You are here: / Attorneys
, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to evidence the complainant, who alleged she was sexually abused by the defendant many years earlier, disclosed the abuse to friends three years after the abuse ceased and again four years later. Defense counsel’s strategy was to show the complainant was a “troubled teen” and inconsistencies in the statements were part of a “recent fabrication” defense:

​

Here, defendant argues that counsel’s failure to object to the testimony regarding the victim’s disclosures must have arisen from his ignorance or misunderstanding of the law on prompt outcry testimony and, thus, cannot be considered a matter of strategy. We disagree. While “it is generally improper to introduce testimony that the witness had previously made prior consistent statements” to bolster the witness’s credibility, the use of prior consistent statements is permitted to demonstrate a prompt outcry, rebut a charge of recent fabrication, or “to assist in ‘explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to defendant’s arrest'” … . “‘New York courts have routinely recognized that nonspecific testimony about [a] child-victim’s reports of sexual abuse [does] not constitute improper bolstering [when] offered for the relevant, nonhearsay purpose of explaining the investigative process'”… .

A conclusion that the fact of the victim’s disclosures herein to the school counselor and detective would likely be admissible to “complete the narrative” was “consistent with [a conclusion that] a reasonably competent attorney” could make  … . … [C}ounsel was not ineffective for failure to make a motion that had little chance of success …. Instead of objecting to that testimony, counsel strategically chose to use the evidence to defendant’s advantage by exploring the substance of, and the circumstances surrounding, the disclosure in depth to support the defense of recent fabrication. People v Honghirun, 2017 NY Slip Op 04496, CtApp 6-8-17

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE)EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DELAYED DISCLOSURE OF SEXUAL ABUSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO EVIDENCE OF THE COMPLAINANT’S DISCLOSURE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE UP TO SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ABUSE CEASED, THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL USED DISCREPANCIES IN THE DISCLOSURES TO SUPPORT THE DEFENSE)

, ,

BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW.

The First Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statements, over a two justice dissent, determined the detective’s mention of a drug offense for which defendant was represented by counsel during questioning on a homicide required suppression of the interrogation:

​

Although the reference to the drug charges on which defendant was represented was brief and flippant, it was not, in context, innocuous or discrete and fairly separable from the homicide investigation. The detective told defendant during the questioning that he knew defendant was involved in selling drugs at the location of the murder and that the killing was over a drug debt. The remarks regarding the pending drug case went to defendant’s alleged participation in the drug trade at the location of the homicide, the very activity out of which a motivation for killing the victim arose. Indeed, it succeeded in eliciting from defendant a response that may fairly be interpreted as incriminating himself in dealing drugs at the location, the alleged motivation and context out of which the homicide occurred. Accordingly, because questioning regarding the drug case on which defendant was represented by counsel was intertwined with questioning regarding the homicide, defendant’s statements should have been suppressed.

However, we find no other basis for suppression. As the dissent notes, the repeated comments made to defendant by the detective and his colleagues to the effect that defendant should “tell [his] side of the story” immediately because if he were to wait until trial, “[no] one is going to believe” him and he would be “charged with murder, not . . . manslaughter” did not vitiate the Miranda warnings defendant had received … . People v Silvagnoli, 2017 NY Slip Op 04392, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENT, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, BRIEF MENTION OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE INTERROGATING DETECTIVE KNEW DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL TAINTED THE INTERROGATION AND REQUIRED SUPPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW)

,

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY.

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff could not assert attorney-client privilege to protect information on a company-owned laptop, but could assert the attorney work product privilege subject to court review of the log:

​

Application of the factors set forth in In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. (322 BR 247, 257 [Bankr, SD NY 2005]) indicates that plaintiff lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal use of the laptop computer supplied to him by defendant Zara USA, Inc. (Zara), his employer, and thus lacked the reasonable assurance of confidentiality that is foundational to attorney-client privilege … . Among other factors, Zara’s employee handbook, of which plaintiff, Zara’s general counsel, had at least constructive knowledge… , restricted use of company-owned electronic resources, including computers, to “business purposes” and proscribed offensive uses. The handbook specified that “[a]ny data collected, downloaded and/or created” on its electronic resources was “the exclusive property of Zara,” emphasized that “[e]mployees should expect that all information created, transmitted, downloaded, received or stored in Zara’s electronic communications resources may be accessed by Zara at any time, without prior notice,” and added that employees “do not have an expectation of privacy or confidentiality in any information transmitted or stored in Zara’s electronic communication resources (whether or not such information is password-protected).”

Plaintiff avers, and defendant does not dispute, however, that, while reserving a right of access, Zara in fact never exercised that right as to plaintiff’s laptop and never actually viewed any of the documents stored on that laptop. Given the lack of any “actual disclosure to a third party, [plaintiff’s] use of [Zara’s computer] for personal purposes does not, standing alone, constitute a waiver of attorney work product protections” … . Miller v Zara USA, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04407, 1st Dept 6-6-17

 

ATTORNEYS (PRIVILEGE, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)/PRIVILEGE (ATTORNEYS, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE (PRIVILEGE DID NOT APPLY TO INFORMATION ON A COMPANY OWNED COMPUTER, HOWEVER ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY)

, ,

DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel was properly granted. The hearing demonstrated defendant could have pled to an offense that would not result in mandatory deportation:

… [D]efendant established that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to attempt to negotiate a plea to a crime that would not have constituted an aggravated felony under federal law, and therefore would not have subjected him to mandatory deportation. The record establishes that the People were willing to accept a plea to a crime pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) that would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation and that defense counsel did not make such a request because he was not aware that a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation … . Moreover, defense counsel testified at a hearing on the motion to vacate the judgment of conviction that, had he known that a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(1) would have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation, he would have attempted to negotiate a plea under Penal Law § 220.16(12) and would have advised the defendant not to take the plea that he ultimately took. This evidence supports the court’s finding that the defendant was not afforded meaningful representation as guaranteed by the New York Constitution …

Further, in light of the People’s admission that they would have been amenable to such a plea had defense counsel raised the issue, the defendant established that he was prejudiced by defense counsel’s conduct in failing to attempt to negotiate a plea that would not have subjected the defendant to mandatory deportation … . In addition, since the People refused at the time of the hearing on the motion to consent to vacate the defendant’s conviction so as to have the case restored to the calendar to allow the defendant to plead pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12), this further establishes that defense counsel’s failure to attempt to negotiate a plea pursuant to Penal Law § 220.16(12) at a time when the People were amenable to such a plea prejudiced the defendant and affected the “fairness of the process as a whole” … . People v Guzman, 2017 NY Slip Op 04291, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED)

,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant law firm was entitled to sanctions for the frivolous conduct of plaintiff’s counsel.  Plaintiff’s counsel had repeatedly, including on appeal, made the false allegation that defendant law firm had withdrawn two causes of action which would have been successful. The two causes of action had, in fact, been timely brought by defendant law firm, but were subsequently withdrawn by successor counsel:

… [D]espite it having been apparent from the record that successor counsel was the one who withdrew the conversion and breach of contract claims in the federal action and not defendants, and despite being alerted to this fact by the record of this case and Supreme Court on multiple occasions, counsel persists in repeating a materially false claim to this Court.

There can be no good faith basis for the repetition of this materially false claim on appeal, and we find that counsel’s behavior would satisfy any of the criteria necessary to deem conduct frivolous. In fact, the only fair conclusion is that the prosecution of this appeal and knowing pursuit of a materially false and meritless claim was meant to delay or prolong the litigation or to harass respondents.

“Among the factors we are directed to consider is whether the conduct was continued when it became apparent, or should have been apparent, that the conduct was frivolous, or when such was brought to the attention of the parties or to counsel (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]), circumstances that are replete in this record as noted above”… .

We also consider that sanctions serve to deter future frivolous conduct “not only by the particular parties, but also by the Bar at large” … . The goals include preventing the waste of judicial resources, and deterring vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics.

Here, counsel was ethically obligated to withdraw any baseless and false claims, if not upon his own review of the record, certainly by the time Supreme Court advised him of this fact. Instead, counsel continued to repeat a knowingly false claim in what could only be described as a purposeful attempt to mislead this Court, and pursued claims which were completely without merit in law or fact.

The appropriate remedy for maintaining a frivolous appeal is the award of sanctions in the amount of the reasonable expenses and costs including attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the appeal … . Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 04239, 1st Dept 5-30-17

 

ATTORNEYS (ETHICS, SANCTIONS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/SANCTIONS (ATTORNEYS,  FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/ETHICAL VIOLATIONS (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS,  FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/APPEALS (FRIVOLOUS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)

, ,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

The First Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to set aside her conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant alleged she was told by her attorney (erroneously) that a guilty plea would not result in deportation:

​

Defendant said in an affidavit that she informed her plea counsel that she was not a U.S. citizen but was a legal permanent resident and was concerned about maintaining her immigration status and not being deported. Counsel advised her that, if she pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree conspiracy, she would receive five years of probation, with no jail time, and assured her that, by taking the plea and receiving probation, she would not have to fear any deportation proceedings. Defendant, age 26 at the time, had been in jail since her arrest, and wanted to be released as soon as possible, so that she could rejoin her two young children.

Accordingly, defendant pleaded guilty, was sentenced as indicated, and successfully completed her probation.

However, in 2012, defendant was referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and on June 5, 2012, ICE issued her a Notice to Appear. Defendant said that she learned that conspiracy is considered an “aggravated felony” under the immigration law, which leaves her exposed to deportation proceedings, except under limited and difficult-to-meet exceptions under the Convention Against Torture. …

Defendant said that, if she had known that her guilty plea would subject her to a risk of deportation, she “never would have entered a guilty plea,” but instead “would have contested the matter, tried to negotiate a better plea or taken the case to trial.” She said that she believed that she “would have had a good defense as [she]was not involved in any drug activity, did not know that [her] stepfather was involved in drugs and never saw any drugs … .”

Defendant submitted an affidavit by her plea counsel, who said that she no longer possessed a copy of defendant’s file, and the plea transcript was not available. Nonetheless, counsel said she recalled speaking to defendant a few times, with her secretary acting as interpreter. Counsel recalled that defendant was a legal resident and not a U.S. citizen, but “[did] not recall any advice [she] may have given to [defendant] concerning the plea she eventually entered and the ramifications of that plea upon her status in the United States.”

Counsel explained that her difficulty remembering was due not only to the passage of 15 years, but also to the fact that, at the time of the plea, she was going through “personal difficulties,” including “alcoholism and addiction.” In May 2000, counsel was indicted in Supreme Court, Ulster County, for first-degree promoting prison contraband, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and second-degree harassment.

Under these circumstances, a hearing should be held on whether counsel’s performance rose to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel… . People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04200, 1st Dept 5-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION, MOTION TO, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/SET ASIDE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION, ERRONEOUS ADVICE ABOUT DEPORTATION ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE)

, ,

TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL.

The First Department, over a concurrence, determined defendant was entitled to a new trial for two reasons: (1) the defendant should have been provided with Rosario material which tended to show the police may have confused defendant with another person arrested at the same time; and (2) the trial judge committed a mode of proceedings error by communicating with the jury off the record and outside the presence of defendant and counsel. The concurrence argued the judge did not commit a mode of proceedings error:

​

Supreme Court improperly limited both defense counsel’s discovery of Rosario material and his ability to cross-examine the police witnesses at trial. The Rosario material in question consisted of police documentation of the arrest of a third party. Supreme Court denied defendant’s discovery request, rejecting his trial counsel’s argument that defendant and the third party, both Hispanic males, had been contemporaneously arrested and separately charged with selling drugs to the same undercover officer at approximately the same time and location. In the absence of Supreme Court’s discovery limitations, defense counsel might have reasonably established a motive to fabricate the evidence due to police confusion between defendant and the third party … . Furthermore, as we have stated, where there is evidence raising the possibility of a “police motive to fabricate,” cross-examination of police witnesses is “highly relevant” … . Thus, Supreme Court’s errors deprived defendant of his right to present a defense … . As there was “a reasonable possibility that the non-disclosure materially contributed to the result of the trial” … , Supreme Court’s errors were not “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” … .

​

Were we not reversing on the basis of error regarding the Rosario material and the related cross-examination, we would reverse on another ground — namely, Supreme Court’s communication with the jury off the record and outside the presence of defendant and his counsel.After the jurors had been deliberating for four days, they sent a note to the court stating they were deadlocked on the third count of the indictment and asking for guidance. The court discharged the jury for the day in contemplation of taking further actions, possibly including the delivery of an Allen charge, in the morning. The next morning, in defendant’s and his counsel’s absence, the court instructed the jury, off the record, to resume deliberations. The same afternoon, the court informed defendant and his counsel of this instruction, and counsel did not object. People v Farez, 2017 NY Slip Op 04041, 1st Dept 5-18-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ROSARIO MATERIAL, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/ROSARIO MATERIAL (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, ROSARIO MATERIAL, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL)

, ,

DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL.

The Second Department determined the Department of Motor Vehicles’ finding that petitioner (driver) refused to submit to the chemical (blood alcohol) test after a vehicle stop must be annulled. Although the driver was warned that a refusal required the revocation of his license, he was not told that waiting for a return call from his attorney had been deemed a refusal by the arresting officer:

​

A motorist under arrest based on an alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 may not condition his or her consent to a chemical test on first being permitted to consult with counsel … . Nonetheless, the consequences of refusing to accede to a chemical test may be imposed only if the motorist, after being adequately warned of those consequences, has refused to accede to the test (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194[2][b], [f]). The adequacy of the warning is the same for the consequence imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(b) (suspension and ultimate revocation of the motorist’s driver license) and the consequence imposed by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(f) (admissibility of evidence of refusal at a subsequent criminal trial) … . Here, the undisputed evidence at the hearing held pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)(c) failed to establish that the petitioner was warned that his time for deliberation had expired and his further request to consult with counsel, which the police sought to accommodate, would be deemed a refusal to accede to the chemical test … . We emphasize that our determination is not based on any violation of any purported right to counsel … , but on the adequacy of the warnings that the request to consult with counsel would constitute a refusal to accede to the chemical test … . Matter of Lamb v Egan, 2017 NY Slip Op 03751, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

CRIMINAL LAW (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, CHEMICAL TEST, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, CHEMICAL TEST, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (CHEMICAL TEST, REFUSAL, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)/CHEMICAL TEST (DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, REFUSAL, DRIVER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAITING FOR A RETURN CALL FROM HIS ATTORNEY CONCERNING WHETHER HE SHOULD SUBMIT TO A BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST, ARRESTING OFFICER DEEMED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSTITUTE A REFUSAL)

,

PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined prosecutorial misconduct deprived defendant of a fair trial:

​

… [T]he prosecutor acted as an unsworn witness when he addressed the impeachment of one of the People’s main witnesses, a sister of the complainant (hereinafter the sister). During cross-examination, the sister was impeached by inconsistent testimony she gave in the grand jury proceeding. During summation, the prosecutor argued to the jury that defense counsel had “selected certain portions out of context in the grand jury minutes,” and that the jury “didn’t get the entire grand jury minutes” … . These comments were particularly prejudicial. The sister’s testimony, and thus her credibility, were crucial to the People’s proof against the defendant, which was less than overwhelming. The prosecutor’s comments suggested, without any evidentiary support, that the jury should disregard the sister’s grand jury testimony, in which she failed to name the defendant as a participant in the subject assault, because there was more to the testimony than they knew.

In addition, in reference to the father of the complainant and the sister, who was present during the subject assault but was not called to testify, resulting in a missing witness charge, the prosecutor improperly suggested, and invited the jury to speculate, that the father would have given testimony supportive of his children had he been called to testify … . People v Ramirez, 2017 NY Slip Op 03780, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT (PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL)

, ,

LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

The Second Department determined defendant-attorneys’ motion to dismiss based on documentary evidence was properly denied. Plaintiff alleged the attorneys missed a statute of limitations deadline. The attorneys submitted a letter purporting to terminate the attorney-client relationship with plaintiff prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court found that the letter was not the type of document upon which a motion to dismiss the complaint can be based:

​

“A motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, thereby conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law”… . The evidence submitted in support of such motion must be ” documentary'” or the motion must be denied … . In order for evidence submitted in support of a CPLR 3211(a)(1) motion to qualify as documentary evidence, it must be “unambiguous, authentic, and undeniable” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Conversely, letters, emails, and affidavits fail to meet the requirements for documentary evidence” … . Prott v Lewin & Baglio, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 03786, 2nd Dept 5-10-17

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)/ATTORNEYS (LEGAL MALPRACTICE, LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (LETTER TERMINATING ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS A LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AS BARRED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE)

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