You are here: / Appeals
,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM DICTA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that no appeal lies from dicta. Here the plaintiff acknowledged her slip and fall complaint was properly dismissed against two defendants, but attempted to appeal the motion court’s statement that “the plaintiff is unable to establish where she fell:”

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in a trip and fall accident. On her appeal from an order which granted the motion of the defendants … for summary judgment dismissing the complaint … , she concedes that those motions were properly granted. … [S]he challenges the statement of the Supreme Court that “the plaintiff is unable to establish where she fell.” However, no appeal lies from dicta … . Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Kelly v City of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 00654, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FINE WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the imposition of a fine was not part of the plea agreement and vacated that part of the sentence:

Defendant’s … contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered is actually a contention that County Court erred in imposing a $1,000 fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea … . Although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review by failing to object to the imposition of the fine or by moving to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see id.), we exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c] …). … [T]he court improperly enhanced defendant’s sentence by imposing “a fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement” … . … [W]e conclude that it is “appropriate to vacate the provision of the defendant’s sentence imposing a fine, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty” … . People v Wilson, 2022 NY Slip Op 00593, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

THE JUDGE ADOPTED A DECISION DRAFTED BY COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE AND THEREBY VITIATED THE PURPOSE SERVED BY JUDICIAL OPINIONS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT VACATED THE JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the judgment, determined the judge erred by adopting a proposed decision drafted by counsel as the final determination of the case:

… [T]he court erred in adopting, almost verbatim, the proposed decision drafted by petitioners’ counsel as the final determination in this case … . “When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that [respondent] CME could or should have objected to the court’s error, we would exercise our discretion to correct that error notwithstanding CME’s failure to object. We therefore vacate the judgment in its entirety and remit the matter to Supreme Court for consideration and determination of any pending issue or motion. Bruckel v Town of Conesus, 2022 NY Slip Op 00580, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, ,

“REFUSING A BREATH TEST” IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE; A CONVICTION IS THEREFORE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED ON APPEAL EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT BRIEFED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction of “refusing a breath test,” explained that it is not a cognizable offense. The court noted that it was obligated to correct this fundamental error which cannot be waived, even though the issue was not briefed on appeal:

… [T]he purported traffic infraction to which defendant pleaded guilty under count two of the indictment—refusing the breath test mandated by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (1) (b)—is not a cognizable offense for which a person may be charged or convicted in a criminal court … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00562, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

Same issue in People v Harris, 2022 NY Slip Op 00568, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, , ,

WHEN THE TERMS OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT WERE DISCUSSED BOTH TWO AND THREE-YEAR SENTENCES WERE MENTIONED; DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION AND WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant was not clearly informed of the sentence, rendering his plea involuntary. Although the issue was not preserved by a motion, the Third Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

… [W]hen the terms of the plea agreement were placed on the record, it was stated that the prison term to be imposed would be two years. County Court then, in discussing defendant’s second felony offender status, stated that the prison term was three years but, thereafter, informed defendant that, if he violated any jail rules prior to sentencing, it would not be bound by the promise of a two-year prison term. The record does not reflect that there was any clarification or correction regarding the misstatements as to the agreed-upon sentence either during the plea colloquy or at sentencing before a three-year prison term was imposed. As “[t]he record thus fails to reveal that defendant was accurately advised of the essential terms and conditions of the plea agreement” … , we find that his plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. People v Lumpkin, 2022 NY Slip Op 00477, Third Dept 1-27-22

 

, ,

THE COMPLAINANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; PROOF OF SERIOUS INJURY RE: THE ASSAULT CHARGE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive partial dissent, determined: (1) the defendant was entitled to a new trial on the burglary charge because the identification procedure was unduly suggestive; and (2) the serious injury element of the assault charge was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

… [A]lthough the burglary complainant’s identification of the Facebook photograph was not the product of a police-arranged identification procedure, the complainant’s identifications of the defendant from a single arrest photograph were the result of unduly suggestive identification procedures, and those identifications should have been suppressed … . …

… [U]pon the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05[2]), we conclude that the conviction of assault in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that the detective sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9). …

The record did not support a finding that the detective experienced substantial pain. At the time of his discharge from the hospital, the detective assessed his pain as a “3” and was advised to take Tylenol for pain. His “quality” of pain was characterized as “aching.” Furthermore, there was no evidence as to the duration of any pain. People v Wheeler, 2022 NY Slip Op 00442, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a probable cause hearing, determined the evidence revealed for the first time at trial called into serious question whether the search of defendant’s apartment was unlawful. Prior to trial the information provided to defendant gave the impression the apartment was entered and searched pursuant to a warrant. At trial the police testified they entered the apartment two hours before the search warrant was issued. The defendant was convicted of drug possession. The suppression motion stated the police entered the apartment without defendant’s permission. Given the limited and misleading information available to the defendant at the time the suppression motion was made, the allegations in the motion were sufficient to warrant a probable cause hearing. The appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was sent back for the hearing:

… [T]he Appellate Division “may not make its own finding of an independent source based upon trial testimony” … . Thus, we cannot hold that the denial of the Mapp/Dunaway hearing was proper, and the claim unpreserved, due to legal arguments pertaining to the lawfulness of the search and based on evidence adduced at trial, well after the lower court ruled on the motion to suppress.

… [H]ere, the trial testimony is being used solely to determine the context of defendant’s motion, the extent of her lack of access to information …, and the extent of information withheld from the motion court prior to making its decision to summarily deny defendant’s motion. … [W]e find that defendant’s motion should not have been summarily denied pursuant to CPL 710.60, and a hearing should have been conducted to make the necessary findings of fact. People v Esperanza, 2022 NY Slip Op 00383, First Dept 1-25-22

 

,

PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AS THEY SOUGHT TO VACATE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT; THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSED TO THE POINT WHERE THE COURT MUST DISMISS THE APPEAL AS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioners’ appeal of the denial of a declaratory judgment seeking to vacate the award of a construction contract by the Office of State Comptroller (OSC) must be dismissed as moot. The petitioners did not seek to maintain the status quo by injunction and the work had progressed too far:

… [T]he doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy” … . Where a change in circumstances involves the substantial completion of construction, “courts must consider several factors, including whether the challengers sought preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise attempted to preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation”… . Although injunctive relief is theoretically available, as a project can be dismantled, courts consider how far the work has progressed toward completion in determining mootness … . Matter of Bothar Constr., LLC v Dominguez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00346, Third Dept 1-20-22

 

, , ,

THE LANDLORD’S SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROHIBITED BRINGING THE ACTION IN CIVIL COURT; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the landlord’s summary proceeding on the ground that it should have been brought in Civil Court, not Supreme Court. COVID-related Executive Orders prohibited actions for nonpayment of rent in Civil Court. The First Department noted that a sua sponte order is not appealable as of right, but deemed the notice of appeal to be a request for leave to appeal which was granted:

The motion court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaint on the ground that this action was a landlord-tenant dispute that should have been brought as a summary proceeding in Civil Court. Supreme Court has unlimited general jurisdiction over all real property actions, including those commenced by a landlord against a tenant (NY Const, art VI, § 7[a] …). Supreme Court, however, has the discretion to decline to entertain such an action on the ground that a pending action in Civil Court was the proper forum … .

Here, Supreme Court was the appropriate forum for this action to recover rental arrears because the Executive Orders implemented in response to the pandemic precluded the landlord from commencing a nonpayment proceeding in Civil Court during the relevant period, compelling the landlord to commence this action. A&L 1664 LLC v Jaspar Hospitality LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00264, First Dept 1-18-22

 

, ,

CRIMINAL SALE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FIRST DEGREE AND THE RELATED CONSPIRACY CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the criminal sale of a controlled substance first degree and the related conspiracy convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

In a weight of the evidence review, we first determine whether, based on all of the credible evidence, a different finding would have been unreasonable, and, if not, we then “weigh the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony and the relative strength of the conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony” to determine if the verdict is supported by the weight of the evidence … . . * * *

Although the jury may have been able to infer from the intercepted communications that defendant sold cocaine to Henry on October 28, 2017, the evidence failed to satisfy the two ounce or more weight element of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree … . Under these circumstances, the evidence falls short of establishing the elements of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree when viewed in a neutral light … . As defendant’s conspiracy conviction is premised upon the criminal sale in the first degree charge, it too must fall based upon a review of the weight of the evidence … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 00076, Third Dept 1-6-22

 

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