You are here: / Appeals
,

PARTY AND ITS ATTORNEYS ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO INFORM THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF ACTIONS ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department imposed sanctions on a party and its attorneys for failure to inform the appellate court of the settlement of matters on appeal:

… Gross Polowy, LLC, trial counsel for the respondent, is directed to pay a sanction in the [*2]sum of $1,000 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York … . …

… Day Pitney, LLP, appellate counsel for the respondent, is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $250 to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York … . …

… Bank of New York Mellon is directed to pay a sanction in the sum of $500, and shall deposit the sum of $500 with the Clerk of this Court for transmittal to the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 06228, Second Dept 8-13-19

 

, , ,

THERE WERE NO GROUNDS TO DISTURB THE FACTUAL FINDINGS MADE BY THE JUDGE IN THIS BENCH TRIAL OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION, TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE FINDINGS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the evidence at the bench trial in this foreclosure proceeding supported the judge’s conclusion that plaintiff bank was not the cause of defendant’s inability to obtain financing to payoff the mortgage pursuant to a settlement agreement. The dissenters argued the trial judge’s findings were against the weight of the evidence, primarily because the judge found defendant’s testimony to be “honest and accurate.” The key issue in the appeal was whether there were sufficient grounds to disturb the  judge’s factual findings:

… [W]e perceive no basis on which to disturb the trial court’s determination. As articulated by the Court of Appeals, the standard of review on an appeal from a decision based on findings of fact, resting in large measure on determinations of the credibility of witnesses, made by the court after a bench trial, is as follows:

“[T]he decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992] …).

Supreme Court’s rejection of defendant’s claim — a claim based on testimony not only lacking support in the contemporaneous documentary evidence, but inconsistent with that evidence — more than passes muster under this highly deferential standard. Security Pac. Natl. Bank v Evans, 2019 NY Slip Op 06138, First Dept 8-13-19

 

, , , , ,

NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILD HOUSED FOR MORE THAN FIVE WEEKS IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM BECAUSE NO APPROPRIATE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY WAS AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, considering the appeal under an exception to the mootness doctrine, determined a 16-year-old developmentally disabled child (Olivia) did not have a private right of action against Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital (CVPH), the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) or the Department of Health (DOH) for housing her in the CVPH emergency room when no appropriate residential facility was available. The opinion is too comprehensive and covers too many substantive issues to be fairly summarized here:

In 2018, Olivia CC. (hereinafter the child), a minor with complex developmental disabilities, was stranded in the emergency room of respondent Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital (hereinafter CVPH) for more than five weeks while she waited for a residential school placement. The child was not in need of medical or psychiatric care. However, neither her family nor the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (hereinafter OPWDD) — the agency legislatively charged with protecting the welfare of persons with developmental disabilities — could provide her with safe interim housing. CVPH thus retained the child in the emergency room, where she could not attend school, participate in community activities or go outdoors, and CVPH was forced to use scarce medical resources to provide for her nonmedical needs. Unfortunately, the child is not the first minor with special needs to be marooned for weeks or months in an emergency room, as hospitals find themselves serving as the last resort for providing shelter to children in crisis … . The difficult legal issues presented here call into question the extent of the responsibilities of the legislative and administrative functions of government to some of our society’s most vulnerable members, and the limitations on the power of courts to protect them. * * *

Our conclusion that the amended petition/complaint provides this Court with no grounds to intervene in respondents’ operations should not be misunderstood as condonation of the child’s prolonged and unnecessary hospitalization or of respondents’ failure to provide her with appropriate assistance. Nevertheless, this record does not permit a determination of the propriety of constitutional or equitable relief, and relief grounded in the statutory provisions relied upon here must come from the Legislature or from respondents’ policy choices. Thus, we will not disturb Supreme Court’s judgment. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Delaney, 2019 NY Slip Op 06119, Third Dept 8-8-19

 

, ,

DEFINITION OF ‘PARENT’ IS THE SAME FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AND CUSTODY; JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINES PRECLUDED SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THAT FATHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THE CUSTODY MATTER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the doctrines of judicial estoppel and collateral estoppel precluded Family Court from finding father did not have standing to seek custody of a child. Father had previously been deemed a “parent” in the context of parental access. The definition of “parent” is the same in the context of custody:

In the prior appeal, this Court expressly stated that the father had standing to proceed as Isabella’s parent under Domestic Relations Law § 70 based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . As the term “parent” has the same definition under Domestic Relations Law § 70 whether the party is seeking custody or parental access … , it is immaterial that our prior determination did not specifically mention custody when it concluded that the father had standing to seek parental access with Isabella. Since the mother is judicially estopped from arguing that the father is not Isabella’s parent under Domestic Relations Law § 70, the father was free to seek custody under Domestic Relations Law § 70 as Isabella’s “parent with coequal rights” to the mother … . Matter of Paese v Paese, 2019 NY Slip Op 06090, Second Dept 8-7-19

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO WEAR A STUN BELT WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, THE RELEVANT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS UNTIL EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE TRIAL; THE LOSS OF TRIAL EXHIBITS DEMONSTRATING WHETHER THE PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES WERE EXHAUSTED IS HELD AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO SEEK A TIMELY RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT)

The Fourth Department affirmed defendant’s murder conviction and the denial of his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction in a decision addressing several substantive issues not summarized here. The trial court’s failure to put on the record the reasons for requiring defendant to wear a stun belt during trial was not a mode of proceedings error and the failure to object was not ineffective assistance because the relevant procedural requirements were not announced by the Court of Appeals until eight years after defendant’s trial. The apparent loss of exhibits which would demonstrate whether defendant exhausted the peremptory juror challenges was held against the defendant because of the passage of time and the failure to seek a timely reconstruction hearing:

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant was forced to wear a stun belt, we need not reverse the court’s order denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion because defendant failed to object to the use of a stun belt, and the improper use of a stun belt is not a mode of proceedings error … . Thus, the failure to object to the stun belt’s use means that “reversal would not have been required” on a direct appeal … . As a result, even on the merits, there is no basis upon which to vacate the judgment of conviction … . Defendant further contends that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the use of a stun belt. We disagree. The seminal case requiring that a court place findings of fact on the record before requiring a defendant to wear a stun belt is … , which was decided eight years after the judgment in this case. Although the Court’s decision in Buchanan “did not announce “new” rules of law’ “… , we nevertheless conclude that trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to anticipate the procedural requirements established by the Court’s decision in Buchanan … . * * *

… [D]efendant has provided no explanation for the 14-year delay between the judgment and direct appeal, and “there was nothing to prevent [defendant] from pursuing his appeal” … . Moreover, defendant “has not shown that, if he had acted diligently, an adequate reconstruction of those proceedings could not have been achieved” … . Had defendant, through his former, privately retained appellate counsel, perfected his appeal in a timely manner, it is possible that the slips of paper might still have been with the file, and it is highly probable that the relevant parties would have been able to recall whether defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges. Where, as here, the lengthy delay is attributable to a defendant’s action or inaction, the weight of appellate authority holds that the absence of the relevant transcripts or exhibits should be held against the defendant and the judgment affirmed … . People v Osman, 2019 NY Slip Op 05903, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed defendant’s manslaughter conviction as against the weight of the evidence. The defendant had been alone with the victim, his girlfriend’s 13-month-old son, for a short time on the day the baby vomited and was gasping for breath (May 2). The baby died hours later at the hospital. Blunt force head trauma was deemed the cause of death. The defendant was not arrested until four years later after mother had unsuccessfully attempted to have the defendant admit to harming the child in recorded phone conversations. The medical examiner testified on direct that the baby was injured on May 2. But on cross the medical examiner acknowledged the baby could have been injured on May 1, when defendant had no contact with the baby. Other people had access to the baby on May 1, but they were not interviewed because the medical examiner had told the investigators the injuries occurred on May 2:

The only evidence adduced at trial that was not within the knowledge of the police in 2010, when they decided not to arrest defendant, was the testimony of a woman who dated him from 2008 to 2013, with a one-year break in 2010 when he dated [the baby’s mother]. The witness testified that, in the years following the victim’s death, defendant would sometimes talk about the victim and become emotional but would say that he was not guilty and “didn’t do it.” When questioned by the prosecutor about a written statement she had given to the police, the witness testified that defendant “admitted to doing something to the baby but he never said what or why.” On cross-examination, the witness testified that defendant, whom she had not dated for years, never admitted that he harmed the victim. All in all, the witness’ testimony was of only marginal probative value.

Given the equivocal medical evidence with respect to the time frame within which the fatal injuries could have been inflicted, the weakness of the circumstantial evidence, and the lack of direct evidence that defendant caused the victim’s injuries, we conclude that the People failed to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Gonzalez, 2019 NY Slip Op 05947, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED A RAZOR BLADE PARTIALLY WRAPPED IN TAPE WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER, THE CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People did not prove that defendant possessed a razor blade partially wrapped in tape with the intent to use it unlawfully against another:

Penal Law § 265.15(4) provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he possession by any person of any . . . weapon, instrument, appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another.”

“The presumption of unlawful intent under Penal Law § 265.15(4), like all statutory presumptions in New York, is a permissive presumption, meaning that [it] allows, but does not require, the trier of fact to accept the presumed fact, and does not shift to the defendant the burden of proof'” … . “Before the presumption may apply, the People must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the predicate fact or facts the statute requires be proved'” … . “If the People succeed in this endeavor, they are entitled to rely on the presumption, which form[s] part of the support for [their] prima facie case’ against the defendant” … . “The presumption may be rebutted by any evidence in the case; that is, evidence presented by the defendant or the People” … “Evidence rebutting the presumption will not negate the existence of a prima facie case; rather it presents an alternate set of facts, or inferences from facts, to the jury. The jury then has the right to choose between the two versions'” … . …

… [T]he People failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the razor blade recovered from the defendant was “designed, made or adapted for use primarily as a weapon” … . There was no testimony by the detectives indicating that they knew based on their experience that the primary use of this type of instrument, by virtue of being wrapped in black tape, was as a weapon, or that they attempted to ascertain from the defendant the manner in which he utilized the blade … . Furthermore, there was no evidence from which it could be inferred that the defendant considered the instrument to be a weapon … . People v Rodgers, 2019 NY Slip Op 06002, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, , , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THE ATTORNEY HAD ATTEMPTED TO REMEDY THE FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS IN AN ESTATE MATTER AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN; ABSENCE OF AN EXPERT’S REPORT FROM THE RECORD ON APPEAL PRECLUDED A RULING ON THE RELATED ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations in this legal malpractice action. The attorney had attempted to remedy the failure to file objections in an estate matter after the statute had run. The Fourth Department noted that plaintiff’s expert’s report was missing from the record on appeal and therefore plaintiff was unable to argue on appeal that he had raised a related question of fact (concerning damages) before Supreme Court. Defendant had argued the damages were speculative (requiring dismissal) and Supreme Court did not rule on the issue (because the case was dismissed as untimely). The matter was remitted for a ruling on the damages issue:

We are unable to review plaintiff’s contention that he raised a triable issue of fact with respect to … damages by submitting an expert report inasmuch as plaintiff failed to include that document in the record on appeal. Thus plaintiff, as the party raising this issue on his appeal, “submitted this appeal on an incomplete record and must suffer the consequences” … . …

Defendant met his burden … by establishing that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214 [6]), that the estate cause of action accrued on November 1, 2010, the last date on which to file objections to the accounting …, and that the estate cause of action was therefore untimely when this malpractice action was commenced on November 15, 2013. “The burden then shifted to plaintiff[] to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine” … .

We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to do so. It is well settled that, in order for the continuous representation doctrine to apply, “there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependant relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … . Here, plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant made several unsuccessful attempts to file the objections within the weeks after the deadline and that he made preparations to appear at a scheduled conference on the objections on November 23, 2010. Those efforts could be viewed as “attempt[s] by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … , and thus plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous representation doctrine. Leeder v Antonucci, 2019 NY Slip Op 05898, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant M & M was not a property owner in the context of Labor Law 240 (1) or 241 (6) and therefore was entitled to summary judgment. The Fourth Department noted that an issue on which Supreme Court reserved decision is not appealable:

For purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) liability, “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a [party] who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for [its] benefit’ ” … . ” [The owner] is the party who, as a practical matter, has the right to hire or fire subcontractors and to insist that proper safety practices are followed’ ” … . “The key factor in determining whether a non-titleholder is an owner’ is the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed and it is the right to control the work that is significant, not the actual exercise or nonexercise of control’ ” … .

Here, M and M met its initial burden of establishing that it was not an owner for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) because its submissions established that “it was an out-of-possession lessee of the property [that] neither contracted for nor supervised the work that brought about the injury, and had no authority to exercise any control over the specific work area that gave rise to plaintiff’s injuries’ ” … . Thompson v M & M Forwarding of Buffalo, N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05875, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

,

THE VICTIM IN THIS KIDNAPPING CASE ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE COULD GO WITH HIM TO FLORIDA; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT THE INTENT TO VIOLATE OR ABUSE THE VICTIM MUST HAVE EXISTED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS, A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED ON THAT GROUND; BOTH THE CONCURRENCE AND THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE HAD BEEN NO RESTRAINT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence and a dissent, determined the jury instruction on the intent element of kidnapping was wrong requiring reversal. Defendant, who was over 21, drove to Florida with the victim, who was 14, and had sex with her during the trip. The victim asked defendant if she could come with him and snuck out of the house without her mother’s knowledge. The concurrence argued the restraint element of kidnapping was not proven, but agreed with the majority because that element had been conceded by the defense. The dissent would have reversed and dismissed the indictment, finding the conviction was against the weight of the evidence:

… [T]he weight of the evidence supports a determination that defendant did not innocently acquiesce to the mere request of a 14-year-old acquaintance to drive her to Florida, but rather took advantage of a 14-year-old child’s age and inexperience, by driving the victim across multiple state lines, away from her family, in order to engage in an unlawful sexual relationship with a child. * * *

We interpret the statute to mean that kidnapping in the first degree requires that a defendant both restrain a victim for more than 12 hours and possess, for more than 12 hours during the period of restraint, the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually. Here, however, the court instructed the jury that “intent does not require advanced planning, nor is it necessary that the intent be in the person’s mind for any particular period of time.” … [W]e conclude that the instruction was erroneous inasmuch as it permitted the jury to find that the element of intent pursuant to section 135.25 (2) (a) had been established even if the jury did not find that the intent existed for more than 12 hours during a period of over 12 hours of restraint.  * * *

FROM THE DISSENT: Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that defendant either “secreted” or “held” the victim in his car, or that he intended to prevent her “liberation.” She was there voluntarily and of her own accord, which is the very antithesis of being “secreted” or “held” somewhere. People v Vail, 2019 NY Slip Op 05848, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

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