You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the appeal must be dismissed for three reasons: the stipulation appealed from was entered into by consent, the appeal is not from an appealable order under CPLR 5701, and the matters raised on appeal could have been raised on a prior appeal. The court noted that counsel should have informed the court of the prior dismissed appeal:

We now dismiss the instant appeal for the following three reasons. First, defendant is not aggrieved by the “Stipulation and Order” on appeal because, as its title reflects, it constitutes an order entered on consent. As such, defendant “may not appeal from it” (…  see CPLR 5511…). The fact that defendant is aggrieved by the prior summary judgment order is of no moment because the “Stipulation and Order” is not a final order or judgment, and it thus does not bring up for review that prior order … .

Second, the appeal must be dismissed because the paper from which defendant purports to appeal is not an appealable order under CPLR 5701 (a) (2), which authorizes an appeal as of right from certain specified orders “where the motion it decided was made upon notice.” That provision is inapplicable here because the “Stipulation and Order” on appeal did not decide a motion, much less a motion made on notice … .

Third, it is well established that “[a]n appeal that has been dismissed for failure to prosecute bars, on the merits, a subsequent appeal as to all questions that could have been raised on the earlier appeal had it been perfected” … . Defendant’s substantive contentions on the instant appeal could have been raised on the prior appeal, had it been perfected. Thus, dismissal of the instant appeal is also warranted on that ground … . …

Finally, given the parties’ failure to inform us of the prior dismissed appeal in their appellate briefs, we must remind counsel that “attorneys for litigants in [an appellate] court have an obligation to keep the court informed of all . . . matters pertinent to the disposition of a pending appeal and cannot, by agreement between them, . . . predetermine the scope of [its] review”  … . Dumond v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 07853, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

APPEALS (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/cIVIL PROCEDURE (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 5701  (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT)

, ,

DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate her conviction on ineffective assistance grounds was properly denied. The prosecution presented 13 medical professional in support of its shaken baby case, but defense counsel did not present a medical expert:

Instead, trial counsel obtained the written report of a medical expert before the trial and retained a pediatric neurologist as a consulting expert, whom he consulted as issues arose during trial. During cross-examination of the People’s witnesses, trial counsel elicited testimony that supported the defendant’s theory of the case that the infant sustained injuries prior to being left at the defendant’s home.  * * *

Generally, whether to call an expert is a tactical decision … . In many instances, cross-examination of the People’s expert will be sufficient to expose defects in an expert’s presentation … . “As long as the defense reflects a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented, even if unsuccessful, it will not fall to the level of ineffective assistance” … . …

The record shows that trial counsel made efforts to investigate the medical issues in this case. He effectively cross-examined the People’s witnesses, including the experts, and elicited testimony that was damaging to the People’s case. The fact that the defense did not call its own expert witnesses was the result of trial counsel’s legal strategy that the best way to defend this case was through impeachment of the People’s witnesses. Under the particular circumstances of this case, trial counsel provided effective representation … . People v Caldavado, 2018 NY Slip Op 07743, Second Dept 11-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, EVIDENCE, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION, SHAKEN BABY CASE, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (CRIMINAL LAW, SHAKEN BABY, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S CALLING OF 13 MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS SHAKEN BABY CASE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION EVIDENCE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge should not have ordered the payment of attorney’s fees for frivolous conduct without allowing the affected party to be heard on the question:

“The court, in its discretion, may award to any party or attorney in any civil action or proceeding before the court, . . . costs in the form of reimbursement for . . . reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a]). An award of costs or the imposition of sanctions “may be made either upon motion in compliance with CPLR 2214 or 2215 or upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]). Here, the respondents did not cross-move for costs or sanctions in compliance with CPLR 2215, the respondents’ opposition to the petitioner’s motion for leave to renew did not clearly articulate a request for costs or sanctions, and there is no indication in this record that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard on this issue … . Accordingly, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding costs to the respondents in the form of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $2,500 … . Matter of Garvey v Sullivan, 2018 NY Slip Op 07724, Second Dept 11-14-18

JUDGES (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (SANCTIONS, ATTORNEY’S FEES, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/SANCTIONS (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2214, 2215 (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, SANCTIONS, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE AFFECTED PARTY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT))

,

LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed Family Court’s denial of father’s petition for downward modification of maintenance and support and the rejection of father’s claim he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The court noted that father did not demonstrate he was not at fault for losing his job and that, because father did not have a right to counsel for these proceedings, he was required to show extraordinary circumstances in support of his ineffective assistance claim:

A party seeking a downward modification of his or her spousal maintenance and child support obligations set forth in a judgment of divorce must establish a substantial change in circumstances … . Loss of employment may constitute a substantial change in circumstances where the termination occurred through no fault of the party seeking modification and he or she diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his or her earning capacity… . Here, the father failed to establish that the termination of his employment did not occur though his own fault … , or that he diligently sought new employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience. Accordingly, we agree with the Family Court’s denial of the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s finding that the father was not entitled to a downward modification of his support obligations… .

The father contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Since the father did not have the right to assigned counsel in this support modification proceeding… , he must establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances in order for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to be entertained… . Here, the father failed to establish the existence of any extraordinary circumstances to warrant entertaining such a claim … . Matter of Berg v Berg, 2018 NY Slip Op 07720, Second Dept 11-14-18

FAMILY LAW (MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/MAINTENANCE (FAMILY LAW, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPORT FAMILY LAW, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAMILY LAW, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations. Defendant attorney (Weiss) were hired by plaintiff to bring a personal injury action. The legal malpractice action was filed more than three years after the statute had run on the personal injury case:

The complaint alleged that after the plaintiff executed the retainer agreement, Weis informed the plaintiff that the defendants were going to commence a personal injury and products liability action against the owner of the table saw, the manufacturer of the table saw, and ” everyone that touched the table saw'” until it was sold to the homeowner; the personal injury claim was ” worth millions of dollars'”; and it “would take up to seven (7) years to resolve” the personal injury claim. The complaint further alleged that from approximately September 2008 to late 2008, the plaintiff contacted Weis approximately every two weeks to inquire about the status of the personal injury claim. Weis allegedly advised the plaintiff to ” put the case on the back burner as it was going to take a long time to resolve,'” and that Weis ” had the plaintiff’s contact information,'” and ” if he needed the plaintiff, he would contact him.'” The complaint also alleged that between approximately late 2008 and July 2014, the plaintiff called the defendants’ law office every six to eight months to check on the status of the personal injury claim and spoke to a secretary each time. The complaint alleged that on July 29, 2014, the plaintiff went to the defendants’ office and asked Weis “when his court date was” because “it was getting close” to the seven-year “anniversary of the accident.” Weis allegedly told the plaintiff that he had ” no case,'” and that Weis thought the plaintiff had ” disappeared.'” …

… [T]the plaintiff raised a question of fact as to whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the running of the statute of limitations until July 29, 2014, when Weis allegedly informed the plaintiff that he did not have a case. Upon entering into the retainer agreement, the plaintiff and the defendants reasonably intended that their professional relationship of trust and confidence, focused upon the personal injury claim, would continue. The complaint adequately alleged that the plaintiff was “left with the reasonable impression” that the defendants were, “in fact, actively addressing [his] legal needs” until that date. The allegations in the complaint failed to reflect, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff knew or should have known that the defendants had withdrawn from representation on the personal injury claim more than three years before the legal malpractice action was commenced … . Schrull v Weis, 2018 NY Slip Op 07769, Second Dept 11-14-18

LEGAL MALPRACTICE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, granting defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, determined defense counsel did not provide effective assistance on whether the guilty plea would result in deportation and there was a reasonable probability defendant would not have pled guilty had he been correctly informed. Defense counsel told the court that defendant was going to be deported based upon a prior offense, but the facts indicated otherwise:

The defendant, through his new counsel, subsequently made a timely motion to withdraw his plea, which was summarily denied by the County Court. Upon remittal from this Court, the County Court held a proceeding pursuant to People v Tinsley (35 NY2d 926) and, upon questioning the defendant, determined that he had not received effective assistance of counsel at the time of the plea. We discern no basis in the record to disturb the County Court’s findings in this regard.

In order for the defendant to obtain vacatur of his plea of guilty based on Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), he must establish that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial  … . Although the County Court did not specifically address this question in its report, the record is sufficient for us to conclude that, but for counsel’s errors, there is a reasonable probability that the defendant—who has lived in the United States since the age of four and has significant family ties here, including a wife and three children, as well as parents and siblings—would not have pleaded guilty … . People v Ghingoree, 2018 NY Slip Op 07748, Second Dept 11-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, IMMIGRATION LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEPORTATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, IMMIGRATION LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE,  DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea should not have been denied without a hearing. Defendant alleged he was incorrectly told by his attorney that he would not be deported as a result of the plea. Defendant’s papers were sufficient to raise a question whether defendant was afforded effective assistance of counsel under the federal standard (which is explained in the decision). The court noted that the claim defendant was not informed of the risk of deportation at sentencing was properly rejected because there was a sufficient record to have raised that argument on appeal:

Under the federal standard for asserting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant “must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and “that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense” … . Although Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356) is inapplicable to this case because the defendant’s conviction became final before Padilla was decided  … , even prior to Padilla, the Court of Appeals had held that “inaccurate advice about a guilty plea’s immigration consequences” fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, so as to satisfy the first prong of the standard set forth in Strickland [466 US 668].

Here, the defendant alleged that his counsel incorrectly advised him that he would not be subject to deportation as a consequence of his plea of guilty to reckless endangerment in the first degree. The defendant affirmed that he was initially offered a plea agreement that included a period of incarceration and carried the risk of deportation and, in consultation with his counsel, the defendant rejected that plea offer because of the deportation risks. It was only after a second plea offer was made, for a length of probation conditioned upon the successful completion of a program, along with the representation that such a plea would not result in the defendant’s deportation, that the defendant chose to plead guilty. …

In addition to demonstrating that defense counsel’s performance was deficient, a defendant making a federal constitutional claim must also show, in order to satisfy the second prong of the Strickland standard, that there was ” a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial'” … .

Here, the defendant’s affidavit raised sufficient questions of fact as to whether it was reasonably probable that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been correctly advised as to the deportation consequences of the plea, given the fact that the defendant had already once rejected a plea offer that was objectively favorable to him, in favor of going to trial, because of the risk of deportation, and based upon his specific affirmation that, had he known the risk of deportation, he would not have pleaded guilty … . People v Malik, 2018 NY Slip Op 07452, Second Dept 11-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PAPERS SUFFICIENTLY RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER THAT FAILURE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER THE FEDERAL STANDARD, THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT FAILED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES WAS REJECTED BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT RECORD TO HAVE RAISED THAT ARGUMENT ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department determined a stipulation of settlement entered by plaintiff’s attorney was a binding contract. The fact that plaintiff changed her mind before the stipulation was filed was of no consequence. Plaintiff made no effort to demonstrate the contract was invalid due to duress, fraud, mistake or overreaching:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation of discontinuance. CPLR 2104 provides that, “[a]n agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action, other than one between counsel in open court, is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney or reduced to the form of an order and entered.” Here, there is no dispute that on October 30, 2015, the plaintiff’s former counsel had actual authority from his client to enter into the stipulation discontinuing the action on her behalf … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the stipulation of discontinuance clearly evidenced the plaintiff’s intent to discontinue the action as of October 30, 2015, notwithstanding that she changed her mind prior to the filing of the stipulation on November 2, 2015 … , even though it did not effect a discontinuance until it was filed with the clerk of the court on November 2, 2015 (CPLR 3217[a][2]). In seeking to vacate the stipulation, the plaintiff failed to meet her burden to establish good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as that the stipulation was the result of duress, fraud, mistake, or overreaching, or that the terms of the stipulation were unconscionable … . Demetriou v Wolfer, 2018 NY Slip Op 07288, Second Dept 10-31-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2103, CPLR 3217 (STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE ENTERED INTO BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY COULD NOT BE INVALIDATED, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF CHANGED HER MIND BEFORE THE STIPULATION WAS FILED, NO EVIDENCE OF DURESS, FRAUD, MISTAKE, OVERREACHING (SECOND DEPT)

, , ,

DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff did not submit sufficient proof of damages stemming from the alleged breach of a home improvement contract, and the restitution and punitive damages awards were improper. The statutory General Business Law awards, including attorney’s fees, were applicable:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving damages for breach of contract. The appropriate measure of damages for breach of a home improvement contract by the contractor for defective construction is the cost to repair the defects … , as of the date the cause of action accrued … . Here, the plaintiff did not proffer competent evidence to establish her costs to repair the defendants’ defective work as of the date the cause of action accrued … . Accordingly, the damages award in the sum of $9,358.96 for breach of contract must be set aside.

We also agree with the defendants that the jury improperly awarded the sum of $17,730 as restitution damages pursuant to General Business Law § 772, representing the total sum paid by the plaintiff under the home improvement contract before the defendants abandoned the project, since restitution damages are not provided for under that statute … .

Further, we agree with the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages. Although the jury found that the defendants were liable for breach of contract, the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants’ conduct was egregious, directed toward the plaintiff, and part of a pattern directed at the public … . Moreover, to the extent that the plaintiff’s case rested on allegations of fraud, she failed to establish that the defendants’ conduct was so gross, wanton, or willful, or of such high moral culpability, as to justify an award of punitive damages … . Crippen v Adamao2018 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 10-31-18

CONTRACT LAW (DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/DAMAGES (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/LICENSES (HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTORS, (DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD, DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT NOT PROVEN, RESTITUTION IS NOT A REMEDY UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, GROUNDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT PROVEN, STATUTORY FEES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY’S FEES, APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions for two separate robberies which were tried together, determined that one of the lineup identification procedures violated defendant’s right to counsel. The detective who conducted the lineup was aware defendant had an attorney but did not notify the attorney of the impending lineup:

The detective who conducted the lineup violated the defendant’s right to counsel by failing to notify counsel of the lineup and afford counsel a reasonable opportunity to attend. As a general rule, a defendant does not have the right to counsel at a preaccusatory, investigatory lineup … . There are two exceptions. The first is when a defendant is actually represented by an attorney in the matter under investigation. That occurs when the defendant is, in fact, represented in the matter, and the police know, or can be charged with knowledge of that representation … . The second is when a defendant who is already in custody and represented by an attorney in an unrelated case invokes the right by requesting his or her attorney. In either case, “[o]nce the right to counsel has been triggered, the police may not proceed with the lineup without at least apprising the defendant’s lawyer of the situation and affording the lawyer a reasonable opportunity to appear. A specific request that the lineup not proceed until counsel is so notified need not be made” … .

… [T]he paramount consideration is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury’s decision to convict on the tainted counts influenced its verdict of guilt on the remaining counts in a meaningful way … . Here, we cannot conclude from the evidence presented that there was no such reasonable possibility. People v Johnson, 2018 NY Slip Op 07147, Second Dept 10-24-18

CRIMINAL LAW (LINEUPS, DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, LINEUPS, DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, LINEUPS, DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (LINEUPS, DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/LINEUPS (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BUT DID NOT NOTIFY COUNSEL OF THE PROCEDURE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

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