, , ,

THE SMELL OF PCP PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS CHASTISED FOR FAILURE TO CALL THE COURT’S ATTENTION TO CONTRARY AUTHORITY, UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT THE APPEAL PRESENTED A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF PERJURY, MISCONDUCT AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST AN ARRESTING OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

THIS OPINION WAS VACATED ON JANUARY 28, 2022, AND REPLACED WITH 2022 NY Slip Op 00560

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the police officer’s (Dorchester’s) testimony at the suppression hearing established probable cause to search defendant’s car based upon the smell of PCP, or, as the court described it, “olfactory detection of street-level PCP.” The opinion was as much directed to improprieties in the appellate brief as to  the “olfactory detection of PCP:”

“[A]s soon as I walked up to the vehicle,” Dorchester testified, “I could smell a really strong chemical odor that was familiar to myself as PCP.” Dorchester had received PCP training at the police academy; he regularly received updated training on PCP and other drugs; and he had encountered PCP and its distinctive smell “hundreds” of times over the course of his career as a police officer. Based on his training and experience, Dorchester testified, he immediately recognized the odor emanating from defendant’s vehicle as PCP. When pressed on whether he could have been smelling something else, Dorchester held firm: the smell of PCP, he explained, was “pretty distinct.” * * *

[I]t is astoundingly inaccurate for defendant’s brief to assert that “[t]his is a case of first impression.” Moreover, the representation in defendant’s brief that “none of the Appellate Divisions . . . has ever passed upon the question of whether the smell of PCP may, standing alone, constitute probable cause to search” is an unacceptable dereliction of counsel’s duty of candor to our Court, for the First Department has done precisely that in two separate cases … . And given that Sanchez [168 AD3d 584] involved a car search, the statement in defendant’s brief that “no appellate case law from this state . . . has approved the search of a vehicle based solely on the smell of PCP” is yet another misrepresentation of the caselaw. We take this opportunity to echo the First Department’s monition that “counsel has an obligation to bring adverse authority to [our] attention” … . * * *

… [D]efendant’s appellate brief levels serious allegations of perjury, official misconduct, and federal civil rights violations against officer Dorchester. The record, however, lacks any proof to substantiate appellate counsel’s accusations. It is one thing to suggest that Dorchester’s testimony was legally insufficient to justify the search … . But it is quite another thing to file a brief that directly, repeatedly, and unnecessarily accuses Dorchester of serious crimes without evidentiary support. Counsel’s “baseless assertions are shockingly irresponsible” … . People v Fudge, 2021 NY Slip Op 04801, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY APPLIED THE DISCOVERY STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE ORDER TO TURN OVER THE ROSARIO MATERIAL ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL WAS MADE, FINDING THE ORDER PROPER; THE CONCURRENCE AGREED BUT ARGUED THE COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RULE THAT THE DISCOVERY STATUTE ENACTED IN 2019 SHOULD ALWAYS BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence, affirmed defendant’s conviction. One of the issues in the appeal was whether it was appropriate for the court to order the prosecution to turn over Rosario material one week before trial. The majority ruled the order was proper under the former law, CPL former 240.45. The concurrence agreed but argued the court should decide whether the current law, enacted in 2019 (see CPL 245.10 [1] [a]; 245.20) should always be applied prospectively:

We reject defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s failure to produce a video-recorded statement of the victim until one week prior to trial. Defendant does not dispute that the recording constitutes Rosario material. Under the discovery rules in effect at the time of defendant’s trial, “[w]here, as here, [a] witness[ is] not called to testify at a pretrial hearing, Rosario material need not be disclosed until ‘[a]fter the jury has been sworn and before the prosecutor’s opening address’ ” ( … CPL former 240.45 [1] [a]). Neither party requested that this Court consider the retroactivity of the new discovery statute now in effect. People v Austen, 2021 NY Slip Op 04798, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS A DA WHO HAD WORKED ON DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge should have recused himself from the sentencing because his law clerk was a former DA who had worked on the case. The issue was not preserved but was considered in the interest of justice:

The defendant’s contention that the trial justice should have recused himself from presiding over the sentencing proceeding, on the ground that the justice’s law clerk was a former Queens County Assistant District Attorney who, in that capacity, had worked on the early stages of this case, is unpreserved for appellate review. We nevertheless reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05[2]). For the reasons discussed in our decision and order on an appeal by the defendant’s codefendant (People v Hymes, 193 AD3d 975), the trial justice should have recused himself from presiding over the sentencing proceeding (see People v Suazo, 120 AD3d 1270).

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing before a different Justice. People v McPhee, 2021 NY Slip Op 04723, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, ,

MURDER SECOND COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the second degree murder counts should have been dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of first degree murder, and the former appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise that issue:

… [F]ormer appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to contend on appeal that … the defendant’s convictions of murder in the second degree, and the sentences imposed thereon, must be vacated, and those counts of the indictment dismissed, because those charges are inclusory concurrent counts of the conviction of murder in the first degree … . People v Davis, 2021 NY Slip Op 04720, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO SEAL A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND CAN BE APPEALED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant could appeal the denial of his motion to seal his conviction record because the sealing procedure is civil in nature. In addition, the Second Department held defendant was entitled to a hearing on the motion:

Although a motion pursuant to CPL 160.59 relates to a criminal matter, “it does not affect the criminal judgment itself, but only a collateral aspect of it—namely, the sealing of the court record,” and, therefore, is civil in nature … . As such, the defendant is entitled to appeal as of right from the subject order denying the 2020 motion, which was made upon notice to the People (see CPLR 5701[a][2][v] …). * * *

By using the word “shall,” the Legislature clearly and unambiguously provided that when the motion is not subject to mandatory denial under CPL 160.59(3) and the district attorney opposes the motion, the motion court does not have the discretion to dispense with the hearing requirement, even where, as here, the court had held a hearing on the defendant’s prior CPL 160.59 motion ,,, , Further, CPL 160.59 is a remedial statute, and remedial statutes should be interpreted broadly to accomplish their goals … . People v Bugge, 2021 NY Slip Op 04718, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNOPPOSED; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO AN ADJOURNED DATE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED ON THE MERITS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the building owner’s (Findlay’s) motion for summary judgment in this wet-floor slip and fall case should not have been granted. Supreme Court had treated the motion as unopposed. However, plaintiff’s counsel was under the impression the parties had stipulated to an adjourned date. Leave to appeal was granted in the interest of justice. On the merits, plaintiff raised a question of fact about the adequacy of the “wet floor” warning:

[Supreme Court’s] order was not made upon notice and is not appealable as of right (CPLR 5701[a]). However, this Court is authorized to deem a notice of appeal a request for leave to appeal and to grant such leave for a determination on the merits in the interest of justice (CPLR 5701[c] …). Given the facts of this case, this Court grants plaintiff leave to appeal in the interest of justice. Relying on CPLR 2214 and 2004, the motion court dismissed the complaint because plaintiff’s counsel did not offer a valid explanation for his late filing. However, counsel filed his opposition pursuant to what he thought was a valid stipulation.  …

Given the T-shaped nature of the hallway in this case, there are issues of fact as to whether the first warning sign was adequate, especially since the floor in that area was dry. Indeed, “[t]he mere placement of a “wet floor warning sign does not automatically absolve a defendant of negligence” … . We also note that this housing development housed primarily elderly and handicapped individuals. Zubillaga v Findlay Teller Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 04687, First Dept 8-12-21

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL ON ONE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed defendant’s conviction on one count (attempted assault), in the interest of justice (i.e. the issue was not preserved), based upon prosecutorial misconduct:

The prosecutor made a number of improper comments during her summation by improperly vouching for the credibility of the People’s witnesses, interjecting sympathy, improperly advising the jurors on the law, and making herself an unsworn witness … .For example, when discussing the charge of attempted assault in the first degree, the prosecutor attempted to explain why no shell casings were recovered by informing the jurors that “unfortunately [the Evidence Crime Team] confine[d] themselves to where the crime scene tape was,” although no such evidence exists in the record. … [T]he prosecutor referred to testimony that had been stricken … when she told the jury that … the defendant could have shot one of the witnesses. The prosecutor also informed the jury that the voice of that same witness could be heard screaming on an audio recording of a call to the 911 emergency number. The prosecutor also twice erroneously advised the jury that its credibility determination should be based on, among other things, “what [the jurors] felt” … , and, when discussing the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, instructed the jury that the criminal history of one of the prosecution’s witnesses was not relevant to the question of that witness’s credibility. People v Veeney, 2021 NY Slip Op 04673, Second Dept 8-11-21

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO SEAL A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND IS THEREFORE APPEALABLE, NOT WITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A CRIMINAL-PROCEDURE STATUTE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZING APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brathwaite Nelson, determined the denial of a motion to seal a criminal conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 160.59 is appealable. Appeals in criminal matters must be authorized by statute. The court deemed the motion to seal to be civil in nature ant therefore not subject to the strict restrictions on criminal appeals:

Where, as here, the court issuing the order being appealed from possesses both civil and criminal jurisdiction, appellate courts look to “the true nature of the proceeding and to the relief sought in order to determine whether the proceeding was criminal or civil” … . Where the relief sought is “quintessentially, of a criminal nature”… , or an integral part of an ongoing criminal investigation, the proceeding falls within the court’s criminal jurisdiction and an appeal may not be taken from an order issued therein in the absence of express statutory authority … . * * *

By contrast, even when an order is issued pursuant to a criminal investigation or relates to a collateral aspect of a criminal proceeding, if the nature of the relief sought is civil in nature and the order can be said to be final and does not affect the criminal judgment itself, courts have found the matter to be civil and appeals from such orders are not constrained by the rule controlling appeals from orders in criminal proceedings … . People v Coulibaly, 2021 NY Slip Op 04616, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY DID NOT FILE AN AFFIRMATION AS REQUIRED BY AN ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER; THE MAJORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT PERFECT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE COULD AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THIS APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant in this foreclosure action could not raise the plaintiff’s failure to comply with an Administrative Order (AO) because it could have been raised on a prior appeal which was not perfected. The dissent argued the court could and should address the “AO” issue on this appeal:

From the dissent:

… [A] plaintiff’s attorney is required to affirm after conferring with a representative of the plaintiff and upon the attorney’s “own inspection and other reasonable inquiry” that the pleadings and submissions “contain no false statements of fact or law.”  …

… [P]laintiff’s attorney was required to file the affidavit conforming with AO/431/11 and AO/208/13, an issue that was directly raised in defendant’s motion to vacate and could have been addressed by this Court had defendant perfected his appeal from the court’s April 2018 order. In an instance such as this, this Court “has the authority to entertain a second appeal in the exercise of [our] discretion, even where a prior appeal on the same issue has been dismissed for failure to prosecute” … . Given that the filing of an attorney affirmation is mandatory and, at the latest, must be filed five business days before a scheduled auction … , I believe we should exercise our discretion and address the issue of noncompliance (id.). To assure the integrity of the foreclosure process, which is the entire objective of the Administrative Orders, we should modify the order by requiring a continued stay of any auction sale pending the submission of a compliant attorney affirmation. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Sage, 2021 NY Slip Op 04583, Third Dept 7-29-21

 

, , , ,

SEPARATE TRIALS WERE HELD ON THE TORT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTIONS STEMMING FROM DAMAGE TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING CAUSED BY RENOVATION OF DEFENDANT’S NEIGHBORING BUILDING; THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN EACH ACTION WERE BASED UPON THE SAME EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPAIR AND ALTERNATE LIVING EXPENSES BUT THE AMOUNTS OF THE AWARDS DIFFERED; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DAMAGES AWARDED IN THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, PLUS INTEREST AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, AS THE APPEALABLE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in an extensive opinion by Justice Moulton, addressed several unusual issues stemming from the allegation the renovation of defendant’s neighboring property damaged plaintiffs’ property. Two separate trials were held: a jury trial on tort (negligence) claims; and a nonjury trial on breach of contract claims (i.e., the contract allowing defendants access to plaintiffs’ property to facilitate the renovation). In the nonjury breach of contract action plaintiffs were awarded $6,255,007 for repair costs and $1,152,000 for alternate living expenses. In the jury trial (tort action) plaintiffs were awarded $5,000,000 for repair and $500,000 for alternate living expenses. The issues decided in plaintiff’s appeal are: the breach of contract judgment is appealable as a final judgment; Supreme Court properly precluded expert testimony on the loss of market value in plaintiffs’ home. The issues decided in defendant’s cross appeals are: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside the breach of contract judgment and adopt the jury’s tort judgment; plaintiffs were entitled to conditional contractual indemnification from defendant. The final judgment which was entered used the breach of contract (nonjury trial) damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees totaling over $12 million. With respect to whether the judgment was appealable as a final judgment, the court wrote:

Our conclusion that the contract judgment is a final judgment starts with the definition of a judgment. “A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action or special proceeding and may be either interlocutory or final” (CPLR 5011; see also CPLR 105 [k] [“The word ‘judgment’ means a final or interlocutory judgment”]). “[A] fair working definition of the concept can be stated as follows: a ‘final’ order or judgment is one that disposes of all of the causes of action between the parties in the action or proceeding and leaves nothing for further judicial action apart from mere ministerial matters”  … . Shah v 20 E. 64th St., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04587, First Dept 7-29-21