You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

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

 

,

Where Defendant Is Represented on a Pending Charge and Seeks Leniency by Cooperation with Police in the Investigation of An Unrelated Offense, the Police Cannot Question the Defendant About the Unrelated Offense in the Absence of Counsel Unless Defendant Affirmatively Waives His Right to Counsel In Counsel’s Presence

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that defendant, who was represented by counsel in a pending criminal matter, should not have been questioned in the absence of counsel about another crime.  Defendant, in an attempt to gain leniency, told the police he knew that a friend had committed a stabbing. The police met with the defendant to “wire him up” for a meeting with his friend.  Defendant's attorney, Schwarz, knew defendant was meeting with the police for that purpose.  During the meeting, the defendant was questioned about the stabbing and eventually he admitted he had committed that crime.  He was then read his Miranda rights, which he waived.  The Court of Appeals held that none of the questioning about defendant's involvement with the stabbing should have be done without defendant's affirmative waiver of his right to counsel, in the presence of defendant's attorney:

Defendant relies on the rule, long established in New York, that “[o]nce an attorney enters the proceeding, the police may not question the defendant in the absence of counsel unless there is an affirmative waiver, in the presence of the attorney, of the defendant's right to counsel” … . The People respond that this rule does not apply here because the “proceeding” in which the police questioned defendant on …—their investigation of the supermarket stabbing ——was one that no attorney had entered. Schwarz, in the People's view, represented defendant only in the burglary case, about which he was not questioned.

We do not find this a viable distinction. The stabbing investigation cannot be neatly separated from Schwarz's representation of defendant in the burglary case. Defendant had pinned his hopes for a favorable result in the burglary case on his cooperation with the police investigation of the stabbing. Under these circumstances, Schwarz's duty to his client required him to concern himself with both cases.

Schwarz was not, of course, retained to defend the stabbing case: before the April 19 meeting, defendant had not been charged with the stabbing, and no such charge seemed likely. But Schwarz's obligation in defending the burglary case included an obligation to be alert to, and to avert if he could, the possibility that defendant's cooperation would hurt rather than help him. No responsible lawyer in Schwarz's situation would concern himself with the burglary case alone, indifferent to the disaster that might strike defendant if he incriminated himself in the stabbing.

We therefore conclude that defendant's right to counsel encompassed his conversations with police about the stabbing, as long as those conversations were part of an effort to obtain leniency in the burglary case in which Schwarz represented him. Thus, unless the right to counsel was waived, the police should not have questioned defendant about the stabbing in his lawyer's absence. People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08787, CtApp 12-17-14

 

, , , ,

There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moskowitz, determined that the “common-interest privilege” may apply to documents created during merger negotiations among two corporations and their counsel.  The court found there is no requirement that litigation be imminent for the application of the privilege.  The underlying lawsuit was brought by a financial-guaranty insurer (Ambac) which alleged it was fraudulently induced by Countrywide to insure residential mortgage backed securities. Ambac sought discovery of documents relating to a merger between Countrywide and Bank of America Corporation (the subject of secondary claims by Ambac) which, it was alleged, would demonstrate Bank of America Corporation was on notice about Countrywide's alleged fraud. The First Department held that the merger-related documents could be protected by the common-interest privilege and sent the matter back to the motion court to determine whether particular documents are protected:

As noted above, the common-interest privilege is an exception to the rule that the presence of a third party at a communication between counsel and client will render the communication non-confidential … . The doctrine, a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege, requires that: (1) the communication qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege, and (2) the communication be made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties … . This Court has never squarely decided whether there is a third requirement: that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. We answer that question today in the negative. Ambac Assur Corp v Countrywide Home Loans Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08510, 1st Dept 12-4-14

 

, , ,

Criteria for a Legal Malpractice Action Re: the Attorney’s Performance In a Criminal Trial Explained—Here Plaintiff’s Conviction Was Reversed and Plaintiff Made a Colorable Claim of Innocence

The Third Department determined a legal malpractice action brought by a client represented by the defendant-attorney in a criminal trial properly survived summary judgment.  The defendant's conviction had been overturned by the Third Department and he was not reprosecuted.  Deficiencies in defendant's representation were noted in the reversal-decision:

In a legal malpractice claim, proximate cause is established by demonstrating that “but for the attorney's negligence, [the plaintiff] would have prevailed in the underlying matter or would not have sustained any ascertainable damages”… . Stated differently, “[t]he test is whether a proper defense would have altered the result of the prior action” … which, in the context of a criminal action, requires proof that the criminal defendant would not have been convicted … . Further, “[f]or malpractice actions arising from allegations of negligent representation in a criminal matter, the plaintiff must have at least a colorable claim of actual innocence” … . We find that a colorable claim has been demonstrated here based upon plaintiff's expressed assertions of innocence, together with our reversal of the judgment of conviction, as well as the District Attorney's decision not to reprosecute plaintiff and the consequent dismissal of the indictment … . * * *

Contrary to defendant's argument, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged pecuniary damages …, i.e., damages that “compensate the victim for the economic consequences of the injury” … . Arnold v Devane, 2014 NY Slip Op 08534, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

,

Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, over a dissent, determined that the fact that a co-defendant (Stephens) had been represented by a New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) attorney did not create a conflict requiring the disqualification of defendant's trial attorney (Fisher), who also worked for the NYCDS.  The court noted that Fisher was not privy to any confidences of Stephens (who had pled out shortly after arraignment) and there was little danger attorneys within a large institution like the NYCDS would share their clients' confidential information.  Therefore Fisher could effectively cross-examine Stephens should he be called to testify (the People did not intend to call Stephens). The defendant did not want Fisher disqualified and was willing to waive any conflict:

As both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals have explained, the Sixth Amendment encompasses a right to select and be represented by one's preferred counsel. However, that right is not absolute …, and it must be balanced with the right to effective assistance of counsel … . Thus, trial courts are given “substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflicts of interests not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses” … . …

Here … defendant not only challenges the trial court's refusal to accept his waiver of the potential conflict of interest, but also questions whether there was even a potential conflict of interest, in the first instance, where Fisher, who is a staff attorney at an institutional defense organization, never personally represented Stephens. It is crucial to recognize that here, unlike in other right to counsel cases, the proper initial inquiry is not whether defendant's waiver should have been accepted, but whether there was even a conflict or potential conflict of interest to waive in the first place. The court need only reach the issue of whether the waiver was properly accepted or denied after it has been established that there was a conflict or potential conflict of interest to waive. I find that on this record, no conflict or potential conflict of interest existed. * * *

Here, defendant and Stephens were arrested in connection with the same incident, but Stephens's case was already concluded by the time of Fisher's disqualification and, again, there was no evidence or suggestion that information concerning Stephens was ever shared with Fisher. Indeed, Fisher acknowledged that he would be barred from viewing his office's file on Stephens or using the address on file to try to locate Stephens; similarly no other attorney would have had access to NYCDS's file either. Thus … it cannot be said that the prior representation of Stephens by the same public defense organization created a potential conflict of interest. Although this Court is aware that the trial court's “discretion is especially broad” when balancing the right to counsel of a criminal defendant's choosing and the right to effective assistance of counsel free of conflicts … , under the specific circumstances here, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in disqualifying defendant's counsel. People v Watson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08383, 1st Dept 12-2-14


 

,

Fact that Prosecutor Had Represented the Defendant in the Past Did Not Require Disqualification—No Substantial Risk of an Abuse of Confidence

The Third Department determined that the fact that the District Attorney had represented the defendant 16 years before did not require disqualification:

Ordinarily, “[a] public prosecutor should be removed only to protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence” … . Here, the fact that the District Attorney may have previously represented defendant in prior, unrelated criminal matters, without more, does not require his disqualification … . Further, although the District Attorney sought to impeach defendant using prior contempt convictions arising from marital problems that defendant alleges he had discussed with the District Attorney, County Court’s refusal to allow any inquiry into the underlying facts of these convictions eliminated any possible avenue by which the District Attorney might have utilized any confidential information that he may have acquired … . As 16 years had passed since any such alleged confidences had been shared, the passage of time had also diminished the risk of prejudice … . As defendant did not demonstrate a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence or any actual prejudice, we find no error in County Court’s determination … . People v Giroux, 2014 NY Slip Op 08060, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

,

County Court Failed to Warn the Defendant that His Lack of Knowledge, When Compared with that of a Lawyer, Would Be Detrimental—Defendant Did Not Validly Waive His Right to Counsel

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial because County Court failed to ensure that defendant validly waived his constitutional right to counsel.  County Court did not adequately explain that defendant’s lack of knowledge, as compared to the knowledge of a lawyer, would be detrimental:

A defendant seeking permission to proceed pro se must “effectuate[] a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel” …. To this end, the trial court is required to “conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ to clarify that [the] defendant understands the ramifications of such a decision” … . The court’s inquiry “‘must accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se, and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication'” … . As the reviewing court, we may “look to the whole record, not simply to the waiver colloquy, in order to determine if a defendant effectively waived counsel” (People v Providence, 2 NY3d at 583).

* * * [The court] did not sufficiently advise [defendant] of “the ‘dangers and disadvantages’ of proceeding pro se and the value of trained trial counsel knowledgeable about criminal law and procedure” … . In fact, with respect to the dangers of self-representation, the court merely noted that defendant risked “losing objectivity” by representing himself. Absent from County Court’s inquiry was any warning that defendant’s “lack of knowledge, relative to that of a lawyer, [would] be detrimental if [he] cho[se] to waive the right to counsel” … . People v Guarnieri, 2014 NY Slip Op 08067, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

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