You are here: / Appeals
,

Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure Re: Notes Sent Out By Jury Is a “Mode of Proceedings” Error Requiring Reversal

In reversing a conviction because the trial court committed a “mode of proceedings” error (not requiring preservation) by not following the procedure mandated in Criminal Procedure Law 310.30 (re: notes sent out by the jury during deliberations), the Second Department explained:

“Specifically, the Court of Appeals has held that whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge,’ it should be read into the record in the presence of counsel,’ and that, [a]fter the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses'” … . These requirements were not satisfied here.People v Fenton, 2013 NY Slip Op 02761, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

,

A Party Can Not Appeal from a Portion of an Order Where the Party Is Not Aggrieved by the Order

The Second Department noted that a party can not appeal from a portion of an order which does not grant relief the party did not request, even where the order includes reasoning with which the party does not agree:

“A party is not aggrieved by an order which does not grant relief [he or she] did not request” … . “Merely because the order appealed from contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish a basis for standing to take an appeal'” … . Here, the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by so much of the order as, in denying the … defendants’ motion for summary judgment and reaching a result which was not adverse to the plaintiffs, determined that a prior judgment did not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on the motion before it … . Since the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the portion of the order from which they appeal, their appeal must be dismissed. Spielman v Mehraban, 2013 NY Slip Op 02565, 2011-10855, Index No 19056/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

, , ,

“Law of the Case” Does Not Bind Appellate Courts

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiff had moved to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for wrongful death and the motion was denied.  There was a mistrial.  Before the second trial, plaintiff again moved to amend her complaint.  The motion was denied because the first denial was deemed the law of the case.  In determining the motion to amend should have been allowed, the Second Department noted that the law of the case doctrine does not apply to appellate courts:

The doctrine of the law of the case does not bind appellate courts, and thus, this Court is not bound by the law of the case established by the prior determination …. Accordingly, this Court is free to consider that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint on the merits …. Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that leave to amend the pleading should be permitted.

Generally, leave to amend a pleading should be freely given when there is no significant prejudice or surprise to the opposing party and where the evidence submitted in support of the motion indicates that the proposed amendment may have merit (see CPLR 3025[b]…). Here, in the aftermath of the court’s granting of a mistrial, Mercy [defendant] failed to allege, much less show, surprise or prejudice resulting from the plaintiff’s delay in asserting the wrongful death cause of action against it … . Moreover, the proposed amended complaint, which sufficiently alleged that Mercy’s negligence caused the decedent to suffer injuries and ultimately death, was neither “palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit” … .   Hothan v Mercy Med Ctr, 2013 NY Slip Op 02541, 2011-10562, Index No 14345/06, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

, , , ,

Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had Appeared in the Case Prior to the Test

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department affirmed the suppression of a chemical breath-test because the police did not inform the defendant her attorney had appeared in the case before the test was administered.  As Justice Leventhal described the “right to counsel” issue and holding:

This case calls upon us to address a matter of first impression involving the right to counsel under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 6), where the defendant consented to a chemical breath test to determine her blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC), but, prior to the commencement of the test, the police made no effort to inform the defendant that her attorney had appeared in the matter. … [W]e hold that where, as here, the police are aware that an attorney has appeared in a case before the chemical breath test begins, they must make reasonable efforts to inform the motorist of counsel’s appearance if such notification will not substantially interfere with the timely administration of the test. Since the People failed to establish that notifying the defendant of her attorney’s appearance would, in fact, have interfered with the timely administration of the chemical breath test, we conclude that the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress the results of that test. People v Washington, 2013 NY Slip Op 02600, 2011-07259, Ind No 2510/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

SUPPRESS

, ,

Resident in Hotel Under Contract to Provide Rooms to Homeless Persons Entitled to Rent Stabilization Protection

In finding that the respondent (Pitt) was a “permanent tenant” of a hotel which rented rooms to homeless persons under an agreement with the NYC Human Resources Administration (thereby entitling the respondent to the protections of the Rent Stabilization Code), the First Department explained the “exception to mootness” doctrine:”

As a threshold matter, we find that this appeal is not rendered moot by the fact that Pitt voluntarily vacated the premises before the appeal was perfected. Although, as a general principle, courts are precluded from considering questions which have become moot by a change in circumstances, an exception to the mootness doctrine exists in situations that present the following: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . This matter presents an issue of substantial public interest that is likely to recur and evade review. Specifically, this Court must address the question of what constitutes a legal tenancy under the Rent Stabilization Code, and what rights are vested in a person occupying premises under the contract between a landlord and a social service agency. This is an issue that affects a large number of New Yorkers who declare permanent tenancy in a SRO [single room occupancy facility]. Thus, it presents an exception to the mootness doctrine … . Branic Intl Realty Corp v Pitt, 2013 NY Slip Op 02522, 9453 & 57024/10, 363, 1st Dept, 4-16-13

 

, ,

Appellate Courts Have Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 78 to Review Denial of Request for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Determination by the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Discipline

The Third Department determined it has jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR Art. 78, to review the denial of a request for reconsideration of a disciplinary determination by the Director of the Office of Professional Discipline (Department of Education):

Preliminarily, we reject respondent’s assertion that our Court lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding. Respondent relies on the fact that only review of “decisions of the board of regents” should be brought to the Appellate Division in the first instance (Education Law § 6510 [5]); all other CPLR article 78 proceedings must be commenced in Supreme Court (see CPLR 7804 [b]; 506 [a], [b]). Here, the Board of Regents never acted upon petitioner’s application because respondent, the Director of OPD, has discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a disciplinary determination is warranted and, only if it is, to then refer the matter to a regents review committee that submits a report to the Board of Regents for a final determination …. We have, however,  previously held that where, as here, respondent  denies an  application for reconsideration, thereby determining  that it does not warrant referral to the Board of Regents, this Court has jurisdiction to review such denial under Education Law § 6510 (5)… .  Matter of Reddy v Catone…, 514467, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

 

, ,

Guilty Plea Forfeits All Ineffective Assistance Claims Except those Relating to Plea Bargain

The Second Department noted that a guilty plea forfeits all ineffective assistance claims except those related to the plea-bargaining:
…[T]o the extent that the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not directly involve the plea-bargaining process, it was forfeited upon his plea of guilty …. ​People v Barrett, 2013 NY Slip Op 02410, 2011-04637, Ind No 1727/10, 2nd Dept 4-10-13

 

,

Appeal Found “Frivilous”

In finding an appeal frivolous, the Third Department wrote:

We also are persuaded that defendant’s pursuit of this appeal is frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (2) and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable counsel fees incurred in responding thereto.  … [O]nce  plaintiff was  awarded  partial summary  judgment  in February 2011 and secured a judgment in its favor, defendant had several permissible options, such as appealing the underlying order and judgment or paying – in full – the amount awarded to plaintiff.  Instead, defendant continued to dispute the sum due by delaying payment, thereby compelling plaintiff to move for the turnover order and, ultimately, to expend resources responding to the instant appeal seeking $825.55.  Such conduct, in our view, warrants an award of reasonable counsel fees incurred in responding to this appeal, and this matter is remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of the amount of such fees … .  Defendant’s remaining arguments, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been considered and found to be  lacking in merit.  Valley Psychological, PC v … Geico, 514672, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

,

Failure to Request Jury Charge on Venue Waived Appeal of the Issue

The Third Department determined the failure to request a jury charge on venue waived any related appellate issue:

Initially, to the extent that defendant contends that the People failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence … that the underlying crimes  occurred  within the  geographical  jurisdiction of  Franklin County, we  note that “unlike territorial jurisdiction[,] which goes to the very essence of the State’s power to prosecute,” questions  regarding  geographical  jurisdiction or  venue are waivable … . Accordingly, inasmuch as defendant failed to request a jury charge on venue, she waived any challenge in this regard … .  People v Beauvais, 104590, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

,

Criteria for Valid Waiver of Appeal Explained

In finding the defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal because the colloquy was inadequate, in spite of the defendant’s signing a written waiver, the First Department wrote:

We note that litigation over the validity of appeal waivers, which arises regularly from many courts, can best be avoided if trial judges separately llocate defendants on the waiver of the right to appeal … . We again remind the courts that the better practice is to secure a written waiver, along with a thorough colloquy to ensure the defendant’s understanding of its contents … . It would be best if the court made clear that this is a separate and important right being waived, and that by signing the waiver, the plea and sentence are final, and the defendant agrees to accept the sentence imposed. The court cannot rely solely on defense counsel to explain the significance of the written waiver. People v Oquendo, 2013 NY Slip Op 02320, 9617, 1090/09, 1st Dept 4-4-13

 

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