You are here: / Criminal Law
,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea in the interest of justice, determined the defendant was not sufficiently informed of the rights he was giving up by entering a plea:

​

“When a defendant opts to plead guilty, he [or she] must waive certain constitutional rights — the privilege against self-incrimination and the rights to a jury trial and to be confronted by witnesses”… . “While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights”… .. The Court of Appeals has made clear that the trial judge has the responsibility to ensure that the defendant fully understands the plea and its consequences … .  During the plea colloquy, County Court did not reference the privilege against self-incrimination or the right to be confronted by witnesses and, although defendant was advised of his right to a trial, the court did not specify a jury trial. “We cannot conclude that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent as there was neither an affirmative showing on the record that defendant waived his constitutional rights nor any indication that he consulted with his attorney about the constitutional consequences of a guilty plea” … . People v Cotto, 2017 NY Slip Op 08759, Third Dept 12-14-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITHIN STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Sgroi, determined that a detained sex offender, Kerry K, was entitled to a new civil commitment trial on the issue of mental abnormality and, if necessary, a new dispositional hearing. The finding that Kerry K suffered from a mental abnormality was based in part on hearsay about a conviction which had been vacated based upon DNA evidence (after defendant served 11 years in prison). The Second Department further held that the fact that the probable cause hearing and trial did not occur within the statutory time-frames was not a jurisdictional defect or a violation of due process. And the fact that sealed criminal records were relied upon by the state’s experts was deemed proper:

​

… [T]he failure to conduct the probable cause hearing and trial within the statutory time frames did not deprive the court of jurisdiction or, under the circumstances, violate Kerry K.’s due process rights. … Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(c) permits the State to obtain, from local government entities, sealed records relating to an offender’s commission or alleged commission of a sex offense. … [W]e conclude that the court erred in admitting the hearsay basis testimony regarding convictions of which Kerry K. was exonerated … . * * *

The experts’ testimony about the vacated 1982 convictions … did not satisfy the reliability and relevance requirements for admission of hearsay basis evidence. As the Court of Appeals has observed, “unlike adjudications and admissions of guilt, an acquittal cannot provide the basis for reliability” … . Further, “[c]harges that resulted in acquittal are surely more prejudicial than probative on the question of the respondent’s mental abnormality” … . Thus, “acquittal of criminal charges bars admission of those accusations, absent some other basis to substantiate them” … .

In the present case, the information regarding the 1982 convictions was even less reliable and relevant than information concerning charges of which a respondent has merely been acquitted. An acquittal on a particular charge indicates that the People were unable to prove the defendant’s guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, in contrast, the 1982 convictions were vacated, on consent of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, based on the results of DNA testing conducted by Kerry K.’s and the State’s experts, and Kerry K. later affirmatively proved his innocence by clear and convincing evidence … . Thus, it was error to permit the State’s experts to testify about the 1982 convictions, and this error deprived Kerry K. of due process … . Matter of State of New York v Kerry K., 2017 NY Slip Op 08671, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITH STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL COMMITMENT, STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITH STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDERS (CIVIL COMMITMENT, STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITH STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL COMMITMENT (SEX OFFENDERS STATE’S EXPERTS SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF CONVICTIONS WHICH WERE VACATED BASED UPON DNA EVIDENCE, NEW MENTAL ABNORMALITY TRIAL ORDERED, SEALED CRIMINAL RECORDS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, FAILURE HOLD PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING AND TRIAL WITH STATUTORY TIME FRAMES DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s rape conviction, determined Supreme Court should have ordered the victim’s psychiatric records for an in camera review for relevance:

​

Prior to trial, the People disclosed that the victim had indicated that she had received treatment for bipolar disorder and depression and, further, produced a copy of the medical record from the sexual assault examination that was conducted on the day after the incident in which the victim had also reported a past medical history of “bipolar” and that she was taking prescription medications for that condition. Defendant requested that the court issue a subpoena duces tecum to obtain the victim’s mental health records and conduct an in camera review to ascertain whether they contained any information relevant and material to the victim’s credibility. …

​

Supreme Court erred when it declined to order production of the victim’s mental health records and to review them in camera. Inasmuch as those records were never produced and were not part of the record, we are unable to remit the matter for a reconstruction hearing … . Moreover, without knowing the content of those records, we are unable to determine whether the information that they contain is merely cumulative to the information provided to defendant about the victim’s mental health history that was used as a basis for cross-examination, or whether the records contain additional relevant and material information bearing on her credibility. Similarly, our lack of knowledge of the contents of the victim’s mental health records precludes us from determining whether the court’s error in this regard was harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the matter remitted for a new trial. People v Kiah, 2017 NY Slip Op 08752, Third Dept 12-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/PSYCHIATRIC RECORD (CRIMINAL LAW, RAPE TRIAL, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/IN CAMERA REVIEW (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC RECORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/VICTIM PSYCHIATRIC RECORD (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, RAPE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/RAPE (EVIDENCE, PSYCHIATRIC RECORD, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PSYCHIATRIC RECORD,  SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED AND REVIEWED THE VICTIM’S PSYCHIATRIC FILE IN THIS RAPE PROSECUTION, NO OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLATE REVIEW, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))

,

ABSENCE OF A SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF INDICTMENT REQUIRED BY THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s guilty plea because the record did not include a signed written waiver of indictment, as required by the NYS Constitution:

​

… [T]he record on appeal does not contain a signed waiver of the defendant’s right to be prosecuted by an indictment. Although a written waiver of indictment appears in the record, it was not signed by the defendant. Furthermore, contrary to the People’s contention, although the transcript of the plea proceedings indicates that the defendant signed a document denominated as a written indictment waiver, that reference in the transcript alone is insufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a waiver of indictment “be evidenced by written instrument signed by the defendant” … . Since the failure to comply with this constitutional requirement amounts to a jurisdictional defect in the plea proceedings … . People v Eulo, 2017 NY Slip Op 08684, Second Dept 12-13-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT, ABSENCE OF A SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF INDICTMENT REQUIRED BY THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW  (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT, ABSENCE OF A SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF INDICTMENT REQUIRED BY THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT))/INDICTMENT, WAIVER OF (ABSENCE OF A SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER OF INDICTMENT REQUIRED BY THE NYS CONSTITUTION IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT)

PAROLE PROPERLY RESCINDED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S BEHAVIOR AT THE RESCISSION HEARING AND VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS PROVIDED AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN RELEASED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner-inmate’s release on parole was properly rescinded based upon his behavior at the rescission hearing and victim impact statements. The victim’s family had not be notified of the initial parole hearing and therefore had not submitted victim impact statement prior to petitioner’s release:

​

In October 1995, petitioner approached a vehicle at the end of his driveway that contained his friend Steven Sedore and petitioner’s ex-wife, who were there to pick up the daughter of petitioner and his ex-wife. Petitioner shot and killed Sedore as he sat in the vehicle, and viciously attacked his ex-wife, causing serious injuries. Petitioner ultimately pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and attempted manslaughter in the first degree and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 20 to 40 years. …

​

… [W]e disagree with Supreme Court’s finding that respondent improperly relied upon these statements solely because they were submitted after his open release date had been set. The court based this determination upon the Court of Appeals’ decision in Matter of Costello v New York State Bd. of Parole (23 NY3d 1002 [2014]), in which the Court concluded that respondent improperly rescinded a parole release based upon information in victim impact statements that had been submitted after it had set an open release date … . … [W]e do not interpret the Court’s decision as precluding respondent from ever considering victim impact statements submitted after an open release date has been granted in determining whether parole should be rescinded … .

The victim impact statements at issue were submitted by three of Sedore’s sisters and a brother-in-law. One of the sisters had already provided an impact statement at petitioner’s sentencing hearing, but the other family members had not done so. The statements submitted by the other sisters referenced specific threats that petitioner had made to them — including during sentencing where he allegedly pointed his finger at one sister and mouthed the words “you are dead,” and also ran his finger across his throat while looking at the family. One of the sisters also stated that petitioner sent her letters and a get well card from prison when she was in the hospital, which made her feel uncomfortable knowing that “he knew everything that was going on in my life.” These incidents, which had not previously been disclosed, constitute “significant information” and provide substantial evidence supporting respondent’s rescission of parole … . Matter of Thorn v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2017 NY Slip Op 08566, Third Dept 12-7-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE PROPERLY RESCINDED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S BEHAVIOR AT THE RESCISSION HEARING AND VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS PROVIDED AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN RELEASED (THIRD DEPT))/PAROLE (RESCISSION, PAROLE PROPERLY RESCINDED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S BEHAVIOR AT THE RESCISSION HEARING AND VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS PROVIDED AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN RELEASED (THIRD DEPT))/VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS (PAROLE PROPERLY RESCINDED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S BEHAVIOR AT THE RESCISSION HEARING AND VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS PROVIDED AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN RELEASED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial judge should have granted the People’s application to relieve defense counsel. Defense counsel had interviewed a prosecution witness alone. During the interview the witness had recanted his identification of the defendant as the shooter. Defendant wanted defense counsel to continue representing him but did not waive the conflict:

​

… [D]efense counsel’s actions of interviewing the prosecution’s main witness alone and being the only person who could testify to the witness’s recantation of his identification of the defendant as a shooter created an actual conflict of interest. Defense counsel was faced with the choice of testifying on behalf of his client, which would result in his disqualification, or not presenting evidence of an exculpatory statement … . Under the circumstances, especially in light of the defendant’s refusal to waive any conflict, the County Court erred in denying the People’s application to relieve defense counsel. People v Lawrence, 2017 NY Slip Op 08538, Second Dept 12-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, , THE FACT THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO HEARD A PROSECUTION WITNESS RECANT HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PEOPLE’S APPLICATION TO RELIEVE DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

SUBSTANTIAL PAIN ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the proof of the “substantial pain” element of assault third was sufficient to support conviction:

​

The verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence … . There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The jury reasonably believed that defendant intended to forcibly take the victim’s property when he hit the victim in the head and immediately grabbed at his pocket … .

There was also ample proof of physical injury, because the victim testified that due to the severe pain in his mouth, it was difficult for him to open his mouth for two days, and he could not eat during that time… .. The statutory element of “substantial pain” may be satisfied by relatively minor injuries causing moderate, but “more than slight or trivial pain”…, even in the absence of any medical treatment … . People v Cordero, 2017 NY Slip Op 08466, First Dept 12-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ASSAULT, SUBSTANTIAL PAIN ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT (CRIMINAL LAW, SUBSTANTIAL PAIN, SUBSTANTIAL PAIN ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/SUBSTANTIAL PAIN (ASSAULT THIRD, SUBSTANTIAL PAIN ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, SUBSTANTIAL PAIN ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined defendant’s attorney’s conflict of interest deprived defendant of effective assistance of counsel and, upon retrial, the testimony which resulted from the conflict can not be presented:

 

In this observation drug sale case, defendant, an alleged seller, was appointed the same attorney at his Criminal Court arraignment as Edward Jones, one of the alleged buyers. During the course of counsel’s simultaneous representation of defendant and Jones, Jones accepted a plea that required him to allocute to a description of one of the drug sellers. Jones allocuted to a description fitting defendant, and testified consistently with the allocution as a prosecution witness at trial. Since we find that counsel’s simultaneous representation of defendant at the time of Jones’s plea constituted an actual conflict, we reverse and remand for a new trial. In addition, because Jones’s testimony is interwoven with a violation of defendant’s New York State and Federal right to the effective assistance of counsel, we preclude the People from using Jones’s testimony at any retrial. * * *

​

During cross-examination, Jones admitted that he did tell the Assistant District Attorney, in his office, that defendant did not sell him crack cocaine. During redirect, Jones explained that he believed he did not have to tell the prosecutor the truth in his office, but that, now that he was under oath, he was “not going to perjure [him]self. . . .” * * *

​

Here, defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel was infringed by an actual conflict. At the time of their simultaneous representation and Jones’s plea, the interests of defendant and Jones were clearly opposed. Jones had an interest in avoiding a criminal conviction by allocuting to identify defendant as one of the people who had sold him drugs. Defendant had an interest in not being so identified. Counsel was thus placed in the “very awkward position of a lawyer subject to conflicting demands” … . Indeed, despite defendant’s right to representation by an attorney single-mindedly devoted to his best interests, counsel pursued a strategy in Jones’s case directly at odds with defending defendant from the drug sale charges that he faced … .. After swearing to a description of one of the sellers that fit defendant, Jones became unavailable to defendant as a trial witness and his strength as a prosecution witness was enhanced … . Counsel’s actions with respect to Jones were inconsistent with representing defendant in the best way possible, so defendant was denied the “right to receive advice and assistance from an attorney whose paramount responsibility is to that defendant alone” … . People v Peters, 2017 NY Slip Op 08497, First Dept 12-5-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CONFLICT, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE,  DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, CONFLICT, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, EVIDENCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/CONFLICT OF INTEREST (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTED BOTH DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT, CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, EVIDENCE ELICITED CAN NOT BE USED AT SECOND TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the state was obligated to defendant the petitioner, a corrections officer, in a civil action brought by an inmate against the petitioner. The state argued its obligation to defend the petitioner ended when petitioner pled guilty to official misconduct. The court found that the sparse plea allocution did not indicate the acts alleged in the civil complaint were outside the scope of petitioner’s employment, the allegations in the bill of particulars could not be used to supplement the plea allocution, and the plea did not address at all some of the allegations in the civil complaint:

​

As is the case in the private insurance realm, the state’s determination to disclaim financial responsibility for an employee’s defense is rational only if it can be determined, as a matter of law, “that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which the [s]tate may be obligated to indemnify the employee” … . Pursuant to Public Officers Law § 17 (3) (a), the state has an obligation to indemnify its employees for any judgment or settlement obtained against them in state or federal court, so long as “the act or omission from which [the] judgment or settlement arose occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his [or her] public employment or duties” and “the injury or damage [did not] result[] from intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employee.” Stated differently, the state will not have a duty to indemnify an employee if the act or omission giving rise to the civil judgment or settlement occurred outside the scope of his or her employment or was the product of intentional wrongdoing … .

Generally, “a particular issue expressly or necessarily decided in a criminal proceeding may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent affected civil action” if “the issue is identical in both actions, necessarily decided in the prior criminal action[,] . . . decisive in the civil action [and the defendant in the criminal action] had a full and fair opportunity . . . to litigate the now-foreclosed issue” … . Contrary to respondent’s contentions, neither petitioner’s plea allocution nor the elements of official misconduct preclusively established that the acts alleged in the civil complaint occurred while petitioner was acting outside the scope of his employment or that the injuries or damages allegedly sustained by [the inmate] were the result of petitioner’s intentional wrongdoing … . Matter of Rademacher v Schneiderman, 2017 NY Slip Op 08416, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT (CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW,  CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))/CORRECTIONS OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT LAW, PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATION TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the trial court’s finding that an oral agreement concerning the repayment of a $170,000 loan was enforceable, because the loan could have been paid off within a year (re: the statute of frauds). Both plaintiff and defendant were bookmakers who had been convicted of promoting gambling. The fact that plaintiff refused to answer questions about whether he paid income tax on the proceeds, based upon the Fifth Amendment, did not affect the result because there was nothing illegal about the loan agreement itself. The two dissenters argued the parties were engaged in money laundering and the loan agreement should not be enforced as a matter of public policy:

​

We are mindful that plaintiff testified that the source of the loan proceeds was cash obtained through his illegal bookmaking activities. Indeed, both plaintiff and defendant were convicted of promoting gambling and required to pay fines in the amount of $100,000 and $50,000, respectively. Although plaintiff asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when asked whether he ever reported the cash as income, we are not persuaded by defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in failing to draw a negative inference because the source and/or taxable status of the funds was not probative of the issue presented. According due deference to Supreme Court’s credibility assessments, we find ample evidence to support the determination that plaintiff and defendant agreed to the loan that defendant breached by failing to make all of the payments due… . Contrary to defendant’s argument, because there was nothing prohibiting defendant from repaying the loan within one year, the statute of frauds did not bar enforcement of the oral agreement … .

We also find that defendant waived his right to challenge the loan on the basis of illegality because it was not raised as an affirmative defense … . Were we to consider the issue, we would find that, because neither the agreement nor the performance of the agreement was illegal, the judgment was enforceable … . Centi v McGillin, 2017 NY Slip Op 08430, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, DEBTOR-CREDITOR, ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, MONEY LAUNDERING, ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (THIRD DEPT))/MONEY LAUNDERING (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, CONTRACT LAW, (ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO BOOKMAKERS FOR REPAYMENT OF A $170,000 LOAN ENFORCEABLE, DESPITE THE MONEY-LAUNDERING PURPOSE (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