You are here: / Appeals
, ,

THE OPINION CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR THE DEPRAVED-INDIFFERENCE MENS REA CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BECAME FINAL; DESPITE THE AFFIRMANCE OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION ON APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE THE APPEAL, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his depraved-indifference murder conviction should have been granted. The Court of Appeals opinion which changed the proof requirements for the depraved indifference mens rea was issued before defendant’s conviction became final. The proof at defendant’s trial demonstrated defendant acted intentionally as opposed acting with “depraved indifference:”

… [T]he defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate so much of the judgment as convicted him of depraved indifference murder, arguing that, in light of People v Payne (3 NY3d 266), which was decided 15 days after this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction on his direct appeal but before his conviction became final (see Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d at 593), the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea for depraved indifference murder. The Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, as both procedurally barred by CPL 440.10(2)(a) and meritless. The court reasoned that the defendant’s legal sufficiency argument based on the change of law set forth in People v Payne had been addressed and rejected by this Court in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to reargue his direct appeal, by the Court of Appeals in denying the defendant’s motion for leave to appeal, and by the federal court in denying the defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. With respect to the merits of the defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. * * *

… [T]he trial evidence was not legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt of depraved indifference murder (see People v Payne, 3 NY3d at 272; People v Hernandez, 167 AD3d at 940). People v Illis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03535, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE ISSUES WHETHER MOTHER HAD MADE ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE IN A SWORN PLEADING OR WHETHER MOTHER HAD PROVEN DOMESTIC ABUSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FATHER WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUES WERE PRESERVED AND WOULD REMIT FOR A BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD ANALYSIS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a detailed and comprehensive dissent, affirmed the award of custody to father, finding that the issues raised on appeal by mother were not preserved. Defendant mother argued she had made allegations of domestic abuse in a sworn pleading (petition) and, therefore, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 240(1)(a), the court was required to consider the effect of the domestic violence on the best interests of the child:

Defendant failed to preserve her arguments regarding Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1) (a). As a result, the parties never litigated, and Supreme Court did not pass upon, or make any findings with respect to, whether a withdrawn family offense petition constitutes “a sworn petition” for purposes of this statute or whether defendant proved allegations of domestic violence “by a preponderance of the evidence” (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1] [a]) — issues that are essential to the arguments defendant now raises. Record evidence supports the affirmed custody award. * * *

From the dissent:

Because the issue is preserved, I would reverse and remit to Supreme Court for a new best interest of the child analysis consistent with the framework of Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1) (a), and any development of the record as needed. Cole v Cole, 2020 NY Slip Op 03489, CtApp 6-23-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the failure to respond to defendant-Mazal’s demands for production waived any objections to the demands. Mazal’s motion to compel discovery therefore was properly granted. However objections to demands which are palpably improper are not waived by a failure to respond and Mazal’s demand for tax returns may be in the palpably-improper category. Mazal’s motion to compel the production of tax returns should therefore have been denied. But the First Department denied that portion of the motion to compel without prejudice and granted leave to renew if Mazal can make the required showing of need:

The motion court providently deemed the appealing parties’ objections waived under CPLR 3122 as a result of their failure to respond timely to Mazal’s demands for production … . We modify, however, with respect to Mazal’s demands for the appealing parties’ tax returns, as objections to “palpably improper” demands are not waived … .

A demand for the production of tax returns is disfavored and requires “a strong showing of necessity,” and the inability to obtain the information from other sources … . Here, the failure “to identify the particular information the tax returns . . . will contain and its relevance to the claims made” … should have been sufficient to deny Mazal’s motion to compel. Indeed, the tax returns were not necessary to determine whether plaintiffs acquired an interest in the properties in 1994 or retained it thereafter — the reason the motion court gave for granting the motion. However, Mazal argues that the tax returns could be relevant to its affirmative defenses of laches, estoppel, waiver, ratification, and consent, and the motion court did not pass on this issue. As a result, although Mazal did not sufficiently show the inability to obtain the information sought from other sources or, indeed, what specific information the appealing parties’ tax returns will show, we grant leave to renew upon a proper showing … . Demurjian v Demurjian, 2020 NY Slip Op 03479, First Dept 6-18-20

 

,

SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE; A MOTION TO VACATE, NOT AN APPEAL, IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO CONTEST THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF EXCUSABLE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE DEFAULT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that defendants’ failure to comply with a self-executing, conditional order striking the answer became absolute. The proper way to contest such an order is to move to vacate, not appeal:

When defendants failed to comply with the self-executing, conditional order striking their answer if they did not produce a witness for deposition by a date certain, the order became absolute ( … CPLR 3126[3]). Defendants’ proper recourse was to move to vacate the conditional order on the ground of excusable default (… CPLR 5015[a]). They did not seek that relief. In any event, the excuses for failing to comply with the court’s order that defendants asserted in opposition to plaintiff’s motion were not reasonable, and defendants failed to seek an adjournment from the court or take any other action to avoid their knowing default. Humble Monkey, LLC v Rice Sec., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03470, First Dept 6-18-20

 

,

THE ORDER WAS NOT ENTERED ON CONSENT AND THEREFORE WAS APPEALABLE; GRANDPARENTS’ PETITIONS FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ABSENT A FULL TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, after noting the order was not entered on consent and was therefore appealable, determined the grandparents should not have been awarded visitation absent a full trial:

In the absence of consent, Family Court should not have awarded the paternal grandparents visitation without conducting a full trial. The decision was based only on the grandmother’s partial testimony. The separately petitioning grandfather did not testify. The mother was not present due to a medical procedure she was undergoing in North Carolina. Even if the court was justified in drawing a negative inference from her failure to give testimony … , the court failed to afford the attorney for the child (AFC) an opportunity to ascertain the seven-year-old child’s position … . Although the Family Court appropriately appointed an AFC, he did not let her do her job. The child’s position in this case was particularly important because of the mother’s representations that the child did not want to see the grandparents so soon following her father’s death and would be traumatized by such visitation. In addition, each of the grandparents brought separate petitions and each was separately represented in this matter. Although there is some indication that the grandparents are separated, because of the truncated record, there is insufficient information to support the court’s having jointly awarded jointly awarded them visitation with the child. Without a full hearing, the record is insufficient to determine whether visitation with the paternal grandparents is in the child’s best interests … . If after a full hearing upon remand the Family Court determines that grandparental visitation is in the child’s best interest, it should also clarify the award of visitation rights vis-a-vis each grandparent, given that they filed separate petitions and were not jointly represented by counsel, and thus in fact may be separated. Matter of Donna F.T., 2020 NY Slip Op 03469, First Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ON-POINT DECISIONS FROM THE THIRD DEPARTMENT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IS NOT SO BOUND; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $50,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

Initially, Supreme Court was “bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to apply precedent established in another Department,” as no relevant precedent was available from this Court or the Court of Appeals … . However, this Court is not so bound … . We agree with Supreme Court’s inclinations — although that court was constrained by stare decisis not to follow them — and disagree with the First Department’s holding in Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v Title (171 AD3d at 465 …). Therefore, for the reasons stated in our decision in Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C. (___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]), we reverse. Shoback v Broome Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03447, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

,

SUPPRESSION COURT’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS PRECLUDED DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, holding the appeal and remitting the matter, noted that the suppression court’s failure to provide the basis for its denial of defendant’s suppression motion precluded determination of the appeal:

The defendant’s appeal from the order must be dismissed, as no appeal lies, as of right or by permission, from an order denying a motion to suppress evidence (see CPL 450.10, 450.15 …). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review on the appeal from the judgment.

“Upon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant” (CPL 470.15[1]). The Court of Appeals “has construed CPL 470.15(1) as a legislative restriction on the Appellate Division’s power to review issues either decided in an appellant’s favor, or not ruled upon, by the trial court” … . “CPL 470.15(1) bars [the Appellate Division] from affirming a judgment, sentence or order on a ground not decided adversely to the appellant by the trial court'” … .

… [W]e must hold the appeal from the judgment in abeyance and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … to articulate the basis or bases for its denial of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statement to law enforcement officials. People v Rice, 2020 NY Slip Op 03402, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

,

WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE DEMANDS A WAIVER OF APPEAL, THE JUDGE SHOULD PLACE HIS OR HER REASONS ON THE RECORD SO THE DEMAND IS NOT SEEN AS A TOOL FOR AVOIDING APPELLATE REVIEW; THE JUDGE-DEMANDED WAIVER WAS NOT ENFORCED IN THIS CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Scheinkman, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was not enforceable for two reasons: (1) the waiver was demanded by the judge, not the People; and (2) the waiver was demanded after the guilty plea and the sentence promise (therefore defendant did not receive a material benefit from the waiver). The court noted that a waiver demanded by a judge could be seen a tool for avoiding appellate review. Therefore, the Second Department held the judge should put his or her reasons for demanding a waiver on the record. Turning to the merits, the Second Department affirmed the conviction:

We do not foreclose the possibility that there may be circumstances where the trial court has a legitimate interest in conditioning its acceptance of a plea and determination of a sentence upon an appeal waiver that the prosecution has not requested. While the prosecution need not articulate any reason for including a demand for an appeal waiver in its settlement offer, where it is the court that makes the demand, the court should articulate on the record its reasons for doing so in order to dispel any concern that the court’s demand is motivated solely as a means of avoiding appellate review of its decisions. Here, the Supreme Court did not set forth any reason for demanding an appeal waiver, and none is apparent on the record. Accordingly, we will not enforce the defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal. People v Sutton, 2020 NY Slip Op 03400, Second Dept 6-17-20

 

,

CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION VIOLATED THE PENAL LAW; ERROR DID NOT NEED TO BE PRESERVED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department noted that consecutive periods of postrelease supervision violated the Penal Law and the issue did not need to be preserved:

County Court erred in imposing consecutive periods of postrelease supervision in violation of Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) … . Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review, the lack of preservation “is of no moment, inasmuch as we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand” … . We therefore modify the judgment by directing that the periods of postrelease supervision imposed shall run concurrently. People v Hyde, 2020 NY Slip Op 03319, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND MENACING A POLICE OFFICER CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed two of defendant’s convictions as against the weight of the evidence.  Defendant was charged with reckless endangerment first degree and menacing a police officer. It was alleged defendant fired a weapon during a foot chase. The two officers heard a gunshot but no bullet or casing was found:

… [T]he jury would have had to resort to sheer speculation to find that defendant displayed or fired a weapon, much less that he fired a weapon intentionally. The officers’ testimony that they “heard” a gunshot from some distance away does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for purposes of the menacing charge, that defendant visually displayed the weapon that discharged the shot. Nor does such testimony prove beyond a reasonable doubt, for purposes of the reckless endangerment charge, that the shot was fired toward the officers and thereby created a grave risk of death to them. Indeed, the second officer’s testimony that he “believed” that defendant had shot at the officers is speculative and is contradicted by his contemporaneous statement that the gun might have discharged accidentally. People v Thomas, 2020 NY Slip Op 03318, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

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