, ,

FATHER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE COURT TOOK SIX MONTHS TO HOLD A POST-DISPOSITIONAL HEARING AFTER A FAILED TRIAL DISCHARGE OF THE CHILDREN TO FATHER; THE CHILDREN WERE FINALLY RETURNED TO FATHER AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, determined that father was entitled to an expedited post-dispositional hearing after the children were removed from the father’s custody based upon a failed trial discharge. The children were eventually returned to father, but the hearing took six months and the children were not returned to father until eight months after the decision was issued. The First Department ruled on the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine, finding that this situation was likely to recur. The court held that father was entitled to an “expedited hearing” after the children were removed under due process principles:

We find that a parent’s private interest in having custody of his or her children, the children’s private interest in residing with their parent, and the undisputed harm to these interests are factors that merit equal consideration. On this record, ACS [Administration for Children’s Services]  fails to establish that the lengthy delay was related to its interest in protecting the children. Rather, the hearing was prolonged over six months because of the court’s and attorneys’ scheduling conflicts. There is no indication that the completion of the hearing was caused by difficult legal issues, or by the need to obtain elusive evidence, or by some other factor related to an accurate assessment of the best interest of the children … .

Even though this is a post-dispositional matter, the father is entitled to the strict due process safeguards afforded in neglect proceedings. “The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State” … . This rationale equally applies to the primacy of a parent’s fundamental liberty interest, and the importance of procedural due process in protecting that interest, particularly when a parent and child are physically separated … . Accordingly, we find that a parent is entitled to a prompt hearing on the agency’s determination to remove the children from his or her physical custody through a failed trial discharge. Matter of F.W. (Monroe W.), 2020 NY Slip Op 02385, First Dept 4-23-20

 

, , , ,

THE APPEAL WAS RENDERED MOOT BY DEFENDANT’S TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER SUPREME COURT RULED DEFENDANT HAD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department dismissed the appeal as moot. Property which had been validly foreclosed by defendant was transferred to a third party. Plaintiff had brought an action pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) Article 15 to determine its rights to a portion of the foreclosed property. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for strict foreclosure (RPAPL 1352) and plaintiff appealed. The appeal was deemed moot and dismissed because defendant had a right to transfer the property after Supreme Court’s ruling:

[T]he jurisdiction of this Court extends only to live controversies and, as such, an appeal will be considered moot unless an adjudication of the merits will result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties” … . “Since the ability to transfer clear title is a natural incident of [property] ownership, it follows that when a complaint involving title to or the right to possess and enjoy real property has been dismissed on the merits and there is no outstanding notice of pendency or stay, the property owner has a right to transfer or otherwise dispose of the property unrestricted by the dismissed claim” … . “‘[A] purchaser’s actual knowledge of litigation and a pending appeal is not legally significant and[,] absent a validly recorded notice of pendency, an owner has the ability to transfer clear title'” … .

Here, Supreme Court canceled plaintiff’s notice of pendency and this Court denied his motion for a stay pending appeal. Therefore, defendants had the right to transfer the property when they did, and the purchaser obtained clear title despite its knowledge of the pending appeals. Govel v Trustco Bank, 2020 NY Slip Op 02306, Third Dept 4-16-20

 

, , , , ,

BECAUSE MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED MOTHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT; FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ADMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY MOTHER’S ATTORNEY DEPRIVED MOTHER OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother was not in default because her attorney appeared and the court’s refusing to admit documentary evidence offered by mother’s attorney deprived mother of her right to due process of law:

The mother failed to appear … when continued fact-finding on the permanent neglect petition was scheduled, and an adjournment was granted. When the mother failed to appear on the next hearing date, … the mother’s counsel stated that she would be participating in the proceeding on the mother’s behalf and sought to admit into evidence certain documents. … [T]he mother was, therefore, not in default with respect to the fact-finding hearing … .

The Family Court’s refusal to permit the mother’s counsel to admit into evidence the documentary evidence on behalf of the mother based upon the mother’s failure to appear … , violated the mother’s right to due process. ” A parent has a right to be heard on matters concerning her [or his] child and the parent’s rights are not to be disregarded absent a convincing showing of waiver'” … . Matter of Amira W.H. (Tamara T.H.), 2020 NY Slip Op 02264, Second Dept 4-9-20

 

, ,

ON APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD DID NOT FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION TO CONSULT WITH THE CHILDREN TO DETERMINE THEIR WISHES OR TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN WHY CONSULTATION WAS NOT POSSIBLE; HE WAS RELIEVED OF HIS ASSIGNMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, relieving the attorney for the child (AFC) of responsibility for the appeal, determined the AFC did not fulfill his responsibilities under the Rules of the Chief Judge (22 NYCRR 7.2):

The Rules of the Chief Judge require that an AFC in a custody or visitation proceeding “must zealously advocate the child’s position” (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d]; see 22 NYCRR 7.2 [c]), and further provide that, “[i]f the child is capable of knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, the [AFC] should be directed by the wishes of the child, even if the [AFC] believes that what the child wants is not in the child’s best interests” … . The Rules establish only two circumstances in which an AFC may adopt a position that does not reflect the child’s wishes — specifically, when he or she “is convinced either that the child lacks the capacity for knowing, voluntary and considered judgment, or that following the child’s wishes is likely to result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child” … . …

The AFC here wholly failed to fulfill the obligations imposed by these provisions upon this appeal. The only stated basis for his determination to advocate for the children’s best interests rather than for their wishes was their ages. However, it was the AFC’s obligation to “consult with and advise the child[ren] to the extent of and in a manner consistent with [their] capacities” … . At 10, the older child was certainly old enough to be capable of expressing her wishes, and whether the younger child, at 6, had the capacity to do so was not solely dependent upon her calendar age, but also upon such individual considerations as her level of maturity and verbal abilities … . … Here, the AFC’s brief is devoid of any indication of the children’s wishes, with no reference to 22 NYCRR 7.2 or to the analysis that this rule requires an AFC to undertake before advocating for a position that does not express the child’s wishes … . …

Additionally, although the record reveals that the AFC met with the children during the Family Court proceeding, it does not appear that he met or spoke with them again during the appeal … . Matter of Jennifer VV. v Lawrence WW., 2020 NY Slip Op 02136, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION MONTHS BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY, HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR PRECLUDED APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a three-judge concurrence, determined defendant’s argument that the trial judge failed to inform him of the deportation consequences of his plea to a felony was subject to the preservation requirement. The defendant’s failure to preserve the error precluded appeal:

“[D]ue process compels a trial court to apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony” … . However, before we may consider whether a trial court fulfilled that obligation, we must determine whether a defendant preserved the claim as a matter of law for our review or whether an exception to the preservation doctrine applies … . Here, service on defendant, in open court and months before the plea proceedings, of a “Notice of Immigration Consequences” form provided him with a reasonable opportunity to object to the plea court’s failure to advise him of the potential deportation consequences of his plea, making the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine unavailable to him … . * * *

“Generally, in order to preserve a claim that a guilty plea is invalid, a defendant must move to withdraw the plea on the same grounds subsequently alleged on appeal or else file a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10” (Peque, 22 NY3d at 182). While reiterating this rule in Peque, we also acknowledged that “where a defendant has no practical ability to object to an error in a plea allocution which is clear from the face of the record, preservation is not required” (id.). This exception to the preservation requirement, however, remains narrow … . * * *

The very first sentence of the Notice explicitly told defendant that “a plea of guilty to any offense” could “subject[] [him] to a risk that adverse consequences w[ould] be imposed on [him] by the United States immigration authorities, including, but not limited to, removal from the United States . . . .” It further noted that, among other things, a conviction for “burglary . . . or any other theft-related offense . . . for which a sentence of one year or more is imposed” would be deportable.

Those unambiguous statements provided defendant with sufficient notice of possible immigration consequences, including deportation, of his conviction, giving him “a reasonable opportunity” to express concerns to the court — during either his plea or at sentencing — regarding those consequences … . People v Delorbe, 2020 NY Slip Op 02126, CtApp 3-31-20

 

, ,

CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION ARISING FROM A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined the conviction for criminally negligence homicide was against the weight of the evidence. The passenger in defendant’s car was killed when defendant’s car went off the road, apparently after colliding with other cars defendant was attempting to pass. The decision described all of the witness’s testimony in detail and concluded the conflicting testimony was not a sufficient basis for a conviction:

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10). A person acts with criminal negligence when “he [or she] fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such [a] circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]).

The defendant’s conduct must rise to a level of carelessness where its “seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community’s . . . sense of right and wrong” … . Moreover, the conduct must create the risk, rather than simply not perceive the risk … .

In cases concerning charges of criminally negligent homicide arising out of automobile accidents involving excess rates of speed, “it takes some additional affirmative act by the defendant to transform speeding into dangerous speeding” … .

Here, the People failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant “fail[ed] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk” (Penal Law § 15.05[4]) which caused the death of his passenger. People v Derival, 2020 NY Slip Op 02072, Second Dept 3-25-20

 

, , ,

BECAUSE FATHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING FATHER WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE APPEALABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined father was not in default because his attorney appeared. Therefore the custody order was appealable:

Petitioner father commenced this proceeding seeking to modify a prior order of custody that, inter alia, awarded sole legal and physical custody of the subject child to respondent mother. The father now appeals from an order that, inter alia, continued sole legal and physical custody of the subject child with the mother.

We agree with the father that Family Court erred in entering the order upon his default based on his failure to appear in court. The record establishes that the father “was represented by counsel, and we have previously determined that, [w]here a party fails to appear [in court on a scheduled date] but is represented by counsel, the order is not one entered upon the default of the aggrieved party and appeal is not precluded” … . Matter of Williams v Richardson, 2020 NY Slip Op 01975, Fourth Dept 3-20-20

 

,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE; PRESERVATION OF THE ERROR NOT NECESSARY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant should have been informed his sentence would include a period of post release supervision (PRS). Because defendant was not put on notice, there was not need to preserve the issue for appeal:

At the plea proceeding, the court advised defendant that under the plea agreement, he would plead guilty to third-degree possession, a class B felony, and fifth-degree possession, a class D felony, with the understanding that if he complied with the terms of the plea agreement, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea to the B felony, and be sentenced, solely on the D felony, to 3½ years in prison, followed by two years of postrelease supervision. The court stated that if defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement, he could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison on the B felony, but it neglected to state that any enhanced sentence would include a period of PRS. Defendant violated the plea agreement by, among other things, failing to appear for sentencing, and the court imposed an enhanced sentence that included two years of post release supervision concurrent on the B and D felonies.

The court was required to advise defendant that his potential sentence in the event he violated the plea conditions would include PRS, and it was also required to specify the length of the term of PRS … . The prosecutor’s brief reference to PRS immediately before sentencing was not the type of notice under People v Murray (15 NY3d 725 [2010]) that would require defendant to preserve the issue … . People v Jamison, 2020 NY Slip Op 01955, First Dept 3-19-20

 

, ,

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; BECAUSE THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CONVICTION WAS NOT CHALLENGED IT MUST BE REVERSED NOT REDUCED BY THE APPELLATE COURT; GRAND LARCENY AND POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY CONVICTIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; INADEQUATE PROOF OF VALUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the reckless endangerment, grand larceny, possession of stolen property, and arson third degree convictions, and affirmed the murder, assault and arson second degree convictions. With respect to reckless endangerment first degree, the conviction was against the weight of the evidence and the appellate court could not reduce the conviction to a lesser included because defendant did not argue the evidence was legally insufficient. So the reckless endangerment conviction was reversed. The grand larceny/possession of stolen property convictions were not supported by adequate proof that the value of the stolen vehicle was more than $100. Arson third degree was dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of arson in the second degree:

We agree with defendant … that the verdict finding him guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree is against the weight of the evidence. “A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he [or she] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person” … . Count five of the indictment alleged that defendant recklessly engaged in conduct creating a grave risk of death to emergency responders when he intentionally started the fire. We agree with defendant that the verdict on that count is against the weight of the evidence because the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life when he set the fire … . Inasmuch as defendant is challenging only the weight of the evidence with respect to that count and does not challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to that count, we cannot reduce the conviction to the lesser included offense of reckless endangerment in the second degree … . * * *

We further agree with defendant that the verdict finding him guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree is against the weight of the evidence. With respect to each of those counts, the People were required to establish that the value of the stolen motor vehicle exceeded $100 … . It is well settled that a witness “must provide a basis of knowledge for his [or her] statement of value before it can be accepted as legally sufficient evidence of such value” … . “Conclusory statements and rough estimates of value are not sufficient” … . Although the monetary element of each crime is quite low, the People did not attempt to meet that threshold through the testimony of any witness. The testimony of a detective that the vehicle was “[d]efinitely worth over probably 10,000” did not satisfy the monetary element of either crime inasmuch as he provided no basis of knowledge for his statement of value. We therefore further modify the judgment by reversing those parts convicting defendant of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and dismissing counts eight and nine of the indictment. People v Box, 2020 NY Slip Op 01813, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ASSAULT JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT TRACK THE INDICTMENT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT TO IT AND THE APPELLATE COURT MUST ASSESS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTION; ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JURY INSTRUCTION, THE ASSAULT COUNTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; THE CRIMINAL USE OF A FIREARM JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT TRACK THE INDICTMENT, VIOLATING DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO BE TRIED ONLY ON THE CRIMES CHARGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, reversed the assault convictions, while affirming the murder conviction. The codefendant, intending to kill the decedent, also shot the two assault victims. Defendant was charged with murder and assault as an accomplice. Although the indictment charged assault under a transferred intent theory, the jury was instructed to find the defendant guilty of assault only if he intended injure the assault victims. Because, on appeal, the sufficiency of the evidence must be measured by the what the jury was instructed to consider, and because there was no evidence the defendant intended to injure the assault victims (as opposed to the decedent), the assault convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Although the defendant did not preserve the error by objecting to another inaccurate jury instruction which did not track the indictment, the criminal use of a firearm count was also dismissed because defendant’s right to the tried only on the crimes charged was violated:

“The doctrine of transferred intent’ serves to ensure that a person will be prosecuted for the crime he or she intended to commit even when, because of bad aim or some other lucky mistake,’ the intended target was not the actual victim” … . Although that theory may be applied to assault charges … , County Court’s jury instruction in this case mandated that the jury could convict defendant of the counts of assault in the first degree only if they found that he acted “with the intent to cause serious physical injury to” each assault victim, rather than instructing the jury that they could convict defendant of those crimes if they concluded that he intended to cause such injury to the deceased victim but the codefendant actually caused injury to the assault victims. The prosecution did not object to that charge, and it is well settled that, when reviewing a “jury’s guilty verdict, our review is limited to whether there was legally sufficient evidence . . . based on the court’s charge as given without exception” … . Inasmuch as there is insufficient evidence that defendant knew that either of the assault victims was present or that he intended any harm to either of them … , we conclude that the evidence is not legally sufficient with respect to the assault counts as charged to the jury. * * *

Although the court’s jury instructions did not specify assault in the first degree as the underlying crime for the criminal use of a firearm in the first degree count, and defendant did not object to the court’s instructions and thus did not preserve this issue for our review, we conclude that “preservation is not required” … , inasmuch as “defendant has a fundamental and nonwaivable right to be tried only on the crimes charged” in the indictment … . Therefore, based on the indictment, defendant could only be convicted of that charge if he committed assault in the first degree … . Thus, we conclude that, because “the conviction[s] of assault in the first degree cannot stand, the conviction of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, which requires commission of [the] class B violent felony offense[ of assault in the first degree] while possessing a deadly weapon, also cannot stand” … . People v Spencer, 2020 NY Slip Op 01823, Fourth Dept 3-13-20