The First Department affirmed the denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment noting that a matter raised for the first time in defendants’ reply affirmation is not properly before an appellate court. Anderson v Pena, 2014 NY Slip Op 07948, 1st Dept 11-18-14
The First Department determined (1) the waiver of appeal, which included a signed written waiver, was not valid; (2) the stop of defendant’s vehicle, the removal of the occupants, and the search of the interior of the car was justified by the police officer’s belief defendant was smoking a marijuana cigarette held between his thumb and index finger and the observation of an empty glassine envelope; and (3) the warrantless search of the trunk where ecstasy was found was not justified by probable cause:
A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective unless it is apparent from the record that it was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily … . For a waiver to be effective, the record must demonstrate that the defendant has a full appreciation of the consequences of the waiver …, including an understanding “that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty … .
Here, the court never adequately explained the nature of the waiver, the rights the defendant would be waiving or that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the waiver was invalid and unenforceable … . The written waiver signed by defendant was no substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal … . In addition, the court’s statement that defendant was “going to be required” to waive his right to appeal could have misled him into believing that he had no choice but to do so … . * * *
…Officer Rivera, an experienced policeman who had participated in approximately 30 arrests involving marijuana, testified to the court’s satisfaction that, in his opinion and experience, the manner in which defendant was handling the cigarette indicated that it was a marijuana cigarette. “[M]uch weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court with its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses” … . That Rivera was not “certain” that defendant was smoking marijuana is of no moment, since “[t]he standard for [a forcible stop is] merely reasonable suspicion, not absolute certainty or even probable cause” … .
Defendant effectively concedes that the police were entitled to search in the area of the car where Officer Rivera claims to have smelled marijuana, but not anywhere else, and certainly not in the trunk. This, he argues, is because any grounds the police may have had to believe that the trunk contained drugs were belied by the lack of evidence that they existed anywhere else in the car.
Indeed, there was scant evidence of drugs in the car. After approaching the car, Rivera never saw the marijuana cigarette that he claimed he saw when he drove past defendant’s car, and he was equivocal about whether he smelled burning or unburnt marijuana. Further, the glassine envelope that Officer Ali uncovered was empty, and it was not until later that day, after defendant and his companions were arrested, that Rivera concluded that it contained marijuana. Rivera also conceded that defendant did not appear to be under the influence. * * * Accordingly, we find that the police lacked probable cause to search the trunk, and that the Ecstasy found there should have been suppressed. People v Ramos, 2014 NY Slip Op 07931, 1st Dept 11-18-14
In a wrongful death action, the Fourth Department determined that a report generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) concerning an investigation into decedent’s death was not discoverable pursant to the Public Health Law and a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 should have been granted in its entirety. The report was inadvertently disclosed by the plaintiff to all the defendants. Supreme Court ruled only that the report could not be further disseminated. The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court’s order was appealable pursuant to CPLR 5701(a)(20(v) even though the denial of the motion for a protective order was without prejudice to renew:
…[W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion only in part, and should have granted the motion in its entirety. “Pursuant to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (a) (v), the files of OPMC concerning possible instances of professional misconduct are confidential, subject to [certain] exceptions,” including Public Health Law § 230 (9), which are not applicable here … . Inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record that the OPMC proceeded past the interview phase of [the doctor’s] alleged misconduct with respect to decedent, the OPMC report is not discoverable as a matter of law (see § 230 [10] [a] [v]). Thus, we conclude that the court erred in failing to restore this matter to the “status quo prior to the[inadvertent] disclosure”… . Kirby v Kenmore Mercy Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07804, 4th Dept 11-14-14
The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that there was not a sufficient break between the unwarned portion of defendant’s statement and the subsequent warned statements to remove the taint of the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings. The court noted that it was precluded from considering any theory supporting the admissibility of subsequent warned statements because the theory was not presented to the trial court by the People and was not considered by the trial court:
“[W]here an improper, unwarned statement gives rise to a subsequent Mirandized statement as part of a single continuous chain of events, there is inadequate assurance that the Miranda warnings were effective in protecting a defendant’s rights, and the warned statement must also be suppressed” … . On this record …, it is clear that defendant’s two written statements, although produced after she had been Mirandized, were “part of a single continuous chain of events” that included the detective’s initial pre-warning inquiries and statement, defendant’s pre-warning acknowledgment that she knew why she had been brought in, and her pre-warning statement that she and the other alleged perpetrator had asked to use the victim’s phone outside the latter’s house. There was no time differential between the Miranda violation and the Mirandized interview that immediately followed, giving rise to the two written statements; the same police personnel were involved before and after the warnings; there was no change in the location or nature of the interrogation; and defendant had never indicated a willingness to speak to the police before the Miranda violation. Further, although the pre-warning exchange was very brief and did not include any admission by defendant of criminal conduct, her unwarned statements plainly tended to incriminate her by acknowledging that she knew something about the murder of an elderly woman and by placing herself at the scene of the crime with the victim and the other alleged perpetrator … .
Under the foregoing circumstances established by the record, it cannot be said that there was, between the Miranda violation and the making of the subsequent Mirandized written statements, such a “definite, pronounced break in the interrogation to dissipate the taint from the Miranda violation” … by “return[ing] [defendant], in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” … . * * *
We note that we are precluded from considering whether the break of at least 2 hours and 45 minutes between the completion of defendant’s second written statement and the commencement of her videotaped statement (which began with renewed Miranda warnings administered by the assistant district attorney) sufficed to attenuate any taint from the commencement of the questioning before she was initially Mirandized and, therefore, to render the videotaped statement admissible. The hearing court’s decision denying suppression did not consider any such theory, which had not been raised by the People in opposition to the motion seeking suppression of all three recorded statements. Accordingly, under CPL 470.15(1), we are without power to affirm on the ground that the videotaped statement was admissible and that its admission rendered harmless the error in admitting the written statements … . People v Daniel, 2014 NY Slip Op 07568, 1st Dept 11-6-14
In affirming the town’s approval of a subdivision plan, the Third Department explained its review powers:
…”[i]t is not the province of the courts to second-guess thoughtful agency decisionmaking and, accordingly, an agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence” … . Moreover, “[w]hile judicial review must be meaningful, the courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency for it is not their role to weigh the desirability of any action or [to] choose among alternatives” … . Matter of Dugan v Liggan, 2014 NY Slip Op 07404, 3rd Dept 10-30-14
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a guilty plea cannot stand where neither the court nor the parties was aware that the agreed upon sentence was illegal, even though the sentence was rendered “legal” by an enhancement. The sentence promise was three years, but, given the defendant’s prior record, the minimum sentence he could legally receive was six years. Because the defendant was found to have violated the terms of his release pending sentencing, he was ultimately sentenced to six years as an enhanced sentence. The court summarized the facts and its ruling as follows:
The principal question presented here is whether a judgment of conviction, entered upon a guilty plea to a particular crime, may stand when the record discloses that neither the court nor the parties realized that the agreed upon sentence, to be imposed if defendant complied with the conditions of the plea, was illegal. Although defendant violated the conditions of his plea, and the enhanced sentence was legal, defendant is entitled to a plea vacatur for two fundamental reasons. First, defendant’s constitutional claim that his plea violated due process because it was induced by an illegal promise need not be preserved. Second, to accept a guilty plea induced by an illegal promise affects the fairness, integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings as the defendant could not have had a full understanding of what the plea connotes and its consequences … or “exercised a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant” … . People v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 07458, 1st Dept 10-30-14
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
Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy