You are here: / Appeals
,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL.

The Third Department determined County Count did not have the authority to amend a defective conspiracy count by allowing the People to add an overt act. The court entertained the issue even though it was not preserved and it was not raised on appeal. The Third Department had made the same ruling in the codefendant’s (Placido’s) appeal:

​

In connection with Placido’s appeal, this Court has held that count 2 of the indictment was jurisdictionally defective and that County Court lacked the authority to grant the People’s motion to amend that count … ). In light of the fact that count 2 of the indictment was identical in respect to Placido and defendant, it necessarily follows that this Court’s holding in People v Placido … applies with equal force to defendant. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that defendant did not raise this issue before County Court and does not raise it on appeal, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction and reverse defendant’s conviction for conspiracy in the fourth degree. People v Deleon, 2017 NY Slip Op 02848, 3rd Dept 4-13-17

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)/INDICTMENTS (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN OVERT ACT, ISSUE HEARD ON APPEAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION AND FAILURE TO RAISE ON APPEAL)

,

TRIAL JUDGE’S GRANT OF A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS ERROR, HOWEVER THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL.

The Fourth Department determined the People did not have statutory authority to appeal the grant of a trial order of dismissal after a mistrial had been declared because the jury could not reach a verdict. The Fourth Department explicitly stated that it had reviewed the evidence and found it legally sufficient to support the charge (murder). The trial order of dismissal, then, should not have been granted. But there was no mechanism for the People to appeal the error:

“It is fundamental that in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing a criminal appeal, there is no right to appeal” … . CPL 450.20, the “exclusive route for a People’s appeal” … , does not authorize this appeal. Contrary to the People’s contention, CPL 450.20 (2) does not provide the statutory basis for this appeal, inasmuch as the order they seek to appeal did not set aside a guilty verdict and dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 290.10 (1) (b). Rather, there was no guilty verdict to set aside, and the order was issued pursuant to CPL 290.10 (1) (a). Thus, the order is not appealable … . We may not “create a right to appeal out of thin air” in order to address the merits “without trespassing on the Legislature’s domain and undermining the structure of article 450 of the CPL—the definite and particular enumeration of all appealable orders” … . Were we able to review the merits, however, we would agree with the People that the court erred in dismissing the indictment. A “review [of] the legal sufficiency of the evidence as defined by CPL 70.10 (1), [while] accepting the competent evidence as true, in the light most favorable to the People,” compels the conclusion that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge … . People v Tan, 2017 NY Slip Op 02541, 4th Dept 3-31-17

 

,

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff, a Broadway musical producer, alleged defendant made false statements implicating plaintiff in investor fraud (committed by a nonparty). The court noted that the law of the case doctrine applies only to courts of coordinate jurisdiction, not to the appellate courts:

The tortious interference claim was properly sustained insofar as it was premised on emails sent by defendant to a key investor, but not insofar as it was premised on comments made by defendant’s attorney that were quoted in various news articles.

As to the emails, plaintiff adequately pled that defendant’s conduct was unlawful or for the sole purpose of inflicting intentional harm on plaintiff … – as we observed in a related action premised on these same emails (see Rebecca Broadway L.P. v Hotton, 143 AD3d 71, 77 [1st Dept 2016]). Specifically, plaintiff alleged that, in sending the emails, defendant misappropriated confidential information he was privy to as a result of his position as the musical’s press agent and committed the independent tort of defamation … . Sprecher v Thibodeau, 2017 NY Slip Op 02519, 1st Dept 3-30-17

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE SANDOVAL RULING AT TRIAL, THE OBJECTION WAS NOT ON THE PRECISE GROUND RAISED ON APPEAL, THE ISSUE WAS THEREFORE NOT PRESERVED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined defendant’s objection to a Sandoval ruling about the admissibility of evidence of a juvenile delinquency adjudication did not preserve the precise issue which was the subject of the appeal. The concurring opinion argued the error had been preserved, but was harmless. The People sought to introduce evidence of the facts underlying the juvenile delinquency adjudication, but not the adjudication itself. The defendant objected arguing that the defendant should not be judged by actions taken when his mind and values were undeveloped. The court ruled the People could elicit the fact that defendant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent, but could not elicit the facts. On appeal defendant argued it was a legal error to admit evidence of the juvenile delinquency adjudication:

Under the unique factual circumstances of this case and based on the trial court’s colloquy with counsel, we conclude that defendant’s challenge to the Sandoval ruling is unpreserved. Defendant did not make the argument he now asserts at the time of the alleged erroneous ruling, or at any time at all. Instead, he argued, against the People’s initial proffer, that the court should deny the request because defendant’s actions should not be judged based on a young offender’s undeveloped mind and sense of values. Defendant failed to argue that it would be legal error to permit the People to elicit that defendant was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent … . Defendant did not make that argument before or after the compromise ruling, or at any point during the proceedings “when the court had the ‘opportunity of effectively chang[ing]’ its ruling” … and avoiding the error of which defendant now complains. People v Jackson, 2017 NY Slip Op 02361, CtApp 3-28-17

 

,

AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) did not give the petitioner, an indigent sex offender who had completed his sentence, adequate assistance in finding housing in a residential treatment facility (RTF) upon release. Although petitioner had been provided RTF housing by the time the matter was heard, the Third Department reached the issue as an exception to the mootness doctrine. DOCCS’s insufficient assistance in finding RTF housing for released sex offenders was deemed a recurring problem that needed to be addressed:

We agree with petitioner that, due to the “recognized difficulty in securing acceptable housing” for persons subject to sex offender residency restrictions, there is a likelihood of repetition regarding individuals being placed in RTFs due to the failure to secure suitable housing … . Given the transitory purpose of RTFs and considering the lack of appellate precedent regarding challenges to RTF placements and programing, we further recognize that the phenomenon typically evades review … . Finally, we find the issues novel and substantial given that petitioner’s challenges concern whether RTFs are serving their distinct purpose, as contrasted with confinement facilities generally … . * * *

The feasibility and appropriateness of the specific means by which DOCCS may choose to provide affirmative assistance in locating housing to petitioner are, of course, discretionary and beyond the reach of judicial review unless they are shown to be irrational, arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, we may not specify the particular actions that DOCCS should have taken. Nevertheless, its passive approach of leaving the primary obligation to locate housing to an individual confined in a medium security prison facility 100 miles from his family and community, without access to information or communication resources beyond that afforded to other prison inmates, falls far short of the spirit and purpose of the legislative obligation imposed upon DOCCS to assist in this process. Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 02099, 3rd Dept 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)/SEX OFFENDERS (AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)/RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY (SEX OFFENDERS, AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)/APPEALS (AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE)

,

WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals determined the issue whether defendant made an unequivocal request for counsel presented a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be heard by the Court of Appeals. People v Slocum, 2017 NY Slip Op 02089, CtApp 3-23-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WHETHER DEFENDANT MADE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS)

,

PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL.

The Second Department determined petitioner was properly estopped from asserting his paternity claim. The Second Department noted that the fact that petitioner’s paternity petition was reinstated upon a prior appeal did not preclude the denial of the petition on equitable estoppel grounds:

The Family Court properly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to preclude the petitioner from asserting his paternity claim with respect to the subject child. The evidence at a hearing established that the respondent Gaston R. has established a strong father-daughter relationship with the child. The child has referred to Gaston R. as “daddy” since she was 18 months old and continues to view him as the only father figure in her life. In contrast, the petitioner learned, shortly after the child’s birth, that he was the child’s biological father. Nevertheless, he did not commence the instant paternity proceeding until the child was four years old. The petitioner has not had a parent-child relationship with the child for several years, and the child no longer recognizes the petitioner’s name. Under these circumstances, the court properly determined that it was in the child’s best interests to equitably estop the petitioner from asserting his paternity claim

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, this Court’s determination on a prior appeal, which, inter alia, reinstated his paternity petition, did not preclude the Family Court from considering the doctrine of equitable estoppel upon remittal … . Matter of Thomas T. v Luba R., 2017 NY Slip Op 01870, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)/PATERNITY (PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)/EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL (FAMILY LAW, PATERNITY, PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, PETITIONER’S PATERNITY CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED ON EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL GROUNDS, REINSTATEMENT OF PETITION UPON A PRIOR APPEAL DID NOT PRECLUDE DISMISSAL)

,

VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION; EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Family Court properly issued a final order of protection after respondent’s violation of a temporary order of protection. The court noted that the expiration of the order of protection did not render the appeal moot because the order “still imposes significant enduring consequences upon respondent…”. The dissent argued that a final order of protection cannot be issued unless a family offense has been committed:

Here, the Family Court found, on the record after a hearing, that respondent had willfully violated the temporary order of protection with his April 3, 2014 emails containing statements clearly intended to harass petitioner. As a result of this determination, the Family Court conducted a dispositional hearing on respondent’s violation of the temporary order of protection, and thereafter issued a new order of protection. The Family Court adhered to the prescribed procedure and did not exceed its jurisdiction by issuing this final order of protection. * * * … [W]e read Family Court Act § 846-a as prescribing the remedies available to the court when a respondent violates a temporary order of protection, which is what is at issue here. Matter of Lisa T. v King E.T., 2017 NY Slip Op 01487, 1st Dept 2-28-17

FAMILY LAW (VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT)/ORDER OF PROTECTION (FAMILY LAW, VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, VIOLATION OF A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION IS A VALID GROUND FOR ISSUANCE OF A FINAL ORDER OF PROTECTION, EXPIRATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION DOES NOT RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT)

, ,

NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

The First Department determined the denial of a civil motion seeking discovery (letters rogatory) oversees which was made in the context of a criminal proceeding could not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal:

In this matter where an indictment has been filed, a criminal trial is pending, and defendants seek information via letters rogatory for use at their criminal trial, the denial of the application for such letters is part of the criminal proceeding, notwithstanding that the application was brought under CPLR 3108 … .

“It is well established that no appeal lies from a determination made in a criminal proceeding unless specifically provided for by statute”  … . The order appealed from is not a disposition listed in CPL 450.10 or 450.15, and is therefore not an appealable paper … . A “defendant may only appeal after conviction” … , and may not obtain an interlocutory appeal by claiming to invoke the court’s civil jurisdiction. People v DePalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 01441, 1st Dept 2-23-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRIMINAL LAW, NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)/LETTERS ROGATORY (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)

,

CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the removal application should not have been granted and father’s appeal of the removal was not moot, even though the child had been returned to the father:

Although it is undisputed that the child has been returned to the father’s care, the father’s appeals are not academic. The child’s removal created a permanent and significant stigma … .

“In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal'” … . Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the child would be subjected to imminent risk if she were not placed in the custody of the petitioner pending the outcome of the neglect proceeding. Under the circumstances of this case, concerns about, inter alia, the adequacy of the father’s plan to care for the child did not amount to an imminent risk to the child’s life or health that could not be mitigated by reasonable efforts to avoid removal. Matter of Emmanuela B. (Jean E.B.), 2017 NY Slip Op 01195, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, REMOVAL, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/NEGLECT (CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)/REMOVAL (CHILD NEGLECT, FAMILY LAW, CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM FATHER’S CARE, EVEN THOUGH CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED, APPEAL NOT MOOT BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA OF REMOVAL)

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