You are here: / Attorneys
, , ,

THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT CONSULTED WITH ITS ATTORNEY IN A CLOSED SESSION BEFORE DECIDING NOT TO RENEW PLAINTIFF FOOTBALL COACH’S EMPLOYMENT; THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW FOR LEGAL ADVICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff high school football coach was not entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action alleging the school board violated the Open Meetings Law by deciding not to renew plaintiff’s employment after a closed meeting. The Open Meetings Law did not apply to the board’s closed-door consultation with its attorney:

It is well settled that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a] … ). While an executive session may be called to discuss, inter alia, “matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person” (§ 105 [1] [f]), the public body may do so only upon a majority vote of its membership and after “identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” (§ 105 [1]). However, section 108 (3) clarifies that “[n]othing contained in [the Open Meetings Law] shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to . . . any matter made confidential by federal or state law.” Because “communications made pursuant to an attorney-client relationship are considered confidential under the [CPLR] . . . , communications between a . . . board . . . and its counsel, in which counsel advises the board of the legal issues involved in [a] determination . . . , are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law” … .

There is no dispute that, during the closed session … , the Board and the District superintendent met with the District’s counsel seeking legal advice “regarding the [p]laintiff’s legal employment status, employment rights, [and] the process for appointing school employees.” We thus agree with defendants that the attorney-client exemption applies and that the court erred in determining that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Law … . Sindoni v Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 00772, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT DID NOT SUCCEED IN DEMONSTRATING HER CONDITION HAD WORSENED SUCH THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO INCREASED BENEFITS, HER COUNSEL’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RESCINDED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (THIRD DEPT). ​

he Third Department, reversing (modifying) the Workers’ Compensation Board, determined the rescission of the award of claimant’s counsel’s fee on the ground that the claim was unsuccessful was arbitrary and capricious. Claimant was unable to show her condition had worsened entitling her to increased benefits:

The initial application submitted by claimant’s counsel, which sets forth in detail the services rendered and the time spent in connection therewith, reflects that counsel represented claimant for a number of years, engaged in extensive correspondence with, among others, claimant, Petroski [claimant’s treating physician] and the carrier, reviewed various reports, attended hearings and successfully sought and obtained a reopening of this matter. Although counsel ultimately did not succeed in obtaining an increase in claimant’s loss of wage-earning capacity, the Board rescinded the fee award solely upon counsel’s unsuccessful efforts in this regard. Notwithstanding the Board’s broad discretion, this single-factor reasoning strikes us as arbitrary and capricious — particularly in view of the fact that claimant clearly received an economic benefit from counsel’s overall representation of her. Matter of Simmons v Glens Falls Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00712, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; COUNSEL SAID A GUILTY PLEA MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel because he was told pleading guilty may result in deportation when deportation was mandatory:

The existing record sufficiently demonstrates that defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel (see Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, 369, 374 [2010]) when his attorney failed to advise him that his guilty plea to a drug-related felony would result in mandatory deportation, and merely stated that “this may and probably will affect his immigration status” … . The appeal is held in abeyance to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been made aware of the deportation consequences of his plea. People v Acosta, 2022 NY Slip Op 00737, First Dept 2-3-22

 

, ,

THE JUDGE ADOPTED A DECISION DRAFTED BY COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE AND THEREBY VITIATED THE PURPOSE SERVED BY JUDICIAL OPINIONS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT VACATED THE JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the judgment, determined the judge erred by adopting a proposed decision drafted by counsel as the final determination of the case:

… [T]he court erred in adopting, almost verbatim, the proposed decision drafted by petitioners’ counsel as the final determination in this case … . “When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that [respondent] CME could or should have objected to the court’s error, we would exercise our discretion to correct that error notwithstanding CME’s failure to object. We therefore vacate the judgment in its entirety and remit the matter to Supreme Court for consideration and determination of any pending issue or motion. Bruckel v Town of Conesus, 2022 NY Slip Op 00580, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

, , ,

THE DEPOSITION OF THE NONPARTY MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER IN THE COOPERATIVE REGARDING LEAKS IN THE UNITS WAS PROPER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STOPPED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE JUDGE; SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT WERE WARRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the deposition of a witness, Ruth Miller, was proper and the judge should not have ordered the deposition to cease and should not have suppressed the portion of the deposition which had already been taken. Miller was a nonparty majority shareholder in the cooperative and the action concerned leaks in the units. The First Department further determined that sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel were warranted:

It was an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to issue a protective order under CPLR 3103(a) barring a continuation of the deposition of nonparty Ruth Miller. Miller is the majority shareholder of the Coop, and therefore is a key figure in the events surrounding plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of contract claims regarding leaks in plaintiffs’ units. Moreover, Miller was a member of the Board during a period of time when decisions were made about building maintenance, which is a relevant issue in plaintiffs’ action. Thus, her testimony is “material and necessary” (CPLR 3101[a] …). …

… [i]t was error for the court to sua sponte issue a suppression order of the testimony previously taken (see CPLR 3103[c]). Defendants made no showing that evidence was improperly or irregularly obtained during the deposition, or that prejudice to a substantial right had accrued through discovery of improperly obtained evidence … . …

… [C]ounsel’s behavior at the deposition was frivolous and unprofessional. Among other things, counsel called the witness “a liar” and told her on the record that she had done “plenty wrong” and had “plenty to worry about in this case,” despite the fact that she is not even a party to the action. Sanctions against counsel are therefore warranted (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 …). Gendell v 42 W. 17th St. Hous. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00272, First Dept 1-18-22

 

,

DEFENDANT’S REPEATED REQUESTS TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WERE NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE THREE JUDGES TO WHOM THE REQUESTS WERE MADE; CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s repeated requests to represent himself had not been properly addressed by the three calendar judges to whom the requests were made:

“The denial of defendant’s repeated requests to proceed pro se deprived defendant of his right to represent himself and requires reversal of his conviction” … . Although defendant made repeated unequivocal requests to proceed pro se, the calendar courts hearing these applications repeatedly deferred making a ruling. To the extent that these courts can be viewed as having denied the applications on the ground that defendant was disruptive, this was inappropriate because defendant’s only outbursts were the product of his frustration at not receiving a ruling on his rightful applications … . Furthermore, defendant was clearly fit to proceed to trial and fit to waive counsel … . The fact that defendant’s request to proceed pro se was based in part on his disagreements with counsel did not, standing alone, justify the denial of his request … . Defendant expressly stated that he wanted to represent himself, whether or not the court assigned new counsel. People v Goodwin, 2022 NY Slip Op 00281, First Dept 1-18-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s right to counsel had not been adequately protected and returned the case to pre-suppression-hearing status. Defendant refused to speak with his attorney and the judge, despite defendant’s presence in the courtroom, never discussed the issue with the defendant before denying a request to assign new counsel:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. The defendant’s request for new counsel, made through assigned counsel, contained serious factual allegations concerning the defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel and the breakdown of communications between assigned counsel and the defendant … . Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court failed to meet its ongoing duty to make inquiries to determine whether there was good cause for the requested substitution by denying the request without speaking directly with the defendant … . Thus, reversal is warranted. Further, on the record presented, the matter should be restored to pre-suppression-hearing status. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s suppression determination and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v English, 2022 NY Slip Op 00189, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the level three SORA risk assessment, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to make a motion for a downward departure. The only arguments defense counsel made were without merit, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the facts, and would not have reduced the risk assessment to level two even if successful:

… [C]ounsel only challenged 35 of the 155 total points assessed against the defendant, and a resulting score of 120 would have still been within the range (between 110 and 300 points) of a presumptive level three (high) offender. Counsel did not seek a downward departure from the defendant’s presumptive risk level designation as a level three sex offender, and the record supports the defendant’s claim that his counsel failed to articulate any argument that would have had any effect on the outcome of the SORA proceeding … . … [T]he record does not demonstrate that counsel made a “strategic decision to attack the assessment of points, while foregoing any request for a downward departure.” Any such strategy in this case “would have made no sense” because it would not have had any effect on the outcome of the SORA proceeding … . Counsel’s failure to make any application for a downward departure, under the particular circumstances of this case, worked to deprive the defendant of his right to zealous advocacy, and amounted to less than meaningful representation … . People v Morancis, 2022 NY Slip Op 00202, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

, , ,

THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDED ATTORNEYS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW RE: ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY CLAIMS INCLUDED IN A COMPLAINT (WITH ONE EXCEPTION NOT APPLICABLE HERE) IS ABSOLUTE, EVEN IN THE FACE OF ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE AND BAD FAITH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the allegedly defamatory claims included in a complaint against plaintiff were absolutely privileged with respect to the attorneys who drafted the complaint.

… [T]here is no evidence to support a claim that defendant attorneys acted with malice against plaintiff, either in the commencement of this case or in the preparation of the papers as well as any dissemination of the papers, which are for public consumption to a reporter. … [T]here are no … issues of fact as to whether defendant attorneys instituted and sought to publicize a “sham” action containing defamatory allegations against plaintiff for the sole or primary purpose of disseminating those defamatory allegations while cloaking them in the privilege that attends certain statements made in connection with proceedings before a court (see Williams v Williams, 23 NY2d 592, 599 [1969]). …

In the absence of alleged facts supporting the Williams exception, the privilege under Civil Rights Law § 74 is absolute and applies even where the plaintiff alleges malice or bad faith … . Weeden v Lukezic, 2022 NY Slip Op 00026, First Dept 1-4-22

 

, ,

PETITIONER’S WAIVER OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS FAMILY COURT ACT ARTICLE 8 PROCEEDING WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARY; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER THE RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER HAD BEEN IN AN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (THEREBY AFFORDING THE COURT SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this Family Court Act article 8 proceeding, determined; (1) petitioner’s waiver of her right to counsel was invalid, and (2) the finding that petitioner did not have an intimate relationship with respondent, thereby depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction, was not supported by the record:

A party in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii] … ). Although the right to counsel may be waived, the waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . In order to ensure that a waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, the court “must conduct a searching inquiry” … and the record must reflect, among other things, “that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” … .

Here, the Family Court failed to conduct a searching inquiry of the petitioner to ensure that her waiver of her right to counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary … . …

The Family Court also should have conducted a hearing prior to determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the parties did not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) … . Matter of Minor v Birkenmeyer, 2021 NY Slip Op 07546, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

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