You are here: / Attorneys
,

CITY AGENCY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REPORT SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS WAS SUBJECT TO THE INTRA-AGENCY EXEMPTION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE AGENCY DID NOT PRESENT PROOF THE PREPARER OF THE REPORT WAS RETAINED BY THE AGENCY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS MANDATED BY A 2017 AMENDMENT TO FOIL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court correctly held that the respondent, NYC Dept of Parks & Recreation, was not entitled to the intra-agency materials exemption from the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) because the respondent did not demonstrate that it retained a third party, “Owens Studio,” to prepare the report sought by petitioners. The First Department went on to find that the statute obligated Supreme Court to address their request for attorney’s fees:

… [R]espondent failed to establish that it retained Owens Studio for purposes of preparing the report, a necessary prerequisite for invocation of the intra-agency materials exemption for documents prepared by an outside consultant … . The affidavit submitted by respondent on this point is on its face conclusory. The fragmentary documents to which respondent’s affiant points demonstrate only that Owens Studio was retained to perform some work. They do not on their face establish that respondent retained Owens Studio to prepare the subject study and report, nor establish what Owens Studio was retained to do, nor, in particular, establish that respondent itself, as opposed to some other entity, retained Owens Studio to prepare the report … . …

The attorneys’ fees provision of FOIL was amended, effective December 13, 2017, to provide that the court “shall” award counsel fees where the agency has no basis for denying access to the material sought. The legislative history of the recent amendment notes that “[o]ften, people simply cannot afford to take a government agency to trial to exercise their right to access public information,” and that an award of attorney’s fees is intended to “encourage compliance with FOIL and to minimize the burdens of cost and time from bringing a judicial proceeding” … . Matter of Reiburn v New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 2019 NY Slip Op 03295, First Dept 4-30-19

 

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO APPEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined low office failure was a legitimate excuse for failing to serve an answer. Defendant had made a pre-answer motion to dismiss, thereby demonstrating defendant did not intend to abandon the action:

Defendants satisfied the requirements of CPLR 3012(d), which authorizes an extension of time to appear or plead “upon such terms as may be just and upon a showing of reasonable excuse for delay or default.” Here, the delay in filing an answer was occasioned by law office failure, which can constitute a reasonable excuse … . Defendants’ counsel explained that its failure to file its answer was due to an error in its office’s case management system, which, upon the entry of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, marked the complaint answered. Notably, service of the pre-answer motion to dismiss revealed that defendants did not intend to abandon the action. Plaintiff does not argue that it has been prejudiced as a result of defendants’ three month delay in submitting its answer … , and our determination comports with New York’s strong public policy in favor of litigating matters on the merits … . Hertz Vehicles, LLC v Mollo, 2019 NY Slip Op 03270, First Dept 4-30-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE HE MISCALCULATED AND FILED A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION TEN DAYS BEFORE THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK RAN OUT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defense counsel was ineffective when he filed a speedy trial motion 10 days before the speedy trial clock would have run out. The indictment was dismissed in this CPL 440.10 proceeding:

Counsel filed a speedy trial motion, alleging well over the required threshold of 183 days of chargeable time. However, because of counsel’s miscalculations, these allegations included substantial periods that were not in fact chargeable. As a result, the court deciding the speedy trial motion found that only 174 days were chargeable. However, if counsel had waited only 10 more days to file the motion, the circumstances of the case establish that this additional period would unquestionably have been charged to the People, as counsel was aware. Thus, the threshold would have been exceeded, and the court would have been required to grant the speedy trial motion. Instead, the filing of the premature motion stopped the clock and rendered the People’s additional unreadiness excludable.

The CPL 440.10 hearing record establishes that counsel had no strategic reason for filing the speedy trial motion in the form and at the time he did, and that his handling of the motion was objectively unreasonable. Furthermore, the prejudice prong of a single-error ineffectiveness claim was satisfied, because “[i]t is well settled that a failure of counsel to assert a meritorious speedy trial claim is, by itself, a sufficiently egregious error to render a defendant’s representation ineffective” … . People v Stewart, 2019 NY Slip Op 03142, First Dept 4-25-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO A WARRANT APPLICATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF DNA EVIDENCE, YOUTUBE VIDEO NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that defendant was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard in opposition to a warrant application for the collection of DNA evidence. Defendant was incarcerated and represented on another matter at the time of the warrant application. The First Department also noted that a Youtube video admitted into evidence was not properly authenticated:

In general, search warrant applications are made ex parte … . However, as explained in Matter of Abe A. (56 NY2d 288 [1982]), special rules apply to evidence to be taken from a suspect’s body, such as blood or DNA samples.

The hearing court excluded defense counsel based on its understanding that the discussion of notice in Abe A. applied only to the first “discrete level” of Fourth Amendment analysis identified in that case, involving “the seizure of the person necessary to bring him into contact with government agents,” and not the second level, involving “the subsequent search and seizure for the evidence” (id. at 295 [internal quotation marks omitted]). …

Nothing in the Court’s opinion suggests a basis for applying the “elementary tenet of due process” described by the [Abe A.] Court only to the first part of an application for an order to physically detain a person and then make a corporeal search. … Accordingly, defendant is entitled to suppression of the DNA evidence obtained as a result of the warrant issued by the hearing court, and a new trial … .

… [A]t trial the People failed to adequately authenticate an incriminating YouTube video under the standards set forth in People v Price (29 NY3d 472 [2017]), which was decided after defendant’s trial. The authentication testimony was essentially limited to testimony that the video shown in court was the same as the one posted on YouTube and another website, and that defendant appears in the video. Accordingly, there was no authentication under any of the methods discussed in Price. People v Goldman, 2019 NY Slip Op 02976, First Dept 4-23-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT HAD SERVED HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE BY THE TIME THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED, THE IMPOSITION OF MORE PRISON TIME UPON HIS SUBSEQUENT PLEA TO THE ASSAULT SECOND CHARGE VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT REQUESTING TIME SERVED, BECAUSE THE ERROR AFFECTED THE VOLUNTARINESS OF DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction and set aside the sentence should have been granted. The court noted that the waiver of appeal did not apply because the alleged error affected the voluntariness of the guilty plea. At the time defendant’s assault second conviction was overturned he had completed his sentence. When he subsequently pled guilty to the assault second charge more prison time was imposed. That violated the prohibition against double jeopardy (punished twice for the same offense). Defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing defendant must be sentenced to time served:

At the time of remittal, it was clear that, more than 15 years earlier, defendant had been sentenced to seven years in prison for his conviction of assault in the second degree, which was the maximum permissible sentence for a second violent felony offender convicted of that crime … . It was also clear that his assault conviction had been overturned on appeal. These facts and circumstances alone would have alerted a reasonably competent attorney to the possibility that any subsequent sentence that included additional prison time might violate the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments and, by extension, prompted an inquiry into the amount of time that defendant had already served in prison on his 2001 assault conviction. It is evident from the record that defense counsel did not recognize or investigate the obvious potential double jeopardy concern at the time of remittal for, if she had, she would have determined — as the People concede — that defendant had already served the maximum permissible prison term for assault in the second degree and, therefore, could be sentenced only to time served … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 02586, Third Dept 4-4-19

 

, ,

LEGAL MALPRACTICE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SPECULATION ABOUT THE RESULT OF A HEARING HAD THE LAW FIRM APPEARED IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff law firm’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice counterclaim should have been granted. Apparently plaintiff failed to appear at a hearing on a temporary restraining order (TRO):

… [P]laintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment in the legal malpractice counterclaim by showing that defendants could not prove that but for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the TRO hearing the hearing court would have denied the TRO or set a shorter return date … . Defendants speculate that had plaintiff appeared at the TRO hearing, injunctive relief may have been denied or the hearing court may have adjourned the case to an earlier date. Such speculation is insufficient to sustain a claim for legal malpractice … . Salans LLP v VBH Props. S.R.L., 2019 NY Slip Op 02611, First Dept 4-4-19

 

,

ATTORNEY WHO DRAFTED THE 2005 WILL APPOINTING THE ATTORNEY AS EXECUTOR WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE TESTATOR ACKNOWLEDGE THE TESTATOR HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS WOULD RESULT IN THE ATTORNEY-EXECUTOR’S ENTITLEMENT TO ONLY ONE-HALF THE STATUTORY EXECUTOR’S COMMISSIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, resolving a split among Surrogate’s Courts, determined that the attorney who drafted the 2005 will appointing himself as executor was required to have the testator sign an acknowledgment the testator had been informed that the failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements would result in the attorney-executor being entitled to only one-half of the statutory executor’s commissions:

The 2004 amendment [of Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SCPA) 2307-a] was intended, as reflected in both its text and in its legislative history, to require that the testator be informed that, absent the testator’s acknowledgment of receipt of the required disclosures, the attorney-executor would receive only one-half of the commissions otherwise payable. That the Legislature inadvertently included this fourth disclosure requirement only in model forms and not in the subdivision dealing directly with the required disclosures was an oversight, as is confirmed by the 2007 amendment and its legislative history … . …

At bar, the instrument signed by the testator in 2005 did not include an acknowledgment that he had been informed that the failure to comply with the disclosure requirements would result in the attorney-executor being entitled to only one-half of the statutory executor’s commissions. Therefore, we agree with the Surrogate’s Court’s determination that the petitioner is entitled to only one-half of the statutory executor’s commissions … . Matter of Brier, 2019 NY Slip Op 02516, Second Dept 4-3-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL, DESPITE COUNSEL’S LIMITED COMMUNICATION WITH DEFENDANT, COUNSEL’S NOT ACTING UNTIL THE APPEAL WAS ON THE DISMISSAL CALENDAR, AND COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION OF A MINIMAL BRIEF WITH SIX LINES OF TEXT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NO CITATIONS TO THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED A 4000 PAGE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two separate, extensive dissenting opinions, determined defendant was not afforded ineffective assistance by his appellate counsel. The majority acknowledged that the appellate brief was “terse” and was not a model to be emulated, but noted the brief raised substantive issues that were addressed by the Appellate Division on the merits. The failure to raise the harsh and excessive sentence issue, and the failure to seek review by the Court of Appeals did not constitute ineffective assistance:

FROM JUDGE RIVERA’S DISSENT:

… [D]efendant maintains that counsel was ineffective because he initially failed to perfect the appeal, causing the Appellate Division to place the matter on the court’s Dismissal Calendar, thus risking the loss of defendant’s only appeal as of right … .

… [C]ounsel failed to communicate at all with his client in the three years following his appointment to represent defendant, and only as a late-day response to the Dismissal Calendar notification.  … * * *

The failings of the brief are substantial.  … The brief is barely 20 double-spaced pages, including separate pages for the cover, tables of contents and cases, CPLR 5531 statement, and issues presented. … Inexplicably, at the end of the facts section, appellate counsel inserted a photocopy of a six-page letter from trial counsel to the judge requesting an adjournment. The factual recitation consists of two pages and six lines of text. There is not a single citation in this section to the record on appeal, as required by the 1st Department’s Local Rule § 120.8 (b)(4) which requires an appellant’s brief to include a statement of facts “with appropriate citations to the . . . record.” This hardly seems adequate given defendant appealed from a judgment following a three-month joint trial with two co-defendants, resulting in a trial transcript spanning over 4,000 pages, and involving multiple serious counts, including murder. In contrast, the People submitted a brief over 175 pages long, with 60 pages solely devoted to the facts. People v Alvarez, 2019 NY Slip Op 02383, CtApp 3-28-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS HOUSED FIVE HOURS AWAY FROM THE COURT AND HIS ATTORNEY, REPEATED REQUESTS TO MOVE DEFENDANT CLOSER WERE GRANTED BUT NOT COMPLIED WITH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AT SENTENCING, GIVEN THE POSSIBILITY DEFENDANT HAD EFFECTIVELY BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF OF THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the sentencing judge should have inquired into the voluntariness of defendant’s guilty plea before accepting it. The defendant had been housed more than one hundred miles from the court and his attorney. Repeated requests to move the defendant closer to allow consultation with his attorney were granted but not complied with. When the court set the matter down for trial anyway, the defendant pled guilty:

The Supreme Court ordered that the defendant be moved to Rikers Island, or at a minimum, a correctional facility closer to the court. The court issued numerous orders over the following two weeks directing that the defendant be moved, none of which was complied with. Each appearance required the defendant to travel at least five hours each way. Defense counsel continued to argue that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was violating the defendant’s constitutional rights to consult with his attorney and to defend this case. The court noted that it would be nearly impossible to hold a jury and try the case under these conditions. The court nevertheless stated that the trial would commence, regardless of where the defendant was housed. The very next court date, the defendant agreed to plead guilty.

Two weeks later, at the sentencing, the defendant made an application to withdraw his plea, contending that he had entered the plea involuntarily, given the circumstances and his lack of access to his counsel. The Supreme Court denied the application without engaging in any inquiry of the defendant, other than to comment on the favorable plea offer secured by defense counsel.\

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court was able to make an informed determination as to the question of the voluntary nature of the defendant’s plea without conducting such an inquiry. The record substantiates the defendant’s claim that his plea was effectively coerced by the ongoing violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and, thus, a genuine factual issue as to the voluntariness of the plea existed that could only be resolved after a hearing. Under these circumstances, the court should have conducted a hearing to explore the defendant’s allegations in order to make an informed determination … . People v Hollmond, 2019 NY Slip Op 02354, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

HEARING NECESSARY ON THAT ASPECT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY DEFENDANT WOULD TESTIFY WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING WITH DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on that aspect of his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. Defendant alleged defense counsel told the jury that defendant would testify without first consulting with defendant:

We … conclude … that defendant is entitled to a hearing with respect to whether counsel was ineffective in telling the jury that defendant would testify at trial. In support of his motion, defendant submitted his own affidavit stating that his trial counsel never discussed with him whether testifying would be a good or bad idea, and that he never told counsel that he would testify at trial, and that trial counsel nevertheless told the jury that defendant would testify. Defendant’s account is supported by the affirmation of defendant’s appellate counsel, who stated that trial counsel admitted that defendant did not tell him before trial that he would testify. Thus, defendant’s allegations are potentially supported by other evidence, and “it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that [they are] true” … . We therefore conclude that a hearing is required to afford defendant an opportunity to prove that trial counsel did not discuss with him whether he would testify before informing the jury that defendant would do so, and that there was no strategic or tactical explanation for telling the jury that defendant would testify … . People v Pendergraph, 2019 NY Slip Op 02212, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

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