You are here: / Attorneys
,

Family Court Should Have Inquired More Deeply Into Mother’s Finances Before Ordering the Matter to Proceed Without Counsel for Mother

The Second Department determined Family Court should have inquired into mother's financial situation in more depth before finding that she was not eligible for assigned counsel and proceeding in the absence of counsel:

Given the mother's statements indicating that she lacked the funds to retain private counsel, the Family Court should have inquired further into the mother's financial circumstances, including, but not limited to, inquiring about her expenses, to determine whether she was eligible for assigned counsel … .

Furthermore, “[w]aiver of the right to counsel must be founded on an explicit and intentional relinquishment which is supported by knowledge and a clear understanding of the right” … . “In order to determine whether a party is validly waiving the right to counsel, the court must conduct a searching inquiry of the party who wishes to waive that right and thus proceed pro se. While there is no rigid formula to be followed in such an inquiry, and the approach is flexible, the record must demonstrate that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … .

Here, the record is clear that the mother did not wish to proceed pro se, but was forced to do so in light of her alleged inability to retain counsel after numerous adjournments and a lengthy delay in the proceedings … . The deprivation of the mother's fundamental right to counsel requires reversal, without regard to the merits of her position …, especially where, as here, the record demonstrates that the mother did not have a basic understanding of court proceedings … . Matter of Pugh v Pugh, 2015 NY Slip Op 00887, 2nd Dept 2-4-15


,

Judge’s Failure to Question Prospective Juror Re: the Juror’s Possible Bias In Favor of Police Officers Was Reversible Error/Prosecutor’s Suggestion in Summation that Simply Being a Defendant Is Evidence of Guilt Was Grounds for Reversal As Well

The First Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not further question a juror who indicated bias in favor of police officers.  [The judge, in denying defense counsel's “for cause” challenge, erroneously indicated it was defense counsel's role to question the juror about the juror's ability to be fair.]  In addition, the prosecutor's suggestion in summation that simply being a defendant is evidence of guilt was grounds for reversal:

Criminal Procedure Law § 270.20(1)(b) provides that a party may challenge a prospective juror for cause if the juror “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at trial.” Upon making this type of challenge, “a juror who has revealed doubt, because of prior knowledge or opinion, about [his] ability to serve impartially must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that [he] can be fair” … . The CPL “does not require any particular expurgatory oath or talismanic words” …, but challenged jurors “must in some form give unequivocal assurance that they can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” … . Those who have given “less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality . . . must be excused” and “[i]f there is any doubt about a prospective juror's impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another” … .

In this case, the prospective juror gave a response that was uncertain at best, stating that he did not know and “couldn't say” whether he would be able to judge an officer's credibility as opposed to a civilian witness. * * * Given this ambiguity … it was incumbent upon the trial court to take corrective action to elicit unequivocal assurance from the prospective juror that he would be able to reach a verdict based solely upon the court's instructions on the law … . …

…[T]he prosecutor's summation remarks regarding reasonable doubt also constituted reversible error, as these remarks suggested that the jury should convict based on facts extraneous to the trial. Specifically, the comments “linked [the defendant] to every defendant who turned out to be guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment,” thus inviting the jury to consider his status as a defendant as “evidence tending to prove his guilt” … . Moreover, the prosecutor's comments tended to minimize the jury's sense of responsibility for the verdict. These remarks exceed the bounds of permissible advocacy. People v Jones, 2015 NY Slip Op 00797, 1st Dept 2-3-15


,

Penalty of Reasonable Attorney’s Fees Properly Assessed Against Claimant’s Attorney for Making Baseless Requests for a Change of Venue

The Third Department determined that the penalty of reasonable attorney’s fees was appropriate where claimant’s counsel made several baseless requests for a change of venue:

We have repeatedly upheld the imposition of a penalty of reasonable counsel fees pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 114—a (3) (ii) when, as here, the record contains substantial evidence that a venue request was made without a reasonable basis … . The record reflects that there was no legitimate basis for seeking the venue change and the Board had previously rejected several similarly-worded venue change requests by counsel. Under these circumstances, the Board did not exceed its authority in assessing a penalty against counsel based upon the filings of the request to change venue and the appeal to the Board without reasonable grounds (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a [3] [ii]; see also Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 23, 142), and its decision will not be disturbed … . Matter of Estwick v Risk Mgt Planning, 2015 NY Slip Op 00686, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

, ,

Failure to Warn Defendant His Guilty Plea Could Lead to Deportation, Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Decision in Padilla v Kentucky, Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Second Department determined that the failure to notify the defendant prior his guilty plea (in 2000) could be the basis of deportation proceedings did not constitute ineffective of counsel:

On March 31, 2010, the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform noncitizen clients of the deportation risks of guilty pleas. However, Padilla does not apply retroactively to persons whose convictions became final before Padilla was decided … . Without the benefit of the Padilla rule, the alleged failure of the defendant’s attorney to properly advise him of the possibility that he might be deported as a result of his plea does not constitute deficient performance under the United States or New York Constitutions. At the time that the defendant entered his plea of guilty in 2000, defense counsel’s performance was governed by the rule that “the failure of [defense] counsel to warn [a] defendant of the possibility of deportation [did not] constitute ineffective assistance of counsel” … . People v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 00563, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

Plaintiff Not Entitled to Disqualification of a Defendant’s Law Firm—Relevant Communication Did Not Have the Potential to Be Significantly Harmful to Plaintiff—Information Was Generally Known

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, reversed Supreme Court finding that a communication between plaintiff and an attorney in a law firm representing a defendant did not require disqualification of the firm.  The contents of the communication did not have the potential to be significantly harmful to plaintiff because the relevant information was generally known:

A movant seeking disqualification of an opponent’s counsel bears a heavy burden … . A party has a right to be represented by counsel of its choice, and any restrictions on that right “must be carefully scrutinized” … . This right is to be balanced against a potential client’s right to have confidential disclosures made to a prospective attorney subject to the protections afforded by an attorney’s fiduciary obligation to keep confidential information secret (see New York Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.18…). Courts should also examine whether a motion to disqualify, made during ongoing litigation, is made for tactical purposes, such as to delay litigation and deprive an opponent of quality representation … . The decision of whether to grant a motion to disqualify rests in the discretion of the motion court … .

Issues relating to the prospective client relationship based on events that occurred after April 2009 are governed by Rule 1.18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), rather than the repealed DR 5-108 (22 NYCRR 1200.27). …

The former Code of Professional Responsibility did not have a specific rule that governed disclosures during a prospective client consultation. Rule 1.18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct fills that void. It provides:

“(a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.’

“(b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.

“(c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d)” … .

Thus, where a prospective client consults an attorney who ultimately represents a party adverse to the prospective client in matters that are substantially related to the consultation, the prospective client is entitled to obtain the attorney’s disqualification only if it is shown that the information related in the consultation “could be significantly harmful” to him or her in the same or substantially related matter (…Rule 1.18[c]).  Mayers v Stone Castle Partners LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00295, 1st Dept 1-8-15

 

Client’s Motion to Quash Attorney’s Charging Lien Properly Granted Without a Hearing/No “Conflicting Facts” Concerning Whether the Attorney Was Discharged Was For Cause

The Second Department determined the client’s motion to quash the attorney’s charging lien was properly granted (without a hearing) because the attorney failed to raise a question of fact whether his discharge was for cause:

A client has “an absolute right, at any time, with or without cause, to terminate the attorney-client relationship by discharging the attorney” … . “Where an attorney’s representation terminates upon mutual consent, and there has been no misconduct, no discharge for just cause, and no unjustified abandonment by the attorney, the attorney maintains his or her right to enforce the statutory lien” (…see Judiciary Law § 475…). In contrast, “[a]n attorney who is discharged for cause . . . is not entitled to compensation or a lien” … . “Where there are conflicting claims as to whether an outgoing attorney was discharged with or without cause, a hearing is necessary to resolve such dispute” … .

On his motion to quash Wilson’s charging lien, Romero submitted evidence in support of his contention that the plaintiff had discharged Wilson for cause. In opposition, Wilson failed to dispute or address Romero’s factual assertions and, thus, there were no “conflicting claims” as to whether the discharge was for cause … . Sacarello v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 00350, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

,

Right to Counsel Not Invoked by Defendant’s Telling Police He Wanted to Speak to his Attorney Before He Signed Anything; Spontaneous Statements Made After Right to Counsel Attached Not Suppressible; Non-Communicative Parts of Video Not Suppressible; Limited Right to Counsel Re: Deciding to Submit to Chemical Test Not Invoked

The Third Department, in reversing (in part) County Court’s suppression of videotaped statements made by the defendant after a DWI arrest, dealt in some depth with several issues:  (1) the court noted that, although a defendant seeking a suppression hearing must make sworn factual allegations supporting the motion, CPL [Criminal Procedure Law] 710.60 “does not mandate summary denial of defendant’s motion even if the factual allegations are deficient” and the hearing was properly granted in this case under “principles of judicial economy;” (2) the defendant did not invoke his right to counsel by telling the police he wanted to speak to his attorney before he signed anything; (3) the defendant did invoke his right to counsel when he subsequently asked that he be allowed to call his attorney; (3) defendant’s spontaneous statements, even those made after right to counsel attached, were not suppressible; (4) defendant’s responses to questions about the chemical test and where he last had a drink were suppressible; (5) the portions of the videotape that did not contain any communication were not suppressible; and (6) although a defendant has a limited right to counsel for the purpose of deciding whether to submit to a chemical test, the defendant did not exercise that right before refusing the test. With regard to spontaneous statements and the “non-communicative” portions of the video, the court wrote:

With a few exceptions, the video reveals that defendant’s statements in the period preceding the reading of his Miranda rights were made without any triggering words or conduct by the police. As the officers played no role in soliciting them, these statements constitute spontaneous declarations and should not have been subject to suppression … . However, at three points following defendant’s successful invocation of his right to counsel, officers asked him questions that should reasonably have been anticipated to elicit responses. The first such exchange occurred between 03:47:49 a.m. and 03:48:10 a.m., when defendant responded after an officer asked him what he thought would occur as a result of refusing a chemical test. The second occurred between 03:50:01 a.m. and 03:50:09 a.m., when defendant confirmed his last drinking location in response to a question by one of the officers. The third occurred between 04:01:05 a.m. and 04:06:23 a.m., when an officer asked defendant several questions about chemical testing and the events of the evening. Defendant’s responses to these inquiries cannot be said to be spontaneous. Thus, his statements during these three time periods and the corresponding portions of the video were properly suppressed.

As to portions of the video in which defendant was not speaking, evidence obtained from a defendant following invocation of the right to counsel is subject to suppression where it constitutes “a communicative act that disclose[s] the contents of defendant’s mind” … . Generally, a defendant’s physical characteristics and appearance are not considered to be communicative in nature … . Here, portions of the video in which defendant is silent show only his physical condition and appearance and do not disclose any communicative statements made after he had invoked his right to counsel. Whether any of these video segments may ultimately be deemed admissible at trial depends on other considerations not presented here, but there is no basis for their suppression as communicative statements … . People v Higgins, 2014 NY Slip Op 00253, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

,

Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury was allowed to hear a recording in which defendant refused to waive his right to remain silent and invoked his right to counsel. Under the facts, the error was not harmless. The Third Department directed that the portion of the recording which recounts defendant’s criminal history be redacted on retrial:

….[D]efendant is entitled to a new trial. During their case-in-chief, the People generally cannot introduce evidence that a defendant invoked his or her constitutional right to remain silent or to obtain counsel … . At the trial here, the People played the recording of the police interview up to and including the portion in which defendant stated that he would not sign the line of the Miranda form indicating his willingness to speak to the detective, and defendant stated, “Let me have a lawyer.” This was improper because “it creates a prejudicial inference of consciousness of guilt” by letting the jury hear defendant invoke his constitutional rights … . People v Carey, 2015 NY Slip Op 00251, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

,

Petitions to Relocate Are Not Subject to a “Change in Circumstances” Analysis But Rather a “Best Interests of the Child Analysis;” the “Lincoln” Hearing Was Improperly Held In the Presence of Parents’ Counsel and the Transcribed Proceedings Were Improperly Left Unsealed and Included in the Record on Appeal; An Article 10 Hearing, Where Counsel for the Parents Are Allowed to Be Present, Should Not Be Confused with an Article 6 Hearing, Where They Are Not

In affirming Family Court’s denial of mother’s petition to relocate, the Third Department noted that Family Court wrongly used “change in circumstances” as the criteria for analyzing the petition when it should have used “the best interests of the child” as the sole criterium.  The Third Department exercised its power to make its own factual analysis.  The court further noted that the Lincoln hearing in which the children testified was improperly conducted because counsel for mother and father were present and the transcribed proceedings were not sealed.  The court explained that the procedure used for Article 10 hearings, where counsel for the parties are present, should not be confused with the procedure for Article 6 hearings, where confidentiality is paramount:

As the mother contends, Family Court applied the incorrect standard in dismissing the relocation petition on the ground that the mother had failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification. No change in circumstances must be established to support a relocation petition, as the planned move itself is accepted as such … . Instead, the parent who wishes to relocate bears the burden of establishing that the proposed move is in the best interests of the children, a determination based upon such factors as the parents’ reasons for seeking or opposing relocation, the quality of the children’s relationships with each parent, the feasibility of developing a visitation schedule that will permit the children to retain meaningful relationships with the parent who does not move, the degree to which the move may offer economic, emotional and educational benefits for the relocating parent and the children, and the effect of the relocation on extended family relationships … . Although that analysis was not conducted here, this Court’s authority is as broad as that of Family Court, and the record is sufficiently complete to permit us to make the relocation determination based upon our independent review … . * * *

…[W]e note that Family Court conducted what was described as a “modified” Lincoln hearing, in which counsel for both parents were permitted to be present during the court’s interview with the children. The transcript of the interview was not sealed, and was included in full in the appellate record. Neither the presence of counsel other than the attorney for the children during the interview nor the failure to seal the transcript was proper. We reiterate that the right to confidentiality during a Lincoln hearing belongs to the child and is superior to the rights or preferences of the parents … . A child who is explaining the reasons for his or her preference in custody or visitation proceedings “should not be placed in the position of having [his or her] relationship with either parent further jeopardized by having to publicly relate [his or her] difficulties with them or be required to openly choose between them” … . We address this issue recognizing that, in the course of practice, confusion may have resulted from the different procedure followed during Family Ct Act article 10 proceedings, in which the presence of the parties’ counsel during an in camera interview with a child may be permissible due to the fundamental right of litigants in such proceedings to confront their accusers. Although these interviews have sometimes been inaccurately referred to as Lincoln hearings, they are conducted for entirely different purposes than the confidential interviews conducted during custody and visitation proceedings … . For the court to fulfill its primary responsibility of protecting the welfare and interests of a child in the context of a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding, protecting the child’s right to confidentiality remains a paramount obligation … . Matter of Julie E v David E, 2015 NY Slip OP 00254, 3rd Dept 1-8-15

 

, ,

Tenant Entitled to Attorney’s Fees After Successfully Defending Landlord’s Holdover Action—Discretion to Deny Attorney’s Fees Should Be Used Sparingly Because of the Purpose of the Controlling Statute

The First Department reversed the Appellate Term finding that a tenant who successfully defended a holdover action brought by the landlord was entitled to attorney’s fees. After several lease renewals at a “preferential” rate, the landlord required that a renewal be at the “legal” rate (several thousand dollars higher than the preferential rate) and started a holdover proceeding when the tenant refused to pay the “legal” rate.  Appellate Term decided the tenant was not entitled to attorney’s fees because the landlord had a “colorable claim” that it was entitled to charge the “legal” rate.  The First Department explained that whether the landlord had a “colorable claim” was not the correct standard to apply:

Under Real Property Law § 234, when a residential lease provides for a landlord’s recovery of attorneys’ fees resulting from a tenant’s failure to perform a lease covenant, a reciprocal covenant is implied requiring the landlord to pay the tenant’s attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of, inter alia, the tenant’s successful defense of an action or summary proceeding commenced by the landlord arising out of the lease … . To support an award of attorneys’ fees, the tenant must be the prevailing party, that is, the result must be substantially favorable to the tenant … .

Here, the terms of the parties’ lease plainly triggers the reciprocal covenant mandated by Real Property Law § 234, and the tenant is entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees incurred in his successful defense of the holdover proceeding. Contrary to the landlord’s assertion, the tenant was the prevailing party regardless of whether the holdover proceeding was formally dismissed, since a tenant is entitled to recover fees “when the ultimate outcome is in his favor, whether or not such outcome is on the merits” … .

Despite the tenant’s status as the prevailing party, the Appellate Term nevertheless denied the fee request because, in its view, the landlord’s possessory claim was “of colorable merit” … . This was an improper standard. “The overriding purpose of [Real Property Law § 234] is to provide a level playing field between landlords and tenants, creating a mutual obligation that provides an incentive to resolve disputes quickly and without undue expense” … . Because it is a remedial statute, Real Property Law § 234 “should be accorded its broadest protective meaning consistent with legislative intent” … . The Appellate Term’s conclusion that a tenant’s claim to reciprocal attorneys’ fees can be denied whenever a landlord asserts a colorable claim undermines the salutary purpose of Real Property Law § 234. A “colorable claim” standard would result in the gutting of the protections afforded by the statute because it would allow courts to deny fees whenever the landlord can make a nonfrivolous legal argument in support of its position.

Although courts have some discretion to deny attorneys’ fees sought under Real Property Law § 234, such discretion should be exercised sparingly … . Thus, a request for attorneys’ fees should be denied only where a fee award would be manifestly unfair or where the successful party engaged in bad faith … .

Here, the landlord has made no showing of any bad faith on the tenant’s part. Matter of 251 CPW Hous LLC v Pastreich, 2015 NY Slip Op 00208, 1st Dept 1-6-15

 

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