You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in the interest of justice, reversed the defendant's murder conviction because (1) the trial judge failed to give the accomplice in fact jury instruction, (2) prosecutorial misconduct and (3) ineffective assistance in failing to object to the prosecutor's statements and failure to request the accomplice instruction:

During her summation, the prosecutor stated that the “defendant's DNA was on the safety of that gun,” and that “the science finds him guilty.” The prosecutor further stated that “[t]he DNA has spoken,” and that “[t]he defendant's DNA, by being on that safety without even taking into account [the witness's] testimony, makes him guilty.” This was an overstatement and misrepresentation of the statistical comparison testified to by the People's expert who performed the DNA analysis of the swab taken from the safety of the murder weapon. “While the prosecutor was entitled to fair comments on the DNA evidence available in this case, she was not entitled to present the results in a manner that was contrary to the evidence and the science” … . “In light of the powerful influence of DNA evidence on juries, the opportunity for juror confusion regarding the limited probative value of the DNA methodology employed in this case, and the qualified nature of the test results,” the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when she misrepresented and overstated the probative value of the DNA evidence by telling the jury that the defendant's DNA was on the safety of the murder weapon (id. at 771). As a result, the defendant was deprived of his right to a fair trial … .

The prosecutor also engaged in misconduct during her summation when she stated that she met with the witness on several occasions, and during those times, “he did not know that his DNA was on the trigger or the trigger guard or anywhere on that weapon,” and she “did not tell him that the DNA, his DNA was on that gun.” The prosecutor's summation also included the following statements: “But [the witness] told me in talking about this case in detail, he told me what he did”; “He told me that he held that firearm”; “Exactly how he told you on this stand when the defendant dropped it, . . . he picked it up and quickly threw it into a black bag so his girlfriend wouldn't see”; and “He's telling me and he doesn't even know what I have. Honesty. Straightforward about what happened.” These statements by the prosecutor improperly encouraged inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence, improperly injected her own credibility into the trial, and improperly vouched for the credibility of a witness for the People … .

We further find that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, inter alia, due to defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's improper comments in summation … and defense counsel's failure to request an accomplice corroboration charge … . People v Powell, 2018 NY Slip Op 06768, Second Dept 10-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  (ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT'S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's (Expendables') opposition to a  motion for leave to enter and default judgment, alleging law office failure as the reason for failing to appear, was properly rejected:

In support of the proffered excuse of law office failure, the attorney for Expendables merely submitted an affirmation in which it was alleged that the corporate defendant had been “mistakenly omitted” from the answer served by one of the individual defendants. No factual detail or affidavit of personal knowledge was submitted explaining the drafting of the answer, the manner in which the purported omission occurred, or the failure to discover it until the plaintiffs moved for leave to enter a default judgment. Moreover, the answer served by the individual defendant bore no indicia that it was intended to serve as a joint answer for that defendant and Expendables. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the conclusory and unsubstantiated assertion of counsel failed to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default of Expendables in answering the complaint, and in granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to enter a default judgment against that defendant … . Lefcort v Samowitz, 2018 NY Slip Op 06727, Second Dept 10-10-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (DEFAULT, LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENTS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge did not fully advise counsel of the contents of a jury note:

We agree with defendant that the court violated the core requirements of CPL 310.30 in failing to advise counsel on the record of the contents of a substantive jury note, and thereby committed reversible error … . The record establishes that, during its deliberations, the jury sent several notes, the first two of which are germane here. The first note requested that the jury be provided with a written copy of the court's legal instructions, and the second note requested, inter alia, a rereading of all of the court's legal instructions. The record reflects that the court informed the parties that the jury had sent several notes and indicated that the jury requested a rereading of the instructions, but the court did not mention the contents of the first note. Although the record establishes that ” defense counsel was made aware of the existence of the [first] note, there is no indication that the entire contents of the note were shared with counsel' ” … . We therefore “reject the People's argument that defense counsel's awareness of the existence and the gist' of the note satisfied the court's meaningful notice obligation, or that preservation was required. Where the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note—as it is in this case—preservation is not required' . . . Moreover, . . . [i]n the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its [meaningful notice obligation] under CPL 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal' ” … . People v Ott, 2018 NY Slip Op 06646, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT))

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff's legal malpractice action based upon advice to plead guilty to an election law violation was not viable because he pled guilty without any assertion of innocence. However, the legal malpractice action based upon the advice that his travel abroad would not affect his immigration status was viable. Plaintiff, a legal resident, was detained for four months when he attempted to return to the US from abroad:

We affirm dismissal of part of the malpractice claim … . Plaintiff's claim that he pleaded guilty to criminal charges in reliance on defendants' negligent legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of the plea is barred by his guilty plea and lack of any claim of innocence (Carmel v Lunney, 70 NY2d 169, 173 [1987]… ).

However, the policy underlying the rule established in Carmel v Lunney, supra, does not require dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff's legal malpractice claim, because the remainder of his claim that defendants failed to advise him of the potential immigration consequences of traveling outside the United States as a result of entering a guilty plea does not dispute the validity of his conviction … . Further, plaintiff's allegations that he relied on defendants' faulty legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in deciding to travel abroad after he pled guilty, resulting in his being detained and subjected to removal proceedings, state a valid cause of action for legal malpractice. Sehgal v DiRaimondo, 2018 NY Slip Op 06619, First Dept 10-4-18

LEGAL MALPRACTICE (PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (ATTORNEYS, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))/ELECTION LAW (IMMIGRATION LAW, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, (PLAINTIFF, A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE US, PLED GUILTY TO AN ELECTION LAW VIOLATION, PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM ALLEGED ADVICE THAT TRAVELING ABROAD WOULD NOT HAVE DETRIMENTAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES, PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED FOR FOUR MONTHS WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO RETURN FROM TRAVEL ABROAD (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT’S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel when counsel conceded that defendant had a dangerous mental disorder requiring civil confinement. There was no strategic justification for waiving a CPL 330.20 hearing to determine which treatment/confinement track was appropriate for defendant:

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners (CPL 330.20[2]), who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[5]).

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[6]…).

The track is significant because it determines the level of the defendant's confinement and treatment. Track one is based on a finding of “dangerous mental disorder,” meaning that the defendant suffers from a “mental illness,” and that “because of such condition he currently constitutes a physical danger to himself or others” (CPL 330.20[1][c]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[20] [defining “mental illness”]). Track two is based on a finding of “mentally ill,” without a dangerous mental disorder (CPL 330.20[1][d]). Track three is based on a finding of not mentally ill (CPL 330.20[7]).

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law”… . Thus, track designation is “vitally important in determining the level of judicial and prosecutorial involvement in future decisions about an acquittee's confinement, transfer and release” … . People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 06634, First Dept 10-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20  (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the law-office-failure allegations were insufficient to warrant vacating a default judgment:

While the court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005…), “[a] party attributing his or her default to a former attorney must provide a detailed and credible explanation of the default. Conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations of law office failure are not sufficient” … . “[M]ere neglect is not a reasonable excuse” … .

Contrary to [defendant's] contention, it failed to provide a detailed and credible explanation of the default, and no other evidence was submitted to corroborate the allegation of law office failure … . Accordingly, [defendant's] “bare allegations of incompetence on the part of prior counsel” … were insufficient to establish an excusable default under CPLR 5015(a)(1) … . Torres v Rely On Us, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06587, Second Dept 10-3-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2005 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR’S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petitioner hospital's motion to disqualify an attorney. The underlying matter concerned a revocable trust related to a charitable gift to the hospital in the amount of $75 million. The oncologist, Williams, who treated the man who made the gift hired a law firm to represent him in the trust proceedings. A lawyer at the firm, Glassman, was on the hospital's board of trustees. The complaint … alleges … that the hospital and its executives are harassing Williams and trying to terminate his relationship with the hospital in order to take control of the gift in violation of the terms of the trust:

… [W]hile Glassman's status as member of the hospital's Board of Trustees did not constitute a traditional attorney-client relationship, there existed “sufficient aspects of such relationship”—notably the fiduciary duty owed by Glassman to the hospital—to trigger inquiry into the potential conflict arising from Fox Rothschild's simultaneous representation of Williams in litigation against the hospital … . Moreover, the hospital established that Glassman, as a member of the hospital's Board of Trustees, had access to confidential information regarding the gift and the ongoing dispute with Williams, both before and after this proceeding was commenced … . Matter of Blackman, 2018 NY Slip Op 06528, Second Dept 10-3-18

ATTORNEYS (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))/DISQUALIFICATION (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO THE HOSPITAL, DISQUALIFICATION OF THE DOCTOR'S LAW FIRM WAS PROPER, A LAWYER AT THE FIRM WAS ON THE HOSPITAL'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to vacate a default judgment was properly denied because the law-office-failure excuse was insufficient:

” A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), and thereupon to serve a late answer, must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action'” … . “Where a delay or default results from law office failure, a court may exercise its discretion to excuse that delay or default” (…see CPLR 2005). A claim of law office failure should be supported by a “detailed and credible” explanation of the default … . “[M]ere neglect” …  or “[b]are allegations of incompetence on the part of prior counsel”…  are insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse … .

Here, in support of their motion, the corporate defendants submitted an affidavit … , which alleged, without supporting evidence, that prior retained counsel had not informed him of the need to answer the complaint. Such a bare allegation is insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the corporate defendants' default … . Ferraro Foods, Inc. v Guyon, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 10-3-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2005 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT  (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE  (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed on a lesser included offense, evidence of defendant's pretrial silence should not have been admitted, and there was misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. The prosecutorial misconduct issues were not preserved, but the issues were reviewed in the interest of justice. The prosecutorial misconduct alone justified reversal:

… [C]riminally negligent homicide, in addition to manslaughter in the second degree, is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree … , and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, should have been charged. Had the jury credited the defendant's account of the incident, it reasonably could have concluded that the defendant did not intend to cause serious physical injury and that he failed to perceive that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would occur … . …

… [T]the defendant correctly contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to question him about his post-arrest silence, because, although the defendant initially responded to certain questions asked by the police, he effectively invoked his right to remain silent and offered no information regarding the essential facts of his involvement in the crime … . …

The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial due to the prosecutor's improper comments during summation is, for the most part, unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05[2]). However, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . The prosecutor engaged in misconduct throughout his summation, inter alia, by continuously referring to the defendant as a liar, misstating evidence, denigrating the defense, shifting the burden of proof, attempting to arouse the sympathies of the jurors, and vouching for his witnesses' credibility … . The cumulative effect of the prosecutor's improper comments deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . People v Flores, 2018 NY Slip Op 06557, Second Dept 10-3-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))

, , , , ,

ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that complete disclosure of a supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) file should not have been ordered in this traffic accident case. The court noted that Lalka v ACA Ins.Co., 128 AD3d 1508 (4th Dept 2015), to the extent that it held that disclosure is allowed only up to the date of commencement of an action, should no longer be followed. However, the proper procedure is the creation of a privilege log followed by in camera review:

… [D]efendant's motion for a protective order was based upon the assertion that any documents contained in the claim file after the date of commencement were materials protected from discovery. Thus, the sole issue on appeal is whether defendant met its burden of establishing that those parts of the claim file withheld from discovery contain material that is protected from discovery. We conclude that defendant did not meet that burden.

To the extent that Lalka … holds that any documents in a claim file created after commencement of an action in a SUM case in which there has been no denial or disclaimer of coverage are per se protected from discovery, it should not be followed. Rather, a party seeking a protective order under any of the categories of protected materials in CPLR 3101 bears “the burden of establishing any right to protection” … . ” [A] court is not required to accept a party's characterization of material as privileged or confidential' “… . Ultimately, “resolution of the issue whether a particular document is . . . protected is necessarily a fact-specific determination . . . , most often requiring in camera review' ” … .

Here, we conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden inasmuch as it relied solely upon the conclusory characterizations of its counsel that those parts of the claim file withheld from discovery contain protected material. We nonetheless further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the court abused its discretion by ordering the production of allegedly protected documents and instead should have granted the alternative relief requested by defendant, i.e., allowing it to create a privilege log pursuant to CPLR 3122 (b) followed by an in camera review of the subject documents by the court … . Rickard v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06333, Fourth Dept 9-27-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3101, 3122  (ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM)  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST DEPT))/IMMUNITY  (CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH DISCLOSURE OF INSURER'S SUPPLEMENTAL UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) FILE IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, THE ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE FILE WAS IMPROPER, A PRIVILEGE LOG SHOULD BE CREATED FOLLOWED BY AN IN CAMERA REVIEW (FIRST 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