You are here: / Appeals
, ,

FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE WILLFULLY VIOLATED A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, ALTHOUGH FATHER COMPLETED THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION, THE APPEAL IS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF A CIVIL CONTEMPT FINDING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father was entitled to a hearing on whether he willfully violated a child support order. The Fourth Department noted that. although father had completed the sentence of incarceration, the appeal was not moot because of the consequences which could flow from a finding of civil contempt:

We agree with the father … that the court erred when it determined that the father’s alleged violation of the child support order was willful because it did not afford the father with the opportunity to be heard and present witnesses (… see generally Family Ct Act §§ 433, 454 [1]). Although “[n]o specific form of a hearing is required, . . . at a minimum the hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that neither a colloquy between a respondent and [the] [c]ourt nor between a respondent’s counsel and the court is sufficient to constitute the required hearing” … .

Here, none of the parties’ appearances on the violation petition consisted “of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” … . At most, there was merely “a colloquy” between the father and Support Magistrate, which is insufficient to constitute the required hearing . Moreover, there is nothing in the record to establish …  petitioner mother provided admissible evidence with respect to the father’s alleged willful failure to pay child support, nor is there any admissible evidence submitted by the Support Collection Unit (see generally Family Ct Act § 439 [d] … ). Also, the father was never given the opportunity to present evidence rebutting the allegations in the petition. Matter of Green v Lafler, 2019 NY Slip Op 08306, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION BEFORE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD RULED ON WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating the negligence action, determined Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the Workers’ Compensation Board had not yet ruled whether plaintiff was injured when acting in the scope of his employment. The parties did not raise this issue:

Although not raised by the parties, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in entertaining defendant’s motion. “It is well settled that primary jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law has been vested in the Workers’ Compensation Board [(Board)] . . . [I]t is therefore inappropriate for the courts to express views with respect thereto pending determination by’ the Board” … . Whether plaintiff was injured within the scope of his employment “must in the first instance be determined by the [B]oard” … , and the court thus should not have entertained defendant’s motion at this juncture. Rather, the case should have been referred to the Board for a determination of plaintiffs’ eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits … . Warren v E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08300, Fourth Dept 11-15-19

 

,

A JUROR’S ATTEMPT TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH A JAILED COOPERATING PROSECUTION WITNESS DURING DELIBERATIONS EXHIBITED ACTUAL AND IMPLIED BIAS REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS IS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined that a juror who attempted to develop a relationship with a jailed cooperating prosecution witness during deliberations exhibited actual and implied bias, thereby depriving defendant of a fair trial. Although the juror and the witness were not able to speak to each other during deliberations, there was a missed call. After the trial the juror developed a serious relationship with the witness through letters and phone calls and expressed a desire to marry the witness. The First Department noted that a harmless error analysis was not appropriate:

Juror misconduct includes both “actual bias” and “implied bias.” Despite its name, “actual” bias merely requires proof of “a state of mind” that is “likely” to preclude a juror from rendering an impartial verdict … . Under CPL 270.20(1)(b), “[a]ctual bias. . . is not limited . . . to situations where a prospective juror has formed an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt” … . It may be demonstrated where a prospective juror’s conduct indicates her inability to follow the court’s instructions.

“Implied bias” exists where a juror “bears some … relationship to any such person [defendant, witness, prosecution] of such nature that it is likely to preclude [the juror] from rendering an impartial verdict” (CPL 270.20[1][c] … ). “[T]he frequency of contact and nature of the parties’ relationship are to be considered in determining whether disqualification is necessary” … .

Implied bias “requires automatic exclusion from jury service regardless of whether the prospective juror declares that the relationship will not affect [his or] her ability to be fair and impartial” … .

Here, there was both actual and implied bias. The misconduct by Juror No. 6 was willful and blatant – the juror was admittedly attracted to the witness, a cooperating witness testifying on behalf of the People, and sought to develop a relationship with him while jury deliberations were still underway – even though she knew this was not permitted. The juror knew during deliberations that the witness had tried to call her back, suggesting that the interest was mutual, and the juror is now in a very serious relationship with the witness and seeks to marry him. Although the juror denied that her feelings about the witness affected her thinking about defendant, she was at least arguably more likely to credit his testimony and could subconsciously have sought to aide the side with which the witness was aligned … . People v McGregor, 2019 NY Slip Op 08283, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

THE 2ND DEPARTMENT IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON A LAW FIRM FOR FAILING TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE APPELLATE COURT THAT A MATTER WITH A PENDING APPEAL HAD BEEN SETTLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department imposed a $250 sanction on a law firm which failed to timely notify the appellate court that a matter in a pending appeal had been settled:

Precisely in order to alert counsel that their obligation to give immediate notification of a settlement may not be postponed or delayed, this Court adopted its own local rule of practice which states that, for purposes of 22 NYCRR 1250.2(c), settlement includes “any oral or written agreement or understanding which may, once memorialized, render a determination of the cause unnecessary” (22 NYCRR 670.2[b]). This local rule took effect March 4, 2019, and is thus applicable to the case at hand.

In this case, members of this Court were caused to devote hours of preparation and deliberation on an appeal which, unbeknown to them, had been settled nearly one month earlier. Had this Court been timely advised of the settlement in this case, it could have avoided wasting judicial resources on a settled case and could have redirected those resources to one of the many actual controversies that fill its docket. Since the Fixler firm had an independent obligation to give this Court notice of the settlement and assured the Sim Firm that, as between the attorneys, the Fixler firm would assume responsibility for notification, the imposition of sanctions upon the Fixler firm in the sum of $250 is warranted. Guo-Bang Chen v Caesar & Napoli, P.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 08166, Second De[t 11-13-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined that the plea was not voluntary because defendant was not informed that the sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision. At the time of the plea, defendant was told the 1 – 3 1/2 year sentence promise was conditioned upon no additional arrests. Defendant was arrested twice before sentencing. The court imposed an enhanced sentence which included a period of postrelease supervision which was not mentioned at the time of the plea. The error was appealable despite the lack of preservation:

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review his current claim that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered based on the County Court’s failure to mention the postrelease supervision component of his sentence at the plea proceeding, since he had no knowledge of, or opportunity to challenge, that portion of his sentence prior to its imposition … . …

… [T]he record reflects that the defendant was not made aware at the time he entered his plea that the terms of his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision … , nor did he have a sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw his plea on that basis before the court imposed sentence … . Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the plea of guilty vacated … . People v Walton, 2019 NY Slip Op 08230, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, ,

BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED OFFENSE FIRST DEGREE IS NOT A REGISTERABLE OFFENSE UNDER SORA; A SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION IS APPEALABLE WHEN THE ERROR IS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined that burglary as a sexually motivated felony first degree (Penal Law 140.30[2]) is not a registerable offense under SORA, the result of an apparently unintended omission from the Correction Law. Defendant had attempted to rape the victim after breaking into her house. The court noted that a sex offender classification is appealable even when the alleged error is not preserved:

… [W]hen looking first at the statutory text of Correction Law § 168-a(2)(a), we find that the language employed is clear and unambiguous. As written, subparagraph (iii) of section 168-a(2)(a) specifically defines a sex offense as “a conviction of or a conviction for an attempt to commit any provisions of the foregoing sections committed or attempted . . . as a sexually motivated felony defined in section 130.91 of such law.” Thus, as the defendant contends, according to the language of the statute as amended, burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registerable sex offense under SORA. While this may not have been the intent of the Legislature, the omission of a critical grammatical signpost or a parenthetical number preceding “as a sexually motivated felony” clearly limits the qualifying sexually motivated felony offenses only to those enumerated in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) … . “The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is applied in the construction of the statutes, so that where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply,  an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded” … . People v Buyund, 2019 NY Slip Op 08207, Second Dept 11-13-19

 

, , , ,

A PARTY NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO BE ENTITLED TO A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER NEGLIGENT, BUT FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, overruling precedent and disagreeing with the 3rd and 4th Departments, determined (1) a party need not make a motion to set aside the verdict to be entitled to an “against the weight of the evidence” review by the appellate court, and (2) the verdict finding defendant bus driver negligent but also finding the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s slip and fall was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff stepped into a pothole when getting off the bus which had stopped to let her off after she had missed her stop:

A … source of this Court’s authority to review the weight of the evidence absent a motion to set aside the verdict comes from CPLR 4404(a), the provision authorizing postverdict motions for a new trial. CPLR 4404(a) provides, in pertinent part: “After a trial of a cause of action or issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may . . . order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence” … . Insofar as the trial court is permitted to order a new trial “on its own initiative” (CPLR 4404[a]), and “the power of the Appellate Division . . . is as broad as that of the trial court” … , this Court also possesses the power to order a new trial where the appellant made no motion for that relief in the trial court. …

… [I]t was logically impossible for the jury to conclude that [the bus driver] was negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe location to alight from the bus but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. It was uncontradicted that the plaintiff stepped directly from the bus into the pothole, and immediately fell to the ground. The unbroken chain of events was witnessed by … a neutral witness with no relationship or prior affiliation with the parties, and corroborated by photographs of the scene taken immediately after the accident occurred. Assuming, as the jury found, that [the driver]  was negligent, it is logically impossible under the circumstances to find that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Under these circumstances, the issues of reasonable care and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven that the jury’s verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Evans v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 07872, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THE JUDGE TOLD HIM NOT TO DISCUSS HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING A TWO-DAY ADJOURNMENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL-SUFFICIENCY AND RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions on several counts in the interest of justice because the evidence was legally insufficient, noted that a new trial was required on the remaining counts because defendant was deprived of his right to counsel. The trial judge told the defendant he could not discuss his trial testimony with his counsel during a two-day adjournment:

With regard to the third and seventeenth through twenty-third counts of the indictment, the defendant’s convictions must be reversed because he was deprived of the right to counsel when the County Court instructed him not to discuss his trial testimony with his attorney during a two-day adjournment … . Although the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Peloso, 2019 NY Slip Op 07614, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; HERE, BECAUSE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the court was wrong when it informed defendant he retained the right to appeal the ruling on the speedy trial motion (CPL 30.30) after his guilty plea. Therefore defendant was entitled to the opportunity to withdraw his plea in this attempted murder case:

A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty “forfeit[s] his [or her] right to claim that he [or she] was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30” … . However, where a defendant’s plea is predicated upon a false assurance that, notwithstanding the plea, the defendant can nonetheless contest the denial of a CPL 30.30 motion, the defendant is entitled, if he or she wishes, to withdraw the plea of guilty … .

Here, it is clear from the record that the defendant pleaded guilty in reliance upon a promise from the Supreme Court that, upon his plea of guilty, he would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment. However, that promise cannot be fulfilled … . Therefore, as the People concede, the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty … .  People v Hernandez, 2019 NY Slip Op 07605, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

THE APPEAL OF AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE DID NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THREE JUDGES DISSENTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, and another dissent, determined that the modification by the Appellate Division could not be appealed:

“[A]n Appellate Division reversal [or modification] based on an unpreserved error is considered an exercise of the Appellate Division’s interest of justice power” … . Moreover, the Appellate Division’s characterization of its own holding (i.e., “on the law” or “on the facts”) is not binding; in determining jurisdiction, we look behind that characterization to discern the basis of the ruling … . …

Here, it is undisputed that, in vacating the first-degree robbery count (without disturbing the second-degree robbery convictions …), the Appellate Division relied upon an unpreserved argument concerning the proper interpretation of and minimum proof required to establish the weapon display element of the first-degree offense … . As we have repeatedly recognized, for jurisdictional purposes an unpreserved issue of this nature does not present a question of law. Thus, the Appellate Division determination — the basis of the order of modification — was not “on the law alone” but was necessarily made as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Allende, 2019 NY Slip Op 07523, Ct App 10-22-19

 

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