You are here: / Attorneys
,

DEFENDANT’S PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED A QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF COUNSEL’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WITHOUT A HEARING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a dissenting opinion by Judge Stein, determined that defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction on the ground his attorney (Chabrowe) was ineffective because of a conflict of interest. Defendant alleged a party (Salaam) who was present at the scene of the depraved indifference murder committed by defendant was represented by Chabrowe and had paid Chabrowe’s fees on defendant’s behalf:

Although defendant had informed the trial court during the Gomberg inquiry that he or his family had hired Chabrowe, he alleged that Salaam paid Chabrowe to represent defendant, resulting in an undisclosed and “unwaivable” conflict, and that Chabrowe failed to explain any possible conflict of interest related to Salaam’s payment of defendant’s legal fees. In addition to his own affidavit, defendant submitted an affirmation from his current appellate counsel, who relayed details of a conversation he affirmed he had with Chabrowe about the payment of defendant’s legal fees. Defendant also relied on recorded prison phone calls, which purportedly corroborate defendant’s allegation that Salaam hired and paid for his attorney. * * *

We review the summary denial of a CPL 440.10 motion under an abuse of discretion standard. On this record, we conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in determining that a hearing was not warranted to address the allegations contained in defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion regarding Chabrowe’s representation of defendant and whether any conflict of interest existed warranting reversal. People v Brown, 2019 NY Slip Op 03404, CtApp 5-2-19

 

, , ,

ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL IN A NEGLECT PROCEEDING CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, FAMILY COURT TO ISSUE REPLACEMENT ORDER FROM WHICH AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that assigned counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal in a neglect proceeding constituted ineffective assistance:

“A respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b has the right to the assistance of counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iv]), which encompasses the right to the effective assistance of counsel” … . “[T]he statutory right to counsel under Family Court Act § 262 affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded to defendants in criminal proceedings” … . Further, “certain Family Court proceedings, although civil in nature, implicate constitutional due process considerations because they involve issues relating to the custody and welfare of children” … .

Here, the father demonstrated that his assigned counsel’s failure to timely file a notice of appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Under the circumstances of this case, reversal of the order appealed from is warranted, and we grant the father’s motion to vacate the order of fact-finding and disposition and remit the matter to the Family Court … . Upon remittitur, the court should issue a replacement order of fact-finding and disposition so that the father’s time to appeal will run anew. Matter of Ricardo T. (Ricardo T.), 2019 NY Slip Op 03347, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ATTORNEY’S FEES DISPUTE WHETHER THERE WAS AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO RETURN THE UNEXHAUSTED PORTION OF THE RETAINER PAID BY PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant-attorneys failed to eliminate questions of fact about whether there was an oral agreement to return the unexhausted portion of the $176,500 retainer plaintiff paid for representation in an employment discrimination case, and whether the voluntary payment doctrine applied:

It is undisputed that defendants never provided plaintiff with a written agreement, as required under 22 NYCRR 1215.1. In addition, [defendant-attorney] Herman, in his deposition testimony, admitted that he never provided any itemization of the time spent working on plaintiff’s case, even when plaintiff’s counsel requested it. Thus, defendants failed to show that the amount of plaintiff’s payments was fair and reasonably related to the value of services rendered … .

Defendants also failed to establish that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the voluntary payment doctrine, which “bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, and in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law” … . While defendants assert that plaintiff voluntarily made payments to compensate them for their services, rather than any “deposits” towards a retainer, they failed to establish that plaintiff had full knowledge of the relevant facts, such as the number of hours spent by defendants in connection with their representation of him  … . Plaintiff also averred that defendants told him that part of the payments would be used towards a trial and an appeal, which never occurred. Since defendants allegedly intended to keep the payments, regardless of any trial or appeal, there are material issues of fact whether plaintiff made the payments “with full knowledge of the facts”… or based on a mistake of material fact … . Dubrow v Herman & Beinin, 2019 NY Slip Op 03297, First Dept 4-30-19

 

,

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

 

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