You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

Criteria for Submission of Lesser Included Offense Explained

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the trial court properly refused to submit the lesser included offence of reckless manslaughter to the jury.  The victim died of a deep, forceful stab wound.  The pathologist testified the wound could not have been inflicted by waving a knife around, which is what the defendant claimed he did.  In explaining the criteria for submission of a lesser included offense, the Court of Appeals wrote:

A party who seeks to have a lesser included crime charged to the jury must satisfy a two-pronged inquiry. First, the crime must be a lesser included offense within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20 (37). Here, defendant asked the trial judge to charge second-degree manslaughter, which is a lesser included crime of second-degree intentional murder … . Second, the party making the request for a charge-down “must then show that there is a reasonable view of the evidence in the particular case that would support a finding that [the defendant] committed the lesser included offense, but not the greater” (…Criminal Procedure Law § 300.50 [1]…). In assessing whether there is a “reasonable view of the evidence,” the proof must be looked at “in the light most favorable to the defendant” …, which requires awareness of “the jury’s right to accept some part of the evidence presented by either side and reject other parts of that proof” … . We have never, however, “countenance[d] selective dissection of the integrated testimony of a single witness as to whom credibility, or incredibility, could only be a constant factor” … .

A “reasonable view of the evidence” does not mean, as defendant insists, that a trial court must charge reckless manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder unless the record “completely excludes the possibility that the defendant acted recklessly.” People v Rivera, 2014 NY Slip Op 02379, CtApp 4-8-14

 

,

Gabriela A’s Actions Constituted Disobedience Under PINS Criteria, Not Criminal Actions (Resisting Arrest/Obstruction of Governmental Administration) Under Juvenile Delinquency Criteria

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined, under the facts,  a “Person In Need of Supervision (PINS)” should not have been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent.  Gabriela A., a PINS who had left the non-secure facility where she was placed, apparently resisted to some extent when police officers came to return her to the facility. After the fact-finding hearing, Gabriela A was placed in a secure facility pending disposition. Family Court ultimately determined Gabriela A was a juvenile delinquent finding Gabriele A had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the criminal offenses of obstruction of governmental administration and resisting arrest. The Court of Appeals did not rule out the procedure used by Family Court, which essentially converted a PINS proceeding to a Juvenile delinquency proceeding. Rather, the court determined, under the facts, Gabriela A’s behavior was properly characterized as PINS behavior, not criminal behavior:

The crime of resisting arrest requires that a person intentionally prevent “an authorized arrest” (Penal Law § 205.30). The restraint of a PINS pursuant to Family Court Act § 718, however, is not the same as a criminal arrest … . A PINS proceeding is fundamentally civil in nature. … Thus, a PINS who resists being restrained or transported back to a placement facility is not resisting arrest within the meaning of Penal Law § 205.30.

Next, a person is guilty of the misdemeanor of obstructing governmental administration when he or she “intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference” (Penal Law § 195.05). Probation officers qualify as “public servants” within the broad definition supplied in the Penal Law (see Penal Law § 10.00 [15]), and Gabriela A. admitted that she wanted to “make it hard” for Officer Flores and the other probation officers to handcuff and take her to the non-secure facility. On the other hand, the legislature has defined a PINS to include someone who is “habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of . . . lawful authority” (Family Court Act § 712 [a]). Thus, a PINS’s disobedience and obstruction of “lawful authority” is not necessarily the same as an adult’s. Since Family Court Act §§ 720 (1) and (2) forbid placement of a PINS in a secure facility, the legislature surely did not intend the type of behavior that might cause a child to be designated a PINS in the first place to become the basis for secure detention … .  Matter of Gabriela A, 2014 NY Slip Op 02376, CtApp, 4-8-14

 

,

No Private Right of Action for Unequal Pay Under Civil Service Law Section 115

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined Civil Service Law section 115 does not create a private right of action concerning unequal pay for the same work.  Rather, section 115 merely states a policy, unenforceable by the courts:

Civil Service Law Article VIII, “Classification and Compensation of Employees”, contains three titles, the first of which (Title A), entitled, “Classification and Allocation of Positions”, begins with section 115, “Policy of the state,” which provides:”In order to attract unusual merit and ability to the service of the state of New York, to stimulate higher efficiency among the personnel, to provide skilled leadership in administrative departments, to reward merit and to insure to the people and the taxpayers of the state of New York the highest return in services for the necessary costs of government, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to provide equal pay for equal work, and regular increases in pay in proper proportion to increase of ability, increase of output and increase of equality of work demonstrated in service.”

Courts of this State have routinely interpreted section 115 and its predecessor, the nearly identically-worded former Civil Service Law § 37, as merely enunciating a policy, conferring no jurisdiction on a court to enforce what is simply that – a statement of policy… .   * * *

It is clear that Section 115 is a preamble to Civil Service Law article VIII, and no private right of action flows from it. Article 14 of the Civil Service Law (the Taylor Law) provides the mechanism for represented employees to challenge alleged wage disparities between classifications. Matter of Subway Surface Supervisors Assn v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 02380, CtApp 4-8-14

 

, ,

A Union Is Not an Entity Separate from Its Members—A Union, Therefore, Can Not Be Sued By a Member Unless Every Member Participated In the Action Which Gave Rise to the Suit

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, upheld the so-called “Martin” rule (Martin v Curran, 303 NY 276 [1951]) which prohibits a suit against an unincorporated association, here a union, unless the suit can be maintained against every member of the association.  The executive board of the union decided against taking plaintiff’s grievance to arbitration. Because only the executive board participated in the decision, plaintiff’s suit against the union was prohibited by statute:

In a 4-3 decision authored by Judge Desmond, this Court held in Martin that a voluntary unincorporated association “is neither a partnership nor a corporation. It is not an artificial person, and has no existence independent of its members” (303 NY at 280). The Court determined that “for better or worse, wisely or otherwise, the Legislature has limited . . . suits against association officers, whether for breaches of agreements or for tortious wrongs, to cases where the individual liability of every single member can be alleged and proven” (id. at 282). Although there were policy considerations that might suggest a different result, the Martin Court was “under the command of a plainly stated, plainly applicable statute, uniformly held by this court, for many years, to require pleading and proof of authorization or ratification by all the members of the group” (id. at 280). That statute, General Associations Law § 13, is entitled “Action or proceeding against unincorporated association” and provides:”An action or special proceeding may be maintained, against the president or treasurer of such an association, to recover any property, or upon any cause of action, for or upon which the plaintiff may maintain such an action or special proceeding, against all the associates, by reason of their interest or ownership, or claim of ownership therein, either jointly or in common, or their liability therefor, either jointly or severally. Any partnership, or other company of persons, which has a president or treasurer, is deemed an association within the meaning of this section.”The Martin Court also noted that McCabe v Longfellow (133 NY 89 [1892]), the leading case on the right to maintain an action against an unincorporated association, held that a plaintiff could not maintain an action against the officer of an unincorporated association “unless the debt which he seeks to recover is one upon which he could maintain an action against all the associates by reason of their liability therefor” (303 NY at 281…), and that there had been a “line of consistent decisions to that effect” since McCabe. Ultimately, the Martin Court concluded that, because a labor union is a voluntary unincorporated association, the plaintiff was required to plead and prove that each member of the union authorized or ratified the alleged wrongful conduct.  Palladino v CNY Centro Inc, 2014 NY Slip Po 02378, CtApp 4-8-14

 

Notice Requirements for a Nonparty Subpoena Pursuant to CPLR 3101(a)(4) Explained/Criteria for a Motion to Quash and Opposition to the Motion to Quash Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals determined the nature of the notice requirements for subpoenaing a nonparty pursuant to CPLR 3101 (a)(4), and the criteria for determining a motion to quash the subpoena:

We conclude that the subpoenaing party must first sufficiently state the “circumstances or reasons” underlying the subpoena (either on the face of the subpoena itself or in a notice accompanying it), and the witness, in moving to quash, must establish either that the discovery sought is “utterly irrelevant” to the action or that the “futility of the process to uncover anything legitimate is inevitable or obvious.” Should the witness meet this burden, the subpoenaing party must then establish that the discovery sought is “material and necessary” to the prosecution or defense of an action, i.e., that it is relevant. Matter of Kapon v Koch, 2014 NY Slip Op 02327, CtApp 4-3-14

 

, ,

Appeals Not Pursued for a Decade or More Properly Dismissed

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, determined, with respect to three of four defendants, dismissal of the appeals was appropriate. The appeals were not pursued for more than a decade, in one case more than two decades, after the filing of the notices of appeal, and the excuses for inaction were found insufficient.  With respect to the fourth defendant, counsel had never reviewed the record. Therefore, defendant’s right to appellate counsel had not been honored. The matter was sent back for the appointment of appellate counsel and submissions, after which the motion to dismiss the appeal could be properly considered.  People v Perez, 2014 NY Slip Op 02326, CtApp 4-3-13

 

, ,

Statutory Attorney’s Fees Awarded in a Human Rights Law Action Should Not Be Added to the Jury Award to Determine the Amount of the Contingency Fee

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, explained how attorney’s fees should be calculated when there is a contingency fee agreement which does not make clear how the contingency fee is affected by the award of statutory attorney’s fees (in addition to the jury award) pursuant to the Human Rights Law.  The attorney claimed that the contingency should be calculated after adding the statutory fees to the jury award. The court disagreed:

…[B]oth federal precedent and instructive decisions from our sister states evince that,”absent a contractual provision to the contrary, the trend is to calculate the contingency fee based on the amount of the judgment exclusive of the fee award, and then credit the fee award to the client as an offset against the contingency fee owed. Under this approach, the attorney should be entitled to receive either the contingent fee calculated on the amount of the damage recovery exclusive of any court-awarded fees, or the amount of the court-awarded fee, whichever is greater”… .

In the context of the present case, concerning construction of retainer agreements in conjunction with attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to the NYCHRL (New York city Human Rights Law), such an approach comports with our precedent holding that ambiguous fee agreements should be interpreted against the drafting attorney … .

In addition, permitting counsel to collect a statutory award that exceeds the amount due under a contingency fee agreement advances the “uniquely broad and remedial purpose” of the NYCHRL by incentivizing the private bar to represent civil rights plaintiffs even where any damage award is likely to be insubstantial … . In this regard, freedom of contract is also respected since, in the event that the statutory award is less than the contingency fee, deducting the court-awarded fees from the sum owed under the contract ensures that the attorney receives, and the client pays, no more or less than they bargained for … .

On the facts before us, we need not decide whether a retainer agreement entitling an attorney to court-ordered counsel fees in addition to the full contingency fee would be enforceable. We would note, however, that such an arrangement would be subject to requisite scrutiny under applicable laws and rules controlling the reasonableness of attorney compensation… .  Albunio v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02325, CtApp 4-3-14

 

,

Jury Should Have Been Instructed that It Could Determine Whether Witness Was an Accomplice and Assess the Witness’ Credibility Accordingly/Propriety of Jury Instruction Is Reviewable by the Court of Appeals as a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the trial court committed reversible error by refusing defendant’s request for an “accomplice-in-fact” jury instruction.  The defendant’s conviction for manslaughter for participation in a beating death involving several assailants was based in large part upon the testimony of an eyewitness.  The Court of Appeals found that there was enough evidence of the eyewitness’ participation in the crime to warrant an instruction which would allow the jury to determine if the eyewitness was an accomplice and to assess the eyewitness’ credibility accordingly.  The Court explained the “accomplice as a matter of law” and “accomplice-in-fact” theories:

An accomplice is “a witness in a criminal action who, according to the evidence adduced in such action, may reasonably be considered to have participated in: (a) [t]he offense charged; or (b) [a]n offense based upon the same or some of the same facts or conduct which constitute the offense charged” (CPL 60.22 [2]). Under our criminal law, “[a] defendant may not be convicted of any offense upon the testimony of an accomplice unsupported by corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of such offense” (CPL 60.22 [1]). Testimony of such a witness, marked by obvious self interest, carries the potential for falsification to avoid prosecution … . * * *

Where the court determines on the evidence that a witness comes within the meaning of CPL 60.22 (2), the witness is an accomplice as a matter of law, and the court must instruct the jury that the witness is an accomplice and subject to the statutory corroboration requirement … . * * * In a case where the court concludes that a factual dispute exists as to whether the witness is an accomplice under the statute, the factual question is left for the jury to resolve… . * * *

We have found a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law where, for example, the witness pleads guilty to aiding the defendant in the commission of the crime …, or otherwise confirms participation or assisting in the charged crime … .

In contrast, the witness may be found to be an accomplice in fact where there are factual disputes as to the witness’s participation or intent, such that “different inferences may reasonably be drawn” from the evidence as to the witness’s role as an accomplice … .  * * *  The propriety of a jury instruction is reviewable as a matter of law… .  People v Sage, 2014 NY Slip Op 02214, CtApp 4-1-14

 

,

A Third-Party’s Removal of a Safety Device Did Not Require Summary Judgment In Favor of the Manufacturer, Even though the Safety Device Would Have Prevented the Injury/There Was Evidence the Safety Device Itself Was Defective, Leading to Its Removal by the Third Party/Therefore, the “Substantial Modification” Defense Did Not Insulate the Manufacturer from Liability as a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the defendant manufacturer of a post-hole digger did not demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the product liability suit because a plastic safety shield (which would have prevented the injury) had been removed by a third party after the sale (the “substantial modification” defense).  There was evidence that the plastic shield was defective in that it wore out prematurely:

If the defendant establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on substantial modification, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with evidentiary proof in admissible form demonstrating “the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” …. . The plaintiff may overcome a substantial modification defense by demonstrating that the post-sale modification did not render a “safe product defective” because the product incorporated a defectively designed safety feature at the time of sale … . In other words, the plaintiff must raise a triable issue of fact whether the safety feature “was not reasonably safe and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s injury” … . * * *

…[I]f a plaintiff establishes the existence of material issues of fact concerning the defective design of a safety feature, the defendant will not automatically prevail on summary judgment simply because that safety feature was modified post sale. The substantial modification defense is intended to insulate manufacturers and others in the distribution chain from liability for injuries that would never have arisen but for the post-sale modification of a safety feature on an otherwise safe product. [It] does not, however, mandate summary disposal of cases where the plaintiff raises a colorable claim that the product was dangerous because of a defectively designed safety feature and notwithstanding the modification by the third party. We agree with the Appellate Division that, on this record, plaintiff established the existence of material issues of fact sufficient to overcome defendants’ substantial modification defense. Hoover v New Holland N Am Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02215, CtApp 4-1-14

 

,

No Probable Cause for Disorderly Conduct Arrest/Defendant Was Standing in Front of a Store with Three Others All of Whom Refused Police Officer’s Request to Move

The Court of Appeals determined the presence of three reputed gang members in front of a store, one of whom was partially blocking the door, was not enough to support a disorderly conduct charge.  Evidence seized as a result of arrest should therefore have been suppressed:

The applicable statute is Penal Law § 240.20 (6), which says:”A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:. . . .”6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;”

We have made clear that evidence of actual or threatened public harm (“inconvenience, annoyance or alarm”) is a necessary element of a valid disorderly conduct charge … . Here, the evidence was insufficient to provide the arresting officer with probable cause to believe that defendant either intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or was reckless in creating a risk of those consequences. According to the officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing, defendant stood with three other young men, reputed to be gang members, on a street corner, and the four refused to move when asked to do so by the police. The only evidence of any possible impact on the public resulting from their presence was the officer’s testimony that one of defendant’s companions “was partially blocking” the entrance to a store by standing in front of it.  Defendant and the other two men were close to the door, but not in front of it. There is no evidence that anyone trying to enter or leave the store was actually obstructed. This was not sufficient to satisfy the public harm element of the statute.  People v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 02217, CtApp 4-1-14

 

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