You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 42 USC 1988, PREVAILING PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party pursuant to 42 USC 1988 based upon the finding that plaintiff’s action was frivolous should not have been granted. Plaintiff sued the county claiming that her employment was terminated in retaliation for her complaints about the special education provided to her son:

The court granted the motion on the basis of 42 USC § 1988, which authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant “upon a finding that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” … . Nonetheless, it remains ” very rare [for] victorious defendants in civil rights cases [to] recover attorneys’ fees’ “… .

Here, in determining that plaintiff’s claim against Whittemore [the county personnel director] was frivolous, the court relied on plaintiff’s testimony during her deposition. During her deposition, however, plaintiff specifically stated that the factual basis for her claim against Whittemore was that he was the personnel director and his conduct caused injury to her because he allowed someone else to be placed in the position to which she sought to be reinstated. Contrary to the court’s determination, any inability of plaintiff to provide further elaboration during her deposition, which was taken early in the litigation shortly after commencement of the action, did not establish that her claim against Whittemore was frivolous. Moreover, a claim may not “be deemed groundless where [, as here,] the plaintiff has made a sufficient evidentiary showing to forestall summary judgment and has presented sufficient evidence at trial to prevent the entry of judgment against him [or her] as a matter of law” … . Although the civil rights allegations against Whittemore may have been weak, we cannot deem plaintiff’s claim “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” … . Calhoun v County of Herkimer, 2019 NY Slip Op 01025, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

,

WHETHER TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL IS A DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE’S ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO DECIDE VIOLATED THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, although finding the error harmless, determined that the trial judge should not have left the decision whether or not to move for a mistrial up to the defendant, as opposed to defense counsel. The basis for a potential mistrial was the medical examiner’s testimony that the drowning death of the victim was a “homicide:”

Defendant … contends in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the court allowed him to decide, against the professional judgment of his counsel, not to request a mistrial as the remedy for the Medical Examiner’s improper testimony. We agree. “It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ ” … . Defense counsel has ultimate decision-making authority over matters of trial strategy, including the decision whether to request a mistrial … . Here, defense counsel explained to the court that he recommended that defendant move for a mistrial, but that defendant instructed him not to do so. The court then addressed defendant directly and confirmed that defendant wished to proceed with trial. Thus, the court ” denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him’ ” … . People v Szatanek, 2019 NY Slip Op 00794, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defense counsel violated defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel by taking a position adverse to defendant’s pro se motion to vacate his guilty plea:

Defense counsel’s repeated assertions that there was no basis for defendant’s motion and that his plea had been entered knowingly and voluntarily created a conflict of interest between him and defendant, thereby giving rise to County Court’s obligation to assign new counsel before deciding the motion … . Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remit the matter for assignment of new counsel and reconsideration of defendant’s motion. People v Faulkner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00645, Third Dept 1-31-19

 

, ,

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE OFFICE OF VICTIM SERVICES WHICH LIMITED THE AVAILABILITY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A CLAIM CONFLICT WITH THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that certain changes made by the Office of Victim Services (OVS) to regulations affecting the availability of attorney’s fees in early stages of a claim conflicted with the controlling statute:

Executive Law § 626 (1) requires OVS to reimburse crime victims for out-of-pocket loss, which “shall . . . include . . . the cost of reasonable attorneys’ fees for representation before [OVS] and/or before the [A]ppellate [D]ivision upon judicial review” … . Our primary purpose in interpreting this provision “is to discern the will of the Legislature and, as the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof” … . Applying these principles, we find no authorization in the statute’s plain language for OVS to conclude that counsel fees are never”reasonable” during the early stages of a claim and, thus, to categorically exclude awards of counsel fees for such representation in every instance. Neither this statutory language nor the similar language of Executive Law § 623 (3) — that authorizes OVS to promulgate regulations for the approval of counsel fees “for representation before [OVS] and/or before the [A]ppellate [D]ivision” — distinguishes among the stages of a victim’s representation before OVS, nor does the statutory text suggest that OVS may do so. Matter of Juarez v New York State Off. of Victim Servs., 2019 NY Slip Op 00653, Third Dept 1-31-19

 

, , ,

THE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SPELLED OUT WHAT THE ATTORNEYS AGREED TO DO, DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department found that the retainer agreement determined the scope of what the attorneys agreed to do and the motion to dismiss the legal malpractice complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff had retained the defendants after he was expelled form the New York College of Osteopathic Medicine:

The letter of engagement provided, in relevant part, that: “Our services will include all activities necessary and appropriate in our judgment to investigate and consider options that may be available to urge administrative reconsideration of your dismissal from the New York College of Osteopathic Medicine (the College’). This engagement does not, however, encompass any form of litigation or, to the extent ethically prohibited in this circumstance, the threat of litigation, to resolve this matter. This engagement will end upon your re-admittance to the College or upon a determination by the attorneys working on this matter that no non-litigation mechanisms are available to assist you. The scope of the engagement may not be expanded orally or by conduct; it may only be expanded by a writing signed by our Director of Public Service.” * * *

An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer (see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428). Therefore, since the defendant’s alleged failure to negotiate with the school, its alleged failure to commence litigation against the school, and its alleged failure to properly advise the plaintiff on the efficacy of a defamation action against nonschool parties fell outside the scope of the parties’ letter of engagement, dismissal of the cause of action alleging legal malpractice was warranted, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), on documentary evidence grounds. Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP,  2019 NY Slip Op 00583, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL GAVE DEFENDANT THE WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE SHOULD HE GO TO TRIAL, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY, EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined: (1) the plea was not voluntary because defendant was given the wrong information about the possible maximum sentence if he went to trial; and (2) the error is an exception to the preservation requirement for appeal because defendant could not have known of the error at the time of the plea:

The Court of Appeals … has carved out an exception to the preservation doctrine “because of the actual or practical unavailability of either a motion to withdraw the plea’ or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction,'” in certain instances, reasoning that ” a defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he has no knowledge'” … . Moreover, the defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent survives his valid appeal waiver … . …

Here, the defendant’s plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The record demonstrates that the defendant was not presented with legitimate alternatives about the maximum sentence he faced in the event he chose to reject the People’s plea offer and was convicted after trial. … On this record, given the difference between the incorrect maximum aggregate sentence of 3 to 5 years that defense counsel communicated to the defendant, the actual maximum aggregate sentence of 2 to 4 years, and the bargained-for sentence of 1½ to 3 years, the threat of a higher sentence rendered the defendant’s plea involuntary … . People v Keller, 2019 NY Slip Op 00620, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

, ,

NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT AVOID DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BY RELYING ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT HAD PLACED THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS LAW DEPARTMENT AT ISSUE, MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, MONETARY SANCTIONS WERE PROPERLY ORDERED, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BEHAVIOR NEED NOT BE SHOWN UNLESS A DRASTIC REMEDY LIKE STRIKING THE PLEADINGS IS IMPOSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined Supreme Court properly sanctioned the defendant, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), for failure to turn over documents in the discovery phase of a contract action. NYCHA alleged that third party defendants “engaged in [a]conspiracy to defraud NYCHA by submitting fraudulent certifications attesting that plaintiff’s former owners had not been charged or convicted of a crime. … Third-party defendants maintain that they informed NYCHA that the charges … had been terminated with a conditional discharge based upon the payment of less than $200 in court costs. They assert that NYCHA extended all three of the contracts … while having full knowledge of these facts.” NYCHA alleged the contested documents were protected by attorney-client privilege:

[Supreme Court] granted plaintiff and third-party defendants’ motion to compel [NYCHA] to comply with discovery orders to the extent of ordering NYCHA to produce discovery material previously redacted on the ground of attorney-client privilege … and … to pay $3,000 as a sanction for its behavior during discovery and for violation of prior court orders, and to certify that it did not possess additional documents responsive to the discovery demands or court orders … . * * *

The court correctly found that having placed the knowledge of its law department at issue, NYCHA waived attorney-client privilege with respect to the subject documents. NYCHA cannot seek to prevent the disclosure of evidence showing that its attorneys — the very individuals who performed the bid review function for NYCHA — recommended that NYCHA award the contracts to plaintiff despite knowledge of the operative facts … .

Further, NYCHA may not rely on attorney-client privilege while selectively disclosing other self-serving privileged communications … .

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in finding that NYCHA’s conduct during discovery warranted sanctions. …

… [I]t is unnecessary to demonstrate willful and contumacious behavior in order to impose a sanction like a monetary sanction or preclusion, as opposed to a more drastic sanction such as the striking of a pleading … . Metropolitan Bridge & Scaffolds Corp. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00526, First Dept 1-24-19

 

 

, , ,

UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AND STATEMENTS MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, SOME UNPRESERVED APPELLATE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, reversed defendant’s bribery and falsely reporting an incident convictions, in the interest of justice, and ordered a new trial. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. Defendant was accused of assault by her husband. The police called her to the station where she was interviewed. After she was told she would be placed under arrest she allegedly offered sex and money to the interviewing officer (Officer Persaud) to make the charges go away. The officer wore a wire to record further conversations about the bribery. After defendant was arraigned and represented by counsel, defendant was again interviewed in the back of a police car (by Sargeant Klein and her partner) concerning the alleged bribery. That conversation was also recorded. Statements made during custodial interrogation that were not preceded by Miranda warnings and statements made to police officers in the absence of counsel should not have been admitted. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object:

Officer Persaud should have known that in telling the defendant that she needed to come to the precinct station house in connection with his investigation into the allegations her husband had made against her, allegations about which she had already been told she would be arrested, placing her in an interview room, and then confronting her with the allegations and the evidence against her, including the existence of the order of protection, he was reasonably likely to elicit from the defendant an incriminating response … . * * *

… [T]the defendant’s alleged bribery of Officer Persaud and her allegedly false reporting of his sexual misconduct during that same encounter were “so inextricably interwoven in terms of both their temporal proximity and factual interrelationship” as to render unavoidable the conclusion that any interrogation concerning the allegedly false report would inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel… . Furthermore, the police were aware that the defendant was actually represented by an attorney and the interrogation actually entailed an infringement of her constitutional right to counsel by impermissible questioning on the represented crimes … . * * *

… [T]he defendant demonstrated the absence of “a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented” … for defense counsel’s stipulation to admission of a recording of the entire interview between the defendant and Sergeant Klein and her partner, and his failure to object to Sergeant Klein’s testimony recounting the same interview, or Officer Persaud’s testimony in which he recounted numerous statements made by the defendant, of which the People failed to provide notice as required by CPL 710.30(1)(a). People v Stephans, 2019 NY Slip Op 00473, Second Dept 1-23-19

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, RIGHT TO COUNSEL

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A GENETIC MARKER TEST WITHOUT A HEARING AND THE CHILD DID NOT RECEIVE ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have ordered a genetic marker paternity test without a hearing and the child did not receive adequate assistance of counsel:

The attorney for the child (hereinafter AFC) informed the court that, through discussions with the grandmother, the AFC learned that the child might also hold a belief that someone else is his father. The record does not give any indication that the AFC discussed with the child his belief as to who his father is. Beyond a few short and scattered statements, there was no substantive evidence or discussion of who has a parent-child relationship with the child and whether, due to equitable estoppel, a genetic marker test would not be in the child’s best interests. The court’s order is reflective of this, as it strictly relates to how the test is to be carried out and contains no case-specific discussion. Accordingly, Family Court did not possess adequate information to determine the child’s best interests and, as such, it erred in ordering genetic marker testing without first conducting a hearing … .

Additionally, we find that the child did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. The record is bereft of evidence indicating that the AFC consulted with the child, who was from 4½ to 6 years old throughout the time of this litigation … . We recognize that such consultation runs the risk of raising parentage concerns not harbored by the child; nevertheless, a patient, careful and nuanced inquiry is not only possible, but necessary … . “Counsel’s failure to consult with and advise the child to the extent of and in a manner consistent with the child’s capabilities constitutes a failure to meet [his or her] essential responsibilities as the [AFC]” … . Inasmuch as consultation with the child and subsequent communication of the child’s position to Family Court are of the utmost importance … , it is clear that the child did not receive meaningful representation … . Matter of Schenectady County Dept. of Social Servs. v Joshua BB., 2019 NY Slip Op 00335, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, ,

IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM WORTHLESS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLED THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ‘SOLE REMEDIES’ CLAUSES AND THE DEMANDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kahn, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the complaint in this residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) action sufficiently pled that gross negligence precluded enforcement of the “sole remedies” clauses in the contracts and that the demands for punitive damages and attorney’s fees should not have been dismissed:

On this appeal, which arises from the securitization and sale of residential mortgages, plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Trustee), as trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4 (Trust), challenges the motion court’s pre-answer dismissal of the Trustee’s cause of action for breach of contract to the extent that it included a demand for compensatory damages. The motion court dismissed the Trustee’s compensatory damages demand on the ground that the “sole remedies” clauses in the underlying securitization agreements precluded the Trustee from seeking such relief. The Trustee maintains, however, that it sufficiently pleaded gross negligence on the part of defendants Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (MSMCH) and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. (MSAC) to render the “sole remedies” clauses unenforceable. On that issue, we hold, consistent with our decision in Morgan Stanley Mortgage Mtge. Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v Morgan Stanley Mtge. Capital Holdings LLC (143 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2016]), that the complaint’s allegations of gross negligence in this case are sufficient to render the “sole remedies” clauses unenforceable. We are also called upon to decide whether the motion court properly dismissed the Trustee’s demands for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. As to those issues, for the reasons that follow, we hold that those demands should not have been dismissed.

Specifically, this action arises from the securitization of subprime mortgages by Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. in 2007, shortly before the housing market collapsed. The Trustee, as trustee of the Trust, seeks damages for the numerous loan defaults that occurred, rendering the residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) it sold to outside investors virtually worthless. Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 00368, First Dept 1-17-19

 

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