You are here: / Appeals
, , ,

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION (TOP) WHICH BARRED HER FROM HER OWN APARTMENT WHERE HER CHILDREN LIVED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, reversing Criminal Court, determined the mandamus action against  a Criminal Court judge seeking a hearing on a temporary order of protection (TOP) should have been granted. The First Department found that the matter qualified as an exception to the mootness doctrine and heard the appeal despite the dismissal of the underlying criminal action. Petitioner was charged with assaulting a man with whom she lived in her apartment. The TOP barred her from her own apartment where her children resided:

We find that the Criminal Court’s initial failure to hold an evidentiary hearing in accordance with petitioner’s due process rights after being informed that petitioner might suffer the deprivation of a significant liberty or property interest upon issuance of the TOP falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine: “(1)[there is] a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) [it involves] a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) [there is] a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . Matter of Crawford v Ally, 2021 NY Slip Op 04082, First Dept 6-24-21

 

, ,

THE LANDLORD AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN UNAUTHORIZED SYSTEM TO DELIVER GAS TO APPARTMENTS WERE PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AFTER A GAS EXPLOSION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, affirmed the manslaughter convictions of the landlord (Hrynenko) and general contractor (Kukic) stemming from a gas explosion which killed two and injured 13. The defendants were responsible for installing an unauthorized system for delivering gas to apartments in the building. The evidence was deemed legally sufficient and the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he evidence was legally sufficient to prove that defendants recklessly caused the victims’ deaths when they deliberately circumvented safety regulations to create and operate the unauthorized system that diverted natural gas from the building at 119 Second Avenue to the apartments in the building at 121 Second Avenue. Contrary to defendants’ primary argument, the explosion was a foreseeable result of their actions. There was ample evidence that defendants, who both had ample experience with buildings and the relevant DOB [Department of Buildings] and Con Ed regulations, understood the risk that death would occur when they proceeded with building and operating the unauthorized gas delivery system … . However, Hrynenko needed a gas delivery system to enable her to immediately begin collecting rent for the apartments at 121, so she chose not to wait for Con Ed’s permitting and inspection process to be completed for the authorized system and instead had Kukic build an unauthorized and dangerous makeshift system, using unlicensed plumbers, which they hid from Con Ed. The record shows that defendants both had active roles throughout the planning, building and operation of the system. People v Kukic, 2021 NY Slip Op 03996, First Dept 6-22-21

 

,

SUPREME COURT HAD FOUND COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON LIVE MUSIC PERFORMANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT AND THE MERITS WERE NOT REACHED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the New York State Liquor Authority’s (SLA’s) appeal of Supreme Court’s ruling that the SLA’s COVID-19 guidance imposed upon a tavern (Sportsmen’s) were unconstitutional was moot. Neither party had argued the appeal should be dismissed as moot:

[SLA’s] guidance, which Sportsmen’s was required to abide by pursuant to certain executive orders, prohibited advertised and ticketed main-draw music shows at licensed bars or restaurants and restricted live music at such establishments to only that which was incidental to the dining experience and not the draw itself. …

… [A]lthough the issue of the lawfulness of the prior challenged guidance implemented as part of the extraordinary response to the COVID-19 pandemic is substantial and novel, that issue is not likely to recur … . Moreover, “the issue is not of the type that typically evades review” … . Indeed, as the parties have acknowledged, the guidance at issue here prohibiting advertised and ticketed main-draw music shows has been reviewed on the merits by at least two other courts … . Matter of Sportsmen’s Tavern LLC v New York State Liq. Auth., 2021 NY Slip Op 03957, Fourth Dept 6-17-21

 

,

THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, IN A BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE COURT, ALERTED THE COURT TO NEW INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CUSTODY RULING BY FAMILY COURT; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department sent the matter back to Family Court for a reopened custody hearing after the attorney for the child alerted the court to new relevant information:

… [T]he attorney for the child, in the brief submitted to this Court on the child’s behalf, has brought to this Court’s attention certain alleged new developments including that shortly after the child began living with the father, the child reported that the father told her that the mother was evil, and the child stated that she no longer wanted to see the mother at all. “As the Court of Appeals has recognized, changed circumstances may have particular significance in child custody matters and may render the record on appeal insufficient to review whether a child custody determination is still in the best interests of the children” … . In light of the alleged new developments brought to this Court’s attention by the attorney for the child, the record is no longer sufficient to determine which arrangement is in the best interests of the child … .

… [W]e remit the matter to the Family Court … for a reopened hearing at which the alleged new facts shall be considered, and a new custody determination thereafter. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the appropriate determination. Matter of Magana v Delph, 2021 NY Slip Op 03589, Second Dept 6-9-21

 

, ,

THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Judicial Hearing Officer (J.H.O)/Referee did not have the authority to grant defendants motion to strike the complaint on the ground the amended bill of particulars did not comply with prior court orders. A bill of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure which CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise. Because this is question of law could not have been avoided if brought up below, the issue can be raised for the first time on appeal:

“Since a bill of particulars is not a disclosure device but a means of amplifying a pleading, the present dispute over the contents of the [plaintiffs’ amended] bill[s] of particulars is not part of any disclosure procedure that CPLR 3104 authorizes a referee to supervise” … . Since CPLR 3104 did not authorize the J.H.O./Referee to determine the defendants’ separate motions, among other things, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them based upon the defendants’ objections to the plaintiffs’ amended bills of particulars, and there exists no order of reference authorizing the J.H.O./Referee to determine the defendants’ motions, the J.H.O./Referee was without authority to determine the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them … . Kramarenko v New York Community Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03450, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

,

THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS SUSPENDING OR MODIFYING THE LAW IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 TOLLED THE TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AN APPEAL UNTIL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOVEMBER 2, 2020 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Executive Orders suspending or modifying laws to accommodate the disruption caused by COVID-19 tolled the time limitation for the taking of an appeal until within 30 days of November 2, 2020:

The respondents contend that even though Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 … purported to toll the limitations periods, Governor Cuomo did not have the statutory authority to do so, as Executive Law § 29-a, while expressly granting the Governor the authority to suspend statutes, does not expressly grant the Governor the authority to “toll” them. This contention is unpersuasive. … Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d) provides that an order issued pursuant thereto “may provide for the alteration or modification of the requirements of such statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation suspended, and may include other terms and conditions.” This language in Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d) indicates that the Governor is authorized to do more than just “suspend” statutes during a state disaster emergency; he or she may “alter[ ]” or “modif[y]” the requirements of a statute, and a tolling of time limitations contained in such statute is within that authority … .

Furthermore, although the seven executive orders issued after Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 … did not use the word “toll,” those executive orders all either stated that the Governor “hereby continue[s] the suspensions, and modifications of law, and any directives, not superseded by a subsequent directive,” made in the prior executive orders … or contained nearly identical language to that effect … . Since the tolling of a time limitation contained in a statute constitutes a modification of the requirements of such statute within the meaning of Executive Law § 29-a(2)(d), these subsequent executive orders continued the toll that was put in place by Executive Order (A. Cuomo) No. 202.8 (9 NYCRR 8.202.8). Brash v Richards, 2021 NY Slip Op 03436, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

, , ,

THE JURY’S FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NEGLIGENT BUT THAT DEFENDANT WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DOCTOR TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT’S DOCTOR WAS HIRED BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY, WITHOUT GIVING A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION, WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, ordering a new trial on liability and damages in this slip and fall case, determined the finding that plaintiff was negligent but that defendant was 100% responsible was against the weight of the evidence. In addition, allowing plaintiff’s physician to mention that defendant’s physician was hired by an insurance company was reversible error. Both parties had requested Pattern Jury Instruction (PJI) 2:36 on comparative fault. The judge denied that request and instructed the jury with PJI 2:90 which addresses comparative fault. The First Department did not find the denial of the request for PJI 2-36 was error, but noted that the jury clearly misunderstood the concept of comparative fault. Plaintiff alleged she tripped over a stool which was two-feet high:

It is clear that the jury’s verdict, finding that plaintiff was negligent, but that her negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident was against the weight of the evidence, and indicates that the jury had a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of comparative negligence. In this case, “the issues of negligence and proximate cause are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause.” * * *

Evidence that a defendant carries liability insurance is generally inadmissible, as it is both collateral and prejudicial … . The passing reference to insurance or similar benefits will not necessarily result in reversal … . However, if the testimony goes beyond mere mention of insurance, then a mistrial may be warranted … . Here, plaintiff’s doctor’s testimony, together with the court’s failure to immediately give a curative instruction was prejudicial, and constituted reversible error, further warranting a new trial. Campbell v St. Barnabas Hosp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03404, First Dept 6-1-21

 

, ,

THE GUARANTEES QUALIFED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY AND SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; ONLY PURELY LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment in lieu of complaint based upon guarantees which met the definition of instruments for the payment of money only. The court noted that two arguments raised for the first time on appeal (documents not qualified as business records and failure to include a payment schedule) could not be considered because they were not purely legal arguments. A third argument, which was purely legal, was considered:

Defendants’ contention that the guaranties do not qualify as instruments for the payment of money only, as required by CPLR 3213, because they guarantee performance as well as payment and reference must be made to documents outside the guaranties to determine if the debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) conditions have been met, is unavailing. Although this argument was raised for the first time on appeal, since these are “legal issues appearing on the face of the record which could not have been avoided” if they had been raised earlier, we will address the argument … .

The guaranty at issue in 27 West 72nd St. qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only because it guarantees only payment and not performance. … [T]he … operative provision of the guaranty says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment of the Guaranteed Obligations.”

The guaranty at issue in 31 East 28th St. also qualifies as an instrument for the payment of money only. Although it says, “Guarantor guarantees the payment and performance of the Guaranteed Obligations as and when due and payable,” the mere addition of the words “and performance” does not necessarily remove the guaranty from the category of instruments for the payment of money only, particularly when the sentence ends with “as and when due and payable.”  27 W. 72nd St. Note Buyer LLC v Terzi, 2021 NY Slip Op 03364, First Dept 5-27-21

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the waiver of defendant’s right to counsel was invalid and the evidence of criminal mischief and auto stripping was legally insufficient, and the convictions were against the weight of the evidence:

Defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, because the record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … . “The critical consideration is defendant’s knowledge at the point in time when he first waived his right to counsel”; the court’s subsequent warnings about sentencing “were incapable of retrospectively ‘curing’ the . . . court’s error” … . Moreover, the court “improperly granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se without first conducting a searching inquiry regarding defendant’s mental capacity to waive counsel” … , in light of his history of mental illness, as well as his statement, in response to the court’s reference to the “tremendous pitfalls of representing yourself,” that “[n]one of that has been explained,” even after the court had warned him of a number of such risks.

Defendant’s conviction of third-degree criminal mischief as to one of the vehicles he damaged (count four), and his conviction of first-degree auto stripping, were unsupported by legally sufficient evidence (a claim we review in the interest of justice), and were also against the weight of the evidence … . The People failed to establish that particular charge of criminal mischief because the evidence did not show that “the reasonable cost of repairing the damaged property” … . Such costs “may not be established by hearsay”… . The People relied on a nonexpert witness who was not the owner of the vehicle and did not pay for the repairs, but testified that he looked at a receipt and that the repair costs were $600 … , and the People do not invoke any exception to the hearsay rule. In the absence of admissible evidence as to the repair costs for that vehicle, the People also failed to establish that the aggregate damage to all the vehicles exceeded $3,000, the minimum value for first-degree auto stripping … . People v Jackson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03288, First Dept 5-25-21

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE CORRECT STANDARD TO APPLY TO THE CANINE SNIFF OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON WAS REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT PROBABLE CAUSE; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the canine sniff after a traffic stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. The concurrence argued the court could not reach the proper standard for the canine sniff because the motion court did not rule on it. The dissent argued the probable cause standard should apply:

Defendant correctly asserts that the canine’s contact sniff of his person intruded upon his personal privacy as secured under both the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and article 1, § 12 of the NY Constitution … . The question presented is whether the search ran afoul of either constitutional provision and what standard applies to make that assessment — an issue of first impression for this Court.

Considering the context of a vehicle traffic stop and how events unfolded, we conclude that a reasonable suspicion standard should apply, not one of probable cause … . A canine sniff is a minimal intrusion compared to a full-blown search of a person, intended only to detect the possession of narcotics … . Without prompting from [officer] Bracco, the canine twice was “in odor” of its own accord, providing a reasonable and articulable basis for Bracco to suspect that defendant possessed narcotics on his person. Given the necessity for prompt action, it was not unreasonable for Bracco to allow the canine to approach defendant. There was contact between the canine and defendant’s person, but the record suggests that contact was brief and the canine quickly alerted. In these circumstances, we conclude that the search was valid and the suppression motion properly denied. People v Butler, 2021 NY Slip Op 03222, Third Dept 5-20-21

 

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