You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

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))

,

FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this contempt and modification of custody proceeding, determined Family Court should not have allowed father to represent himself without first making an inquiry to ensure father understood the consequences of going forward without an attorney. Although Family Court informed father that he should obtain counsel because he was misconstruing the law, and father was represented when the hearing resumed, one of the witnesses examined by father pro se was not recalled for examination by father’s attorney:

“A waiver of the right to counsel must be explicit and intentional, and the court must assure that it is made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily”… . Thus, the hearing court must “perform a searching inquiry to determine whether a party is aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel, which might include inquiry into the party’s age, education, occupation, previous exposure to legal procedures and other relevant factors bearing on a competent, intelligent, voluntary waiver” … . …

Supreme Court erred by commencing the hearing without first ascertaining that the father was unequivocally waiving his right to counsel and, if so, conducting an inquiry into whether that waiver was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made … . Although one of the two witnesses who testified while the father was pro se ultimately was recalled after the father obtained counsel, and was subjected to direct and cross-examination for a second time, the other witness — the caseworker — was not recalled and her testimony supported both of the mother’s petitions. Furthermore, the violation of a party’s statutory right to counsel “requires reversal, without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position” and, therefore, we need not consider whether the mother would have succeeded on her modification petition absent the caseworker’s testimony … . Matter of Hensley v DeMun, 2018 NY Slip Op 04995, Third Dept 7-5-18

​FAMILY LAW (ATTORNEYS, FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FAMILY LAW,  FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/PRO SE (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))/WAIVER (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FAMILY LAW,  FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THEIR JOB WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH THEREBY DIMINISHING THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED TO THE JURY DEFENDANT HAD TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

Defense counsel repeatedly stated to the jury during voir dire that the trial was to be “a search for the truth.” It is settled that a “prosecutor’s characterization of [a] trial as a search for the truth’ [is] indeed improper” … , inasmuch as it is a way of “proposing that the jury might convict even in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt so long as the jury concluded that its verdict represented the truth” … . Here, by making that statement to the jury during voir dire then repeating it at least three times during summation, defense counsel improperly diminished the People’s burden of proof.

Furthermore, it is also well settled that, when a defendant testifies and is cross-examined regarding his prior convictions, he or she is entitled to have the court “charge the jury that such prior convictions could only be used in evaluating defendant’s credibility, and that they could not be used as evidence of defendant’s guilt”… . Here, counsel requested such a charge, the prosecutor conceded that the charge should be given, and the court agreed to give it. Nevertheless, the court’s instructions indicated that the jury may rely upon evidence of a previous conviction in evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, including defendant, but the court did not instruct the jury that they may not consider the prior conviction as evidence of defendant’s guilt. Defense counsel did not object or otherwise bring the omission to the court’s attention. …

Furthermore, defense counsel exacerbated the harmful impact of defendant’s prior convictions during the cross-examination of the People’s fingerprint expert by eliciting evidence that gave the impression that defendant had 10 or more prior arrests and/or convictions. People v Mccallum, 2018 NY Slip Op 04898, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THEIR JOB WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH THEREBY DIMINISHING THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED TO THE JURY DEFENDANT HAD TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THEIR JOB WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH THEREBY DIMINISHING THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED TO THE JURY DEFENDANT HAD TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THEIR JOB WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH THEREBY DIMINISHING THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED TO THE JURY DEFENDANT HAD TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel told the defendant he could receive a 75-year sentence if convicted on the charged offenses, when the most the defendant could receive was 15 to 30 years. Defense counsel also erroneously told the defendant the sex trafficking offense to which he pled guilty would not make him subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA):

The evidence, including a letter from defense counsel to the prosecutor during plea negotiations and the testimony of defendant and defense counsel at the hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment, established that defendant and defense counsel perceived a viable defense to the sex trafficking charges and were leaning toward going to trial, but defendant—under the misapprehension that he risked the possibility of an aggregate maximum term of imprisonment that would be the equivalent of a life sentence for him—relied upon defense counsel’s erroneous advice in accepting a plea that addressed his primary concerns by providing the ostensible benefit of greatly reducing his sentencing exposure while also avoiding any SORA implications. We thus conclude on this record that defendant was denied meaningful representation inasmuch as defense counsel’s erroneous advice compromised the fairness of the process as a whole by depriving defendant of the ability to make an intelligent choice between pleading guilty or proceeding to trial … . People v Oliver, 2018 NY Slip Op 04885, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over two dissents, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that the street stops and searches of the defendants (Nonni and Parker) were valid under the DeBour criteria. The police had received a report of a robbery at the location, the defendants were the only persons seen when the police arrived, and both ran or walked away when asked to stop. The court noted that justification for street stops presents a mixed question of law and fact which can be reviewed by the Court of Appeals only to the extent of determining whether the lower court rulings have support in the record. The Court of Appeals reversed, however, because the record did not allow review of two jury notes received by the judge but not specifically addressed by the trial judge or counsel:

Here, for both defendants, the police had a founded suspicion of criminal activity to support a common-law right of inquiry. The police received a radio transmission of a burglary in progress, and their encounter with defendants at the reported address occurred a mere five minutes later. The officers first saw defendants exiting private property, the scene of a suspected crime. The officers observed no other persons or cars in the secluded, residential area, and it was early in the morning on a federal holiday. In accordance with De Bour, those circumstances were sufficient to justify the officers asking defendants what they were doing and where they were going, and to continue inquiring when defendants did not respond after the officers identified themselves. Further, the officers’ testimony, credited by the court, that defendant Nonni then “actively fled from the police,” combined with the specific circumstances observed by the officers during their initial encounter with defendants, provides sufficient record support for the court’s determination that there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify defendant Nonni’s pursuit, forcible stop, and detainment … .  …

According to the arresting officers’ testimony, after defendant Parker saw defendant Nonni run and some police officers give chase, defendant Parker increased his pace, acted in an evasive manner, and crossed the street onto the front lawn of another property. The officer twice characterized Parker’s movements as “running,” albeit at a slow pace. While active avoidance of a confrontation between the police and an acquaintance does not itself give rise to reasonable suspicion, its combination with the specific, highly-suspicious circumstances observed by the police may give rise to heightened suspicion. Thus, record support exists for the court’s conclusion that the officers had reasonable suspicion, and that the pursuit, stop, and detainment of defendant Parker, as well as the subsequent search of his bag, were permissible. * * *

… .[T]he court did not read into the record the contents of the notes at issue here …. Further, there is no hint in the record that the court provided counsel the contents of the notes; rather, an inference may be drawn to the contrary. Tellingly, while the court had read other notes, and had confirmed that counsel had read their contents on the record in the past, there is no such record regarding these two substantive notes. Indeed, the court’s reference with respect to the first note—that it believed counsel had agreed to the readback it would provide in response—made no reference to the other two notes, suggesting that there was no discussion about those notes. Whether the record demonstrates a court has shown counsel prior jury notes as a matter of practice is irrelevant, since there must be specific, record proof that the court did so for each note. People v Parker, 2018 NY Slip Op 04776, CtApp 6-28-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/STREET STOPS  (VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/DE BOUR (STREET STOPS, VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF WHETHER THE LOWER COURT RULING HAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, HERE THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE VALIDITY OF THE STOPS UNDER DE BOUR, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))/O’RAMA (JURY NOTES, CRIMINAL LAW, COURT’S FAILURE TO CREATE A RECORD CONCERNING TWO JURY NOTES REQUIRED REVERSAL HOWEVER (CT APP))

CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff attorney’s contingency fee retainer violated 22 USC 1623 (f) (which prohibits contingency fees in excess of 10% in actions governed by the federal statute) and was therefore unlawful and void under federal law. The unjust enrichment theory was not available to the plaintiff on equitable and evidentiary grounds:

Plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation for services rendered under the subject contingency fee retainer. It is undisputed that the terms of the retainer violated 22 USC § 1623(f), and, thus, the retainer was “unlawful and void” under federal law. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s argument that the void retainer allowed him to pursue a quasi-contract theory of recovery is unavailing. In light of the illegality of the retainer, the court properly found that plaintiff had “unclean hands” to foreclose any claim of unjust enrichment … . Furthermore, plaintiff failed to plead a relationship with defendant that could have caused reliance or inducement on plaintiff’s part sufficient to sustain an unjust enrichment claim … . Sorenson v Winston & Strawn, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 04828, First Dept 6-28-18

​ATTORNEYS (FEES, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTINGENCY FEES (ATTORNEYS, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ATTORNEY’S FEES, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/UNCLEAN HANDS (UNJUST ENRICHMENT, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))/RETAINER (ATTORNEY’S FEES, CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW AND WAS VOID, UNJUST ENRICHMENT THEORY NOT AVAILABLE ON EQUITABLE AND EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a partial dissent, determined certain aspects of defendant Countrywide’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff insurer, Ambac, stemming from residential mortgage backed securities issued by Countrywide, were properly granted. Ambac’s argument that it need not demonstrate justifiable reliance or loss causation in support of its fraudulent inducement cause of action was rejected, as was Ambac’s argument that it was entitled to relief over and above that specified in the sole remedy clause, as well as attorney’s fees:

Public policy reasons support the justifiable reliance requirement. Where a “sophisticated business person or entity . . . claims to have been taken in,” the justifiable reliance rule “serves to rid the court of cases in which the claim of reliance is likely to be hypocritical” … . Excusing a sophisticated party such as a monoline financial guaranty insurer from demonstrating justifiable reliance would not further the policy underlying this “venerable rule.”

Likewise, there is no merit to Ambac’s argument that it need not show loss causation. Loss causation is a well-established requirement of a common law fraudulent inducement claim for damages. * * *

Ambac’s complaint fails to include breach of contract allegations beyond those that fall under the sole remedy provision … , and accordingly Ambac is limited to the repurchase protocol as the potential remedy for those claims. * * *

In New York, “the prevailing litigant ordinarily cannot collect . . . attorneys’ fees from its unsuccessful opponents. . . . Attorneys’ fees are treated as incidents of litigation, rather than damages. . . . The exception is when an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or court rule” … . … [T]his Court [has] held that a court “should not infer a party’s intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise … . Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04686, CtApp 6-27-18

​INSURANCE LAW (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/FRAUD  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES  (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))/ATTORNEY’S FEES (IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INSURING OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE AND LOSS CAUSATION FOR ITS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY WAS LIMITED TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION, AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (CT APP))

, ,

BENCH TRIAL JUDGE’S RESCINDING OF THE RULING DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD GIVE A SUMMATION IN THIS MISDEMEANOR CASE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RULING IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL ABILITY TO OBJECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the bench trial judge had deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel in this misdemeanor case by first ruling defense counsel could give a summation and then rescinding that ruling. The court further determined the judge’s action was appealable because defense counsel did not have an opportunity to object:

We conclude that defendant’s claim is reviewable on appeal. The trial court, in specifically ruling that defendant’s permission to deliver a summation was rescinded and concomitantly rendering a verdict, deprived defense counsel of a practical ability to timely and meaningfully object to the court’s ruling of law … .

Turning to the merits, the United States Supreme Court has held that New York’s former CPL 320.20 (3) (c) violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by allowing the trial court the discretion whether to grant defense counsel the opportunity to give a summation in nonjury trials on indictments … . In this single judge trial on a class B misdemeanor, the trial court’s imposition of a sentence of 90 days in jail required that defendant be afforded the right to counsel at the trial under the Sixth Amendment… . That right was violated when the court denied defense counsel the opportunity to present summation … . People v Harris, 2018 NY Slip Op 04667, CtApp 6-26-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (BENCH TRIAL JUDGE’S RESCINDING OF THE RULING DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD GIVE A SUMMATION IN THIS MISDEMEANOR CASE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RULING IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL ABILITY TO OBJECT (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (BENCH TRIAL JUDGE’S RESCINDING OF THE RULING DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD GIVE A SUMMATION IN THIS MISDEMEANOR CASE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RULING IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL ABILITY TO OBJECT (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, BENCH TRIAL JUDGE’S RESCINDING OF THE RULING DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD GIVE A SUMMATION IN THIS MISDEMEANOR CASE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RULING IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL ABILITY TO OBJECT (CT APP))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (BENCH TRIAL JUDGE’S RESCINDING OF THE RULING DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD GIVE A SUMMATION IN THIS MISDEMEANOR CASE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RULING IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL ABILITY TO OBJECT (CT APP))

, , ,

MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the motions to dismiss the legal malpractice causes of action against original (Neimark defendants) and successor counsel (Budin defendants) were properly denied. Original counsel did not file a notice of claim and successor counsel did not seek leave to file a late notice of claim:

The Budin defendants, as successor counsel, had an opportunity to protect plaintiff’s rights by seeking discretionary leave, pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), to serve a late notice of claim. Whether the Budin defendants would have prevailed on such motion will have to be determined by the trier of fact … . We do not find this determination to be speculative given that Supreme Court will weigh established factors in exercising its General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) discretion … .

We agree with plaintiff’s argument that the Neimark defendants’ failure to serve a timely notice of claim, as of right, on the New York City Department of Education in the underlying personal injury action remains a potential proximate cause of his alleged damages. Plaintiff has a viable claim against the Neimark defendants despite the fact that the Budin defendants were substituted as counsel before the expiration of time to move to serve a late notice of claim. Thus, the Budin defendants’ substitution can only be deemed a superseding and intervening act that severed any potential liability for legal malpractice on the part of the Neimark defendants if a determination is made that a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim would have been successful in the underlying personal injury action … . Liporace v Neimark & Neimark, LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 04668, First Dept 6-26-18

​ATTORNEYS (MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTIONS TO DISMISS LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST ORIGINAL COUNSEL FOR FAILING TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AND AGAINST SUCCESSOR COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO SEEK LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (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