You are here: / Appeals
,

AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN.

The First Department, in a case remitted by the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s challenge to the legality of his sentence would not be reviewed in the interest of justice. Defendant had been promised a three-year sentence, but was not eligible for a sentence less than six years. In violation of his plea agreement, defendant committed a crime while awaiting sentence. As a result the three-year promise was properly withdrawn and a six year sentence imposed. The Court of Appeals held that defendant’s failure to object based upon the illegal three-year sentence promise precluded appeal to the Court of Appeals. However, upon remittal, the Appellate Division could consider the question if it exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction (which the majority declined to do):

… [T]here is nothing rare or unusual about this case or this defendant. The plea proceedings do not raise a concern about defendant’s guilt. Defendant was advised of the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and affirmed he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Defendant was represented by counsel and received a favorable sentence. Finally, defendant violated the plea agreement by committing another crime and the final sentence imposed was both legal and within the range announced by the court. Nor has defendant presented anything to demonstrate that his case is extraordinary. These facts, coupled with defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for review, fail to support the exercise of our discretion to review in the interest of justice, and militate against such exercise. People v Williams, 2016 NY Slip Op 07102, 1st Dept 10-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/SENTENCING (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/APPEALS (AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)/INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL APPEALS, AFTER REMITTAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPELLATE DIVISION REFUSED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE PROMISED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN)

, ,

SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a three-judge dissent, determined the search of a juvenile’s shoe at the police station was reasonable. Therefore, the weapon found in the shoe was admissible. The dissent argued the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the dissent below did not present a question of law, but rather a mixed question of law and fact:

Respondent initially told police on the street that he was 16 years old. Because he lacked identification, the police transported him to the precinct, where, nearly an hour later, he told them that he was only 15 years old. Thereafter, the officers treated respondent as a juvenile, placing him in a juvenile room and making him remove his belt, shoelaces and shoes as a protective measure until his parents were notified and he could be picked up from the precinct. Based on respondent’s representation that he was 16 years old and the officers’ observations of him in the street, the officers had probable cause to arrest respondent for disorderly conduct.

We also conclude that the limited search of respondent’s shoes was reasonable. The majority found no fault with the request that respondent remove his belt and shoelaces as a safety precaution; rather it was the request to remove his shoes that the majority held to be “far more intrusive than a frisk or patdown” … . However, the officers were not first required to suspect that respondent either possessed contraband or posed a danger to himself or officers before being directed to remove his shoes. In that regard, the limited search of respondent’s shoes while he was temporarily detained and awaiting the notification of his parents was a reasonable protective measure employed by police to ensure both the safety of respondent and the officers, and the intrusion was minimal … . Matter of Jamal S., 2016 NY Slip Op 07045, CtApp 10-27-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/FAMILY LAW (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (SEARCH OF JUVENILE’S SHOES WHILE HE WAS DETAINED AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS REASONABLE AND THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE SHOE WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE; DUAL DISSENT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

,

APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined the Appellate Division used the wrong test when it reversed a civil assault verdict and ordered a new trial. The central issue was whether defendant was the initial aggressor. In the first trial, the jury found that the defendant had acted in self-defense. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as a matter of law and, alternatively, to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, applying a weight of the evidence test, reversed and held ” ‘no fair interpretation of the evidence’ supported ‘the verdict finding that defendant acted in self-defense’ inasmuch as it was predicated upon ‘a conclusion that defendant was not the initial aggressor in the encounter’ .” Based on the Appellate Division’s ruling, at the second trial, the defendant was deemed the initial aggressor as a matter of law and the jury found for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the test the Appellate Division should have applied on its review of the first trial was the “utterly irrational (matter of law)” test, not the “weight of the evidence” test. Applying the correct test, the Court of Appeals found that the jury’s conclusion the defendant acted in self-defense was not “utterly irrational.” Therefore the Appellate Division should not have set aside defendant’s verdict and then precluded him from presenting the “initial aggressor/self-defense” question to the jury in the second trial:

The question before us is whether the Appellate Division’s legal conclusion in its 2012 order was reached under the proper test. When the Appellate Division reviews a jury determination, it may either examine the facts to determine whether the weight of the evidence comports with the verdict, or the court may determine that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law, rendering the verdict utterly irrational … . Defendant argues that the Appellate Division erred by setting aside the jury verdict in his favor and improperly determining as a matter of law that a justification defense was unavailable to him, without finding the verdict to be utterly irrational. We agree. * * *

In its 2012 order, although the Appellate Division examined the facts and determined that “the jury’s conclusion that defendant was not the first to threaten the immediate use of physical force [wa]s unreachable on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (98 AD3d 830) — ostensibly a weight of the evidence review — the effect of that order was to hold as a matter of law that defendant was the initial aggressor to whom the defense of justification was not available — a determination that could only be reached by concluding that the verdict was “utterly irrational.” Yet, the Appellate Division did not use the utterly irrational test. The Appellate Division’s error in not applying the proper test resulted in defendant being improperly precluded from raising a justification defense on the retrial. Defendant should have been afforded a new trial on all the issues in the case, including consideration of his justification defense by the jury. Despite this error, reversal is only required if we find that the jury verdict was not utterly irrational.

Because determining whether a jury verdict was utterly irrational involves a pure question of law, this Court may look at the trial evidence and make that determination … . We must consider the jury charge as to initial aggressor and self-defense that was given during the first trial because the instruction, submitted without objection, is the law of the case … . Based on that instruction, … we hold that the jury’s determination that defendant acted in self-defense was not utterly irrational. * * *

Accordingly, the order appealed from and the … Appellate Division order insofar as brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a new trial in accordance with the opinion herein. Killon v Parrotta, 2016 NY Slip Op 07048, CtApp 10-27-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED TO WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/APPEALS (CIVIL, MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED TO WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (APPEALS, APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED TO WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW; APPLYING THE CORRECT TEST, THE JURY VERDICT WAS NOT “UTTERLY IRRATIONAL” AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE)

, , ,

SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s risk level assessment, determined defendant was not given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment of points:

A defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment … . Not only did County Court fail to give defendant notice of its intention to sua sponte assess points for the category of use of violence, it affirmatively misled defendant by its assurance that it had already “made a decision . . . regarding a point score,” which included no assignment of points for that risk factor. Accordingly, defendant was denied due process … . Considering the fact that defendant was never aware of the potential of the assignment of such points until a point in time where he no longer had an opportunity to object — his only remaining opportunity to be heard being explicitly limited to arguing for a downward departure — he need not have taken any further action to preserve the issue for our review … . People v Griest, 2016 NY Slip Op 06907, 33rd Dept 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE)/APPEALS (SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE, NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY TO PRESERVE ISSUE FOR APPEAL)

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION.

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge’s acceptance of a verdict before responding to the jury’s request for a readback was not a mode of proceedings error and therefore must be preserved by objection. Just prior to the verdict, the judge had read the jury’s request verbatim in the presence of counsel, defendant and the jury. The judge’s failure to respond to the request (unlike a failure to apprise the parties of the contents of the request) is not a mode of proceedings error:

… “[W]here counsel has meaningful notice of the content of a jury note and of the trial court’s response, or lack thereof, to that note, the court’s alleged violation of the meaningful response requirement does not constitute a mode of proceedings error, and counsel is required to preserve any claim of error for appellate review” … .

Here, the trial court complied with its responsibility to provide counsel with meaningful notice of the jury’s notes by reading the notes verbatim into the record in the presence of counsel, defendant, and the jury … . Inasmuch as counsel had meaningful notice of the jury notes, the trial court’s failure to provide a response to the jury’s outstanding request for a readback of testimony before accepting the verdict does not constitute a mode of proceedings error … . Counsel was required to object to preserve any claim of error for this Court’s review. “Although the court’s procedure here may have been error, it was not a mode of proceedings error, and we have no jurisdiction to review it” .. . . People v Wiggs, 2016 NY Slip Op 06860, CtApp 10-20-16

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION)

,

DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined defendant’s speedy trial argument was preserved for review and affirmed dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds. In response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, the People produced an explanation of the delay in seeking the indictment (witness out of the country). The defendant did not reply to the People’s explanation. But a hearing on the speedy trial motion was subsequently held. The Court of Appeals found that the issue was preserved by the hearing. The court noted, however, had there been no hearing, the defendant’s failure to reply to the People’s explanation of the delay would have rendered the issue unpreserved. A defendant, therefore, should always reply to the People’s explanation of a delay:

In the absence of a hearing, a defendant’s substantive CPL 30.30 arguments will be unpreserved where the defendant failed to otherwise raise them, for instance, “in his initial submission or in a reply” … . Accordingly, a defendant would be well-advised to raise any CPL 30.30 arguments in a reply so as to ensure their preservation. For instance, where a defendant mistakenly believes that the People failed to “conclusively refute[]” his motion (CPL 210.45[5][c]) — and therefore opts not to reply — the defendant risks summary denial of his motion, leaving him with an unsuccessful and unpreserved claim. However, a defendant’s failure to reply is not fatal to his claim where, as here, the defendant properly requests and receives a hearing and, at that hearing, his arguments are raised and developed … . People v Allard, 2016 NY Slip Op 06853, CtApp 10-20-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL ARGUMENT PRESERVED BY A HEARING; HAD THE HEARING NOT BEEN HELD, HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO REPLY TO THE PEOPLE’S EXPLANATION OF THE DELAY WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ARGUMENT UNPRESERVED)

, , ,

ERROR TO ALLOW PROSECUTOR TO IMPEACH HER OWN WITNESS WITH THE WITNESS’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department determined the allowing the prosecutor to impeach her own witness with the witness’s grand jury testimony, allowing inadmissible hearsay, together with the prosecutor’s improper remarks in summation, required reversal in the interest of justIce:

… [A] new trial is warranted as a result of two evidentiary errors, both of which were compounded by improper remarks made during the People’s summation. Specifically, the Supreme Court allowed the prosecutor to impeach one of her own witnesses, who testified at trial that it was dark at the time of the shooting and she “couldn’t really see” the shooter. The prosecutor was permitted to read that witness’s prior grand jury testimony, in which she stated that she recognized the shooter as a person going by the nickname of E-Villain. This was error … . Moreover, during summation, the prosecutor compounded the error by improperly using the prior inconsistent statement as evidence in chief … , telling the jury that when that witness previously spoke to the police, to an assistant district attorney, and to the grand jury, “on each of those occasions, she said what it is she saw and who it is that she saw do it,” and urging the jury to find “she was not telling you the truth when she said that I now am telling you I did not see who did it, that it was too dark.” Later, the prosecutor went one step further, stating, in direct contradiction to the witness’s trial testimony, that “[she] saw who it was.”

The Supreme Court also erred in allowing another witness to testify that a “little girl said that [the defendant] shot [the victim]” … . Moreover, on summation, the prosecutor not only repeated the improper hearsay testimony but also mispresented the defendant as having told one of the witnesses, “You know what, that little girl that told you that was a hundred percent right.” People v Thomas, 2016 NY Slip Op 06851, 2nd Dept 10-19-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/APPEALS (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/GRAND JURY (PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/IMPEACHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S IMPEACHMENT OF PEOPLE’S WITNESS WITH GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (EVIDENTIARY ERRORS COUPLED WITH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER, ON APPEAL FROM A SMALL CLAIMS COURT JUDGMENT, TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR A NEW ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES; BECAUSE THE DAMAGES AMOUNT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CLAIM.

The Fourth Department determined County Court, upon an appeal of a small claims court judgment for conversion, did not have the power to remit the matter to small claims court for a redetermination of damages. County Court was obligated to dismiss the claim:

We agree with defendant that County Court erred in remitting the matter for a new trial on the issue of damages with respect to her, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. “[S]ubstantive justice cannot permit plaintiff[] a second opportunity to prove [her] damages merely because [she] failed to meet [her] prima facie burden in the first instance” … . Thus, upon determining that there was insufficient evidence of damages with respect to defendant, County Court was obligated to dismiss the claim against her rather than remit the matter for a new trial … . Mahar v Proper, 2016 NY Slip Op 06590, 4th Dept 10-7-16

APPEALS (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER, ON APPEAL FROM A SMALL CLAIMS COURT JUDGMENT, TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR A NEW ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES; BECAUSE THE DAMAGES AMOUNT WAS WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CLAIM)/DAMAGES (APPEALS, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER, ON APPEAL FROM A SMALL CLAIMS COURT JUDGMENT, TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR A NEW ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES; BECAUSE THE DAMAGES AMOUNT WAS WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CLAIM)/SMALL CLAIMS (APPEALS, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER, ON APPEAL FROM A SMALL CLAIMS COURT JUDGMENT, TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR A NEW ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES; BECAUSE THE DAMAGES AMOUNT WAS WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CLAIM)

, ,

COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT ORDER REVIEWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.

The Second Department, reversing a consent order, determined Family Court did not take the necessary steps to ensure father wished to waive his right to counsel in this custody/relocation proceeding. Father had indicated he wished to be represented by legal aid. Legal aid informed the court father did not qualify for their services. Father appeared pro se without any further inquiry by the court:

 

Although the order appealed from recites that it was entered on consent, under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we are not precluded from reviewing whether the Family Court secured a valid waiver of the father’s right to counsel. The Family Court erred in allowing the father to proceed pro se. When the father expressed a desire to have an attorney appointed, the court should have inquired further into the father’s financial circumstances, including, but not limited to, inquiring about his expenses … . Moreover, the court did not determine whether the father was unequivocally, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his right to counsel … . Despite the father’s statements at pretrial appearances that he would like to have an attorney appointed, the court presided over the hearing without inquiring into why the father was appearing pro se, or whether he understood the risks and disadvantages of doing so. Matter of Soto v Willis, 2016 NY Slip Op 06505, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

FAMILY LAW (COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT ORDER REVIEWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT ORDER REVIEWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CUSTODY, COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT ORDER REVIEWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CONSENT ORDER, COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT ORDER REVIEWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE)

, ,

WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The First Department determined the Port Authority of NY & NJ did not waive sovereign immunity, despite several contract provisions requiring several steps to resolve disputes prior to resorting to suit. Because the notice of claim and the subsequent filing of a complaint were not timely pursuant to Unconsolidated Law 7107, the complaint was properly dismissed. The court noted that, although the waiver of sovereignty argument was not raised below, the appellate court could consider the argument (which was rejected). With respect to the powers of the appellate court in this context, the court explained:

… [W]here a party does not allege new facts, but merely raises a legal argument that appeared upon the face of the record, we are free to consider the argument “[s]o long as the issue is determinative and the record on appeal is sufficient to permit our review” … . The waiver argument presents this very circumstance, and therefore, we consider [the] waiver argument on this appeal. W&W Steel, LLC v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2016 NY Slip Op 05900, 1st Dept 8-25-16

(MUNICIPAL LAW (WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)APPEALS (WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/IMMUNITY (MUNICIPAL LAW, WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ARGUMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL EVEN THOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

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