, ,

NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

The First Department determined the denial of a civil motion seeking discovery (letters rogatory) oversees which was made in the context of a criminal proceeding could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal:

In this matter where an indictment has been filed, a criminal trial is pending, and defendants seek information via letters rogatory for use at their criminal trial, the denial of the application for such letters is part of the criminal proceeding, notwithstanding that the application was brought under CPLR 3108 … .

“It is well established that no appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute”  … . The order appealed from is not a disposition listed in CPL 450.10 or 450.15, and is therefore not an appealable paper … . A “defendant may only appeal after conviction” … , and may not obtain an interlocutory appeal by claiming to invoke the court’s civil jurisdiction. People v DePalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 01441, 1st Dept 2-23-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)/LETTERS ROGATORY (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)

,

CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the removal application should not have been granted and father’s appeal of the removal was not moot, even though the child had been returned to the father:

Although it is undisputed that the child has been returned to the father’s care, the father’s appeals are not academic. The child’s removal created a permanent and significant stigma … .

“In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal'” … . Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the child would be subjected to imminent risk if she were not placed in the custody of the petitioner pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding. Under the circumstances of this case, concerns about, inter alia, the adequacy of the father’s plan to care for the child did not amount to an imminent risk to the child’s life or health that could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. Matter of Emmanuela B. (Jean E.B.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01195, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, REMOVAL, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/NEGLECT (CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/REMOVAL (CHILD NEGLECT, FAMILY LAW, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)

,

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined defendant’s argument that three consecutive 25-year sentences arising from the same incident constituted cruel and unusual punishment was not preserved for review:

Defendant failed to preserve for review his claim that the sentence imposed by the court was “cruel and unusual.” Although defendant generally objected to the length of the sentence before the sentencing court, arguing that the sentence was draconian, he did not alert the court to his constitutional argument. Thus, the sentencing court was never given an opportunity to address any of the constitutional challenges that defendant now lodges with this Court. Accordingly, defendant’s “claim [ ] that his sentence constituted cruel and inhuman punishment [ ] is not properly before us” … . People v Pena, 2017 NY Slip Op 01142, CtApp 2-14-17

CRIMINAL LAW (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)/CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ARGUMENT NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW)

,

AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED; PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was entitled to the opportunity to present a defense after the motion for a trial order of dismissal was denied:

When the appeal was previously before us, we held the case, reserved decision, and remitted the matter to County Court for a ruling on the motion for a trial order of dismissal “following such further proceedings as may be necessary” … . Upon remittal, the court … denied the motion … . … [T]he court did not afford defendant the opportunity to present a defense, notwithstanding that defendant had not rested and the proof was not closed. Contrary to the court’s conclusion, the fact that we did not set aside its premature verdict [the motion for a trial order of dismissal had not been ruled on] when the appeal was previously before us did not preclude it from considering further proof or making new factual determinations … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to present a defense. People v White, 2017 NY Slip Op 01058, 4th Dept 2-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MOTION FOR AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER APPEAL AND REMITTAL, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO PUT ON A DEFENSE AFTER THE MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS DENIED, PRIOR TO THE APPEAL THE VERDICT HAD BEEN PREMATURELY ANNOUNCED WITHOUT ANY RULING ON THE TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AFTER REVERSAL, DOES NOT BRING UP TRIAL INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS FOR APPEAL.

The First Department rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to appeal evidentiary rulings made by the trial court. Plaintiff had successfully moved to set aside the defense verdict in this personal injury case. The First Department reversed and directed the clerk to enter a judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff then appealed that order, raising trial evidentiary issues. The First Department held that the order appealed from was not the order of the trial court, therefore the interlocutory evidentiary rulings could not be raised:

Although an appeal from a final order or judgment of Supreme Court brings up for review, inter alia, certain evidentiary rulings made at trial (CPLR 5501[a][3] …), once this Court decides the issues raised on appeal and directs the Clerk of the court from which the appeal originated to enter judgment, such judgment finally disposes of all the issues in the action (CPLR 5701[a][1]…). The judgment that the Clerk entered … was entered in accordance with and pursuant to an order of this Court (the Appellate Division) which “dispose[d] of all the issues in the action” (CPLR 5701[a][1]). Stated differently, the … judgment is not a judgment of the trial court bringing up interlocutory issues for review … . …

Plaintiff did not move to set aside the verdict based upon erroneous evidentiary rulings. Although as plaintiff correctly argues, there is no interlocutory appeal as of right from an evidentiary ruling during trial (see CPLR 5701[a]…), plaintiff had the opportunity to raise legal arguments regarding the evidentiary rulings made by the trial court in support of her motion to set aside the jury’s verdict.

These issues could have also been raised to support her position in the prior appeal. Powell v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00576, 1st Dept 1-31-17

 

APPEALS (ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AFTER REVERSAL, DOES NOT BRING UP TRIAL INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS FOR APPEAL)/INTERLOCUTORY EVIDENTIARY RULINGS (APPEALS, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AFTER REVERSAL, DOES NOT BRING UP TRIAL INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS FOR APPEAL)/REVERSAL (APPEALS, (ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AFTER REVERSAL, DOES NOT BRING UP TRIAL INTERLOCUTORY RULINGS FOR APPEAL)

,

FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE.

The Third Department, in a decision too detailed to fairly summarize here, determined Family Court’s many mistakes, which have resulted in mother’s inability to visit with her children for years, required a new hearing in front of a different judge. The Third Department had reversed the termination of mother’s parental rights in 2013. Family Court, however, refused to reinstate her parental rights and mother has been fighting to be allowed supervised visitation ever since:

… [W]e must address Family Court’s flawed understanding of the legal effect of our October 2013 order reversing the orders that terminated the mother’s parental rights to the children. Inexplicably, Family Court incorrectly and repeatedly stated on the record that there was no declaration by this Court that the mother’s parental rights or any prior orders were reinstated and that the mother was mistaken that her parental rights had been restored.

It is fundamental that the reversal of an order upon appellate review restores the party who prevailed on appeal to the position that he or she enjoyed prior to entry of the order appealed from … . Contrary to Family Court’s statements, this Court’s October 2013 order did reinstate the mother’s parental rights and restored her to the position that she was in prior to the erroneous termination of her parental rights. It appears from the record that, at such time, the mother had been afforded supervised visitation with the children once a week. Accordingly, upon the reinstatement of her parental rights, the mother was, at a minimum, entitled to the restoration of the visitation that she was afforded prior to the termination, unless it could be demonstrated by respondent that there were “‘compelling reasons and substantial evidence that such visitation would be detrimental or harmful to the child[ren]’s welfare'” … . Matter of Angela F. v St. Lawrence County Dept. of Social Servs., 2017 NY Slip Op 00513, 3rd Dept 1-26-17

See also the related case: Matter of Angela F. v Gail WW., 2017 NY Slip Op 00514, 3rd Dept 1-25-17

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE)/JUDGES (FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE)/APPEALS (FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE)

, , ,

APPELLATE COURT NEED NOT REVIEW ISSUES NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS IN THE APPENDIX; COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL; FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE FORFEITED PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A STOCK OPTION.

The Second Department determined (1) certain issues in plaintiff’s appeal could not be addressed because the necessary documents were not included in the appendix provided to the appellate court, (2) the faithless servant doctrine applied to plaintiff who, by his disloyalty, forfeited his contractual right to a stock option, and (3) the plaintiff waived his right to a jury trial in this declaratory judgment action:

This Court is not obligated to determine an issue where the appendix submitted to it is inadequate to permit review … . * * *

Where a plaintiff joins an equitable claim for specific performance to a legal claim for damages, the plaintiff waives the right to a jury trial … . “[A] declaratory judgment action . . . can be legal or equitable in nature, and to determine whether a party is entitled to a jury trial, it is necessary to examine which of the traditional actions would most likely have been used to present the instant claim had the declaratory judgment action not been created'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment cause of action was in the nature of a prayer for specific performance … . Accordingly, the court correctly determined that the plaintiff had waived his right to a jury trial … .  * * *

… [T]he court properly applied the faithless servant doctrine and determined that, pursuant to that doctrine, the plaintiff forfeited the right to exercise the stock option … . Trimarco v Data Treasury Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00503, 2nd Dept 1-25-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE FORFEITED PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A STOCK OPTION)/FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE (FAITHLESS SERVANT DOCTRINE FORFEITED PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT TO A STOCK OPTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/CONTRACT LAW (COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/JURY TRIAL (CIVIL, COUPLING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAIVED RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL)/APPEALS (APPELLATE COURT NEED NOT REVIEW ISSUES NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS IN THE APPENDIX)

,

WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.

The Second Department determined the waiver of indictment, which included an A-1 felony, was invalid. The guilty plea, the waiver of the right to appeal and/or the failure to preserve the error did not preclude appeal of the issue:

CPL 195.10 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] defendant may waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by superior court information when . . . the defendant is not charged with a class A felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.” Thus, the Court of Appeals has held: “[W]hen an accused is held for Grand Jury action upon a felony complaint that charges a class A felony . . . a waiver of indictment with respect to that felony complaint is unauthorized” … . Here, the felony complaint charged the defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. That crime is a class A-I felony (see Penal Law § 220.21), which is punishable by an indeterminate sentence with a mandatory maximum term of life imprisonment (see Penal Law § 70.00[2][a]). Accordingly, the defendant could not waive indictment and agree to be prosecuted by superior court information … . People v Janelle,2017 NY Slip Op 00188, 2nd Dept 1-11-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/INDICTMENT, WAIVER OF (WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF A-1 FELONY INDICTMENT INVALID, DESPITE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)

, ,

TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the motion to suppress drugs seized from defendant’s car should have been granted. The deputy stopped defendant’s car based solely on a temporary inspection sticker without any suspicion of criminal behavior. The court noted that the denial of the suppression motion was appealable because defendant did not waive his right to appeal, and the harmless error standard applied because defendant pled guilty after the motion was denied:

The deputy candidly admitted that he had no idea whether the sticker was valid when he made the stop, nor did he indicate that the temporary sticker gave him any other reason for suspicion. He instead stated that his “general practice” was to stop any vehicle he encountered with a temporary inspection sticker in order to “ensure [that the sticker had] not expired.” It is entirely proper to operate a motor vehicle with a temporary inspection sticker under certain circumstances and, as a result, the display of one does not constitute grounds for a traffic stop absent a “specific articulable basis” to believe that illegality is afoot … . The practice of stopping any vehicle with a temporary inspection sticker, without more, represents impermissible “idle curiosity” as to the sticker’s validity rather than the “reasonable suspicion” of illegality needed to effect a traffic stop … . People v Driscoll, 2016 NY Slip Op 08902, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/STREET STOPS (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED.

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea to attempted robbery should not have been accepted by County Court. The error, although unpreserved, can properly be considered on appeal because defendant’s statement during the plea colloquy (that he had no recollection of committing the crime due to his drug use) raised the question whether he could have formed the intent to forcibly steal property:

Defendant’s sole contention is that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Preliminarily, we note that, inasmuch as defendant failed to make an appropriate postallocution motion, this claim is unpreserved for our review … . Nevertheless, we find that the narrow exception to the preservation rule is applicable because defendant’s statement during the plea colloquy that he had no recollection of committing the crime due to drug use raises the unaddressed question of his ability to form the intent to forcibly steal property, an essential element of the crime of attempted robbery … . Under these circumstances, defendant’s statement “casts significant doubt upon [his] guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea,” such that County Court was required to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary … . People v Laflower, 2016 NY Slip Op 08899, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED)/GUILTY PLEAS (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED)