You are here: / Attorneys
, , , ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY RAISED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE AND PREJUDICE ISSUES IN HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INFORMED HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE GUILTY PLEA; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT). ​

The Frist Department, reversing Supreme Court and recalling and vacating a prior appellate decision, determined defendant sufficiently raised ineffective assistance of counsel and prejudice in his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground he was not informed of the possibility of deportation before entering a guilty plea. The motion should not have been denied without a hearing:

Defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction based on Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]), which held that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. In light of the affidavits from defendant, defendant’s plea counsel (indicating no recollection or notation that he discussed immigration consequences with defendant), and his sister, as well as motion counsel’s representation that plea counsel admitted in an interview that he was not well-versed in immigration law, defendant presented sufficient evidence that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, such that a hearing was warranted if a sufficient showing was similarly raised as to prejudice.

Regarding whether defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance, we also find that defendant’s submissions are sufficient to warrant a hearing. Given the length of time defendant has resided in the United States, his ties to the United States, his lack of ties to the Dominican Republic, and his employment history, defendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial … . People v Guzman-Caba, 2023 NY Slip Op 01593, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: Here the motion to vacate the conviction sufficiently raised ineffective assistance and prejudice issues which warranted a hearing. The defendant presented evidence he was not informed he could be deported based on his guilty plea and demonstrated he was prejudiced by the failure. The judge should have ordered a hearing.

 

, ,

IF A PREMATURE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH, THE STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL IS ILLUSORY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH; THE JUDGE CONSIDERED ONLY WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE POST-CERTIFICATE PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, found the judge applied the wrong criteria for determining whether the People’s premature filling of the certificate of compliance with discovery obligations (CPL 245.50) rendered the ready-for-trial announcement illusory:

… [T]he criminal action was commenced on June 9, 2021 (see CPL 1.20 [17]). The People filed their certificate of compliance and statement of readiness on August 6, 2021. On February 12, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People’s failure to provide all of the discovery required by CPL 245.20 rendered the certificate of compliance improper and the statement of readiness illusory. Defendant argued that the People should be charged with the entire eight month period and that the indictment should be dismissed (see CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). The court denied defendant’s motion, concluding that the People’s certificate of compliance was proper because defendant had not been prejudiced by the People’s belated disclosure of certain required discovery and that the statement of readiness therefore was not illusory.

… [T]he court’s use of a prejudice-only standard for evaluating the propriety of the certificate of compliance was error because the clear and unambiguous terms of CPL 245.50 establish that a certificate of compliance is proper where its filing is “in good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” … . On a CPL 30.30 motion, the question is not whether defendant was prejudiced by an improper certificate of compliance … . … In light of the court’s failure to consider whether the People’s certificate of compliance was filed in “good faith and reasonable under the circumstances” despite the belated discovery, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine whether the People’s certificate of compliance was proper under the terms of CPL 245.50 and thus whether the statement of readiness was valid. People v Gaskin, 2023 NY Slip Op 01415, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: If the People file a certificate of compliance with discovery obligations before discovery is complete the readiness-for-trial statement may be rendered illusory. The judge must determine whether the certificate was filed in good faith, not whether defendant was prejudiced by the post-certificate discovery.

 

, , ,

A JUDGE MAY NOT ORDER THAT ONLY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC), AND NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IS ALLOWED TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF SURRENDER OR ADOPTION WITH THE CHILD; SUCH AN ORDER INTERFERES WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S STATUTORY DUTIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in a matter of first impression in this neglect proceeding, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined Family Court could not order the petitioner (Delaware County Department of Social Services) to refrain from discussing matters of surrender or adoption with the child. The attorney for the child (AFC) requested the order which allowed only the AFC to discuss surrender or adoption with the child. The Third Department heard the case as an exception to the mootness doctrine (the order had been vacated, but the issue is likely to recur). The Third Department concluded the order could not stand because it interfered with the petitioner’s statutory duties:

Although we recognize that circumstances may arise where it may be appropriate to allow an attorney for children reasonable time to discuss sensitive matters of importance, such as adoption or surrender, with their child-client before anyone else does, Family Court’s order was not a temporal arrangement to allow the AFC an opportunity to broach the issue with the child. Instead, the order was an outright ban on anyone, including petitioner’s caseworkers, having a discussion with the child regarding issues that are central to the child’s permanency (see Family Ct Act § 1089 [c] [1] [ii]).

Although Family Court attempted to differentiate the issues of surrender and adoption as “a legal issue distinguishable from the assessment of the child’s well-being,” the court construed the issues pertaining to the child’s well-being too narrowly, leaving petitioner in an untenable situation…. According to petitioner, for over a year, it was prevented “from speaking with the child to reassess its understanding of the child’s wishes” relative to respondent’s possible conditional surrender and a subsequent adoption of the child — issues that fall squarely into the category of permanency decisions. Although the child has a right to meaningful representation and to learn about legal issues from the AFC (see Family Ct Act § 241 …), attorneys for children cannot transform such responsibility into a roadblock, as occurred here, preventing petitioner from fulfilling its mandates and planning for the child’s permanency and well-being … . Matter of Michael H. (Catherine I.), 2023 NY Slip Op 01119, Third Dept 3-2-23

Practice Point: Family Court can not order the Department of Social Services to refrain from discussing matters of surrender or adoption with the child. Here the attorney for the child (AFC) asked Family Court for the order allowing only the AFC to discuss surrender or adoption with the child and the request was granted.

 

, ,

CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST ITS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) STATUS HAD DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS NOT FAILED TO FILE AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL AND REQUEST A HEARING WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (A) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the legal malpractice complaint should have been dismissed. Defendants allegedly did not pursue an administrative appeal and submitted a written response in lieu of a hearing. Plaintiff Mid City alleged the failures resulted in the termination of its status as a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE). The Second Department held plaintiff did not demonstrate that but for the alleged legal malpractice the DBE status would not have been terminated:

… [E]ven accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, and according Mid City the benefit of every possible favorable inference … , the complaint failed to plead specific factual allegations demonstrating that, but for the defendants’ alleged negligence, there would have been a more favorable outcome regarding the termination of Mid City’s status as a DBE … . The allegation that Mid City lost the opportunity to pursue an administrative appeal, without any indication that the appeal would be successful, is insufficient to state a claim … . Similarly, the allegation that Mid City would have been recertified as a DBE had the defendants requested a hearing, rather than having filed a written response to the initial letter proposing termination of its status as a DBE, is speculative and conclusory … . Mid City Elec. Corp. v Peckar & Abramson, 2023 NY Slip Op 01085, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: To survive a motion to dismiss the complaint in a legal malpractice action, the plaintiff must make specific factual allegations demonstrating that but for the attorney’s negligence the outcome would have been more favorable. Conclusory or speculative “but for” allegations are not enough.

 

, , , , ,

SUPREME COURT HAD THE POWER TO APPOINT THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE ESTATE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE INSURER, NOT THE DEFENDANT ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the defendant estate in this traffic accident case. Defense counsel represented the insurance company, not the estate:

… [C]ounsel’s affirmation stated that he “was retained by Truck Insurance Exchange to represent the interests of their insured Arthur Ketterer herein.” Under these circumstances, moving counsel lacked authority to represent the defendant estate … . …

In appropriate circumstances, the Supreme Court is empowered to appoint a temporary administrator, in order to “avoid delay and prejudice in a pending action” … . Such a determination is addressed to the broad discretion of the court … . Here, a Surrogate’s Court decree appointed the Public Administrator to represent the estate of Arthur C. Ketterer in a related prior action. That decree did not expressly grant to the Public Administrator the authority to represent the defendant estate in this action. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s cross-motion should have been granted, and we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the appointment of a temporary administrator to represent the defendant in the instant action … . Franco v Estate of Arthur C. Ketterer, 2023 NY Slip Op 00988, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, defense counsel represented the insurer, not the defendant estate. Therefore Supreme Court had the authority, upon plaintiff’s motion, to appoint the Public Administrator to represent the estate.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS MISCALEDARED AS THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION PAPERS; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order granting summary judgment to defendant in this slip and fall case. Plaintiff’s counsel explained that the return date had been mistakenly calendared as the date for the submission of opposition papers:

In order to vacate a default in opposing a motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), the moving party is required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default as well as a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion … . Here, the plaintiff’s excuse of law office failure was reasonable … , and she also demonstrated that she had a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant’s motion … .

Under the circumstances of this case, including that the scheduling error by counsel for the plaintiff was brief, isolated, and unintentional, with no evidence of wilful neglect … , and considering the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits … , the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to vacate the … order … . Valesquez v Landino, 2023 NY Slip Op 01023, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s counsel offered a reasonable excuse for missing the date for submission of opposition papers. Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the summary judgment order.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE THE ROBBERY VICTIM’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT ONE OF THE PERPETRATORS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance counsel in that counsel did not investigate the robbery victim’s statement which indicated defendant was not one of the perpetrators:

… [T]he second victim’s hearing testimony that defendant was not present during the shooting is consistent with his initial statement to law enforcement, and it is also “wholly consistent with the theory pursued by [defense] counsel [at trial], namely that defendant was not present at the shooting and that the crime was instead committed by [different] individual[s]”… . Additionally, although the motion court chose to … discredit the second victim’s testimony, with respect to whether the second victim ever named for him the two individuals that the second victim believed carried out the attempted robbery, there is no evidence in the hearing record contrary to the second victim’s testimony that he would have named those individuals at trial had he been called … .

… [T]he hearing record discloses no tactical reason for defense counsel’s failure to interview the second victim … . Inasmuch as defendant established that defense counsel “did not fully investigate the case and did not collect the type of information that a lawyer would need in order to determine the best course of action” … , we conclude that defense counsel’s deficient conduct was “sufficiently egregious and prejudicial as to compromise [the] right to a fair trial” … . People v Everson, 2023 NY Slip Op 00761, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Although defense counsel may have made an appropriate strategic decision re: whether to call the robbery victim as a witness, counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate the victim’s statement that defendant was not one of the perpetrators.

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL MOVED TO SUPPRESS AN UNNOTICED EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AFTER BEING TOLD THE IDENTIFICATION WOULD BE PRECLUDED IF HE DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS; DEFENSE COUNSEL INTRODUCED DEFENDANT’S MUG SHOT DESPITE THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PHOTO ID; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO A DETECTIVE’S IMPROPER IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN A BLURRY VIDEO; THE MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should have been granted. Defense counsel moved to suppress an unnoticed eyewitness identification knowing that the evidence would have been precluded had he not moved to suppress. Defense counsel introduced the mug shot of the defendant, despite the suppression of the photo identification. Defense counsel did not object to the improper identification of the defendant in a blurry video by a detective:

The record does not support the hearing court’s determination that counsel’s waiver of preclusion of the unnoticed identification made by the sole eyewitness to the shooting was a legitimate trial strategy … . … [T]rial counsel initially did not appreciate that by moving to suppress the identification, he waived preclusion of the unnoticed identification under CPL 710.30(3). …

… [A]lthough the suppression hearing court had suppressed this witness’s photo identification of defendant, counsel nevertheless introduced at trial the mug shot shown to the witness. …

… [T]rial counsel did not object to a detective’s improper identification of defendant in a blurry video … . People v McCray, 2023 NY Slip Op 00502, First Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: If the People do not provide timely notice of an identification of the defendant, the evidence will be precluded. If however a motion to suppress the identification is made, it will not be precluded. Here making the motion to suppress was deemed ineffective assistance.

Practice Point: Counsel was ineffective for introducing the mug shot of the defendant after the photo identification had been suppressed.

Practice Point: Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a detective’s improper identification of the defendant in a blurry video.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WHEN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS MADE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEN DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED AND PROSECUTED; THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT BEFORE COUNTY COURT, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction, determined the fact that the judge’s law clerk was District Attorney at the time of defendant’s indictment and prosecution presented the appearance of a conflict of interest:

… [T]he law clerk here does not appear to have been directly involved in defendant’s case during her term as District Attorney, nor do the allegations contained within defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion implicate the law clerk’s conduct in her former capacity as District Attorney. That said, it has been observed that “[a] law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function” … , and it is well settled that “[n]ot only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well” … . Accordingly, it was an improvident exercise of County Court’s discretion to rule upon defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion under these circumstances … . People v Thornton, 2023 NY Slip Op 00460, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: Although the issue was not raised in County Court, the Third Department considered the issue in the interest of justice and reversed the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. The judge’s law clerk was the District Attorney at the time defendant was indicted and prosecuted.

 

, , ,

THE MAJORITY HELD THE RECORD WAS SILENT ON WHETHER THE POLICE, WHO DID NOT APPLY FOR A NO-KNOCK WARRANT, ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE TO THE OCCUPANTS AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL UNDER INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS), THE RECORD SUPPORTED AN UNAUTHORIZED NO-KNOCK ENTRY AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the issue whether the police did not give proper notice to the occupants prior to entering and searching premises was not preserved for appeal. The two dissenters argued the issue can be addressed by the appellate court under the ineffective-assistance argument (no motion to suppress based on failure to provide proper notice before entering) and the seized evidence should have been suppressed. The police did not apply for a no-knock warrant and, according to the dissent, entered the apartment using a battering ram before announcing their presence:

… [T]he record is silent as to what the police said or did prior to effectuating entry into the apartment. Thus, without resort to inappropriate speculation, it simply cannot be concluded from the record before us that the police failed to knock and announce their presence before forcefully entering the apartment. * * *

From the dissent:

In our view, the record confirms, by the police officers’ own trial testimony, that they did not provide any advance notice prior to entering the apartment where defendant was ultimately apprehended. The record shows that members of the involved emergency response team (hereinafter ERT) entered the apartment through a rear door into a kitchen area that led to a living room. When asked how the door was opened, Jason Blowers — a police officer with the City of Johnstown Police Department — explained that “the breacher opened the door, the mechanical breach . . . . He hit the door with a ram.” Sergeant Michael Pendrick, the first member of the ERT to enter the apartment, confirmed as much, testifying: “[a]s we approached the rear apartment door . . . another officer had breached the door, the door popped open.” People v Hayward, 2023 NY Slip Op 00461, Third Dept 2-2-23

Practice Point: The majority found the record silent on whether the police, who did not apply for a no-knock warrant, entered the apartment without giving proper notice to the occupants and held the issue was not preserved for appeal. The two-justice dissent argued the issue could be addressed on appeal as ineffective-assistance (failure to move to suppress) and the evidence demonstrated the police entered with a battering ram before announcing their presence.

 

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