You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

A JUDGMENT DEBTOR CANNOT BRING AN ACTION IN TORT AGAINST THE CREDITOR OR THE MARSHAL ALLEGING DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY TO BE APPLIED TO THE DEBT; THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S REMEDIES ARE CONFINED TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN CPLR 5239 AND 5240 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissent, and an additional single-judge dissent, determined a judgment debtor cannot bring a action in tort against the creditor or the marshal stemming from the seizure of the judgment debtor’s property. Any such claim must be made pursuant to CPLR 5239, 5240:

“[G]eneral provisions that permit ‘any interested person’—including a judgment debtor—to secure remedies for wrongs arising under the statutory scheme” are set out in CPLR 5239 and 5240 … . CPLR 5239 provides that “[p]rior to the application of property or debt by a sheriff or receiver to the satisfaction of a judgment, any interested person may commence a special proceeding against the judgment creditor or other person with whom a dispute exists to determine rights in the property or debt.” In such a proceeding, “[t]he court may vacate the execution or order, void the levy, direct the disposition of the property or debt, or direct that damages be awarded” … . Section 5240 in turn lays out the court’s power to, “at any time, on its own initiative or the motion of any interested person, and upon such notice as it may require, make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure.” … CPLR 5240 grants the courts broad discretionary power to control and regulate the enforcement of a money judgment under article 52 to prevent ‘unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice to any person or the courts'” … . … CPLR 5240 provides courts with the ability to craft flexible and equitable responses to claims that arise with respect to enforcement of valid money judgments. Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v GTR Source, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 07055, CtApp 12-16-21

 

, ,

CASE 1: THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES ON A NUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SIMULTANEOUS, WITH THE SIGNING; HERE A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY WAS TOO LONG; CASE 2: A DEFECT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, HERE THE LAWYERS’ FAILURE TO STATE THE SIGNERS WERE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THEM, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE AGREEEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined: (1) Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law (DRL) 236 (B) (3), the acknowledgment of signatures on a nuptial agreement must be contemporaneous, but not necessarily simultaneous, with the signing: and (2) if the signing is contemporaneous, but the acknowledgment is defective, the nuptial agreement remains enforceable. Here, in the Anderson case, the husband’s signature was not acknowledged until seven years after the signing (shortly before filing for divorce). In that circumstance the agreement would have to be reaffirmed to be enforceable. In the Koegel case, the lawyers’ acknowledgments failed indicate the undisputed fact that the signers were personally known to them. The defect in the acknowledgments did not affect the validity of the agreement and there was no need for reaffirmation:

[Re: Anderson:] A document that depends on an untimely acknowledgment is the legal and functional equivalent of an unacknowledged document. However, in a case involving such a document, the parties are not without a remedy. When there is an excessive delay rendering an acknowledgment ineffective and the agreement therefore unenforceable, the parties are free to reaffirm their agreement, again based on the information available to them at that time. To comply with DRL § 236 (B) (3), reaffirmation would require that both parties must again sign and acknowledge the agreement. The rule thus places the parties on a fair and equal footing in deciding whether to be bound by the agreement—either initially or at some future date if the agreement is unenforceable because of the delay. * * *

[Re: Koegel:] We … hold that the defect … presented in this appeal may be overcome with adequate evidence that the statutory requirements were met, even if the acknowledgment is not properly documented in the first instance. This limited remedy avoids invalidating a nuptial agreement when the parties have done all that the DRL requires of them. In other words, the signature and acknowledgment may satisfy the statutory mandates if extrinsic evidence supports “that the acknowledgment was properly made in the first instance” even if the certificate fails to “include the proper language” due to the notary’s or other official’s error … . Anderson v Anderson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07058, CtApp 12-16-21

 

,

THE SEX TRAFFICKING STATUTE HAS TWO LINKED BUT DISTINCT ELEMENTS WHICH WERE PROPERLY EXPLAINED TO THE JURY IN THE INITIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS; HOWEVER THE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE ERRONEOUSLY COLLAPSED THE STATUTE TO A SINGLE ELEMENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE SEX TRAFFICKING COUNTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, vacating the sex trafficking convictions and ordering a new trial, over two lengthy concurrences and a dissent, determined the supplemental jury instruction failed to explain to the jury that the sex trafficking statute has two linked but distinct elements which must be proven to convict. The positions taken by the concurrences differ and are too nuanced to fairly summarize here:

The sex trafficking statute is comprised of two distinct but linked elements, namely the offender must advance or profit from prostitution by one of the enumerated coercive acts (see Penal Law § 230.34). The trial court’s supplemental instruction, in response to a jury note, erroneously severed the required link between those elements. Accordingly, defendant’s sex trafficking convictions should be vacated, and a new trial held on those counts … . * * *

From Judge Singas’s Concurrence:

Collapsing sex trafficking into a single-element crime would cast too small a net, unjustifiably limiting the jurisdiction of this State to prosecute only those cases where the entire crime occurred in New York. Just as significantly, treating the statute’s two elements as unlinked could unjustifiably authorize prosecution of crimes in New York for extraterritorial conduct having no impact on the public safety of the state. Accordingly, we would hold that the sex trafficking statute is comprised of two discrete yet connected elements, to wit, the offender must advance or profit from prostitution through coercive acts taken in furtherance of his or her prostitution enterprise. People v Lamb, 2021 NY Slip Op 07057, CtApp 12-16-21

 

, ,

THIS ACTION INVOLVED THE NAZIS’ CONFISCATION OF A DEGAS PAINTING OWNED BY A GERMAN CITIZEN WHO SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED TO SWITZERLAND AND THEN FRANCE; SUPREME COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE ACTION ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a dissent, determined the action involving a Degas painting confiscated by the Nazis from a German citizen, who then moved to Switzerland and France, was properly dismissed on forum non coveniens grounds. The dismissal presented a matter requiring the exercise of discretion by Supreme Court, which was not abused:

CPLR 327 (a) provides that “[w]hen the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of any party, may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” Generally, “a decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is addressed to a court’s discretion” … and, if the courts below considered the various relevant factors in making such a determination, “there has been no abuse of discretion reviewable by this [C]ourt,” even if we would have weighed those factors differently … . * * *

… [T]he record reflects that the courts below painstakingly considered the relevant factors, including the public policies at issue, and determined that the balance of factors militated in favor of dismissal … . Thus, plaintiffs’ argument that this is one of the “relatively uncommon” cases in which forum non conveniens can be resolved, and denied, as a matter of law ultimately fails … . Inasmuch as the courts below considered the various relevant factors, “there has been no abuse of discretion reviewable by this [C]ourt” … . Estate of Kainer v UBS AG, 2021 NY Slip Op 07056, CtApp 12-16-21

 

,

DEFENDANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IN THE LOWER COURT; THEREFORE THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the alleged error in the CPL 400.21 predicate felony statement was not preserved for appeal:

Because defendant failed to challenge the CPL 400.21 predicate felony statement filed by the People in the court of first instance, her claim that her sentence was illegal due to the failure to include the tolling periods in that document did not present a question of law for purposes of appellate review … .  Defendant’s claim was not reviewable under the narrow illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement because it was not “readily discernible from the trial record” that the sentence the court imposed was not within the permissible range … . People v Lashley, 2021 NY Slip Op 06938, CtApp 12-14-21

 

,

UNDER THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AN OBJECTION WAS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE ABOUT A PROSPECTIVE JUROR; DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AND WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO HIS ABSENCE FROM THE PRE-WAIVER SIDEBAR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined the defendant’s absence from a sidebar conference regarding a prospective juror did not require reversal. Subsequent to the the sidebar, defendant waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences and was given the opportunity to object to the pre-waiver sidebar. Under these circumstance, the Court of Appeals held, although normally not required, an objection was necessary to preserve the error for appeal:

When a defendant is not present at a sidebar conference wherein the court actively solicits answers from a prospective juror which relate to issues of bias or hostility, People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247 [1992]) requires a new trial in the absence of defendant’s waiver of the right to be present. Defendant’s protest in the trial court is generally not required. The purpose of the Antommarchi rule, as derived from CPL 260.20, is to provide defendant the opportunity to personally assess the juror’s facial expressions and demeanor in order to provide meaningful input on the prospective juror’s retention or exclusion from the jury. The question presented on this appeal is whether defendant, having explicitly waived his Antommarchi right to be present at sidebars in the middle of the voir dire proceeding involving a prospective juror who was ultimately struck when codefendant exercised a peremptory strike, is entitled to a new trial based on his absence from a pre-waiver sidebar conference with that same prospective juror. We conclude that the claimed error, under these unique circumstances, required defendant’s protest in the trial court given his acquiescence in the post-waiver voir dire of the prospective juror after being invited to express any objection that he may have had regarding the pre-waiver sidebar conference. People v Wilkins, 2021 NY Slip Op 06936, CtApp 12-14-21​

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFIT CLAIMS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2014, EVEN IF THE DISABILITY CLAIM FOR THE SAME INJURY HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BEFORE THE CUT-OFF (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, determined Workers’ Compensation death benefit claims which accrued on orf after January 1, 2014, cannot be transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases (Special Fund) even if the disability claim for the same injury had been transferred prior to the cut-off:

Under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 25-a (1-a), no liability for claims submitted on or after January 1, 2014, may be transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases (the Special Fund). The common issue presented in these appeals is whether WCL § 25-a (1-a) forecloses the transfer of liability for a death benefits claim submitted on or after the cut-off, regardless of the prior transfer of liability for a worker’s disability claim arising out of the same injury. Based on the plain statutory language, which broadly applies to all claims submitted after the deadline, and our established precedent that a death benefits claim accrues at the time of death and “is a separate and distinct legal proceeding” from the worker’s original disability claim … , we conclude that liability for the death benefits claims at issue here could not be transferred to the Special Fund. Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06531, CtApp 11-23-21

 

,

IF QUESTIONING A DEFENDANT ABOUT WHERE HE/SHE LIVES SERVES AN ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE AND IS NOT A DISGUISED ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN INCRIMINATING INFORMATION, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IS SUBJECT TO THE PEDIGREE EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT; DNA EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED WITHOUT HOLDING A FRYE HEARING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, over a two-judge dissent, determined: (1) under the facts, the defendant’s answer to the police officer’s question regarding where he lived fell within the “pedigree exception” to the Miranda requirement (and therefore was not suppressible); and (2), the DNA evidence generated by the forensic statistical tool (FST) should not have been admitted without holding a Frye hearing:

We hold that the pedigree exception will not apply even if the pedigree question is reasonably related to police administrative concerns where, under the circumstances of the case, a reasonable person would conclude based on an objective analysis that the pedigree question was a “disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation” … . …

… [T]the pedigree questions were not a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation … . … [T]he police asked defendant his name, date of birth, and where he lived immediately after their entry to the apartment, before the apartment had been searched and before any contraband had been found. The detective further testified that it is standard practice for all adults found at a location where a search warrant is executed to be handcuffed and asked these pedigree questions, regardless of whether contraband is found during the search. That defendant’s response ultimately turned out to be incriminating does not alter the conclusion that, at the time it was asked, the question was not a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation by the police … . * * *

Williams [35 NY3d 24] contains our reasoning on the Frye issue with respect to the FST. …

… “FST is a proprietary program exclusively developed and controlled by OCME [New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner],” and … the approval of the DNA Subcommittee was “no substitute for the scrutiny of the relevant scientific community” … . People v Wortham, 2021 NY Slip Op 06530, CtApp 11-23-21

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS FIRST RAISED IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE SORA CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF THE SENTENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a two-judge dissent, determined the challenge to the legality of defendant’s certification as a sex offender, first raised on appeal to the Appellate Division, was not preserved and the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement did not apply:

Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to … burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony … . … [T]he court … advised defendant that he would have to register pursuant to SORA upon his release from prison. * * *

On appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant argued for the first time that his certification as a sex offender was unlawful because his crime of conviction is not an enumerated registerable sex offense under Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a). * * *

The Appellate Division agreed with defendant that under the “clear and unambiguous” language of Correction Law § 168-a (2) (a) “burglary in the first degree as a sexually motivated felony is not a registerable sex offense under SORA” … . * * *

“We have recognized ‘a narrow exception to the preservation rule’ where a court exceeds its powers and imposes a sentence that is illegal in a respect that is readily discernible from the trial record” … . However, “not all claims arising during a sentencing proceeding fall within the exception” … . * * *

… [S]ex offender certification is effectuated by the court pursuant to Correction Law § 168-d and is not addressed in either the Criminal Procedure Law or Title E of the Penal Law. … SORA certification is not part of a sentence and the illegal sentence exception to the preservation requirement does not apply to challenges to certification as a sex offender. People v Buyund, 2021 NY Slip Op 06529, CtApp 11-23-21

 

, ,

THE $140 MILLION PAID BY BEAR STEARNS TO THE SEC TO SETTLE AN ACTION ALLEGING THE FACILITATION OF LATE TRADING WAS NOT A “PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW” AND THEREFORE WAS A COVERED LOSS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive dissent, determined the funds paid to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to settle an action alleging Bear Stearns “facilitated late trading” and “deceptive market timing activity” did not constitute a “penalty imposed by law” and therefore was a covered loss under the insurance policies:

… [U]nder relevant New York law, penalties have consistently been distinguished from compensatory remedies, damages, and payments otherwise measured through the harm caused by wrongdoing. Thus, at the time the parties contracted, a reasonable insured would likewise have understood the term “penalty” to refer to non-compensatory, purely punitive monetary sanctions. In this case, the question therefore distills to whether the disputed $140 million settlement payment meets that standard. …

… Bear Stearns demonstrated that the $140 million disgorgement payment was calculated based on wrongfully obtained profits as a measure of the harm or damages caused by the alleged wrongdoing that Bear Stearns was accused of facilitating. This can be contrasted with the $90 million payment denominated a “penalty,” which was not derived from any estimate of harm or gain flowing from the improper trading practices. J.P. Morgan Sec. Inc. v Vigilant Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 06528, CtApp 11-23-21

 

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