You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the appellant did not have an intimate relationship with petitioner and therefore Family Court did not have jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding against appellant and could not issue an order of protection. Even though the order of protection had expired, the continuing reputational consequences of the order of protection justified determining the appeal:

The petitioner is the live-in girlfriend of the appellant's brother. The petitioner and the appellant live in the same building, on different floors. The petitioner filed a family offense petition against the appellant, alleging that she had physically attacked and verbally threatened her. * * *

The Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and “cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute”… . “Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court's jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain prescribed criminal acts that occur between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household'” … . “[M]embers of the same family or household” include, among others, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . Expressly excluded from the ambit of “intimate relationship” are “casual acquaintance[s]” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … . Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis … . Relevant factors include “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … .

Here, the parties have no direct relationship and are only connected through a third party, who is the petitioner's live-in boyfriend and the appellant's brother. Additionally, the parties have never resided together and their contact with one another has been purely by happenstance, as they live in the same building. Accordingly, they do not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). Matter of Royster v Murray, 2018 NY Slip Op 00151, Second Dept 1-10-18

FAMILY LAW (NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/FAMILY OFFENSES (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP (FAMILY COURT, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (FAMILY OFFENSES, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))/ORDER OF PROTECTION (APPEALS, FAMILY LAW, FAMILY OFFENSES, ORDER OF PROTECTION, NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION HAD EXPIRED APPELLATE REVIEW WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE REPUTATIONAL CONSEQUENCES (SECOND DEPT))

DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Parole Board's denial of parole was irrational. When petitioner was 17 he murdered a 14-year-old acquaintance. While in prison petitioner earned three college degrees and was deemed a low risk pursuant to the Correctional Offender Management for Profiling for Alternative Sanction (COMPAS) assessment:

Judicial review of a determination of the Parole Board is narrowly circumscribed … . While the Parole Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors … , it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all of the factors equal weight… .

Here, the petitioner demonstrated his entitlement to having the determination of the Parole Board set aside. The Parole Board's findings that there was a reasonable probability that, if released, the petitioner would not remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release would be incompatible with the welfare of society and would so deprecate the serious nature of the crime as to undermine respect for the law, are without support in the record … . …

​

.. .[T]he record demonstrates that the petitioner took full responsibility for his actions, stating “I don't blame it on the drugs. I blame it on me. I'm responsible. I was responsible for taking drugs and ultimately I'm responsible for what happened while I was under the influence of those drugs.” The petitioner also acknowledged that he had not forgotten the reason he was in prison, he was aware of the damage he had done to the victim, her family, and his own family, and he deeply regretted that his “life took that turn at that time but [he was] not that 17 year old angry kid anymore.” Matter of Coleman v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2018 NY Slip Op 00138, Second Dept 1-10-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))/PAROLE (CRIMINAL LAW, DENIAL OF PAROLE WAS IRRATIONAL, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined whether defendant should have been adjudicated a sex offender was not reviewable in a SORA risk assessment proceeding. Defendant was convicted of unlawful surveillance for making cell phone videos under women's dresses on the subway. Pursuant to the statute, unlawful surveillance is a sex offense, However the defendant can make a motion asking the court to find registration as a sex offender too harsh under the particular circumstances:

We agree with the People that the statute does not give a SORA court the power to determine a motion under Correction Law § 168-a(2)(e). While we find it significant that the provision assigns the duty of ruling on the motion to “the trial court” — notably the only time that phrase is used in SORA's numerous sections — we do not consider the use of the phrase to be a sufficient basis for our interpretation, because it is arguably malleable enough not to be limited to the court that actually presided over the defendant's trial. However, Correction Law § 168-d(1)(a), describing the “duties of the court,” provides a more definite indication of statutory intent, by way of language that clearly contemplates that certification as a sex offender occurs “upon conviction” and after consideration of any motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a(2)(e). Nothing else in the statutory scheme contradicts this understanding. People v Lema, 2018 NY Slip Op 00005, First Dept 1-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was invalid, but deemed the error harmless and upheld his conviction. The defendant repeatedly represented himself at court appearances, repeatedly allowed counsel to represent him, and repeatedly refused to continue and left the courtroom. The trial was ultimately conducted in his absence. The First Department held that the failure to make sure defendant was aware that he faced a maximum of 15 years in prison rendered the waiver of counsel invalid. However, the suppression motion was deemed to have no chance of success and the trial evidence was deemed overwhelming:

The “normal remedy for a violation of the right to counsel at a suppression hearing is a new suppression hearing, with a new trial to follow if, after the new hearing, the evidence is suppressed” … . However, a new hearing would serve no purpose, and need not be ordered, where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the result at a new trial would be the same even if the defendant prevailed at the suppression hearing. …

​

Even assuming counsel would some how be successful in arguing for the suppression of statements and property recovered, the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Defendant was caught red-handed. …

Similarly, even assuming counsel would have been able to secure a more favorable Sandoval ruling, and defendant would have testified on his own behalf, the evidence overwhelmingly proved defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered the … apartment with the intent to take property. People v Rodriguez, 2018 NY Slip Op 00040, First Dept 1-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, RIGHT TO COUNSEL, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/WAIVER, RIGHT TO COUNSEL  (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

,

COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his guilty plea because the court did not inform him of the deportation consequences. Although the probation report indicated defendant was not a US citizen and was undocumented, the defendant, who had a history of mental illness, told the court, when asked, the he was a US citizen. The First Department held that all defendants must be informed of the deportation consequences for non-citizens:

In People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]…), the Court of Appeals held that before accepting a plea, due process requires that a court “apprise a defendant that, if the defendant is not an American citizen, he or she may be deported as a consequence of a guilty plea to a felony” … . The Court reasoned that “fundamental fairness . . . requires a trial court to make a noncitizen defendant aware of the risk of deportation because deportation frequently results from a noncitizen's guilty plea and constitutes a uniquely devastating deprivation of liberty” … . Accordingly, “a noncitizen defendant convicted of a removable crime can hardly make a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action'” unless informed of the possibility of deportation … .

Defendant's statement to the court that he was a citizen did not absolve the court of its obligations pursuant to Peque. Notably, Peque did not condition the need to give this warning on whether or not the court has reason to believe the defendant is not a citizen. The warning mandated by Peque is required whether the defendant is a citizen or not. Indeed, the Court of Appeals recognized that in order to protect the rights of the large number of noncitizen defendants pleading guilty to felonies in the state, it was necessary to “make all defendants aware that, if they are not United States citizens,” pleading guilty to a felony might lead to deportation … . People v Palmer, 2018 NY Slip Op 00638, First Dept 1-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEPORTATION, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/IMMIGRATION (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/DEPORTATION CRIMINAL LAW, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (CRIMINAL LAW, DEPORTATION, COURT WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, DESPITE DEFENDANT'S ERRONEOUS STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT HE IS A US CITIZEN, DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT))

,

ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, dismissing the juvenile delinquency petition, determined the juvenile’s admission to endangering the welfare of a child did not meet the criteria required by the Family Court Act:

​

Family Court “shall not consent to the entry of an admission unless it advises the respondent of his or her right to a fact-finding hearing and, further, ascertains through allocution of the respondent and his or her parent that the respondent committed the acts underlying the admission, is voluntarily waiving a fact-finding hearing and is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders” … . Even though Family Court partially complied with Family Ct Act § 321.3, we agree with respondent that the allocution was insufficient overall … .

At the hearing, Family Court merely asked respondent whether he “engaged in conduct that was likely to pose a risk of injury to a child.” Although Family Court specified the date and the location of the alleged crime, the court did not mention any other specific underlying fact forming the basis of the alleged crime… .. As such, Family Court did not “elicit a sufficient factual basis to support respondent’s admission” … . Furthermore, while Family Court advised respondent of his right to a hearing and his right to remain silent, the record does not indicate that respondent was advised of his right to present witnesses on his behalf, his right to confront witnesses and that the presentment agency had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the alleged act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime … . Nor do we find that merely asking respondent’s mother as to whether respondent’s admission to the charge of endangering the welfare of the child was done with her approval constituted a sufficient allocution of respondent’s parent as required by Family Ct § 321.3 (1) … . Matter of Kameron Vv., 2017 NY Slip Op 09215, Third Dept 12-28-17

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (FAMILY LAW, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY LAW, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ADMISSION (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY LAW, ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALLOCUTION (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, FAMILY LAW,  ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a prior burglary should not have been allowed as Molineux and Sandoval evidence in this robbery prosecution. The error was deemed harmless however:

​

“The Molineux rule requires that evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts or crimes be excluded unless it is probative of a material issue other than criminal propensity and its probative value outweighs the risk of prejudice to the defendant”… . Although defendant’s intent was at issue, given his defense that he was an innocent bystander who had no knowledge that the codefendants planned to rob [the victim] when he drove them to her residence, the prior conviction was of limited probative value with respect to defendant’s intent because the prior conviction arose from an incident that was not similar to the charged conduct. The prior burglary did not involve a robbery, but, rather, arose from an incident during which defendant entered the residence of another with the intent to assault an occupant. Moreover, [a co-defendant’s] testimony, if believed, was sufficient to permit the jury to find that defendant had the requisite intent to the commit burglary and robbery. Accordingly, the evidence that defendant had committed a prior burglary would serve only to demonstrate that defendant had a propensity to commit burglary and, therefore, the court should have determined that the prior conviction was inadmissible as proof of defendant’s intent … .

County Court also erred in its Sandoval ruling. Although the crime was not too remote to be relevant and the nature of the conviction was probative of defendant’s credibility, allowing the prior crime to be identified as burglary improperly suggested that defendant had a propensity to commit one of the crimes with which he was charged … . People v Williams, 2017 NY Slip Op 09196, Third Dept 12-28-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, RIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))/SANDOVAL EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PRIOR BURGLARY CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS MOLINEUX AND SANDOVAL EVIDENCE IN THIS ROBBERY PROSECUTION, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON THE ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT ACCURATELY INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE FACTS CORROBORATED THE ALLEGATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea) should not have been denied without a hearing. The pro se papers were deemed sufficient to raise the issues of ineffective assistance (failure to accurately inform defendant of the deportation consequences of the plea) and prejudice should defendant be deported after he had successfully sought asylum. The court found that the absence of an attorney affidavit from the motion to vacate papers was explained and should have been excused. Although defendant pled to endangering the welfare of a child, his attorney allowed an allocution on the elements of sexual abuse in the first degree:

​

Here, the absence of an affidavit by defendant’s counsel does not support the summary denial of defendant’s motion for three reasons.

First, defendant’s allegations are corroborated by other parts of the record … . They are corroborated by defendant’s application to naturalize, postplea, which exposed him to detection by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), since he certainly would not have made the application if he had known that he was in any danger of deportation. In addition, counsel’s failure to object to the court’s unnecessary allocution on the elements of sexual abuse in the first degree … suggests that counsel may not have accurately understood the consequences of the plea.

Second, where, as here, defendant’s application is adverse and hostile to his trial attorney, “[r]equir[ing] the defendant to secure an affidavit, or explain his failure to do so, is wasteful and unnecessary” … .

Third, in any event, defendant explained the absence of an affidavit by his counsel … . People v Mebuin, 2017 NY Slip Op 09276, First Dept 12-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON THE ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT ACCURATELY INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE FACTS CORROBORATED THE ALLEGATION (FIRST DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO  (DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON THE ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT ACCURATELY INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE FACTS CORROBORATED THE ALLEGATION (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON THE ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT ACCURATELY INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE FACTS CORROBORATED THE ALLEGATION (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON THE ABSENCE OF AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY DID NOT ACCURATELY INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE FACTS CORROBORATED THE ALLEGATION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s separate cause of action for punitive damages should have been dismissed. However, the demand for punitive damages in the ad damnum clause was proper. Plaintiff was a passenger in the car driven by defendant, who was drunk and lost control of the car:

​

The plaintiff erroneously denominated her request for punitive damages as a separate cause of action. “New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages”… . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the separately pleaded sixth cause of action insofar as asserted against him.

However, the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages in the ad damnum clause of the complaint was proper. Whereas compensatory damages are intended to assure that the victim receives “fair and just compensation commensurate with the injury sustained,” punitive damages are meant to “punish the tortfeasor and to deter this wrongdoer and others similarly situated from indulging in the same conduct in the future” … . With regard to the availability of punitive damages in personal injury cases involving drunk drivers, while this Court has held that “[e]vidence that a defendant was driving while intoxicated is insufficient by itself to justify the imposition of punitive damages”… , this Court has also held that “driving while intoxicated may support an award for punitive damages where there is additional evidence that the defendant engaged in wanton and reckless’ conduct evincing heedlessness and an utter disregard for the safety of others”… . Indeed, punitive damages were properly imposed where the driver was excessively drunk …  or was a repeat offender… . Accordingly, a request for punitive damages can be stated in a case arising from drinking and driving. Furthermore, at this stage it would be premature to conclude that the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to support a claim that the defendant acted so recklessly or wantonly as to warrant an award of punitive damages … Thus, to the extent the plaintiff sought punitive damages in her ad damnum clause, she stated a request for such damages, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss that request for punitive damages insofar as asserted against him was properly denied … . Gershman v Ahmad, 2017 NY Slip Op 09117, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, DAMAGES, DRUNK DRIVING, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (DRUNK DRIVING, NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (NEGLIGENCE, DRUNK DRIVING, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (DRUNK DRIVING, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN NEW YORK, PUNITIVE DAMAGES WERE PROPERLY REQUESTED IN THE AD DAMNUM CLAUSE IN THIS DRUNK DRIVING ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Eng, determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request for a downward departure in this Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment proceeding. Defendant submitted two psychological risk assessments, the Static-99R and the Vermont Assessment, in support of the request for downward departure:

​

To recognize a low or moderate-low score on the Static-99R and/or the Vermont Assessment as a mitigating factor would, in essence, permit SORA courts to rely on those instruments in lieu of the RAI [New York’s Risk Assessment Instrument} promulgated by the Board [of examiners of sex offenders] and designed to account for the specific factors prescribed by the Legislature. This would amount to a rejection of the RAI in favor of assessment instruments that serve the more limited function of attempting to measure risk of reoffense alone, in clear contravention of the legislative intent to require consideration of both risk of reoffense and the danger of harm posed by reoffense … . …

​

Even were we to accept the proposition that the fact that a sex offender received a more favorable assessment on the Static-99R or Vermont Assessment could constitute an appropriate mitigating factor, we would find that the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof in support of his request for a downward departure on this basis. …

​

Our conclusion that an offender’s lower risk score on an alternate risk assessment instrument is not itself a mitigating factor that can support a downward departure does not necessarily mean that an offender cannot rely upon one or more of the individual risk factors included on such instruments to demonstrate that he or she is at a lower risk of reoffense or poses less of a danger to the community. While some of the risk factors included on the Static-99R and Vermont Assessment are also taken into account by the RAI, other risk factors are unique to those instruments. Here, however, the defendant has not identified any specific, unique risk factors on the Static-99R or Vermont Assessment that could qualify as a mitigating factor. People v Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 09184, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) ( DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/MITIGATING FACTORS  (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND 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