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the letters evincing a “time of the essence” notification in the underlying real estate transaction did not constitute “documentary evidence” which would support a motion to dismiss. Although he “documentary evidence” argument was not raised below, the court properly considered it as the basis for reversal as a matter of law:

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss based on documentary evidence may be appropriately granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law”… . “The evidence submitted in support of such motion must be documentary or the motion must be denied” … . “In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence,’ it must be unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable'”… .

“[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “At the same time, [n]either affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)'” … .

Here, the letters submitted by the defendant did not constitute documentary evidence within the meaning of CPLR 3211(a)(1), and should not have been relied upon by the Supreme Court as a basis for granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The only documentary evidence submitted in support of the defendant’s motion was the purchase agreement, which did not “utterly refute” the plaintiffs’ allegations or conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the issue of whether the letters constitute documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1) can be raised for the first time on appeal because it is one of law which appears on the face of the record and could not have been avoided if it had been raised at the proper juncture … . Feldshteyn v Brighton Beach 2012, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06160, Second Dept 8-16-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ISSUE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/DISMISS, MOTION TO (CIVIL PROCEDURE,  (LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MOTION TO DISMISS, LETTERS PURPORTING TO CONSTITUTE TIME OF THE ESSENCE NOTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))