You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

Triggering Event for the Statute of Limitations Re: a Challenge of the Termination of Section 8 Rent Subsidies Is the Sending of the So-Called T-3 Letter-Notification, Irrespective of Whether the Two Prior Required Letter-Notifications Were Sent

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a three-judge dissent, determined that the so-called T-3 letter to tenants from the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which notifies tenants of the termination of their Section 8 rent subsidies, is the triggering event for the four-month statute of limitations for challenging the termination. The applicable “Williams consent judgment” mandates a three-step procedure for termination of the rent subsidies, essentially three notifications to tenants, of which the T-3 letter is the last. The issue before the court was whether the NYCHA’s inability to show the first two notifications were properly sent prevented the statute of limitations from running when the T-3 letter was sent.  The Court of Appeals held that, although the failure to follow the three-step procedure is a defense to the termination of the subsidies, the statute of limitations for any challenge properly runs from the sending of the T-3 letter:

The plain language of the Williams consent judgment draws a distinction between what is required to commence the limitations period for a challenge to a termination of Section 8 benefits, on the one hand, and what is required for NYCHA to establish the merit of such a termination — including NYCHA’s full compliance with the notice requirements — on the other hand. Matter of Banos v Rhea, 2015 NY Slip Op 04029, CtApp 5-12-15

 

, ,

Denial of Petitioner’s Application for Employment as a School-Bus Driver, Based Upon His Criminal Record, Was Not Arbitrary and Capricious Despite Petitioner’s Good Employment Record and His Obtaining a Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined petitioner was properly precluded by the Department of Education (DOE) from employment as a school-bus driver, based upon his criminal record.  The offenses were committed when petitioner was in his 40’s and petitioner had had no further contact with the criminal justice system for 15 years.  Petitioner had obtained a certificate of relief from civil disabilities and had a good employment record, which included transporting children.  The Court of Appeals held that the DOE’s action was not arbitrary and capricious because the DOE considered all of the statutory factors in Corrections Law 752.  The Court of Appeals noted that obtaining a certificate of relief from civil disabilities establishes a presumption of rehabilitation, but the certificate does not establish a prima facie right to a license or employment:

The Correction Law sets out eight factors that a public agency or private employer must consider when deciding whether one of the § 752 exceptions applies:

“(a) The public policy of this state, as expressed in this act, to encourage the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses.

(b) The specific duties and responsibilities necessarily related to the license or employment sought or held by the person.

(c) The bearing, if any, the criminal offense or offenses for which the person was previously convicted will have on his [or her] fitness or ability to perform one or more such duties or responsibilities.

(d) The time which has elapsed since the occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses.

(e) The age of the person at the time of occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses.

(f) The seriousness of the offense or offenses.

(g) Any information produced by the person, or produced on his [or her] behalf, in regard to his [or her] rehabilitation and good conduct.

(h) The legitimate interest of the public agency or private employer in protecting property, and the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public.” (Correction Law § 753 [1].)

[The Court of Appeals has held] that “[a] failure to take into consideration each of these factors results in a failure to comply with the Correction Law’s mandatory directive” … . Matter of Dempsey v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2015 NY Slip Op 04028, CtApp 5-12-15

 

, ,

Fraud Upon the Court Must Be Demonstrated by Clear and Convincing Evidence/Striking of Pleadings and Entering Default Judgment Against Offending Party Appropriate Under the Facts

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the standard for demonstrating a party has committed fraud upon the court is “clear and convincing.”  Under the facts, the court determined that defendants' fraud upon the court had been demonstrated and that striking the pleadings and entering a default judgment against the defendants was appropriate:

We …conclude that in order to demonstrate fraud on the court, the non-offending party must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the offending “party has acted knowingly in an attempt to hinder the fact finder's fair adjudication of the case and his adversary's defense of the action” … . A court must be persuaded that the fraudulent conduct, which may include proof of fabrication of evidence, perjury, and falsification of documents concerns “issues that are central to the truth-finding process” … . Essentially, fraud upon the court requires a showing that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense … . A finding of fraud on the court may warrant termination of the proceedings in the non-offending party's favor … . For “when a party lies to the court and [its] adversary intentionally, repeatedly, and about issues central to the truth-finding process, it can fairly be said that [the party] has forfeited [the] right to have [the] claim decided on the merits” … . Therefore, once a court concludes that clear and convincing evidence establishes fraud on the court, it may strike a pleading and enter a default judgment.

We caution that dismissal is an extreme remedy that “must be exercised with restraint and discretion” … . Dismissal is most appropriate in cases like this one, where the conduct is particularly egregious, characterized by lies and fabrications in furtherance of a scheme designed to conceal critical matters from the court and the nonoffending party; where the conduct is perpetrated repeatedly and wilfully, and established by clear and convincing evidence, such as the documentary and testimonial evidence found here. Dismissal is inappropriate where the fraud is not “central to the substantive issues in the case” …, or where the court is presented with “an isolated instance of perjury, standing alone, [which fails to] constitute a fraud upon the court” … . In such instances, the court may impose other remedies including awarding attorney fees …, awarding other reasonable costs incurred … , or precluding testimony … . In the rare case where a court finds that a party has committed fraud on the court warranting dismissal, the court should note why lesser sanctions would not suffice to correct the offending behavior … . CDR Creances SAS v Cohen, 2014 NY Slip Op 03294, CtApp 5-8-14

 

,

14-Day Period for Notifying a Bank of Improperly Paid Items Reasonable Under the Facts

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that shortening the period during which a bank must be informed of an improperly paid item from one year to 14 days was reasonable under the facts.  The court noted that the party which agreed to the shortened period was a sophisticated business entity and the shortened period may not be reasonable in other circumstances, with less sophisticated parties, for example. The improperly paid items in this case were checks and drawdown requests forged by an employee.  Summary judgment was granted in favor of the bank because the bank had not been notified of the forged items within 14 days:

[With respect] to the application of UCC 4-406 (4), the UCC permits parties to alter the provisions of article 4 by agreement (see UCC 4-103 [1]). The Official Comments go so far as to say that there exists a “blanket power to vary all provisions of the Article” (id. at Comment 2). But that power is not boundless:”[N]o agreement can disclaim a bank's responsibility for its own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care or can limit the measure of damages for such lack or failure; but the parties may by agreement determine the standards by which such responsibility is to be measured if such standards are not manifestly unreasonable”(UCC 4-103 [1]).

The application of these limitations raises two issues: first, whether parties can vary the one-year period by agreement; we hold that they can; and second, whether shortening the one-year period to 14 days is manifestly unreasonable; we hold that it is not, at least under these facts. Clemente Bros Contr Corp v Hafner-Milazzo, 2014 NY Slip Op 03291, CtApp 5-8-14

 

,

Proof Requirements for Criminal Enterprise Explained/Sufficiency of Evidence and Weight of Evidence Review Criteria Explained

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined the Appellate Division had applied the wrong legal standards to its “sufficiency of evidence” and “weight of the evidence” review of defendants’ enterprise corruption convictions.   The Appellate Division concluded “the People failed to introduce any evidence of a leadership structure, overall planning of the criminal enterprise, or any communication between [the defendants] and any of the … employees in furtherance of the criminal enterprise.”  The alleged criminal enterprise was a company, in which the defendants were principals, which did construction testing (concrete and steel, for example).  It was alleged that the company routinely issued fraudulent certifications and test results indicating the construction materials (used at hundreds of construction sites) complied with the requirements of the city administrative code. The Court of Appeals determined that the structure of the company constituted “evidence of a leadership structure” and communication among the defendants and the company employees (regarding the issuance of fraudulent test results) could be easily inferred from the facts. The Appellate Division had vacated the enterprise corruption convictions.  The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the Appellate Division for a “weight of the evidence” review of the enterprise corruption proof under the correct legal standards.  (The Court of Appeals cannot do a “weight of the evidence” review.)

Sufficiency and weight review are distinct concepts. To determine whether a verdict was based on sufficient proof, a court must “marshal competent facts most favorable to the People and determine whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained [their] burden of proof” … . Evidence of guilt is legally sufficient if the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, provide a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which the finder of fact could have rationally concluded that the elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt … .

A legally sufficient verdict, however, may be against the weight of the evidence … . Unlike a sufficiency analysis, weight of the evidence review requires an intermediate appellate court to act, in effect, as a second jury … by rendering its own determination of the facts as proven at trial … .  People v Kancharla, 2014 NY Slip Op 03295, CtApp 5-8-14

 

, ,

Sealed Records Relating to Vacated Convictions Were Sufficiently Reliable to Allow Expert Testimony to Be Based Upon Them In a Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 Trial (to Determine Whether a Sex Offender Should Be Committed to a Mental Health Facility)/However, a Presentence Report Mentioning Uncharged Offenses Was Not Reliable Enough to Be Used as a Basis for Expert Opinion

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined that most of the hearsay relied upon by experts in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 trial (to determine whether a sex offender should be committed to a mental health facility) was reliable enough to be admissible. The records deemed admissible related to sex offense convictions which were vacated.  The records deemed inadmissible related to allegations which were never prosecuted and which were not supported by any reliable documents (mentioned only in a presentence report).  The error in admitting the unreliable hearsay was deemed harmless:

The records Supreme Court unsealed here — indictments, presentence reports, police reports, and victim's statements, among other documents in the possession of official entities are the types of records the Legislature contemplated the State would have access to in an article 10 proceeding (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [c]). Respondent pleaded guilty in satisfaction of the 1968 indictments charging him with committing a string of rapes and robberies. Although his conviction was later vacated on mental incompetency grounds, the facts remains that respondent was charged and indicted for those crimes; that is, he was alleged to have committed them. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (c), by authorizing disclosure of records relating to the “alleged commission of a sex offense,” necessarily contemplates the release of records, such as these, which document sex offenses that did not result in valid adjudications of guilt. The 1968 records also qualify for disclosure under the statute's catch-all provision because they contain “information relevant to a determination” of whether respondent requires civil management under article 10 (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [c]).

Respondent further argues that CPL 160.60 should have barred disclosure of the sealed records. That statute provides, in pertinent part, that once a criminal action or proceeding has terminated in favor of the accused, “the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity,” and the information about that arrest or prosecution may not be disclosed “[e]xcept where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of a superior court” (CPL 160.60 [emphasis added]). Respondent essentially claims that, because the 1968 charges were terminated in his favor and “deemed a nullity,” he can no longer be “alleged” to have committed the underlying crimes and the records therefore do not qualify for disclosure under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (c).

We disagree. CPL 160.60 states by its plain terms that its provisions may be superseded by another statute, such as Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (c), that permits disclosure of the sealed information. Although an arrest or prosecution terminated in a defendant's favor must generally be “deemed a nullity” under CPL 160.60, we decline to interpret that statute as barring the disclosure of records that, for the purposes of article 10, relate to a respondent's alleged commission of a sex offense. Matter of State of New York v John S, 2014 NY Slip Op 03292, Ct App 5-8-14

Similar issues and result in another opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam.  Presentence report mentioning an uncharged offense was not reliable enough to be used as a basis for expert opinion. Error deemed harmless. Matter of State of New York v Charada T, 2014 NY Slip Op 03293, CtApp 5-8-14

 

Charging the Defendant with the Use of Two Weapons During a Single Incident Did Not Render the Indictment Duplicitous—Only Proof of the Use of One Weapon Was Required

The indictment alleged the defendant committed assault and reckless endangerment by using a pistol and a rifle.  The proof at trial demonstrated the defendant shot the victim twice, using two weapons, in the course of the same incident. The judge charged the jury using the conjunctive language of the indictment.  When the jury asked if it must find both weapons were used to commit the offenses, the judge explained that only the use of one of the weapons needed to be proved. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the indictment was not duplicitous, i.e., the indictment did not charge two crimes in a single indictment count:

CPL 200.30 (1) requires that “each count of an indictment may charge one offense only.” Thus, a count is duplicitous if it charges more than one offense. …”[W]hether multiple acts may be charged as a continuing crime is resolved by reference to the language in the penal statute to determine whether the statutory definition of the crime necessarily contemplates a single act.” Under Penal Law § 120.10 (1), a person is guilty of assault in the first degree when “with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he [or she] causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.” Thus, the prosecution was not required to prove that defendant used two weapons. Penal Law § 120.25 states that a person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when, “under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he [or she] recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person.” Again, the prosecution was not required to prove that defendant used both weapons.

…[T]he evidence at trial did not render the charges duplicitous. There was evidence that defendant attacked the victim out of one impulse – to seek revenge for the fiancée’s alleged assault on defendant’s sister….”[A]s a general rule . . . it may be said that where a defendant, in an uninterrupted course of conduct directed at a single victim, violates a single provision of the Penal Law, he commits but a single crime.” Although defendant used two guns, this was a single incident … . People v Flanders, 2015 NY Slip Op 03768, CtApp 5-7-15

 

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

 

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