You are here: / Attorneys
,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND COLLUSION” PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 487 WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMON LAW FRAUD; THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW A PARTY WAS MISLED BY THE ATTORNEY’S INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against an attorney (Moore) for “deceit and collusion” within the meaning of Judiciary Law 487:

Judiciary Law § 487 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n attorney or counselor who . . . [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” In essence, the statute “imposes liability for the making of false statements with scienter” … . However, “Judiciary Law § 487 is not a codification of common-law fraud and therefore does not require a showing of justifiable reliance” … . Stated another way, “liability under the statute does not depend on whether the court or party to whom the statement is made is actually misled by the attorney’s intentional false statement” … ; i.e., the statute “focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” … .

… [P]laintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that, from the time he became the client’s attorney, Moore engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he advocated for the validity of a fraudulent deed, and oversaw the revision of fraudulent surveys based upon that deed. Plaintiffs alleged that Moore was in possession of documents and correspondence establishing that the deed was the fraudulent product of the client and defendant Aaron I. Mullen, an attorney who had previously represented the client, and that Moore failed to disclose those items despite receiving a valid discovery demand for them. Plaintiffs also alleged that Moore instituted a CPLR article 78 proceeding based upon the allegedly fraudulent deed and that he attached the deed to the petition. Plaintiffs further alleged that Moore participated in the client’s fraud, and did so intentionally and with knowledge of the client’s fraud, to plaintiffs’ detriment of more than $100,000 in legal fees and expenses. Ostrander v Mullen, 2024 NY Slip Op 06461, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A Judiciary Law 487 action against an attorney focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not whether the deceit was successful.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE PREJUDICED BY THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS WHICH DID NOT ALTERNATE THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES; THE FIRST QUESTION POSED TO THE JURY EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED THE JURORS FROM CONSIDERING THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the jury verdict and ordering a new trial in this Insurance Law 5102(d) “serious injury” case, determined the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the jury selection method used the trial judge, and the first question on the verdict sheet was improper because it effectively precluded the jury from considering the relevant question, whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury:”

The court’s failure to alternate the peremptory challenge process … placed plaintiffs in the untenable position of having to utilize a peremptory challenge for a prospective juror that may not have been necessary had defendants been required to go first. This error compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Plaintiffs further contend that Supreme Court erred by including the first question on the verdict sheet — i.e., “[h]ave the plaintiffs . . . established that the incident . . . was a substantial factor in causing [Mormile’s] injuries?” We agree.  The specific issue for the jury to resolve was whether, as a result of the subject accident, Mormile sustained a “serious injury” as set forth in question 2 on the verdict sheet (did Mormile “sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system”); question 3 (did Mormile “sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member”); question 4 (did Mormile “sustain a injury that resulted in a significant disfigurement”); and question 5 (did Mormile “suffer a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature . . . that prevented him from performing all of the material acts that constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident?”).

The first question effectively only asks whether there was probable cause to establish that Mormile’s injuries resulted from the accident (see PJI 2:70). Having answered “No” to that global question, the jury did not answer questions 2 through 5. In effect, the jury did not resolve the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether Mormile sustained a “serious injury” in the accident, as defined under each of the four distinct categories at issue … . Mormile v Marshall, 2024 NY Slip Op 06390, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Failure to alternate the peremptory challenges compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Practice Point: The first question on the verdict sheet effectively precluded the jury from considering the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY; THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined (1) defendant’s request to represent himself should not have been summarily denied, and (2) the search warrant did not provide probable cause for the search of defendant’s cell phones:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

While we defer to all reasonable inferences that the magistrate could have made in issuing the initial search warrant, we find the original affidavit did not establish the probable cause required to issue a search warrant for defendant’s cell phones. … [T]he warrant was supported by [investigator] Bruno’s affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 06239, Third Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge should conduct a colloquy to determine whether defendant is making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.​

Practice Point: The assertion in an affidavit that defendant’s cell phones “may” contain evidence of a drug offense does not provide probable cause for the search of the cell phones.

 

, , ,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, WHICH WAS BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S MAKING U-TURNS, AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REARGUE THE MOTION AND PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U-TURNS WERE, IN FACT, ILLEGAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the judge in this DWI prosecution should not have granted the People’s motion to reargue the suppression motion. The court had initially granted defendant’s motion to suppress because the People failed to prove U-turns made by the defendant were illegal. When the suppression motion was reargued, the People presented evidence the U-turns were, in fact, illegal and the court denied suppression:

… [I]f the People have had a full and fair opportunity to oppose suppression, and the suppression court has issued a ruling on the merits, the People may not have an additional “opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position” … . Under the circumstances of this case, where the People were unprepared for the suppression hearing and sought to reargue the legal issue to remedy their lack of preparedness, the same principle should apply.

At a suppression hearing, the People bear the burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . Here, the court granted defendant’s motion for suppression because the People failed to demonstrate that defendant’s U-turns were illegal and therefore that the stop was lawful. Neither the Assistant District Attorney nor the arresting officer could identify any traffic law provision violated by defendant. Moreover, the People did not request a recess or adjournment to determine the statutory basis for the stop, nor did they request permission to furnish a post-hearing submission to identify any relevant provision of law. Instead, the People returned a month after the court granted suppression, offering a different legal theory that they had not raised at the original suppression hearing. On that new legal theory, the court changed course and denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Of course, “[b]efore sentence is imposed, trial courts in criminal cases have the general inherent authority to correct their own mistakes” … , which may include granting leave to reargue. Although the People may be permitted to reargue the legal or factual issues of the suppression proceedings, allowing the suppression court to grant the People’s motion to reargue in these circumstances would run afoul of our “full and fair opportunity” principle and the policies of finality and judicial efficiency underlying it. People v Lawson, 2024 NY Slip Op 06238, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Pont: As a general rule, the People should have only one chance to demonstrate the legality of a traffic stop in the context of a suppression hearing. Once a suppression motion is granted, the People should not be allowed to reopen the hearing to present evidence which could have been presented the first time around.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF PREVAILED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; HOWEVER, ABSENT A CONTRACT PROVISION, OR A STATUTE OR COURT RULE ALLOWING THE AWARD, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been awarded attorney’s fees in this breach of contract action because the contract did not so provide:

“New York follows the general rule that attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute, or court rule” … . “It is not uncommon, however, for parties to a contract to include a promise by one party to hold the other harmless for a particular loss or damage and counsel fees are but another form of damage which may be indemnified in this way” … . “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … .

Here, the contract did not provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees that resulted from the instant litigation, and the plaintiff failed to establish that a statute or court rule would entitle her to an award of attorneys’ fees. Wolf v Vestra SPV3, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: The general rule in New York is, absent a contract provision or a statute or court rule allowing the award of attorney’s fees, the winner of a lawsuit cannot collect attorney’s fees from the loser.

 

,

THE PEOPLE’S “READY FOR TRIAL” STATEMENT, MADE BEFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS FILED, WAS CONCEDEDLY ILLUSORY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the People conceded the statement of readiness for trial was illusory. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy-trial grounds should have been granted:

“Ready for trial” for purposes of CPL 30.30 means “present readiness, not a prediction or expectation of future readiness” … . “A statement of readiness at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock” … .

Here, as the People correctly concede, their statement of readiness filed on November 9, 2021, before the filing of the indictment, was illusory and thus ineffective to stop the speedy trial clock … . The People also acknowledge that they did not thereafter declare their readiness until after the six-month period had expired and, therefore, that the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial should have been granted … . People v Moore, 2024 NY Slip Op 06214, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A “ready for trial” statement which is a prediction or an expectation of future readiness is illusory and invalid.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO RENDER THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine applied to render legal malpractice causes of action timely:

The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging legal malpractice is three years (see CPLR 214[6]). “However, causes of action alleging legal malpractice which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations are timely if the doctrine of continuous representation applies” … . “For the continuous representation doctrine to apply, there must be clear indicia of an ongoing, continuous, developing, and dependent relationship between the client and the attorney which often includes an attempt by the attorney to rectify an alleged act of malpractice” … . “[A] person [is not] expected to jeopardize his [or her] pending case or his [or her] relationship with the attorney handling that case during the period that the attorney continues to represent the person. Since it is impossible to envision a situation where commencing a malpractice suit would not affect the professional relationship, the rule of continuous representation tolls the running of the Statute of Limitations on the malpractice claim until the ongoing representation is completed” … . Dellwood Dev., Ltd. v Coffinas Law Firm, PLLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06184, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: Here there were questions of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine applied to render the legal malpractice causes of action timely.

 

, , , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE, ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S DISPARAGING REMARKS, AND ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, AMOUNTED TO A DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA WITHDRAWN AND VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw and vacate his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

The People concede that defendant’s right to counsel was violated by the court’s ruling improperly prohibiting defendant from retaining an unpaid attorney who worked at a public defender organization which represented him on a related matter … , and by the conflict of interest between assigned counsel and defendant that arose from counsel’s disparaging statements, in court and in written submissions, about defendant and his possible defense of accidental stabbing.

Defendant was also deprived of effective assistance when his counsel advised him that because of his plea, he will most likely be deported, since it is clear that defendant’s conviction would trigger mandatory deportation … . People v Pan, 2024 NY Slip Op 06166, First Dept 12-10-24

Practice Point: The judge improperly prohibited defendant from obtaining counsel of his choice.

Practice Point: Assigned counsel’s disparaging remarks about defendant created a conflict of interest.

Practice Point: Assigned counsel’s failure to inform defendant deportation was mandatory constituted ineffective assistance.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL IN A STATEWIDE CENTRAL REGISTER OF CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT (SCR) PROCEEDING; THE STATUTE REQURING EXPUNGEMENT OF AN SCR CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT IF THE RELATED FAMILY COURT CASE IS DISMISSED DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THE MALTREATMENT REPORT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a three-judge dissent, determined (1) petitioner was not entitled to counsel at the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR) administrative hearing, (2) the amendment to the Social Services Law [Social Services Law § 422 [8] [a] [ii]] requiring expungement of a child maltreatment report after a related dismissal in Family Court did not apply retroactively, and (3) the report was supported by the evidence:

ACS [New York City Administration for Children’s Services] commenced a Family Court article 10 neglect proceeding against petitioner and her husband, who had custody of T. and her younger sisters. Family Court authorized an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD), which allows the court to adjourn the proceedings for a period not exceeding one year “with a view to ultimate dismissal of the petition in furtherance of justice” (Family Court Act § 1039 [b]). In February of 2020, Family Court dismissed the article 10 proceeding upon the expiration of the adjournment period based on petitioner’s satisfactory compliance with Family Court’s conditions, including completion of parenting and anger management classes.

Meanwhile, the police officer who interviewed T. made a report to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR). One of the SCR’s primary purposes is to inform child care providers and agencies that a person has a substantiated report of child abuse or maltreatment “for the purpose of regulating their future employment or licensure” … . In July of 2019, ACS determined that the report against petitioner was indicated … and petitioner challenged that determination … . After an internal administrative review, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) concluded that a fair preponderance of the evidence supported a determination that petitioner had maltreated T. and that the maltreatment was relevant and reasonably related to employment, licensure, or certification in the child care field … . Matter of Jeter v Poole, 2024 NY Slip Op 05868, CtApp 11-25-24

Practice Point: Petitioner was not entitled to counsel in a SCR child maltreatment proceeding.

Practice Point: The Social Services Law statute which requires expungement of a maltreatment report if the related Family Court proceeding is dismissed does not apply retroactively.

 

, , ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA VACATED AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the superior court information, determined the record did not demonstrate the defendant signed the waiver of appeal in open court in the presence of counsel:

… [T]he plea minutes are silent as to when the undated waiver was executed by defendant, and during the colloquy County Court referred to defendant as having “signed” the waiver in the past tense … . Neither the waiver nor the plea colloquy confirms that defendant signed the written waiver in the presence of counsel. Further, although County Court indicated in the undated order approving the waiver that it was generally satisfied that the requirements of CPL 195.10 and 195.20 had been met, nothing in the order explicitly confirms “that the waiver was signed in open court” in the presence of counsel . Thus, … the record does not reflect that defendant’s waiver of indictment passes constitutional and statutory muster, and it follows that defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the underlying SCI dismissed … . People v Trapani, 2024 NY Slip Op 05846, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: When a defendant waives his right to an indictment and agrees to plead to a superior court information, the record must reflect the waiver was made in open court and in the presence of counsel. Absent proof of those statutory and constitutional requirements the waiver is invalid.

Similar issue and result in People v Rupp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05845, Third Dept 11-21-24.

 

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