You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

Although the Police Could Have Done More to Make Sure Defendant Was Not Represented by Counsel Before Questioning Him, Defendant’s Prior Attorney’s Statement to the Police that He Was No Longer Representing the Defendant Was Enough

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that the police properly questioned the defendant without an attorney present after they were told by defendant's prior attorney that the he no longer represented the defendant. Defendant was represented on a robbery charge. After defendant indicated he had knowledge of the commission of an unrelated murder, he entered a plea bargain which promised a reduced sentence if he provided useful information about the murder.  The police who interviewed the defendant about the murder did not believe his story and the defendant did not receive a reduced sentence for the robbery.  Subsequently, the police suspected defendant was himself involved in the murder.  Before questioning the defendant, the police met with the attorney who had represented the defendant on the robbery charge.  The police did not tell the attorney why they wanted to question the defendant. The police then elicited statements from the defendant without any further inquiry about whether he was represented by counsel.  The dissent argued that there was ambiguity about the defendant's representational status, the burden was on the police to make sure the defendant was no longer represented before questioning him, and that burden was not met here:

Here, the police did have a reason — an excellent one — to believe that the attorney-client relationship had ceased: the attorney had told them so. By asking the question and getting an unequivocal answer, the police discharged their burden. It is no doubt true that they could have done more. They could have explained to [defendant's attorney] exactly why they were eager to talk to defendant, or they could have asked defendant himself whether the relationship had reached an end. Perhaps had they done so, they would have received a different answer. But the police are not required to take all imaginable steps to protect a defendant's right to counsel. Where they follow the rules laid down in our cases — rules that are, in general, highly protective of the attorney-client relationship — they need do no more … .  People v McLean, 2014 NY Slip Op 07085, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

Complaint Stated a “Mixed Opinion” Defamation Cause of Action—A “Mixed Opinion” Statement Implies It Is Based Upon Facts Unknown to the Reader—Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Should Not Have Been Granted

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversed the 4th Department and reinstated a defamation complaint against Syracuse University and James Boeheim, the head coach of the Syracuse University men’s basketball team. The complaint had been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) on the ground that the statements were pure opinion and were therefore not actionable as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals determined that the allegations in the complaint (accepted as true for purposes of the pre-answer motion to dismiss) included statements by Coach Boehein which implied the existence of facts within his knowledge but unknown to the reader.  Such statements are actionable as “mixed opinion.”  The plaintiffs alleged that the team’s associate coach had sexually molested them more than twenty years before.  Coach Boeheim described the plaintiffs as liars who were making the allegations for financial gain.  The court explained its role in determining a pre-answer motion to dismiss and the relevant law of defamation:

This appeal comes to us on a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), a procedural posture which requires that “we accept as true each and every allegation made by plaintiff and limit our inquiry to the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s claim” … . Unlike on a motion for summary judgment where the court “searches the record and assesses the sufficiency of the parties’ evidence,” on a motion to dismiss the court “merely examines the adequacy of the pleadings” … . In determining the sufficiency of a defamation pleading, we consider “whether the contested statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation” … . As we have previously stated, “[i]f, upon any reasonable view of the stated facts, plaintiff would be entitled to recovery for defamation, the complaint must be deemed to sufficiently state a cause of action” … . We apply this liberal standard fully aware that permitting litigation to proceed to discovery carries the risk of potentially chilling free speech, but do so because, as we have previously stated, “we recognize as well a plaintiff’s right to seek redress, and not have the courthouse doors closed at the very inception of an action, where the pleading meets the minimal standard necessary to resist dismissal of the complaint” … . * * *

In order for the challenged statements to be susceptible of a defamatory connotation, they must come within the well established categories of actionable communications. Thus, a false statement “that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion or disgrace constitutes defamation” … . “Since falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only ‘facts’ are capable of being proven false, ‘only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action'” … .

A defamatory statement of fact is in contrast to “pure opinion” which under our laws is not actionable because “[e]xpressions of opinion, as opposed to assertions of fact, are deemed privileged and, no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation” …. For, “[h]owever pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas” … . A pure opinion may take one of two forms. It may be “a statement of opinion which is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based,” or it may be “an opinion not accompanied by such a factual recitation” so long as “it does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts” … .

While a pure opinion cannot be the subject of a defamation claim, an opinion that “implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it, [] is a ‘mixed opinion’ and is actionable” … . This requirement that the facts upon which the opinion is based are known “ensure[s] that the reader has the opportunity to assess the basis upon which the opinion was reached in order to draw [the reader’s] own conclusions concerning its validity” … . What differentiates an actionable mixed opinion from a privileged, pure opinion is “the implication that the speaker knows certain facts, unknown to [the] audience, which support [the speaker’s] opinion and are detrimental to the person” being discussed ,,, .

Distinguishing between fact and opinion is a question of law for the courts, to be decided based on “what the average person hearing or reading the communication would take it to mean” … . “The dispositive inquiry … is ‘whether a reasonable [reader] could have concluded that [the statements were] conveying facts about the plaintiff” … . Davis v Boeheim, 2014 NY Slip Op 07083, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, , ,

Client May Pursue a Legal Malpractice Action Without Appealing the Ruling Upon Which the Malpractice Allegation Is Based Where It Has Not Been Demonstrated the Appeal Is Likely to Succeed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, determined that the plaintiff's failure to appeal a ruling that plaintiff's action was time-barred did not preclude plaintiff from bringing a legal malpractice action against the attorneys who represented the plaintiff in the time-barred action.  The failure to appeal would only act as a bar to the legal malpractice action if the defendants demonstrated the appeal was likely to have succeeded:

Here, the Appellate Division adopted the likely to succeed standard employed by our sister states with a proximate cause element . We agree that this is the proper standard, and that prior to commencing a legal malpractice action, a party who is likely to succeed on appeal of the underlying action should be required to press an appeal. However, if the client is not likely to succeed, he or she may bring a legal malpractice action without first pursuing an appeal of the underlying action.

On balance, the likely to succeed standard is the most efficient and fair for all parties. This standard will obviate premature legal malpractice actions by allowing the appellate courts to correct any trial court error and allow attorneys to avoid unnecessary malpractice lawsuits by being given the opportunity to rectify their clients' unfavorable result. Contrary to defendants' assertion that this standard will require courts to speculate on the success of an appeal, courts engage in this type of analysis when deciding legal malpractice actions generally … . Grace v Law, 2014 NY Slip Op 07089, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, ,

After a Mistrial in a Criminal Matter, a Prohibition Action Seeking to Bar Retrial on Double Jeopardy Grounds Must Be Brought Within Four Months of a Definitive Demonstration of the People’s Intent to Re-Prosecute

The Court of Appeals, over a concurring opinion which disagreed with the majority's grounds, determined that the four-month statute of limitations was not tolled under a “continuing harm” theory and the prohibition action was time-barred.  The trial court had declared a mistrial because, during deliberations, one of the 12 jurors was removed for misconduct.  It was clear shortly after the mistrial that the prosecution was preparing for a second trial. Two years after the mistrial was declared, the defendant brought a prohibition action seeking to prohibit the second trial on Double Jeopardy grounds:

A four-month limitations period applies to CPLR article 78 prohibition proceedings (see CPLR 217 [1]…) and the petition here was filed more than two years after the mistrial was declared. Although a tolling period for continuing harm has been recognized … and would be adopted by our concurring colleague, we reject its application in this situation. Once the People definitively demonstrated their intent to re-prosecute and the court began to calendar the case for eventual trial, Smith was obligated to initiate his Double Jeopardy-based article 78 challenge within the statutorily prescribed time frame. On the facts of this case, that period expired well before prohibition was sought, and therefore, the proceeding was barred by the statute of limitations. Matter of Smith v Brown, 2014 NY Slip OP 07090, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

“Outing” Confidential Informant Online Constituted Witness Tampering

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's conviction for fourth-degree witness tampering.  Defendant was present when a confidential informant purchased drugs from defendant's companion.  The transaction was videotaped.  Defendant put the surveillance tape online and identified the confidential informant on his Facebook page.  Statements on the Facebook page by the defendant and others included warnings such as “Snitches get stiches:”

The evidence, seen in the light most favorable to the People, is sufficient to establish that defendant knew that the confidential informant might testify in a proceeding, and that he wrongfully sought to stop her from doing so. After learning about Jackson's arrest and the confidential informant's role as a witness against Jackson and, potentially, himself, defendant immediately posted communications on the internet that the jury might have reasonably inferred were coded threats that were intended to induce the confidential informant not to testify. And in addition to the public postings on Facebook and YouTube, defendant was in contact via Facebook messages (which essentially act as email on the website) with the confidential informant and her mother. People v Horton, 2014 NY Slip Op 07088, Ct.App. 07088, CtApp 10-21-14

 

,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, determined there were questions of fact about whether the applicable regulations and codes required that there be a railing around an air shaft, and whether it was foreseeable that plaintiff would gain access to the flat roof through a window and fall into the shaft.  The opinion includes a detailed description of the relevant building regulations.  With respect to foreseeability, the court wrote:

It is well settled that, as landowners, defendants have “a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining [their] . . . property in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances” … . The existence and scope of this duty is, in the first instance, a legal question for the courts to determine by analyzing the relationship of the parties, whether the plaintiff was within the zone of foreseeable harm, and whether the accident was within the reasonably foreseeable risks … .

The focus of our inquiry, therefore, is whether it was foreseeable that defendants' tenants and their guests would access the setback roof and be exposed to a dangerous condition from the absence of a railing or guard around the air shaft. * * *

…[H]ere, the setback roof was flat and of sufficient size and length to comfortably permit several individuals to stand or walk on it. Access to the roof was easily obtained through the hallway window, and neither plaintiff nor his friends had any difficulty exiting. … Here, the tenant of the apartment that plaintiff was visiting testified that he had stepped onto the roof through the window approximately 15 times in the two months preceding the accident to smoke cigarettes and that the previous tenant had often done the same. According to the resident, evidence of this use was visible because cigarette butts and garbage littered the roof. On this record …reasonable minds could differ as to whether plaintiff's use of the roof and his resulting fall were foreseeable, thereby precluding the grant of summary judgment to defendants on that ground. Powers v 32 E 31 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 07084, CtApp 10-21-14

 

, ,

County Can Charge Towns the Amounts Paid by the County On Behalf of Community College Students Residing in the Towns, Even Though the State, by Statute, Undertook the Responsibility to Reimburse the Counties for those Expenses—One Statute Does Not Impliedly Repeal Another Unless It Is Impossible to Give Effect to Both

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined the amounts paid by a county for its residents' attendance at an out-of-county community college can be charged to the towns within the county where the students reside. The court further held that the amounts owed by the towns to the county could be taken by the county from a town's share of county sales tax revenue.  The county was authorized to charge the towns, even though the state, by statute, had taken on the responsibility for reimbursing the counties.  The state's obligation in that regard had not been funded for years. The state's failure to fund its obligation, however, did not negate the statute which allowed the county to charge the towns:

According to the financing system established by the Education Law, funding for community colleges is derived from the State, the local sponsor and the individual students (see Education Law §§ 6304 [1][a], [1][c], [1][d]). The local sponsor's portion of the financial burden depends upon where its students reside. For “resident” students — generally those who reside within the particular geographic region served by the local sponsor — the local sponsor is responsible for a portion of the community college's operating and capital costs (see Education Law §§ 6301 [5]; 6304 [1]). For nonresident students — those who live within New York State, but outside of the region where the community college is located — the local sponsor is permitted to charge back a portion of those operating costs to the students' county of residence (see Education Law § 6305 [2]). The county, in turn, is authorized to “charge back such amounts in whole or in part to the cities and towns in the county” where such nonresident students reside (Education Law § 6305 [5]). * * *

It is true that the State's reimbursement obligation is phrased in mandatory terms (see Education Law § 6305 [10]). However, there is nothing in the statute that expressly repeals the County's ability to seek chargebacks from the towns. Nor is there any indication that the legislature intended to impliedly repeal section 6305 (5). “Generally, a statute is deemed impliedly repealed by another statute only if the two are in such conflict that it is impossible to give some effect to both. If a reasonable field of operation can be found for each statute, that construction should be adopted” … . Here, the statutes are not in irreconcilable conflict, but can be harmonized. The community college funding scheme is clearly intended to provide the counties with reimbursement. That goal can either be accomplished using funds from the State (if available) or, in the alternative, from the local municipalities. The effect of the State's failure to fund its reimbursement obligation is not the imposition of an additional expense upon the counties — especially where the statute continues to authorize chargebacks to the towns and cities for all community colleges. In other words, the State's nonperformance does not change the rights and obligations as between the County and the Town. Rather, the State's reimbursement obligation was superseded when the legislature failed, in the course of the budgeting process, to appropriate the required funding … . The County was then free to look to the Town for reimbursement under Education Law § 6305 (5). Matter of Town of N Hempstead v County of Nassau, 2014 NY Slip Op 07009, CtApp 10-16-14

 

,

Application of the Emergency Doctrine Presented a Mixed Question of Law and Fact which Could Not Be Reviewed by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals determined that the application of the “emergency doctrine” to justify the warrantless search for and seizure of a weapon was a mixed question of law and fact which was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.  The police responded to a call indicating the defendant had shot himself in the hand.  After the defendant had been frisked and while he his wound was being treated, police officers searched the backyard and found a weapon. The appellate division held that the search was justified by the officers' concern that the children in the house might come across the weapon.  The dissenting judge granted leave to appeal.  The Court of Appeals explained when a mixed question of law and fact is beyond that court's review:

Application of the “emergency doctrine” involves a mixed question of law and fact that is beyond this Court's review so long as there is record support for the findings of the courts below … . The Appellate Division majority and dissent both applied the test set forth in People v Mitchell (39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]) and reached conflicting conclusions as to when the emergency ceased. Because there is record support for the majority's conclusion that the search was lawful under the emergency exception, “'any further review is beyond this Court's jurisdiction'” … . People v Rossi, 2014 NY Slip Op 07006, CtApp 10-16-14

 

, ,

Less Stringent “Area Variance” Criteria, Rather than the More Stringent “Use Variance” Criteria, Properly Applied to a Restaurant’s Request for a Variance Re: Off-Street Parking Requirements

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, determined when “area variance,” as opposed to “use variance,” criteria should be applied to off-street parking requirements.  The zoning board had allowed a variance from the off-street parking requirements for a restaurant under the less stringent “area variance” standard.  The petitioner, a neighboring property owner, sought a declaration that the more stringent “use variance” criteria should be applied.  The Court of Appeals disagreed with the petitioner and affirmed:

…[A]s of July 1, 1994, General City Law § 81-b (1) has defined a “use variance” as an authorization for the use of land for a purpose “otherwise not allowed or . . . prohibited” in the zoning district; and an “area variance” as an authorization to use land “in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements” of the zoning regulations (see also Town Law § 267 [1]; Village Law § 7-712 [1]). Off-street parking requirements, while differing depending on use, regulate how the property's area may be developed, akin to minimum lot size or set-back restrictions. Accordingly, area variance rules apply to requests to relax off-street parking requirements so long as the underlying use is permitted in the zoning district; use variance rules prevail only if the variance is sought in connection with a use prohibited or otherwise not allowed in the district (see generally, Terry Rice, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 61, Town Law § 267-b at 294-295).

In this case, [the restaurant] applied for an off-street parking variance in connection with a change in the storefront's use from a retail gift shop to a restaurant. Because both uses are permitted in the zoning district, the ZBA properly considered the application as a request for an area variance. Matter of Colin Realty Co LLC v Town of N Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 07008, CtApp 10-16-14

 

,

Speedy Trial Clock Starts On the Day the People’s Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals Is Denied, Notwithstanding Adjournments Granted in the Lower Court

The Court of Appeals determined that the speedy trial clock started running when the People's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.  The time attributable to the lower court's adjournment while the application to the Court of Appeals was pending should not have been excluded from the speedy trial calculation:

The parties do not dispute that under CPL 30.30 (5) (a) a new criminal action commenced when a Judge of this Court denied the People leave to appeal from the Appellate Term's order. The People point to the fact that, under the Criminal Procedure Law, “[i]n computing the time within which the people must be ready for trial . . . a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to: . . . appeals; . . . and the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” must be excluded (CPL 30.30 [4] [a] [emphasis added]).

The People contend therefore that the period from May 10, 2010 to August 23, 2010 is excludable, relying on People v Vukel (263 AD2d 416 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 830 [1999]), which held that when a trial court orders an adjournment for control purposes because of the pendency of a defendant's application for leave to appeal to this Court, the entire period of the adjournment is excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) (a), as time resulting from the appeal. In Vukel, the Appellate Division rejected the argument that the People have “an obligation to advance the case to an earlier date upon receiving the certificate denying leave” (id. at 417).

The mere lapse of time, following the date on which the order occasioning a retrial becomes final, does not in itself constitute a reasonable period of delay resulting from an appeal within the meaning of CPL 30.30 (4) (a). Otherwise, the People would be permitted to delay retrial for the duration of an adjournment in the trial court, no matter how lengthy, even after a Judge of our Court has denied leave to appeal, without consequence under CPL 30.30. Such a rule would be inconsistent with “the dominant legislative intent informing CPL 30.30, namely, to discourage prosecutorial inaction” … . To the extent Vukel holds otherwise, it should not be followed. People v Wells, 2014 NY Slip Op 07012, CtApp 10-16-14

 

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