You are here: / Judges
, ,

People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration Consequences of a Guilty Plea, Is Not Applied Retroactively

The Second Department determined that People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), which requires that defendant’s be informed of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, would not be applied retroactively:

The defendant’s conviction became final prior to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), in which the Court of Appeals held that courts were required to advise defendants of the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant contends that Peque should be applied retroactively. This contention is without merit.

Previously, in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel were under a duty to advise noncitizen defendants of the deportation risks of their pleas of guilty. It is now settled that the Padilla decision does not apply retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings … . For the same reasons, we decline to give retroactive application to Peque, which, like Padilla, concerns the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty, and “rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution” … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 07685, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

Mandamus to Compel Judge to Decide Motions Proper

The Second Department determined mandamus was the proper vehicle to compel a judge to decide pending motions:

“Mandamus will lie to compel the determination of a motion” … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought … . Accordingly, the petition must be granted insofar as asserted against the respondent …, and that respondent is directed to issue written orders within 30 days of this decision and judgment determining the four fully submitted motions pending in the underlying action … . Matter of Liang v Hart, 2015 NY Slip Op 07502, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

, ,

Upward Departure from Level One to Three Not Warranted by the Evidence

The Second Department reversed the SORA court, finding that the People did not prove by clear and convincing evidence an upward departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted. The upward departure was erroneously based upon defendant’s psychiatric history, the place of the offense (a group home), a parole violation ten years before the sex offense and two older bench warrants. The court explained the “upward departure” analytical criteria and reduced the defendant’s risk level from three (the highest) to one (the lowest):

Once the presumptive risk level has been established at a risk level hearing, the court is permitted to depart from it if “special circumstances” warrant a departure … . An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, “that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] [G]uidelines” … . In determining whether an upward departure is permissible and, if permissible, appropriate, the court must engage in a three-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. Next, the court must determine whether the People have established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the presence of that factor in the case before it. Upon the People’s satisfaction of these two requirements, an upward departure becomes discretionary. If, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the court concludes that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk or danger of reoffense, it may upwardly depart from that risk level … . If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … .

Here, the People did not meet their burden at the hearing. The People contended that the defendant’s psychiatric history and the fact that the defendant’s sex offense was committed in a group home constituted aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines. The People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s psychiatric history was related to his risk of reoffense … . Additionally, they failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the particular setting of the defendant’s crime was an aggravating factor not taken into account under the Guidelines … . Finally, as the defendant contends, the court erred in sua sponte basing its decision to depart from the presumptive risk level on his parole violation occurring 10 years before he committed the sex offense and on two bench warrants, issued 14 and 18 years before he committed the sex offense. Those grounds for departure had never been raised, and the defendant was never afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether they were proper grounds for departure … . In any event, it was not established by clear and convincing evidence that those circumstances were relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense … . People v Manougian, 2015 NY Slip Op 07484, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

, ,

Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal

The Fourth Department noted that the court’s failure to advise the non-citizen defendant of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea required that the case be remitted to afford the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea:

We agree with defendant, a noncitizen, that County Court failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his felony plea, as required by People v Peque (22 NY3d 168). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea based upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known that he faced the risk of being deported as a result of the plea (id. at 176…). People v Traverso, 2015 NY Slip Op 07376, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Warranted

The Second Department, in reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure action on “lack of standing” grounds, noted that the “lack of standing” defense was waived by the defendants (not raised in answer), sua sponte dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defect. The court explained:

“The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing. ‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Since the defendants … did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint …”. FCDB FF1 2008-1 Trust v Videjus, 2015 NY Slip Op 06777, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

, ,

Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply to a Horse Barn Used for Commercial Purposes Despite Presence of an Apartment in the Barn

The Second Department determined the “homeowner’s exception” to the applicability of the Labor Law did not apply to a barn used to house horses for commercial purposes, even though the barn included an apartment used by one of the horse farm’s shareholders. The court also noted that the “recalcitrant worker” affirmative defense should not have been dismissed “sua sponte” in the absence of a motion to dismiss it.  With respect to the homeowner’s exception, the court explained:

“… [T]he plaintiff met his prima facie burden of demonstrating that he was not performing work at a residence within the meaning of the homeowner’s exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . Among other things, the plaintiff demonstrated that the defendant described itself as “essentially . . . a business for keeping horses,” its owners were extensively involved in both keeping and racing horses, and approximately eight horses were boarded at the subject property at the time of the accident. The plaintiff’s submissions also established that when the defendant corporation originally purchased the subject property, the large barn was in a state of disrepair. The defendant renovated the large barn and added many improvements to the property, including multiple paddocks, an additional barn, and an “Equicisor,” a “72-foot circular automated horse exercising machine.” One of the defendant’s shareholders described the apartment in the rear of the barn as a part-time “office residence” where he might stay a ‘few days’ per week, although the amount of time he stayed varied depending on the season and the horse racing schedule. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant’s boarding stable, which was used primarily for commercial purposes, did not constitute a residence within the meaning of the homeowner’s exemption …”. Rossi v Flying Horse Farm, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 06798, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

,

Supreme Court Erred When It Ruled Plaintiff Had “Defaulted” on Its Summary Judgment Motion by Failing to Appear for Oral Argument

The First Department affirmed the denial of plaintiff’s summary judgment on the merits in a breach of contract action. However, the First Department noted that the alternative ground for Supreme Court’s ruling, i.e., that plaintiff had “defaulted” on its motion by failing to appear for oral argument, was not appropriate:

We find … that Supreme Court erred in finding that plaintiff had “default[ed]” on this motion. We fail to perceive the conduct that constituted plaintiff’s default. It was plaintiff who submitted the motion for summary judgment. Typically, a motion for summary judgment can be readily decided on the papers unless oral argument is mandated by the motion court as “necessary.” Nothing in the record before us suggests that the parties were on notice that oral argument was indispensable for resolution of plaintiff’s motion. Indeed, when Supreme Court ultimately rendered its decision on the record, counsel for both parties were present. Under the circumstances, Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law by disposing of the motion on the procedural ground sua sponte imposed by the court. All State Flooring Distribs., L.P. v MD Floors, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06751, 1st Dept 9-8-15

 

,

County Court Should Not Have Dismissed the Indictment on a Ground Not Raised by the Defendant Without Giving the People the Opportunity to Address the Issue

After reviewing the grand jury testimony, County Court dismissed the indictment on a ground (the complainant’s lack of testimonial capacity) not raised in defendant’s omnibus motion.  The Second Department reversed because the People had not been given the opportunity to address the issue:

In an omnibus motion, the defendant sought, inter alia, to dismiss the indictment on the general grounds that the grand jury proceedings were defective and that the charges were not supported by legally sufficient evidence before the grand jury. The County Court, upon its own examination of the grand jury minutes, determined, sua sponte, that there was an issue as to the complainant’s testimonial capacity, and dismissed the indictment on the ground that the complainant lacked testimonial capacity.

The County Court erred in dismissing the indictment based upon a specific defect in the grand jury proceedings not raised by the defendant, without affording the People notice of the specific defect and an opportunity to respond. A motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the People (see CPL 210.45[1]). Moreover, “orderly procedures require that the People be given the opportunity to address any alleged defects prior to dismissal of an indictment”… . People v Coleman, 2015 NY Slip Op 06676, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

, ,

“Lack of Standing” Defense Waived by Not Asserting It In the Answer—“Lack of Standing” Not a Jurisdictional Defect—Sua Sponte Dismissal for “Lack of Standing” Not Warranted

In reversing Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff-bank’s unopposed motions in a foreclosure action, the Second Department noted that defendant homeowner had waived the “lack of standing” defense by not asserting it in her answer, and, in any event, “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defense for which the court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint was warranted:

The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for the plaintiff’s lack of standing. A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal … . Here, the court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. [The homeowner] had waived the defense of lack of standing by failing to assert it in her amended answer, which she withdrew in any event, the State waived the defense by serving and filing a limited notice of appearance, and the remaining defendants waived the defense by failing to appear or answer… . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v Holmes, 2015 NY Slip Op 06662, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

,

Judge’s Failure to Recuse Himself Was an Abuse of Discretion/Plaintiffs’ Failure to Comply with a Condition Precedent Mandated Summary Judgment to Defendants

The Third Department determined the judge hearing a case concerning the construction of a casino and resort should have recused himself. The judge’s wife was in the county legislature and had voiced support of defendants’ position. In his decision granting summary judgment to the defendants, the judge stated to do otherwise would “violate public policy,” an issue which was not properly part of the case before him. However, the Third Department went on to consider the merits of the case. Plaintiffs’ failure to meet a condition precedent (concerning the financing of the project) by the specified date was an unambiguous breach of the contract, mandating summary judgment in favor of the defendants:

Considering the irrelevancy of [the judge’s] comments to the issues before the court and the parallels between them and the public comments of [his wife] in support of [defendants’] casino proposal, [the judge’s] inclusion of such inherently legislative and policy considerations as a basis for his order displays a striking lack of “sensitivity to the aroma of favoritism [that] such a favorable disposition could engender” … . Under the circumstances, it seems to us that [the judge] should have recognized that this was a situation in which his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (22 NYCRR 100.3 [E] [1]), and, therefore, we must conclude that his failure to recuse himself constituted a clear abuse of discretion … . Concord Assoc., L.P. v EPT Concord, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06393, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

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