You are here: / Judges
,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT CORRECTLY APPLY THE CRITERIA OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) WHEN CONSIDERING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A MORE LENIENT SENTENCE UNDER THE ACT AND RESENTENCED HER TO TIME SERVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and resentencing defendant to time served, determined County Court did not comply with the criteria of the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) when considering defendant’s motion for resentencing under the act. Defendant had been convicted of killing her paramour and was sentenced to ten years in prison:

The DVSJA, in recognition of the profound and pervasive trauma suffered by victims of substantial abuse, permits courts to impose more lenient sentences in certain cases where a victim of domestic violence commits crimes against his or her abuser or as a result of that abuse … . * * *

… [T]he court misapplied the language of Penal Law § 60.12 (1) (a) by requiring that the abuse occur “at the time of the instant offense.” Indeed, such temporal argument would inherently invoke the defenses of duress or justification, however, the legislative history makes it clear that the DVSJA was enacted to address shortfalls in each of those defenses, “as victims of abuse may not be psychologically or socially capable of invoking such defenses at the time of their trials, due to their victimization and its impact on them” … . * * *

… County Court found that the abuse suffered by defendant “was a factor” in her commission of the crime, but failed to conclude as to whether it was a “significant contributing factor” as is required under the statute. Moreover, the court did not articulate a factual basis for its finding in this regard. * * *

… [T]he DVSJA, Penal Law § 60.12 (1) (c) expressly provides that a determination as to whether a standard sentence would be “unduly harsh” is to be made in consideration of the “the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history, character and condition of the defendant.” Although the court’s written decision notes defendant’s age, lack of criminal history and the fact that she is the mother of two children, no discussion is devoted to these circumstances or what weight they should be afforded in considering her resentencing application. People v Liz L., 2023 NY Slip Op 06008, Third Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: The criteria for resentencing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) discussed in some detail.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO SCHEDULE VISITATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the judge should not have delegated the court’s authority to schedule visitation:

… Family Court improperly granted the grandfather and the father of the older child sole authority to determine the dates for at least four consecutive days of visitation in the months of July and August. Allowing the grandfather and the father of the older child to determine periods of summer visitation for the children without the agreement of the mother, the custodial parent, constitutes “an improper delegation of authority” … . In view of the sparse state of the record, as well as the passage of time since the entry of the orders on appeal, we remit solely for the purpose of Family Court setting a schedule for the summer visitation. Matter of Daniel RR. v Heather RR., 2023 NY Slip Op 06011, Third Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: Here the court should not have delegated the authority to schedule visitation to grandfather and father without the agreement of mother, the custodial parent.

 

, ,

THE SENTENCE FOR MANSLAUGHTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BASED UPON THE INTENT TO KILL WHICH IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME; THE SENTENCES FOR MANSLAUGHTER AND POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED CONSECUTIVELY; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for resentencing, determined the judge improperly based the sentence for manslaughter on the belief defendant intended to kill the victim. Intent to kill is not an element of manslaughter. It is an element of murder second degree. Defendant was acquitted of murder second degree. In addition, the judge should not have imposed consecutive sentences for manslaughter and possession of a weapon:

… [T]he court improperly based the sentence on the manslaughter conviction on its stated belief that defendant intended to kill the victim. Intent to kill is an element of murder in the second degree, of which defendant was acquitted, and not manslaughter in the first degree, of which defendant was convicted … . Because the sentence was based on conduct of which defendant had been acquitted, resentencing on the manslaughter conviction is required … . Although defendant’s challenge to this sentence is unpreserved, we reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice power … .

… [t]he imposition of consecutive sentences on the conviction for manslaughter and the conviction for simple possession of a weapon under Penal Law § 265.03(3) was improper. The sentences should have run concurrently, since the People did not demonstrate that the act of weapon possession was separate from the act of manslaughter … . There was no evidence presented at the trial establishing that defendant possessed the firearm before shooting the victim  … . People v Anonymous, 2023 NY Slip Op 05990, First Dept 11-21-23

Practice Point: The defendant was acquitted of second degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. The judge erroneously sentence defendant based on the belief defendant intended to kill the victim. But intent to kill is not an element of manslaughter. Resentencing was required.

Practice Point: There was no evidence the possession of a weapon by defendant was separate from the conduct underlying the manslaughter conviction. Therefore the sentences should not have been imposed consecutively.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE INVENTORY SEARCH AND THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY HE DEEMED PREJUDICIAL, AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO NEW YORK’S WEAPONS-POSSESSION REGIME REJECTED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissent, rejected defendant’s challenges to the inventory search and to purported prejudicial testimony allowed by the trial judge. Defendant’s constitutional challenge to New York’s weapons-possession regime rejected as unpreserved:

Defendant Carlos L. David challenges his conviction for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) on several grounds. He argues that the police recovered the handguns that gave rise to his conviction during an invalid inventory search, and that Supreme Court improperly allowed prejudicial testimony at his trial. Neither argument provides grounds for reversal. David additionally argues that Penal Law § 265.03 (3) is facially unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 (2022). This argument is unpreserved, and for the reasons set forth below, we do not reach it. People v David, 2023 NY Slip Op 05970, CtApp 11-21-23

Practice Point: The constitutional challenges to New York’s weapons-possession regime rejected as unpreserved.

 

,

HERE PETITIONERS’ HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE AND THE COURT-ORDERED APPRAISAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WAS SET ASIDE THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE PETITIONERS; THE PETITIONERS WERE THEN ENTITLED TO SUE TO SEEK FULL RECOVERY UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED FURTHER APPRAISAL PROCEEDINGS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that once the appraisal award was set aside through no fault of the petitioner-insureds further appraisal proceedings should not have been ordered by the judge. Petitioners’ home was destroyed by fire and the insurer valued the loss at $370,000. The petitioners then demanded an appraisal which was ordered by the court. Once the appraisal was set aside through no fault of the petitioners, the petitioners were free to bring a plenary action to sue on the insurance policy:

… [T]he court erred in remitting the appraisal to the umpire and appraisers for further deliberations. It is well settled that “after an appraisal proceeding has terminated in an award and the award has been set aside, without any fault on the part of the insured[s], [they] need not submit to any further appraisement but may sue on the policy” … . Here, it is undisputed that the court set aside the appraisal award due to errors made by the court-appointed umpire—i.e., not due to any fault of petitioners. Consequently, the court could not properly compel petitioners to participate in further appraisal proceedings … . Indeed, we note that petitioners are now entitled to pursue a plenary action in Supreme Court seeking full recovery on their insurance claim under the policy … . Matter of Stanz v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 05832, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here there was a court-ordered appraisal to determine the amount of the loss from the destruction of the insureds’ home by fire. The judge set aside the appraisal because of errors made by the umpire. At that point the insureds were entitled to bring a plenary action for full recovery under the fire insurance policy. The judge should not have ordered further appraisal proceedings.

 

, ,

FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; THE MATTER MUST BE SENT BACK FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back for a ruling, noted that the failure to rule on motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial which can be raised on appeal.  People v Keane, 2023 NY Slip Op 05915, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER WITHOUT A HEARING DEMONSTRATING THE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge should have granted defendant’s request for a hearing before sentencing defendant as a persistent violent felony offender. There had been no determination whether the criteria for sentencing as a persistent violent felony offender (at least two sentences for violent felonies within the last 10 years) had been met:

Although defendant admitted at sentencing that he had been convicted of the prior violent felony offenses alleged in the People’s persistent violent felony offender statement, defendant did not concede that he had been sentenced on at least two of those violent felonies within 10 years prior to the commission of the instant offense, and the People’s statement did not set forth the commencement date, termination date, and place of imprisonment for each period of incarceration to be used for tolling of the ten-year limitation as required by CPL 400.15 (2). Moreover, as the People correctly concede, the record does not include a specific finding by the court regarding whether there was sufficient incarceration tolling for defendant’s prior violent felony convictions to count as predicate convictions. People v Scott, 2023 NY Slip Op 05900, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s request for a hearing to determine whether the criteria for sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender should have been granted.

 

, ,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED PRIMARILY UPON INCREASED TRAVEL TIME BECAUSE OF MOTHER’S MOVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MAJORITY NOTED MANY REASONING ERRORS AND ORDERED A NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT) ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined father’s petition for a modification of the custody arrangement based upon mother’s move and the consequent increase in travel times should not have been dismissed. The matter was sent back for a new fact-finding hearing before a different judge:

Applying the correct standard at this procedural stage — providing the father the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all credibility questions in his favor … — the father’s proof sufficiently established that, since the entry of the 2012 order, the mother had moved to a different county, which move significantly increased the time and distance required to effectuate custodial exchanges, and that, in the nine years since said order, the mother routinely refused to agree to holiday parenting time for the father. Consequently, the father demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss … . Matter of Shayne FF. v Julie GG., 2023 NY Slip Op 05767, Third Dept 11-16-23

Practice Point: Increased travel time because of mother’s move supported father’s petition for a modification of custody. The majority found many reasoning errors and ordered a new hearing before a different judge. A two-justice dissent argued the petition was properly dismissed.

 

, ,

THE MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER THE EMPLOYER OF THE DRIVER WHO REAR-ENDED PLAINTIFF WAS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHED THE RECORD AND AWARDED PLAINTIFF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE EMPLOYER OF THE DRIVER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in this traffic-accident case, determined Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, searched the record to award plaintiff summary judgment. The motion before the court was brought by the owner of the car which rear-ended plaintiff, Piard, against the employer of the driver of Piard’s car, Y & H. Piard alleged she did not give Y & H permission to drive the car outside of Y & H’s garage and sought summary judgment on that ground. The court improperly searched the record and awarded plaintiff summary judgment against Y & H:

… [T]he motion court erred in searching the record and granting summary judgment to plaintiff on plaintiff’s claim against Y&H. A motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense … . Here, the only issues raised with respect to defendant Piard’s motion and plaintiff’s cross-motion were defendant Piard’s liability and plaintiff’s comparative fault. The court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff based on co-defendant’s Y&H’s liability. Christopher v Piard, 2023 NY Slip Op 05787, First Dept 11-16-23

Practice Point: There are limits on a court’s power to search the record and, sua sponte, award summary judgment. Here the motions before the court did not address whether the employer of the driver of the car which rear-ended plaintiff was liable to plaintiff. Rather the motions addressed whether the owner of the car had given permission to the employer of the driver to use her car. The motion court should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to plaintiff against the employer of the driver of the car.

 

,

IN A PROCEEDING INTERRUPTED BY COVID THE JUDGE RULED ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD AND MOTHER’S CROSS-PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY WITHOUT COMPLETING THE HEARING; REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this custody proceeding, determined the judge should not have ruled on father’s petition to locate with the child to New Jersey and mother’s cross-petition for sole custody without completing the hearing:

“Custody determinations . . . require a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the material facts and circumstances in order to permit the court to ascertain the optimal result for the child” … . Accordingly, “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “[W]here . . . facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a custody hearing is required” … . Here, the Family Court erred in making a final custody determination without completing the hearing on the father’s petition and the mother’s cross-petition in order to determine what arrangement was in the best interests of the child … . Matter of Janvier v Santana-Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 05732 Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: In the midst of COVID the judge ruled on father’s petition to relocate with the child and mother’s cross-petition for sole custody without completing the related hearing. Reversed.

 

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy