You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a concurring memorandum, defined the procedure for determining whether opposing counsel can be deposed. Counsel had requested a protective order prohibiting the deposition. The matter was remanded for a ruling based upon the criteria described as follows:

… [D]efendants’ counsel has made a prima facie showing that the material sought is irrelevant and/or that the process is not calculated to lead to legitimate discovery, whether because the information sought is privileged or because the true purpose of the subpoena is solely to disqualify him.  …

… [W]e remand this matter to the motion court for further proceedings to determine whether plaintiffs have shown that the information they seek in deposing defendants’ counsel is material and necessary… , that they have a good faith basis for seeking it … , and that the information is not available from another source. Should the motion court allow the deposition to proceed, it should be without prejudice to counsel’s objection to specific questions to the extent that the answers would reveal information that is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery (CPLR 3101). Liberty Petroleum Realty, LLC v Gulf Oil, L.P., 2018 NY Slip Op 05624, First Dept 8-2-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY-CLIENT, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))/PROTECTIVE ORDER (DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THE DEPOSITION OF OPPOSING COUNSEL SHOULD BE GRANTED EXPLAINED, MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant should have been given an opportunity to explain the reasons for his request to withdraw his plea and defense counsel should not have indicated he did not believe there was a basis for the request. Matter was remitted for consideration of the request with new counsel:

“The nature and extent of the fact-finding procedures prerequisite to the disposition of [motions to withdraw a plea of guilty] rest largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made” … . While in “rare instance[s]” a defendant will be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, often “a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” … , and when a motion “is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry” … . Nevertheless, “[t]he defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to present his contentions and the court should [*2]be enabled to make an informed determination” … .

Moreover, “a defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on his or her motion to withdraw a guilty plea” … . Counsel “takes a position adverse to his client,” depriving him or her of meaningful representation, “when stating that the defendant’s motion lacks merit” … . People v Caputo, 2018 NY Slip Op 05481, Second Dept 7-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))/PLEA, WITHDRAWAL OF  (DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST WITH NEW COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel by (1) the failure to move to suppress evidence found in a garbage bag outside defendant’s grandmother’s house, (2) the failure to move to suppress cell site location information (CSLI), and (3) the failure to object to the prosecutor’s mischaracterization of the the DNA evidence as a match.  Exigent circumstances justified the search of the garbage bag and the warrantless search of the cell-site records, and the prosecutorial misconduct was not flagrant and pervasive:

… [W]e conclude that, in light of the particular circumstances that led the police officers to the premises in search of a recently missing 17-year-old girl, that limited search (of the garbage bag) fell within the recognized emergency exception to the warrant requirement … . …

The Supreme Court recognized that “case-specific exceptions may support a warrantless search of an individual’s cell-site records under certain circumstances” … . “One well-recognized exception applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment . . . Such exigencies include the need to . . . protect individuals who are threatened with imminent harm” … . …

The testimony at trial established that defendant could not be excluded as the source of the DNA found on the victim’s nail and that the chance of randomly selecting an unrelated individual as the source of the DNA was less than one in 114,000. Here, … the sole mischaracterization of the DNA evidence ” did not rise to the flagrant and pervasive level of misconduct [that] would deprive defendant of due process,’ “… . People v Lively, 2018 NY Slip Op 05413, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT))

ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant-attorney’s motion for permission to withdraw from representing plaintiff-client should have been granted. The attorney had submitted upwards of $40,000 in bills. Plaintiff did not pay any of the bills and refused to provide documents requested by the attorney. In addition, plaintiff did not oppose the attorney’s motion to withdraw:

” The decision to grant or deny permission for counsel to withdraw lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s decision should not be overturned absent a showing of an improvident exercise of discretion'” … . “An attorney may be permitted to withdraw from employment where a client refuses to pay reasonable legal fees” … . “Additionally, an attorney may withdraw from representing a client if the client fails to cooperate in the representation or otherwise renders the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out employment effectively'” … . Applebaum v Einstein, 2018 NY Slip Op 05437, Second Dept 7-25-18

ATTORNEYS (ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CLIENTS (ATTORNEYS, ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY AND LACK OF COOPERATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

MEDICAL JOURNAL KEPT BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AFTER SHE WAS INJURED AT THE DIRECTION OF HER ATTORNEY PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, MEDICATION LOG IS NOT PROTECTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a medical journal kept by plaintiff’s decedent after an injury at the direction of her attorney was protected by attorney-client privilege, where as a record of her medications were not:

Upon examination of the notes turned over to Supreme Court for an in camera review, we conclude that they are a mixed collection, some of which are shielded by the attorney-client privilege and some of which are not. The three-page portion labeled “injury journal” is, as described by decedent’s attorney, a seamless report of the incident at the health club and the medical care that decedent received shortly thereafter. The medication log is on a separate page and includes other notes of a personal nature. We agree with Supreme Court that the medication log was made for the purpose of keeping a medical record rather than as a confidential communication made for the purpose of legal services. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that the medication log constituted a communication of legal character between decedent and [her attorney], plaintiff may not invoke the attorney-client privilege to shield its disclosure … . Wrubleski v Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05256, Third Dept 7-12-18

ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGE, MEDICAL JOURNAL KEPT BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AFTER SHE WAS INJURED AT THE DIRECTION OF HER ATTORNEY PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, MEDICATION LOG IS NOT PROTECTED (THIRD DEPT))/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEY-CLIENT, MEDICAL JOURNAL KEPT BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AFTER SHE WAS INJURED AT THE DIRECTION OF HER ATTORNEY PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, MEDICATION LOG IS NOT PROTECTED (THIRD DEPT))/INJURY LOG (ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE,  MEDICAL JOURNAL KEPT BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AFTER SHE WAS INJURED AT THE DIRECTION OF HER ATTORNEY PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, MEDICATION LOG IS NOT PROTECTED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Although the defendant told the police he went to the victim’s house intending to kill him, there was evidence the gun went off when the victim grabbed the gun. The Second Department also noted the prosecutor improperly tried to elicit the jury’s sympathy for the victim:

… [T]he prosecutor’s comments in his opening statement about the grand jury’s indictment were improper. The prosecutor’s comments in his opening statement about the victim and his family, which could only have been intended to evoke the jury’s sympathy, were also improper… . Further, the prosecutor elicited certain testimony from the medical examiner and the victim’s father about the victim’s personal background and the victim’s family that was irrelevant to the issues at trial, and was likewise intended to evoke the jury’s sympathy … . Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, the prosecutor’s improprieties did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no significant probability that any error contributed to his convictions … . …

Here, the court should have granted the defendant’s request to charge manslaughter in the second degree (reckless manslaughter) as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree (intentional murder). Reckless manslaughter is a lesser included offense of intentional murder in the second degree … . Moreover, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant did not intentionally pull the trigger at the time the gun was fired … .  People v Cherry, 2018 NY Slip Op 05190, Second Dept 7-11-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, LESSER INCLCUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER REMARKS DESIGNED TO ELICIT THE JURY’S SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIM DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL, HOWEVER A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE,  A NEW TRIAL ON THE MURDER CHARGE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF MANSLAUGHTER (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED BY COUNSEL OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been summarily granted and remanded the matter for a hearing. The defendant alleged defense counsel was ineffective for failure to correctly inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The First Department offered a detailed explanation of the three criteria for granting a motion to vacate in this context on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.

CPL 440.30 authorizes the summary granting of a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction where the moving papers allege a ground constituting a legal basis for the motion (CPL 440.30[3][a]); where that ground, if factually based, is supported by sworn allegations of fact essential to support the motion (CPL 440.30[3][b]); and where the sworn allegations of essential fact are either conceded by the People to be true or are conclusively substantiated by unquestionable documentary proof (CPL 440.30[3][c]). If all three of these statutory criteria are not met, the court may not grant a CPL 440.10 motion without first conducting a hearing (CPL 440.30[5]). …

… [T]he People did not concede the essential factual allegations on the issue of prejudice. Indeed, they expressly noted that defendant’s allegations of longstanding ties to the United States and lack of any connection to Haiti were entirely unsubstantiated. Neither did defendant proffer documentary proof conclusively substantiating his sworn factual allegations in support of his claim that “but for [his plea] counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … . …Thus, defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion failed to satisfy the third criterion of CPL 440.30(3), and for that reason, the motion court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without first conducting a hearing and making findings of fact … . People v Gaston, 2018 NY Slip Op 05122, First Dept 7-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))

FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT VIOLATED JUDICIARY LAW 491 AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY A COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the fee sharing agreement violated Judiciary Law 491 and could not be enforced by a court:

With respect to the merits of the appeal, Judiciary Law § 491 prohibits any person, partnership, or corporation from sharing any fee or compensation charged or received by an attorney-at-law, in consideration of having placed in the hands of such attorney-at-law a claim or demand of any kind … .

Under the purported fee-sharing agreement, the plaintiffs would provide the defendant attorneys with proprietary information regarding potential clients, investigate claims, interview potential plaintiffs, and otherwise assist with litigation. In exchange, the defendant attorneys would pay the plaintiffs 20% of their fee for each case. This purported fee-sharing agreement whereby the plaintiffs attempt to recover from the defendant attorneys is illegal, and the plaintiffs are proscribed from seeking the assistance of the courts in enforcing it … . Ballan v Sirota, 2018 NY Slip Op 05014, Second Dept 7-5-18

​ATTORNEYS (FEE-SHARING, FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT VIOLATED JUDICIARY LAW 491 AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY A COURT (SECOND DEPT))/FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT (ATTORNEYS, FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT VIOLATED JUDICIARY LAW 491 AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY A COURT (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW 491 (ATTORNEYS, FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT VIOLATED JUDICIARY LAW 491 AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY A COURT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL COULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction of felony leaving the scene of an accident and ordered a new trial. Defendant struck a pedestrian whose body came into defendant’s car through the windshield. Defendant did not contact the police for over an hour. Prior to trial defense counsel obtained a ruling from the judge that the People could not introduce any evidence defendant sought to communicate with counsel. That ruling was violated twice by testifying witnesses:

Defendant’s strategy at trial relied in large part upon the fact that she was not at fault in the accident but did witness the victim’s body being propelled through her windshield and coming to rest inches away from her. She relied upon this state of affairs to contend that her failure to contact authorities was not because she was “coldly calculating,” but because she was in shock and incapable of doing so. Defendant further questioned the proof supporting the People’s hypothesis that she left the scene with her sister before the 911 call.

Any indication that defendant sought to consult with counsel would undermine the foundation of this defense by prejudically suggesting that she was conscious of guilt, rational enough to consider the question of counsel and, perhaps, capable of reporting the accident or taking steps to avoid doing so … . …

In our view, [the] repeated violations of the pretrial ruling, in a case where defendant’s capacity to act and her actions after the accident were in serious dispute, caused harm that could not be reliably dissipated. County Court therefore abused its discretion in declining to declare a mistrial … and, inasmuch as we do not agree with defendant that the People deliberately acted to provoke a mistrial …  we remit for a new trial. People v Lentini, 2018 NY Slip Op 04983, Third Dept 7-5-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/MISTRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL SHOULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s convictions and dismissed the accusatory instruments because defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Counsel failed to moved to dismiss the prosecution on the ground that defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. Had the motion been made, it would have succeeded:

Where, as here, a class A misdemeanor is the most serious offense of which a defendant is accused, the People have 90 days from the commencement of the criminal action to declare their readiness (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]…). Compliance with this deadline is determined by “computing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People’s declaration of readiness, subtracting any periods of delay that are excludable under the terms of the statute and then adding to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion” … . Here, although the People declared their readiness 19 days after the accusatory instruments were filed and defendant was arraigned on the charges, they expressly stated at the subsequent appearance on February 9, 2015 that they were not ready for trial and sought an adjournment for the very purpose of trial preparation. The People did not thereafter declare their readiness until June 15, 2015, beyond the 90-day period. Thus, as the People acknowledge, defendant possessed a meritorious statutory speedy trial claim, and defense counsel’s failure to raise it in a pretrial motion to dismiss deprived defendant of meaningful representation … . People v Smart, 2018 NY Slip Op 04979, Third Dept 7-5-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW,  DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD 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