You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant submitted an affidavit from an alibi witness claiming that defendant was out-of-state at the time of the offense and further stating that she had so informed defense counsel. In denying the motion to vacate, Supreme Court noted that defendant did not submit an affidavit from defense counsel. The Fourth Department recognized  that obtaining such an affidavit is problematic where ineffective assistance is alleged:

“It is well established that the failure to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses may amount to ineffective assistance of counsel’ ” … . Contrary to the court’s determination, a “defendant’s failure to submit an affidavit from trial counsel is not fatal to [a CPL 440.10] motion” … . Where, as here, the defendant’s ” application is adverse and hostile to his [or her] trial attorney,’ it is wasteful and unnecessary’ to require the defendant to secure an affidavit from counsel, or to explain his [or her] failure to do so” … . Moreover, to be entitled to a hearing, a defendant is not required to submit with his or her motion evidence corroborating the alibi witness’s affidavit … . Although the lack of corroboration is a factor the court may consider at a hearing, it is not a basis for denying the motion summarily. People v Scott, 2020 NY Slip Op 01807, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHED AT THE PENNSYLVANIA ARRAIGNMENT; SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONING BY PENNSYLVANIA POLICE IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NEW YORK POLICE DID NOT MAKE A REASONABLE INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIONAL STATUS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, affirming the suppression of statements made by defendant, determined defendant had requested counsel at his arraignment in Pennsylvania and therefore subsequent questioning by Pennsylvania police about New York (Jamestown) offenses in the absence of counsel violated his right to counsel:

On March 28, 2017, defendant participated in a preliminary arraignment in Pennsylvania … , and the record supports the finding of County Court that defendant requested counsel during that proceeding. On April 4, 2017, members of the Jamestown Police Department traveled to Pennsylvania to interview defendant about the Jamestown arsons. Although the Jamestown police officers ultimately did not interview defendant themselves, they observed while Pennsylvania State Troopers interrogated defendant, in the absence of defense counsel, about the offenses allegedly committed in Pennsylvania. During that interrogation, the Pennsylvania State Troopers also questioned defendant about the New York offenses, and defendant made inculpatory statements about the Jamestown fires. * * *

…[E]even though the interview was carried out by Pennsylvania State Troopers, their interrogation is nevertheless subject to this state’s right to counsel jurisprudence inasmuch as they were agents of the Jamestown police officers … . ,,,

The Court of Appeals has held that “an officer who wishes to question a person in police custody about an unrelated matter must make a reasonable inquiry concerning the defendant’s representational status when the circumstances indicate that there is a probable likelihood that an attorney has entered the custodial matter, and the accused is actually represented on the custodial charge” … . Here, although the [Jamestown] captain asked whether defendant was represented by counsel, based on this record, we conclude that the captain’s inquiry was not reasonable inasmuch as he failed to ask whether defendant had requested counsel. People v Young, 2020 NY Slip Op 01825, Fourth Dept 3-13-20

 

,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT SENTENCING; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE OR THE DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. Counsel was not familiar with the case of the defendant’s background:

… [T]he defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. A defendant is ” entitled to an opportunity to be represented by counsel sufficiently familiar with the case and the defendant’s background to make an effective presentation on the question of sentence'” … . Here, the defendant’s counsel at sentencing made no substantive arguments on the defendant’s behalf, and the record demonstrates that counsel had no meaningful knowledge of the case or of the defendant’s background. People v Jones, 2020 NY Slip Op 01640, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

, ,

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined communications between plaintiffs’ financial advisor (KDC) and plaintiffs’ counsel in connection with the sale of plaintiffs’ company to defendant were privileged:

It is true that KDC was not retained to assist plaintiffs’ counsel in providing legal advice. However, the unrebutted evidence reflects that KDC spent some portion of its time helping counsel to understand various aspects of the transaction for that purpose. As such, KDC’s presence was necessary to enable attorney-client communication … .

Plaintiffs also had a reasonable expectation that the confidentiality of communications between their counsel and KDC would be maintained. Plaintiffs’ counsel attested that KDC promised to keep all such communications confidential. The governing Purchase and Sale Agreement also specified that all privileged documents related to the transaction would remain protected from disclosure to defendant even after closing … .

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the Cooperation Clause in KDC’s engagement letter did not undermine the reasonableness of this expectation of confidentiality, as it only required “reasonabl[e]” assistance to the Company (now owned by defendant), and should thus not be read to require KDC to turn over privileged documents … . Spicer v GardaWorld Consulting (UK) Ltd., 2020 NY Slip Op 01448, First Dept 3-3-20

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE OF DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS TO PROPERLY PREPARE THE EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT RESULTED IN THE WITNESS’S INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL AND A DEFENSE VERDICT; ARGUING THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ABSENT THE ATTORNEYS’ MALPRACTICE IS TOO SPECULATIVE TO SUPPORT A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determent defendant attorneys’ motion for summary judgment in this legal malpractice action should have been granted. Plaintiff was allegedly struck by a garbage truck and seriously injured. Plaintiff could not describe the truck and plaintiff’s case depended upon the testimony of an eyewitness, Arenas. Arenas’s descriptions of the truck were not consistent and there was a defense verdict. Plaintiff alleged defendant attorneys failed to properly prepare Arenas for his deposition, which resulted in Arenas’s inconsistent testimony at trial:

“[M]ere speculation of a loss resulting from an attorney’s alleged omissions . . . is insufficient to sustain a claim” for legal malpractice” … . Plaintiff’s assertion that, had Arenas been better prepared, the jury would have returned a favorable verdict is pure speculation … . Defendants met their burden of showing that plaintiff cannot establish causation, in that plaintiff cannot prove that it would have prevailed in the underlying action “but for” defendant’s alleged negligence in preparing Arenas for his deposition … .

Although there are issues of fact regarding whether defendants may have departed from the applicable standard of care, any claim that the jury would have reached a different result in the personal injury action is wholly speculative. First, it is wholly speculative that Arenas would have testified to a different description of the truck either at his deposition or at trial had he been shown the investigative reports. Although the investigative reports were read to him line by line at his deposition, his description of the truck did not change and he adhered to his belief, that the front of the truck he saw strike and run over plaintiff was bullnosed. Even if Arenas’s statement in support of plaintiff’s motion in this case is accurate, that he would have testified differently had he been differently prepared, this, at best, creates an issue of fact about what he would have said at trial. It does not eliminate speculation about what the jury’s verdict would have been, given that Arenas’s description of the truck otherwise lacked detail, and the absence of any additional proof identifying defendants’ truck and driver as being involved in underlying accident. Caso v Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis LLP, 2020 NY Slip Op 01384, First Dept 2-27-20

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH CONSENT ORDERS ARE GENERALLY NOT APPEALABLE, HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER MOTHER WAS ABLE TO CONSENT IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD CANNOT VETO THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the consent custody order, involving mother, aunt and great-aunt, may have been invalid because mother may have been unable to consent due to some unspecified disability, The Third Department noted that consent orders are generally not appealable, but here there was a question about the validity of the consent. The Third Department also noted that the attorney for the child (AFC), who disagreed with the consent order, does not have the power to veto a the consent of the parties:

We must first note that, as a general rule, no appeal lies from an order entered on consent … . Further, although Family Court cannot relegate the AFC to a meaningless role, the AFC cannot veto a proposed settlement reached by the parties, particularly after the AFC, as here, was given a full and fair opportunity to list objections to the proposed arrangement on the record … .

Here, however, we find substantial cause to question the validity of the mother’s consent to Family Court’s order. In the course of the appearances, the parties all appeared to acknowledge that the mother lacks the ability to care for the child on her own due to some disability, although the mother’s attorney objected to such a characterization in the absence of a legal determination. The AFC expressed concern about the effect of this disability on the mother’s “ability to . . . consent to anything.” Further, Family Court stated that “[the mother is] not in a position to make decisions.” In our view, this statement directly and expressly calls into question the mother’s ability to consent to the modification order … . In this context, the troubling allegations of inappropriate sexual contact raised by the AFC are particularly serious and significant. Our limited record thus does not demonstrate that the mother’s consent to the order was valid and, if not, that the court had “sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child’s best interests” … .  Accordingly, in these highly unusual circumstances, we remit for a hearing and further development of the record on the issue of the mother’s ability to consent, and, if necessary, as to whether the custody proposal meets the requisite standard of promoting the best interests of the child. Matter of Erica X. v Lisa X., 2020 NY Slip Op 01224, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD THE MANDATORY STATUTORY HEARING; APPEAL IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THE ‘DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER’ FINDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel because the attorney conceded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder. County Court should have held the mandatory statutory hearing. The appeal is not academic because of the lasting effect of the finding defendant suffers from a dangerous mental disorder:

Although the commitment order has expired by its own terms, the appeal is not academic because the County Court’s determination that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder has lasting consequences that will affect all future proceedings regarding his commitment and release … .

The initial hearing under CPL 330.20(6) is a critical stage of the proceedings during which the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel … . Here, there was simply no legitimate strategy that could have warranted defense counsel’s concession that the defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, implicitly consenting to the defendant’s confinement in a secure facility … . As defense counsel failed to provide meaningful representation, the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel … .

Neither the defendant’s nor defense counsel’s concession to a finding of dangerous mental disorder can relieve the County Court from the obligation to provide the initial statutory hearing, which is mandatory (see CPL 330.20[6] … ). People v Juan R., 2020 NY Slip Op 01190, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

, ,

‘ANDERS’ BRIEF DEFICIENT; NEW COUNSEL ASSIGNED FOR THE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “Anders” appellate brief submitted by counsel was deficient and assigned new counsel for the appeal:

The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to Anders v California (386 US 738) is deficient because it fails to contain an adequate statement of facts and fails to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal … . The statement of facts does not review, in any detail, the Supreme Court’s advisements to the appellant regarding the rights he was waiving, the inquiries made of the appellant to ensure that the admission was knowingly and voluntarily entered, or the appellant’s responses to any of those advisements and inquiries … . Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel fulfilled his obligations under Anders v California, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant … . People v Morales, 2020 NY Slip Op 01188, Second Dept 2-19-20

Similar issues and result in People v Santos, 2020 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

, ,

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND IRRELEVANT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that prosecutorial misconduct and the admission of irrelevant evidence of another crime required reversal:

“[O]n summation, a prosecutor may not improperly encourage[ ] inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence'” …  As we determined in People v Ramirez (150 AD3d at 899-900), the prosecutor here improperly suggested that the jury should disregard the grand jury testimony of one of the People’s main witnesses, and invited the jury to speculate that a missing witness would have given supporting testimony if he had been called to testify. …

“The rule of Molineux is familiar: Evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible where its only purpose is to show bad character or propensity towards crime” … . However, “evidence of other crimes may be admitted to show motive, intent, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan or the identity of the guilty party” … . “In addition, evidence of uncharged crimes may be admitted as necessary background material when relevant to a contested issue in the case, or to complete the narrative of the events if such evidence is inextricably interwoven with the crime charged” … . “Still, even if technically relevant for one of these or some other legitimate purpose, Molineux evidence will not be admitted if it is actually of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to the accused'” … .

The fact that the defendant allegedly resisted arrest six months after the incident in question after violating an order of protection against him held by one of the complainants was not relevant in this matter. The defendant was not resisting arrest for the crimes charged at trial, and resisting arrest in this instance was too far removed from the underlying incident to be deemed admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt … . People v Ramirez, 2020 NY Slip Op 01087, Second Dept 2-13-20

 

, ,

CONDEMNEE WAS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES (ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS) BASED UPON THE DIFFERENCE IN COMPENSATION BETWEEN THAT OFFERED BY THE VILLAGE AND THE AWARD BY THE COURT IN THIS EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING; THE STATUTORY INTEREST RATE OF 6%, NOT 9%, SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that some of the additional allowances for fees and costs (pursuant to Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) 701) should not have been granted and the statutory interest rate of 6%, not 9%, should have been applied. The additional allowances were sought based upon because the court awarded more compensation to the condemnees (Ferguson and Executive) than that offered by the condemnor (the Village):

Pursuant to EDPL 701, where a court’s award to a claimant in a condemnation proceeding is “substantially in excess of the amount of the condemnor’s proof” and where the court deems it necessary to “achieve just and adequate compensation,” the court may award the claimant an additional sum for costs including attorneys’ and other fees. The goal of this statute is to ” assure[ ] that a condemnee receives a fair recovery by providing an opportunity for condemnees whose property has been substantially undervalued to recover the costs of litigation establishing the inadequacy of the condemnor’s offer'” … . …

… [T]he Supreme Court’s award of $721,671 exceeded the Village’s advance payment of $575,000. While the difference is not insignificant, we find that it does not substantially exceed the Village’s advance payment within the meaning of EDPL 701 … . …

Although the Village, in effect, concedes that the Supreme Court’s award to Executive of $159,596 substantially exceeded its advance payment of $61,044, it correctly points out that Executive was unsuccessful as to the bulk of its claims for compensation and received an award of 16.4% of the $973,000 it sought. Contrary to the Village’s assertion, since Executive’s attorneys were compensated on a contingent basis, their fees were perforce proportionate to their success. Accordingly, the portion of the additional allowance awarded to Executive representing their fees should not be disturbed … . …

Although the Village, in effect, concedes that the Supreme Court’s award to Executive of $159,596 substantially exceeded its advance payment of $61,044, it correctly points out that Executive was unsuccessful as to the bulk of its claims for compensation and received an award of 16.4% of the $973,000 it sought. Contrary to the Village’s assertion, since Executive’s attorneys were compensated on a contingent basis, their fees were perforce proportionate to their success. Accordingly, the portion of the additional allowance awarded to Executive representing their fees should not be disturbed … . Matter of Village of Haverstraw, 2020 NY Slip Op 01068,  Second Dept 2-13-20

 

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