You are here: / Appeals
, , , , ,

REMARKS BY THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL PREJUDICED THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this medical malpractice action and considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined the trial judge and a defendant’s attorney made comments which prejudiced the jury:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s repeated prejudicial comments and interjections prejudiced the plaintiff. For example, the court barred the plaintiff’s counsel from referring to the growth at issue on the plaintiff’s left foot as a tumor, ordered that the growth be referred to as a wart, and continued to refer to it as a wart through the trial. Thus, the court, in effect, determined a pivotal issue of fact that was properly for the jury to resolve … . In addition, the court opined multiple times before the jury that there was no proof that the plaintiff was misdiagnosed by the defendants, despite testimony by the plaintiff’s expert to the contrary which had already been elicited. Although the court later directed the jury to disregard its remarks, the instruction was not sufficient to cure the prejudice caused by its improvident comments and interjections … .

The comments of [defendant] Oami’s counsel also prejudiced the plaintiff. Oami’s counsel made multiple improper and inflammatory comments about the relationship between counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert pathologist during the cross examination of that expert and during his summation to the jury on behalf of Oami. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, these remarks were so inflammatory and unduly prejudicial as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial … . Valenti v Gadomski, 2022 NY Slip Op 01342, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, ,

THE BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; THE APPEAL FROM AN ORDER WHICH WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A MOTION ON NOTICE MUST BE DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt which is too comprehensive and detailed to fairly summarize here. determined: (1) the cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action; and (2) an appeal from a supplemental order which was not the product of a motion on notice must be dismissed:

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “embraces a pledge that neither party shall do anything that will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract” … , and is breached when a party acts in a manner that deprives the other party of the benefits of the contract (id.). Generally, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of the contract itself … . Therefore, a separate cause of action for breach of the covenant cannot be maintained where, as here, “it is premised on the same conduct that underlies the breach of contract cause of action and is intrinsically tied to the damages allegedly resulting from a breach of the contract” … . Because a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of the contract itself, plaintiffs may press their theory that defendants acted in derogation of the covenant in conjunction with their cause of action for breach of the license agreements … . We note that to the extent defendants were entitled to exercise discretion in the manner in which they performed their obligations … , they were, under the covenant (and, by natural extension, under the license agreement itself) prohibited from acting arbitrarily, irrationally, or in bad faith … . …

Defendants’ appeal from the supplemental order is dismissed because that order was not the product of a motion on notice (see CPLR 2214); rather, the supplemental order was issued in response to an inquiry from counsel seeking clarity regarding the court’s decision and order determining the summary judgment motions (see CPLR 5701[a][2] …). Parlux Fragrances, LLC v S. Carter Enters., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01250, First Dept 2-24-22

 

,

DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO–REPAIR AN ELEVATOR; ISSUE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 200 and common law negligence action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured doing the work he was hired to do—repairing an elevator. The issue was considered even though it was first raised on appeal. In addition, defendants were entitled to the homeowner’s exemption from liability pursuant to Labor Law 240(1):

We find merit to the defendants’ contention—raised for the first time on appeal but fully briefed by both sides … —that the injured plaintiff cannot succeed in his causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as “[n]o responsibility rests upon an owner of real property to one hurt through a dangerous condition which he [or she] has undertaken to fix”… . Indeed, the evidence in the record conclusively establishes that the injury-producing accident was caused by an unidentified defect in the very elevator that the injured plaintiff’s employer had been hired to repair. Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

… The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The homeowner’s exemption to liability under Labor Law § 240(1) is available to “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” Here, the defendants, as owners of the single-family townhouse where the accident occurred, established, prima facie, that they did not direct or control the home improvement work being done by the injured plaintiff and his employer at the time of the subject accident … . Soto v Justin Hochberg 2014 Irrevocable Trust, 2022 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-23-22

 

,

ALLOWING THE PEOPLE’S INVESTIGATOR TO GO INTO THE JURY ROOM DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SHOW THE JURORS HOW TO OPERATE A DIGITAL RECORDER WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR THAT REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE THE DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO THE PROCEDURE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the People’s investigator should not have been allowed to go into the jury room during deliberations to show the jurors how to operate a digital recorder. Although the defendant consented to the procedure, the Third Department decided the error was a “mode of proceedings” error which did not require preservation:

Pursuant to CPL 310.10 (1), a deliberating jury must be “under the supervision of a court officer” or “an appropriate public servant” and, “[e]xcept when so authorized by the court or when performing administerial duties with respect to the jurors, such court officer[] or public servant[] . . . may not speak to or communicate with [the jurors] or permit any other person to do so” … . Certainly, the People’s investigator cannot be said to be an appropriate public servant to interact with the jury in the deliberation room. Also troubling is the lack of a record of what occurred while the investigator was in the deliberation room. Indeed, the “right to a trial by jury in criminal cases is ‘fundamental to the American scheme of justice’ and essential to a fair trial. At the heart of this right is the need to ensure that jury deliberations are conducted in secret, and not influenced or intruded upon by outside factors” … . Given that the procedure that occurred here, allowing a representative of the People to interfere in the jury’s secret deliberations, goes “to the essential validity of the process and [is] so fundamental that the entire trial is irreparably tainted”… , we must reverse and remit for a new trial.  People v Jones, 2022 NY Slip Op 01069, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT MADE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF HER PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE REDUCED AND CONVICTION MODIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s sentence and modifying her conviction in the interest of justice, determined defendant had made good faith efforts to complete the anger-management program that was part of her plea agreement:

… [D]efendant entered into a plea agreement whereby she would plead guilty to second-degree assault, third-degree assault and endangering the welfare of a child, and the case would be adjourned for one year to allow her to complete a 12-week anger management program. If defendant completed the program, complied with an order of protection and had no new arrests, the People would allow her to withdraw her guilty plea to second-degree assault, and she would be sentenced to conditional discharges on the two misdemeanor convictions. Despite defendant’s diligent, repeated efforts to complete an anger management program, legitimate issues such as her inability to arrange childcare for her two young children after her 75-year-old grandmother, who had been caring for the children while defendant attended the sessions, broke her hip, prevented her from attending all the sessions. She enrolled in the program three times, each time beginning from the start, but could not complete the 12 weeks. At the time of sentencing, she had found, enrolled in and almost completed a different program close to her home with a schedule that allowed her to work and pick up her children after school. Although she did not complete the anger management program, defendant satisfied the remaining terms of the plea agreement. Under these circumstances, in the interests of justice we accordingly reduce the conviction and modify the sentence … . People v Perez, 2022 NY Slip Op 01104, Second Dept 2-17-22

 

,

THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT IS AN “ELIGIBLE YOUTH,” AND, IF SO WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER; THE JUDGE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT A GUILTY PLEA TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER FROM THE JUVENILE DEFENDANT; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) because defendant pled guilty to “armed felonies,” the judge was required to determine on the record whether defendant was an “eligible youth” and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status; (2) the judge was not authorized to accept a guilty plea for second degree murder from the juvenile defendant; and (3) the waiver of appeal was invalid:

… Supreme Court was required to determine on the record whether the defendant was an “eligible youth” (CPL 720.10[2][a][ii]), by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10(3), and, if so, whether he should be afforded youthful offender status … . …

… Supreme Court was not authorized to accept a plea of guilty to count 3 [second degree murder]. As a juvenile offender, the defendant cannot be held criminally responsible for felony murder where the underlying felony, attempted robbery, is a crime for which he cannot be held criminally responsible (see CPL 1.20[42][2]; Penal Law § 30.00[2]; People v Stowe, 15 AD3d 597, 598; Matter of Tracy C., 186 AD2d 250, 251; People v Smith, 152 AD2d 56, 61). Accordingly, … the defendant’s plea of guilty to murder in the second degree … must be set aside … .

… Supreme Court’s oral colloquy and written appeal waiver mischaracterized the nature of the appeal waiver as an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal and a forfeiture of the attendant right to counsel and poor person relief … . People v Shelton, 2022 NY Slip Op 01050, Second Dept 2-16-22

 

,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE PLEA COURT CONFLATED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITH THE RIGHTS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; CASE REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SUPPRESSION CLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and remitting the case for consideration of the suppression claim, upon the People’s concession, determined the waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [O]rder reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings. Under the totality of the circumstances and upon the People’s concession that the appeal waiver was invalid because the plea court conflated the right to appeal with those rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea, defendant’s appeal waiver did not foreclose consideration of his suppression claim … . People v Johnson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00909, CtApp 2-10-22

 

, , ,

THE AFFIDAVITS DID NOT PROVE THE RPAPL 1304 WAS ACTUALLY MAILED TO DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the proof of compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was insufficient. Therefore plaintiff in this foreclosure action was not entitled to summary judgment:

Since HSBC failed to provide evidence of the actual mailing, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, it failed to establish, prima facie, its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . MTGLQ Invs., L.P. v Cutaj, 2022 NY Slip Op 00858, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issues and result in U.S. Bank N.A. v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00896, Second Dept 2-9-22

Similar issues and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Davidson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00901, Second Dept 2-9-22 which also held the bank’s failure to comply with the “one envelope” rule for the RPAPL 1304 notice can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO AN INSINCERE PROMISE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED IN REPLY AND WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT WAS DETERMINATIVE, DID NOT ALLEGE NEW FACTS, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not support a cause of action for fraud in the inducement. Plaintiff ordered an artistic silk floral display but rejected it when delivered on the ground the display did not match what plaintiff ordered. Defendants refused to refund the money. Although the inadequacy of the fraud in the inducement allegations was first raised in reply, the First Department considered it because it was determinative, did not allege new facts and could not have been avoided if raised below:

As for the fraud in the inducement claim, defendants challenged this claim in their reply brief in Supreme Court. While, normally, arguments set forth for the first time in reply should not be considered … , this Court will consider this argument as it is determinative, does not allege new facts, and is a legal argument on the face of the record that would not have been avoidable if raised in defendants’ moving brief below, and because the record is sufficient to resolve the issue … . Here, plaintiff merely alleged that defendants “grossly misrepresented the quality and nature of the Decorations” to induce plaintiff into retaining them and compensating them, and the representations were false when made. This simply alleges “an insincere promise of future performance under the contract, which is insufficient to plead fraud” … . As such, the fraud in the inducement claim is dismissed. Newport E. Inc. v Sviba Floral Decorators, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00819, First Dept 2-8-22

 

, ,

MANSLAUGHTER FIRST DEGREE IS NOT AN “ARMED FELONY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 720.10; COUNTY COURT WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to County Court, determined County Court was required to decide whether defendant in this Manslaughter First Degree case should be afforded youthful offender status:

… [W]e note that defendant’s “waiver of his right to appeal was invalid . . . and, in any event, [would] not bar his contention that [County] Court failed to properly consider youthful offender treatment” … . On the merits, … the court erred in determining that he was ineligible for youthful offender status. … [M]anslaughter in the first degree is not an “armed felony” for purposes of CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) … . Thus, defendant’s eligibility for youthful offender status did not turn … on the existence of a statutory mitigating factor enumerated in CPL 720.10 (3) … . Inasmuch as defendant is otherwise eligible for youthful offender status on this conviction (see CPL 720.10 [1], [2]), the court was obligated to make a discretionary youthful offender determination before imposing sentence (see CPL 720.20 [1] … ). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to make and state for the record a determination whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status … . People v Graham, 2022 NY Slip Op 00784, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

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