You are here: / Appeals
, ,

LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, as an exception to the mootness doctrine, determined a letter written by petitioner should have been interpreted as a demand to contest his involuntary confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

In light of petitioner’s release from involuntary confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) article 9, this appeal is moot, as petitioner concedes. However, we reach the merits because the appeal raises a substantial and novel issue that is likely to recur yet typically evades review … .We reject respondent’s argument that the issue raised in this proceeding is unlikely to recur … .

As respondent now concedes, the letter submitted by petitioner on the day he was involuntary admitted to Lincoln Hospital reasonably conveyed that he sought a “hearing on the question of need for involuntary care and treatment” (MHL § 9.31[a]), and should have been forwarded to the appropriate court “forthwith”… . The handwritten letter says, “I am falsely imprisoned and deprived of liberty,” in violation of certain United States Supreme Court decisions, “I demand a jury trial immediately,” and “I demand my lawyer.” To the extent the court found the request in this letter insufficiently clear or formal, because there were other, unrelated complaints raised in the letter or for any other reason, this was error. The letter should have been interpreted reasonably to effectuate the statute’s purpose of allowing patients to challenge their involuntary confinement on an expedited basis, as required by MHL § 9.31. Matter of State of N.Y. ex rel. Giffen v Hoffman, 2018 NY Slip Op 03462, First Dept 5-10-18

​MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (MOOTNESS, EXCEPTION TO, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/MOOTNESS (APPEALS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/HABEAS CORPUS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))

,

POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant had an expectation of privacy in a single-use bathroom in an adult bookstore, His suppression motion should not, therefore, have been denied on the ground the police entry into the bathroom was not a search. The matter was remitted for consideration of the issue raised by the People at the suppression hearing which was not ruled on by Supreme Court:

The court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion on the ground that the police entrance into a single-use restroom located in an adult film and novelty store was not a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that, once he closed the door, defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy while using the small, single-use restroom because at that point he was “entitled to assume that while inside he … will not be viewed by others” … . The closed door of the restroom was comparable to closed bathroom stalls in public restrooms, where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists … . This expectation of privacy was not negated by the facts that the restroom was located in a commercial establishment and was unlocked … .

In the alternative, the People argue, as they did at the hearing, that the police entrance into the restroom was reasonable because it was based on probable cause to suspect that there was drug use occurring inside. However, because “the hearing court did not rule on this issue in denying the suppression motion, and therefore did not rule adversely against defendant on this point, we may not reach it on this appeal” … . Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for determination, based on the hearing minutes, of the issue raised at the hearing, but not decided … . People v Vinson, 2018 NY Slip Op 03437, First Dept 5-10-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY (SEARCH AND SEIZURE, POLICE ENTRY INTO A SINGLE USE BATHROOM IN A COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT CONSTITUTED A SEARCH, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE CONCLUSION THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ISSUE WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, reversed the Appellate Division and sent the matter back to the Appellate Division for a factual determination whether the trial judge’s credibility assessment of a spectator who claimed to have overheard jurors speaking about the defendant in derogatory terms was supported by the weight of the evidence. After questioning the spectator the trial judge determined no further inquiry was required. The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s conviction over a dissent:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion when it chose not to conduct an inquiry of two sworn jurors pursuant to People v Buford (69 NY2d 290 [1987]). Alerted to a complaint by a courtroom spectator that during a break in the trial the spectator allegedly overheard the jurors refer to defendant by a derogatory term, the trial court immediately called the spectator to the stand and elicited sworn testimony regarding her allegation. At the conclusion of the examination, the judge determined that a Buford inquiry was not required based on the testimony provided. We conclude on this record that the trial court made an implied credibility finding that the spectator was not worthy of belief and therefore a Buford inquiry was not warranted. This determination by the trial court was not reviewed by the Appellate Division. It was error for the Appellate Division to opine as to what remedy was warranted in response to the content of the spectator’s allegation, without determining whether the allegation was credible in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Division order and remit the case to that Court to exercise its own fact-finding power to consider and determine whether the trial court’s finding as to the spectator’s credibility was supported by the weight of the evidence. * * *

If, on remittal, the Appellate Division finds, upon its own factual review, that the record supports the trial court’s determination that the spectator lacked credibility, no further action was required. If the Appellate Division finds that the credibility determination was not supported, it must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in not taking further action … . … [A] credible allegation that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve or engaged in substantial misconduct within the meaning of CPL 270.35 cannot be ignored by the trial court, and failure to appropriately remedy the matter is reversible error. People v Kuzdzal, 2018 NY Slip Op 03304, CtApp 5-8-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURORS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/JURORS (CRIMINAL LAW, BIAS, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP))

,

LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals denied the motion for leave to appeal in a case seeking habeas corpus relief for two chimpanzees alleged to be confined by their owners to small cages in a warehouse and a cement storefront in a crowded residential area … . Judge Fahey wrote a thoughtful concurring opinion questioning the rationale used by the Appellate Division to deny relief:

The Appellate Division’s conclusion that a chimpanzee cannot be considered a “person” and is not entitled to habeas relief is in fact based on nothing more than the premise that a chimpanzee is not a member of the human species … . …

The better approach in my view is to ask not whether a chimpanzee fits the definition of a person or whether a chimpanzee has the same rights and duties as a human being, but instead whether he or she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. That question, one of precise moral and legal status, is the one that matters here. Moreover, the answer to that question will depend on our assessment of the intrinsic nature of chimpanzees as a species. …

Does an intelligent nonhuman animal who thinks and plans and appreciates life as human beings do have the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary cruelties and enforced detentions visited on him or her? This is not merely a definitional question, but a deep dilemma of ethics and policy that demands our attention. To treat a chimpanzee as if he or she had no right to liberty protected by habeas corpus is to regard the chimpanzee as entirely lacking independent worth, as a mere resource for human use, a thing the value of which consists exclusively in its usefulness to others. Instead, we should consider whether a chimpanzee is an individual with inherent value who has the right to be treated with respect … . Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, 2018 NY Slip Op 03309, CtApp 5-8-18

​ANIMAL LAW (LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))/APPEALS (ANIMAL RIGHTS, LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))//HABEAS CORPUS (ANIMAL RIGHTS, LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))

, ,

BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’ RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined that substantial evidence supported the NYC Commission on Human Rights’ ruling that the conversion of a window to a handicapped-accessible entrance for a tenant in petitioners’ building would not cause petitioners undue hardship. The dissent argued petitioners had carried their burden of proof on that issue by presenting evidence the conversion presented many structural issues which might necessitate evacuation of the building. The majority simply decided there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s ruling and an appellate court’s review power stops there:

In light of the Commission’s ruling in favor of respondents and because petitioners have the burden of demonstrating undue hardship … , the issue is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commission’s conclusion that petitioners failed to carry that burden.

“Quite often there is substantial evidence on both sides” of an issue disputed before an administrative agency … , and the substantial evidence test “demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable” … . Applying this standard, “[c]ourts may not weigh the evidence or reject [a] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” … . Instead, “when a rational basis for the conclusion adopted by the [agency] is found, the judicial function is exhausted. The question, thus, is not whether [the reviewing court] find[s] the proof . . . convincing, but whether the [agency] could do so” … . Matter of Marine Holdings, LLC v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 03303, CtApp 5-8-18

​ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EVIDENCE, BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’S RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))/APPEALS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE NYC COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS’S RULING THAT CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS APPELLATE REVIEW CAN GO NO FURTHER, EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the assumption of the risk doctrine and the signed release did not warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant in this horseback-riding injury case. Plaintiff fell from a horse during a riding lesson:

… [I]t is undisputed that plaintiff was a beginner and had never before attempted to mount or ride a horse, and the deposition testimony relied upon by defendants raises questions of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with mounting the horse by failing to give plaintiff adequate instructions and assistance based on her size, athleticism, and obvious struggles in attempting to mount the horse, and whether there were concealed risks of mounting the horse, i.e., whether the horse was “tacked” properly … . For the same reasons, we reject defendants’ contention, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the written release established as a matter of law that, as per the language of the release, plaintiff expressly assumed “the unavoidable risks inherent in all horse-related activities” … .  Jones v Smoke Tree Farm, 2018 NY Slip Op 03299, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/HORSES (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/RELEASE (HORSE RIDING LESSONS, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence was legally sufficient to support the assault first conviction stemming from defendant’s allowing his dog to attack the victim. The court noted that the motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People’s case was adequate to preserve the challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of intent, even though the renewal of the motion at the close of evidence referred to the earlier motion:

The conviction arises from a dog attack that caused the victim to sustain injuries that included broken bones in his hands and the amputation of a portion of one of his fingers. The victim as well as witnesses to the attack testified that two pit bull terriers that had escaped their owner’s property attacked the victim, biting at his arms and legs, as the victim attempted to protect his dog from the pit bulls. Defendant, who was a friend of the owner of the pit bulls, arrived at the scene in a van driven by another man. Defendant exited the van, retrieved the two pit bulls and placed them in the van. After the pit bulls were secured in the van, the victim stood in front of the van and angrily told defendant that the police had been called and “you’re not going anywhere.” Defendant responded by asking the victim, “you coming at me? Are you going to stop me from leaving?” At that point defendant opened the van door and issued a command to the larger pit bull, who attacked the victim a second time, inflicting the injuries to the victim’s hands.

Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction inasmuch as the People failed to prove that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish such intent … . People v Bacon, 2018 NY Slip Op 03258, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT/DOGS (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the waiver of appeal was invalid and sent the matter back for a determination of youthful offender status:

Supreme Court did not elicit the waiver until after defendant had pleaded guilty and, in any event, “the record fails to establish that [the court] engaged him in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver was a knowing and voluntary choice” … . Furthermore, “neither the written waiver of the right to appeal in the record nor the court’s brief mention of that waiver during the plea proceeding distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” … .

We further agree with defendant that the court erred in failing to determine whether he should be afforded youthful offender status … . As the People correctly concede, defendant is an eligible youth, and the sentencing court must make “a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it” … . People v Willis, 2018 NY Slip Op 03291, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, MATTER SENT BACK FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INEFFECTIVE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S SIGNING OF A WRITTEN WAIVER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was ineffective, despite defendant’s signing of a written waiver:

… [T]he record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to his plea of guilty … . Furthermore, although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant executed written appeal waiver forms, the transcript of the plea proceedings shows that the court did not ascertain on the record whether the defendant had read the waivers or discussed them with defense counsel, or whether he was even aware of their contents … . People v Medina, 2018 NY Slip Op 03151, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, WAIVER OF APPEAL INEFFECTIVE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S SIGNING OF A WRITTEN WAIVER (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INEFFECTIVE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S SIGNING OF A WRITTEN WAIVER (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to remove a personal injury action from Civil Court to Supreme Court (King’s County) should not have been granted because no motion to amend the ad damnum clause was made. The court noted that because the defendant was never served with notice of entry of the order granting plaintiff’s motion, the notice of appeal was timely filed:

The plaintiff … moved pursuant to CPLR 325(b) to remove the action to the Supreme Court, Kings County. In the order appealed … , the Supreme Court granted the motion. It is undisputed that a written notice of entry of the order … was never served on the defendant.

Since the defendant was not served with a proper notice of entry, the defendant’s time to appeal never commenced running, and its notice of appeal was therefore timely filed (see CPLR 5513[a]…).

A motion to remove an action from the Civil Court to the Supreme Court pursuant to CPLR 325(b) must be accompanied by a request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . Here, the amount stated in the ad damnum clause was within the jurisdictional limits of the Civil Court, and no request for leave to amend the ad damnum clause was made. In the absence of an application to increase the ad damnum clause, the plaintiff’s motion to remove the action to the Supreme Court should have been denied … . Hart v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 03123, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/REMOVAL (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 325 (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/AD DAMNUM CLAUSE (REMOVAL, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, REMOVAL, MOTION TO REMOVE A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION FROM CIVIL COURT TO SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A REQUEST TO AMEND THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH A NOTICE OF ENTRY (SECOND DEPT))

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