,

FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that a federal drug conspiracy conviction cannot be used as a predicate felony for a second felony offender adjudication and remitted for resentencing. The defendant had pled guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to probation. When he violated the terms of probation he was sentenced to prison as a second felony offender. The Third Department noted that an illegal sentence issue need not be preserved for appeal by objection:

​

Defendant … contends that his federal drug conspiracy conviction does not qualify as a predicate New York felony and, therefore, it cannot serve as a basis for his second felony drug offender adjudication. Although this claim is being raised for the first time on appeal, we find that the claim “falls within the narrow exception to our preservation rule permitting appellate review when a sentence’s illegality is readily discernible from the . . . record”… . In the special information charging a predicate offense, the People alleged that defendant was previously convicted in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York of conspiracy to distribute marihuana (21 USC §§ 841, 846). However, the Court of Appeals has determined that, “under New York’s ‘strict equivalency’ standard for convictions rendered in other jurisdictions, a federal conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug crime may not serve as a predicate felony for sentencing purposes” … . We therefore vacate the sentence and remit the matter to County Court for resentencing … . People v Sumter, 2018 NY Slip Op 00354, Third Dept 1-18-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PREDICATE FELONY, SENTENCING, FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION (THIRD DEPT))/SENTENCING (FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/PREDICATE FELONY (FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY (PREDICATE FELONY, FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ILLEGAL SENTENCE, (PREDICATE FELONY, FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION CANNOT BE USED AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR SECOND FELONY OFFENDER ADJUDICATION, ILLEGAL SENTENCE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY OBJECTION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, applying a weight of the evidence analysis, determined the defendant had demonstrated he was not responsible for the criminal acts by reason mental disease or defect. Both the defense and the prosecution presented expert opinion evidence on the “not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect” affirmative defense. The Second Department found that the defense expert, who was experienced in forensic examinations (the prosecution expert was not) proved the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence:

​

In conducting our weight of the evidence review where a defendant relies solely upon the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, we first determine whether a finding of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect would have been reasonable. If we answer that question in the affirmative, then we must weigh conflicting testimony, review any rational inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, and evaluate the strength of such conclusions in order to decide whether the defendant met his burden of proving the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect by the preponderance of evidence … .

Given the conflicting expert opinions, as well as the witness testimony and psychiatric records, a finding of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect would have been reasonable. Weighing the opinion of the defense expert, who was an experienced forensic psychiatrist, against the opinion of the prosecution expert, a clinical neuropsychologist with limited experience in forensics, the defense expert’s opinion was more convincing, and entitled to more weight. The defense expert’s opinion better accounted for the witnesses’ testimony regarding their observations of the defendant’s increasingly bizarre behavior and onset of mental illness which began to exhibit itself just weeks before the incident, and continued during and after the incident until the defendant was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. The defense expert’s opinion was further corroborated by the defendant’s subsequent psychiatric diagnosis and history. People v Hernandez-Beltre, 2018 NY Slip Op 00307, Second Dept 1-17-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT PROVED HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea on a writ of coram nobis, determined County Court should not have threatened defendant with the maximum sentence should she go to trial and defendant’s former appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to bring that issue up on appeal:

​

During discussions regarding the People’s plea offer, the court initially advised the defendant that she faced a “total maximum [of] 60 years in state prison.” Although the court acknowledged that a “cumulative sentencing statute . . . would reduce that to probably between 30 and 40,” it later advised the defendant that “[i]f you are facing 60 years in state prison with all these counts of assault on a seven month old child then you need to discuss that offer very carefully with [defense counsel] and follow his advice.” After defense counsel advised the court that the defendant did not accept the People’s plea offer, the court told the defendant, “[t]hat’s fine. That’s what we do here. We do trials. A case like this I would almost rather have a trial than have a plea bargaining. If this is all true there is no [sentence] short of the maximum that’s appropriate that’s the problem with the case. If it isn’t true then the jury will so decide. That’s not up to me.” Later that afternoon, the defendant accepted the People’s plea offer … .

​

“In order to be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently”… . Although a court may properly comment during plea negotiations regarding a defendant’s sentencing exposure upon conviction after trial, it may not explicitly threaten to sentence a defendant to the maximum term upon conviction after trial … . Under the circumstances of this case, former appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue that the defendant’s plea of guilty was coerced by the County Court’s comments … . Since the court’s remarks were impermissibly coercive, the defendant was entitled to vacatur of her plea of guilty. People v Sanabria, 2018 NY Slip Op 00316, Second Dept 1-17-18

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (VACATED, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, APPEALS, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CORAM NOBIS, WRIT OF (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE THREATENED DEFENDANT WITH THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD SHE GO TO TRIAL, PLEA VACATED, APPELLATE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE ISSUE ON APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the city’s answer in this malicious prosecution/false arrest action was properly struck because of the city’s failure to comply with multiple discovery orders. The First Department also noted that a purely legal issue raised for the first time on appeal can be addressed provided the record is sufficient. (The issue raised for the first time on appeal was Supreme Court’s erroneous grant of a default judgment with respect to one of the defendants before the defendant’s time to answer the complaint had expired.) Essentially the initial discovery order was issued in May 2011 and the response was not filed until the return date of the plaintiff’s motion to strike in July 2014. The dissenting justices argued that some sanction short of striking the answer was warranted:

​

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, “[i]f any party . . . refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed, pursuant to this article, the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just.” This Court has long held that “the drastic remedy of striking a party’s pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a discovery order . . . is appropriate only where the moving party conclusively demonstrates that the non-disclosure was willful, contumacious or due to bad faith” …  “Willful and contumacious behavior can be inferred by a failure to comply with court orders, in the absence of adequate excuses” … . Although actions should be resolved on the merits whenever possible, the efficient disposition of cases “is not promoted by permitting a party . . . to impose an undue burden on judicial resources to the detriment of . . . other litigants. Nor is the efficient disposition of the business before the courts advanced by undermining the authority of the trial court to supervise the parties who appear before it” … . “[I]t generally is within the discretion of the motion court to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed against an offending party” and “[i]t would not be appropriate . . . for this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the Justice sitting in the IAS Court”… . Watson v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00245, First Dept 1-16-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCOVERY, STRIKE ANSWER, APPEALS, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (STRIKE ANSWER, STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (FIRST DEPT))/ANSWER, MOTION TO STRIKE  STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR3126 (STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the appeal of the SORA risk assessment was not properly before it because County Court never issued the required order:

​

County Court, in a bench decision, adopted the People’s arguments regarding both the override and the assessment of additional points, denied defendant’s request for a downward departure and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender. …

​

County Court is statutorily required to “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” … . The resulting order “must be in writing”…  and, further, must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable”… . The record before this Court does not reflect that County Court issued a written order or that any such order subsequently was entered and filed. Although County Court indicated that its bench decision would “serve[] as the order of the [c]ourt,” a bench decision is neither a substitute for the required written order nor an appealable paper … . Notably, neither the transcript of the court’s bench decision nor the standard form designating defendant’s risk level classification, the latter of which County Court signed and dated, contains the “so ordered” language required “so as to constitute an appealable order” … . Absent evidence of the required written order, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Scott, 2018 NY Slip Op 00203, Third Dept 1-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEAL OF SORA RISK ASSESSMENT NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, COUNTY COURT NEVER ISSUED THE REQUIRED ORDER (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the appellant did not have an intimate relationship with petitioner and therefore Family Court did not have jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding against appellant and could not issue an order of protection. Even though the order of protection had expired, the continuing reputational consequences of the order of protection justified determining the appeal:

The petitioner is the live-in girlfriend of the appellant's brother. The petitioner and the appellant live in the same building, on different floors. The petitioner filed a family offense petition against the appellant, alleging that she had physically attacked and verbally threatened her. * * *

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and “cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute”… . “Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed criminal acts that occur between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household'” … . “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . Expressly excluded from the ambit of “intimate relationship” are “casual acquaintance[s]” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … . Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis … . Relevant factors include “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … .

Here, the parties have no direct relationship and are only connected through a third party, who is the petitioner's live-in boyfriend and the appellant's brother. Additionally, the parties have never resided together and their contact with one another has been purely by happenstance, as they live in the same building. Accordingly, they do not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). Matter of Royster v Murray, 2018 NY Slip Op 00151, Second Dept 1-10-18

FAMILY LAW (NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/ORDER OF PROTECTION (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department imposed $5000 sanctions (each) upon plaintiff and his attorney in this matrimonial matter. The underlying action attacking a stipulation (which had already been appealed) and the appeal were deemed frivolous:

We grant defendant's request that we impose sanctions upon plaintiff and his counsel (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). The action below, and the appeal before us now, both of which counsel prosecuted, are plainly without merit (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[c][1]). Moreover, this appeal constitutes plaintiff's third unsuccessful challenge in this Court to the stipulation of settlement, which the parties entered into in 2012 … . In our 2016 decision and order, which affirmed, inter alia, an award of counsel fees to defendant, we held that the award was proper based in part on plaintiff's “multiple, unsuccessful attempts to void or rescind the support provisions contained in the stipulation” … . Where a matrimonial litigant engages in a “relentless campaign to prolong th[e] litigation,” sanctions in this Court are appropriate … . Sonkin v Sonkin, 2018 NY Slip Op 00011, First Dept 1-2-18

ATTORNEYS (PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (FRIVOLOUS, PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/SANCTIONS (FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL, (PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION … ND APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/FAMILY LAW (SANCTIONS, PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FINDING MOTHER WAS MENTALLY ILL WAS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA THE COURT DEEMED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BE A REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND HEARD THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that a finding mother is mentally ill within the meaning of the Social Services Law is not, as a nondispositional order, appealable as of right. However, because of the stigma attached to the finding, the court deemed the notice of appeal to be a request for leave to appeal and granted it. The mental illness finding was affirmed:

Although this nondispositional order is not appealable as of right (see Family Ct Act § 1112[a]), the finding that the mother is mentally ill within the meaning of Social Services Law § 384-b constitutes a permanent and significant stigma that might impact her status in future proceedings … . Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, deems the notice of appeal to be a request for leave to appeal, and hereby grants leave to appeal … . Matter of Chad Nasir S. (Charity Simone S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 00026, First Dept 1-2-18

APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, ALTHOUGH THE FINDING MOTHER WAS MENTALLY ILL WAS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA THE COURT DEEMED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BE A REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND HEARD THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/FAMILY LAW (APPEALS, SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, ALTHOUGH THE FINDING MOTHER WAS MENTALLY ILL WAS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA THE COURT DEEMED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BE A REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND HEARD THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL ILLNESS (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, ALTHOUGH THE FINDING MOTHER WAS MENTALLY ILL WAS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA THE COURT DEEMED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BE A REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND HEARD THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))/SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (APPEALS, MENTAL ILLNESS, FAMILY LAW, ALTHOUGH THE FINDING MOTHER WAS MENTALLY ILL WAS NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA THE COURT DEEMED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BE A REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND HEARD THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence of constructive possession of drugs found in defendant’s sister’s (not defendant’s) residence was sufficient. Defendant’s sentence was deemed too harsh, even for a repeat offender, and was reduced in the interest of justice:

​

” Constructive possession can be established by evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the [drugs and drug paraphernalia] or the area in which [they were] found’ . . . Exclusive access, however, is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession’ ” … . Here, the drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered from various locations inside a residence in which defendant’s sister, her boyfriend and her children resided. It is undisputed that defendant did not reside in that residence. Nevertheless, there was ample evidence that defendant constructively possessed the contraband. * * *

Unlike other constructive possession cases, where the testimony at trial is limited to physical evidence linking a defendant to a location and possession of the drugs must be inferred from the defendant’s ties to the residence … , here there was testimony that defendant on three occasions admitted that the drugs in the house belonged to him, and the sister’s boyfriend testified that the drugs in his residence belonged to defendant. Moreover, the evidence established that defendant had sold cocaine from that residence less than three weeks before the search warrant was executed. People v Tuff, 2017 NY Slip Op 08971, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION  (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department granted the petition for a writ of coram nobis, considered the appeal (which had affirmed the conviction) de novo, and ordered a new trial in this attempted murder, assault case. The reversal was based upon the trial judge’s failure to put on the record the reasons for restraining the defendant in the presence of the jury (an issue not raised in the appeal). The court rejected the People’s argument that the applicable Court of Appeals ruling should not be applied retroactively:

​

… [W]e agree with defendant “that the court erred in failing to make any findings on the record establishing that defendant needed to wear a stun belt during the trial . . . Contrary to the People’s contention, harmless error analysis is not applicable” (… see People v Buchanan, 13 NY3d 1, 4 [2009] … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial … .

We reject the People’s further contention that defendant’s conviction became final before the Court of Appeals’s decision in Buchanan and that the decision should not be applied retroactively to allow a collateral attack on the judgment. In granting defendant’s motion for a writ of error coram nobis, we vacated our prior order and are considering the appeal de novo … . This appeal is therefore not a collateral attack on the judgment. In addition, we are not persuaded by the People’s position that Buchanan should be applied prospectively only. Buchanan did not announce ” new’ rules of law that represent sharp departures from precedent or raise concerns about the orderly administration of justice” … . Instead, we apply the “traditional common-law” rule of deciding this appeal in accordance with the law as it now exists… . People v Hall, 2017 NY Slip Op 09074, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CORAM NOBIS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CORAM NOBIS, FAILURE TO RAISE IMPORTANT ISSUES ON APPEAL, ETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CORAM NOBIS, FAILURE TO RAISE IMPORTANT ISSUES ON APPEAL, ETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))