You are here: / Attorneys
,

CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT FIRST DEGREE IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF PREDATORY ASSAULT AGAINST A CHILD; THE PROSECUTOR IMPROPERLY INJECTED THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE INTO THE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, dismissing one count without prejudice, determined criminal sexual act first degree is not a lesser included offense of predatory sexual assault against a child. Therefore the jury should not have been so instructed. The court noted that the prosecutor improperly injected the integrity of the District Attorney’s office into the trial by telling the jury he was at a significant advantage because he had been working on the case for more than a year:

As alleged in count one of the indictment, defendant committed predatory sexual assault against a child because, during a certain period of time, and while “being [18] years old or more, [he] engaged in two or more acts of sexual conduct, which included at least one act of sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct or aggravated sexual contact, with a female . . . , who was less than [13] years old.” Thus, by its explicit language, the count of predatory sexual assault against a child was predicated on defendant’s alleged commission of the class B felony of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (see Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [b]) and, as a result, the People could not establish that the offense of criminal sexual act in the first degree, a different class B felony, was a lesser included offense of predatory sexual assault against a child within the meaning of CPL 1.20 (37). Stated another way, it is not impossible to commit predatory sexual assault against a child, as the offense was charged in the indictment in this case, without concomitantly, by the same conduct, committing criminal sexual act in the first degree. Indeed, as the offense was charged in the indictment here, a defendant could commit predatory sexual assault against a child by engaging in sexual intercourse or aggravated sexual contact with the victim (see Penal Law §§ 130.96, 130.75 [1] [b]), without concomitantly, by the same conduct, committing criminal sexual act in the first degree (see § 130.50 [3]). People v Getman, 2021 NY Slip Op 06224, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY RE: DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new custody hearing, determined the judge did not make the required inquiry before allowing defendant to waiver her right to counsel:

The parent of any child seeking custody or contesting the substantial infringement of his or her right to custody of such child must be advised “before proceeding that he or she has the right to be represented by counsel of his or her own choosing, of the right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel, and of the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same” (Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]; see Judiciary Law § 35[8] …). A party may waive the right to counsel, provided he or she makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of that right … . Here, the Supreme Court failed to conduct the requisite inquiry before allowing the defendant to proceed pro se with regard to the hearing and determination of the defendant’s motions to modify and/or vacate the custody order … . Wondemagegehu v Edem, 2021 NY Slip Op 06213, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY A DETECTIVE’S TESTIM0NY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF A STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A NONTESTYING ACCOMPLICE; THE ERROR WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CITING CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing the murder conviction and ordering a new trial, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined a detective’s testimony about what a nontestifying accomplice (Andy Dabydeen) said violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. Although defense counsel did not object to the detective’s testimony, the defendant himself objected after the fact, citing Crawford v Washington, 541 US 51, which preserved the issue for appeal:

After the defendant continued to deny any involvement in the murder, the detective confronted him by saying that “Andy had told us what had happened.” The detective further testified that, shortly thereafter, upon returning from the bathroom, the defendant reacted to that information by stating that he could not believe that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. …

… [W]e find that the defendant’s objection—albeit made after the detective had finished testifying and the People had rested—was sufficiently specific to draw the Supreme Court’s attention to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause problems attendant to the People’s use, as part of their case-in-chief, of Dabydeen’s out-of-court testimonial statement directly implicating the defendant in the murder. …

This is not to suggest that the People are precluded from giving some context to the defendant’s statement that Dabydeen had “snitched” on him. We merely emphasize that the People could have done so without disclosing the substance of Dabydeen’s incriminating statement … . People v Lockley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , , ,

THE ISSUE WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT OBJECTIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS BE RULED ON WITHIN 15 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; THE 15-DAY RULE IS MANDATORY AND MUST BE ENFORCED; THE MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BECAUSE HER ACTION WAS THE CATALYST FOR THIS DECISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined: (1) the issue whether objections to child support rulings must be ruled on within 15 days (Family Court Act 439(a)) will be considered on appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine; (2) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (CPLR 8600, et seq) mother-petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees because her action served as a catalyst to this decision enforcing the 15-day rule:

The mother has established that this is not the first time in this case that the issue has arisen. Further, the issue is not likely to be resolved without application of the exception, because the Family Court can so easily obviate it by issuing a decision on the objections, albeit after the expiration of the 15 days. Courts have applied the exception under similar circumstances … . * * *

The statute is mandatory insofar as it plainly states that the court “shall,” within 15 days of an objection to a support award being fully submitted, issue a ruling on it … . * * *

Because the CAJ [Chief Administrative Judge, NYC Family Court] responded to the mother’s petition by assigning a Family Court judge to rule on her objections, and because the CAJ offers no substantial justification for not having enforced Family Court Act § 439(e) before the petition was filed, the matter should be remanded for an assessment of the mother’s attorneys’ fees under the State EAJA. Matter of Liu v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06089, First Dept 11-9-21

 

, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION CONSTITUTED AN ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS UNAFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the email exchange between attorneys constituted an enforceable settlement of the personal injury action which was unaffected by the subsequent granting of summary judgment to the defendants:

The settlement agreement was stated in an email communication in which plaintiffs’ counsel stated, “This is to confirm settlement in the sum of $275,000. Please send release language and parties to be released.” Later that day, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a follow-up email, stating, “Please confirm we are settled.” Sea Crest’s counsel responded, “Confirmed. I’ll have release information to you ASAP.” …

The emails, which reduced the settlement to a writing in accordance with CPLR 2104, were “subscribed” within the meaning of the statute, as the sender was identifiable and there was no contention that Sea Crest’s counsel did not send any of the emails intentionally … . Rawald v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 06109, First Dept 11-9-21

 

,

THE ACTION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL TEN DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL DID NOT TIMELY COMPLETE SERVICE BY MAILING THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE LAW OFFICE FAILURE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION FOR GOOD CAUSE AND THE LACK OF DILIGENCE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not demonstrate could good cause for failing to timely mail the summons and complaint to defendant and was not entitled to an extension of time to serve the defendant in the interest of justice. The court noted that law-office-failure precludes an extension for good cause, and the attorney’s lack of diligence in filing the action (ten days before the expiration of the statute of limitations) and in serving the pleadings ruled out an extension in the interest of justice:

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was entitled to an extension of time to serve Marin [defendant] for good cause, as she failed to establish that she exercised reasonably diligent efforts in attempting to effect proper service … . The plaintiff’s attorney’s mistake in failing to note, until pointed out in the defendants’ reply papers, that Marin had not been served by mail, amounts to law office failure, which does not constitute good cause … .

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish her entitlement to an extension of time for service in the interest of justice given the lack of diligence in commencing the action, which was not commenced until 10 days before the statute of limitations expired; the lack of diligence in effecting service; the more than six-month delay between the time the summons and complaint were filed and the time the plaintiff’s cross motion, inter alia, for an extension was made; and the lack of an excuse, other than law office failure, for the failure to effect timely service … . Jordan-Covert v Petroleum Kings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05960, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

THE DEFENDANT’S EXECUTION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOR OF HER (NON-ATTORNEY) HUSBAND DID NOT AUTHORIZE HER HUSBAND TO FILE COURT PAPERS ON HER BEHALF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT STATED ACTION; THE HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANT IS PROHIBITED BY THE JUDICIARY LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s husband could not represent the defendant in this account stated action based upon his holding a power of attorney executed by the defendant:

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover on an account stated, alleging that the defendant failed to pay sums due on her credit card account. Following service of the summons and complaint, the defendant’s husband, James W. Gilliam II (hereinafter Gilliam), purportedly in his capacity as the defendant’s attorney-in-fact by short form power of attorney, in accordance with New York General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N, filed with the court an answer and certain cross claims on behalf of the defendant. …

“New York law prohibits the practice of law in this State on behalf of anyone other than himself or herself by a person who is not an admitted member of the Bar, regardless of the authority purportedly conferred by execution of a power of attorney” … . The designation as an attorney-in-fact under General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N does not confer upon a designated agent the right to provide representation as an attorney-at-law, and “cannot be read to displace the provisions of Judiciary Law § 478” … . Discover Bank v Gilliam, 2021 NY Slip Op 05949, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; NEW HEARING ORDERD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new modification of custody hearing, determined Family Court did not ensure that father’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntarily and intelligently made:

In order to determine whether a party has validly waived the right to counsel, a court must conduct a “searching inquiry” to ensure that the waiver has been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently … . “While there is no rigid formula to be followed in such an inquiry, and the approach is flexible, the record must demonstrate that the party was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . “For example, the court may inquire about the litigant’s ‘age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver'” … . Here, the Family Court did not conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry to ensure that the father’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made … .

… “[T]he deprivation of a party’s fundamental right to counsel in a custody or visitation proceeding requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … . Matter of Lherisson v Goffe, 2021 NY Slip Op 05856, Second Dept 10-27-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was not adequately warned about the risks of representing himself:

The record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … , including the potential for his sentences in two pending cases, arising from unrelated incidents, to run consecutively. The court also failed to inquire into defendant’s understanding of “the nature of the charges” … . This despite defendant’s admission that he did “[n]ot necessarily” understand the charges in one case and was “still coming to grips with the charges” in the other case. The court’s statement during the waiver colloquy that defendant was “facing felony charges” was inadequate for that purpose.

Moreover, the court’s inquiry did not “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” … . The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant. While there is no mandatory “catechism for this inquiry,” there must be a “searching inquiry” conducted by a court before permitting self-representation … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. People v Perry, 2021 NY Slip Op 05826, First Dept 10-26-21

 

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