You are here: / Appeals
,

CYNTHIA G SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY CONFINED BASED UPON A FINDING SHE WAS MENTALLY ILL IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING; THE FINDING WAS MADE BASED SOLELY UPON CYNTHIA G’S BEHAVIOR IN THE COURTROOM; ALTHOUGH CYNTHIA G HAS BEEN RELEASED THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have ruled Cynthia G was mentally ill based solely on her behavior in the courtroom without holding a hearing. Although Cynthia G has been released from the involuntary confinement ordered by Supreme Court, the appeal was heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine because situation is likely to reoccur:

On June 20, 2019, Cynthia G. was involuntarily confined to the Hospital pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. On June 27, 2019, Cynthia G. made an application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 for a hearing on the question of need for involuntary care and treatment. While the parties appeared in court for the hearing, the Supreme Court did not hold the hearing. Rather, Cynthia G. was escorted out of the courtroom based on her behavior, which included “yelling and screaming,” acting “verbally aggressive,” and making “threatening movements.” Over the objection of Cynthia G.’s counsel, the court determined that it could not proceeded with a hearing due to Cynthia G.’s behavior. The court indicated that it would deny Cynthia G.’s application for release, finding that her courtroom behavior in and of itself constituted clear and convincing evidence that she suffered from a mental illness which was likely to result in serious harm to herself or others.

By order dated July 2, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Cynthia G.’s application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 to compel the Hospital to release her from involuntary confinement. …

… [T]he Supreme Court erred in failing to hold a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31(c), and in determining, in effect, that Cynthia G. was mentally ill, in need of further care or treatment, and posed a substantial threat of physical harm to herself or others, without taking any testimony or evidence by either Cynthia G. or the Hospital … . Matter of G., 2020 NY Slip Op 06525, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

,

THE APPEAL WAS MOOT BECAUSE THE PETITION SOUGHT TO HALT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MINING SHAFT APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE SHAFT HAD BEEN COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the appeal was moot because the action sought to halt the construction of a mining shaft approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) but the shaft had already been constructed at the time of the appeal:

“[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” … . Whether the controversy has become moot requires the consideration of various factors, including how far the construction work has progressed towards completion, whether the work was undertaken in bad faith or without authority and whether the substantially completed work cannot be readily undone without substantial hardship … . A chief consideration to be assessed is whether the challenger to the construction work “fail[ed] to seek preliminary injunctive relief or otherwise preserve the status quo to prevent construction from commencing or continuing during the pendency of the litigation” … .

This Court has been advised that, during the pendency of the underlying proceeding and this appeal, the construction of the surface shaft has been completed to the point that it cannot be safely halted and that substantial construction costs have been incurred. Furthermore, there is no indication that petitioners promptly sought injunctive relief to maintain the status quo … or that [respondent] proceeded with the construction in bad faith or without the authority to do so … . Based on the foregoing, petitioners’ appeal is moot … . Matter of City of Ithaca v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 06322, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

, , ,

SUBPOENA SEEKING 1099 FORMS SHOWING THE INSURER’S PAYMENTS TO TWO DOCTORS WHO PERFORM MEDICAL EXAMS FOR THE INSURER IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED; WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBPOENA FOR THE MEDICAL RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXAMS, THAT ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY SUPREME COURT AND CAN NOT, THEREFORE, BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry addressing a matter of first impression in the Third Department, determined the plaintiffs’ subpoena seeking 1099 forms (encompassing several years) issued by the insurer to the two doctors (Seigel and Hughes) who performed the medical examination of the plaintiff in this traffic accident case should not have been quashed. The payment records may provide information relevant to the doctors’ bias in favor of denying coverage. However the subpoena for the medical records for the examinations conducted by the two doctors was not addressed by the motion court and therefore could not be addressed on appeal:

The CPLR extends “full disclosure of all matters material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” to nonparties (CPLR 3101 [a] [4] …). “The words, ‘material and necessary,’ are . . . to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . “A subpoena will be quashed only where the futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious or where the information sought is utterly irrelevant to any proper inquiry” … . …

… [T]he 1099 forms that plaintiffs seek would disclose the amount of compensation that Siegel and Hughes received for performing evaluations on defendant’s behalf and, with questioning, may reveal a financial incentive that the physicians have in testifying. A financial incentive is a relevant consideration in “ascertain[ing] any possible bias or interest on the part of [the physicians]” … . Given the liberal interpretation afforded the terms “material and … necessary” used in the CPLR … , and the general acceptance of testing a witness for bias and interest , we thus find that the financial records are discoverable … . Loiselle v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 06325, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

,

THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO RESETTLE WHICH IMPROPERLY SOUGHT THE MODIFICATION OF A SUBSTANTIVE PART OF AN ORDER, AS OPPOSED TO MERELY THE CORRECTION OF A MISTAKE, IS NOT APPEALABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the denial of the motion to resettle was not appealable and explained the criteria. The motion sought the modification of a substantive part of an order, which is not available pursuant to a motion to resettle:

“‘Resettlement of an order is a procedure designed solely to correct errors or omissions as to form, or for clarification. It may not be used to effect a substantive change in or to amplify the prior decision of the court'” … . “Under established precedent, no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to resettle or clarify a substantive portion of an order” . [The instant] … motion does not seek to amend or clarify the prior order, but seeks to modify a substantive portion of the prior order….  As such, the denial of said motion is not appealable … . Hutchings v Garrison Lifestyle Pierce Hill, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 06327, Third Dept 11-5-20

 

,

THE FEDERAL OFFENSE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FIREARM BE OPERABLE BUT THE NEW YORK OFFENSE DOES; THEREFORE THE FEDERAL OFFENSE IS NOT A PREDICATE OFFENSE FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES; THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the federal felony was not equivalent to a New York felony and therefore could not serve as a predicate offense. Defendant, therefore, should not have been sentenced as a second felony offender. Although the issue was not preserved, it was considered on appeal in the interest of justice:

The defendant’s contention that his prior federal conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC § 922(g)(l) did not qualify as a predicate New York felony pursuant to Penal Law § 70.06 is unpreserved for appellate review … . However, we reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … .

“An out-of-state felony conviction qualifies as a predicate felony under Penal Law § 70.06 only if it is for a crime whose elements are equivalent to those of a felony in New York” … . Here, the defendant’s predicate crime does not require as one of its elements that the firearm be operable (see 18 USC § 922[g][1] …) and, thus, does not constitute a felony in New York for the purpose of enhanced sentencing … . People v Cabassa, 2020 NY Slip Op 06282, Second Dept 11-4-20

 

,

DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE WHICH WAS DE-CRIMINALIZED SHORTLY THEREAFTER; CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WITH THE PEOPLE’S CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in the interest of justice and as a matter of discretion, with the People’s consent, reversed defendant’s conviction of possession of a gravity knife, which was de-criminalized shortly after the conviction:

On November 29, 2018, during his plea allocution to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02[1]), the defendant admitted that on or about January 9, 2018, he attempted to possess a gravity knife. On January 31, 2019, pursuant to his negotiated plea agreement, the defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1½ to 3 years.

The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed because, inter alia, shortly after his conviction, Penal Law § 265.01(1) was amended to decriminalize the simple possession of a gravity knife. The People, in the exercise of their broad prosecutorial discretion, agree that the judgment should be vacated and the indictment dismissed. Even though the statute decriminalizing the simple possession of a gravity knife did not take effect until May 30, 2019 (see L 2019, ch 34, § 1), under the circumstances of this case, we vacate the judgment and dismiss the indictment, as a matter of discretion in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . People v Merrill, 2020 NY Slip Op 05936, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; DEFENDANT’S ONE-YEAR SENTENCE, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVED, WAS REDUCED BY ONE DAY IN PART TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF A ONE-YEAR SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, finding the waiver of appeal invalid, reduced defendant’s sentence by one day based in part on the immigration consequences of a one-year sentences:

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid because the Supreme Court’s colloquy mischaracterized the appellate rights waived as encompassing an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal, and failed to inform the defendant that appellate review remained available for certain issues … . Further, the written waiver form signed by the defendant was insufficient to overcome the deficiencies in the court’s explanation of the waiver of the right to appeal, since it did not contain language clarifying that appellate review remained available for certain issues … . Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court from reviewing the issue of whether the defendant’s sentence was excessive … .

Although the defendant has served his sentence, the question of whether the sentence imposed should be reduced is not academic, since the sentence may have potential immigration consequences … . People v Joseph, 2020 NY Slip Op 05928, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

, ,

APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO RAISE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR CONCERNING A JURY NOTE ON APPEAL; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, granting the writ of coram nobis and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise a mode of proceedings error on appeal. The was no evidence on the record that the trial judge notified counsel of a substantive note from the jury:

… [O]n the afternoon of the first day of jury deliberations, the Supreme Court received a jury note stating “11 of the 12 jurors find the defendant guilty on all counts. One juror after lengthy discussion still has a reasonable doubt on 9 counts. Juror feels we cannot change her/his mind no matter what we say or do. We need direction.” The record does not indicate that the court read the contents of the note to the parties, discussed its contents with counsel, or allowed trial counsel an opportunity to propose a response for the jury. * * *

The failure to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note requires reversal, regardless of whether the Supreme Court provided the jurors with a meaningful response to their note … . In short, in the absence of record evidence that the court complied with its core responsibilities under CPL § 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal … . People v Grant, 2020 NY Slip Op 05922, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

, ,

THE MANSLAUGHTER AND CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTIONS STEMMING FROM A FATAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the manslaughter and criminally negligence homicide convictions stemming from a traffic accident, determined the evidence was legally insufficient. There was evidence provided by another driver (Duke) that defendant was driving above the speed limit before the collision (which Duke did not witness), but nothing else. Two passengers and an unborn child died in the collision:

… [T]he evidence was legally insufficient to establish “the kind of seriously condemnatory behavior” in addition to speeding that is necessary to “transform ‘speeding’ into ‘dangerous speeding'” … . While Duke testified that the defendant’s vehicle “swerv[ed] around” her into the left lane to pass, she did not testify that the defendant’s vehicle came close to hitting her vehicle, that she had to engage in any evasive measures to avoid an accident, that there were any vehicles in the left lane when the defendant moved into it, or that the defendant swerved back in front of her after passing her … . Rather, Duke testified that after the defendant moved into the left lane, she waited for him to pass before getting into the left lane behind him. Moreover, Duke testified that the defendant was driving at a slower rate while moving into the left lane to pass her before speeding up after he moved into the left lane, and that the defendant obeyed a red traffic signal, pausing and not again accelerating until the traffic signal “turned green.” Duke also stated that there were “no more lights” between that traffic signal and the location of the accident, and thus, there is no indication that the defendant disregarded any red traffic signals. Further, the People presented no evidence that the defendant proceeded in disregard of a warning to slow down or of a dangerous driving condition … . Evidence was presented that Kent Avenue, which is partly situated in an industrial area, is not a busy road and generally has “very few cars” on it around the time when the accident occurred. Thus, the People failed to establish that the defendant engaged in “some additional affirmative act aside from driving faster than the posted speed limit,” as required to support a finding of recklessness or criminal negligence … . People v Acevedo, 2020 NY Slip Op 05909, Second Dept 10-21-20

 

,

MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINTS AND INFORMATIONS CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY AMENDMENT; RATHER A SUPERSEDING INSTRUMENT SUPPORTED BY A SWORN STATEMENT WITH THE CORRECT FACTS MUST BE FILED; THE ISSUE WAS NOT WAIVED BY DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA TO THE AMENDED INSTRUMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the Appellate Term and overruling precedent from 1954, over a two-judge dissent and an additional dissent, determined the misdemeanor complaint and the information to which the complaint was converted should not have been amended to correct wrong dates. The Criminal Procedure Law does not include a provision allowing amendment of misdemeanor complaints and informations. The proper procedure is to file a superseding accusatory instrument with a sworn statement supporting the correct facts. This appellate issue was not waived by defendant’s guilty plea:

The text, structure, and legislative history of the CPL, as well as a straightforward application of our canons of statutory construction, all demonstrate that the CPL does not permit the kinds of factual amendments once countenanced by [People v Easton (307 NY 336 [1954])]. The CPL does provide its own pathway for correcting factual errors in complaints and informations, through the filing of a superseding accusatory instrument (CPL 100.50), not through a prosecutor’s amendment of facts averred by someone else. We recognize that the October 25, 2015 date in the accusatory instrument here cannot possibly be correct and that the correct date can be inferred from information outside the four corners of the accusatory instrument. However, in evaluating the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument we do not look beyond its four corners (including supporting declarations appended thereto) … . It is the People’s responsibility to obtain a sworn statement with the correct factual allegations and proceed on a superseding instrument. People v Hardy, 2020 NY Slip Op 05803, CtApp 10-15-20

 

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