You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

SOME RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY COUNTY COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined some restrictions on making discovery available to the defense should have been imposed:

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including the concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the People’s request in its entirety. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case … the County Court should have directed disclosure of the audio and video recordings of the narcotics sales be made available forthwith to defense counsel only, to be viewed at the prosecutor’s office. Additionally, the County Court should have delayed disclosure of the names, addresses, and contact information of the confidential informant and undercover personnel until the commencement of the trial. People v Zayas, 2020 NY Slip Op 05236, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS 1999 MURDER CONVICTION BASED UPON THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER BRADY MATERIAL PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his 1999 murder conviction based upon the prosecution’s failure to turn over Brady material regarding a prosecution witness (Corti) was properly granted:

The People are obligated to disclose exculpatory evidence in their possession which is favorable to the defendant and material to the issues of guilt or innocence … . Moreover, the duty of disclosing exculpatory material extends to disclosure of evidence impeaching the credibility of a prosecution witness whose testimony may be determinative of guilt or innocence … .

Here, the defendant was not provided with material regarding Cort’s participation as a witness in two unrelated homicide trials, along with prior agreements between Cort and law enforcement, including her use as a confidential informant by police and her placement in a witness relocation program following her participation in one of the unrelated homicide trials, during which her rent was paid by the Office of the Kings County District Attorney for approximately one year. This material contradicted Cort’s trial testimony that she did not have any “deals” with law enforcement and had not been in touch with the District Attorney’s Office “for a long period of time,” as well as the prosecutor’s arguments during summation that Cort “never took a deal” and “never asked for anything in return.” Significantly, Cort’s credibility was critical as she was the People’s only witness to testify that it was the defendant who shot the victim, and there was no other trial evidence directly linking the defendant to the crime … . Under these circumstances, in the context of the entire trial, Cort’s involvement with law enforcement “was both favorable and material to the defense, and the People’s failure to disclose this information to the defense violated defendant’s constitutional right to due process” … . In addition, the errors were compounded by the prosecution’s repetition and emphasis on the misinformation during summation … . People v Rodriguez, 2020 NY Slip Op 05234, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, held that the provision of the “Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Stock” (PSA) which awarded double attorney’s fees if litigation resulted from a breach was an unenforceable penalty. The decision, which includes legal analysis well worth reading, is a complex discussion of the covenant not to compete and the nonsolicitation agreement which is too detailed and fact-specific to summarize here. There is an extensive dissent. With respect to the “double attorney’s fees” provision, the court wrote:

We disagree with the Supreme Court’s sua sponte determination that the provision of the PSA, which, in the event of litigation, allows for a recovery of double the amount of attorneys’ fees expended by the substantially prevailing party, is an unenforceable penalty. When parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should be enforced according to its terms … . Paragraph 10.11 of the PSA clearly sets forth the intent of the parties, two sophisticated businesspeople with the benefit of counsel, that, should litigation arise out of the PSA, the “substantially prevailing party” is entitled to two times reasonable attorneys’ fees. Where, as here, “there is no deception or overreaching” in the making of such agreement, the agreement should be enforced as written … . Moreover, while each party asserted in the Supreme Court, and asserts on appeal, that he should prevail and be treated as the prevailing party for the purpose of paragraph 10.11, neither party contended in the Supreme Court that the double attorneys’ fees provision of paragraph 10.11 should not be enforced. Loughlin v Meghji, 2020 NY Slip Op 05196, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

, , ,

BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE OMITTED A PORTION OF THE BURGLARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT, THE PEOPLE ARE HELD TO THE PROOF REQUIRED BY THE INCOMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS; THE BURGLARY CONVICTION WAS THEREFORE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MAKE A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT CLEAR-CUT AND DISPOSITIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the burglary conviction as against the weight of the evidence, determined the People were held to the proof required by the the jury instructions to which the People did not object. The portion of the instructions which explained that entry into a private area of a building after entering the building through a public area constitutes unlawful entry was left out. Because the defendant entered the building through a public entrance, the People did not prove unlawful entry as charged to the jury. The Second Department also held that defense counsel’s failure to make a speedy trial motion did not constitute ineffective assistance because it was not clear the motion would succeed:

While the failure to make a meritorious speedy trial motion can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel … , the speedy trial violation must have been “clear-cut and dispositive” … . In other words, the motion must not only be meritorious … , it generally must not require resolution of novel issues, or resolution of whether debatable exclusions of time are applicable … . Here, the issue cannot be fairly characterized as “clear-cut and dispositive” so as to render defense counsel ineffective for failing to make such a motion … . * * *

The testimony at trial was unequivocal that the defendant and two cohorts entered the subject premises, a self-storage facility, during business hours, using the entrance designated for use by the public. The defendant’s entry into the premises was therefore lawful … . While the defendant’s subsequent act of entering a nonpublic area of the premises could constitute an unlawful entry (see Penal Law § 140.00[5] … ), in light of the Supreme Court’s charge omitting that portion of the instruction elaborating upon license and privilege as it applies to nonpublic areas within public places, and asking the jury whether the defendant unlawfully entered the premises generally, it was factually insufficient to prove that the defendant’s entry was unlawful. People v McKinnon, 2020 NY Slip Op 05056, Second Dept 9-23-30

 

, ,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WARRANTED VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion and vacated the dismissal of this foreclosure action for plaintiff bank’s failure to appear at a scheduled conference (22 NYCRR 202.27):

“22 NYCRR 202.27 gives a court the discretion to dismiss an action where [a] plaintiff fails to appear at any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference” … . “To vacate a dismissal under 22 NYCRR 202.27, it [is] incumbent upon [a] plaintiff to provide a reasonable excuse for his [or her] failure to appear and to demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . “A motion to vacate a prior judgment or order is addressed to the court’s sound discretion, subject to reversal only where there has been a clear abuse of that discretion” … .

Here, plaintiff’s counsel explained that, due to a scheduling error, the assigned attorney actually appeared in court on the conference date but missed the calendar call. Law office failure may constitute a reasonable excuse for an appearance default …  Given the isolated nature of this nonappearance, we find that Supreme Court acted within its discretion in reconsidering and vacating the default dismissal … . Notably, plaintiff supported its vacatur motion with a duly executed affidavit of merit from its representative. We further recognize that plaintiff has a meritorious cause of action, as we affirmed the award of summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor … . Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the court acted within its discretion in granting the motion to vacate. Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Mazzone, 2020 NY Slip Op 05011, Third Dept 9-17-20

 

, ,

APPELLANT’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO FIND NEW COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NEARLY $800,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellant’s request for an adjournment to find new counsel should have been granted. The appellant’s attorney had also represented other respondents and had drawn up a settlement agreement. The appellant declined to sign settlement and the court entered a judgment against the appellant for nearly $800,000:

The granting of an adjournment for any purpose rests within the sound discretion of the court … , and its determination will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of that discretion … . In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the court must engage in a balanced consideration of numerous relevant factors, including the merit or lack of merit of the proceeding, prejudice or lack thereof to the petitioner, the number of adjournments granted, the lack of intent to deliberately default or abandon the action, and the length of the pendency of the proceeding … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s request for an adjournment to obtain new counsel … . There was no prejudice to the petitioner, no lack of diligence by the appellant, and no substantial delay in the proceeding … . Matter of People of State of N.Y. v Emstar Pizza, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04950, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to enter a default judgment in this pedestrian accident case should have granted. The law-office-failure allegations were deemed insufficient:

In order to successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, a defendant who has failed to timely appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action … .

Here, the … defendants’ conclusory explanation that their attorney misplaced the file and that the office was understaffed was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the default … . Since the … defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default, this Court need not consider whether they proffered a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . Maldonado v Mosquera, 2020 NY Slip Op 04934, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

THE ONLY WAY TO COMPEL A JUDGE TO SIGN A DOCUMENT TO CREATE AN APPEALABLE PAPER IS A MANDAMUS ACTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78; THE FAILURE TO BRING THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING PRECLUDED APPEAL IN THIS CASE; THE OPINION INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPEALABLE PAPER ARE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DEFINITIVE ON THE TOPIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a concurrence, determined the plaintiffs’ only option when the judge refused to sign the transcript of the oral decision (CPLR 2219) and, in the alternative, refused to sign the proposed order with notice of settlement (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]), was a mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to sign. Without the judge’s signature, there was no appealable paper and plaintiffs could not appeal the decision disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel. Because the four-month statute of limitations for bringing an Article 78 (mandamus) action had long passed, the plaintiffs could not bring the appeal. The opinion includes a clear and comprehensive explanation of what constitutes appealable paper pursuant to CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.48[a] which should be saved as a reference resource:

… [T]he Justice failed or refused to later sign the transcript of the proceedings, and therefore, the transcript never qualified as an order for purposes of its enforcement or for an appeal … . While the transcript bears the signature of the court reporter who certified its truth and accuracy, the court reporter’s certification does not substitute for the plain and separate obligation set forth in CPLR 2219(a) that a judge or justice sign his or her name or initials to the document (see CPLR 5512[a] …). The absence of the Justice’s signature on the transcript had the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from directly appealing the adverse determination to the Appellate Division.

Likewise, the Justice failed or refused to sign the proposed order that was submitted to him, with a copy of the transcript and with notice of settlement. Such an order, if signed with or without modification of its proposed language, would have become an enforceable order and subject to appeal. Parties are entitled to orders that are both enforceable and appealable, and those fundamental rights should not be thwarted by any jurists’ unwitting failure to abide by the requirements of CPLR 2219(a) … . * * *

Absent a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the plaintiffs can receive no relief on this appeal. This Court cannot compel under the guise of CPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.48 relief that can only be properly accomplished by mandamus, which is now untimely. Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04913, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PROPERLY ORDERED THAT THE DEPOSITION BE SUPERVISED BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON BOTH SIDES DURING A PRIOR DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly issued a protective order limiting the deposition questioning of a doctor (Brem) in this medical malpractice action and properly ordered that the deposition be supervised. Both sides had engaged in misconduct at the prior deposition:

… [T]he Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting those branches of Winthrop’s [the hospital’s] motion which were for a protective order to the extent of limiting further questioning of Brem solely to his observations and treatment of decubitis ulcers sustained by Slapo [plaintiff’s decedent] and to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a special referee. While we agree with the court’s characterization of the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney at Brem’s deposition, we observe that the defense attorneys violated 22 NYCRR 221.1 by making numerous objections and making speaking objections. We further note that Brem violated 22 NYCRR 221.2 by refusing to answer questions. Given the obstructive conduct by the defense attorneys and Brem in violation of 22 NYCRR part 221, and the improper conduct of Slapo’s attorney during the deposition, we agree with the court that appropriate supervision of the balance of Brem’s deposition is necessary. Because both sides have engaged in arguably sanctionable conduct during the course of Brem’s deposition … , it was inappropriate to compel the plaintiff to solely bear the cost of supervision thereof. Further, without the consent of all the parties, the court may not compel a party to pay for or contribute to the cost of an outside referee (see CPLR 3104[b] …). Accordingly, we modify the order so as to direct that Brem’s continued deposition be supervised by a court-employed special referee … , a judicial hearing officer, or a court attorney referee. Slapo v Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 2020 NY Slip Op 04887, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

, ,

ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, once the motion court found defendant’s counsel ineffective for failing to inform defendant he risked being sentenced to life in prison as a persistent felony offender after trial, the motion court could not leave the convictions in place and reinstate the original sentence. Defendant had been offered a plea offer with a sentence of 4 1/2 to 9 years which he rejected and moved to vacate the guilty plea pursuant to CPL 440.10:

CPL 440.10(4) provides that “[i]f the court grants [a defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440], it must, except as provided in subdivision five or six of this section, vacate the judgment, and must dismiss the accusatory instrument, or order a new trial, or take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (emphasis added). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plain language of CPL 440.10(4) requires that, upon a finding that a defendant’s CPL 440 motion is meritorious, a court must, in the first instance (absent the exceptions in subdivisions five or six of CPL 440.10 which are not relevant here), vacate the judgment … , and upon so doing, must then select one of three options: (1) “dismiss the accusatory instrument,” (2) “order a new trial,” or (3) “take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (CPL 440.10[4]). Since the court found that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, it should have granted the defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion by vacating the judgment of conviction … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04849, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

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