You are here: / Attorneys
, , , ,

AN ATTORNEY, A PRINCIPAL IN THE CORPORATIONS OWNING SEVERAL BUILDINGS, WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE IN THE “OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUSINESS” WITHOUT A LICENSE BECAUSE HE ADVERTISED HIS LAW PRACTICE IN SIGNS ON THE BUILDINGS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the corporations which owned the buildings were separate from the attorney, a principal in the corporations, who advertised his law office in signs on the buildings. Therefore the attorney was making space available for outdoor advertising to “others” within the meaning of the NYC Administrative Code regulating outdoor advertising. The code requires “outdoor advertising companies” engaged in the :outdoor advertising business” to be licensed. The attorney (Ciafone) was fined for outdoor advertising without a license:

Contrary to the position of the Appellate Division dissent, preserving the distinction between the corporate entities and Mr. Ciafone does not “penalize him for forming corporate entities to own the buildings for tax and liability purposes”… . Myriad statutes and regulations apply to corporations, but not natural persons; those are not “penalties” for creating a corporate legal entity, but consequences of choosing that form of ownership. The New York City Council could rationally conclude that a corporation engaged in the provision of advertising to others, even others who have an ownership interest in the corporation, should be subjected to greater financial disincentives for violating signage laws than natural persons who are advertising themselves. Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 08976, CtApp 12-17-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF PETIT LARCENY; THE VALUE OF THE STOLEN CELL PHONES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED TOGETHER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROOF THE CELL PHONES WERE OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined: (1) defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request the jury be charged with the lesser included offense of petit larceny in this robbery case involving the theft of cell phones: and (2), the value of the cell phones should not have been added together because there was no proof the phones were owned by the same owner:

Defendant was charged with thefts of cell phones from four wireless phone stores. As to one incident, it was alleged defendant forcibly stole a cell phone in that his showing of a knife to the store employee constituted a threat of force and was perceived by the employee as a threat. While the defense conceded that defendant stole a cell phone, it denied any force was used. Nevertheless, at the charge conference prior to jury deliberations, defense counsel failed to ask for submission of the charge of petit larceny. Since the existing record clearly establishes that this was a mistake, rather than a strategic decision, no CPL 440.10 motion is necessary. When counsel asked for submission of the lesser included offense in the midst of jury deliberations, he expressly admitted that he had been “remiss” in not making a timely request. In any event, counsel could not have been employing an all-or-nothing strategy as to the robbery as argued by the People. This strategy would have made no sense, because the defense was conceding that defendant was guilty of petit larceny as to the other incidents and was already inviting convictions of several misdemeanors. …

Defendant is also entitled to dismissal of the grand larceny charge, which was based upon the improper aggregation of the value of phones taken from two separate AT & T stores on two different days. The People failed to prove that the stores, and the phones located therein, had the same “owner” for the purpose of aggregating multiple thefts … . There was no evidence that these stores were owned by the same corporation, as opposed to, for example, dealerships separately owned and authorized to sell AT & T wireless products and services ,,, , People v Camacho, 2019 NY Slip Op 08944, First Dept 12-12-19

 

, ,

PROSECUTOR’S UNTRUE CLAIM, MADE IN SUMMATION, THAT DEFENDANT’S DNA WAS FOUND ON THE WEAPON USED IN THE SHOOTING REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the prosecutor’s untrue claim, made in summation and immediately objected to, that defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim, required a new trial:

… [T]he prosecutor’s comments during summation that the defendant’s DNA was found on the weapon used to shoot the victim had no evidentiary support in the record. The remarks, which were promptly objected to by defense counsel, were highly prejudicial and ultimately deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial … , particularly as the Supreme Court refused to give any curative instruction or grant a mistrial based upon the prosecutor’s improper comments. People v Day, 2019 NY Slip Op 08858, Second Dept 12-11-19

 

,

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial:

… [D]uring summation, the prosecutor repeatedly engaged in improper conduct. For instance, the prosecutor denigrated the defense and disparaged the defendant, referring to his self-defense claim as “ridiculous,” “insulting,” and “ludicrous,” and informing the jury that the defendant would “tell you anything” in an effort to “sell you” a story. The prosecutor described the defendant as a “hothead” and a “punk” who could not “take [a] beating like a man” … . Moreover, the prosecutor impinged on the defendant’s right to remain silent before arrest by arguing that he could not have acted in self-defense during the altercation because he did not call the 911 emergency number … . Further, the prosecutor improperly invoked the jury’s sympathy for the complainant … , vouched for the complainant’s credibility … , and interjected her own sense of moral retribution with respect to the complainant’s entitlement to use physical force against the defendant, while misleading the jury as to the law on justification … . People v Dawson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08689, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

, ,

ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was not properly served with an Article 78 petition and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction over this Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) action. The process server alleged the petition was delivered to an attorney at the DEP who said she was authorized to receive service. The Second Department found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel, based upon the DEP attorney’s assertion she was authorized to receive service, did not apply:

It is undisputed that the petitioner’s process server did not deliver the notice of petition and petition to the Corporation Counsel, or any other “person designated to receive process in a writing filed in the office of the clerk of New York county” (CPLR 311[a][2]). Because the petitioner did not effectuate service in strict compliance with CPLR 311(a)(2), it is irrelevant that the petitioner’s process server allegedly relied upon the representations of an attorney employed by the DEP … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the DEP should not be equitably estopped from asserting the petitioner’s failure to properly serve the DEP with the notice of petition. The doctrine of equitable estoppel should be invoked against governmental entities sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances … . Estoppel against a governmental entity will lie when the governmental entity acts or comports itself wrongfully or negligently, inducing reliance by a party who is entitled to rely and who changes its position to its detriment or prejudice … . The fact that the DEP’s attorney may have identified herself as an agent who was “authorized by appointment to receive service at that address” is far removed from any clear expression of her status as a person designated to receive process on behalf of the City in a writing filed in the New York County Clerk’s office … . There is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the petitioner justifiably relied on any misleading conduct by the DEP which would support a finding of equitable estoppel … . Matter of Exxon Mobil Corp. v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2019 NY Slip Op 08670, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

,

LAW FIRM SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A MANDATORY MEDIATION SESSION TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE MATTER ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department sanctioned a law firm $750 for failure to appear at a mandatory mediation session to resolve an appeal:

Pursuant to a Notice of Reference of the Mandatory Civil Appeals Mediation Program, the petitioner-appellant’s counsel, the petitioner-appellant, counsel for the respondent-respondent Charles Schwartz, and the respondent-respondent Charles Schwartz were directed to appear for a mandatory mediation session. The petitioner-appellant’s counsel, Law Offices of Seidner & Associates, P.C., failed to insure that the petitioner-appellant appear for the regularly scheduled mandatory mediation session, without good cause, and there is no indication that the attorney who appeared for the petitioner-appellant possessed the authority to settle the matter. In this regard, we consider that the lead counsel for the petitioner-appellant sought, and was granted, an adjournment of the mediation session so that he could personally attend and yet inexplicably sent a different attorney in his stead on the adjourned date. Although parties are not compelled to resolve their appeals by settlement, parties and their counsel are required to attend mediation sessions and may not arrogate unto themselves the authority to dispense with a mediation session or to render such sessions nugatory by refusing to appear and participate in them. Matter of Schwartz (Schwartz), 2019 NY Slip Op 08565, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, ,

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PROPERLY AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF OVER $34,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEALS IN THIS DIVORCE CASE; HOWEVER A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO APPORTION THE FEES BETWEEN THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the attorney for the child in this divorce proceeding properly made a motion seeking attorney’s fees for the appeal of the matter to the Second Department and the Court of Appeals and was properly awarded attorney’s fees of over $34,000. However, the Second Department held that a hearing was necessary to determine how the fee should be apportioned between the parents:

In this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the Supreme Court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor children to the defendant, without a hearing, under the adequate relevant information standard. This Court affirmed the order … , and the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. The attorney for the children (hereinafter the AFC) opposed the plaintiff’s appeal, but proposed a new standard for the need for evidentiary hearings in custody cases. The Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s order, rejecting the adequate relevant information standard, and determined that an evidentiary hearing was required in this particular case … . …

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the difference in opinion between this Court (see Matter of Plovnick v Klinger, 10 AD3d 84) and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department (see Redder v Redder, 17 AD3d 10), as to whether attorneys for children may be compensated directly by the children’s parents, rather than by the State, does not give rise to a constitutional claim under the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions. …

… [T]he plaintiff’s motion to modify the parties’ apportionment of responsibility for the AFC’s fees should not have been decided without an evidentiary hearing. We take no position on whether the equal split between the parties was appropriate, but because the affidavits submitted by the parties provided sharply conflicting reports on the parties’ finances … and there was “no evidence in the record that the financial circumstances of the parties [had] ever been considered” … . Lee v Rogers, 2019 NY Slip Op 08559, Second Dept 11-27-19

 

, , ,

PARKER WARNINGS WERE INADEQUATE BUT THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; HOWEVER DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE ENHANCED SENTENCE; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the Parker warnings were inadequate. Although the error was not preserved for appeal, defense counsel was deemed ineffective for failing to challenge the enhanced sentence:

Defendant contends that Supreme Court erroneously imposed the enhanced sentence given that it did not specifically inform him as part of the Parker admonishment that a consequence of failing to appear for sentencing was the imposition of a greater sentence. … This claim is unpreserved inasmuch as the record does not reveal that defendant objected to the enhanced sentence or moved to withdraw his guilty plea … . The lack of preservation, however, is attributable to the deficiencies of defendant’s trial counsel, who represented him both during the plea proceedings and at sentencing. Counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the enhanced sentence as there was no strategic reason for failing to do so, particularly in light of the clear omissions that were made by Supreme Court in administering the Parker admonishment … . In view of this, we excuse the lack of preservation and address the merits … . The record reveals that Supreme Court did not provide defendant with a sufficient Parker admonishment that included the sentencing consequences and that it imposed the enhanced sentence without affording him an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remit the matter to Supreme Court to either impose the agreed-upon sentence or provide defendant with an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea … . People v Barnes, 2019 NY Slip Op 53934, Third Dept 11-27-19

 

, ,

AFTER AN INITIAL WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, DEFENDANT BECAME INCREASINGLY UNWILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND FINALLY SAID “MAYBE” HE SHOULD GET A LAWYER BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF, FROM THAT POINT ON THE INTERROGATION VIDEO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s motion to suppress statements made after the assertion of his right to counsel should have been suppressed:

… [T]he People admitted into evidence a DVD video recording of the first 50 minutes and 55 seconds of defendant’s custodial interrogation. … A review of that video recording shows that defendant was advised of and acknowledged his Miranda rights in writing roughly 16 minutes into the custodial interrogation, after having made small talk with the detective questioning him. For the next 24 minutes, defendant openly and respectfully answered questions regarding the events that transpired earlier that morning, including whether he entered the apartment building, which he maintained that he did not. However, 40 minutes into the interview, defendant became increasingly quiet and less eager to engage in conversation. Indeed, the detective spoke for roughly 3½ minutes, with little to no contribution from defendant, and attempted to appeal to defendant “as a father.” Defendant asked if he would be at the police station all weekend, to which the detective said, ‘no.’ The detective then asked defendant to tell him what had happened, but he was met with silence, prompting him to ask again. In response, defendant stated, “maybe I should get a lawyer. I completely understand what you’re saying and I agree with you, but I don’t want to f**k myself.” In our view, defendant’s marked change in expression and demeanor at this stage of the interrogation, together with his reference to an attorney and his clear statement that he did not want to incriminate himself, constituted an unequivocal request for counsel and an exercise of his right to remain silent … . Thus, the video recording of the interrogation should have been stopped at 48 minutes and 48 seconds, just before defendant unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. Accordingly, County Court should have granted defendant’s motion to suppress all statements made thereafter. People v Harris, 2019 NY Slip Op 53943, Third Dept 11-27-19

 

,

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED IN THIS CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that an attorney for the child (AFC) should have been appointed in this custody modification proceeding and remitted the matter:

… [W]e reverse and remit for further proceedings conducted with the involvement of an AFC. This Court has previously noted that the “appointment of an [AFC] in a contested custody matter remains the strongly preferred practice,” while acknowledging that “such appointment is discretionary, not mandatory” ( … see Family Ct Act § 249 [a]). We have also “emphasize[d] the contributions competent [AFCs] routinely make in contested matters; they not only protect the interests of the children they represent, they can be valuable resources to the trial court” … . While advocating for the child, an AFC may provide a different perspective than the parents’ attorneys, including through the presentation of evidence on the child’s behalf, and may “recommend alternatives for the court’s consideration” … . Even absent a request, a court may appoint an AFC on its own motion (see Family Ct Act § 249 [a]).

Family Court had appointed an AFC for this child in connection with a previous proceeding that resulted in the September 2017 stipulated order. Yet, when — less than two months after entry of that order — the parties’ relationship deteriorated significantly, Family Court inexplicably did not appoint the same or another AFC to protect the child’s interests. The lack of an AFC prejudiced the child’s interests. Matter of Marina C. v Dario D., 2019 NY Slip Op 53953, Third Dept 11-27-19

 

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