You are here: / Civil Procedure
, ,

Petition by the District Attorney Against the Sentencing Judge Seeking Vacation of the Sentence Imposed, Because the District Attorney Did Not Agree to It, Dismissed—Granting the Petition Would Direct the Judge to Violate Criminal Procedure law 220.10(4) and Would Violate the Defendant’s Protection Against Double Jeopardy

The Fourth Department dismissed a petition brought against a judge by a district attorney seeking the vacation of a plea on the ground that the district attorney did not agree to it.  The district attorney argued he had agreed to a six-year sentence, not the five-year sentence imposed by the judge:

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus ” is never granted for the purpose of compelling the performance of an unlawful act’ ” …, and the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that, after the entry of judgment and the commencement of sentence, courts have no statutory or inherent authority to vacate, over a defendant’s objection, a plea taken in contravention of CPL 220.10 or related statutory provisions … . Indeed, absent extrinsic fraud, “[i]n no instance ha[s the Court of Appeals] recognized a court’s inherent [or statutory] power to vacate a plea and sentence over defendant’s objection where the error goes beyond mere clerical error apparent on the face of the record and where the proceeding has terminated by the entry of judgment” … . Thus, mandamus does not lie here because we cannot compel respondent to exceed his statutory and inherent authority by directing him to vacate a plea taken in violation of CPL 220.10 (4) (a) after the commencement of sentence.

Furthermore, “restor[ing] the matter to its pre-plea status,” as petitioner seeks, would violate defendant’s constitutional protections against double jeopardy … . Contrary to petitioner’s contention, CPL 40.30 (3) “does not aid the analysis of the double jeopardy issue” … . The Court of Appeals has held that a plea taken without the People’s consent is not a nullity for purposes of that provision … .

Apart from the legal infirmities of petitioner’s position, we further conclude that the record does not factually support that position. Specifically, the record belies petitioner’s contention that his consent to defendant’s plea was conditioned on the imposition of a determinate, six-year term of imprisonment. Matter of Budelmann v Leone, 2014 NY Slip Op 07797, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, ,

The Striking Down (by the Court of Appeals) of a Retroactive Zoning Ordinance Which Prohibited the Operation of a Landfill Did Not Require the Striking Down of a Subsequent Health and Safety Regulation Which Had the Same Effect

The Fourth Department determined that the striking down (by the Court of Appeals) of a 2005 retroactive zoning ordinance which prohibited the continued use of petitioner’s property as a landfill did not require the striking down of a 2007 health and safety regulation which had the same effect.  Because the two regulations are different in nature, the collateral estoppel doctrine is not available:

…[W]e agree with defendants that collateral estoppel does not apply here. “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party’ ” … . The doctrine “applies only if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action’ ” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination” … . Here, the issue in this case—the legality of the 2007 Law as applied to plaintiffs—was neither raised by the parties nor decided by the Court of Appeals in Jones I. The issue before the Court of Appeals in Jones I was whether the 2005 Law was constitutional as applied to plaintiffs, i.e., whether the 2005 Law extinguished plaintiffs’ legal use of their land for the purpose of operating a C & D landfill on the entire parcel (see Jones I, 15 NY3d at 145-146). The Court of Appeals held that “the zoning ordinance at issue in this case [i.e., the 2005 Law], which restricted the development of landfills, does not apply to plaintiffs because they acquired a vested right to use their 50-acre parcel as a landfill for construction and demolition debris before the enactment of the zoning law” (id. at 142 [emphasis added]).

Although the 2005 Law and the 2007 Law both regulate landfill operations, they are not identical. The 2005 Law amended the Zoning Law to eliminate sanitary and demolition landfills as a permitted use in the AR-1 zoning district. The 2007 Law did not amend the Zoning Law to eliminate landfills in a particular zoning district but, rather, it enacted a Town-wide ban on solid waste management facilities. In concluding that the 2005 Law did not apply to plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals relied upon its [prior] decisions… . Those cases involve the nonconforming use doctrine, which shields vested property rights from the retroactive effect of zoning ordinances… .

The 2007 Law, however, is a health and safety regulation, not a retroactive zoning ordinance … . Unlike the 2005 Law, the 2007 Law does not “regulate[] the location of certain facilities within particular zoning districts” but, rather, it “generally regulat[es] the operation of [solid waste management] facilities in the interest of public safety and welfare” … . It is well established that “a municipality has the authority, pursuant to its police powers, to impose conditions of operation . . . upon preexisting nonconforming uses to protect public safety and welfare” (id.) and “may even eliminate [a] nonconforming use provided that termination is accomplished in a reasonable fashion” … . Jones v Town of Carroll, 2014 NY Slip Op 07780, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Statements Made by Defendant to Physician In Presence of Police Investigator Not Privileged

The Fourth Department determined the physician-patient privilege did not protect statements made by the defendant to the doctor while a police investigator was in the room:

We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in allowing a medical professional to testify to statements defendant made to her while being examined at the hospital after his arrest. Defendant contends that his statements were subject to the physician-patient privilege despite the presence of a police investigator in the examination room because he was in custody and was not able to tell the investigator to leave the room. The physician-patient privilege, which is “entirely a creature of statute” .., is set forth in CPLR 4504 (a), and is applicable to criminal proceedings by virtue of CPL 60.10 … . In determining whether the physician-patient privilege applies, we must consider “whether in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, and particularly the occasion for the presence of the third person, the communication was intended to be confidential” … . Here, we conclude that defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the privilege applied … , because there was no showing that he intended that his statements be confidential. Defendant was aware of the investigator’s presence, but he did not ask to speak with the medical professional privately. Additionally, defendant made numerous statements to others that were similar to the statements he made to the medical professional, both before and after making them to her. People v Hartle, 2014 NY Slip Op 07812, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Inadvertently Disseminated Investigative Report [Concerning a Doctor’s Conduct With Respect to Plaintiff’s Decedent] Generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct Is Not Discoverable—Matter Must Be Returned to the “Status Quo Prior to the [Inadvertent] Disclosure”

In a wrongful death action, the Fourth Department determined that a report generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) concerning an investigation into decedent’s death was not discoverable pursant to the Public Health Law and a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 should have been granted in its entirety. The report was inadvertently disclosed by the plaintiff to all the defendants.  Supreme Court ruled only that the report could not be further disseminated.  The Fourth Department noted that Supreme Court’s order was appealable pursuant to CPLR 5701(a)(20(v) even though the denial of the motion for a protective order was without prejudice to renew:

…[W]e conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion only in part, and should have granted the motion in its entirety. “Pursuant to Public Health Law § 230 (10) (a) (v), the files of OPMC concerning possible instances of professional misconduct are confidential, subject to [certain] exceptions,” including Public Health Law § 230 (9), which are not applicable here … . Inasmuch as there is no evidence in the record that the OPMC proceeded past the interview phase of [the doctor’s] alleged misconduct with respect to decedent, the OPMC report is not discoverable as a matter of law (see § 230 [10] [a] [v]). Thus, we conclude that the court erred in failing to restore this matter to the “status quo prior to the[inadvertent] disclosure”… . Kirby v Kenmore Mercy Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07804, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Complaint Did Not State Causes of Action for Replevin or Conversion Because the Specific Funds Involved Were Not Sufficiently Identified/Fraud Cause of Action Stated—Inference of Fraud Sufficiently Raised from Circumstances Alleged

The Fourth Department determined the complaint did not state causes of action for replevin and conversion, but did state a cause of action for fraud.  The motions to dismiss the replevin and conversion causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) should therefore have been granted.  The basis of the complaint was the allegation that defendants embezzled as much as $4 million from an incapacitated person (Aida Corey):

Addressing first the replevin cause of action, we note that replevin is a remedy employed to recover a specific, identifiable item of personal property …, and “[o]rdinary currency, as a rule, is not subject to replevin” … . Unless the currency can be specifically identified, i.e., it consists of specific, identifiable bills or coins, replevin does not lie … . Here, the amended complaint alleges that the individual defendants “have used some or all of Aida Corey’s $4 million in cas[h] to purchase real and personal property and other tangible assets” and that they “have taken approximately $4 million of Aida Corey’s cash and/or personal property.” The sole focus of the parties, both in Supreme Court and on appeal, however, has been on the money allegedly taken by the … defendants, and we therefore deem abandoned any allegations by plaintiffs concerning personal property … . We thus conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for replevin, because there is no “specifically identified” money that plaintiffs seek to recover … .

With respect to the plaintiff guardians’ cause of action for conversion, the amended complaint likewise alleges that the individual defendants “have taken approximately $4 million of Aida Corey’s cash and/or personal property,” but as with the replevin cause of action we conclude that plaintiffs have abandoned any allegations concerning personal property … . Money may be the subject of a cause of action for conversion only if “it can be identified and segregated as a chattel can be” …, i.e., “where there is a specific, identifiable fund” … . Contrary to the contentions of plaintiff guardians, the sums allegedly converted here do not constitute the type of specific, identifiable fund that would support a conversion cause of action … .

…[T]he court properly refused to dismiss the fraud cause of action against them. A fraud cause of action must allege that the defendant: (1) made a representation to a material fact; (2) the representation was false; (3) the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff believed and justifiably relied on the statement and in accordance with the statement engaged in a certain course of conduct; and (5) as a result of the reliance, the plaintiff sustained damages … . The allegations in the complaint must set forth the “basic facts constituting the fraud” …, to “inform a defendant of the complained-of incidents” … . The Court of Appeals has “cautioned that [CPLR] 3016 (b) should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting the fraud” (Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 491 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, much of the detail surrounding the alleged fraud is ” peculiarly within the knowledge’ ” of the … defendants …, and we agree with plaintiffs that an inference of fraud arises from the circumstances alleged in the amended complaint … . Heckl v Walsh, 2014 NY Slip Op 07787, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Not Have Been Granted/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Established Negligence as a Matter of Law/Striking of Affirmative Defense Based on Brake Failure Proper Because Brakes Were Replaced (Spoliation of Evidence)/Fact that Defendant-Driver’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of the Accident As a Matter of Law Did Not Preclude Comparative Negligence Affirmative Defense

The defendant driver of a payloader struck a school bus and a personal injury action was brought by plaintiff, a school aide who was on the bus.  The Fourth Department determined defendants’ late motion to amend the answer should not have been granted, the striking of an affirmative defense based upon brake failure was properly struck because the original brakes had been replaced (spoliation), defendant-driver’s violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1143 established negligence as a matter of law, and the affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part should not have been dismissed:

We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ cross motion [to amend the answer], and we therefore modify the order accordingly. The motion was made seven months after plaintiff had filed the note of issue and more than two years after she commenced the action, yet defendants offered no excuse for their delay in making the motion … . We further conclude that preclusion of the affirmative defenses based on brake failure is warranted as a sanction for spoliation … . After the accident, Cerrone replaced the payloader’s allegedly defective brake calipers and discarded the old calipers. * * *

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1143 provides that “[t]he driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed.” Here, plaintiff met her initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that ” the sole proximate cause of the accident was [Freeman]’s failure to yield the right of way’ ” to the school bus in violation of section 1143 … . At the time of the accident, the school bus was lawfully stopped on a public roadway, and the payloader collided with the school bus after entering the roadway from a parking lot … . In opposition to the motion, defendants failed to provide a nonnegligent explanation for the accident … . * * *

…T]he court erred in dismissing their affirmative defense of plaintiff’s culpable conduct, and we therefore further modify the order by reinstating that affirmative defense. CPLR 1411 provides that, “[i]n any action to recover damages for personal injury . . . , the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . , including contributory negligence . . . , shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the [plaintiff] . . . bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.” The statute encompasses any culpable conduct that had a “substantial factor in causing the harm for which recovery is sought” … . Here, as the court found, there is no question that the sole proximate cause of the accident was defendants’ negligence. Defendants contend, however, that the injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained in the accident were caused, in whole or in part, by her position on the bus, i.e., the fact that she was kneeling or standing on the bus rather than sitting in a seat, and they submitted an expert affirmation to that effect … . Simoneit v Mark Cerrone Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07783, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , , ,

The “Special Facts” Exception to the Retroactive Applicability of a Statute Does Not Apply/A Statute Cannot Be Interpreted to Render Language Superfluous/A Municipality Cannot Challenge the Constitutionality of a State Statute/Lack of Capacity to Sue Does Not Deprive the Court of Jurisdiction

The Fourth Department determined that a 2012 amendment to the Social Services Law (section 61) eliminated the requirement that counties be reimbursed by the state for certain medicaid expenses (so-called “Overburden expenses”) incurred prior to 2006, when the medicaid “Cap Statute” was enacted.  The court dealt with several issues, including:  (1) the retroactive effect of the 2012 amendment; (2) the effect of the amendment cannot be avoided under the “special facts” exception; (3) the amendment cannot be interpreted to render language superfluous; (4) municipalities cannot challenge the constitutionality of statutes; and (4) the lack of the capacity to sue, unlike standing, does not go to the jurisdiction of the court:

Section 61 clearly states that no further claims for reimbursement of overburden expenditures will be paid, notwithstanding Social Services Law § 368-h. Thus, the unequivocal wording of section 61 retroactively extinguishes petitioner’s right to submit claims for reimbursement of overburden expenditures made prior to 2006. “The retroactivity of a statute which is expressly retroactive, as here, will generally be defeated only if such retroactivity would violate due process or some other specific constitutional precept” … .

Here, however, in granting the cross motion, Supreme Court ordered that petitioner’s claims be “treated under Social Services Law § 368-a as [they] existed at the time that Petitioner incurred the Overburden expenses on Respondents’ behalf, pursuant to the special facts exception.” We agree with respondents that the special facts exception does not apply in this situation. Insofar as relevant here, that exception provides that “a court may deny an agency the benefit of a change in the law when it has intentionally or even negligently delayed action on [a claim] until after the law had been amended to authorize denial of the” claim … . There is no indication that resolution of the claims at issue was delayed until section 61 was enacted. * * *

It is well settled that, in interpreting a statute, a court ” must assume that the Legislature did not deliberately place a phrase in the statute that was intended to serve no purpose’ ” …, and must avoid an interpretation that ” result[s] in the nullification of one part of [a statute] by another’ ” … . Thus, “[a] construction that would render a provision superfluous is to be avoided” … . * * *

In its cross motion for summary judgment, petitioner sought, inter alia, judgment declaring that section 61 is unconstitutional because the statute deprived petitioner of due process by removing its vested rights. “[T]he traditional principle throughout the United States has been that municipalities and other local governmental corporate entities and their officers lack capacity to mount constitutional challenges to acts of the State and State legislation. This general incapacity to sue flows from judicial recognition of the juridical as well as political relationship between those entities and the State. Constitutionally as well as a matter of historical fact, municipal corporate bodies–—counties, towns and school districts—–are merely subdivisions of the State, created by the State for the convenient carrying out of the State’s governmental powers and responsibilities as its agents. Viewed, therefore, by the courts as purely creatures or agents of the State, it followed that municipal corporate bodies cannot have the right to contest the actions of their principal or creator affecting them in their governmental capacity or as representatives of their inhabitants” … .

It is equally well settled, however, that “[t]he issue of lack of capacity to sue does not go to the jurisdiction of the court, as is the case when the plaintiffs lack standing. Rather, lack of capacity to sue is a ground for dismissal which must be raised by motion and is otherwise waived” … . Matter of County of Niagara v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 07781, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

, , ,

Transmission Line from Hydroelectric Power Facility in Canada to Queens Properly Approved

The Third Department determined that the NYS Public Service Commission properly issued a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need (EC & PN) for an electric power transmission line running from a hydroelectric power facility in Canada to Queens.  After the issuance of the EC & PN, the petitioners sought a rehearing pursuant to Public Service Law 22.  The Commission denied the petition on the ground it had been filed and served one day late.  The Third Department held that the failure to timely file was nonprejudicial “law office failure” which should have been excused pursuant to CPLR 2005 and went on to review the Commission’s grant of the EC & PN on the merits, including the economic feasibility of the plan, the public need for the hydropower-produced electricity (reduced carbon emissions),  and the effects of the transmission line on the environment:

We begin by recognizing that, as parties to the proceedings at the agency level, petitioners have standing … . The criteria for authorizing the construction and operation of a major utility transmission facility are set forth in Public Service Law § 126. Under this statute, the Commission may not grant a certificate approving an electric transmission project unless it finds and determines (1) the need for the facility, (2) whether the facility will achieve the minimum adverse environmental impacts, (3) whether the facility will be located underground and comport with the state’s long-range plan to expand the electric power grid, (4) that there has been conformance with applicable state and local laws and regulations, and (5) that the facility promotes the public interest, convenience and necessity (see Public Service Law § 126 [1] [a]-[d], [f], [g]). This project involves the placement of a high voltage, direct current transmission line extending from the Canadian border to a converter station in Queens and, from there, a high voltage, alternating current transmission line to the Rainey Substation. The line will be placed underwater in Lake Champlain and the Hudson River and underground in the upland segments. * * *

Petitioners contend that the Commission failed to adequately consider the potential harm to aquatic species, including the endangered shortnose and atlantic sturgeon, posed by the placement of cables underwater. The plan requires the underwater cables to be buried at least six feet beneath the lake/river bottom, except in areas of utility crossings and hard rock. In these areas, the cable will be covered by concrete mats. The specific risks emanate from the use of the concrete mats as well as magnetic and electromagnetic field impact. The record supports the Commission’s determination that any risk has been minimized by the placement of the cable route utilizing existing habitat information designed to avoid significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat areas designated by the Department of State (see 19 NYCRR part 602) and the exclusion zones identified by the parties in the joint proposal. There is also expert record evidence supporting the Commission’s conclusion that the magnetic fields’ impact on sturgeon and other aquatic species would be minimal. Further, we agree with the Commission’s observation that the July 5, 2011 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers addressing the cable route under Lake Champlain and the Hudson River was a preliminary assessment. Moreover, the certificate is conditioned on the applicants’ procurement of a construction permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over these navigable waterways, prior to commencing construction.  Matter of Entergy Nuclear Power Mktg LLC v New York State Pub Serv Comm, 2014 NY Slip Op 07711, 3rd Dept 11-13-14

 

, ,

Four-Month Statute of Limitations Started When Petitioner’s Attorney Received the Order, Not When the Order Was Served on Petitioner

With respect to an Article 78 proceeding to contest a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, the four-month statute of limitations began when petitioner’s attorney received the Commissioner’s order, not when the order was served on petitioner.  Matter of Sutherland v New York State Dept of Envtl Conservation, 2014 NY Slip Op 07674, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

, ,

Procedure for Determining a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss a Declaratory Judgment Action Explained

In the context of an action for a declaratory judgment concerning the legality of the collective bargaining agreement (re: the waiver of seniority rights), the Second Department explained how a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) [failure to state a cause of action] should be considered:

A motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action prior to the service of an answer presents for consideration only the issue of whether a cause of action for declaratory relief is set forth, not the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration'” … . “Thus, where a cause of action is sufficient to invoke the court’s power to render a declaratory judgment . . . as to the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy, a motion to dismiss that cause of action should be denied'” … . A court may reach “the merits of a properly pleaded cause of action for a declaratory judgment upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action where no questions of fact are presented [by the controversy]'” … . Under such circumstances, the motion to dismiss the cause of action for failure to state a cause of action “should be taken as a motion for a declaration in the defendant’s favor and treated accordingly”… .  Bregman v East Ramapo Cent Sch Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 07610, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

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