You are here: / Appeals
,

Appellate Court Recognized Prior Decision Was “Clearly Erroneous” and Did Not Hold Trial Court to It

The Fourth Department noted that a trial court is bound by an appellate decision, even if the decision is wrong.  However, in this case, the Fourth Department upheld the trial court’s modification, acknowledging that its prior decision should not be followed:

It is well settled that, until a decision of this Court is “ ‘modified or reversed by a higher court, . . . the trial court is bound by our decision’ ”…, regardless of whether our decision was correctly decided….  We thus conclude that the Surrogate erred in failing to comply with our prior decision. Nevertheless, this Court is not likewise required to follow our prior decision under the doctrine of law of the case.    Indeed, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that we should not apply the doctrine of law of the case herein, and we therefore affirm the modified decree … .“As the doctrine of . . . law of the case is not one of inflexible law, but permits a reasoned exercise of a certain degree of discretion in its application, the better rule is that the doctrine should not be utilized to accomplish an obvious injustice, or applied where the former appellate decision was clearly, palpably, or manifestly erroneous or unjust . . . [T]he effect of a prior ruling by an appellate court in a later appeal before that court, or in a subsequent stage of the same appeal before that court, presents the problem of balancing the interest in foreclosing reconsideration of the prior decision with the desire for a just result . . .  We recognize that our earlier decision was “clearly erroneous”…, as “shown by contrary authority emanating from [the Court of Appeals,] whose rulings . . . are controlling”…. We also conclude that “correction of the error made on the former appeal [will] create no injustice or hardship, [inasmuch as] no change has been made in the status of the parties in reliance upon the ruling in the former appeal” ….  Matter of Ladelfa, 580, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

, ,

Objection to Molineux Evidence Not Preserved for Appeal

The Fourth Department noted that failure to request a limiting instruction with respect to Molineux evidence and the failure to object to the court’s failure to provide a limiting instruction rendered the issue unpreserved for appeal.  The Molineux evidence in this sexual abuse case was evidence of the physical (not sexual) abuse of the victim’s brother:

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because Supreme Court neglected to give limiting instructions with respect to Molineux evidence establishing that he had subjected the victim’s brother to physical abuse (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). As defendant correctly concedes, that contention is unpreserved for our review because his attorney did not request a limiting instruction and failed to object to the court’s failure to provide one (see CPL 470.05 [2]…).    Because the Molineux evidence in question did not relate to prior sexual abuse, and because it appears from the record that defense counsel knew of the court’s failure to give limiting instructions and yet remained silent when the error could have been corrected, we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Willians, 392, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Defendant Who Pled to All Charges Without a Plea Bargain Could Not Be Required to Waive Appeal

The Third Department noted that the defendant should not have been required to waive his right to appeal where he pled to all the charges and there was no plea bargain:

Having exercised his statutory  right to  plead  guilty to  all of  the charges levied against him in the indictment and inasmuch as “no promise, plea agreement, reduced charge, or any other bargain or consideration” was given in exchange for that plea, defendant was improperly required to waive his right to appeal … .  People v Crump, 104433, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

,

Waiver of Appeal Not Sufficient

The Third Department determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal, which included a written waiver, was not sufficient because it was not clear he understood the waiver was separate and distinct from the rights given up by the guilty plea.  The defendant was 21 years old, had no prior criminal history and had some mental health problems.  The Third Department wrote:

…[T]he court did not ensure that “defendant ha[d] ‘a full appreciation of the consequences’ of such waiver”…, which requires record proof that the defendant “comprehend[s] that an  appeal waiver ‘is separate and  distinct from  those rights automatically forfeited upon  a plea of guilty'”….  This was  especially important considering defendant’s age, mental health history and lack of prior criminal history; defendant was 19 years old at the time of the crime and 21 at the time of sentencing, had  been diagnosed and  had  ongoing problems with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, past history of suicidal ideation, bipolar disorder, a possible learning disorder and  a significant history of acting out on  impulse.  The written waiver also failed to explain the separate and distinct nature of the right being waived.  As it is not evident on the face of the record that defendant was  aware  of this separate and  distinct nature, we cannot be sure that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly and intelligently made… .  People v Bouton, 103593B, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

Review and Evidence Standards in Small Claims Actions Explained

The Third Department explained the appellate review and damages-evidence standards for small claims actions as follows:

Appellate review of small claims is limited to determining whether “substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (UCCA 1807; …); only a clearly erroneous determination will be overturned ….  Here, a credibility determination was required, and City Court chose to credit plaintiff’s testimony regarding the events at defendant’s premises over the testimony of two employees of defendant. We agree with County Court that the determination that plaintiff’s ring was converted was not clearly erroneous, and that substantial justice was  done.

Further, as to the issue of damages, we note that although small claims matters are not bound by the rules of evidence, a determination may not be based solely on hearsay (see UCCA 1804…).  Here,   plaintiff described the size and condition of the ring in her testimony, and also submitted a “lost ring appraisal” performed by a jeweler, stating a value of $8,600.  Although this appraisal, based solely upon plaintiff’s description of the ring, was hearsay …, plaintiff’s trial testimony presented some measure of competent evidence of the amount of damages, as she described the quality and condition of the ring… .  Rowe v Silver & Gold Expressions, 515526, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

,

Appellate Court Can Grant Summary Judgment to Nonappealing Party

In the course of a decision awarding partial summary judgment to the defendant, the Third Department noted that “this Court has the authority to grant summary judgment to a nonappealing party” and did so with regard to a nonappealing defendant as well.  Shree Shiv Shakti Corp… v Khalid Properties, LLC, 515810, 3rd Dept 5-30-13

 

,

Failure to Raise Denial of Constitutional Right to Present a Complete Defense Precluded Appeal

The Second Department noted that the defendant’s failure to raise the denial of his constitutional right to present a complete defense and confront witnesses (re: cross-examination of victim about an alleged motive to fabricate) at trial rendered the issue unpreserved for appellate review.  People v Simmons, 2013 NY Slip Op 03861, 2nd Dept, 5-29-13

 

, ,

Conviction for Possession With Intent to Sell Against Weight of Evidence​

In finding defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to sell was against the weight of the evidence, the Second Department (with a dissent) wrote:

…[T]he amount of cocaine recovered from the defendant was relatively small and not inconsistent with personal use. Indeed, convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance involving intent to sell generally stem from situations where a significantly greater quantity of drugs is recovered from the defendant’s person…. Even more important, the defendant was found to be in possession of no drug paraphernalia or weapons, and he had only $20 in cash … .Although there was testimony that street drug sales often involve bags of drugs costing $20 each, the mere fact that the defendant was in possession of a single $20 bill cannot be considered indicative of an intent to sell.  People v McFadden, 2013 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept, 5-22-12

 

,

Terms of Appellate Court’s Remittitur Must Be Strictly Followed

In a breach of contract action that had been remitted to Supreme Court, the Second Department determined Supreme Court failed adhere to the terms of the remittitur by failing to calculate interest and express the amount due and owing in accordance with the remittitur. In sending the case back to Supreme Court, the Second Department wrote:

“A trial court, upon remittitur, lacks the power to deviate from the mandate of the higher court” …. “An order or judgment entered by the lower court on a remittitur must conform strictly to the remittitur'” …. Berry v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 03625, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

 

,

Money Paid Into Court in Conjunction with Stay Pending Appeal Does Not Stop Accruing of Interest Until Prevailing Party is Paid

Where money has been paid into the court in conjunction with a stay pending appeal, interest accrues on it until prevailing party is paid.  The First Department explained:

Contrary to respondents’ claim, their payment of $1,763,080.64 into court on February 18, 2011 to stay the judgment pending appeal did not stop interest from accruing …. This is so even though respondents no longer had the use of the money after paying it into court …. Petitioner is entitled to simple interest until the date he was paid ….  Weiderhorn v Merkin, 2013 NY Slip Op 03166, 1st Dept, 5-2-13

 

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