, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING A LIMOUSINE BUS WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ADDRESS ON APPEAL THE ASPECT OF THE DECISION WHICH DISMISSED THE FAILURE-TO-PROVIDE-SEATBELTS CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE ANY CHALLENGE TO THAT ASPECT OF THE DISMISSAL WAS ABANDONED BY PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint in this traffic accident case, noted that the plaintiffs’ failure to address an aspect of the decision granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment constituted an abandonment of any challenge to that portion of the decision. The motion court had dismissed the complaint in its entirety including plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging defendants were negligent in not providing seatbelts for the limousine in which plaintiff was a passenger. However the seatbelt ruling was not challenged by the plaintiffs on appeal. Therefore Supreme Court’s dismissal of the seatbelt cause of action remained in effect:

Supreme Court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint based on application of the emergency doctrine. ” ‘The existence of an emergency and the reasonableness of a driver’s response thereto generally constitute issues of fact’ ” … . Upon our review of the record, we conclude that “whether the emergency doctrine precludes liability presents a question of fact and, therefore, summary judgment for defendants . . . was inappropriate” … .

We note, however, that the court also granted that part of defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts on the ground that defendants were under no duty to do so. Plaintiffs failed to brief any argument with respect to the dismissal of that claim, thereby abandoning any challenge to that part of the order … . We therefore modify the order by denying the motion in part and reinstating the complaint except insofar as the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that defendants were negligent in failing to provide seatbelts. VanEpps v Mancuso, 2020 NY Slip Op 05359, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

, , ,

WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that where the court addresses the merits of a motion to reargue it will be deemed to have granted the motion to reargue for purposes of appeal. Therefore, although the denial of a motion to reargue is not appealable, the denial after addressing the merits is appealable. In that case the motion is treated as if the motion to reargue were granted and then the original decision was adhered to. The court also noted that the requirements for the personal service of a notice of sale were not met in this case. Therefore the 10-day period for bringing a special proceeding to determined the validity of the lien did not start to run:

“Although, generally, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to reargue, where the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied” … . * * *

Under Lien Law §201-a, petitioner’s 10-day time period to “commence a special proceeding to determine the validity of the lien” does not begin to run until service upon it of the “notice of sale” by respondent, the lienor. Service of such notice of sale by the lienor must be effectuated by personal service “within the county where [the] lien arose,” unless the person to be served “cannot with due diligence be found within such county” (Lien Law § 201). … As Supreme Court correctly found, and as the record reflects, respondent failed to submit any proof that it exercised due diligence in seeking to effect personal service upon petitioner of the notice of lien and sale before improperly resorting to the statutory alternative of certified mail service. As a result, the 10-day time limitation for petitioner to challenge the lien under Lien Law § 201-a did not begin to run … . Matter of Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v J.D. Mar. Serv., 2020 NY Slip Op 05260, Third Dept 10-1-20

 

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL BEFORE ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO RECORDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have required that defense counsel seek court approval before allowing investigators or other employees access to recordings:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), a party who has unsuccessfully sought, or opposed the granting of, a protective order relating to the name, address, contact information, or statements of a person may obtain expedited review by an individual justice of the intermediate appellate court to which an appeal from a judgment of conviction would be taken. Where, as here, “the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion” … .

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in requiring defense counsel to seek approval of the court before exhibiting the subject recordings to investigators or others employed by counsel. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court should have permitted defense counsel to disclose the recordings to those employed by counsel or appointed to assist in the defense, without prior approval from the Supreme Court … . People v Clarke, 2020 NY Slip Op 05221, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, ,

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED WEAPONS FOUND IN A LOCKED ROOM BELONGING TO DEFENDANT’S DECEASED BROTHER; WEAPONS POSSESSION CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the possession-of-a-weapon convictions, determined the evidence of constructive possession was insufficient and the convictions were therefore against the weight of the evidence:

The evidence demonstrated that the defendant resided in the third bedroom of the searched premises, and that the defendant’s brother had resided in the first bedroom up until his death in 2014 or 2015. There was also testimony that, after the defendant’s brother passed away, the door to the first bedroom was locked and remained locked. There was no evidence that the defendant frequented the first bedroom, had a key to that room or kept his belongings in that room. Although the police witnesses testified that they could not recall any damage to the door to the first bedroom, the defense introduced a photograph depicting damage to the door and frame after the search.

Moreover, although the police officers recovered a magazine containing seven 9 millimeter cartridges from the defendant’s bedroom, the evidence demonstrated that it was not the correct magazine for the pistol recovered from the first bedroom; it had to be manipulated in order to function properly with the pistol. Apart from the magazine, there was no other evidence connecting the defendant to the first bedroom or the weapons found therein. People v Branch, 2020 NY Slip Op 05220,  Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, , , , , ,

DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DRIVER HAD LOGGED OFF THE UBER APP PRIOR TO THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY; THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD’S FINDING THAT THE DRIVER WAS EMPLOYED BY UBER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT; ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this pedestrian-vehicle accident case, determined: (1) a ruling by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that defendant driver was an employee of defendant Uber was not entitled collateral-estoppel effect pursuant to Labor Law 623( 2); (2) although the Labor Law 623(2) argument was not raised below, it raised a question of law which could not have been avoided below and therefore was considered on appeal; (3) the claim that defendant driver had logged off the Uber app at the time of the accident did not warrant summary judgment in favor of Uber on the vicarious liability theory:

An action may be considered to be within the scope of employment, thus rendering an employer vicariously liable for the conduct, when “the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . Whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment is generally a question of fact for the jury … .

Here, contrary to Uber’s contention, the averments [that the driver] had logged off of the Uber app 40 minutes before the accident were simply insufficient, without more, to eliminate all questions of fact as to whether Hussein was acting within the scope of his alleged employment with Uber at the time of the incident … . Uy v Hussein, 2020 NY Slip Op 05080, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE OMITTED A PORTION OF THE BURGLARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE PROOF REQUIRED BY THE INCOMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT CLEAR-CUT AND DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the burglary conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People were held to the proof required by the the jury instructions to which the People did not object. The portion of the instructions which explained that entry into a private area of a building after entering the building through a public area constitutes unlawful entry was left out. Because the defendant entered the building through a public entrance, the People did not prove unlawful entry as charged to the jury. The Second Department also held that defense counsel’s failure to make a speedy trial motion did not constitute ineffective assistance because it was not clear the motion would succeed:

While the failure to make a meritorious speedy trial motion can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … , the speedy trial violation must have been “clear-cut and dispositive” … . In other words, the motion must not only be meritorious … , it generally must not require resolution of novel issues, or resolution of whether debatable exclusions of time are applicable … . Here, the issue cannot be fairly characterized as “clear-cut and dispositive” so as to render defense counsel ineffective for failing to make such a motion … . * * *

The testimony at trial was unequivocal that the defendant and two cohorts entered the subject premises, a self-storage facility, during business hours, using the entrance designated for use by the public. The defendant’s entry into the premises was therefore lawful … . While the defendant’s subsequent act of entering a nonpublic area of the premises could constitute an unlawful entry (see Penal Law § 140.00[5] … ), in light of the Supreme Court’s charge omitting that portion of the instruction elaborating upon license and privilege as it applies to nonpublic areas within public places, and asking the jury whether the defendant unlawfully entered the premises generally, it was factually insufficient to prove that the defendant’s entry was unlawful. People v McKinnon, 2020 NY Slip Op 05056, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

, , ,

THE ONLY WAY TO COMPEL A JUDGE TO SIGN A DOCUMENT TO CREATE AN APPEALABLE PAPER IS A MANDAMUS ACTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78; THE FAILURE TO BRING THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING PRECLUDED APPEAL IN THIS CASE; THE OPINION INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPEALABLE PAPER ARE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DEFINITIVE ON THE TOPIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a concurrence, determined the plaintiffs’ only option when the judge refused to sign the transcript of the oral decision (CPLR 2219) and, in the alternative, refused to sign the proposed order with notice of settlement (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]), was a mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to sign. Without the judge’s signature, there was no appealable paper and plaintiffs could not appeal the decision disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel. Because the four-month statute of limitations for bringing an Article 78 (mandamus) action had long passed, the plaintiffs could not bring the appeal. The opinion includes a clear and comprehensive explanation of what constitutes appealable paper pursuant to CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.48[a] which should be saved as a reference resource:

… [T]he Justice failed or refused to later sign the transcript of the proceedings, and therefore, the transcript never qualified as an order for purposes of its enforcement or for an appeal … . While the transcript bears the signature of the court reporter who certified its truth and accuracy, the court reporter’s certification does not substitute for the plain and separate obligation set forth in CPLR 2219(a) that a judge or justice sign his or her name or initials to the document (see CPLR 5512[a] …). The absence of the Justice’s signature on the transcript had the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from directly appealing the adverse determination to the Appellate Division.

Likewise, the Justice failed or refused to sign the proposed order that was submitted to him, with a copy of the transcript and with notice of settlement. Such an order, if signed with or without modification of its proposed language, would have become an enforceable order and subject to appeal. Parties are entitled to orders that are both enforceable and appealable, and those fundamental rights should not be thwarted by any jurists’ unwitting failure to abide by the requirements of CPLR 2219(a) … . * * *

Absent a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the plaintiffs can receive no relief on this appeal. This Court cannot compel under the guise of CPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.48 relief that can only be properly accomplished by mandamus, which is now untimely. Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04913, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 APPLIED ONLY TO HIGH-COST OR SUBPRIME LOANS WAS NOT RAISED BELOW, THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED ON APPEAL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department considered an issue raised for the first time on appeal because it raised an issue of law which could not have been avoided if raised below. The defendant argued that the strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 applies only to high-cost or subprime loans, not the loan at issue in the case. The Second Department rejected the argument and reversed Supreme Court finding the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304:

We decline to construe RPAPL 1302(2) in a manner that would render the amendment to RPAPL 1304 superfluous and the requirements set forth in that statute ineffective. Thus … compliance with RPAPL 1304 was a component of its prima facie burden on its motion for summary judgment … . …

Although Mahdak [plaintiff’s representative] stated in her affidavit that the notices were sent to the defendant at his last known address and the subject property, Mahdak did not have personal knowledge of the mailing, and [plaintiff] failed to provide any documents to prove that the notices were actually mailed … . [Plaintiff] also failed to submit a copy of any United States Post Office document indicating that the notices were sent by registered or certified mail as required by the statute … . Furthermore, Mahdak did not aver that she was familiar with [plaintiff’s] mailing practices and procedures, and therefore did not establish proof of a standard office practice and procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . H&R Block Bank, FSB v Liles, 2020 NY Slip Op 04733, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

,

TRIAL COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 ON A GROUND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL AS A MATTER OF LAW–HERE THE ALLEGED FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD AND THE ACQUITTALS ON ALL THE OTHER SEXUAL-OFFENSE COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court on the People’s appeal, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the verdict should not have been set aside based upon an alleged inconsistency between the conviction on one count and the acquittals on all other counts:

This appeal by the People and cross appeal by the defendant presents a rare opportunity to consider the circumstances under which a trial court, in reviewing the record on a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to determine whether a conviction on one count is supported by legally sufficient evidence, may consider a jury’s factually inconsistent acquittal on another count.

The defendant was charged with two counts of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25[2]), three counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.40[2]), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10[1]). * * *

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on count six [endangering the welfare of a child] and acquitted the defendant of all other charges. * * *

… [T]he defendant contends that a factual inconsistency in the verdict may … , under appropriate circumstances, provide grounds for a reviewing court to “consider a jury’s acquittal on one count in reviewing the record to determine if a factually inconsistent conviction on another count is supported by legally sufficient evidence” … .  …  [T]here is some support in the case law for the defendant’s contention—at least within the context of a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, where this Court has both a unique power of factual review … as well as the discretionary authority, in the interest of justice, to reach unpreserved errors that deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . However, we now explicitly hold that a trial court determining a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 lacks the power to overturn a verdict on this ground where, as here, the contention does not present an issue that “would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court” (CPL 330.30[1] …). People v Taylor, 2020 NY Slip Op 04790, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

, ,

THE SIX ‘LURING A CHILD’ CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the “luring a child” convictions, over a two-justice dissent, determined the convictions were against the weight of the evidence. The court noted that if the evidence of an element of an offense is legally insufficient the conviction of that offense is against the weight of the evidence:

The evidence at trial established that, when defendant was 30 years old, he met 16-year-old BD on an adult dating website. The two thereafter communicated via cell phone, text messages, Facebook messaging, Skype and Snapchat. Shortly thereafter, NS, a friend of BD, initiated contact with defendant through Facebook. NS was also 16 years old at the time. While communicating for weeks with both BD and NS via cell phone, text messages, Facebook, Skype and Snapchat, defendant lied about his age and his military status, among other things. Also, he flattered the girls by saying that they were “really cute” and that he “really liked” them. Both girls lived in Ontario County and were juniors in high school.

Defendant eventually met NS in person and drove her to his house in Monroe County, where they had sexual intercourse. Over the ensuing two or three weeks, defendant drove NS to his house three more times to engage in sexual activity. In the meantime, defendant twice had both sexual intercourse and oral sexual contact with BD, once at her house in Ontario County after picking her up at school and driving her home, and the other time at his house after driving her there. * * *

… [T]o convict defendant of luring a child, the People were required to establish that, on or about the dates alleged in the indictment, defendant lured the victims into his motor vehicle, that the victims were less than 17 years of age, and that defendant engaged in that activity for the purpose of committing a felony sex offense against the victims … . In our view, the People failed to prove that defendant lured the victims into a motor vehicle. …

The fact that defendant drove the victims to his house days and weeks later cannot transform his statements into luring. People v Ringrose, 2020 NY Slip Op 04719, Fourth Dept 8-20-20