You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION (CONVICTION NOT REVERSED HOWEVER); INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION.

The Fourth Department admonished the prosecutor for improper remarks in summation, but did not reverse the conviction. The court found the evidence of “physical injury” insufficient to support the Assault 3rd conviction and reversed that unpreserved error under a “weight of the evidence” analysis:

Despite this Court’s repeated admonitions to prosecutors not to engage in misconduct during summation, the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence when he insinuated that the victim regretted that she did not get out of defendant’s vehicle … . The prosecutor also improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy and bolstered the victim’s credibility, and did so repeatedly, by commenting on how difficult it was for her to recount her ordeal, first to the police, then before the grand jury, and finally in her trial testimony … . In addition, the prosecutor improperly suggested that the jury experiment on themselves to see how quickly bite marks fade … . Nevertheless, “[a]lthough we do not condone the prosecutor’s conduct, it cannot be said here that it caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he has been denied due process of law’ ” … . We admonish the prosecutor, however, “and remind him that prosecutors have special responsibilities . . . to safeguard the integrity of criminal proceedings and fairness in the criminal process’ ” … . * * *

We conclude, upon our independent review of the evidence, that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim sustained a physical injury … . The indictment alleged that defendant caused physical injury to the victim “by striking her in the face.” Although the victim testified that defendant struck her in the face, and photographs of the victim showed swelling and discoloration of the left side of her face, the victim did not testify that she suffered substantial pain from that injury or that she sought medical attention for it … . People v Gibson, 2015 NY Slip Op 09722, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR ADMONISHED FOR IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (IMPROPER REMARKS IN SUMMATION)/EVIDENCE (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY RE: ASSAULT 3RD CONVICTION)/ASSAULT 3RD (INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY)

, ,

STATEMENT MADE AFTER UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial after concluding defendant’s statements to police should have been suppressed. After defendant told police she needed to talk to a lawyer, the police questioned her further during a “smoke break:”

After answering questions for approximately an hour and ten minutes, defendant said, “I think I need to talk to an attorney.” In response, the first investigator stated, “Would you like to talk to one? If you think that, that’s fine. That’s up to you.” Defendant replied, “I need to,” before going on to state that she would never have bad feelings toward the boy and genuinely cared about him. The questioning then ceased, and the first investigator allowed defendant to go outside with the second investigator and a female Child Protective Services worker to smoke a cigarette.

While defendant was smoking in the parking garage, the second investigator engaged her in a lengthy conversation. Unbeknownst to defendant, the conversation was being digitally recorded by the second investigator. During the conversation, defendant made numerous admissions, all but confessing that she had engaged in sexual activity with the boy. * * *

… [W]e conclude that, although defendant’s statement “I think I need to talk to an attorney” may not, standing alone, constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel … , her subsequent statement “I need to”—made in reply to the first investigator stating “Would you like to talk to one? If you think that, that’s fine. That’s up to you”—removed any ambiguity and made clear that defendant was requesting the assistance of counsel … . People v Kennard, 2015 NY Slip Op 09729, 4th Dept 12-31-15

 

,

PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, in the interest of justice, reversed defendant’s conviction based upon prosecutorial misconduct in summation:

On summation, the prosecutor repeatedly invoked a “safe streets” argument … , even after Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s objection to the prosecutor’s use of that argument; denigrated the defense by calling defense counsel’s arguments “garbage,” “smoke and mirrors,” and “nonsense” intended to distract the juror’s focus from the “atrocious acts” that defendant committed against the victim … ; improperly characterized the defense as being based on a “big conspiracy” against defendant by the prosecutor and the People’s witnesses … ; and denigrated the fact that defendant had elected to invoke his constitutional right to a trial … . Perhaps most egregiously, given that “the potential danger posed to defendant when DNA evidence is presented as dispositive of guilt is by now obvious,” the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when she mischaracterized and overstated the probative value of the DNA evidence in this case … .

We recognize, of course, that “[r]eversal is an ill-suited remedy for prosecutorial misconduct” … . It is nevertheless mandated when the conduct of the prosecutor “has caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant that he [or she] has been denied due process of law. In measuring whether substantial prejudice has occurred, one must look at the severity and frequency of the conduct, whether the court took appropriate action to dilute the effect of that conduct, and whether review of the evidence indicates that without the conduct the same result would undoubtedly have been reached” … . In view of the substantial prejudice caused by the prosecutor’s misconduct in this case, including the fact that the evidence of guilt is less than overwhelming … , we agree with defendant that reversal is required. People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 09773, 4th Dept 12-31-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL)

, ,

FACEBOOK’S SUIT AGAINST LAW FIRMS WHICH REPRESENTED A CLIENT IN A FRAUDULENT SUIT AGAINST FACEBOOK DISMISSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, dismissed a malicious prosecution and Judiciary Law 487 action brought by Facebook against law firms which represented a client who brought a fraudulent lawsuit against Facebook. The client apparently forged a contract with Mark Zuckerberg (the founder of Facebook) which would have given the client a 50% interest in Facebook. The client’s suit against Facebook was dismissed and the client was indicted for wire fraud. The First Department held that the “conclusory” allegations in the complaint did not sufficiently plead the “no probable cause to bring the suit” element of a malicious prosecution cause of action or the “egregious conduct” element of a Judiciary Law 487 cause of action:

With respect to the element of probable cause [re: malicious prosecution], a plaintiff must allege that the underlying action was filed with “a purpose other than the adjudication of a claim” and that there was “an entire lack of probable cause in the prior proceeding” … . Moreover, the lack of probable cause must be “patent” … . In this context, the Court of Appeals has stated as follows: “Probable cause is the knowledge of facts, actual or apparent, strong enough to justify a reasonable man in the belief that he has lawful grounds for prosecuting the defendant in the manner complained of. The want of probable cause does not mean the want of any cause, but the want of any reasonable cause, such as would persuade a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe in the truth of the charge” … . In a malicious prosecution action, the burden of proof to establish a want of probable cause is on the plaintiffs … .

Here, the … court’s granting of a TRO at the inception of the [client’s] action, prior to any of the defendants’ representation of [the client], created a presumption that [the client] had probable cause to bring the case. This presumption must be overcome by specifically pleaded facts … . Moreover, a plaintiff’s factual allegations regarding lack of probable cause and malice may be disproved by the evidentiary material submitted by defendant in support of a motion to dismiss … .

Applying these principles to this case, we find that the allegations in the instant complaint concerning defendants’ lack of probable cause are entirely conclusory, and are thus inadequate to support the lack of probable cause element of the malicious prosecution claim … . * * *

Relief under a cause of action based upon Judiciary Law § 487 “is not lightly given” … and requires a showing of “egregious conduct or a chronic and extreme pattern of behavior” on the part of the defendant attorneys that caused damages … . Allegations regarding an act of deceit or intent to deceive must be stated with particularity … ; the claim will be dismissed if the allegations as to scienter are conclusory and factually insufficient … . Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP (US), 2015 NY Slip Op 09602, 1st Dept 12-29-15

ATTORNEYS (MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION AGAINST LAW FIRMS WHICH REPRESENTED A CLIENT IN A FRAUDULENT SUIT DISMISSED)/MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (ACTION AGAINST LAW FIRMS WHICH REPRESENTED A CLIENT IN A FRAUDULENT SUIT DISMISSED)/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (ACTION AGAINST LAW FIRMS WHICH REPRESENTED A CLIENT IN A FRAUDULENT SUIT DISMISSED)

, ,

PROSECUTION’S USE OF EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION; THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Pigott (who adopted the dissent by Justice Garry in the Appellate Division), determined that the prosecution’s proof of defendant’s post-Miranda silence as he was being transported by the police violated defendant’s due process rights under the state constitution. The error, however, was deemed harmless because the court found there was no reasonable possibility the error contributed to defendant’s conviction. The defendant’s conviction was therefore upheld. The defendant acknowledged commission of the crimes (two murders) but raised the extreme emotional disturbance (EED) defense. The Court of Appeals held that evidence of defendant’s silence upon arrest, which apparently was aimed at disproving or calling into question the EED defense, did not contribute to the jury’s rejection of the EED defense. The opinion includes extensive discussions of the use of evidence of a defendant’s silence and the related violation of state constitutional rights, the EED proof requirements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. People v Pavone, 2015 NY Slip Op 09315, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/EVIDENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/SILENCE (PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S POST-ARREST SILENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION)

, , ,

WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined a judgment of conviction and sentence becomes final when the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal expires (where no notice is filed). Here the issue was whether the defendant could move to vacate his conviction by guilty plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Because the motion to vacate would not be available if defendant’s conviction and sentence became final before Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) was decided (requiring that a defendant be informed of deportation consequence of a plea), the date of finality was determinative. If the finality date is 30 days after conviction and sentence, defendant’s conviction and sentence would have been final before Padilla was decided. If, as defendant argued, the conviction and sentence became final one year and 30 days after the conviction and sentence, when the time for moving to file a late notice of appeal expired, defendant’s conviction and sentence would not have been final before Padilla was decided. Because the Court of Appeals decided the conviction and sentence became final when no notice of appeal was filed within 30 days, defendant could not move to vacate his conviction:

Adopting defendant’s reasoning would result in uncertainty in the finality of judgments in many procedural situations. For example, a defendant who takes a direct appeal to the Appellate Division but does not seek leave to appeal to this Court in a timely fashion could argue that the judgment was not final until one year and 30 days after the Appellate Division affirmance, inasmuch as the defendant could have sought leave from this Court to file a belated application for discretionary review pursuant to CPL 460.30 (1). Or, a defendant who has filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division but has had the appeal dismissed due to failure to perfect could argue that the judgment is not yet final, inasmuch as the defendant could ask the Appellate Division to vacate the dismissal of the appeal.

Indeed, if we adopt defendant’s logic, other defendants who did not take a direct appeal conceivably could argue that their judgments were never final, inasmuch as they could seek to file a late notice of appeal even after the one-year grace period of CPL 460.30 has expired by moving for a writ of error coram nobis … . People v Varenga, 2015 NY Slip Op 09312, CtApp 12-17-15

CRIMINAL LAW (WHERE NO NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED, A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BECOMES FINAL WHEN THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL EXPIRES)/JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE (BECOMES FINAL UPON EXPIRATION OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

,

RE: FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL: A PREREQUISITE FOR CORAM NOBIS RELIEF IS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a partial dissent, determined that the applications for a writ of coram nobis in the two cases before the court were properly denied. The court found that the defendants were aware of their right to appeal but had not requested that their attorneys file a notice of appeal. The cases, therefore, were factually distinct from cases where the defendants requested that their attorneys file a notice of appeal but the attorneys failed to do so:

In People v Syville (15 NY3d 391), this Court considered whether defendants may be afforded an opportunity to file a notice of appeal, even beyond the one year and 30 days permitted under the CPL. In Syville, the defendants had made timely requests to their attorneys to file a notice of appeal on their behalf but their attorneys failed to comply. We held that when an attorney has failed to comply with a timely request for the filing of a notice of appeal and the defendant demonstrates that the omission could not reasonably have been discovered within the one-year period, the time limit imposed in CPL 460.30 should not categorically bar an appellate court from considering a coram nobis application to pursue an untimely appeal. Thus, coram nobis relief is not just another stop on a continuum of opportunities for a defendant to seek appellate relief. Rather, it is extraordinary relief only to be provided in “rare cases” “when a right to appeal was extinguished ‘due solely to the unconstitutionally deficient performance of counsel'” … . * * *

… [N]either defendant claims that he requested that his attorney file a notice of appeal and that his attorney failed to comply with that request. Rather, they claim that counsel did not advise them of the right to appeal and had defendants known about their right to appeal, they would have requested one. However, in both appeals, the only evidence proffered in support of the contention that defendants were not apprised of their appellate rights are self-serving affidavits. The records as a whole reveal that defendants knew about their right to appeal. Thus, to grant defendants relief here would be to broaden the Syville rule to apply to any case where a notice of appeal had not been filed within one year and 30 days of conviction. Such a rule would abrogate CPL 460.30. Simply put, defendants here failed to show that their attorneys were unconstitutionally ineffective and therefore they are not entitled to the relief they seek. People v Rosario, 2015 NY Slip Op 09230, CtApp 12-16-15

CRIMINAL LAW (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)/CORAM NOBIS (NO RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST ATTORNEY TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)/APPEALS (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF WHERE DEFENDANT DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL)

,

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE DID NOT PRECLUDE TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S USE OF A RAZOR BLADE, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S ACQUITTAL ON THE RELATED “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” CHARGES IN THE FIRST TRIAL; ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE REQUIRED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BE GRANTED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not prohibit testimony in defendant's second trial that the defendant threatened to cut a victim's throat with a razor blade, despite the fact defendant was acquitted of charges involving the use of a dangerous instrument in the first trial. The court concluded that the witness-victims could not give truthful testimony about the defendant's actions without reference to the razor blade. Therefore, the collateral estoppel doctrine, under the facts of this case, was properly not applied. The court went on to find that defense counsel's request to withdraw or her motion for a mistrial should have been granted. Defense counsel's statements at arraignment were used to impeach the defendant's version of events. After defense counsel reviewed her notes, she informed the court that her statements at arraignment were incorrect and that defendant's testimony at trial matched what he had told her before arraignment. Under these circumstances, the witness-advocate rule required that defense counsel withdraw or that a mistrial be declared. Defendant's conviction was therefore reversed:

… [T]he rigid application of collateral estoppel sometimes gives way to society's interest in ensuring the correctness of criminal prosecutions … . Thus, … if it becomes apparent … that collateral estoppel “cannot practicably be followed if a necessary witness is to give truthful testimony, then [the doctrine] should not be applied” …. . * * *

[Re: the use of defense counsel's erroneous statement to impeach defendant:] The situation went from bad to worse when it became clear that the only way for defense counsel to rehabilitate her client's credibility was to impugn her own, moments before she would argue for her client's innocence in summation. Any way you look at it, defense counsel had no choice but to withdraw. In these unusual circumstances, we hold that the trial court should have granted counsel's request to withdraw or declared a mistrial. People v Ortiz, 2015 NY Slip Op 09233, CtApp 12-16-15

CRIMINAL LAW (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE NOT APPLIED)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (UNDER THE FACTS, DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASE)/ATTORNEYS (ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE REQUIRED THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BE GRANTED)/ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW OR HER MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

NO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION FUND TO WHICH ATTORNEY’S CHARGING LIEN COULD ATTACH.

The Second Department explained when an attorney’s charging lien can be imposed in divorce proceedings:

“A charging lien is a security interest in the favorable result of litigation, giving the attorney equitable ownership interest in the client’s cause of action and ensuring that the attorney can collect his fee from the fund he has created for that purpose on behalf of the client” (… see Judiciary Law § 475). In a matrimonial action, a charging lien will be available “to the extent that an equitable distribution award reflects the creation of a new fund by an attorney greater than the value of the interests already held by the client” … . However, “[w]here the attorney’s services do not create any proceeds, but consist solely of defending a title or interest already held by the client, there is no lien on that title or interest” … .

In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant already owned the marital residence jointly as tenants by the entirety. Thus, the parties’ settlement agreement merely permitted the plaintiff to retain her existing interest in the marital residence. “Although the nature of the property was converted from realty into dollars, her interest remained the same. Thus, no equitable distribution fund to which a charging lien can attach was created by the efforts of the [plaintiff’s] attorney” … . Charnow v Charnow, 2015 NY Slip Op 09241, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

ATTORNEYS (CHARGING LIEN IN MATRIMONIAL ACTIONS)/FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEY’S CHARGING LIEN IN MATRIMONIAL ACTIONS)/CHARGING LIEN (MATRIMONIAL ACTIONS)

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTFF’S ATTORNEY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiff’s attorney on conflict of interest grounds should have been granted. Plaintiff’s attorney had previously represented the defendant involving issues substantially related to those in the current action:

“The disqualification of an attorney is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the court” … . “A party seeking disqualification of its adversary’s counsel based on counsel’s purported prior representation of that party must establish (1) the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship between the moving party and opposing counsel, (2) that the matters involved in both representations are substantially related, and (3) that the interests of the present client and former client are materially adverse'” … . ” A party’s entitlement to be represented in ongoing litigation by counsel of [his or her] own choosing is a valued right which should not be abridged absent a clear showing that disqualification is warranted'” … . However, the right to be represented by counsel of one’s own choosing “will not supercede a clear showing that disqualification is warranted” … . Any doubts as to the existence of a conflict of interest must be resolved in favor of disqualification so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety … . “Due to the significant competing interests in attorney disqualification cases,’ however, the Court of Appeals has advised against mechanical application of blanket rules,’ in favor of a careful appraisal of the interests involved'” … . Gjoni v Swan Club, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09252, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

ATTORNEYS (MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DISQUALIFICATION OF ATTORNEY (MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

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