You are here: / Appeals
, ,

SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF A SENTENCE AND THEREFORE IS NOT COVERED BY THE UNLAWFUL-SENTENCE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; THEREFORE THE UNPRESERVED ISSUE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER, UPON REMITTAL, THE ISSUE CAN BE (AND WAS) CONSIDERED AT THE APPELLATE DIVISION LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, upon remittal from the Court of Appeals, adhered to its prior decision finding defendant’s certification as a sex offender unlawful. The Court of Appeals ruled that sex-offender certification is not part of a sentence and therefore is not covered by an exception to the preservation requirement. But, because the Appellate Division, unlike the Court of Appeals, has “interest-of-justice” jurisdiction, the prior decision was upheld in the interest of justice by the Second Department, despite the lack of preservation:

In an opinion dated November 23, 2021, the Court of Appeals concluded that sex offender certification is not part of a defendant’s sentence, and thus, a contention regarding sex offender certification does not fall within the exception to the preservation rule for challenges to unlawful sentences … . However, the Court of Appeals noted that although it does not have interest-of-justice jurisdiction to review unpreserved issues, the “Appellate Division may have authority to take corrective action in the interest of justice based upon defendant’s unpreserved challenge to the legality of his certification as a sex offender” … . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals remitted the matter to this Court for further proceedings … .

We now reach the defendant’s unpreserved contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15[3][c]; [6][a]). For the reasons stated in our prior opinion and order, the defendant’s certification as a sex offender was unlawful … .People v Buyund, 2022 NY Slip Op 03004, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals does not have interest-of-justice jurisdiction and therefore cannot consider appellate issues that are not preserved. The Appellate Division, however, can invoke interest-of-justice jurisdiction to consider unpreserved appellate issues.

 

,

WHETHER DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION CAN SERVE AS A PREDICATE FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS CANNOT BE DETERMINED WITHOUT THE CONNECTICUT ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT; THE UNPRESERVED ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, ruled a hearing was required to determine whether defendant’s Connecticut conviction could serve as a predicate offense for second felony offender status. The issue was not preserved and was considered in the interest of justice:

Although the defendant did not preserve for appellate review the issue of whether he was properly sentenced as a second felony offender, we reach that issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The defendant’s prior conviction in Connecticut was for larceny in the first degree under Connecticut General Statutes former § 53a-122(a). This statute defined grand larceny differently under several subdivisions, not all of which are felonies under New York law. To determine which subdivision applied to this defendant, the Supreme Court could have looked at the Connecticut accusatory instrument to determine the subdivision of the Connecticut statute under which the defendant was convicted … . However, the Connecticut accusatory instrument is not in the record.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we vacate the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender and the sentence imposed, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a second felony offender hearing and for resentencing thereafter. People v Robinson, 2022 NY Slip Op 03010, Second Dept 5-4-22

Practice Point: Here portions of the Connecticut larceny statute were equivalent to a New York felony and other portions were not. Therefore, whether the Connecticut conviction could serve as a predicate for second felony offender status cannot be determined without examining the Connecticut accusatory instrument. The issue was not preserved for appeal but was considered in the interest of justice. Matter remitted for a hearing.​

 

,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION; THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN A NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a prior federal drug conspiracy conviction:

… [T]his case “falls within the narrow exception to [the] preservation rule permitting appellate review when a sentence’s illegality is readily discernible from the . . . record” … . Here, the record establishes that the predicate felony was based on defendant’s previous conviction in federal court of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine (21 USC § 846; see § 841 [a] [1]; [b]). However, “under New York’s ‘strict equivalency’ standard for convictions rendered in other jurisdictions, a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug crime may not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes” … . People v Lopez, 2022 NY Slip Op 02925, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: A defendant cannot be sentenced as a second felony offender based upon a prior federal drug conspiracy conviction. The issue fell within an exception to the preservation requirement.

 

, , ,

A PROSECUTION WITNESS’S WRITTEN STATEMENT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE JUDGE’S USE OF THE PHRASE “POTENTIALLY AIDS” INSTEAD OF “INTENTIONALLY AIDS” IN THE ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY JURY INSTRUCTION PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH THE JURY INSTRUCTION ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) a written statement by a prosecution witness should not have been admitted as “past recollection recorded;” and (2) the jury instruction on accomplice liability prejudiced defendant. The jury-instruction error was not preserved but was considered in the interest of justice:

“The foundational requirements for the admissibility of a past recollection recorded are: (1) the witness must have observed the matter recorded; (2) the recollection must have been fairly fresh at the time when it was recorded; (3) the witness must currently be able to testify that the record is a correct representation of his or her knowledge and recollection at the time it was made; and (4) the witness must lack sufficient present recollection of the information recorded”  … . ,,,

… [T]he prosecution witness in question did not testify that his written statement accurately represented his knowledge and recollection when made. To the contrary, the witness testified that the statement was not accurate when given because he was under the influence of narcotics at that time … . Moreover, because the statement was made more than six months after the alleged events recorded therein, the recollection was not “fairly fresh” when recorded … . …

Penal Law § 20.00 provides that a “person is criminally liable for [the conduct of another] when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct” ,,, . … [W]e conclude that the court’s use of the phrase “potentially aids” rather than “intentionally aids” significantly prejudiced defendant, who was alleged to have aided and abetted the principal by driving him to and from the crime scene…. . People v Gardner, 2022 NY Slip Op 02911, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Here the written statement did not meet the criteria for admissibility as past recollection recorded. The witness testified the statement was not accurate when given because he was high and the statement was not “fresh” because it was made six months after the events described in it.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT THIRD BASED UPON HIS LOSING CONTROL OF THE CAR AND CRASHING, INJURING A PASSENGER; THE “CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE” ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A “WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the criminal-negligence element of assault third was not proven. Defendant was driving with a passenger when he crossed into the oncoming lane, pulled back into his lane, lost control and crashed, injuring the passenger:

In cases involving criminal negligence arising out of automobile accidents involving excess rates of speed, such as here, “it takes some additional affirmative act by the defendant to transform ‘speeding’ into ‘dangerous speeding’ ” … . With respect to the issue of defendant’s rate of speed, the trial testimony from the prosecution’s expert witness that defendant was driving at the excessive speed of approximately 92 miles per hour at the time of the incident was speculative … . The expert’s calculation of the vehicle’s speed was based on the assumption of “100 percent braking,” but there was no evidence that defendant braked at all before his vehicle collided with the mailbox, tree and utility pole and came to a stop. Moreover, the People’s version of the events, that defendant deliberately attempted to “flatten out the curve” by crossing the double line of the curve, does not rise to the level of moral blameworthiness to constitute criminal negligence … . People v Palombi, 2022 NY Slip Op 02896, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: In the context of an assault third charge alleging a car accident was the result of defendant’s “criminal negligence,” proof of speeding, as opposed to proof of “dangerous speeding,” will not support a conviction. This case is a good example of “legally sufficient evidence” resulting in a conviction which is determined on appeal to be “against the weight of the evidence.” The expert evidence presented to show the speed at which defendant was driving was speculative and based upon an unproved assumption. That evidence was deemed too weak to support a conviction, thereby rendering the conviction “against the weight of the evidence.”

 

, ,

THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE MAJORITY ERRONEOUSLY AFFIRMED THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION ON A GROUND NOT RELIED UPON BY THE MOTION COURT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department affirmed the summary denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds. Defendant argued his counsel was ineffective because counsel did not object to defendant’s being forced to wear a stun belt. The two-justice dissent noted that the ground on which the majority based its decision, i.e., that defense counsel’s failure to object did not rise to ineffective assistance, was not the ground relied on by the motion court. Therefore, the dissent argued, the appellate court could not affirm on that ground:

From the dissent:

The court summarily denied the motion, concluding in relevant part that defendant is not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because we determined on direct appeal that he was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel … . The majority affirms that ruling on another ground, one not argued by the People on appeal—namely, that defense counsel’s failure to object to the stun belt, standing alone, was not such an egregious or prejudicial error as to compromise defendant’s right to a fair trial. Because the court did not deny defendant’s motion on the ground relied upon by the majority, we are precluded from affirming on that ground (see People v Concepcion, 17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]; People v LaFontaine, 92 NY2d 470, 473-474 [1998], rearg denied 93 NY2d 849 [1999]). People v Bradford, 2022 NY Slip Op 02897, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Although the argument was made in the dissent in this case, it is worth noting that there is authority for the position that an appellate court cannot affirm on a ground not relied upon by the lower court.

 

, , , ,

TO FACILITATE APPELLATE REVIEW THE JUDGE WHO AWARDED PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN A DECISION EXPLAINING THE BURDENS OF PROOF AND REASONING; ISSUING ORDERS WITHOUT AN EXPLANATORY DECISION IS AN “UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICE;” PLAINTIFFS DID NOT SHOW THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY REASONABLE ONE; THE FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED INTENT TO BREACH THE CONTRACT AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) to facilitate appellate review, the court should have written a decision explaining the burdens of proof and its reasoning in granting plaintiffs summary judgment and awarding attorney’s fees and costs; (2)  the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the contract was unambiguous and therefore were not entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claims; and (3) summary judgment should not have been awarded on plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action. A fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action cannot be based upon an alleged intent to breach a contract:

Although the court granted plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it sought summary judgment, it failed to address the burdens of proof or any specific cause of action. In addition, the court awarded costs and attorneys’ fees without providing the basis therefor. As noted, this case involved a motion for summary judgment and for costs, attorneys’ fees, and sanctions, and the court chose not to write. This is an unacceptable practice … .. To maximize effective appellate review, we must remind our colleagues in the trial courts to provide their reasoning instead of simply issuing orders.  …

… [P]laintiffs did not meet their initial burden on those parts of the motion seeking summary judgment … inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that their interpretation of the relevant contracts is the only reasonable interpretation thereof. …

… “[F]ar from being collateral to the contract, the purported misrepresentation was directly related to a specific provision of the contract” … .. In addition, CPLR 3016 (b) provides that, “[w]here a cause of action . . . is based upon . . . fraud, the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail,” and we conclude that the cause of action here failed to satisfy that requirement … . Wilsey v 7203 Rawson Rd., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02905, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Here not only was the judge wrong to award plaintiffs summary judgment, attorney’s fees and costs on the breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation causes of act, but the judge made appellate review difficult by issuing orders without a decision explaining the burdens of proof and reasoning, characterized as an “unacceptable practice” by the Fourth Department.

 

, ,

FOR PURPOSES OF A PERMANENT NEGLECT/TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, DIRECT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH A SUITABLE PERSON MEETS THE DEFINITION OF PLACEMENT IN THE “CARE OF AN AUTHORIZED AGENCY” SUCH THAT A PERMANENT NEGLECT PROCEEDING IS AVAILABLE AFTER DIRECT PLACEMENT FOR ONE YEAR; ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT’S PARENTAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN TERMINATED WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED, THE “EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE” WAS INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, considering the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine in this neglect/termination-of-parental rights proceeding, determined that direct placement of the child with a suitable person met the definition of placement in the “care of an authorized agency” for purposes of the pre-requisite for a permanent neglect proceeding seeking to terminate parental rights. Family Court had ruled placement with a suitable person was not placement in the “care of an authorized agency” and dismissed the permanent neglect proceeding on that ground. The Third Department, after finding the permanent neglect proceeding should not have been dismissed, went ahead and ruled on the merits, finding that mother had permanently neglected the child:

… [W]e find Family Court’s interpretation of Social Services Law § 384-b too narrow and calling for a result that is “unnecessarily circuitous” … and ultimately contrary to the stated legislative intent (see generally Social Services Law § 384-b [1] [a]-[b]). A proceeding for termination of parental rights may be originated by an “authorized agency” such as petitioner … , seeking an order for guardianship and custody when a child is a permanently neglected child … . A “permanently neglected child” is defined as “a child who is in the care of an authorized agency and whose parent or custodian has failed for a period of either at least one year or [15] out of the most recent [22] months . . . substantially and continuously or repeatedly to maintain contact with or plan for the future of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the agency’s diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship when such efforts will not be detrimental to the best interests of the child” … .

Regarding the phrase “care of an authorized agency,” courts have consistently held that a direct placement authorized by Family Court, like the order of fact-finding and disposition issued … pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1055, falls within the purview of Social Services Law § 384-b. Matter of Frank Q. (Laurie R.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02843, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: For purposes of the prerequisite for a permanent neglect/termination-of-parental rights proceeding, a child’s direct placement with a suitable person meets the definition of placement in the “care of an authorized agency” such that the permanent neglect proceeding is available after direct placement for one year. Here, the mother’s parental rights had been terminated at the time the appeal was considered, but the “exception to the mootness doctrine” was invoked because the issue was deemed likely to recur.

 

,

THE ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED HEARING INCLUDED 80 QUESTIONS POSED TO A WITNESS BY COUNSEL BUT ONLY FOUR ANSWERS WERE AUDIBLE; NEW HEARING WITH A STENOGRAPHER ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the record on appeal was insufficient and ordered a new hearing with a stenographer. The hearing was electronically recorded. Counsel ask a witness 80 questions but only four answers were audible. Matter of Jereline Z. v Joseph AA., 2022 NY Slip Op 02848, Third Dept 4-28-22

Practice Point: If a hearing is electronically recorded but most of a significant witness’s answers are inaudible, the appeal cannot be considered. Here a new hearing with a stenographer was ordered.

 

, ,

THE APPELLATE DIVISION INITIALLY REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE; THERE WAS A DEFENSE VERDICT AFTER TRIAL; THE ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division order denying summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case did not “affect the final judgment” after trial. Therefore the order was not appealable to the Court of Appeals:

The 2018 Appellate Division order may be reviewed on appeal from a final paper only if, pursuant to CPLR 5501 (a), the nonfinal order “necessarily affects” the final judgment. “It is difficult to distill a rule of general applicability regarding the ‘necessarily affects’ requirement” … and “[w]e have never attempted, and we do not now attempt, a generally applicable definition” … . That said, to determine whether a nonfinal order “necessarily affects” the final judgment, in cases where the prior order “str[uck] at the foundation on which the final judgment was predicated” we have inquired whether “reversal would inescapably have led to a vacatur of the judgment” … . This is not such a case. In other cases, we have asked whether the nonfinal order “necessarily removed [a] legal issue from the case” so that “there was no further opportunity during the litigation to raise the question decided by the prior non-final order” … .

In resolving plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, the Appellate Division held that factual questions existed as to whether a statutory violation occurred and as to proximate cause, or more specifically as to whether plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . That nonfinal order did not remove any issues from the case. Rather, the question of proximate cause and liability was left undecided. The parties had further opportunity to litigate those issues and in fact did so during the jury trial. Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02835, CtApp 4-28-22

Practice Point: A nonfinal order is not appealable to the Court of Appeals unless it “affects the final judgment.” If questions of fact remain after the nonfinal order is issued, the order does not “affect the final judgment” and is not appealable. Here the nonfinal order was the Appellate Division’s denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The order left open factual questions resolved at trial. Therefore the order did not “affect the final judgment.”

 

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