You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY SERVED BUT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE APPEAL; THE APPELLATE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW A LATE FILING; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined that, although the pro se inmate-petitioner did not timely file the notice of appeal, the notice was timely served and the Third Department could have exercised discretion to allow a late filing. The matter was remitted because the Third Department’s decision was silent about the reasons for dismissing the appeal:

… [P]etitioner argues that the Appellate Division should have applied a pro se inmate “mailbox rule” to deem the notice of appeal timely filed upon delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to the appropriate court.

CPLR 5515 (1) provides that an appeal is taken when, in addition to being duly served, the notice of appeal is “fil[ed] . . . in the office where the judgment or order of the court of original instance is entered.” The CPLR further clarifies that “papers required to be filed shall be filed with the clerk of the court in which the action is triable” (CPLR 2102 [a]). Thus, by its express terms, the CPLR indicates that filing occurs when the clerk’s office receives the notice of appeal. Indeed, “filing” has long been understood to occur only upon actual receipt by the appropriate court clerk … . A “mailbox rule” for filing would also contravene the clear distinctions between filing and service drawn by the legislature inasmuch as the CPLR directs that, unlike filing, “service by mail shall be complete upon mailing” (CPLR 2103 [b] [2]). .. * * *

… [T]he legislature has given courts the authority to excuse untimely filing under certain circumstances. CPLR 5520 provides that, “[i]f an appellant either serves or files a timely notice of appeal . . . , but neglects through mistake or excusable neglect to do another required act within the time limited, the court from or to which the appeal is taken . . . may grant an extension of time for curing the omission” (CPLR 5520 [a]). Matter of Miller v Annucci, 2021 NY Slip Op 04954, CtApp 9-9-21

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP; THE 911 CALL WAS NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE AND THE RELIABILITY OF THE CALLER AND THE BASIS FOR THE CALLER’S KNOWLEDGE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS IRRELEVANT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the People did not present sufficient evidence at the suppression hearing. Probable cause for the traffic stop was based on a 911 call. But no evidence was presented to demonstrate the reliability of the caller or the basis for the caller’s knowledge. The fact that the relevant evidence was presented at trial did not matter. The appeal focuses on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing:

… [T]he officer’s only justification for the stop was the dispatcher’s report that a 911 caller had asserted that one of the vehicle’s occupants possessed a “long gun.” Initially, defendant claims that the stop was invalid because possession of a “long gun” is lawful in New York. We reject that claim as meritless (see Penal Law 265.00 [22]). However, the People failed to introduce the 911 recording, failed to introduce any evidence indicating whether the 911 caller was an identified citizen informant or an anonymous tipster, and failed to offer any explanation of the basis of the caller’s knowledge. In sum, the People put forward no relevant information concerning the circumstances surrounding the call at the hearing. Contrary to the People’s suggestion that an appellate court can consider evidence subsequently admitted at trial to justify affirmance of an order denying suppression, “the propriety of the denial must be judged on the evidence before the suppression court” … . Therefore, on the record of the suppression hearing, “whether evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances or under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework, the reliability of the tip was not established” … . People v Walls, 2021 NY Slip Op 04949, CtApp 9-2-21

 

,

KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS FOR DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES BASED UPON WHERE THE INTERCEPTION WAS TO BE MADE (NEW YORK); THE CELL PHONES NEED NOT BE (AND WERE NOT) LOCATED IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined that Kings County Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for defendant’s cell phones based up where the interception was to be made (New York). The cell phones need not be (and were not) located in New York:

The issue raised on defendant’s appeal is whether a Kings County Supreme Court Justice had jurisdiction to issue eavesdropping warrants for defendant’s cell phones, which were not physically present in New York, for the purpose of gathering evidence in an investigation of enterprise corruption and gambling offenses committed in Kings County. To resolve defendant’s jurisdictional challenge, we must decide whether the eavesdropping warrants were “executed” in Kings County within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 700.05 (4). We hold that eavesdropping warrants are executed in the geographical jurisdiction where the communications are intentionally intercepted by authorized law enforcement officers within the meaning of CPL article 700. People v Schneider, 2021 NY Slip Op 03486, CtApp 6-3-21

 

,

PLAINTIFFS, ATTORNEYS PRACTICING LANDLORD-TENANT LAW, ALLEGED DEFENDANT PUBLISHER OF “NEW YORK LANDLORD-TENANT LAW” OMITTED OR INACCURATELY PRESENTED SOME OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE VIOLATED GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES); THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ALLEGE DEFENDANT’S ACT OR PRACTICE WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined plaintiffs did not state a cause of action for deceptive business practices (General Business Law (GBL) 349) against the defendant-publisher of a legal resource book, “New York Landlord-Tenant Law” (commonly called the “Tanbook”). Plaintiffs, attorneys who practice landlord-tenant law, alleged the Tanbook, which is published annually, purported to include all the relevant statutes and regulations but, in fact, omitted or inaccurately presented some statutes and regulations. The Court of Appeals found that the complaint adequately alleged a cause of action that was consumer-oriented, but did not adequately allege defendant’s act or practice was misleading in a material way:

… [P]laintiffs’ cause of action is based on purchases of yearly editions of the Tanbook, under a sales agreement that charged extra for any updates of the year’s materials contained in the corresponding edition. Plaintiffs’ allegations are limited to omissions and inaccuracies in a section of the Tanbook they knew was subject to legislative amendment, which they concede were corrected in the 2017 edition after the errors were brought to defendant’s attention, and which were specifically contemplated by defendant’s express disclaimer of the currentness of the Tanbook’s contents. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs, or any reasonable consumer, could not have been materially misled to believe that defendant guaranteed Part III of the Tanbook was complete and accurate at any given time. Thus, because plaintiffs failed to adequately plead this element, their GBL § 349 cause of action was properly dismissed. Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03485, CtApp 6-3-21

 

,

PURSUANT TO NEW YORK CITY CIVIL COURT ACT 1808, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR ISSUE PRECLUSION DOES NOT APPLY TO SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS, BUT RES JUDICATA OR CLAIM PRECLUSION DOES APPLY TO SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive dissent, interpreting New York Civil Court Act section 1808, determined a judgment in a small claims action is subject to the transactional approach to claim preclusion. Plaintiff won a small claims case seeking overtime wages. Then plaintiff brought another action in federal court seeking additional damages for the failure to pay overtime wages under federal and state law. The Second Circuit asked for clarification of the meaning of section 1808, which could be interpreted to prohibit the application of both issue preclusion and claim preclusion to small claims actions. Under the statute, collateral estoppel or issue preclusion does not apply to small claims actions, but res judicata or claim preclusion does:

We now conclude that, under NY City Civ Ct Act § 1808, small claims judgments do not have collateral estoppel or issue preclusive effect (with one exception), but such judgments may have the traditional res judicata or claim preclusive effect in a subsequent action involving a claim between the same adversaries arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions at issue in a prior small claims court action. * * *

… [T]he claim preclusion rule extends beyond attempts to relitigate identical claims. We have consistently applied a “transactional analysis approach” in determining whether an earlier judgment has claim preclusive effect, such that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” … . * * *

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is related to, but distinct from, the doctrine of res judicata. Collateral estoppel prevents “‘a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party . . . whether or not the . . . causes of action are the same'” … . Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03484, CtApp 6-3-21

 

,

NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND SEARCHED; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a brief memorandum decision, determined the search of defendant’s backpack could not be justified as a search incident to arrest because there was no evidence the backpack was within defendant’s reach when it was seized and searched:

The People failed to establish that the warrantless search of defendant’s backpack was a valid search incident to arrest … . The record does not contain evidence supporting a determination that the backpack was in defendant’s “immediate control or ‘grabbable area'” … . There is a lack of testimony in the record indicating where the bag was in relation to defendant immediately prior to the search. Because Supreme Court denied defendant’s suppression motion without reaching the People’s alternative argument raised in opposition, we remit the matter to Supreme Court … . People v Mabry, 2021 NY Slip Op 03348, CtApp 5-27-21

 

, ,

THE TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TPVA) IS A CRIMINAL COURT WHICH CANNOT ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHEN A DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPEAR FOR A TRAFFIC-INFRACTION TRIAL; IN CONTRAST, A TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS BUREAU (TVB) IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, NOT A CRIMINAL COURT, AND MAY ISSUE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Bureau (TPVA) is a criminal court which cannot issue a default judgment when a defendant who has pled not guilty does not show up for a traffic-infraction trial. On the other hand, a Traffic Violations Bureau (TVA) is not a criminal court and may issue a default judgment:

Defendants in these cases were prosecuted in district court … . Each defendant timely appeared before the TPVA, pleaded not guilty, and requested a trial. They were each given a document indicating the date and time of the trial with a warning of the repercussions for failure to appear: “THE COURT MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST OR PROCEED IN YOUR ABSENCE AND YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SENTENCE AND/OR FEES IMPOSED, INCLUDING INCARCERATION, AND other penalties permitted by law.” Despite the warning notice, defendants failed to timely appear on their respective trial dates. No attempt was made by the People to try defendants in absentia. Rather, a judicial hearing officer of the TPVA rendered default judgments against them and imposed fines. …

The issue before us is whether a TPVA judicial hearing officer is authorized under the Vehicle and Traffic Law to render a default judgment against a defendant charged with a traffic infraction who first enters a timely not guilty plea but then fails to appear for trial. We answer that question in the negative. …

Unlike TPVAs, … the TVB is not a criminal court … . It is … an administrative tribunal where, in cities having a population of one million or more, traffic infractions may be disposed of in an administrative hearing held before a hearing officer appointed by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles … . In contrast to trials conducted before TPVAs, hearings before the TVB are not governed by the CPL … . People v Iverson, 2021 NY Slip Op 03347, CtApp 5-27-21

 

, , ,

ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DECIDED THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS ACTED RATIONALLY IN APPROVING THE USE OF A BUILDING AS A HOMELESS SHELTER ITS JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS DONE; THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD NOT HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER FOR A HEARING ON THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Appellate Division did not have the authority to send the matter back for a hearing after finding the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB) acted rationally when it approved the use of a building as a homeless shelter:

The Appellate Division erred in remitting to Supreme Court for a hearing on whether the building’s use as a homeless shelter was “consistent with general safety and welfare standards.” In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the scope of judicial review does not extend past the question of whether the challenged determinations were irrational, which is a question of law (see CPLR 7803[3] …). Upon concluding that an authorized agency has reviewed a matter applying the proper legal standard and that its determination has a rational basis, a court cannot second guess that determination by granting a hearing to find additional facts or consider evidence not before the agency when it made its determination … . Accordingly, it was improper for the Appellate Division to remit for plenary judicial proceedings to address “general safety and welfare” issues, thereby contravening the applicable standard of judicial review in this context and inviting inconsistent enforcement of the Building Code. Matter of West 58th St. Coalition, Inc. v City of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 03346, CtApp 5-27-21

 

,

A VALID WAIVER OF APPEAL PRECLUDES AN APPEAL ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PERSONAL STATEMENT AT SENTENCING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined a waiver of appeal precluded an appeal alleging the violation of defendant’s right to an opportunity to make a personal statement at sentencing:

… [D]efendant’s contention that his CPL 380.50(1) right to an opportunity to make a personal statement at sentencing was violated is not reviewable because such a claim did not survive the valid appeal waiver. Although the statutory right is “deeply rooted” and “substantial,” its value is largely personal to defendant … . Defendant’s claim does not fall among the narrow class of nonwaivable defects that undermine “the integrity of our criminal justice system . . . [or] implicate . . . a public policy consideration that transcends the individual concerns of a particular defendant to obtain appellate review” … . Moreover, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, a valid unrestricted waiver of appeal elicited during a plea proceeding can preclude appellate review of claims that have “not yet reached full maturation,” including those arising during sentencing … , nor is this challenge to presentence procedures reviewable under the illegal sentence exception … . People v Brown, 2021 NY Slip Op 02867, CtApp 5-6-21

 

,

THE USE OF TRANSLATORS TO DOCUMENT INFORMATION IN AN ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT DID NOT RENDER THE INSTRUMENTS FACIALLY INSUFFICIENT BY ADDING A LAYER OF HEARSAY (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a two-judge dissent, determined that the use of translators in documenting information in an accusatory instrument did not create an additional layer of hearsay. The three accusatory instruments at issue, therefore, were deemed facially sufficient. Two of the accusatory instruments did not refer to the use of a translator, and the third did:

… “[I]n evaluating the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument,” a court does “not look beyond its four corners (including supporting declarations appended thereto)” ( … see CPL 100.15 [3]; 100.40 [1] [c] …). Courts must “not rely on external factors to create jurisdictional defects not evident from the face of the” accusatory instrument … . Instead, “[w]hether the allegation of an element of an offense is hearsay, rendering the information defective, is to be determined on a facial reading of the accusatory instrument” … ..

Defects that do not appear on the “the face of the” accusatory instrument are “latent deficienc[ies]” that do not require dismissal … . * * *

We conclude that, when evaluating the facial sufficiency of an accusatory instrument, no hearsay defect exists where … the four corners of the instrument indicate only that an accurate, verbatim translation occurred, and the witness or complainant adopted the statement as their own by signing the instrument after the translation … . People v Slade, 2021 NY Slip Op 02866, CtApp 5-6-21

 

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