,

SENTENCING COURT DID NOT MAKE THE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING, MATTER SENT BACK, BECAUSE THE LEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE IS IMPLICATED THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court did not make the appropriate findings in support of imposing electronic monitoring as a condition probation. The matter was sent back. The court noted that the issue involves the legality of the sentence and therefore need not be preserved for appeal:

A sentencing court imposing probation may require the defendant, pursuant to the statute, to submit to electronic monitoring (see § 65.10 [4]). “Such condition may be imposed only where the court, in its discretion, determines that requiring the defendant to comply with such condition will advance public safety, probationer control or probationer surveillance” (id.). Here, the court failed to make such a determination. To the contrary, it is evident from our review of the sentencing minutes that the court did not consider defendant or his actions to pose a threat to public safety. There may, however, be a legitimate purpose for the electronic monitoring based on probationer control or probationer surveillance. Therefore, we modify the judgment by striking the condition of probation requiring that defendant submit to surveillance via electronic monitoring and pay the fees associated therewith, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to make a discretionary determination whether to impose electronic monitoring based on appropriate findings. People v Fitch, 2019 NY Slip Op 01973, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

,

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL, MADE ONE DAY LATE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE DENIAL OF THE ORAL APPLICATION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL MOTION ON NOTICE WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined (1) defendants’ oral application requesting a jury trial, made one day late, should have been granted, and (2) the appeal from a final judgment allows an appeal of the denial of the late application for a jury trial, even though no formal motion on notice was made. The dissent argued the denial was not appealable because there was no formal motion on notice:

An appeal from a final judgment “brings up for review . . . any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment” (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The parties do not dispute that the order denying defendants’ application for leave to file a late demand for a jury trial necessarily affected the final judgment. …

… [T]he State Constitution provides for a right to a jury trial in civil cases (see NY Const, art I, § 2 … ). Although that right may be waived through the failure to demand it in a timely fashion (see CPLR 4102 [a]), the court “may relieve a party from the effect” of such waiver “if no undue prejudice to the rights of another party would result” (CPLR 4102 [e]). While “[t]he decision . . . to relieve a party from failing to timely comply with CPLR 4102 (a) lies within the sound discretion of the trial court” … , we conclude that the court’s denial of defendants’ application was an abuse of discretion. Braun v Cesareo, 2019 NY Slip Op 01962, Fourth Dept 3-15-19

 

, ,

THERE IS NO APPEAL FROM A DEFAULT STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO APPEAR, MUST MOVE TO VACATE THE DEFAULT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the appeal, explained that where a party in default for failing to appear wishes to appeal, the party must first move to vacate the default:

Respondent appeared by telephone before the Support Magistrate for arraignment, an appearance and a hearing, following which the Support Magistrate concluded that respondent had willfully violated the support order and recommended that he be incarcerated. The matter was referred to Family Court for confirmation. Respondent requested permission to give electronic testimony. Family Court denied that application both in writing and orally and directed, on the record, that respondent must appear in person for the hearing. When respondent did not appear, the court conducted the hearing in his absence, found that he willfully violated the support order and committed him to jail for 180 days. Respondent appeals.

Family Court properly found respondent in default … . Although respondent’s counsel appeared and offered the explanation that respondent could not afford to travel to New York, the court had already heard and rejected that excuse in connection with respondent’s application to give electronic testimony and directed him to appear in person for the hearing. When respondent failed to do so, the court did not abuse its discretion by finding him in default  … . “[T]he proper procedure would be for [respondent] to move to vacate the default and, if said motion is denied, take an appeal from that order” … . Because no appeal lies from an order entered on default, we must dismiss this appeal … . Matter of Ulster County Support Collection Unit v Beke, 2019 NY Slip Op 01864, Third Dept 3-14-19

 

,

30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal (CPLR 5513(a)) is triggered for all parties when any party serves the other parties with the order or judgment appealed from with written notice of entry:

This appeal provides our Court with an occasion to clarify the meaning of CPLR 5513(a). The 1996 amendment to CPLR 5513(a), effective January 1, 1997, requires that an order or judgment be served “by a party” with written notice of entry in order to commence the time to undertake an appeal (L 1996, ch 214, § 1). … [W]e hold that service of the order or judgment with written notice of entry by any party upon the other parties to the action operates to commence the 30-day time to appeal with respect to not only the serving party, but all the parties in the action. * * *​

… [T]he language of CPLR 5513(a) as to who serves notice of entry is not limited to the “prevailing party,” or to “the appealing party,” or to “the party seeking to limit an adversary’s appellate time.” Rather, “a” party, which is unrestricted, necessarily refers to “any” party to an action. As a result, the service of an order or judgment with written notice of entry commences the 30-day time to appeal as to not only the party performing the service, but as to all other parties as well.

Here, the County’s [defendant’s] service on June 17, 2015, of the Supreme Court’s order with written notice of entry commenced the plaintiffs’ time to appeal the order as to all of the defendants, including those who served a notice of entry at a later date, and those who may have served no notice of entry at all. The plaintiffs’ appeal must therefore be dismissed as untimely as to all of the defendants (see CPLR 5513[a]). W. Rogowski Farm, LLC v County of Orange, 2019 NY Slip Op 01815, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

, , ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S STEPFATHER APOLOGIZED TO THE ROBBERY VICTIM FOR THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT AN ANONYMOUS INFORMANT’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE ENCOURAGED INFERENCE OF GUILT BASED ON FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, APPELLATE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, reaching the appellate issues in the interest of justice, determined that improperly admitted evidence warranted a new trial, noting that the prosecutor also acted improperly. The identity of the defendant was a key issue in this robbery case. The victim (Fernandez) should not have been allowed to testify that the defendant’s stepfather told the victim he was sorry for what defendant had done and returned the victim’s keys. Also, the investigating detective should not have been allowed to testify that an anonymous informant had identified the defendant:

There was no showing that the defendant participated in or was in any way connected to his stepfather’s actions … .

… [T]he testimony of an investigating detective recounting a conversation with an anonymous informant, a nontestifying witness, violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution… . The informant reportedly was an eyewitness to the crime and identified the defendant by name. The testimony “went beyond the permissible bounds of provid[ing] background information as to how and why the police pursued [the] defendant” … . …

Upon retrial, we remind the People that, on summation, a prosecutor may not “improperly encourage[ ] inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence” … . Here, there was no evidence to support the prosecutor’s assertion that Fernandez had identified the defendant as the robber “immediately” by recognizing a distinctive “dot” on the defendant’s face. People v Gonsalves, 2019 NY Slip Op 01792, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

, ,

WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF AN ISSUE WHICH AROSE AFTER THE WAIVER, AT SENTENCING ALL WERE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION DEFENDANT WAS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, SENTENCING JUDGE HAD SINCE BECOME THE PUBLIC DEFENDER, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE COULD NOT, THEREFORE, REPRESENT DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s waiver of appeal did not preclude consideration of an issue that came up after the waiver and the public defender’s office could not represent defendant because the sentencing judge had since become the public defender. At sentencing and at the time of the waiver of appeal, all were under the misconception defendant was a second felony offender:

… [D]efendant’s waiver of the right to appeal regarding his plea to the probation violation was entered under the misconception by all parties that defendant was a second felony drug offender. Accordingly, the waiver does not preclude our review of defendant’s appeal on resentencing because “the plea was entered pursuant to conditions that changed after defendant’s waiver” … . We agree with defendant’s argument on appeal that the Albany County Public Defender’s office was precluded, as a matter of law, from representing him at the resentencing hearing because the Public Defender, prior to being appointed to that position, was the County Judge who presided over and initially sentenced him in this matter (see Judiciary Law § 17 … ). Accordingly, the judgment resentencing defendant must be reversed and the matter remitted for resentencing, with different representation assigned to defendant. People v Sumter, 2019 NY Slip Op 01460, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT DIDN’T REACH THE LIABILITY ISSUE, THE MERITS WERE LITIGATED AND BRIEFED ALLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision traffic accident case, noting that the plaintiff no longer has to demonstrate freedom from comparative fault to warrant a judgment on liability. Supreme Court had not reached the liability issue and the Second Department did so because the merits were litigated and briefed:

… [T]he plaintiff testified at her deposition that her vehicle was stopped at a red light when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle. This testimony established, prima facie, that the defendant driver’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident … . Moreover, although the plaintiff also submitted a transcript of the defendant driver’s deposition testimony, that testimony does not present a triable issue of fact. The defendant driver testified that before the accident occurred, the light turned green, and the plaintiff began to slowly move forward. The defendant driver began to accelerate, then he saw the plaintiff’s brake lights go on. He testified that he “hit the brakes and hit her.” In essence, his testimony amounted to a claim that the plaintiff’s vehicle came to a sudden stop which, standing alone, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of negligence on the part of the defendants’ vehicle … . Buchanan v Keller, 2019 NY Slip Op 01385, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

 

,

PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROCURE ANOTHER ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT AFTER THE COURT REDUCED THE CHARGE RENDERED THE INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, REQUIRING DISMISSAL AFTER TRIAL DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE AND THE PRESENTATION OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE REDUCED CHARGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and dismissing the indictment as jurisdictionally defective, determined that the People’s failed to file an instrument with the reduced charged ordered by the judge or seek permission to re-present the case to a grand jury. The fact that error was not raised by the defendant and the fact that the reduced charge was supported by sufficient evidence did not matter in the face of  the insufficient accusatory instrument:

“Where a court acts to reduce a charge contained in an indictment and the People fail within 30 days to take any action in response to this decision, the order directing the reduction shall take effect and the People are obligated, if they intend to pursue a prosecution, to either file an instrument containing the reduced charge or obtain permission to re-present the matter to a grand jury” … . Inasmuch as the People did nothing after County Court ordered a reduction in the remaining count, “the only charge that remained viable after the expiration of the [30-day] stay was the reduced count” of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree … . The People never filed a reduced indictment charging that offense, however, and County Court had no independent power to effectuate the reduction via an amendment to the original indictment … . “A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution,” and the People’s failure to file an indictment charging the reduced count precluded County Court from trying and convicting defendant on it … . People v Stone, 2019 NY Slip Op 01264, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

, , ,

TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS TIME-BARRED, THE ACTION COULD NOT RELATE BACK PURSUANT TO CPLR 203 BECAUSE THE TIMELY ACTION BY ANOTHER PARTY WAS PRECLUDED BY THE CONTRACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS TIMELY PURSUANT TO CPLR 205, EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS ADDRESSED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY ADDRESSED IN SUPREME COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the trustee’s breach of contract action in this residential-mortgage-backed-securities securities case was time-barred. A certificate holder had filed a timely action, but the relevant contract precluded the action by the certificate holder. Therefore the trustee’s action could not be deemed to relate-back to it (CPLR 203). The Court of Appeals could not consider whether the trustee’s action was timely under CPLR 205, despite the fact that the Appellate Division addressed the issue, because the issue was not fully addressed by the parties in Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals does not have interest of justice jurisdiction:

CPLR 203 (f) has no application here because the certificate holder’s pre-existing action was not valid. The lower courts concluded that under the no action clause, the certificate holder could not bring the action on behalf of itself, any other certificate holder, or the Trustee. Those conclusions are not at issue in this Court. Thus, the certificate holder’s action was subject to dismissal, and there is no valid pre-existing action to which a claim in a subsequent amended pleading may relate back. The Trustee’s contention that it may use the relation-back doctrine of CPLR 203 (f) to cure the certificate holder’s lack of a right to sue, and that it may therefore avoid any problem with the identity of the plaintiff upon re-filing pursuant to CPLR 205 (a), is without merit. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01168, CtApp 2-19-19

 

, , ,

FAILURE TO GRANT AN ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHO HAD BEEN ACTING IN A LIMITED ADVISORY CAPACITY, TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE FOR A SUPPRESSION HEARING DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, NEW SUPPRESSION HEARING ORDERED, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department held the appeal in abeyance to allow a new suppression hearing. defense counsel. Defense counsel was acting in a limited advisory capacity when he was asked by the judge to conduct the suppression hearing. Defendant asked for an adjournment to allow counsel to review the voluminous discovery materials, but the request was denied. The Second Department held that the denial of the adjournment deprived defendant of his right to counsel:

“[T]he right of a defendant to be represented by an attorney means more than just having a person with a law degree nominally represent him [or her] upon a trial and ask questions” … . “[T]he right to effective representation includes the right to assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense and who is familiar with, and able to employ . . . basic principles of criminal law and procedure” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for an adjournment to give his attorney more time to prepare for the suppression hearing. Prior to the hearing, counsel acted in the limited capacity of advisor since the defendant wished to proceed pro se. However, at the court’s urging, counsel agreed to represent the defendant at the suppression hearing but expressed his concern that he had not had an adequate opportunity to review voluminous discovery materials … . People v Costan, 2019 NY Slip Op 01089, Second Dept 2-13-19