You are here: / Attorneys
, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

, ,

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

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

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

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

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

 

,

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

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

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

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

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

 

, ,

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

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

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

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

 

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE RESTITUTION TO THE PROSECUTOR, MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for a restitution hearing despite defendant’s failure to preserve the error, determined the record was insufficient to support the ordered restitution. The judge merely accepted the People’s restitution order, thereby improperly delegating the court’s role to the prosecutor:

… [I]t appears County Court impermissibly delegated its authority to the People to determine the amount of restitution owed and that said amount has no factual predicate in the record before us. “Whenever the court requires restitution . . . to be made, the court must make a finding as to the dollar amount of the fruits of the offense and the actual out-of-pocket loss to the victim[s] caused by the offense. In making this finding, the court must consider any victim impact statement provided to the court. If the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing upon the issue” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2] …). At the time of sentencing, the People noted that they had submitted a restitution order for the court to sign[*2]. Seemingly reading from that order, the court ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $773, plus a five percent surcharge in the amount of $38.65, for a total sum of $811.65. The restitution order provided to this Court is not accompanied by any documentation, and neither the presentence report nor the victims’ impact statements at sentencing addressed pecuniary losses. Although defendant’s failure to object at the time of sentencing renders his restitution arguments unpreserved … , as the record before us does not include any proof to substantiate the amount of restitution ordered, we find it appropriate to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice and remit for the sole purpose of a restitution hearing … . People v Lester, 2024 NY Slip Op 05848, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: It is the judge, not the prosecutor, who makes a restitution determination, which must be supported by the record.

 

,

THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO FILE A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATEMENT RENDERED THE SENTENCE INVALID AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, noted that, absent defendant’s consent, the People’s failure to file a second felony offender statement rendered the sentence invalid as a matter of law:

… [D]efendant first argues that Supreme Court sentenced him illegally as a second felony offender. Although the People note that defendant’s argument is unpreserved, they concede that they neglected to file a second felony offender statement prior to sentencing (see CPL 400.21 [2]). “While we have previously held that substantial compliance with this statute is adequate when the defendant admits the prior felony and that errors or omissions in the statement may be waived by an admission by the defendant, we have also held that compliance with the statute is mandatory and that complete failure to file a second felony offender statement prior to sentencing renders the sentence invalid as a matter of law” … . Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remit the matter to Supreme Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing in accordance with the law. People v Kane, 2024 NY Slip Op 05850, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: Where a defendant does not admit the prior felony, the People’s failure to file a second felony offender statement invalidates the sentence.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S BRINGING MULTIPLE MERITLESS LAWSUITS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEYS OVER THE COURSE OF TEN YEARS WARRANTED SANCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s bringing several meritless lawsuits against defendant and her attorneys over the course of ten years warranted sanctions:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant an award of sanctions despite noting that plaintiff’s “conduct was entirely frivolous,” “abusive,” and “fabricated.” The record firmly established that plaintiff engaged in a persistent pattern of extended and largely meritless litigation against defendant … , rendering his conduct frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c) and thereby warranting sanctions. Plaintiff’s numerous lawsuits initiated against both defendant and her attorneys—six separate suits between 2010 and 2020, all dismissed at the pleading stage—strongly suggests that those lawsuits, along with the present action, were brought primarily to harass defendant … . Our prior decision holding that sanctions for frivolous conduct were not warranted does not affect our decision to grant the motion for sanctions here, as the result in our prior decision (Ray v Ray, 180 AD3d 472, 474 [1st Dept 2020]) was not based on these particular facts. Ray v Ray, 2024 NY Slip Op 05777, First Dept 11-19-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s multiple meritless lawsuits against defendant and her attorneys warranted sanctions for “frivolous conduct.”

 

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