The Second Department noted that, where the court does not mention the prospect of deportation as a result of a guilty plea, the error need not be preserved and the defendant should be given the opportunity to demonstrate to the court the guilty plea would not have been entered if the possibility of deportation were known. People v Al-Mulwallad, 2014 NY Slip OP 07361, 2nd Dept 10-29-14
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined the defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated because defendant wasn’t informed of the period of post-release supervision (PRS) until sentencing (in the absence of preservation of the error):
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether defendant was required to preserve her claim that her plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered where she first received notice of the imposition of a term of postrelease supervision (PRS) at sentencing, and submitted to sentencing with the PRS addition. We reverse, vacate the plea, and remit for further proceedings, holding that the court must notify defendant of a term of PRS sufficiently in advance of its imposition that defendant has the opportunity to object to the deficiency in the plea proceeding. In the absence of such an opportunity, preservation is unnecessary. * * *
We held in People v Catu that “[a] trial court has the constitutional duty to ensure that a defendant, before pleading guilty, has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences” (4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]). To meet due process requirements, a defendant “must be aware of the postrelease supervision component of that sentence in order to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” (id. at 245). Without such procedures, vacatur of the plea is required (id.). People v Turner, 2014 NY Slip Op 07200, CtApp 10-23-14
The Third Department affirmed a verdict in a nonjury trial finding a state trooper 70% responsible for injuries caused when the trooper’s car collided with plaintiff bicyclist. The court explained its review powers re: a nonjury trial and noted that the trooper’s violations of Vehicle and Traffic Law, including the provision requiring the exercise of care to avoid colliding with a bicyclist, constituted negligence per se:
When reviewing a determination after a nonjury trial, this Court independently considers the weight of the evidence and may grant whatever judgment is warranted by the record, all while deferring to the trial judge’s factual findings, especially where those findings are based on credibility determinations … . * * *
After weighing the eyewitness and expert testimony and considering it along with the physical evidence, the court determined that the collision occurred in claimant’s lane of travel, meaning that the trooper crossed at least somewhat into claimant’s lane in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1120 (a). “[A]n unexcused violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law constitutes negligence per se” … . The court also reasonably determined that the trooper was negligent in cutting the corner while making his left turn, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1160 (b)… . Considering the trooper’s testimony that he never saw claimant until the moment of impact, along with evidence regarding the ample sight distance at the intersection and the legal concept that every driver has a duty to see what is there to be seen through the proper use of his or her senses …., the court properly found that the trooper was additionally negligent for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 (a), which requires drivers to “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist” … . Smith v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07229, 3rd Dept 10-23-14
The Third Department determined that proceedings challenging three yearly tax assessments were properly dismissed. Failure to comply with the notice requirements of the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) was the basis for the dismissal one of the actions and the court explained the relevant law. The court also explained its review powers re: competing expert evidence of valuation:
Supreme Court properly dismissed the 2010 proceeding for failure to comply with RPTL 708 (3). It is undisputed that petitioner failed to serve a copy of the 2010 notice of petition and petition upon the superintendent of SCCSD [South Colonie Central School District], the school district within which the subject property is located, within 10 days of service of the petition upon the Assessor, as required by RPTL 708 (3). Failure to strictly comply with the statute’s notice requirements “shall result in the dismissal of the petition, unless excused for good cause shown” (RPTL 708 [3]). No such showing has been made here. Petitioner was aware that SCCSD was the proper school district, having previously served SCCSD with the 2008 petition and engaged in litigation with it in connection with that proceeding, and “[t]he mistake or omission of . . . petitioner’s attorney does not constitute ‘good cause shown’ within the meaning of RPTL 708 (3) to excuse . . . petitioner’s failure to comply” … . Nor may noncompliance with the statute be excused on the ground that SCCSD has not been prejudiced thereby … . * * *
At trial [re: the 2008 and 2009 tax assessments], petitioner offered the expert appraisal reports and testimony of a certified real estate appraiser, who utilized the sales comparison methodology to value the property at $1.3 million for the 2008 tax year and $1.4 million for the 2009 tax year. This evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity and establish a credible dispute between the parties regarding valuation … . Supreme Court was then required to “weigh the entire record, including evidence of claimed deficiencies in the assessment, to determine whether petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that its property has been overvalued” … . “Our review of such a determination must necessarily defer to Supreme Court in its resolution of any credibility issues that have been generated by the conflicting expert opinions[,] and is limited to whether the court’s determination of the fair market value of the subject property is supported by or against the weight of the evidence” … . Highbridge Dec BR LLC v Assessor of the Town of Niskayuna, 2014 NY Slip Op 07216, 3rd Dept 10-23-14
The Second Department determined an Article 78 proceeding contesting a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) allowing Vassar College to kill 62 deer was properly dismissed. At the time of the appeal, the permit had already expired and the deer had been killed. The court determined the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine because the issue is likely to reappear:
…[A]n exception to the mootness doctrine permits courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable … .
Here, although the subject deer cull has been completed and the challenged permit has expired, the appellants raise a substantial and novel issue as to whether the DEC is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] related to the issuance of nuisance deer permits. The issue is likely to recur and to evade appellate review, given the extremely short period of time during which such permits are valid … . * * *
Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether the agency procedures were lawful and “whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look’ at them, and made a reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for its determination” … . “In a statutory scheme whose purpose is that the agency decision-makers focus attention on environmental concerns, it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . The agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary and capricious, or unsupported by the evidence … . Further, an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference unless it is unreasonable or irrational … .
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the DEC’s issuance of a nuisance deer permit to Vassar pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0521 complied with the requirements of SEQRA and its implementing regulations. The DEC’s use of a generic EIS, updated with a supplemental findings statement, to assess the impacts of the issuance of nuisance deer permits as a part of its wildlife game species management program was proper… . Matter of In Defense of Animals v Vassar College, 2014 NY Slip Op 07162, 2nd Dept 10-22-14
The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Roman, applied the fugitive disentitlement doctrine where the wife, whose child support payments were in arrears, had left the jurisdiction and was living in Nigeria. The Second Department determined the criteria for fugitive disentitlement had been met and dismissed the wife's appeal on that ground:
“It has been settled for well over a century that an appellate court may dismiss the appeal of a defendant who is a fugitive from justice during the pendency of his [or her] appeal” … . The “fugitive disentitlement doctrine,” which has its origin in criminal law, is based upon the inherent power of the courts to enforce their judgments, and has long been applied to those who evade the law while simultaneously seeking its protection … . * * *
To apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, there must be a “connection between a defendant's fugitive status and the appellate process, sufficient to make an appellate sanction a reasonable response” … . The doctrine has been extended to the dismissal of appeals in civil cases provided there is likewise a nexus between the appellant's fugitive status and the appellate proceedings … . The nexus requirement is satisfied in civil cases “where the appellant's absence frustrates enforcement of the civil judgment” … . * * *
Applying these principles here, we find that dismissal of the appeal is warranted pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The record reveals that the mother deliberately removed herself from the jurisdiction of the New York courts concomitant with the filing of the October 2011 violation petition, which alleged that she had willfully failed to obey the December 2009 child support order. She thereafter failed to personally appear before the Family Court, and a bench warrant was issued to secure her return. However, the mother continued to evade the court, rendering her a fugitive … .
Additionally, there is a nexus between the mother's fugitive status and the appellate proceedings, since her fugitive status related to her failure to comply with the Family Court's prior orders and her refusal to personally appear before that court. Indeed, “by her default and absence,” the mother is “evading the very orders from which she seeks appellate relief” … . Further, the mother's absence from New York has frustrated the father's efforts to enforce the prior child support orders … . Matter of Allain v Oriola-Allain, 2014 NY Slip Op 07151, 2nd Dept 10-22-14
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the plaintiff's failure to appeal a ruling that plaintiff's action was time-barred did not preclude plaintiff from bringing a legal malpractice action against the attorneys who represented the plaintiff in the time-barred action. The failure to appeal would only act as a bar to the legal malpractice action if the defendants demonstrated the appeal was likely to have succeeded:
Here, the Appellate Division adopted the likely to succeed standard employed by our sister states with a proximate cause element . We agree that this is the proper standard, and that prior to commencing a legal malpractice action, a party who is likely to succeed on appeal of the underlying action should be required to press an appeal. However, if the client is not likely to succeed, he or she may bring a legal malpractice action without first pursuing an appeal of the underlying action.
On balance, the likely to succeed standard is the most efficient and fair for all parties. This standard will obviate premature legal malpractice actions by allowing the appellate courts to correct any trial court error and allow attorneys to avoid unnecessary malpractice lawsuits by being given the opportunity to rectify their clients' unfavorable result. Contrary to defendants' assertion that this standard will require courts to speculate on the success of an appeal, courts engage in this type of analysis when deciding legal malpractice actions generally … . Grace v Law, 2014 NY Slip Op 07089, CtApp 10-21-14
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that a landlord could not terminate the tenant’s operation of a sidewalk cafe because the lease contemplated that use and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing restricted the landlord’s ability to deny consent to the continued operation of the cafe. [The underlying ruling was made on stipulated facts which included the erroneous “fact” that the lease did not include the cafe as part of the leased premises. The First Department noted that it is not bound on appeal by an incorrect stipulation of fact]:
The question presented on appeal is whether a landlord has an unfettered right to withhold or terminate its consent to a tenant’s operation of a sidewalk café, where the café has existed for at least 50 years and the lease contemplates the use of the sidewalk for that purpose. We hold that defendants may not withhold or terminate their consent, irrespective of whether they have a good-faith basis for doing so, because the lease expressly and unequivocally requires them to consent to plaintiff’s operation of the sidewalk café. In any event, we find that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing would otherwise restrict defendants’ ability to deny consent, and that they have failed to make a satisfactory showing of good faith in this case. * * *
Having determined that the lease allows plaintiff to use and occupy the sidewalk for the operation of a sidewalk café, it necessarily follows that defendants cannot withhold or revoke their consent to that use absent a good-faith basis. As the Court of Appeals has explained, “In New York, all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance. This covenant embraces a pledge that neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract. While the duties of good faith and fair dealing do not imply obligations inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship, they do encompass any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included” (511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co. , 98 NY2d 144, 153 [2002] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]).
Because the stipulated facts demonstrate that the sidewalk café existed at the time of the lease’s execution, plaintiff (through its assignor) was justified in understanding that the landlord promised to refrain from unreasonably withholding its consent to operate the sidewalk café. DMF Gramercy Enters Inc v Lillian Troy 1999 Trust, 2014 NY Slip Op 07110, 1st Dept 10-21-14
The Court of Appeals determined that the speedy trial clock started running when the People's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The time attributable to the lower court's adjournment while the application to the Court of Appeals was pending should not have been excluded from the speedy trial calculation:
The parties do not dispute that under CPL 30.30 (5) (a) a new criminal action commenced when a Judge of this Court denied the People leave to appeal from the Appellate Term's order. The People point to the fact that, under the Criminal Procedure Law, “[i]n computing the time within which the people must be ready for trial . . . a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to: . . . appeals; . . . and the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” must be excluded (CPL 30.30 [4] [a] [emphasis added]).
The People contend therefore that the period from May 10, 2010 to August 23, 2010 is excludable, relying on People v Vukel (263 AD2d 416 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 830 [1999]), which held that when a trial court orders an adjournment for control purposes because of the pendency of a defendant's application for leave to appeal to this Court, the entire period of the adjournment is excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) (a), as time resulting from the appeal. In Vukel, the Appellate Division rejected the argument that the People have “an obligation to advance the case to an earlier date upon receiving the certificate denying leave” (id. at 417).
The mere lapse of time, following the date on which the order occasioning a retrial becomes final, does not in itself constitute a reasonable period of delay resulting from an appeal within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4) (a). Otherwise, the People would be permitted to delay retrial for the duration of an adjournment in the trial court, no matter how lengthy, even after a Judge of our Court has denied leave to appeal, without consequence under CPL 30.30. Such a rule would be inconsistent with “the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … . To the extent Vukel holds otherwise, it should not be followed. People v Wells, 2014 NY Slip Op 07012, CtApp 10-16-14
The Court of Appeals determined that the application of the “emergency doctrine” to justify the warrantless search for and seizure of a weapon was a mixed question of law and fact which was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals. The police responded to a call indicating the defendant had shot himself in the hand. After the defendant had been frisked and while he his wound was being treated, police officers searched the backyard and found a weapon. The appellate division held that the search was justified by the officers' concern that the children in the house might come across the weapon. The dissenting judge granted leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals explained when a mixed question of law and fact is beyond that court's review:
Application of the “emergency doctrine” involves a mixed question of law and fact that is beyond this Court's review so long as there is record support for the findings of the courts below … . The Appellate Division majority and dissent both applied the test set forth in People v Mitchell (39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]) and reached conflicting conclusions as to when the emergency ceased. Because there is record support for the majority's conclusion that the search was lawful under the emergency exception, “'any further review is beyond this Court's jurisdiction'” … . People v Rossi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07006, CtApp 10-16-14
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy