Attorneys Archives - New York Appellate Digest

Attorneys, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE HOME AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ARREST WARRANT, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BECAUSE THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME WITH CONSENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED THE POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT TO DELAY THE ATTACHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND PROCURE STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers raising a question of first impression, determined the police did not violate the New York Constitution when they entered the home looking for defendant and made a warrantless arrest. The police had probable cause when they went to the home and defense counsel argued they did not get a warrant in order to delay the attachment of the right to counsel and obtain statements. The Second Department determined there was no Payton violation because the motion court credited the police testimony claiming they entered the home with the consent of the person who answered the door:

… [T]he defendant’s appellate counsel specifically contends that where the police, armed with probable cause and ample time to obtain an arrest warrant, nevertheless choose to make a warrantless arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances, their conduct must be deemed to violate the defendant’s indelible right to counsel under the New York State Constitution (see People v Harris, 77 NY2d at 440).

While this issue presents what appears to be an important constitutional question of first impression, we see no viable path to resolving this question in the defendant’s favor within the current framework of New York law. Although the hearing evidence fully supports the defendant’s view that the police went to the subject residence with the intent of making a warrantless arrest—indeed, the People did not present any evidence to suggest any alternative motive for the early morning visit—New York law does not presently recognize a “new category of Payton violations based on subjective police intent” (… People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434). Therefore, we decline to find that the police conduct in this case amounted to a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights under Payton and/or Harris.

Moreover, since the hearing court’s supportable finding of voluntary consent negates the defendant’s Payton claim, we need not consider the defendant’s further contention regarding the causal link between the warrantless arrest and his subsequent statements to the police. People v Cuencas, 2020 NY Slip Op 08118, Second Dept 12-30-20

December 30, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Family Law, Judges

MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should have been advised of her right to counsel in this custody proceeding:

“Family Court Act § 262 provides certain parties to particular Family Court proceedings with a statutory right to counsel. If the party in question falls within one of the enumerated subdivisions thereto, he or she must be advised by the court, before proceeding, that he or she has the right to representation, the right to seek an adjournment to confer with counsel and the right to assigned counsel if he or she cannot afford to retain counsel” … . The deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … .

Here, the mother clearly fell within one of the enumerated subdivisions of Family Court Act § 262 because she was the respondent in a custody modification proceeding. Therefore, the Family Court should have advised the mother of her right to counsel. Matter of Follini v Currie, 2020 NY Slip Op 08062, Second Dept 12-30-20

December 30, 2020/0 Comments/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Attorneys, Environmental Law, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

ONE PURPOSE FOR ASSESSING ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST THE AGENCY IN A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW CASE IS TO DISCOURAGE DELAYS IN RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS; THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP) TURNED OVER THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE APPEAL, THE DEP STILL SHOULD PAY THE ATTORNEY’S FEES RELATED TO THE APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the request for attorney’s fees for the appeal in this Freedom of Information Law action should not have been denied. Supreme Court reasoned that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had turned over the requested documents before the appeal:

Supreme Court suggested that it would be “unduly punitive” to include appellate counsel fees and costs in its award given that DEC had already disclosed all responsive, nonprivileged documents to petitioners. The goal of an award of counsel fees and costs under Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c), however, is to deter “unreasonable delays and denials of access and thereby encourage every unit of government to make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of FOIL” … . As we detailed in our prior decision (169 AD3d at 1311-1312), DEC failed to respond to petitioners’ FOIL administrative appeal in a timely manner and disclosed responsive documents after petitioners advanced a FOIL claim in this action/proceeding, and DEC then resisted petitioners’ efforts to recover counsel fees and costs incurred as a result of its dilatory conduct. In our view, those facts demonstrate that the portion of the prior appeal relating to petitioners’ FOIL claim stemmed from “the very kinds of unreasonable delays and denials of access which the counsel fee provision seeks to deter,” and Supreme Court accordingly abused its discretion in declining to include the counsel fees and costs connected thereto in its award … . Matter of 101CO, LLC v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2020 NY Slip Op 07969, Third Dept 12-24-20

December 24, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Criminal Law

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AT RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the resentencing, determined defendant was deprived of his right to counsel when he represented himself at resentencing:

We agree with defendant’s contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs, as the People correctly concede, that he was deprived of his right to counsel when Supreme Court permitted defendant to represent himself at the resentencing proceeding without properly ruling on defendant’s multiple requests for assignment of counsel … . Denial of the right to counsel during a particular proceeding does not invariably require remittal for a repetition of the tainted proceeding, or any other remedy, inasmuch as “the remedy to which a defendant is entitled ordinarily depends on what impact, if any, the tainted proceeding had on the case as a whole” … . Here, however, the court’s failure to consider defendant’s motion for assigned counsel had an adverse impact on the resentencing proceeding because the absence of counsel prevented defendant from, inter alia, adequately contesting his adjudication as a second felony offender and arguing against the imposition of the maximum sentence permissible under the law. We therefore reverse the resentence and remit the matter to Supreme Court for resentencing, and we direct the court to ensure that defendant is afforded his right to counsel … . People v Caswell, 2020 NY Slip Op 07810, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

December 23, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Legal Malpractice, Municipal Law, Negligence

FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE NEW YORK TRANSIT AUTHORITY (AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK) IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND THE FAILURE TO APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM, GAVE RISE TO THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action against one of two groups of attorney-defendants should not have been dismissed. The first group of attorneys (the Schneider defendants) failed to file a timely notice of claim against the New York Transit Authority (NYTA) in this slip and fall case. Then plaintiff retained the second group of attorneys (the Kletzkin defendants) and the action was dismissed with prejudice. Then plaintiff sued both groups of attorneys for legal malpractice and for violations of Judiciary Law 487. Supreme Court granted the Kletzkin defendants motion to dismiss and denied the Schneider defendants’ motion to dismiss. The facts were not discussed, but the court noted the difference between a legal malpractice and a Judiciary Law 487 cause of action:

… [T]he plaintiff adequately pleaded the cause of action alleging legal malpractice against the Kletzkin defendants and the Schneider defendants. Contrary to the contentions of those defendants, neither conclusively established that an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem the late notice of claim timely served upon the NYCTA nunc pro tunc would have been futile … .

Contrary to the Kletzkin defendants’ contention, the complaint adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487. Contrary to the Schneider defendants’ contention, the cause of action alleging violation of Judiciary Law § 487 is not duplicative of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice. “A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 requires an intent to deceive (see Judiciary Law § 487), whereas a legal malpractice claim is based on negligent conduct” … . Bianco v Law Offs. of Yuri Prakhin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07849, Second Dept 12-23-20

December 23, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Attorneys, Criminal Law

THE APPEAL WAIVERS WERE NOT EXECUTED UNTIL SENTENCING AND WERE THEREFORE INVALID; ARGUMENTS ABOUT A LATE FILED OMNIBUS MOTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE OMNIBUS MOTIONS DID NOT SURVIVE THE GUILTY PLEAS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the waivers of appeal were invalid and defendant’s arguments the court should have considered a late omnibus motion and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file omnibus motions did not survive the guilty pleas:

The written waivers do not establish valid waivers because they were not executed until sentencing … and, even assuming, arguendo, that the written waivers had been executed at the time of the pleas, the court “failed to confirm that [defendant] understood the contents of the written waivers” … . …

Defendant contends in appeal No. 1 that the court abused its discretion in refusing to entertain, in the interest of justice and for good cause shown … , that part of his untimely omnibus motion seeking a Huntley hearing. We conclude, however, that defendant, by pleading guilty, forfeited appellate review of that contention. …

To the extent that defendant further contends in all three appeals that his first attorney’s failure to file a timely omnibus motion constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude under these circumstances that defendant’s contention likewise does not survive his guilty pleas. People v Parker, 2020 NY Slip Op 07747, Fourth Dept 12-23-20

December 23, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys

DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY AND PHYSICIAN REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, ARGUING PLAINTIFF MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SPECIFY HOW PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiff Colantonio, an attorney and physician representing himself, should not have been granted. Plaintiffs brought a fraud an breach of contract action arising from the lease/purchase of a liposuction laser unit. Defendants moved to disqualify arguing Colantonio may be called as a witness:

“In order to disqualify counsel on the ground that he or she may be called as a witness, the party moving for disqualification has the burden of demonstrating that ‘(1) the testimony of the opposing party’s counsel is necessary to his or her case, and (2) such testimony would be prejudicial to the opposing party'” … . In turn, “[a] finding of necessity takes into account such factors as the significance of the matters, weight of the testimony, and availability of other evidence” … .

… [T]he defendants each failed to make the requisite showing that Colantonio should be disqualified as counsel for Empire Medical and Cestari. The defendants failed to specify the facts about which they expect Colantonio to testify or to establish how such testimony would be necessary to their defense … . They also failed to allege that Colantonio’s testimony would be prejudicial to plaintiffs Cestari or Empire Medical … . Indeed, Colantonio and Cestari both attested to the opposite. At this early stage in the litigation, discovery has not established the substance and necessity of Colantonio’s testimony in the action … . Moreover, in opposition to the motions, plaintiff Cestari averred that disqualification of Colantonio would cause a substantial hardship on him, which constitutes an exception to the rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) advocate-witness disqualification … . Empire Med. Servs. of Long Is., P.C. v Sharma, 2020 NY Slip Op 07545, Second Dept 12-16-20

December 16, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Appeals, Attorneys, Criminal Law

DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED HOURS AWAY FROM HIS BROOKLYN ATTORNEY AND ATTEMPTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY BEFORE ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant was housed far away from his Brooklyn attorney and the attempts to have him moved to New York City were ignored by the Department of Corrections. The Second Department held defendant had been deprived of his right to counsel:

Under the circumstances here, and particularly in view of the defendant’s substantiated and uncontradicted testimony that he was deprived of his constitutional right to consult with his attorney in advance of trial, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application pursuant to CPL 220.60(3) to withdraw his plea of guilty. Under the circumstances … we conclude that the interests of justice would have been better served had the defendant been permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty. * * *

This Court has recognized that “[s]imple justice . . . mandates that a plea must be knowingly and intelligently given and, if it be to any degree induced by fear or coercion, it will not be permitted to stand” … . People v Hollmond, 2020 NY Slip Op 07222, Second Dept 12-2-20

December 2, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Immunity, Malicious Prosecution, Municipal Law

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; AN INDICTMENT RAISES ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHICH CAN BE REBUTTED; A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED ONLY TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS AN INVESTIGATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s malicious prosecution cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was arrested and indicted for sex trafficking, held in jail for 10 months, and then the charges were dropped. The court noted that the indictment raised only a presumption of probable cause which can be rebutted. The plaintiff raised a question of fact about whether the prosecution was motivated by malice. A prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting as an investigator:

“The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice” … . Although a grand jury indictment raises a presumption of probable cause, this presumption may be rebutted … . “[E]ven if the jury at a trial could, or likely would, decline to draw inferences favorable to the plaintiff on issues of probable cause and malice, the court on a summary judgment motion must indulge all available inferences of the absence of probable cause and the existence of malice” … . …

“[A] prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken within the scope of his or her official duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the People’s case, but a prosecutor is entitled only to qualified immunity when acting in an investigatory capacity” … . Crooks v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 07161, Second Dept 12-2-20

December 2, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

Attorneys, Criminal Law, Evidence

THE “DUAL JURY” PROCEDURE USED TO TRY DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED, AND THE CO-DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACQUITTED, ALLOWED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TO ACT AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s (Feliciano’s) murder and robbery convictions, determined the “dual jury” procedure used to try Feliciano and his co-defendant, Roberts, deprived Feliciano of a fair trial. Feliciano’s defense was he was with Roberts when Roberts committed the crimes but did not participate. Roberts’ defense was he did not participate in the crimes at all. Feliciano was convicted and Roberts was acquitted:

In reviewing Feliciano’s claim on appeal that he was entitled to a severance, we are required to consider the entire record, including, retrospectively, the full trial record … . Feliciano must demonstrate that he was unduly prejudiced by the severance and that a joint trial “substantially impair[ed defendant’s] defense” … . “[T]he level of prejudice required to override the strong public policy favoring joinder” exists “where the core of each defense is in irreconcilable conflict with the other and where there is a significant danger, as both defenses are portrayed to the trial court, that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer defendant’s guilt” … . A trial before dual juries, which constitutes a modified form of severance, is to be used sparingly and is evaluated under standards for reviewing severance motions generally, as set forth above … . * * *

[Damaging] … testimony and evidence was unsolicited by the People and would never have been presented to Feliciano’s jury, but for Roberts’ cross examination. Roberts’ counsel’s pursuit of his client’s defense, contemporaneously undermined Feliciano’s. Accordingly, he effectively became a “second prosecutor” and was able to impeach … witnesses to Feliciano’s detriment in a manner that the People were unable to. Under these circumstances, a dual jury trial was improper as it did not prevent Feliciano from being prejudiced by Roberts’ antagonistic defense … . People v Feliciano, 2020 NY Slip Op 07145, First Dept 12-1-20

December 1, 2020/by Bruce Freeman

MOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AT RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

THE APPEAL WAIVERS WERE NOT EXECUTED UNTIL SENTENCING AND WERE THEREFORE INVALID; ARGUMENTS ABOUT A LATE FILED OMNIBUS MOTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE OMNIBUS MOTIONS DID NOT SURVIVE THE GUILTY PLEAS (FOURTH DEPT).

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; AN INDICTMENT RAISES ONLY A PRESUMPTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WHICH CAN BE REBUTTED; A PROSECUTOR IS ENTITLED ONLY TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS AN INVESTIGATOR (SECOND DEPT).

THE “DUAL JURY” PROCEDURE USED TO TRY DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED, AND THE CO-DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACQUITTED, ALLOWED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TO ACT AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.