You are here: / Criminal Law
,

PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to the renewed statute of limitations under the Son of Sam Law to seek earned and unearned income in the account of an inmate convicted of murder in 1986:

Generally, a crime victim of a violent felony offense has 10 years from the date of the crime to bring a civil action against the individual convicted of said crime to recover money damages for any injury or loss resulting therefrom (see CPLR 213-b [2]; Executive Law § 632-a [1] [d], [e] [i] [A]; Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [a]). The Son of Sam Law, however, creates a renewed limitations period whereby a crime victim may bring an action within three years of the discovery of “funds of a convicted person” (Executive Law § 632-a [3]). Here, the subject crimes occurred in 1986 … , thus, the statute of limitations has long since passed. Contrary to respondent’s assertion, however, the applicability of the extended statute of limitations provided for in Executive Law § 632-a (3) is not tethered to the $10,000 requirement that triggers the notice provisions of the statute… . Moreover, although Executive Law § 632-a does not statutorily mandate the type of notice that was provided for here, it does not prohibit it either. Thus, having received notice of newly discovered “funds of a convicted person” … , respondent’s victims are entitled to the benefit of the extended limitations period, without regard to the amount of funds in respondent’s inmate account.

Next, to the extent that respondent argues that his earned income should be excluded from any future recovery, and, thus, excluded from the purview of the subject preliminary injunction, this Court has previously held that “[t]he distinction between earned and unearned income is relevant only to determine whether petitioner must be notified, and has no effect on the ability of a crime victim or a victim’s representative to recover such income in a civil action” … . Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Vigo, 2018 NY Slip Op 04608, Third Dept 6-21-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SON OF SAM LAW, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT))/SON OF SAM LAW (PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SON OF SAM LAW,  PETITIONER ENTITLED TO RENEWED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW TO SEEK FUNDS IN THE CONVICTED MURDERER’S INMATE ACCOUNT, THE INMATE’S EARNED AND UNEARNED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE FOR RECOVERY (THIRD DEPT))

THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE 31 YEAR DELAY IN INDICTING DEFENDANT FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was good cause for a 31 year delay in indicting the defendant for murder:

Cecil Schiff (hereinafter the decedent) was murdered in September 1980 during a robbery of his apartment. With no eyewitnesses and no match to latent fingerprints that were recovered from the crime scene, the investigation stalled. In 2008, a detective with the New York City Police Department’s Latent Print Unit randomly selected the case for fingerprint analysis, and determined that the defendant’s fingerprints matched three fingerprints recovered from a jewelry box and two other boxes found in the decedent’s bedroom. Further investigation revealed that the defendant, who was a 17-year-old high school student at the time of the murder, was absent from school on the day of the murder. The defendant was arrested and indicted in 2012, more than 31 years after the crime was committed.  * * *

… [A] significant amount of the delay was due to a lack of evidence identifying a viable suspect. After the defendant’s fingerprints were matched to the fingerprints recovered from the three boxes in the decedent’s bedroom, further investigation was conducted. The People had a good-faith basis to wait until they had sufficient evidence to arrest the defendant. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the People met their burden of demonstrating good cause for the delay … . The reasons for the delay establishing the People’s good cause, the nature of the crime, and the fact that there was no period of pre-indictment incarceration in connection with this matter outweigh the extent of the delay. The court appropriately balanced the requisite factors in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment … . People v Mattison, 2018 NY Slip Op 04569, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY, THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE 31 YEAR DELAY IN INDICTING DEFENDANT FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT))/PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY (THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE 31 YEAR DELAY IN INDICTING DEFENDANT FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT))/DELAY, PRE-INDICTMENT (THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE 31 YEAR DELAY IN INDICTING DEFENDANT FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT))

CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s conviction of attempted assault in the second degree, noting that the crime is a legal impossibility:

The crime of attempted assault in the second degree is a legal impossibility (see Penal Law § 120.05[3]; People v Campbell, 72 NY2d 602, 605…). As correctly conceded by the People, the inclusion of that nonexistent crime in the superior court information constituted a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect, necessitating vacatur of the defendant’s conviction of attempted assault in the second degree, vacatur of the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissal of that count of the superior court information … . People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 04565, Second Dept 6-20-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT (CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT))/ATTEMPTED ASSAULT  (CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE HIGHEST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the trial court’s error in refusing the instruct the jury on manslaughter second and criminally negligent homicide was harmless error. The defendant was charged with murder and the trial court instructed the jury on manslaughter first degree as a lesser included offense. The jury convicted the defendant of both murder and manslaughter first. Because the jury convicted on the top count, and the jury was instructed on the top lesser included offense, the failure to instruct on the more remote lesser included offenses was deemed harmless error. The manslaughter first conviction was reversed as a lesser concurrent count:

As set forth by the Court of Appeals, “where a court charges the next lesser included offense of the crime alleged in the indictment, but refuses to charge lesser degrees than that, . . . the defendant’s conviction of the crime alleged in the indictment forecloses a challenge to the court’s refusal to charge the remote lesser included offenses” (People v Boettcher, 69 NY2d 174, 180 [1987]). The premise underlying a determination of harmless error is that, when a jury convicts the defendant of the top (i.e., highest) charged offense and thereby excludes from the case the next lesser (i.e., intermediate) included offense, the verdict dispels any significant probability that the jury, had it been given the option, would have acquitted the defendant of both the highest and intermediate charged offenses and instead convicted the defendant of the even lesser (i.e., remote) included offense that was erroneously not charged … . Thus, cases applying the analysis set forth in Boettcher hold that where the trial court charges the jury with the highest offense of murder in the second degree and the intermediate offense of manslaughter in the first degree, and the jury convicts the defendant of murder in the second degree, the defendant’s challenge on appeal to the court’s denial of a request to charge the remote offenses of manslaughter in the second degree and/or criminally negligent homicide is foreclosed, i.e., any error is harmless … . People v Mcintosh, 2018 NY Slip Op 04455, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS ERROR, JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON THE FIRST LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND CONVICTED DEFENDANT OF THE TOP COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the People did not present sufficient proof at the suppression hearing to allow the suppression court to find there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest. After a traffic stop, defendant was arrested based upon information from the 911 Center and the Cortland Police Department about an active warrant for defendant’s arrest in Cortland. Cocaine seized in a search incident to arrest was the basis for the instant charges against the defendant. The defendant specifically challenged the validity of the communications with the arresting officers concerning the warrant. At the suppression hearing, the People did not present the warrant or any witness with first-hand knowledge about the warrant. The cocaine should have been suppressed:

Despite defendant’s explicit challenge to the reliability of the information justifying his arrest … , the People did not produce the arrest warrant itself prior to the conclusion of the hearing … . Instead, the People relied upon the officer’s testimony concerning his communications with an unidentified person or persons at the 911 Center and his assumptions about how the 911 Center confirmed the existence of an active and valid warrant. That testimony, however, rested “on a pyramid of hearsay, the information having been passed from” the arresting officer to unidentified persons at the 911 Center and the Cortland Police Department and back to the officer… . “In making an arrest, a police officer may rely upon information communicated to him by another police officer that an individual is the subject named in a warrant and should be taken into custody in the execution of the warrant . . . However, if the warrant turns out to be invalid or vacated . . . [,] or nonexistent . . . , any evidence seized as a result of the arrest will be suppressed notwithstanding the reasonableness of the arresting officer’s reliance upon the communication” … . Here, without producing the arrest warrant itself or reliable evidence that the warrant was active and valid, the People did not meet their burden of establishing that defendant’s arrest was based on probable cause … . People v Searight, 2018 NY Slip Op 04466, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTIVE WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, affirming defendant’s criminal mischief conviction and the restitution order, looked at the evidentiary issues raised on appeal through the lens of the relevant jury instructions. Where there is no objection to the jury instructions, the proof required of the People is that which is laid out in the jury instructions. The indictment alleged that the defendant and several others vandalized cars at a dealership by scratching the cars with keys causing total damage in the amount of $40,000. On appeal defendant argued (1) the charged offense requires damage to property owned by a “person” and the People did not demonstrate that the car dealership was a “person” within the meaning of the statute, (2) the precise amount of damage attributable to the defendant was not proven, and (3) ordering defendant to pay restitution in the full amount of the damages was error. All of defendant’s arguments were rejected:

The court told the jury that defendant must have damaged the property of “another person” — not “another human being” — and it is common knowledge that personhood can and sometimes does attach to nonhuman entities like corporations or animals …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals has written that personhood is “not a question of biological or natural’ correspondence”…, and we can “presume[]” that the jurors had ” sufficient intelligence’ to make [the] elementary logical inferences presupposed by the language of [the court’s] charge” … . In short, defendant’s personhood argument effectively transforms an undefined but commonly understood term into an incorrectly defined term, and we decline to follow him down that path. …

… [T]he jury was instructed — without objection — that “[i]f it is proven . . . that the defendant acted in concert with others, he is thus criminally liable for their conduct. The extent or degree of the defendant’s participation in the crime does not matter” … . Perhaps this instruction was inconsistent with section 20.15 … but it still forecloses defendant’s claim of factual insufficiency as to value. …

… [T]he Court of Appeals previously upheld a restitution award that imposed the full value of the victim’s loss on a single perpetrator, instead of apportioning the loss among the defendant and his accomplices …— as defendant appears to seek here. People v Graves, 2018 NY Slip Op 04503, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))/RESTITUTION (CRIMINAL LAW, (DEFENDANT’S EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENTS ARE VIEWED ON APPEAL THROUGH THE LENS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE, NO NEED TO PRESENT SPECIFIC PROOF THE CAR DEALERSHIP WHICH WAS VANDALIZED WAS A PERSON (A CORPORATION IN THIS CONTEXT) WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL MISCHIEF STATUTE, NO NEED TO PROVE THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT AS OPPOSED TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO APPORTIONING THE DAMAGES AMONG ALL THE PARTICIPANTS, WAS NOT ERROR (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the DWI case for resentencing, determined defendant’s sentence should not have been changed after defendant left the courtroom. The court further found that the five-year conditional discharge to monitor the ignition interlock device exceeded the maximum allowed term (three years):

“[D]efendants have a fundamental right to be present at sentencing’ in the absence of a waiver” of that right … , and here defendant did not waive his right to be present at sentencing. Thus, as the People correctly concede, the court erred in changing the sentence of incarceration after defendant left the courtroom inasmuch as a resentencing to correct an error in a sentence “must be done in the defendant’s presence” … . People v Perkins, 2018 NY Slip Op 04472, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, rejected defendant’s arguments that (1) the People failed to prove the “service of the order” element of criminal contempt, and (2) his acquittal on some counts of the indictment rendered the evidence legally insufficient for the counts on which he was convicted.

… [D]efendant argues only that the convictions on counts two and five are legally insufficient due to the jury’s acquittals on the remaining counts. According to defendant, “when the conduct that was plainly rejected by the jury is removed from consideration, there is nothing left to support the physical menace conviction [count two] or the conviction for engaging in conduct that created a substantial risk of serious physical injury [count five].” Put differently, “the only conduct upon which defendant could be found guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted was smashing [his wife’s] car windows with a metal pipe while she was inside it. Because the jury was unwilling to find that defendant engaged in that conduct,” defendant continues, “the convictions must be reversed as unsupported by legally sufficient evidence.”

… [T]he mixed verdicts provide no basis to question the legal sufficiency of the convictions… . In fact, defendant’s argument is a classic “masked repugnancy” argument … , and it suffers from the same premise error that dooms all “masked repugnancy” arguments: it assumes that a jury’s verdict on one count can be weaponized to attack the legal or factual sufficiency of its verdict on another count. But that is not the law. To the contrary, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that “[f]actual inconsistency [in a verdict]— which can be attributed to mistake, confusion, compromise or mercy—does not provide a reviewing court with the power to overturn a verdict’ ” on legal sufficiency grounds … . * * *

… [D]efendant says that the People failed to prove the so-called “service element” of that crime, i.e., that the underlying protective order was “duly served” upon him or that he had “actual knowledge [thereof] because he . . . was present in court when [it] was issued” … . Because the service element is phrased disjunctively — i.e., it is satisfied if the defendant violates either a “duly served” protective order or a protective order of which he or she has “actual knowledge” because of his or her presence in court …) — the People need prove only one of the statutory alternatives beyond reasonable doubt … . People v Nichols, 2018 NY Slip Op 04502, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/VERDICTS (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/INCONSISTENT VERDICTS  (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUITTAL ON SOME COUNTS DID NOT RENDER PROOF OF OTHER COUNTS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTEMPT, CRIMINAL (SERVICE ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROVEN BY DEFENDANT’S RECEIPT OF THE ORDER IN COURT (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff insurer could not completely disclaim coverage of injuries suffered by the defendant at the insured home (owned by the McCabe’s). McCabe was convicted of assaulting and strangling the defendant. Defendant alleges that after McCabe assaulted her she fell over a tripping hazard in the McCabe home and was injured in the fall. Although the insurer can properly disclaim coverage for any injuries inflicted by McCabe’s intentional criminal conduct under the collateral estoppel doctrine, the insurer could not, at this early stage, disclaim coverage for any injuries that might have been caused by McCabe’s negligence (tripping hazard, failure to seek medical care, etc.):

Plaintiff asserts that, to convict McCabe, the criminal jury must have disbelieved his version of events. It is possible, however, that the jury disbelieved only some portions of his testimony … . The jury may have found it incredible that all of defendant’s facial and head injuries were caused when she tried to walk on her own, fell over a raised threshold in the doorway and hit her head on a cinder block wall during that fall. It is also possible that the jury believed that McCabe slammed defendant’s head into the ground or a wall, thereby causing some of her injuries, but the jury did not render any findings regarding what happened after the choking and slamming, such as whether defendant then got up, tried to walk and fell. To establish the convictions, it was unnecessary for the jury to have made findings regarding whether McCabe created a tripping hazard, allowed defendant to walk on her own after he had rendered her partially incapacitated or failed to seek medical help for her after the criminal assault. Hence, the issues as to insurance coverage and exclusions are not identical to the issues decided in McCabe’s criminal trial, and defendants here did not have a full and fair opportunity in the criminal trial to address some of the issues regarding McCabe’s negligence allegedly committed before and after the criminal assault. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no possible factual or legal basis to support a finding that some of defendant’s injuries were unintended by McCabe, so as to bar coverage under the policy exclusion … . Accordingly, collateral estoppel does not apply here, except as to the more narrow issues necessarily decided in the criminal trial, and plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment or a declaratory judgment at this early stage of this coverage action … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Chauncey McCabe, 2018 NY Slip Op 04416, Third Dept 6-14-18

​INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ALTHOUGH THE INSURER COULD DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY INJURIES CAUSED BY THE INSURED ASSAILANT’S INTENTIONAL CRIMINAL ACTS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE INSURER COULD NOT DISCLAIM COVERAGE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INJURIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE ASSAILANT’S NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT))

,

PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined it was error to fail to provide notice to the defendant of an identification procedure involving the victim of the burglary, Febus. The error was deemed harmless, however:

Febus testified that approximately one week prior to the burglary, she answered a ringing doorbell to find a stranger who asked for a person who was unknown to her. The individual left before she could respond to his inquiry. She described the individual as an older black man with long hair who was carrying a satchel. Approximately 10 days after the burglary, Febus went to the police station and identified various objects that had been taken from her residence. While she was at the police station, she asked a police officer about the identity of the individual who had broken into her residence, and the officer provided defendant’s name. She then asked the officer if she could see a picture of the individual, and the officer responded that it “was online on the Albany Police Department’s [Facebook page].” Febus testified that she returned home and accessed the Facebook page. Over defendant’s objection, County Court permitted Febus to continue her testimony regarding her prior identification of defendant. In that regard, she testified that when she accessed the police department’s Facebook page, she saw a number of mugshots and immediately identified defendant as the person who had knocked on her door approximately one week prior to the burglary.

We are not presented with the issue of whether maintenance by a police department of a Facebook page or website with mugshot photos of arrested individuals — or referral of individuals to such a website — are, without more, police-initiated identification procedures because, in this case, the police officer also provided Febus with defendant’s name when he told her that she could view a picture of the person who had been arrested for burglarizing her home on the police department’s Facebook page. The fact that she had been provided with defendant’s name could have influenced her identification of defendant when she subsequently viewed the Facebook page. This, in our view, was sufficient police involvement to invoke the notice requirement of CPL 710.30 (1) … . Inasmuch as notice was not provided, County Court erred in permitting Febus to identify defendant as the person who came to her home prior to the burglary. People v Cole, 2018 NY Slip Op 04391, Third Dept 6-14-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (IDENTIFICATION, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, IDENTIFICATION, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, NOTICE, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/FACEBOOK (CRIMINAL LAW, MUG SHOTS, IDENTIFICATION, PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy