You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

ATTORNEYS’ FEES NOT AVAILABLE TO INSURED WHO BRINGS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO SETTLE RIGHTS UNDER A POLICY; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insured's motion for summary judgment dismissing the demand for an attorney's fee should have been granted. When an insured brings an affirmative action to settle rights under an insurance policy, the insured cannot recover attorneys' fees. The court further held the action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action and the insurer's motion for summary judgment on that ground was properly denied:

Implicit in every contract is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing which encompasses any promise that a reasonable promisee would understand to be included … . In the context of an insurance contract, “a reasonable insured would understand that the insurer promises to investigate in good faith and pay covered claims” … . Here, the defendant failed to eliminate all triable issues as to whether it investigated the loss in good faith and timely paid covered claims … . Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, the cause of action alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not wholly duplicative of the cause of action alleging breach of contract … .

“[A]n insured may not recover the expenses incurred in bringing an affirmative action against an insurer to settle its rights under the policy” … . The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing so much of the complaint as sought an award of an attorney's fee by demonstrating that the plaintiffs were insureds under the policy and that they commenced this action to settle their rights under the policy … . Doody v Liberty Mut. Group, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01798, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

INSURANCE LAW (ATTORNEYS FEES, INSURED CANNOT RECOVER ATTORNEYS FEES IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO SETTLE RIGHTS UNDER A POLICY)/ATTORNEYS FEES (INSURANCE LAW, INSURED CANNOT RECOVER ATTORNEYS FEES IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO SETTLE RIGHTS UNDER A POLICY)/INSURANCE LAW (CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)/COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (INSURANCE LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT)

, ,

STATEMENTS MADE BY ATTORNEY IN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED, DEFAMATION ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined the defendant-attorney's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The allegedly defamatory statements were made in an affidavit submitted to the court and concerned the will at the center of the proceedings. The statements, therefore, were absolutely privileged:

An otherwise defamatory statement may be “privileged” and thus not actionable … . Insofar as is relevant herein, an absolute privilege is accorded statements made at all stages of a judicial proceeding in communications among the parties, witnesses, counsel, and the court, provided that the statements may be considered in some way “pertinent” to the issue in the proceeding … . “The test of pertinency [to the litigation] is extremely liberal so as to embrace [ ] anything that may possibly or plausibly be relevant or pertinent'” … . This privilege applies to all statements made in or out of court and regardless of the motive for which they were made … .

Here, the complaint alleges that the defendant, who was counsel for the executor in a probate proceeding, made allegedly defamatory statements in an affirmation in support of a motion in that proceeding to compel a continued examination pursuant to Surrogate's Court Procedure Act § 1404. The statements concerned the very subject of the probate proceeding, the contested last Will and Testament of the decedent. Therefore, the subject statements were absolutely privileged as a matter of law and cannot be the basis for a defamation action … . Brady v Gaudelli, 2016 NY Slip Op 01793, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

ATTORNEYS (DEFAMATION, STATEMENTS MADE IN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)/DEFAMATION (STATEMENTS MADE IN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEYS, STATEMENTS MADE IN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WERE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED)

,

UNDER THE FACTS, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED.

The First Department determined defendant's pre-trial request to represent himself was properly denied because the request raised a significant potential for obstruction and diversion. The request was made after the People rested in a suppression hearing:

… [T]he court properly denied defendant's request to represent himself. Although a request to proceed pro se at trial is generally deemed timely if asserted before trial (see People v McIntyre, 36 NY2d 10, 17 [1974]), defendant here waited until after the People had rested in the suppression hearing before requesting to proceed pro se within that hearing, raising a significant “potential for obstruction and diversion” (id.). Accordingly, the court properly denied defendant's request in the absence of “compelling circumstances” (id.). We note that, over the course of the proceedings, defendant was represented by a total of seven retained or assigned attorneys, and repeatedly changed his mind about whether to represent himself. People v Franklin, 2016 NY Slip Op 01781, 1st Dept 3-15-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED)/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRE-TRIAL REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE PROPERLY DENIED)

,

MOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PRO SE PETITION TO MODIFY A CUSTODY AWARD; FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MOTHER’S VISITATION; ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR THE CHILDREN.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother was entitled to a hearing on her pro se petition to modify the award of custody to father. The Third Department also noted that the court should not have delegated to father complete authority to control visitation with mother, and the court should have appointed an attorney for the children. With respect to the need for a custody-modification hearing and the visitation issue, the Third Department wrote:

As the party seeking to modify an existing custodial arrangement, the mother was required to demonstrate, as a threshold, that “there has been a change in circumstances since the prior custody order significant enough to warrant a review of the issue of custody to ensure the continued best interests of the children” … . The mother's petition, filed pro se, “should be construed liberally when considering whether she sufficiently alleged a change in circumstances” …, and she should be accorded “the benefit of every favorable inference” … . “While not every petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing, generally an evidentiary hearing is necessary and should be conducted unless the party seeking the modification fails to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing or no hearing is requested and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the [children's] best interests” … . * * *

With regard to the mother's request for visitation, there is a “presumption that visitation with the noncustodial parent is in the chil[ren]'s best interests” … and, “unless visitation is inimical to the [children's] welfare, Family Court is required to structure a schedule which results in frequent and regular access by the noncustodial parent” … . The record before us contains virtually no factual background information and, as such, does not disclose whether the denial of all visitation to the mother “was based [up]on compelling reasons” or if “visitation would be detrimental or harmful to the child[ren]'s welfare” … . While we express no opinion on the propriety of such visitation, we also note that the court should not have delegated to the father complete authority to determine whether there should be any visitation between the mother and children and under what conditions such contact should occur and, upon remittal, there must be a determination in this regard … . Matter of Harrell v Fox, 2016 NY Slip Op 01534, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON PRO SE PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY)/FAMILY LAW (FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER VISITATION WITH MOTHER)/FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR CHILDREN IN MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING)/CUSTODY (MOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON PRO SE PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY)/VISITATION (FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER VISITATION WITH MOTHER)

,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the indictment on speedy trial grounds. At issue was the delay associated with obtaining DNA test results. A delay for that purpose can be an “exceptional circumstance” justifying exclusion of the delay from the speedy trial clock, but only if the People act with due diligence. The court determined numerous other delays during the course of the proceedings demonstrated the People did not act with due diligence:

Pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(g), periods of delay caused by “exceptional circumstances” are excludable from the time charged to the People; the People have the burden of proving the existence of an exceptional circumstance … . CPL 30.30(4)(g)(i) specifically makes excludable a continuance “granted because of the unavailability of evidence material to the People's case, when the district attorney has exercised due diligence to obtain such evidence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence will become available in a reasonable period.” Under this provision, the unavailability of DNA test results can be considered an exceptional circumstance, so long as the People exercised due diligence to obtain the results … .

Acknowledging that “[t]here is no precise definition of what constitutes an exceptional circumstance,” the Court of Appeals has made clear that the exception to the rule must conform to the legislative intent of discouraging prosecutorial inaction … . People v Gonzalez, 2016 NY Slip Op 01388, 1st Dept 2-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, SPEEDY TRIAL DISMISSAL PROPER)/SPEEDY TRIAL (PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, SPEEDY TRIAL DISMISSAL PROPER)

, ,

COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have conducted an in camera review of documents sought from Morgan Stanley by the petitioner to see whether the documents are privileged under a “common interest privilege.”  Even though a third party, NaturEner, was privy to the documents, and despite a debtor-creditor relationship between Morgan Stanley and NaturEner, because Morgan Stanley and NaturEner shared a common interest in the underlying contract dispute, the common interest privilege may apply:

The common interest privilege is an exception to the rule that the presence of a third party will waive a claim that a communication is confidential. It requires that the communication otherwise qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege and that it be made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties asserting it … .

We find that Morgan Stanley and NaturEner shared a common interest in their desire to have plaintiff comply with its contractual obligations under the Rim Rock agreements. The fact that respondent and defendant were in a debtor-creditor relationship did not make their interests adverse in all matters and at all times … . Under the circumstances, the court should have ordered an in camera inspection, the limited relief requested in the petition … . Matter of San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01238, 1st Dept 2-18-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS, PARTIES COOPERATING IN LAWSUIT)/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (PARTIES COOPERATING IN LAWSUIT)/PRIVILEGE (COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, PARTIES COOPEERATING IN LAWSUIT)

, ,

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER DRUG FACTORY PRESUMPTION OF DRUG POSSESSION; WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC DECISION TO BE MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the evidence supported the jury’s consideration of the “drug factory presumption” re: possession of drugs.  In addition, the Court of Appeals held the decision whether to testify before a grand jury is a strategic decision to be made by the attorney, not the defendant, and, in order to demonstrate ineffective assistance in this context, a defendant must show prejudice. The presence of some loose cocaine on the floor, some baggies and a razor blade was sufficient to trigger the “drug factory presumption”, i.e., a presumption of possession by everyone in close proximity to the cocaine. Without the presumption, there would not have been enough evidence defendant possessed the drugs:

 

While there was not a vast quantity of cocaine found, the evidence presented at trial supported an inference of more than mere intent to use or sell. Specifically, the evidence of packaged and loose drugs, paraphernalia and a razor blade in plain view was sufficient to establish that drugs were being “package[d] or otherwise prepare[d] for sale” in the apartment, permitting the conclusion that defendant, who was in close proximity to the drugs, knowingly possessed them … . * * *

While the right to testify before a grand jury is significant and “must be scrupulously protected” …, “a prospective defendant has no constitutional right to testify before the [g]rand [j]ury” … . In contrast to the “constitutional nature of the right to testify at trial” … , the right to testify before the grand jury is a limited statutory right … . Whether to exercise that right is a decision that requires “the expert judgment of counsel” … because it “involves weighing the possibility of a dismissal, which, in counsel’s judgment may be remote, against the potential disadvantages of providing the prosecution with discovery and impeachment material, making damaging admissions, and prematurely narrowing the scope of possible defenses” — quintessential matters of strategy … . The various risks and benefits that must be considered render the decision of whether to exercise this statutory right “an appropriate one for the lawyer, not the client” … .

In any event, this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that — even when it is due to attorney error — a “defense counsel’s failure to timely facilitate defendant’s intention to testify before the [g]rand [j]ury does not, per se, amount to a denial of effective assistance of counsel” … . That is, even where no strategy is involved, a defendant must show prejudice … . People v Hogan, 2016 NY Slip Op 01207, CtApp 2-18-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER DRUG FACTORY PRESUMPTION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL, SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER DRUG FACTORY PRESUMPTION)/ATTORNEYS (DECISION WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC ONE TO BE MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DECISION WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC ONE TO BE MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE)/GRAND JURY (DECISION WHETHER TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS A STRATEGIC ONE TO BE MADE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE TO SUPPORT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM)

IN A FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF-ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF THE CLIENT’S RIGHT TO ARBITRATE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.

The Second Department determined, in a fee dispute, plaintiff-attorney’s failure to give notice to his client of the client’s right to arbitrate required dismissal of the complaint without prejudice:

 

Except in limited circumstances, where an attorney commences an action to recover a fee, the attorney must provide written notice by certified mail or by personal service of the client’s right to elect to arbitrate and must allege in the complaint that the client received notice of his or her right to pursue arbitration and did not file a timely request to arbitrate or that the dispute is not otherwise covered by the rules governing the resolution of attorney-client fee disputes by arbitration (see 22 NYCRR 137.6…). A plaintiff’s failure to provide the defendant with written notice of his or her right to elect to submit the fee dispute to arbitration, and the failure to allege in the complaint that the defendant received such notice and did not file a timely request for arbitration, or that fee dispute arbitration is inapplicable to the matter for specified reasons, requires dismissal of the complaint … . Pascazi Law Offs., PLLC v Pioneer Natural Pools, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01160, 2nd Dept 2-17-16

 

ATTORNEYS (FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF- ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF RIGHT TO ARBITRATE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT)/ATTORNEY’S FEES (FEE DISPUTE, PLAINTIFF- ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY CLIENT OF RIGHT TO ARBITRATE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT)

,

UNNECESSARILY ALLOWING THE JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY REASONABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction, finding he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Defendant was accused of rape. Although it was not necessary to do so, defense counsel allowed the jury to learn that defendant was a registered sex offender and mentioned the sex-offender status in voir dire, in his opening, during cross-examination and in his closing.  The Fourth Department determined there was no reasonable defense strategy which could justify repeated reference to defendant’s sex-offender status:

 

… [W]e conclude that defense counsel’s strategy, i.e., to allow the jury to know that defendant was a registered sex offender and then argue that the police focused their investigation on defendant because he was a registered sex offender, was based on an obviously false premise. The police focused their investigation on defendant because his DNA profile matched that of the rapist, not because he was a registered sex offender. Moreover, defendant’s DNA profile was in CODIS because he was a convicted felon, not because he had committed a sexual offense. This is not to say that defense counsel pursued an unreasonable defense theory at trial. The theory was that defendant had consensual intercourse with the victim on the same day that she was raped by someone else. In pursuing that theory, however, it was unnecessary for defense counsel to inform the jury that defendant was a registered sex offender. In fact, any chance that the jurors would have believed defendant’s testimony about the intercourse being consensual was likely extinguished once they learned that he had previously committed a sex offense. In short, defendant derived no discernible benefit from the jury knowing that he was a registered sex offender, and was highly prejudiced thereby. People v Stefanovich, 2016 NY Slip Op 01070, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ALLOWING JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (ALLOWING JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (ALLOWING JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

,

TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT RELIEVED DEFENSE COUNSEL ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS BECAUSE A POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial judge did not err by relieving defendant’s attorney, over defendant’s objection, on conflict of interest grounds.  The defense attorney, Fisher, worked for New York County Defender Services (NYCDS). Another NYCDS attorney had represented Stephens, who was involved in the same incident which led to the charges against the defendant. Fisher had no knowledge of the facts of Stephens’ case, but, before he learned of the conflict, Fisher had been looking for Stephens during his investigation as a possible witness. Fisher was instructed by his supervisors at NYCDS he could not question Stephens, call Stephens as a witness, or cross-examine Stephens if the People called him. The defendant told the trial judge he was willing to waive the conflict, because he wanted Fisher to act as his attorney, but he wanted to call Stephens as a witness. The trial judge determined the conflict warranted the assignment of new counsel:

 

… [T]he Appellate Division erred in holding that the trial court abused its discretion. Supreme Court appropriately balanced defendant’s countervailing rights, based on the information it had at the time, and reasonably concluded that Fisher could not effectively represent defendant due to NYCDS’s representation of Stephens and the duty of loyalty Fisher’s supervisors were asserting toward that former client. People v Watson, 2016 NY Slip Op 00998, CtApp 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POTENTIAL WITNESS HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY IN THE SAME LARGE CRIMINAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATION)

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