You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S REMARKS DURING SUMMATION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY OF A FAIR TRIAL; OVER $1 MILLION JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE/PUBLIC-HEALTH-LAW ACTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the over $1 million judgment in this negligence and Public-Health-Law-2801-d violation case, determined plaintiff’s counsel’s remarks in summation required a new trial. Plaintiff’s decedent, who was at risk for falling, fell after getting up from a wheelchair at defendant residential health care facility and ultimately died:

“[L]itigants are entitled, as a matter of law, to a fair trial free from improper comments by counsel or the trial court” … . “The interest of justice thus requires a court to order a new trial where comments by an attorney for a party’s adversary deprived that party of a fair trial or unduly influenced a jury” … .

Here, during summation, the plaintiff’s counsel improperly appealed to the passion of the jurors by characterizing the defendant as a “corporation” that has “two lawyers,” a “tech person,” “general counsel,” and “video people.” Counsel also improperly accused the defendant of willfully depriving the plaintiff of evidence that would have been harmful to the defendant’s case, accused the defendant’s witnesses of having “changed” their testimony after their depositions or pretrial affirmations, which were not in evidence, “because they saw that they couldn’t win,” and improperly argued that the defendant failed to call certain witnesses, who were not under the defendant’s control. Thus, “the comments of the plaintiff[‘s] counsel . . . were not isolated, were inflammatory, and were unduly prejudicial. These prejudicial comments so tainted the proceedings as to have deprived the defendant . . . of a fair trial” … . Nieves v Clove Lakes Health Care & Rehabilitation, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00422, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant (Martinez) was entitled to a hearing on his CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his 2007 judgment of conviction. At the time defendant pled guilty the court warned him there could be immigration consequences, but defense counsel told him he wouldn’t have to worry about deportation if he stayed out of trouble while on probation. In fact, however, deportation was mandatory. Supreme Court denied the motion based in part on defendant’s motivation for it, i.e., the expansion of his taxi business in Massachusetts. The First Department noted that plaintiff’s current motivation for the motion to vacate is irrelevant. The matter was sent back for a hearing in front of a different judge:

In the context of a guilty plea, the ultimate question of prejudice is whether there was a reasonable probability that a reasonable person in a defendant’s circumstances would have gone to trial if given constitutionally adequate advice … . A defendant must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational … . In that regard, appropriate factors to be weighed include, among others, evidence of defendant’s incentive, at the time of his plea, to remain in the United States rather than his native country; his respective family and employment ties at the time of his plea, to the United States, as compared to his country of origin; the strength of the People’s case; and defendant’s sentencing exposure … . In answering the prejudice question, judges should be cognizant that a noncitizen defendant confronts a very different calculus than confronts a United States citizen … . For a noncitizen defendant, “preserving [his] right to remain in the United States may be more important to [him] than any jail sentence”… . Thus, a determination of whether it would be rational for a defendant to reject a plea offer “must take into account the particular circumstances informing the defendant’s desire to remain in the United States” … .

Significantly, on the record before this Court, there is reason to believe that Martinez would have given paramount importance to avoiding deportation, if he had known that it was more than a mere possibility, but was an unavoidable consequence of his plea to an aggravated felony. Indeed, evidence regarding Martinez’s background completely supports his current assertion that his main focus has been always to remain in the United States. This much is undisputed: his long history in the United States, his efforts to become a citizen, his family circumstances, and his gainful employment in Massachusetts, all signal his strong connection to, and desire to remain in, the United States … . People v Martinez, 2020 NY Slip Op 00252, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, ,

BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER SUFFERED NO DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF PLAINTIFF’S BREACH OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, DEFENDANT EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-ORAL-CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF PARTIAL PERFORMANCE BY DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE ON THE ORAL MODIFICATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the law firm defendants demonstrated plaintiff attorney violated the confidentiality provision of her employment contract, the law firm was not entitled to enforcement of the liquidated damages provision of the contract because the law firm did not demonstrate it suffered any damage as a result of plaintiff’s breach. In addition, plaintiff’s cause of action alleging the law firm defendants violated an oral agreement promising her a five percent bonus related to attorney’s fees paid for cases in which she was involved should not have been dismissed because she presented some evidence she had in fact been paid several such bonuses:

“Liquidated damages constitute the compensation which, the parties have agreed, should be paid in order to satisfy any loss or injury flowing from a breach of their contract” … . “A contractual provision fixing damages in the event of breach will be sustained if the amount liquidated bears a reasonable proportion to the probable loss and the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation. If, however, the amount fixed is plainly or grossly disproportionate to the probable loss, the provision calls for a penalty and will not be enforced” … . Although the party challenging the liquidated damages provision has the burden to prove that the liquidated damages are, in fact, an unenforceable penalty … , the party seeking to enforce the provision must necessarily have been damaged in order for the provision to apply … . Here, defendants did not identify to the motion court any damages that they sustained as a result of plaintiff’s breach of the agreement. …

The law firm defendants met their burden on summary judgment by providing plaintiff’s employment agreement which did not include any reference to a 5% nondiscretionary bonus, and which included a general merger clause requiring any modification to be in writing. However, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to this claim. … [T]he Court of Appeals has held that while generally an oral modification may not be enforced in light of a merger clause, an oral modification may be enforced if there is partial performance that is “unequivocally referable to the oral modification” or if one party “induced another’s significant and substantial reliance upon an oral modification.” Rubin v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, 2020 NY Slip Op 00250, First Dept 1-14-20

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO BIND DEFENDANTS TO THE OPEN-COURT STIPULATED SETTLEMENT OF $8,875,000; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS RATIFIED THE STIPULATION BY FAILING TO TIMELY OBJECT TO IT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined that defendants (the Infiniti defendants) were bound by an open-court stipulated settlement of $8,875,000 in this personal injury case. The attorneys had apparent authority to bind the defendants. And the defendants ratified the stipulation by failing to timely object to it:

I write to highlight the fundamental principle that parties are bound by stipulations signed in open court by their attorneys. The issue arose in the context of a negligence case, where plaintiff was seriously injured when she was struck by a motor vehicle while standing on a sidewalk median in Brooklyn. The vehicle was owned by defendant Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc. and driven by defendant Massamba Seck (the Infiniti defendants). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and required extensive hospitalization and multiple surgeries. At issue in this case is whether the Infiniti defendants are bound by a settlement agreement entered into by their attorneys. We find that the Infiniti defendants are bound, because their attorneys had apparent authority to bind them to the $8,875,000 judgment. Significantly, there is no affidavit or testimony by Infiniti stating that Infiniti, or any of its employees, was unaware of the settlement or that Infiniti did not authorize the settlement. The only ones making this claim are the lawyers from the firm that was hired by the insurance companies to defend the Infiniti defendants. The fact that one of the insurers is now unable to pay its intended $5 million portion does not inure to the Infiniti defendants’ benefit. Rather, the Infiniti defendants are responsible for the portion of the agreed-upon amounts that the insurers do not pay. To accept their position would alter the way litigation is conducted in New York State. Courts would have to conduct colloquies in every case to make sure that the parties, notwithstanding their attorneys’ actions in appearing for them on numerous occasions and signing stipulations, acquiesced in the terms of the stipulations. That is unacceptable, especially here, where the Infiniti defendants never objected to the stipulation until the filing of the instant order to show cause more than a year and six months after the stipulation was signed in open court. Pruss v Infiniti of Manhattan, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00229, First Dept 1-9-20

 

, ,

FATHER DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT PROCEEDING RESULTING IN HIS COMMITMENT TO THREE MONTHS IN JAIL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father did not receive effective assistance of counsel in this child support proceeding which committed father to three months in jail for violation of the child support order:

We agree with the father that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at a hearing on the mother’s petition for violation of an order of child support. In support proceedings such as this one, “the appropriate standard to apply in evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance is the meaningful representation standard”… . Here, the father’s defense at the hearing was that because of a back injury, he was unable to continue working as a mail carrier beginning in January 2018 and that, prior to obtaining a new position at the post office in March 2019, he searched for different work. Notably, despite being advised on multiple occasions that the father was required to provide a financial disclosure affidavit, tax forms, proof that he was diligently searching for employment, and certified medical records, counsel failed to procure the father’s medical records or provide the court with any relevant financial documentation. The father’s counsel also failed to call any witnesses to testify as to the effects of the father’s back injury, subpoena his treating physician, or obtain a medical affidavit. The Family Court made specific reference to the lack of any credible medical testimony, financial disclosure affidavit, tax returns, or proof of a job search in its determination that the father failed to refute the mother’s prima facie showing of willfulness. Counsel’s failure to obtain relevant medical information or to procure financial and job search records that may have supported the father’s contention constituted a failure to meaningfully represent the father, and he is entitled to a new hearing on the violation petition … . Matter of Miller v DiPalma, 2020 NY Slip Op 00140, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE IMPROPERLY RELIED ON CPL 440.30 (d) WHICH ONLY APPLIES IF THE MOTION IS BASED SOLELY ON AN ALLEGATION BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his judgment of conviction should not have been denied without a hearing. There was a question of fact whether defense counsel was aware he could call an expert to testify defendant, who had ingested drugs, did not have the required mental state (depraved indifference). The First Department noted Supreme Court may have improperly relied on Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 440.30 (d) which applies only if the motion is based solely on an allegation by the defendant (not the case here):

While the motion court had a sound basis for its conclusion that there was “no reasonable possibility” that defendant’s trial counsel “was unaware that he could call an expert to testify about the defendant’s state of mind,” we find that this was not an adequate basis for denying the motion without a hearing in these circumstances. First, to the extent the court may have been relying on CPL 440.30(d), that section permits summary denial when “there is no reasonable possibility that such an allegation is true,” but it applies only when the allegation “is made solely by the defendant.” That is not the case here, where the allegation at issue regarding trial counsel’s statements was made by defendant’s motion counsel based on his own knowledge.

Nor do we believe that this is a case such as People v Samandarov (13 NY3d 433 [2009]), where the lack of merit of a CPL 440.10 motion could be determined on the parties’ submissions, despite it being “theoretically possible that a hearing could show otherwise” (id. at 440). Here, while the court’s perception may well be borne out, there are issues of fact sufficient to warrant a hearing … . People v Martin, 2020 NY Slip Op 00067, First Dept 1-7-20

 

, ,

RESPONDENT, THE PREVAILING PARTY IN AN ARBITRATION, WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ARTICLE 75 PROCEEDING TO VACATE THE AWARD AND FOR THE APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the respondent, who prevailed in an arbitration proceeding, was entitled to attorney’s fees for the subsequent Article 75 proceedings and appeal to the Appellate Division:

Judgment … awarding respondent attorney’s fees in the sum total of $980 in connection with a no-fault arbitration award … [remanded] to Supreme Court for a determination of respondent’s reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the article 75 proceeding brought by petitioner to vacate the arbitration award and on this appeal … .

“The attorney’s fee for services rendered … in a court appeal from a master arbitration award and any further appeals, shall be fixed by the court adjudicating the matter” (11 NYCRR § 65-4.10[j][4]). The term “court appeal” applies to a proceeding taken pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate or confirm a master arbitration award … . Accordingly, respondent TC Acupuncture, as a prevailing applicant for payment by petitioner insurer of attorney’s fees in an article 75 proceeding reviewing an arbitration award, is entitled to an additional award of attorney’s fees, as fixed by the court, for its motion to modify the order, in a 2015 article 75 proceeding denying Countrywide’s petition to vacate the arbitration award, to include a ruling confirming the arbitration and its opposition to Countrywide’s motion to reargue that order. Supreme Court erred in failing to award these additional fees.

Respondent is also entitled to the attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal to this Court of the order issued in the article 75 proceeding, to be fixed by the court, upon remand, pursuant to 11 NYCRR § 65-4.10(j)(4) … . Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. v TC Acupuncture P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 00048, First Dept 1-2-20

 

,

AN INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE RESULTS OF CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMS, OF WHICH THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS NOT MADE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, INDICATING DEFENDANT MAY BE DELUSIONAL, CONSTITUTED ‘RED FLAGS’ WARRANTING THE INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined defendant’s request to represent himself should not have been granted without further inquiry into defendant’s mental health. The First Department found that the results of defendant’s CPL Article 730 competency exams, finding that defendant may have been delusional, constituted “red flags” that warranted further inquiry before allowing defendant to represent himself:

Not every indication of a defendant’s mental infirmity mandates inquiry. Expressions of paranoia or distrust of an attorney, common for many defendants, are not red flags … . Nor is a defendant’s belief that he or she was framed by police … . On the other hand, notwithstanding a CPL Article 730 exam finding defendant fit, court observations that a defendant was irrational and had a tendency to “fly off the handle” warranted a searching inquiry into defendant’s mental capacity … . So too, inquiry was warranted where defendant was observed by the court to be unruly, volatile and physically menacing … . In many cases, whether or not the behavior would trigger an inquiry may be a question of degree. * * *

Defendant appeared for trial before a justice who was presiding over the case for the first time. Defense counsel informed the court that defendant wished to proceed pro se. Neither defense counsel nor the prosecution made the court aware of defendant’s CPL Article 730 exams or the potential for him to be experiencing delusional thoughts. Although the trial court conducted an extensive colloquy with defendant regarding the waiver of the right to counsel, at no point did the court inquire into defendant’s mental health. We find that, notwithstanding other aspects of the record supporting defendant’s capacity, the information in the CPL Article 730 reports indicating a potential for delusional thought was a red flag that required a particularized assessment of defendant’s mental capacity before resolving his request to proceed pro se … . People v Zi, 2019 NY Slip Op 09353, First Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

FATHER’S VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MOTHER’S CONSENT; ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE LINCOLN HEARING IN THE APPELLATE BRIEF; THE HEARING TRANSCRIPTS ARE SEALED AND CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, modifying Family Court, determined father’s visitation rights should not have been made subject to mother’s consent and the attorney for the child should not have referred to the Lincoln hearing in the appellate brief:

Although the order provides the father with the opportunity for frequent and regular unsupervised access, the provision conditioning expansion of visitation to include overnight visitation only upon the mother’s consent is an impermissible delegation of authority … . …

… [W]e note our displeasure that the attorney for the children made repeated references to the Lincoln hearing in the appellate brief that he submitted on their behalf … . Family Court’s promise of confidentiality should not be lightly breached, and these transcripts are sealed. We again emphasize that “[t]he right to confidentiality during a Lincoln hearing belongs to the child and is superior to the rights or preferences of the parents. Children whose parents are engaged in custody and visitation disputes must be protected from having to openly choose between parents or openly divulging intimate details of their respective parent/child relationships” … . We further note that the breach of the confidentiality of the Lincoln hearing — and of the trust of the children — was exacerbated by the fact that the attorney for the children made certain representations about the children’s testimony that were inconsistent with their statements during the hearing. Matter of Ellen TT. v Parvaz UU., 2019 NY Slip Op 09328, Third Dept 12-26-19

 

, ,

COURT-APPROVED CUSTODY AND PARENTAL ACCESS STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED WITHOUT A HEARING; UPON REMITTAL AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD SHOULD BE APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have modified a court-approved stipulation relating to custody and parental access without a hearing. And the Second Department ordered that an attorney for the child be appointed upon remittal:

“Modification of a court-approved stipulation setting forth terms of custody or [parental access] is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the best interests and welfare of the child” … . The best interests of the child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances  … . “Where . . . facts essential to the best interests analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a hearing is required” … .

In view of the parties’ disputed factual allegations in this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to modify the stipulation of custody so as to award him final decision-making authority with respect to the child without a hearing to determine whether an award of final decision-making authority to the plaintiff was in the best interests of the child … . Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the interests of the child should be independently represented … . Walter v Walter, 2019 NY Slip Op 09056, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

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