,

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

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION WAS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK REGISTRABLE OFFENSE; THE CIVIL APPEALS STANDARDS APPLY; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE PRESENTS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW AND THE RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant need not register as a sex offender in New York based upon a Connecticut misdemeanor conviction which was not equivalent to New York’s first-degree sexual abuse statute. The court noted that the civil appeals standards apply and preservation of the error was not required because the appeal presents a pure question of law, the issue could not have been avoided if raised below, and the record is sufficient for review:

In 2003, defendant was convicted in Connecticut of two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault. To the extent relevant here, a person is guilty of that misdemeanor when he “subjects another person to sexual contact who is . . . physically helpless, or. . . subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person’s consent” (Conn Gen Stat § 53a-73a[a][1][D],[2]). The physical helplessness element would make the crime the equivalent of first-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.65[2]), a registrable offense in New York. In the absence of that element, the crime is the equivalent of third-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.55), which is not registrable.

Equivalency, based on a comparison of essential elements (see Corr Law § 168-a[1],[2][d]), may be established when “the conduct underlying the foreign conviction . . . is, in fact, within the scope of the New York offense” … . Here, the hearing court relied on undisputed documentary evidence that each victim “felt paralyzed” while being sexually abused by defendant; one victim “just froze” and the other “was afraid to confront” him. There is no indication, however, that either victim was physiologically incapable of speech, drugged into a stupor, or otherwise unable to communicate her unwillingness to submit to the sexual contact … . …

The issue is properly reviewable on this appeal, notwithstanding defendant’s failure to raise it before the hearing court. While we agree with the People that preservation considerations applicable to civil appeals apply here, those considerations do not bar review. This appeal presents a pure question of law. This issue could not have been avoided if raised before the hearing court, and it is reviewable on the existing record … .  Moreover, the hearing court expressly ruled on the issue in its detailed decision. People v Burden, 2019 NY Slip Op 07497, First Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION CANNOT INCLUDE A JOINABLE OFFENSE WHICH IS GREATER IN DEGREE THAN THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS HELD FOR THE ACTION OF THE GRAND JURY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, resolving a question of first impression, determined that a Superior Court Information (SCI) is jurisdictionally defective if it charges a joinable offense which is greater in degree than the offense for which the defendant was held for the action of the grand jury. The jurisdictional question survives the guilty plea, the failure to preserve and the waiver of appeal:

… [T]he constitutional waiver provision makes no reference to joinable offenses, providing only that prosecution by an SCI is limited to an offense or offenses for which a person is ‘held for the action of a grand jury upon a charge for such an offense’ (NY Const, art I, § 6 … ). A literal interpretation of the phrase ‘any offense or offenses properly joinable therewith’ in CPL 195.20 would permit the circumvention of this constitutional imperative by the simple expedient of permitting the inclusion of joinable offenses in a higher degree or grade that were never charged in a felony complaint. Such a statutory interpretation is inconsistent with and undermines the protections provided in NY Constitution, article I, § 6. It is well settled ‘that the Legislature in performing its law-making function may not enlarge upon or abridge the Constitution’ … , and that “courts must avoid, if possible, interpreting a presumptively valid statute in a way that will needlessly render it unconstitutional” … .

Applying these principles, we conclude that a joinable offense may not be included in a waiver of indictment and SCI unless that offense, or a lesser included offense, was charged in a felony complaint and the defendant was therefore held for the action of a grand jury upon that charge … . People v Coss, 2019 NY Slip Op 07445, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, , , ,

THE DEATH OF A PARTY TO THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFFECTED THE MERITS OF THE CASE; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND THE RELATED ORDER IS A NULLITY; THE APPEAL THEREFORE MUST BE DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the death of a party to this foreclosure proceeding deprived the court of jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have considered defendant’s motion and the related order was a nullity:

In 2003, defendant Sharon A. Harris (hereinafter defendant) and defendant Marion D. Schubnel executed a note in favor of plaintiff that was secured by a mortgage on real property located in Albany County. Defendant and Schubnel owned the subject property as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. …

… [P]laintiff commenced this mortgage foreclosure action against defendant and Schubnel, among others. Defendant served an answer but Schubnel failed to do so. In November 2016, Schubnel died. In July 2017, defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer and, as relevant here, sought to add a statute of limitations affirmative defense. In an amended order entered November 2017, Supreme Court granted the motion and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as time-barred. …

The death of a party generally stays an action until a personal representative is substituted for the deceased party … . Strict adherence to this rule, however, is unnecessary where a party’s demise does not affect the merits of the case … .

It is true that defendant, as the surviving joint tenant, obtained Schubnel’s interest in the subject property upon Schubnel’s death. Notwithstanding this transfer of interest, Schubnel’s estate can still be held liable for any deficiency in the event that a sale of the subject property fails to satisfy the debt. Indeed, the complaint specifically requests that such relief be granted should it be necessary … . In the absence of a substitution of Schubnel, a discontinuance of the action insofar as asserted against Schubnel or a representation by plaintiff that it would be waiving its right to seek a deficiency judgment against Schubnel, the death of Schubnel affects the merits of the case … . Because an automatic stay was in effect upon Schubnel’s death, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion and, therefore, the November 2017 amended order is a nullity … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Schubnel, 2019 NY Slip Op 07462, Third Dept 10-17-19

 

, ,

RESPONDENT, WHO HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED A JUVENILE DELINQUENT, WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE ADMITTING TO A PROBATION VIOLATION, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THE ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION AND THE APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the petition, determined that respondent, who had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, was not provided sufficient information before admitting to a probation violation. Because of the collateral consequences of a “juvenile delinquent” adjudication, the appeal is not moot, even though the period of respondent’s custody and care under the Office of Children and Family Services had expired. In addition, the error did not required preservation:

Initially, we note that preservation of this claim was not required … . Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) requires a court to advise a respondent of his or her right to a fact-finding hearing and to question both the respondent and his or her parent, if present, as to whether the respondent committed the act contained in the admission, whether the respondent is voluntarily waiving his or her right to a fact-finding hearing, and whether the respondent is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders … . The May 2018 allocution did not meet these statutory requirements. Although Family Court did advise respondent, to some extent, regarding his rights, the failure to meet the statutory mandates rendered the allocution inadequate. Critically, although respondent’s mother was present, the court failed to question her regarding respondent’s waiver of the fact-finding hearing … or about his failure to attend counseling. Instead, respondent was merely asked whether he had sufficient time to speak to his parents about the allocution … . Moreover, the court did not determine whether respondent and his mother understood the possible specific dispositional orders that might result from his allocution … . Although it was stated that placement outside the home was an available option, the court did not “ascertain whether [respondent] and his parent[] were aware of the full extent of such a disposition” … . Matter of Elijah X., 2019 NY Slip Op 07464, Third Dept 10-17-19