The Second Department determined that defendant’s conviction for intentional murder was against the weight of the evidence. The victim died of strangulation, but the defendant’s actions were motivated by the desire to increase sexual pleasure, not by an intent to kill. People v Davis, 2014 NY Slip Op 03277, 2nd Dept 5-7-14
The Court of Appeals could not hear the defendant’s appeal because the issue was not preserved by an objection or by an express decision on the question by the trial court. “The issue argued on this appeal is whether the police were required to again read defendant his Miranda rights when they interviewed him a second time, at his request and in the presence of counsel. In particular, defendant contends that the courts below erred in determining that the presence of counsel obviated the need for police to advise him of his right to remain silent during the second interview. Defendant, however, did not make this argument in his motion papers to the trial court or at the suppression hearing. Moreover, while a general objection — such as that contained in defendant’s omnibus motion — is sufficient to preserve an issue for our review when the trial court “expressly decided the question raised on appeal” …, here, Supreme Court did not expressly decide the issue of whether the police were required to advise defendant of his right to remain silent under the circumstances presented by the second interview.” People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 03767, CtApp 5-7-15
The Fourth Department, in the context of plaintiff’s attempt to collect a judgment reflecting child support arrears, determined an attorney’s charging lien was appropriately attached to the proceeds of the sale of defendant’s property. The court rejected the argument that child support payments are exempt from an attorney’s charging lien, at least under the facts of this case. Here the children were already emancipated and the nonpayment was not enforced for 16 years. The Fourth Department explained the law surrounding attorney’s charging liens, and noted the exemptions for proceedings before “a department of labor” and an award of alimony or maintenance:
Under the common law, “the attorney’s lien was a device invented by the courts for the protection of attorneys against the knavery of their clients, by disabling clients from receiving the fruits of recoveries without paying for the valuable services by which the recoveries were obtained’ “… . Judiciary Law § 475 “codifies and extends the common-law charging lien” …, by providing an attorney with “a lien upon his or her client’s cause of action, claim or counterclaim, which attaches to a verdict, report, determination, decision, award, settlement, judgment or final order in his or her client’s favor, and the proceeds thereof in whatever hands they may come” (§ 475 …). The statute is remedial in nature and therefore must “be construed liberally in aid of the object sought by the [L]egislature, which was to furnish security to attorneys by giving them a lien upon the subject of the action” … . “The lien comes into existence, without notice or filing, upon commencement of the action or proceeding,” and “gives the attorney an equitable ownership interest in the client’s cause of action” … .
The only exception contained in the statute is for proceedings before “a department of labor” (Judiciary Law § 475). In addition to that statutory exception, the Court of Appeals has held that, as a matter of public policy, a charging lien may not attach to an award of alimony or maintenance … . Mura v Mura, 2015 NY Slip Op 03639, 4th Dept 5-1-15
In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department vacated defendant's plea to a probation violation because no mention of a period of post-release supervision was made until moments before sentencing. The court determined there was no need to preserve the error by objection because the defendant had so little time between notification of the post-release supervision and sentencing:
…[W]hether preservation is necessary hinges upon whether the defendant “had ample opportunity to object after the initial [reference to postrelease supervision] was made and before sentence was formally imposed” … . Thus, where “the court first mention[s] postrelease supervision only moments before imposing the sentence,” thereby depriving the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to weigh his or her options at that stage of the proceeding, preservation is not required … .
Although we are mindful that the matter before us concerns a plea of guilty to a violation of probation as opposed to a plea of guilty to a crime the analysis employed by the Court of Appeals …is equally applicable here. As noted previously, County Court made no mention of postrelease supervision during the course of defendant's plea colloquy …, nor does the record indicate that defendant otherwise was made aware prior to entering her plea to the probation violation that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence … . Rather, the need to impose a period of postrelease supervision was first raised at sentencing quite literally moments before defendant's sentence actually was imposed … . Under these circumstances, preservation was not required, and County Court's failure to apprise defendant that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence mandates reversal. People v Bolivar, 2014 NY Slip Op 02980, 3rd Dept 5-1-14
In the context of a Mental Hygiene proceeding in which respondent was adjudicated a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, the Third Department determined no appeal lies from a vacated order. Supreme Court had vacated the order because the Court of Appeals held that antisocial personality disorder, from which respondent suffers, cannot be relied upon to show a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law 10.03 (i). Respondent’s appeal from the vacated order could not be heard. Matter of State of New York v Richard TT., 2015 NY Slip Op 03591, 3rd Dept 4-30-15
The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment to the attorney defendants. The defendants demonstrated that plaintiffs would not have succeeded on the cause of action against the hospital in the underlying medical malpractice action (the defendants had agreed to discontinue the action against the hospital). And the defendants demonstrated that Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to prosecute was an error which would have been corrected had the plaintiffs appealed. Therefore there was no question of fact whether the actions of the defendant attorneys proximately caused the alleged damages:
Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs would not have succeeded on the merits of their underlying medical malpractice action insofar as asserted against the Hospital, regardless of whether the defendants consented to the discontinuance … . The defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the Hospital staff involved in the underlying medical procedures properly carried out the directions of the attending private physicians and did not engage in any independent negligent acts … . …
The defendants also established, prima facie, that their alleged negligence in failing to prosecute the action was not a proximate cause of the damages alleged in the complaint since the plaintiffs chose not to appeal from the order that dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the other defendants. The failure to pursue an appeal in an underlying action bars a legal malpractice action where the client was likely to have succeeded on appeal in the underlying action … . The Court of Appeals has stated that this “likely to succeed” standard “obviate[s] premature legal malpractice actions by allowing the appellate courts to correct any trial court error and allow[s] attorneys to avoid unnecessary malpractice lawsuits by being given the opportunity to rectify their clients’ unfavorable result” (Grace v Law, 24 NY3d at 210). By establishing that an appeal would likely have been successful, a defendant in a legal malpractice action can establish that the alleged negligence did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s damages (see id.).
Here, the defendants’ submissions demonstrated that the court in the underlying action dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the other defendants pursuant to CPLR 3216 … . As the defendants correctly contend, that order would have been reversed on appeal since it was error, as a matter of law, to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 where no 90-day demand had been served and where a note of issue had previously been filed and remained in effect … . Furthermore, the defendants adequately demonstrated that dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3404 was inapplicable since the case was not “marked off or stricken from the trial calendar” … . Accordingly, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiffs were likely to have succeeded on appeal in the underlying action and that the asserted malpractice in failing to prosecute the action was a not a proximate cause of the alleged damages … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Buczek v Dell & Little, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 03492, 2nd Dept 4-29-15
The Second Department, in determining defendant’s waiver of appeal was insufficient, noted that signing a written waiver does not cure defects in the court’s on-the-record inquiry about the defendant’s understanding of the waiver:
The record fails to establish that the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . An appeal waiver is not valid unless the defendant’s understanding of the waiver is evident on the face of the record … . Here, the trial court’s statement to the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal, followed by its inquiry as to whether his attorney had explained that right to him, was insufficient to demonstrate a valid waiver … . The defendant’s execution of a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, and some acknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right” … . People v Little, 2015 NY Slip Op 03567, 2nd Dept 4-29-15
The Second Department noted that in an appeal from an order made upon the appellant’s default, the only issues which can be reviewed are those which were contested below. Here only appellants’ request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel was contested, therefore that was the only issue the appellate court could consider. The court determined the denial of the adjournment request was not an abuse of discretion. “In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the action, the extent of the delay, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .” The court noted the appellants’ lack of cooperation with their second counsel and their consent to second counsel’s being relieved:
Where, as here, the order appealed from was made upon the appellants’ default, “review is limited to matters which were the subject of contest below” … . Accordingly, in this case, review is limited to the denial of the appellants’ request for an adjournment … .
The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the court … , and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … . In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the action, the extent of the delay, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .
Applying these principles here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellants’ request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel after their second counsel was relieved, as second counsel requested that the appellants permit it to be relieved of the obligation of representation, based on the appellants’ lack of cooperation with second counsel, and the appellants thereupon voluntarily consented to second counsel’s request … . Hawes v Lewis, 2015 NY Slip Op 03127, 2nd Dept 4-15-15
The Second Department determined defendant’s weapon-possession conviction must be reversed because of the misconduct of the prosecutor. Although the errors were not preserved by objection, the court invoked its “interest of justice” power to reach the issue. The prosecutor functioned as an unsworn witness by indicating, during cross-examination of the defendant, that her office had called a restaurant to find out the closing time and using that information to impeach the defendant’s testimony. The prosecutor, in her summation, accused the defendant of lying based on the unsworn “restaurant closing-time” information she had put on the record. In addition, the prosecutor suggested that defendant intended to use the weapon to harm someone and had committed multiple gun-possession offenses, unsupported claims not relevant to the charged offense:
The prosecutor improperly functioned as an unsworn witness when she cross-examined the defendant regarding the closing time of a restaurant in Brooklyn … . The police officers who conducted the traffic stop testified on their direct examinations that the traffic stop occurred at 9:35 p.m. On his direct examination, in contrast, the defendant testified that the traffic stop occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m., while he and the other occupants of the vehicle were on their way to a restaurant in Brooklyn. During the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant, she improperly suggested facts not in evidence when she implied that the District Attorney’s office had called the restaurant to ascertain its hours of operation, and asked the defendant whether he testified that the traffic stop occurred between 8:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. because he knew that the restaurant was not open at 9:35 p.m. … . During summation, the prosecutor again improperly implied, without having submitted any evidence about the closing time of the restaurant, that the defendant had lied about what he was doing at the time of the traffic stop … .
Further, the prosecutor made improper remarks during summation which suggested that the defendant possessed the weapon with an intent to use it to harm someone, even though this was not an element of the crime for which the defendant was on trial … . Similarly, the prosecutor’s questioning of the defendant about one of his tattoos was improper and led to the inflammatory and unsupported inference that the defendant had previously used the weapon to harm someone … . It was also improper for the prosecutor to argue during summation that the defendant had learned certain information during the pretrial hearing even though there was no evidence to support this assertion … .
In addition, the prosecutor’s statement during summation that the defendant did not make any sudden movements during the traffic stop because he had already “played out this exact scenario in his mind . . . every time he left his house with that gun” was improper speculation, without any basis in the record, that the defendant had committed multiple gun possession offenses prior to the subject incident which led to his arrest … .People v Rowley, 2015 NY Slip Op 02988, 2nd Dept 4-8-15
The Third Department affirmed Family Court’s rulings that: the father’s consent to the adoption of his child was required; the father had preserved his right to contest the adoption of his child; and custody of the child is awarded to the father. Mother put the child up for adoption and the child was adopted before mother informed father she had given birth to his child. The Third Department heard the appeal despite problems with the notice of appeal and the absence of the Family Court hearing transcript. No one contested the factual findings made by Family Court:
“The father of a child born out-of-wedlock is entitled to full protection of his relationship with the child, including the right to deny consent to an adoption at birth by strangers, only if he ‘assert[s] his interest promptly . . . [and] manifest[s] his ability and willingness to assume custody of the child'” … . Evaluation of the father’s conduct includes, among other things, factors such as “his public acknowledgment of paternity, payment of pregnancy and birth expenses, steps taken to establish legal responsibility for the child, and other factors evincing a commitment to the child” … . Family Court’s many factual findings included that: the father had paid up to 90% of the household expenses when the mother resided with him; the mother was not visibly pregnant while living with him; the mother did not know she was pregnant until she had moved to New York City; FIA [the adoption agency] made no reasonable effort to notify the father; the father was first notified about the pregnancy and child on May 6, 2014; he was unable to contribute to pregnancy expenses through no fault of his own because he had no knowledge thereof; the mother was urged by FIA to decline to identify the father of her child; and, once the father became aware of the child, he filed a paternity petition within about 10 weeks and then a custody petition and he did so despite difficult logistics regarding filing (he lived in South Carolina, the child had been born in New York City, the adoption was pending in Albany County), as well as a lack of legal representation by counsel. The father submitted an affidavit stating that, after learning of some uncovered costs of the birth, he was making arrangements to pay those costs. He had a job and residence, and was able to take immediate custody of the child. In light of the uncontested facts found by Family Court, as well as the other relevant proof in the record, we are unpersuaded that Family Court erred in determining that the father adequately preserved his right to contest the adoption of his child … . Matter of Isabella TT. (Dalton C.), 2015 NY Slip Op 02838, 3rd Dept 4-2-15
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy