You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

No “Exigent Circumstances”/Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Purse Incident to Arrest for Trespassing Not Justified

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a partial dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and, therefore, the search of defendant’s purse incident to a “trespassing” arrest was not justified. The loaded handgun in the purse should have been suppressed. The court explained the relevant law:

Under the State Constitution, to justify a warrantless search incident to arrest, the People must satisfy two separate requirements. The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is “not significantly divorced in time or location from the arrest” … .The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances … . We have recognized two interests underlying the exigency requirement: “the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment” … . Exigency must be affirmatively demonstrated. Accordingly, even a bag “within the immediate control or 'grabbable area' of a suspect at the time of his arrest may not be subjected to a search incident to arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect may gain possession of a weapon or be able to destroy evidence located in the bag” … . People v Jimenez, 23, CtApp 2-25-14 

 

, ,

Counsel’s Failure to Object to Prosecutor’s PowerPoint Presentation Did Not Require Reversal for Ineffective Assistance

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined that defense counsel’s failure to object to a PowerPoint presentation used by the prosecutor in summation did not require reversal. During the presentation, the postmortem image of the child, Justice (whom the defendant was accused of suffocating), faded to white at 30-second intervals over six minutes:

Defendant does not dispute that the postmortem photograph itself was properly admitted at trial … . The slides depicting an already admitted photograph, with captions accurately tracking prior medical testimony, might reasonably be regarded as relevant and fair, albeit dramatic, commentary on the medical evidence, and not simply an appeal to the jury's emotions. The jury was being asked to decide not only whether defendant killed Justice, but also whether she intended to do so, an issue to which the question of how long she would have had to cover Justice's mouth and nose was certainly relevant. On the other hand, the relevance of the visual device whereby the postmortem picture faded at 30-second intervals over a six-minute period – with each slide fading more and more to white, and the final slide appearing totally white – is difficult to discern. This did not show how Justice's death occurred nor would it have aided the jury in its fact-finding function.If the issue had been preserved for our review by timely objection – and had the trial court ruled against defendant and the issue reached our Court – this Court would have had the opportunity to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion and the error required a reversal of the judgment of conviction. But that did not occur and the objection to the PowerPoint presentation that defendant now raises is not so “clear-cut” or “dispositive” an argument that its omission amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel… . People v Santiago, 22, CtApp 2-25-14

 

,

Allegedly Flawed Service Overlooked Under CPLR 5304 Where Defendant Agreed by Contract that English Courts Would Have Jurisdiction Over Disputes and Defendant Had “Fair Notice” of the Lawsuit/Motion for Judgment In Lieu of Complaint Granted

The Court of Appeals determined summary judgment in lieu of complaint should have been granted to the plaintiff. Under the terms of a contract to provide wholesale seafood, the parties agreed the courts of England would have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. The defendant was served in England and defaulted, but argued in opposition to the summary judgment motion in New York that the person upon whom the documents were served was not authorized to accept service. The Court of Appeals held that service was sufficient under CPLR 5304 because the defendant had agreed by contract that the English courts have jurisdiction and the defendant had “fair notice” of the lawsuit:

Although CPLR article 53 generally provides that a foreign judgment will not be enforced in New York if the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant (CPLR 5304[a][2]), an exception may be made if, “prior to the commencement of the proceedings [defendant] had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved” (CPLR 5305[3]) and was afforded fair notice of the foreign court proceeding that gave rise to the judgment. We applied this principle in Galliano [15 NY3d 75], where we explained that enforcement of a foreign judgment is not repugnant to our notion of fairness if defendant was a party to a contract in which the parties agreed that disputes would be resolved in the courts of a foreign jurisdiction and defendant was aware of the ongoing litigation in that jurisdiction but neglected to appear and defend. We clarified that, so long as the exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court does not offend due process, the judgment should be enforced without “microscopic analysis” of the underlying proceedings … . Landauer Limited v Monani Fish Co Inc, 27, CtApp 2-25-14

 

“Rubbing” Constitutes “Forcible Touching”

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, the Court of Appeals determined that the allegation defendant “rubbed” his exposed penis on a subway passenger’s buttocks was sufficient to meet the pleading requirements for “forcible touching” in violation of Penal Law 130.52:

…[W]e hold that, when done with the relevant mens rea, any bodily contact involving the application of some level of pressure to the victim's sexual or intimate parts qualifies as a forcible touch within the meaning of Penal Law § 130.52. The allegation in the information here easily meets this test. People v Guaman, 29, CtApp 2-25-14

 

,

Deception Used By Interrogators Rendered Confession Involuntary As a Matter of Law

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, the Court of Appeals determined, as a matter of law, defendant’s confession had been coerced by impermissible deception. The confession was suppressed and a new trial ordered. The interrogators told the defendant (1) his wife would be arrested if he did not confess to responsibility for injuries to their child and (2) disclosure of the circumstances of the injury was necessary to allow the doctors to save the child’s life (the child already had been declared brain-dead):

It is the People's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that statements of a defendant they intend to rely upon at trial are voluntary … . To do that, they must show that the statements were not products of coercion, either physical or psychological …, or, in other words that they were given as a result of a “free and unconstrained choice by [their] maker” … . The task is the same where deception is employed in the service of psychologically oriented interrogation; the statements must be proved, under the totality of the circumstances … — necessarily including any potentially actuating deception — the product of the maker's own choice. The choice to speak where speech may incriminate is constitutionally that of the individual, not the government, and the government may not effectively eliminate it by any coercive device. It is well established that not all deception of a suspect is coercive, but in extreme forms it may be. Whether deception or other psychologically directed stratagems actually eclipse individual will, will of course depend upon the facts of each case, both as they bear upon the means employed and the vulnerability of the declarant. There are cases, however, in which voluntariness may be determined as a matter of law — in which the facts of record permit but one legal conclusion as to whether the declarant's will was overborne … . This, we believe, is such a case. What transpired during defendant's interrogation was not consonant with and, indeed, completely undermined, defendant's right not to incriminate himself — to remain silent. People v Thomas, 18, CtApp 2-20-14

 

In a Falling Object Case, the Device Which Failed Was Not a Safety Device—Defendant Not Liable

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the action based upon injury from a falling conduit should have been dismissed because the device which failed was not a safety device:

Labor Law § 240 (1) … requires owners and contractors to provide proper protection to those working on a construction site … . It imposes absolute liability where the failure to provide such protection is a proximate cause of a worker's injury … .In order to prevail on summary judgment in a section 240 (1) “falling object” case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute “and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . Essentially, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being “hoisted or secured” …, or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . Contrary to the dissent's contention, section 240 (1) does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker; “a plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device … of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

The Appellate Division … in denying summary judgment to defendants … , because they established as a matter of law that the conduit did not fall on plaintiff due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device.

The compression coupling, which plaintiff claims was inadequate, is not a safety device “constructed, placed, and operated as to give proper protection” from the falling conduit. Its only function was to keep the conduit together as part of the conduit/pencil box assembly. The coupling had been installed a week before the incident and had been serving its intended purpose until a change order was issued and plaintiff dismantled the conduit/pencil box assembly. Fabrizi v 1095 Avenue of the Americas…, 15, CtApp 2-20-14

 

,

No Prosecutorial Misconduct Where Prosecutors Told the Grand Jury that the Witness Defendant Asked the Grand Jury to Call Would Not Provide Relevant Evidence/Prosecutor’s Role in Grand Jury Explained in Some Detail

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the prosecutors did not impair the integrity of the grand jury proceedings by suggesting a witness the defendant asked the grand jury to subpoena would not provide relevant testimony. The court explained the prosecutor’s role in the grand jury:

CPL article 190 governs the conduct of the grand jury and the parties which appear before that body, and it requires that all grand jury proceedings remain secret to protect the essential functions of those various actors (see generally CPL 190.05; 190.25 [4] [a]). Under this statutory regime, the exclusive “legal advisors of the grand jury are the court and the district attorney” (CPL 190.25 [6]), and their decision to present certain items of evidence and to exclude others is for the most part limited only by the rules of evidence applicable at trial (see CPL 190.30 [1]…).  In the same vein, the prosecutor enjoys “broad powers and duties, as well as wide discretion in presenting the People's case” to the grand jury … . Indeed, the prosecutor “determines the competency of witnesses to testify,” and he or she “must instruct the jury on the legal significance of the evidence” … .

Notably, though, due process imposes upon the prosecutor a “duty of fair dealing to the accused and candor to the courts,” thus requiring the prosecutor “not only to seek convictions but also to see that justice is done” … . This duty extends to the prosecutor's instructions to the grand jury and the submission of evidence … . The prosecutor also cannot provide “an inaccurate or misleading answer to the grand jury's legitimate inquiry” …, nor can the prosecutor accept an indictment that he or she knows to be based on false, misleading or legally insufficient evidence … .

Even under those principles, “[a] Grand Jury proceeding is not a mini trial, but a proceeding convened primarily to investigate crimes and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to accuse a citizen of a crime and subject him or her to a criminal prosecution” … . That being so, the prosecutor need not tread too lightly in pressing the People's case or rebutting the defendant's assertions. For example, where the defendant chooses to testify, the prosecutor may, within limits, ask probing or even skeptical questions of the defendant about issues raised by his or her testimony … . Similarly, in the role of legal advisor, the prosecutor need not instruct the grand jury on the full extent of its investigatory and deliberative powers … . The prosecutor may decline to instruct the grand jury about a variety of defenses, and he or she need not disclose certain forms of exculpatory evidence or reveal to the grand jury the circumstances surrounding the authorities' investigation of the case … . These examples illustrate that, in occupying a “dual role as advocate and public officer” … , the prosecutor is not obligated to present the evidence or make statements to the grand jurors in the manner most favorable to the defense. People v Thompson, 10, CtApp 2-20-14

 

, , ,

Public Trust Doctrine Re: Allowing a Restaurant in a Public Park/License and Lease Characteristics Compared

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals determined that a the city’s allowing a restaurant to operate in a public park did not violate the public trust doctrine and the arrangement between the city and the restaurant was a valid license, not a lease (which would have required approval by the legislature):

Under the public trust doctrine, dedicated parkland cannot be converted to a non-park purpose for an extended period of time absent the approval of the State Legislature … . * * * … [A]lthough it is for the courts to determine what is and is not a park purpose, … the Commissioner enjoys broad discretion to choose among alternative valid park purposes. Observing that restaurants have long been operated in public parks, we [in 795 Fifth Ave Corp v City of New York, 15 NY2d 221] rejected plaintiffs' public trust claim, holding that they could show only a “difference of opinion” as to the best way to use the park space and that this “mere difference of opinion [was] not a demonstration of illegality”… . * * *

We have stated that parkland cannot be leased, even for a park purpose, absent legislative approval … . * * *

A document is a lease “if it grants not merely a revocable right to be exercised over the grantor's land without possessing any interest therein but the exclusive right to use and occupy that land” … . It is the conveyance of “absolute control and possession of property at an agreed rental which differentiates a lease from other arrangements dealing with property rights” …. . A license, on the other hand, is a revocable privilege given “to one, without interest in the lands of another, to do one or more acts of a temporary nature upon such lands” … . That a writing refers to itself as a license or lease is not determinative; rather, the true nature of the transaction must be gleaned from the rights and obligations set forth therein. Finally, a broad termination clause reserving to the grantor “the right to cancel whenever it decides in good faith to do so” is strongly indicative of a license as opposed to a lease … . Union Square Park Community Coalition Inc v New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, 17, CtApp 2-20-14

 

Contradictory Information in Disclaimer Letters Did Not Invalidate the Disclaimer of Assault and Battery Coverage

Over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the insurance company, QBE, properly disclaimed coverage for an assault and battery claim against the insured bar, Jinx-Proof, despite contradictory language in the two disclaimer letters:

The courts below properly determined that QBE effectively disclaimed coverage for the assault and battery claims asserted in the underlying action. The first letter sent to Jinx-Proof stated that QBE would not defend or indemnify Jinx-Proof “under the General Liability portion of the policy for assault and battery allegations” and that Jinx-Proof did not have liquor liability coverage. The second letter stated that Jinx-Proof did have liquor liability coverage but that the policy excludes coverage for assault and battery claims. Specifically, the second letter stated:

“[W]e are defending this matter under the Liquor Liability portion of the [general commercial liability] coverage, and under strict reservation of rights for allegations of Assault and Battery. Your policy excludes coverage for assault and battery claims . . . Therefore, should this matter proceed to verdict, any awards by the Court stemming from allegations of Assault and Battery will not be covered under your Commercial General Liability policy.”

Although the letters contain some contradictory and confusing language, the confusion was not relevant to the issue in this case. The letters specifically and consistently stated that Jinx-Proof's insurance policy excludes coverage for assault and battery claims. These statements were sufficient to apprise Jinx-Proof that QBE was disclaiming coverage on the ground of the exclusion for assault and battery, and this disclaimer was effective even though the letters also contained “reservation of rights” language … . QBE Insurance Corporation v Jinx-Proof Inc, 25, CtApp 2-18-14

 

A “Statutory Resident” of New York for Income Tax Purposes Must Actually Reside In New York, Not Merely Maintain Property in New York

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, the Court of Appeals determined that the residency requirement in the income tax law means the taxpayer must actually reside in the dwelling, not merely maintain it. Here the Tax Tribunal determined the petitioner, who had a business in New York to which he traveled from New Jersey each day, and who owned and maintained an apartment house in New York where his elderly parents lived, was not a “statutory resident” of New York within the meaning of the Tax Law:

The Tax Tribunal has interpreted “maintains a permanent place of abode” to mean that a taxpayer need not “reside” in the dwelling, but only maintain it, to qualify as “statutory resident” under Tax Law § 605 [b][1][B]. Our review is limited to whether that interpretation comports with the meaning and intent of the statutes involved … . We conclude there is no rational basis for that interpretation. Notably, nowhere in the statute does it provide anything other than the “permanent place of abode” must relate to the taxpayer. The legislative history of the statute, to prevent tax evasion by New York residents, as well as the regulations, support the view that in order for a taxpayer to have maintained a permanent place of abode in New York, the taxpayer must, himself, have a residential interest in the property. Matter of Gaied v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 26, CtApp 2-18-14

 

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