You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

Assault and Robbery Committed by Separate Acts Involving the Same Victim–Consecutive Sentences Justified

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a two-judge dissent, determined defendant was properly sentenced consecutively for robbery and assault.  The defendant first demanded that the victim turn over a necklace the victim was wearing. As the victim was complying, the defendant shot the victim. The court determined the two crimes were committed by separate acts, thereby justifying consecutive sentences. The dissent dealt with a different issue: i.e., whether CPL 430.10 prohibited Supreme Court from “reconfiguring” defendant's sentence after the case was remitted to it by the Appellate Division. After the Appellate Division determined two of the original sentences should have been imposed concurrently, the original 40-year sentence was reduced to 25. On remand, the sentencing court “reconfigured” the sentences to bring them up again to 40 years. CPL 430.10 prohibits the sentencing court from “modifying” a sentence after it has begun to be served. The “reconfigured” 40-year sentence was affirmed here by the Court of Appeals.  With respect to the consecutive sentences, the court explained:

Penal Law § 70.25 (2) mandates that concurrent sentences be imposed for “two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other.” We have held that, “[t]o determine whether consecutive sentences are permitted, a court must first look to the statutory definitions of the crimes at issue” to discern whether the actus reus elements overlap … . Even where the crimes have an actus reus element in common, “the People may yet establish the legality of consecutive sentencing by showing that the 'acts or omissions' committed by defendant were separate and distinct acts” … . Conversely, where “the actus reus is a single inseparable act that violates more than one statute, [a] single punishment must be imposed” … . The People bear the burden of establishing the legality of consecutive sentencing by “identifying the facts which support their view” that the crimes were committed by separate acts … .

Even if, as defendant contends, the statutory elements of his robbery and assault convictions overlap, the People have demonstrated in this case that the assault count and the robbery count at issue were committed by separate and distinct acts. People v Rodriguez, 2015 NY Slip Op 03877, CtApp 5-7-15

 

,

Plea of “Nolo Contendere” to a Sex Offense in Florida Constitutes a “Conviction” of a Sex Offense Requiring Registration in New York

Petitioner pled “nolo contendere” to a sex offense in Florida. Petitioner contended that the offense was based on his having consensual sex with a 15-year-old classmate when petitioner was 18.  The Florida court withheld adjudication. The Court of Appeals determined petitioner was required to register as a sex offender upon his move to New York. The “nolo contendere” plea meets the definition of “conviction” in New York. A “sex offender” in New York is one who has been “convicted” of a “sex offense” which includes a felony in another jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender (the case here):

We held in People v Daiboch (265 NY 125 [1934]), … that the entry of a nolo contendere plea in another jurisdiction, followed by a judgment placing the defendant on probation for two years, was a prior conviction for purposes of sentencing the defendant as a second offender. Although Daiboch did not involve SORA, we confronted the same issue presented by this case: whether a defendant's out-of-state nolo contendere plea for which a non-incarceratory sentence was imposed qualifies as a conviction in New York. Nolo contendere pleas, like Alford pleas, are “no different from other guilty pleas” (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 475 [2000] [recognizing that an Alford plea may generally be used for the same purposes as any other conviction]). And because New York defines a conviction to include the entry of a guilty plea, regardless of the subsequent sentence or judgment, the ultimate disposition of petitioner's Florida conviction is irrelevant. New York distinguishes between a conviction and a “judgment of conviction,” the latter of which includes “a conviction and the sentence imposed thereon” (CPL 1.20 [15]). As we have previously observed, the Legislature intended the Criminal Procedure Law to provide the “definitive meaning” of the term “conviction” for other criminal statutes, and it meant what it said when it defined “conviction” separately from a judgment or sentence … . Matter of Kasckarow v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 03878, CtApp 5-7-15

 

Uncle Was Properly Found to Be a “Person Legally Responsible” for the Abused Child—He Was Therefore a Proper “Respondent” in a Child Abuse/Neglect Proceeding

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissent, determined the abused child’s uncle, as a person legally responsible (PLR) for the child’s care, was a proper “respondent” in the child abuse/neglect proceeding.  The uncle argued he was not a PLR for the abused child and Family Court therefore did not have jurisdiction over the abuse/neglect proceeding against him:

“…[T]he common thread running through the various categories of persons legally responsible for a child’s care is that these persons serve as the functional equivalent of parents” … . We held that deciding whether “a particular person has acted as the functional equivalent of a parent is a discretionary, fact-intensive inquiry which will vary according to the particular circumstances of each case” … . We listed factors to be considered when determining who is a PLR, which include (1) “the frequency and nature of the contact,” (2) “the nature and extent of the control exercised by the respondent over the child’s environment,” (3) “the duration of the respondent’s contact with the child,” and (4) “the respondent’s relationship to the child’s parents” … . Matter of Trenasia J. (Frank J.), 2015 NY Slip Op 03765, CtApp 5-7-15

 

,

Admission of Child Abuse Made by Defendant to Psychiatrist Protected by Physician-Patient Privilege—Even Though the Admission Can Be Disclosed in Child Protective Proceedings, the Privilege Applies in a Criminal Trial

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that an admission of child sexual abuse made to the defendant's psychiatrist was privileged.  The psychiatrist should not have been allowed to testify about the admission at defendant's trial.  The error was not harmless. The Court made it clear that the relaxed evidentiary standards in child protective proceedings where physicians are required to report abuse, do not extend to the context of a criminal trial where the defendant's liberty is at stake:

The Legislature has determined that the protection of children is of paramount importance, so much so that it has either limited or abrogated the privilege through statutory enactments.

The People erroneously assert that these exceptions place offenders on notice that the physician-patient privilege does not apply to statements or admissions triggering a duty to disclose. But it is one thing to allow the introduction of statements or admissions in child protection proceedings, whose aim is the protection of children, and quite another to allow the introduction of those same statements, through a defendant's psychiatrist, at a criminal proceeding, where the People seek to punish the defendant and potentially deprive him of his liberty. Evidentiary standards are necessarily lower in the former proceedings than in the latter because the interests involved are different. Thus, the relaxed evidentiary standards in child protection proceedings lend no credence to the People's argument that defendant should have known that any admission of abuse he made to his psychiatrist would not be kept confidential. People v Rivera, 2015 NY Slip Op 03764, CtApp 5-7-15

 

,

Court of Appeals Can Not Hear the Appeal of an Issue Not Preserved by Objection

The Court of Appeals could not hear the defendant’s appeal because the issue was not preserved by an objection or by an express decision on the question by the trial court. “The issue argued on this appeal is whether the police were required to again read defendant his Miranda rights when they interviewed him a second time, at his request and in the presence of counsel. In particular, defendant contends that the courts below erred in determining that the presence of counsel obviated the need for police to advise him of his right to remain silent during the second interview. Defendant, however, did not make this argument in his motion papers to the trial court or at the suppression hearing. Moreover, while a general objection — such as that contained in defendant’s omnibus motion — is sufficient to preserve an issue for our review when the trial court “expressly decided the question raised on appeal” …, here, Supreme Court did not expressly decide the issue of whether the police were required to advise defendant of his right to remain silent under the circumstances presented by the second interview.” People v Graham, 2015 NY Slip Op 03767, CtApp 5-7-15

 

General Permit System by Which Smaller Communities Obtain Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Does Not Violate Federal or State Law

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a three-judge partial dissent, determined that the system by which smaller municipalities can obtain authorization for stormwater discharge without a public hearing did not violate federal or state law. The court's own overview of this very complex opinion provides the best summary:

Runoff from rain and snow melt courses over roofs, roads, driveways and other surfaces, picking up pollutants along the way. It then passes through municipal storm sewer systems into rivers and lakes, adding the pollutants accumulated during its journey to those bodies of water. These municipal storm sewer systems thus differ from other entities that discharge effluents into our State's surface waters (for example, industrial or commercial facilities and sewage treatment plants) in three major ways: precipitation is naturally occurring, intermittent and variable and cannot be stopped; although municipalities operate sewer systems, stormwater contamination results from the often unforeseen or unpredictable choices of individual residents and businesses (for example, to let litter pile up or to use certain lawn fertilizers), as well as decisions made long ago about the design of roads, parking lots and buildings; and because stormwater runoff flows into surface waters through tens of thousands of individual outfalls, each locality's contribution to the pollution of a particular river or lake is difficult to ascertain or allocate through numeric limitations.

Federal and state law prohibit discharges of stormwater from New York's municipal separate storm sewer systems in urbanized areas (referred to as MS4s) without authorization under a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. As an alternative to an individual SPDES permit, municipal separate storm sewer systems that serve a population under 100,000 (or small MS4s) may seek to discharge stormwater under a SPDES general permit. The 2010 General Permit — the subject of this lawsuit — requires these municipal systems to develop, document and implement a Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) in compliance with detailed specifications developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC or the Department) to limit the introduction of pollutants into stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. To obtain initial coverage (i.e., authorization to discharge) under the terms of the 2010 General Permit, small MS4s must first submit a complete and accurate notice of intention (NOI) to DEC.

After the 2010 General Permit took effect on May 1st of that year, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and seven other environmental advocacy groups (collectively, NRDC) brought this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action against DEC to challenge certain aspects of the 2010 General Permit. NRDC claims generally that by allowing small MS4s to gain coverage under the 2010 General Permit based upon an NOI reviewed only for completeness and not subject to an opportunity for a public hearing, DEC has created an “impermissible self-regulatory system” that fails to force local governments to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable — the statutory standard — and violates federal and state law [FN2]. Equating NOIs with applications for individual SPDES permits, Supreme Court granted partial relief to NRDC (35 Misc 3d 652 [Sup Ct Westchester County 2012]). The Appellate Division, as relevant here, rejected NRDC's federal and state law challenges to the 2010 General Permit (120 AD3d 1235 [2d Dept 2014]). We granted NRDC leave to appeal (23 NY3d 901 [2014]), and now affirm. Matter of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 2015 NY Slip Op 03766, CtApp 5-7-15

 

,

Whether Plaintiff “Justifiably Relied” on Alleged Misrepresentations Is Not Generally a Question Which Can Be Resolved in a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action

Reversing the appellate division, over two-judge dissent, the Court of Appeals determined (in the context of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action) plaintiff had sufficiently pled “justifiable reliance” on the representations at issue. The complaint alleged defendant (Goldman Sachs) “fraudulently induced plaintiff to provide financial guaranty for a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO), known as ABACUS. In its complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant fraudulently concealed the fact that its hedge fund client …, which selected most of the portfolio investment securities in ABACUS, planned to take a “short” position in ABACUS, thereby intentionally exposing plaintiff to substantial liability; had plaintiff known this information, it would not have agreed to the guaranty.” The complaint further alleged defendant affirmatively misrepresented the role of the hedge fund in answer to plaintiff's questions. Those allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss:

To plead a claim for fraud in the inducement or fraudulent concealment, plaintiff must allege facts to support the claim that it justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations. It is well established that “if the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the [defendant's] knowledge, and [the plaintiff] has the means available to [it] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, [the plaintiff] must make use of those means, or [it] will not be heard to complain that [it] was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations” … . Moreover, “[w]hen the party to whom a misrepresentation is made has hints of its falsity, a heightened degree of diligence is required of it. It cannot reasonably rely on such representations without making additional inquiry to determine their accuracy” … . Nevertheless, the question of what constitutes reasonable reliance is not generally a question to be resolved as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss … .  ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v Goldman, Sachs & Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 03876, CtApp 5-7-15

 

, ,

Court Can Not Use Its Contempt Power to Compel the District Attorney to Prosecute a Criminal Matter

The District Attorney did not wish to proceed with disorderly conduct prosecutions against persons who demonstrated in support of the Occupy Movement. The City Court judge handling the cases, however, ordered the district attorney to appear at a scheduled suppression hearing, threatening to exercise the court’s contempt powers if the district attorney did not appear. The district attorney appeared but informed the judge no witnesses would be called. When the judge persisted, again threatening to use the contempt powers, the district attorney brought an Article 78 proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition.  The writ was granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Under the doctrine of separation of powers, only the district attorney can decide whether to prosecute.  The courts can not compel the prosecution of criminal actions:

“Prohibition is available to restrain an inferior court or Judge from exceeding its or his [or her] powers in a proceeding over which the court has jurisdiction” … . To demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary writ of prohibition, a petitioner is required to show that the challenged action was “in reality so serious an excess of power incontrovertibly justifying and requiring summary correction” … .

“The concept of the separation of powers is the bedrock of the system of government adopted by this State in establishing three coordinate and coequal branches of government, each charged with performing particular functions” … . Under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts lack the authority to compel the prosecution of criminal actions … . Such a right is solely within the broad authority and discretion of the district attorney’s executive power to conduct all phases of criminal prosecution (see County Law § 700 [1]… ).

The courts below correctly determined that a trial court cannot order the People to call witnesses at a suppression hearing or enforce such a directive through its contempt powers. Any attempt by the Judge here to compel prosecution through the use of his contempt power exceeded his jurisdictional authority. It is within the sole discretion of each district attorney’s executive power to orchestrate the prosecution of those who violate the criminal laws of this State … . Matter of Soares v Carter, 2015 NY Slip Op 03879, CtApp 5-7-15

 

Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Failure to Set Up Guard Rails Was a Proximate Cause–Liability Imposed Regardless of Plaintiff’s Own Negligence and Regardless of Whether the Owner, Contractor or Agent Supervised or Controlled the Work

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff, who fell through an uncovered manhole, was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim based on testimony the manhole should have been surrounded by guard rails. The court also determined there was a question of fact whether the safety consultant, IMS, was liable as a “statutory agent” under Labor Law 240 (1). The court explained that the obligation to provide safety devices is a nondelegable duty which imposes liability regardless of whether owner, contractor or agent supervises or controls the work. Where 240 (1) is violated, the plaintiff's negligence is not a defense, unless plaintiff's negligence is the sole proximate cause of the injury:

Section 240 (1) provides, in relevant part:

“All contractors and owners and their agents . . . in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor [certain enumerated] [*4]and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.”

The statute imposes upon owners, contractors and their agents a nondelegable duty that renders them liable regardless of whether they supervise or control the work … . “Where an accident is caused by a violation of the statute, the plaintiff's own negligence will not furnish a defense”; however, “where a plaintiff's own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability” … . Thus, in order to recover under section 240 (1), the plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injury … . Barreto v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03875, CtApp 5-7-15

 

,

Names of Retired Teachers Not Protected from Disclosure by Public Officers Law 89

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined Public Officers Law 89 (7) did not exempt from disclosure the names of retirees who receive benefits from public employees' retirement systems.  The question boiled down to statutory interpretation:

The answer to the question before us — are retirees' names exempt from disclosure? — is plain from the face of the statute. It exempts “the home address . . . of a retiree,” but not the retiree's name. By contrast, it exempts both the name and home address of “a beneficiary of a public employees' retirement system.” A “beneficiary” of a retirement system, as the term is commonly used, is a family member of an employee or retiree who is entitled to benefits after the employee's or retiree's death; it is so used on the website of one of the retirement systems in this case (NYSTRS,”Glossary of Benefit Terms,” at http://www.nystrs.org/main/glossary/html [last visited April 21, 2014]). In some contexts, “beneficiary” might be read more broadly to include a retiree, for retirees do benefit from retirement systems. But “beneficiary” was obviously not used in that sense in this statute, because the statute provides a separate and more limited exemption for a “retiree.” Matter of Empire Ctr for NY State Policy v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys, 2014 NY Slip Op 03193, CtApp 5-6-14

 

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