You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

As Long as a Police Officer’s Mistake is “Objectively Reasonable,” a Stop Based Upon the Mistake Will Not Be Invalidated/There Is No Analytical Distinction Between a Mistake of Law and a Mistake of Fact in this Context

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined that a police officer’s objectively reasonable mistake about the law will not invalidate a stop based upon that mistake.  Here the defendant was stopped by the police after she rolled through a stop sign at the exit of a supermarket parking lot.  The defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated.  It turned out that the stop sign, although regulation size and color, was not registered with the town and was therefore not “legally authorized.” The local court dismissed the charges, finding the initial vehicle stop, based upon a mistake of law, improper. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the mistake of law was “objectively reasonable.”  The court noted that a police officer cannot be expected to know the location of every “unregistered” stop sign in his/her jurisdiction. The court made it clear, in deciding whether the actions taken by the police were objectively reasonable, there should be no distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law:

…[W]e look to the reasonableness of the officer’s belief that defendant violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, without drawing any distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. * * * … [W]e are not saying that it would have been objectively reasonable for the arresting officer to have claimed ignorance of the requirement in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1100 (b) that a stop sign in a parking lot be registered to be valid. We are saying that the stop was nonetheless constitutionally justified because the officer was not chargeable with knowing each and every stop sign that was registered under the Newark Village Code.  People v Guthrie, 2015 NY Slip Op 02867, CtApp 4-7-15

 

A Defendant Who Has Been Found Mentally Unfit to Proceed To Trial Cannot Be Subjected to a Parole Revocation Proceeding

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a defendant who has been deemed unfit to proceed to trial following a psychiatric examination cannot be subjected to a parole violation hearing.  The defendant, who was on lifetime parole for murder and had been committed to the custody of the Office of Mental Health (OMH), assaulted a fellow patient.  After a psychiatric examination, the defendant was deemed unfit to proceed to trial on charges stemming from the assault. Thereafter the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS) brought parole revocation proceedings against the defendant. The defendant was transferred to the custody of DOCCS and, after a hearing, his parole was revoked and he was incarcerated.  The Appellate Division (reversing Supreme Court) granted the defendant’s petition to annul the parole revocation, and returned the defendant to parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that subjecting the defendant to the parole revocation hearing, after defendant had been deemed mentally incompetent, violated defendant’s right to due process.  The Court of Appeals noted that its ruling may result in the release of persons found unfit for trial, something only the legislature can remedy:

It is, of course, well established — as a matter of common law and also of due process — that “a person whose mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to consult with counsel, and to assist in preparing his defense may not be subjected to a trial” … . The State contends that parole revocation proceedings do not raise the same concerns because parole revocation is not part of a criminal prosecution.

It is true that parole revocation deprives an individual only of “a restricted form of liberty” and thus implicates “some form of due process [but] not the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding” … . Just as due process requires us to safeguard the liberty of parolees, we must also recognize the state’s strong interest in effectively managing parolees without unduly burdensome procedural restraints … . However, in balancing these competing interests, we conclude that several of the reasons underlying the bar against prosecuting a mentally incompetent defendant apply also to parole revocation hearings. Clearly salient are constitutional concerns about the fundamental fairness of a proceeding in which a defendant who is unable to make decisions about his defense may be returned to prison. But foremost is the concern already mentioned, about the accuracy of the proceedings. An incompetent parolee is not in a position to exercise rights, such as the right to testify and the opportunity to confront adverse witnesses (see 9 NYCRR 8005.18 [b] [2], [4]), that are directly related to ensuring the accuracy of fact-finding. It is true, as the State emphasizes, that the parolee is guaranteed a right to representation by counsel at the revocation hearing. But representation is not enough. A parolee must be able to provide the factual underpinnings of the presentation.

We conclude, therefore, that holding a parole revocation hearing after a court has deemed the parolee to be mentally incompetent violates the due process provision in our State Constitution… . Matter of Lopez v Evans, 2015 NY Slip Op 02868, CtApp 4-7-15

 

,

Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence In Response to Questions Posed by the Police Cannot Be Introduced in the People’s Case-In-Chief

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a two-judge dissent, determined that state evidentiary rules were violated by testimony, during the People’s case-in-chief, describing the defendant’s silence following some of the questions asked by the police during interrogation. The court noted that although there are (very) limited circumstances when a defendant’s silence, or failure to give a timely exculpatory explanation, can be used to impeach a defendant who takes the stand, no such flexibility applies to the case-in-chief.  There can be many reasons for a defendant’s silence in response to a question, so the probative value of silence is limited.  On the other hand, there is a real danger a jury will interpret a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. The error was not harmless as a matter of law–defendant’s conviction was reversed and a new trial ordered:

If silence could constitute an answer, then the People could meet their burden simply by asking a question. Moreover, evidence of a defendant’s selective silence “is of extremely limited probative worth” … . A defendant who agrees to speak to the police but refuses to answer certain questions may have the same legitimate or innocent reasons for refusing to answer as a defendant who refuses to speak to the police at all … . Furthermore, the potential risk of prejudice from evidence of a defendant’s selective silence is even greater than the risk to a defendant who chooses to remain totally silent. Jurors are more likely to construe a defendant’s refusal to answer certain questions as an admission of guilt if the defendant has otherwise willingly answered other police inquiries. The ambiguous nature and limited probative worth of a defendant’s selective silence is outweighed by the substantial risk of prejudice to the defendant from admission of such evidence … . Evidence of a defendant’s selective silence therefore generally may not be used by the People during their case-in-chief and may be used only as “a device for impeachment” of a defendant’s trial testimony in limited and unusual circumstances … .

The People’s use of defendant’s selective silence in this case was improper for another reason. In her opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that defendant did not admit or deny the accusations when he spoke to the detective. Furthermore, during direct examination of the detective, the prosecutor elicited testimony establishing not only that defendant did not answer when asked whether he had sex with the victim, but also that he did not deny it either. In addition to using defendant’s selective silence as a purported impeachment device during their direct case, the People also invited the jury to infer an admission of guilt from defendant’s failure to deny the accusations. The risk that the jury made such an impermissible inference is substantial where, as here, defendant selectively answered some police questions but not others, and the court refused to provide any curative instruction. The prosecutor’s comments regarding defendant’s selective silence during opening statements were improper, and the court erred in allowing testimony concerning defendant’s selective silence at trial, inasmuch as the comments and testimony allowed the jury to “draw an unwarranted inference of guilt” … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 02866, CtApp 4-7-15

 

, , ,

Ex Parte Interview of Important Prosecution Witness Re: the Witness’ Health, Addictions and Ability to Testify Violated Defendants’ Right to Confrontation and Right to Counsel

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that the court’s conducting an ex parte interview of a main prosecution witness concerning the witness’ health, addictions and his related ability to testify violated the defendants’ right to confrontation and right to counsel:

Absent a substantial justification, courts must not examine witnesses about nonministerial matters in camera without counsel present or ex parte (see … People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 173 [1974]). “[A]n in-camera examination of the witnesses, that is ex parte or without the parties represented would, in our view, arguably trifle with the constitutional right to confrontation and the right to counsel” (Goggins, 34 NY2d at 169). A “defendant’s right to the full benefit of the adversary system should not be denied, nor qualified by impairing his right by interposing the ‘neutral’ Judge to assess whether the disclosure is relevant or material” (id.). Goggins concerned a defendant’s right to disclosure of an informant’s identity, and this Court held that where the information “relates to a substantive issue in the case, the disclosure should not be ex parte or without either party present even if in camera” (id. at 173). * * *

The denial of the right to counsel at trial “is of constitutional dimension” and is not subject to harmless error analysis … . Courts should not delve into questions of prejudice when assistance of counsel is involved … . As this Court recognized, “[t]he right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial” … . And as this Court held in Hodge, a quantification of what impeachment material defense counsel might have obtained at the proceeding cannot be dispositive …, as harmless error does not apply in right-to-counsel cases … .

Here, the in camera proceeding clearly involved substantive issues as opposed to ministerial matters and there was no justification for excluding defense counsel. Because the discussion involved important issues for trial that might have affected a “substantial right” of a party, defense counsels’ presence was required… . People v Carr, 2015 NY Slip Op 02798, CtApp 4-2-15

 

Slip and Fall On Ice While Wearing Stilts Not an Elevation-Related Event within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined that a slip and fall caused by ice on the floor was not an elevation-related event within the meaning of Labor 240(1), despite the fact the worker was using stilts when he slipped and fell:

… [T]he protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) “do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity” … . “Rather, liability [remains] contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240 (1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . Moreover, section 240 (1) is not applicable unless the plaintiff’s injuries result from the elevation-related risk and the inadequacy of the safety device … . * * *

Here, plaintiff’s accident was plainly caused by a separate hazard — ice — unrelated to any elevation risk. Plaintiff testified that stilts were the appropriate device for the type of work that he was undertaking, given the height of this particular ceiling. Plaintiff’s testimony further established that it was the ice — not a deficiency or inadequacy of the stilts — that caused his fall. Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02801 CtApp 4-2-15

 

Work on Billboard Was “Alteration” within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and “Construction” within Meaning of Labor Law 241 (6)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that plaintiff, who fell putting up advertisement on a billboard, was engaged in covered activities pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) (alteration), 240 (2) (no guardrail) and 241 (6) (construction):

[W]e conclude that plaintiff was engaged in work that constitutes an alteration within the meaning of the statute. In reaching this determination we apply the definition the Court adopted in Joblon, that the term “altering” in section 240 (1) “requires making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure” (Joblon, 91 NY2d at 465). This definition excludes “routine maintenance” and “decorative modifications” (id.). Whether a physical change is significant depends on its effect on the physical structure. Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff in Joblon who was injured when he fell off a ladder while in the process of chiseling a hole through a concrete block wall so that he could run electrical wires from one room to another to install a wall clock was engaged in “altering” under section 240 (1). As the Court held, extending the wiring and chiseling a hole through the concrete constituted a significant change and entailed “more than a simple, routine activity” (id. at 465-66).

Here, plaintiff’s job was to install a new advertisement. In order to do so he and the other members of the construction crew had to attach extensions that changed the dimensions of the billboard’s frame and transformed the shape of the billboard to accommodate the advertisement’s artwork. Plaintiff was injured when in furtherance of this task he fell while assisting the other crew members with the removal of the old vinyl advertisement from the billboard’s side panels. The vinyl removal was a prerequisite to the attachment of the extensions and therefore an integral part of the installation of the extensions. We have little difficulty concluding that the plaintiff’s work entails a significant change to the billboard structure because once the vinyl is removed, the billboard is enlarged by the attachment of the extensions, work accomplished by the use of the angle iron on the back of each extension, and application of nuts, bolts and nails.  Saint v Syracuse Supply Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 02802, CtApp 4-2-15

 

,

Appellate Division Should Have Allowed Respondent to Answer Petition After Dismissal of the Petition Was Reversed by the Appellate Division

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division erred when it did not remand an Article 78 proceeding to Supreme Court to allow the respondent university (NYU) to submit an answer to the petition.  The petition was brought by a dental student seeking redress after she was expelled.  Supreme Court dismissed the petition.  The Appellate Division reversed:

The principal issue raised by this appeal is whether the Appellate Division erred by failing to remand to Supreme Court to permit NYU to file an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f). That provision specifies that where a respondent moves to dismiss a CPLR article 78 petition and the motion is denied, “the court shall permit the respondent to answer, upon such terms as may be just” … . We have indicated, however, that a court need not do so if the “facts are so fully presented in the papers of the respective parties that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer” … . Since “the motion papers” in BOCES “clearly did not establish that there were no triable issues of fact,” we held that “the procedure dictated by CPLR 7804 (subd [f]) should have been followed” … . For the same reason, NYU should be permitted to answer in this case.

A student subject to disciplinary action at a private educational institution is not entitled to the “full panoply of due process rights” … . Such an institution need only ensure that its published rules are “substantially observed” … . And here, triable issues of fact exist with regard to whether NYU substantially complied with its established disciplinary procedures. Matter of Kickertz v New York Univ., 2015 NY Slip Op 02800, CtApp 4-2-15

 

,

Misrepresentations About Expunged Drug-Related Offenses on Student’s Law School Admission Application Supported the Rescinding of the Student’s Admission After Completion of Three Semesters

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined a law school did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it determined a student had made misrepresentations about (expunged) criminal offenses in his admission-application and rescinded his admission after three semesters of study:

Courts have a “restricted role” in reviewing determinations of colleges and universities … . A determination will not be disturbed unless a school acts arbitrarily and not in the exercise of its honest discretion, it fails to abide by its own rules … or imposes a penalty so excessive that it shocks one’s sense of fairness … . None of those factors is present here.

The law school’s treatment of [the student] was rational insofar as it was not wholly inconsistent with the school’s approach to rescission of admission in general. The law school states that while it routinely receives, and often grants, requests from enrolled students to amend the criminal history sections of their applications, such amendments usually involve minor offenses such as open container or traffic violations, or small quantity marijuana possession. Amendments are by no means guaranteed – -the law school states that on at least two occasions, when the information contained in the subsequent disclosure would have prevented the individual from being considered for admission, the students’ admission was rescinded.

The law school avers that it has an unwritten policy of not admitting people who sell drugs and that if [the student] had disclosed on his application that his arrest was for the distribution of LSD to an undercover officer and possession with intent to distribute, his application would have been denied during the initial screening process. The school explains that it generally distinguishes between applicants with a history of personal drug use, and those with a history of drug dealing – – the former can be accepted under certain circumstances, but the latter are not. Matter of Powers v St. John’s Univ. Sch. of Law, 2015 NY Slip Op 02799, CtApp 4-2-15

 

 

, ,

Defense Counsel’s Absence When Judge Decided to Replace a Sick Juror Not Preserved by Objection/Court Need Not Put on the Record Its Consideration of Alternatives to Courtroom Closure/Factual Allegations Insufficient to Justify a Suppression Hearing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined defense counsel’s absence from the courtroom when the judge put on the record that he was replacing a sick juror was not a mode of proceedings error and was not preserved by objection. Defense counsel entered the courtroom just as the judge seated the alternate juror and did not object. The Court of Appeals also determined the trial judge was not required to put on the record his consideration of measures other than the closure of the courtroom when undercover officers testified, and sufficient facts were not raised in the defense motion papers to justify a suppression hearing:

Here, although defense counsel was not present in court while the judge was stating on the record that he intended to replace the sick juror and counsel for co-defendant was objecting to that replacement, the record shows that prior to arriving in the courtroom, counsel was aware from his discussion with the court that there was a sick juror and that the court had previously excused an alternate juror for psychological reasons. Most importantly, defense counsel was in the courtroom when the judge told the alternate to take the seat of the sick juror. If counsel had any objection to the replacement of the juror, including a desire to be heard further on the issue, he had the time and the opportunity to make his position known. It was incumbent upon him to raise an objection at that time, before the trial proceeded. Certainly, the better practice would have been for the trial judge to await counsel’s arrival before placing his decision regarding the juror on the record. While, as the dissent notes, defense counsel was absent during the on-the-record discussion about dismissing the juror, nonetheless, counsel was present at the critical time when the sick juror was being replaced by the alternate, and counsel did not raise any objection concerning the right to counsel or otherwise, at a time when the trial court had the opportunity to change course. * * *

… [T]his Court has rejected the argument that United States Supreme Court precedent requires a trial court to explain, on the record, the alternatives to closure that it considered (People v Echevarria, 21 NY3d 1, 18 [2013]; People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 504 [1997]). Rather, we have concluded that where the record establishes, as it does here, the need to close a portion of the proceedings, “it can be implied that the trial court, in ordering closure, determined that no lesser alternative would protect the articulated interest”… . * * *

… [D]efendant’s simple denial that he was not engaged in any criminal conduct at the time he was stopped did not raise any issue of fact requiring a [suppression] hearing. It was defendant’s role in the conspiracy … and his conduct … at the time of the purchase of the kilogram of cocaine that provided probable cause to arrest him. Under those circumstances, it was incumbent upon defendant to refute the allegations in order to obtain a hearing. People v Garay, 2015 NY Slip Op 02672, CtApp 3-31-15

 

,

Moratorium on Fracking Did Not Extend Oil and Gas Leases Beyond the Primary Five-Year Term

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a “force majeur” clause in oil and gas leases was not triggered by the moratorium on fracking in New York and, therefore, the five-year primary term of the leases was not extended by the moratorium:

Each of the leases contains an identical term clause, also known as a habendum clause, which establishes the primary and definite period during which the energy companies may exercise the drilling rights granted by the leases. Specifically, the leases’ habendum clause provides:

“It is agreed that this lease shall remain in force for a primary term of FIVE (5) years from the date hereof and as long thereafter as the said land is operated by Lessee in the production of oil or gas.”

Under this provision, the interests conveyed by the leases exist for a five-year “primary term,” followed by an open secondary term so long as the land is operated by the lessee in the production of oil or gas.

Each lease also contains what the parties refer to as a “force majeure clause.” Generally, a force majeure event is an event beyond the control of the parties that prevents performance under a contract and may excuse nonperformance … . The force majeure clause here provides:

“If and when drilling or other operations hereunder are delayed or interrupted by lack of water, labor or material, or by fire, storm, flood, war, rebellion, riot, strike, differences with workmen, or failure of carriers to transport or furnish facilities for transportation, or as a result of some order, rule, regulation, requisition or necessity of the government, or as a result of any other cause whatsoever beyond the control of Lessee, the time of such delay or interruption shall not be counted against Lessee, anything in this lease to the contrary notwithstanding. All express or implied covenants of this lease shall be subject to all Federal and State laws, Executive Orders, Rules or Regulations, and this lease shall not be terminated, in whole or in part, nor Lessee held liable in damages for failure to comply therewith, if compliance is prevented by, or if such failure is the result of any such Law, Order, Rule or Regulation.” * * *

…[W]e hold that the force majeure clause does not modify the primary term of the habendum clause and, therefore, does not extend the leases. The habendum clause in the leases does not incorporate the force majeure clause by reference or contain any language expressly subjecting it to other lease terms … . Moreover, the language in the force majeure clause stating that “the time of such delay or interruption shall not be counted against Lessee” does not refer to the habendum clause with specificity. Thus, the habendum clause is not expressly modified or enlarged by the force majeure clause. Beardslee v Inflection Energy, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02677, CtApp 3-31-15

 

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