You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

Failure to Make a Motion to Suppress Constituted Ineffective Assistance

The Fourth Department determined defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to move to suppress drugs seized during a traffic stop and the motion was likely to succeed.  The police questioning defendant whether he had anything illegal on him was not prompted by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity:

In a supporting deposition, a police officer stated that he stopped defendant’s vehicle after observing defective brake lights, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 (40). He observed that defendant was nervous, and defendant gave responses to questions concerning where he was coming from and where he was going that did not make sense considering the direction in which he was traveling. The officer ordered defendant out of the vehicle and asked him “if he had anything illegal on him,” and defendant responded that he had “coke” in his pocket. The officer then searched defendant’s pocket and retrieved what was later determined to be cocaine.

We conclude that defendant established that a motion to suppress would likely be successful, and that defense counsel had no strategic or other legitimate explanation for not moving to suppress the evidence … . The officer’s question whether defendant had anything illegal on him constituted a level two common-law inquiry, which required a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot … . Defendant’s nervousness and discrepancies in describing where he was coming from and going are not enough to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot … . We further conclude that defendant’s contention survives his guilty plea inasmuch as defense counsel’s error infected the plea bargaining process … . People v Dealmeida, 2015 NY Slip Op 00169, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

Reversible Error to Deny For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror/Defendant’s Counsel Ineffective

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because one of the jurors indicated a bias in favor of police officers [the for cause challenge to the juror was denied and the peremptory challenges were exhausted] and because the defendant was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel:

Upon questioning by defense counsel, a prospective juror stated that there was a possibility that he would have “sympathy” for police officer witnesses. Despite further questioning on the issue, the prospective juror did not provide an unequivocal assurance that he would not be biased in favor of the police. It is well settled that, once a potential juror has indicated a possible bias, he or she “must be excused unless [he or she] provide[s] unequivocal assurance that [he or she] can set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence’ ” … . Inasmuch as the court erred in denying defendant’s challenge for cause, we reverse the judgment and grant a new trial.

We further agree … that reversal is also required on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based upon, inter alia, defense counsel’s elicitation of testimony that had been precluded by the court’s pretrial ruling and defense counsel’s characterization of defendant as a “drug dealer” on summation … . Although “[i]solated errors in counsel’s representation generally will not rise to the level of ineffectiveness” … , here defense counsel’s failures were “so serious, and resulted in such prejudice to the defendant, that he was denied a fair trial thereby” … . People v Tapia-DeJesus, 2015 NY Slip Op 00167, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Defendant’s Attorney Not Ineffective for Failing to Make a Motion to Suppress—Nature of a Motion Which, If Not Made, Would Constitute Ineffective Assistance Addressed by the Majority and the Dissent

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant’s attorney was not ineffective for failure to move to suppress a few of the items of stolen property seized after a traffic stop.  The majority and the dissent disagreed about whether the appeal questioned the validity of the traffic stop or the arrest after the stop.  The dissent felt that a motion to suppress all of the evidence based upon the arguable invalidity of the vehicle stop should have been made. The majority felt that the validity of the stop had not been questioned on appeal. The majority noted that, because the defendant testified, even if the evidence had been suppressed, the defendant could have been impeached with the suppressed evidence. The most useful discussion in the decision concerns the general nature of a motion which, if not made, would constitute ineffective assistance:

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleagues that the threshold standard to be applied in determining whether an attorney was ineffective for failing to file a particular motion is “whether the motion at issue had more than little or no chance of success.” It is true, as the dissent points out, that the Court of Appeals has repeatedly stated that “[t]here can be no denial of effective assistance of trial counsel arising from counsel’s failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success’ ” … . By so stating, however, the Court was not articulating the standard for what does constitute ineffective assistance of counsel; instead, the Court was explaining what does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. As noted, the Court has made clear in other cases that the standard to be applied is whether defense counsel failed to file a “colorable” motion and, if so, whether counsel had a strategic or legitimate reason for failing to do so … . Although neither the Court of Appeals nor the Appellate Division has defined “colorable” in this context, the term is elsewhere defined as “appearing to be true, valid, or right” (Black’s Law Dictionary 301 [9th ed 2009]). Federal courts have described a colorable claim as one that has ” a fair probability or a likelihood, but not a certitude, of success on the merits’ ” … . Here, for the reasons previously stated, we do not believe that a motion to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful arrest would likely have been granted. People v Carver, 2015 NY Slip Op 00046, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel By Asking a Police Officer to Retrieve Defendant’s Lawyer’s Phone Number from Defendant’s Wallet—Subsequent Statements Should Have Been Suppressed/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Weapon Seized from Defendant’s Person Deprived Defendant of Effective Assistance

The Fourth Department determined statements made after defendant invoked his right to counsel should have been suppressed. Defendant, after he was read the Miranda rights, asked a police officer to retrieve the defendant’s lawyer’s phone number from the defendant’s wallet.  The court further found defendant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress the weapon seized from defendant’s person:

“Whether a particular request [for counsel] is or is not unequivocal is a mixed question of law and fact that must be determined with reference to the circumstances surrounding the request including the defendant’s demeanor [and] manner of expression[,] and the particular words found to have been used by the defendant” (People v Glover, 87 NY2d 838, 839). Here, the testimony at the suppression hearing established that, before defendant was informed of his Miranda rights at the police station, defendant asked a police officer to retrieve the telephone number of defendant’s attorney from defendant’s wallet. The hearing testimony further established that an investigator acknowledged defendant’s request but asked defendant to continue speaking with the police. That testimony was confirmed by a videotaped interview submitted at the hearing as an exhibit. ” [V]iewed in context of the totality of circumstances, particularly with respect to events following [defendant’s request for his attorney’s phone number]’ ” … ,we conclude that defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and that his statements should have been suppressed  … .

We agree with defendant … that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s errors with respect to suppression … . We note that defense counsel moved to suppress evidence seized from defendant’s residence although there was no indication that any evidence was seized therefrom but failed to move to suppress the gun found on defendant’s person. The record establishes that defendant was arrested after a police officer observed defendant and three other individuals standing “approximately 8-10 houses away” from the location of reported gunfire. According to a police report, “[f]or officer safety purposes, [the officer] ordered [defendant and the other three individuals] to the ground and they were taken into custody,” and a police officer found defendant in possession of a loaded weapon. There is no indication in the record on appeal that the police had a founded suspicion that defendant and his companions were the source of the gunfire or were involved in any other criminal activity … . On the record before us, we conclude that there are no strategic reasons for moving to suppress evidence that did not exist while failing to move to suppress a gun that was seized from defendant’s person and that was the factual basis for the charges in the indictment … . We further conclude that defense counsel’s errors prejudiced defendant and deprived him of the right to effective assistance of counsel … . People v Barber, 2015 NY Slip Op 00058, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

Conflict of Interest Waived Where Respondent Knew of the Conflict and Participated in Prior Proceedings for Some Time

he Fourth Department determined a disqualifying conflict of interest existed between respondent and petitioner’s attorney, but that respondent had waived the conflict by participating in prior aspects of the case without objection:

…[R]espondent established that she had a prior attorney-client relationship with petitioner’s attorney, that the issues in the two litigations are substantially related, each involving ownership of the same parcel of property, and that her interests are adverse to those of petitioner … . Usually, that would create an “irrebuttable presumption of disqualification” …, but many courts have nevertheless denied disqualification upon finding that a party has waived any objection to the purported conflict of interest … .

In determining whether a party has waived any objection to a conflict of interest, “courts consider when the challenged interests became materially adverse to determine if the party could have moved [for disqualification] at an earlier time . . . If a party moving for disqualification was aware or should have been aware of the facts underlying an alleged conflict of interest for an extended period of time before bringing the motion, that party may be found to have waived any objection to the other party’s representation . . . Further, where a motion to disqualify is made in the midst of litigation where the moving party knew of the alleged conflict of interest well before making the motion, it can be inferred that the motion was made merely to secure a tactical advantage”… . Matter of David C Peters, 2015 NY Slip Op 00042, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, , ,

At Least Some of the Information In a Report Prepared for the Town by Outside Counsel May Be Subject to Disclosure Because the Attorney-Client Privilege Was Waived to the Extent the Contents of the Report Were Described at a Public Hearing

The Third Department determined that a report prepared for the town by outside counsel was protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.  However that privilege may have been waived to the extent the contents of the report were described at a public hearing:

“Under FOIL, an agency need not disclose documents 'specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute,'” such as those protected by attorney-client privilege (…Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [a]; see CPLR 3101 [b], [c]; 4503 [a] [1]…). Petitioners do not, in fact, dispute that the report was privileged when it was prepared. They instead contend that the privilege was waived when the contents of the report were later disclosed at various Town Board meetings. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon respondents to demonstrate that the privilege had not been waived and that the report remained exempt from disclosure … .

…”[A] client who voluntarily testifies to a privileged matter, who publicly discloses such matter or who permits his [or her] attorney to testify regarding the matter is deemed to have impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege” … . In that regard, outside counsel appeared at a … public meeting and made an extensive oral presentation — apparently at the Town Board's behest — in which counsel set forth his legal analysis of the zoning issues involved. To the extent that the oral presentation parrots the analysis set forth in the report, it may well constitute a waiver of the privilege protecting the contents of the report. … Matter of Loudon House LLC v Town of Colonie, 2014 NY Slip OP 09082, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


, ,

Failure to Move to Withdraw Plea, and Thereby Preserve the Issue for Appeal, Did Not Prohibit Appeal Here—Defendant Was Wrongly Informed by the Court and Counsel that the Denial of His Speedy Trial Motion Would Be Appealable After the Plea

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court and vacated defendant's guilty plea because defendant was wrongly informed by the court and counsel that his statutory speedy trial issue would survive the guilty plea (for appeal).  Under the circumstances, the court determined the failure to preserve the error by moving to withdraw the plea did not prohibit the appeal:

The People concede that an essential term of the plea bargain was the parties' understanding that defendant would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Defendant was thereafter sentenced … . Defendant now appeals, arguing that his plea was involuntarily entered because his counsel and County Court erroneously informed him that a statutory CPL 30.30 claim would survive a plea of guilty.

Initially, we consider whether defendant was required to preserve this claim by appropriate postallocution motion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 440.10). While a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea is generally not preserved for appellate review unless it was first raised in the trial court …, the Court of Appeals has recognized that “where a defendant has no practical ability to object to an error in a plea allocution which is clear from the face of the record, preservation is not required” … . Here a CPL 440.10 motion was unavailable because the error is clear from the face of the record; similarly a CPL 220.60 (3) motion was practically unavailable because “'defendant [could] hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he ha[d] no knowledge'” … . Inasmuch as defendant–due to the inaccurate advice of his counsel and the trial court–did not know during the plea and sentencing proceedings that his statutory speedy trial claim would be forfeited as a direct consequence of his plea …, preservation was not required … . Moreover, under these circumstances, we agree with defendant that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and, accordingly, we reverse and vacate the plea … . People v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 09067, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


, ,

Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a dissent, discussed several fundamental issues in reversing Supreme Court's sua sponte award of attorney's fees which differed from the fee agreed to by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's law firm.  The First department held that the 33 1/3% contingency fee for the trial, and an additional 10% contingency for the appeal, amounting to a 43 !/3 % contingency fee, was proper. In addition, the First Department determined the defendant did not have standing to contest the fee, Supreme Court did not have the power to adjust the fee and Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction over the case at the time it did so:

Initially, we note that defendant has no standing to challenge the fees agreed upon as between plaintiff and his counsel. CPLR 5015(a)(3) provides that “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party (emphasis added).” Defendant is not an “interested person” within the meaning of the statute, as even the motion court appeared to recognize. Defendant will pay the same amounts pursuant to the judgment regardless of the division of fees as between plaintiff and his counsel. …

Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the judgment was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by plaintiff or his attorneys. …

Defendant having no standing under CPLR 5015(a)(3) to challenge the separate fee for appellate work, the court relied on its “inherent authority” to reach the issue. A court, however, has no inherent authority to sua sponte reach the issue of attorneys' fees … .

Moreover, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to revisit the issue of the propriety of the fees, even upon the motion of a proper party. Since the Court of Appeals denied applications for review … the judgment was final, and Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to, in effect, reverse the Court by modifying the judgment … .

Plaintiff's expert, a leading expert on legal ethics, opined that it was legally and ethically permissible for the firm to collect a separate fee for appellate work, notwithstanding that the firm is entitled, under the original retainer, to a contingency fee of one third of the recovery. Plaintiff's expert opined that limiting counsel's contingent fee to that encompassed in the initial retainer “does not advance the purpose behind Section 603.7 [Rules of the Appellate Division] . . . i.e., protecting clients from gouging by attorneys.” The expert also observed that had plaintiff chosen to retain new counsel for the appeal, there would be absolutely no question that the new counsel would be entitled to a fee for his or her work, notwithstanding the fact that trial counsel was entitled to receive 33 1/3% of any recovery. Plaintiff's expert noted that it would be “anomalous” to assert that trial counsel should be compensated less favorably than new counsel for performing the work that had not been contemplated by the initial retainer. Stewart v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 09063, 1st Dept 12-30-14


, ,

Requirements for Common Law Indemnification and Contribution Causes of Action Explained

The Second Department, in the context of a legal malpractice action, explained the requirements for common law indemnification and contribution.  The motions to dismiss at issue were brought by the third-party defendant law firm (M & S) against the third-party plaintiff law firm (Danna).  The Second Department determined Danna's common law indemnification cause of action should have been dismissed because Danna's alleged liability was not purely vicarious and Danna's contribution action properly survived dismissal because Danna alleged M & S's legal malpractice contributed to plaintiff's damages:

“The principle of common law, or implied, indemnification permits one who has been compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages it paid to the injured party” … . “Common-law indemnification is warranted where a defendant's role in causing the plaintiff's injury is solely passive, and thus its liability is purely vicarious” … . “Thus, a party which has actually participated in the wrongdoing is not entitled to indemnification” … . Here, the plaintiffs' claims against the Danna defendants in the instant legal malpractice action are based upon the Danna defendants' representation of the plaintiffs in an accounting proceeding they commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey (hereinafter the New Jersey proceeding). * * * …[T]he documentary evidence submitted by M & S in support of its motion conclusively established that any liability on the part of the Danna defendants for legal malpractice was not solely passive and purely vicarious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of M & S's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the cause of action for common-law indemnification in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it.

As to the contribution cause of action, ” [i]n determining whether a valid third-party claim for contribution exists, the critical issue is whether the third-party defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff which was breached and which contributed to or aggravated plaintiff's damages'” … . ” [T]he remedy may be invoked against concurrent, successive, independent, alternative and even intentional tortfeasors'” … . “A defendant attorney may seek contribution from a subsequently retained attorney, to the extent that the subsequently retained attorney's negligence may have contributed to or aggravated the plaintiff's injuries” … . Contrary to M & S's contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of its motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the contribution cause of action in the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it, since the defendants third-party plaintiffs properly stated a cause of action alleging that M & S's legal malpractice contributed to the plaintiff's damages, and documentary evidence did not conclusively establish a complete defense to that cause of action… . Bivona v Damma & Assoc PC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08947, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

, , ,

In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence

The Third Department determined circumstantial evidence the defendant had been driving while intoxicated was sufficient.  The defendant went to a witness' home seeking assistance after his car ended up in a ditch.  [Although not summarized here, the decision, which affirmed the conviction, also has in depth discussions of errors in juror selection (failure to address bias expressed by a juror re: a DWI case where peremptory challenges eventually exhausted), the criteria for juror disqualification when a juror is related to a witness but does not realize it until the witness testified, and related ineffective assistance claims.]:

A defendant need not be driving to operate a vehicle for purposes of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; it is enough if the evidence shows that he or she is behind the wheel with the engine running … . The testimony was that when defendant arrived on [a witness'] doorstep to request assistance with getting the car out of the ditch, he was alone and smelled of alcohol. In addition to the testimony of [witnesses] describing his efforts, defendant acknowledged that he was behind the wheel of the car, and that the car was running with the wheels spinning as he attempted to drive the car out of the ditch. These factors are sufficient to establish that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public highway … . People v Colburn, 2014 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

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