You are here: / Appeals

APPEAL OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENJOIN CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT APPLY FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL AND CONSTRUCTION HAD CONTINUED TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT BE UNDONE WITHOUT CAUSING UNDUE HARM.

In an action seeking to enjoin the construction of a high-rise tower, the First Department dismissed the appeal because the plaintiffs did not apply for an injunction pending appeal and the construction had progressed to the point it could not be undone without undue hardship:

 

Plaintiffs failed to apply for an injunction pending appeal — on the contrary, they moved for an enlargement of time within which to perfect the appeal — and construction is now “so far advanced that it could not be undone without undue hardship” (Matter of Weeks Woodlands Assn., Inc. v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 95 AD3d 747, 753 [1st Dept 2012], affd 20 NY3d 919 [2012]). Plaintiffs’ contention that Weeks Woodlands does not apply because the tower being built by defendants … is not substantially complete is without merit. Weeks Woodlands specifically says that “construction need not be virtually completed to render the dispute moot” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Contrary to plaintiffs’ claim that they are not seeking to enjoin the construction project, their amended complaint sought to enjoin defendant Art Students League of New York (ASL)’s conveyance of air rights or to set it aside. The practical effect of such an injunction or setting aside would be to force [defendant] Extell to demolish the construction it has accomplished to date and start over again from scratch, which would cost more than $200 million. Caraballo v Art Students League of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 00883, 1st Dept 2-9-11

 

APPEALS (FAILURE TO APPLY FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT BE UNDONE, APPEAL DISMISSED)/INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL (FAILURE TO APPLY ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION TO CONTINUE TO THE POINT IT COULD NOT BE UNDONE)

, , , ,

HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CHARGES OF WHICH SEX OFFENDER WAS ACQUITTED AND CHARGES WHICH WERE DISMISSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The First Department determined respondent sex-offender was entitled to a new civil-commitment trial because the state’s expert relied on sex-offense charges of which respondent was acquitted and other sex-offense charges which were dismissed. The acquittal was completely off-limits. And no evidence to demonstrate respondent had committed the dismissed offenses was presented. The court noted that, in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in these Mental Hygiene Law proceedings, a motion for a directed verdict must be made at the close of the state’s proof:

 

Respondent failed to preserve his remaining claims that the trial evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. In order to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, a party must first have moved for a directed verdict under CPLR 4401 … . Here, respondent never moved before the trial court for a directed verdict or otherwise challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Thus, his claims are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach them.

… [T]he court erred in allowing the State’s experts, in explaining the basis for their opinions, to testify regarding two sets of sex offense charges against respondent that did not result in convictions (see Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95 [2013]). In Floyd Y., the Court held that hearsay basis evidence satisfies due process only if it is demonstrated to be reliable and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect (id. at 109). Here, one set of charges resulted in an acquittal, and so was categorically precluded from providing the basis for reliability (id. at 110). The second group of charges, which resulted in dismissal, also failed to meet the reliability threshold, because they were unaccompanied by indicia that respondent committed the charged acts notwithstanding the lack of a conviction (see id.). Accordingly, a new trial is required. Matter of State of New York v David S., 2016 NY Slip Op 00777, 1st Dept 2-4-16

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (EVIDENCE OF CHARGES OF WHICH SEX OFFENDER WAS ACQUITTED AND CHARGES WHICH WERE DISMISSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL)/EVIDENCE (HEARSY EVIDENCE OF CHARGES OF WHICH SEX OFFENDER WAS ACQUITTED AND CHARGES WHICH WERE DISMISSED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL)/APPEALS (TO PRESERVE CHALLENGE TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE IN A MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 SEX-OFFENDER CIVIL-COMMITMENT PROCEEDING, SEX OFFENDER MUST MOVE FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT)

,

DEFAMATION CRITERIA FOR A PUBLIC FIGURE DESCRIBED; APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS IN PUBLIC FIGURE DEFAMATION ACTIONS EXPLAINED.

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to set aside the verdict in a defamation action, the Second Department explained the law as it relates to public figures (here plaintiff was a school superintendent) and the unique powers of the appellate courts in this context. The defamation verdict related to a remark on a website stating plaintiff had procured enhanced grades for his daughter:

 

The Constitution, as interpreted in the New York Times case, bars the plaintiff “from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” … . Actual malice must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence” … . The Court of Appeals has recognized that “[t]he usual deference paid by courts to jury verdicts is inapplicable in cases subject to the New York Times Co. v Sullivan rule” … . “[T]he appellate court must make a de novo review of the entire record, and determine whether the proof before the trial court supports the finding of actual malice with convincing clarity” … . Eastwood v Hoefer, 2016 NY Slip Op 00674, 2nd Dept 2-3-16

 

DEFAMATION (CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC FIGURES EXPLAINED)/DEFAMATION (APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS IN PUBLIC-FIGURE DEFAMATION CASES)/APPEALS (APPELLATE REVIEW POWERS IN PUBLIC-FIGURE DEFAMATION CASES)

,

THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN HEAR THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE; A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS UNDERLYING THE FOREIGN CONVICTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the Court of Appeals could hear the appeal of an unpreserved sentencing issue first raised in a motion to vacate the sentence (Criminal Procedure Law 440.20) and further determined that a Washington DC robbery conviction should not have been deemed a predicate felony. Because the DC statute could be violated by “snatching” property from someone, an act which would not be felony robbery in New York, the Court of Appeals held it could not be the basis for defendant’s conviction as a second felony offender, irrespective of whether the actual facts underlying the DC conviction would constitute a felony in New York:

A CPL 440.20 motion is the proper vehicle for raising a challenge to a sentence as “unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law” (CPL 440.20 [1]), and a determination of second felony offender status is an aspect of the sentence (see CPL 70.06 [included in CPL article 70, addressing sentences of imprisonment]). One of the legal defects that can be challenged in a CPL 440.20 motion is an alleged error in sentencing a defendant as a second or third felony offender, including the decision to consider certain prior convictions as predicates. Raising the predicate felony sentencing issue in a CPL 440.20 motion serves the goals and purposes of the preservation rule by permitting the parties to present their arguments on the issue in the trial court, creating a record for appellate review, and allowing the trial court the first opportunity to correct any error [FN3]. Thus, we may address defendant’s current challenge — that the sentence was illegal because the D.C. conviction did not render him a second felony offender — on the appeal of the denial of his CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence. * * *

… [U]nder the D.C. statute the taking can occur (1) by force or violence, or (2) by putting in fear. The force or violence element can be accomplished (1) against resistance, or (2) by sudden or stealthy seizure, or (3) by snatching … . Stated another way, “the statute must be interpreted to include ‘stealthy seizure’ as a form of ‘force or violence'” … . The statutory language means that the crime can be committed in different ways, and the phrase “sudden or stealthy seizure or snatching” does not describe separate criminal acts required by the statute in addition to the use of “force or violence” … . Consequently, we do not look at the underlying accusatory instrument to determine if the crime is equivalent to a New York felony … . Because the statute, itself, indicates that a person can be convicted of the D.C. crime without committing an act that would qualify as a felony in New York (i.e., by pickpocketing), defendant’s D.C. conviction for attempt to commit robbery was not a proper basis for a predicate felony offender adjudication … . People v Jurgins, 2015 NY Slip Op 09311, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEAL OF UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE LIES FROM DENIAL OF A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE)/CRIMINAL LAW (FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS OF A PREDICATE FELONY)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEAL OF UNPRESERVED SENTENCING ISSUE LIES FROM DENIAL OF A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE)/PREDICATE FELONY (A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A PREDICATE FELONY)/FOREIGN FELONY (A FOREIGN STATUTE WHICH CAN BE VIOLATED BY AN ACT WHICH IS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A PREDICATE FELONY)

, , ,

WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined a judgment of conviction and sentence becomes final when the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal expires (where no notice is filed). Here the issue was whether the defendant could move to vacate his conviction by guilty plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Because the motion to vacate would not be available if defendant’s conviction and sentence became final before Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) was decided (requiring that a defendant be informed of deportation consequence of a plea), the date of finality was determinative. If the finality date is 30 days after conviction and sentence, defendant’s conviction and sentence would have been final before Padilla was decided. If, as defendant argued, the conviction and sentence became final one year and 30 days after the conviction and sentence, when the time for moving to file a late notice of appeal expired, defendant’s conviction and sentence would not have been final before Padilla was decided. Because the Court of Appeals decided the conviction and sentence became final when no notice of appeal was filed within 30 days, defendant could not move to vacate his conviction:

Adopting defendant’s reasoning would result in uncertainty in the finality of judgments in many procedural situations. For example, a defendant who takes a direct appeal to the Appellate Division but does not seek leave to appeal to this Court in a timely fashion could argue that the judgment was not final until one year and 30 days after the Appellate Division affirmance, inasmuch as the defendant could have sought leave from this Court to file a belated application for discretionary review pursuant to CPL 460.30 (1). Or, a defendant who has filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division but has had the appeal dismissed due to failure to perfect could argue that the judgment is not yet final, inasmuch as the defendant could ask the Appellate Division to vacate the dismissal of the appeal.

Indeed, if we adopt defendant’s logic, other defendants who did not take a direct appeal conceivably could argue that their judgments were never final, inasmuch as they could seek to file a late notice of appeal even after the one-year grace period of CPL 460.30 has expired by moving for a writ of error coram nobis … . People v Varenga, 2015 NY Slip Op 09312, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES)/JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (BECOMES FINAL UPON EXPIRATION OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

,

FAILURE TO CLARIFY WHETHER APPEAL WAIVER WAS PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE WAIVER INVALID.

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because it was not made clear whether the waiver was part of the plea agreement. The court further determined that the sentence for non-violent offenses committed by the 18-year-old defendant was harsh and excessive. With respect to the invalid waiver of appeal, the court wrote:

Defendant was free to waive his right to appeal as an adjunct to the plea agreement, so long as he made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent decision to do so … . It was accordingly incumbent upon County Court to verify, among other things, that defendant understood he was “intentionally relinquish[ing] or abandon[ing] a known right that would otherwise survive a guilty plea” as a component of the plea agreement … . Defendant expressed his willingness to waive his right to appeal during the plea colloquy, but the record is devoid of any indication that an appeal waiver was actually a component of the plea agreement. An appeal waiver was not mentioned when the terms of the plea agreement were recited and, indeed, the People stated that they did not know if defendant was executing an appeal waiver given the absence of any sentencing commitment. Defense counsel then gratuitously offered to have defendant waive his right to appeal in the spirit of “mak[ing] it as easy on everyone as possible.” As a result of these statements, County Court was obliged to determine whether an appeal waiver was required as a “detail[] of the plea bargain” and, if not, whether defendant understood that he did not have to execute one …. . County Court did neither and, given the absence of proof that defendant waived his right to appeal in return for any consideration, we find that waiver to be invalid … . People v Justiniano, 2015 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/APPEALS (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCE HARSH AND EXCESSIVE)/SENTENCING (HARSH AND EXCESSIVE)

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.

The First Department sent the matter back for resentencing because the record suggested the sentencing judge erroneously thought he did not have the power to impose a reduced sentence. The First Department determined the defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because the sentencing judge erroneously stated the relevant law and did not make sure the defendant understood the difference between the rights waived by entering a guilty plea and his appellate rights:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, where the court failed to adequately ensure defendant’s understanding that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty … . The court’s statement that defendant was “waiving [his] right to appeal any legal issues connected with the case, including the sentence” (emphasis added) was incorrect, insofar as a defendant cannot waive certain rights, such as the right to challenge the legality of a sentence or raise a speedy trial claim … . The court’s further statement that the “right of appeal is waived by [defendant], the rights I just mentioned are automatically waived by a plea” was insufficient to explain that the right to appeal is not included with those automatically waived by a guilty plea, since the court had “just mentioned” that right. Moreover, defendant’s execution of a written waiver “does not, standing alone, provide sufficient assurance that the defendant is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily giving up his or her right to appeal” … . People v Flores, 2015 NY Slip Op 08905, 1st  Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER INVALID)/WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID

, , ,

Non-Constitutional Appellate Issues Re: Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test (DWI) Do Not Survive a Guilty Plea

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined defendant, by pleading guilty, had forfeited his right to appellate review of (non-constitutional) rulings about the admissibility of his refusal to submit to a chemical test (DWI) after his involvement in a car accident. The court explained why some appellate issues survive a guilty plea and some don’t:

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly observed that “a plea of guilty generally marks the end of a criminal case, not a gateway to further litigation'” … . A guilty plea signals the defendant’s intention not to litigate the issue of his or her guilt, “and necessarily involves the surrender of certain constitutional rights, including the right to confrontation, the privilege against self incrimination and the right to trial by jury” … . A guilty plea not only encompasses a waiver of the specific rights attached to a trial, but also “effects a forfeiture of the right to renew many arguments made before the plea” … . “This is so because a defendant’s conviction rests directly on the sufficiency of his plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any proceedings which might have led to his conviction after trial'” … . The forfeiture occasioned by a guilty plea extends to a variety of claims, including those premised upon a failure to provide CPL 710.30 notice … , the statutory right to a speedy trial … , the exercise of alleged discriminatory peremptory challenges … , and adverse rulings on Sandoval and Ventimiglia/Molineux applications … .

However, not every claim is forfeited by a guilty plea. The issues that survive a valid guilty plea generally relate either to jurisdictional matters, such as an insufficient accusatory instrument, or to rights of a constitutional dimension that go to the heart of the criminal justice process … . “The critical distinction is between defects implicating the integrity of the process, which may survive a guilty plea, and less fundamental flaws, such as evidentiary or technical matters, which do not” … . Examples of rights of constitutional dimension which are not forfeited by a guilty plea include the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the protection against double jeopardy, and the competency of the defendant to stand trial … .

Among the limited group of issues that survive a valid guilty plea and may be raised on a subsequent appeal are those relating to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under CPL 710.20 … . The Legislature has preserved such claims for appellate review through the enactment of CPL 710.70(2) … . CPL 710.70(2) expressly grants a defendant a statutory right to appellate review of an order denying a motion to suppress evidence “notwithstanding the fact” that the judgment of conviction “is entered upon a plea of guilty.” However, the statutory right to appellate review created by CPL 710.70(2) applies to orders which deny a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds enumerated by CPL 710.20 … .  Athough CPL 710.20(5)  authorizes a defendant to move to suppress evidence of “a chemical test of the defendant’s blood administered in violation of the provisions” of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) or “any other applicable law,” that provision is not implicated here. In this case, the defendant did not move to suppress the results of a chemical test of his blood. Indeed, the police did not perform a chemical test upon the defendant. Rather, he moved to preclude the People from admitting testimony of his refusal to submit to a chemical test. Such a motion cannot be characterized as one seeking suppression under CPL 710.20(5). Accordingly, the defendant does not have a statutory right to appellate review of the County Court’s ruling permitting the introduction of evidence of his refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Nor is the defendant’s claim that the County Court erred in ruling that the People would be permitted to introduce evidence at trial of his refusal to submit to a chemical test a claim of constitutional dimension, or one that bears upon the integrity of the judicial process. Rather, the court’s determination relates to an evidentiary or technical matter. People v Sirico, 2015 NY Slip Op 07862, 2nd Dept 10-28-15

 

,

Appeal, Rather than a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment, Is the Proper Remedy Where a Party Appears to Contest Motion to Enter a Default Judgment

The Second Department noted that the prohibition of an appeal from an ordered entered upon default does not apply when a party appears to contest a motion to enter a default judgment:

Although CPLR 5511 prohibits an appeal from an order entered upon default, that provision does not apply where, as here, a party appears and contests a motion for leave to enter a default judgment … . Under the circumstances [of this case], the proper remedies were either an appeal from the default order, a timely motion for reargument or renewal, or an appeal from a judgment entered after the inquest on damages, which would bring up for review the default order … . Thus, a motion to vacate the default order was procedurally improper and should not have been entertained … . Cole-Hatchard v Eggers, 2015 NY Slip Op 07466, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

, ,

Where Arrest Was Not Authorized, Conviction for Resisting Arrest Was Against the Weight of the Evidence

The People conceded defendant’s actions (apparently simply standing with a group) did not constitute disorderly conduct. Therefore, the Fourth Department determined, defendant’s arrest for disorderly conduct was unauthorized and his conviction of resisting arrest was against the weight of the evidence:

As the People correctly concede, the evidence fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the arrest of defendant for disorderly conduct was authorized. The Court of Appeals has “made clear that evidence of actual or threatened public harm (inconvenience, annoyance or alarm’) is a necessary element of a valid disorderly conduct charge” …, and there is no evidence of such actual or threatened harm here. Inasmuch as it “is not disorderly conduct . . . for a small group of people, even people of bad reputation, to stand peaceably on a street corner” …, the arrest of defendant for engaging in that conduct was not authorized. “There being no probable cause that authorized defendant’s arrest, [he] cannot be guilty of resisting arrest” … . Thus, we conclude that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” … . People v Howard, 2015 NY Slip Op 07100, 4th Dept 10-2-15

 

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