You are here: / Trespass
, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS TRESPASS-NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED ACTUAL NOTICE AND LACK OF PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a late notice of claim should have been ​granted. Plaintiff alleged defendant town caused water and debris to drain onto his property causing the foundation of his house to cave in. In finding plaintiff should have been allowed to file a late notice of claim, the court explained the factors that should be considered and the flaws in Supreme Court’s analysis, which focused on the excuse for the delay and the merits of the underlying action. The most important factors are the defendant’s actual notice of the facts of the case within the statutory period and the absence of prejudice:

While a reasonable excuse for the delay is a statutory factor … , it is well settled that “‘the failure to offer a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing a notice of claim is not fatal where actual [knowledge] was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice'” … . Similarly, although Supreme Court was permitted to consider the merits of the underlying claim, leave should only be denied on this basis when the claim is “‘patently meritless'” … , which was not established here.

Upon our consideration of all of the pertinent statutory factors, we find that, although plaintiff did not provide a reasonable excuse for his delay, he adequately set forth proof of actual knowledge and lack of substantial prejudice such that his motion should have been granted. Daprile v Town of Copake, 2017 NY Slip Op 08243, Third Dept 11-22-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS TRESPASS-NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE AND LACK OF PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS TRESPASS-NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE AND LACK OF PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (TRESPASS, NUISANCE, MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS TRESPASS-NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE AND LACK OF PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT))/TRESPASS (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS TRESPASS-NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE AND LACK OF PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT))/NUISANCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS TRESPASS-NUISANCE ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE AND LACK OF PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT))

,

GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT INTENT ELEMENT BECAUSE THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS INCLUDED A KNOWINGLY ELEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the appellate division, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined a Georgia burglary statute was equivalent to a New York violent felony and therefore defendant was properly sentenced as and second violent felony offender. The Georgia statute does not explicitly include intent as an element. However, a lesser included offense (the Georgia criminal trespass statute) in the Georgia includes a “knowingly” element:

​

Under Georgia statutory law, “[a] crime is included in another crime” … — i.e., a crime is a lesser included offense of another crime — when, among other things, “[i]t is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts or a less culpable mental state than is required to establish the commission of the crime charged” … . …

​

Georgia statutory law further provides that “[a] person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority . . . [e]nters upon the land or premises of another person . . . for an unlawful purpose” … . Georgia case law, in turn, provides that criminal trespass is (and was at the time defendant violated the subject Georgia statute) a lesser included offense of burglary … . Inasmuch as the “lesser” Georgia crime of criminal trespass contains a “knowingly” mens rea … , the “entry” component of the “greater” Georgia burglary statute in question … necessarily must have a culpable mental state of at least “knowingly.” In other words, the mental state for the greater crime logically cannot be less than the mental state for the lesser crime and, for the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Georgia crime corresponds to a New York violent felony … . People v Helms, 2017 NY Slip Op 08160, CtApp 11-20-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT INTENT ELEMENT BECAUSE THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS INCLUDED A KNOWINGLY ELEMENT (CT APP))/SENTENCING (SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER, GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT INTENT ELEMENT BECAUSE THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS INCLUDED A KNOWINGLY ELEMENT (CT APP))/SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (SENTENCING, GEORGIA BURGLARY STATUTE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK VIOLENT FELONY DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT INTENT ELEMENT BECAUSE THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS INCLUDED A KNOWINGLY ELEMENT (CT APP))/

,

IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined detaining defendant while the police, after taking the defendant’s ID, checked to see if defendant’s girlfriend lived in an apartment, was not a seizure. Defendant had been seen (by the police) making quick trips in and out of an apartment complex. To determine if defendant was trespassing, the police went to the apartment where defendant said his girlfriend lived. The occupant of the apartment was shown defendant’s ID and denied knowing him. The police then had probable cause to arrest defendant for criminal trespass:

This Court has repeatedly held that in a trespass situation, a police officer may conduct a brief investigation to ascertain whether a defendant’s explanation was credible, and this does not rise to a level three forcible detention or seizure … .

In determining the lawfulness of police encounters, New York has long followed the four-level test illustrated in People v De Bour (40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]). To determine a seizure under De Bour, “[t]he test is whether a reasonable person would have believed, under the circumstances, that the officer’s conduct was a significant limitation on his or her freedom” …. The dissent cannot point to any New York State case applying the De Bour standard to support the broad proposition that a seizure occurs whenever an officer retains a person’s identification. Although the dissent cites to several federal and out-of-state cases, those cases present different factual scenarios compared to the circumstances here, and are not controlling. People v Hill,  2017 NY Slip Op 04236, 1st Dept 5-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/TRESPASS (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOP, (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEIZURE, IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)/SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, (IN A TRESPASS INVESTIGATION, DETAINING DEFENDANT AND RETAINING HIS ID TO CHECK WHETHER HAD, AS HE CLAIMED, VISITED HIS GIRLFRIEND AT A SPECIFIED APARTMENT IN THE COMPLEX WAS NOT A SEIZURE)

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION.

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction for two reasons: (1) the trial judge acceded to defendant’s request that the jury not be instructed on a lesser included offense, and (2) the trial judge, in light of defendant’s behavior during the trial, should have ordered a competency examination:

​

We agree with defendant, however, that he was denied his right to counsel when County Court permitted him, rather than defense counsel, to decide whether to request a jury charge on a lesser included offense. “It is well established that a defendant, having accepted the assistance of counsel, retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions regarding the case’ such as whether to plead guilty, waive a jury trial, testify in his or her own behalf or take an appeal’ ” … . “[D]efense counsel has ultimate decision-making authority over matters of strategy and trial tactics, such as whether to seek a jury charge on a lesser included offense” … . Here, defense counsel requested a charge on the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. After defendant stated that he did not want such a charge, the court noted that defendant’s consent was not required. Nevertheless, defense counsel stated that he was not requesting the charge based on defendant’s decision not to follow his advice. Although defense counsel unequivocally and repeatedly stated that the charge was in defendant’s best interest, and indicated that defendant was declining the charge against defense counsel’s advice, the court abided defendant’s choice and thus “denied [defendant] the expert judgment of counsel to which the Sixth Amendment entitles him” … . …

​

Although a defendant is presumed to be competent … , whenever a court has a ” reasonable ground for believing that a defendant is in such state of idiocy, imbecility or insanity that he is incapable of understanding the charge, indictment or proceedings or of making his defense, it is the duty of the court to direct him to be examined in these respects’ ” … . Here, in light of the nature and frequency of defendant’s outbursts, and the People’s expressed concern about defendant’s competency prior to trial, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in failing to insure that defendant was competent to stand trial … . People v Minckler, 2017 NY Slip Op 03311, 4th Dept 4-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)/COMPETENCY EXAMINATION (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEDED TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY NOT BE INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND, BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE ORDERED A COMPETENCY EXAMINATION)

,

PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grand jury proceedings were defective because of the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the jury on the defense of common ownership. Defendant testified in the grand jury that the property alleged to have been stolen was jointly owned with the complainant, who was a partner in the business. The conviction was reversed in the interest of justice and the indictment was dismissed:

” [A] prosecutor should instruct the Grand Jury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment… .

Viewing the evidence before the grand jury in the light most favorable to the defendant … , we find that there was a reasonable view of the evidence warranting instructions on the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right. Penal Law § 155.00(5) provides that “[a] joint or common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession thereto superior to that of any other joint or common owner thereof.” Consequently, a partner may not be charged with stealing the partnership’s assets from another partner … . Pursuant to Penal Law § 155.15(1) “[i]n any prosecution for larceny committed by trespassory taking or embezzlement, it is an affirmative defense that the property was appropriated under a claim of right made in good faith.” The defendant’s grand jury testimony indicated that the defendant’s relationship with the complaining witness was that of a partner, not an employee … and that the defendant took the funds at issue under a claim of right … . Consequently, the District Attorney’s failure to instruct the grand jury with respect to the definition of joint or common owner and the defense of claim of right so substantially impaired the integrity of the proceedings as to require the dismissal of the indictment … . People v Tunit, 2017 NY Slip Op 03201, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/GRAND JURY (PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/COMMON OWNERSHIP DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

,

DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING FREQUENTED BY TRESPASSERS JUSTIFIED INITIAL QUESTIONING; REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined: (1) the police were justified in following and questioning defendant who “retreated” into an elevator of a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building upon seeing the police; (2) the defendant’s refusal to tell the police whether he lived in the building and a bulge in defendant’s clothing justified pulling up defendant’s sleeve, which revealed the tip of a machete; (3) the show up identification by a recent robbery victim was proper; (4) and remanding a prior conviction for a youthful offender determination  did not affect use of the prior conviction as a predicate felony in the current proceeding. The depth of the discussion of these issues cannot be fairly summarized here. The fact that the NYCHA building was a high crime area and was frequented by trespassers was deemed to justify the initial approach by the police to determine if defendant lived in the building:

 

… [T]he building’s trespass history, together with defendant’s apparently panicked attempt to avoid contact with them upon their attempt to enter the elevator, gave the officers the right to inquire of defendant. * * *

… [D]efendant is entitled to vacatur of his sentence for the earlier assault conviction and to a resentencing that considers whether he qualifies for youthful offender status … . Nevertheless, defendant is not entitled to vacatur of the sentence for the robbery conviction. It is true that, for a prior conviction to serve as a predicate violent felony conviction, “[s]entence upon such prior conviction must have been imposed before commission of the present felony” … . However, we find that a remand for an adjudication of youthful offender status is, for purposes of determining such sequentiality, analogous to a remand for the imposition of postrelease supervision under People v Sparber (10 NY3d 457 [2008]). A Sparber resentencing has been held not to upset sequentiality for purposes of determining whether the conviction for which the remand was ordered can serve as a predicate for multiple felony offender status … . People v Perez, 2016 NY Slip Op 05730, 1st Dept 8-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING FREQUENTED BY TRESPASSERS JUSTIFIED INITIAL QUESTIONING; REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)/STREET STOPS (DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS UPON SEEING THE POLICE IN A HOUSING AUTHORITY BUILDING FREQUENTED BY TRESPASSERS JUSTIFIED INITIAL QUESTIONING)/SENTENCING (REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDERS (REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)/YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION (REMAND OF PRIOR CONVICTION FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION DID NOT ALTER DATE OF THAT CONVICTION FOR PREDICATE-FELONY PURPOSES)

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to defendants in this action alleging trespass and nuisance caused by water runoff:

A landowner will not be liable for damages to abutting property caused by the flow of surface water due to improvements to his or her land, provided that the improvements were made in good faith to make the property fit for some rational use, and that the water was not drained onto the other property by artificial means, such as pipes and ditches … . …

… [P]laintiffs raised triable issues of fact … by adducing evidence, inter alia, that a gutter downspout located on the defendants’ property and a drainage pipe installed under the low point in the defendants’ new driveway diverted rainwater runoff onto the plaintiffs’ properties … . Biaglow v Elite Prop. Holdings, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04373, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

REAL PROPERTY (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE)/TRESPASS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE)/NUISANCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE)/WATER RUNOFF (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE)

,

USE OF MOTION TO REARGUE TO RAISE NEW ISSUES REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Third Department reversed based upon the improper use of a motion to reargue, despite the defendants’ failure to raise the issue. The motion was improperly based upon a theory not raised in the original motion:

 “[A] motion to reargue is not available to advance a new theory of liability, or to present arguments different from those originally asserted” … , but plaintiffs did just that in their motion for reargument, arguing that the installation of the original “[s]ewer [l]ine was no longer an issue” and that the alleged trespass caused by the new sewer line justified a grant of summary judgment. Supreme Court accordingly abused its discretion in granting reargument based upon the presence of the new sewer line, a claim that was not raised by plaintiffs in either their original motion for summary judgment or their complaint … . Wasson v Bond, 2015 NY Slip Op 08900, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO REARGUE, IMPROPER USE OF MOTION REQUIRED REVERSAL)/REARGUE, MOTION TO (IMPROPER USE OF MOTION TO REARGUE REQUIRED REVERSAL)/APPEALS (IMPROPER USE OF MOTION TO REARGUE REQUIRED REVERSAL DESPITE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE)

, ,

BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.

The Third Department determined plaintiff coalition’s declaratory judgment action against the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was properly dismissed. The action contended that the DEC’s response to a comment submitted by plaintiff coalition (re; a gas-well permit under State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] review) constituted an unlawful extension of the common law rule of capture and effectuated a trespass on the land owned by a coalition member. The Third Department determined, because the comment period for the relevant rule-making had passed and the relevant rules had not been adopted, and because whether or not the gas-well permit will be issued has not been determined, the declaratory judgment action did not raise a  justiciable controversy:

Assuming, without deciding, that the statewide ban on hydrofracking does not render all of plaintiffs’ claims moot and, further, that plaintiffs each have standing to maintain this declaratory judgment action, Supreme Court nonetheless properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. As this Court recently reiterated, “[i]n order to warrant a determination of the merits of a cause of action, the party requesting relief must state a justiciable claim — one that is capable of review and redress by the courts at the time it is brought for review. A claim is justiciable, in turn, when two requirements are met: first, that the plaintiff has an interest sufficient to constitute standing to maintain the action and, second, that the underlying controversy involves present, rather than hypothetical, contingent or remote, prejudice to the plaintiff” … . Again, even assuming that plaintiffs have satisfied the standing element of this equation, the fact remains that their entire complaint is predicated upon either (1) defendant’s allegedly improper response to a comment made by the Coalition regarding proposed draft regulations that ultimately were not adopted, or (2) the theoretical consequences of a well bore or fluid fracture penetrating the subsurface of [a plaintiff’s] property. Community Watersheds Clear Water Coalition, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 08890, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/HYDROFRACKING BAN (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)/NATURAL GAS (NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, POTENTIAL ISSUANCE OF GAS DRILLING PERMIT)

,

Police Were Justified In Questioning Defendant’s Presence In Lobby of an Apartment Building Enrolled in the “Trespass Affidavit Program (TAP)”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera (in which Judge Lippman concurred), determined a police officer had the right to question defendant about his presence in the lobby of an apartment building. After defendant stated he did not live in the building and could not identify a resident who invited him there, he was arrested for trespass and a razor blade was seized from his pocket, The building was enrolled in the “trespass affidavit program (TAP)” which was described as a solicitation of police assistance for dealing with trespassers. The police officers entered the building to conduct a floor by floor search for trespassers:

Our analysis begins with the points “that whether police conduct in any particular case conforms to De Bour is a mixed question of law and fact,” and that, in such circumstances, “our review is limited to whether there is evidence in the record supporting the lower courts’ determinations” … . On the merits, our analysis proceeds under the first of the four levels of De Bour, which sets a low bar for an initial encounter: it “permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality” … .

Here the record reflects that the encounter occurred in a private space restricted by signage and a lock, and that police assistance in combating trespassing had been sought through enrollment in the TAP. Put simply, the coupling of defendant’s presence in the subject building with the private and protected nature of that location supports the intrusion giving rise to what became the seizure in question. We conclude that there is record support for the determination that the police had an objective credible reason to request information from defendant … .

In so concluding we note that the police patrol at issue here was intended in part to combat trespassing, that is, “knowingly enter[ing] or remain[ing] unlawfully in or upon a premises” (Penal Law § 140.05), that the building at issue was enrolled in the TAP for the purpose of addressing that problem, and that this branch of the TAP is rooted in tenant protection throughout Manhattan. Under these circumstances a police officer could have identified a trespasser only by requesting information. People v Barksdale, 2015 NY Slip Op 07694, CtApp 10-22-15

 

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