You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WAS HANDLED PROPERLY, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY OF THE JUROR TO OBTAIN AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE THE JUROR COULD BE FAIR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum, over a three-judge partial dissent, determined the trial court properly handled a for cause challenge to a prospective juror:

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror pursuant to CPL 270 (1) (b). When defense counsel directly asked the prospective juror, “if you don’t hear from [defendant], you don’t hear him speak, are you going to hold that against him,” she responded, “I don’t believe that I would.” This response directly refuted any notion that the prospective juror would “hold” defendant’s failure to testify “against him,” i.e., that she would be biased in rendering a decision. Viewing this statement “in totality and in context” … , the exchange did not, in the first instance, demonstrate “preexisting opinions that might indicate bias” … . Thus, the trial court was not required to inquire further “to obtain unequivocal assurance that [the juror] could be fair and impartial” … . People v Patterson, 2019 NY Slip Op 08982, CtApp 12-17-19

 

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED BUT NEVER SERVED, THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT WERE TIMELY INTERPOSED AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO APPLY THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, held, in a brief memorandum, that the claims were timely asserted in a complaint which was filed but never served. The amended complaint included the same claims. Therefore the relation-back doctrine did not apply. The claims should not have been dismissed under CPLR 306-b because the defendants waived that objection:

… [W]e … conclude that plaintiff’s first and second causes of action should be reinstated. Those claims, asserted in identical form in both the original and amended complaints, were timely interposed when plaintiff filed the original summons and complaint, i.e., “when the action [was] commenced” (see CPLR 203 [c]; 304 [a]). The relation-back doctrine is therefore inapplicable (see CPLR 203 [f]). Although plaintiff failed to serve the original complaint, on this record, the claims should not have been dismissed under CPLR 306-b because defendants did not properly raise such an objection and thus waived it (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [e]).

From the dissent:

Defendants each moved to dismiss the complaint—referring to the amended complaint—under CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), claiming, amongst other things, that the first and second causes of action are untimely … . Plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that these causes of action were timely interposed based on the filing of the unserved complaint. In its reply, the [defendant] requested dismissal of the unserved complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b for lack of service within the statutory time period.

… [P]laintiff responded by filing a motion under CPLR 306-b to extend the time to file the unserved complaint and deem it timely served nunc pro tunc. * * *

Supreme Court,  … denied plaintiff’s CPLR 306-b motion, and … granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed “the complaint” with prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed … .. The dispositive point of contention … was whether the first two causes of action were timely … . Vanyo v Buffalo Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 08980, CtApp 12-17-19

 

,

CPLR 3122 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATE COMPTROLLER TO ACQUIRE PATIENT AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE SUBMITTING SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH AUDITS OF PRIVATE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined that the Comptroller of the State of New York, in auditing private health care providers, has the power to subpoena medical records without patient authorizations:

The Comptroller of the State of New York has a constitutional and statutory duty to audit payments of state money, including payments to private companies that provide health care to beneficiaries of a state insurance program. Here, the Comptroller carried out that obligation by means of investigatory subpoenas duces tecum directed to a medical provider, seeking patients’ records. We hold that CPLR 3122 (a) (2) does not require that the Comptroller’s subpoenas be accompanied by written patient authorizations, as the requirements set out in that paragraph apply only to subpoenas duces tecum served after commencement of an action. Matter of Plastic Surgery Group, P.C. v Comptroller of the State of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 08979, CtApp 12-17-19

 

HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS APPLIES TO A JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RULING MADE PRIOR TO SUMMATION, CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a concurring opinion and an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined that, in the two cases before the court, the trial court’s reversing, after summation, its pre-summation position on a jury instruction was error, but in both cases was harmless error. The opinion is fact-specific and cannot not be fairly summarized here. In Mairena the judge, after agreeing to do so before summation, failed to charge the jury that defendant could not be convicted of manslaughter unless the jury found the fatal injury was caused by a box cutter or a knife. And in Altamirano, after denying the defense request for a jury charge on the innocent possession of a weapon prior to summation, the judge so charged the jury after summation:

In short, Miller [70 NY2d 903] , Greene [75 NY2d 875] and Smalling [29 NY3d 981] have consistently been applied by the appellate courts of this state and continue to be entitled to full precedential force. In those decisions, this Court meant what it expressly stated: a trial court’s error in reversing a prior charging decision after summations have been completed is subject to harmless error analysis. …

We conclude that the evidence of guilt in both of the instant cases was overwhelming. Thus, as in Miller, Greene and Smalling, whether the error was harmless turns on the question of whether defendants were prejudiced. Although those cases do not clarify whether the constitutional or nonconstitutional standard applies in evaluating prejudice, we need not resolve that question today because, under either standard, the error in each case was harmless. People v Mairena, 2019 NY Slip Op 08978, CtApp 12-17-19

 

, , , ,

AN ATTORNEY, A PRINCIPAL IN THE CORPORATIONS OWNING SEVERAL BUILDINGS, WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE IN THE “OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUSINESS” WITHOUT A LICENSE BECAUSE HE ADVERTISED HIS LAW PRACTICE IN SIGNS ON THE BUILDINGS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the corporations which owned the buildings were separate from the attorney, a principal in the corporations, who advertised his law office in signs on the buildings. Therefore the attorney was making space available for outdoor advertising to “others” within the meaning of the NYC Administrative Code regulating outdoor advertising. The code requires “outdoor advertising companies” engaged in the :outdoor advertising business” to be licensed. The attorney (Ciafone) was fined for outdoor advertising without a license:

Contrary to the position of the Appellate Division dissent, preserving the distinction between the corporate entities and Mr. Ciafone does not “penalize him for forming corporate entities to own the buildings for tax and liability purposes”… . Myriad statutes and regulations apply to corporations, but not natural persons; those are not “penalties” for creating a corporate legal entity, but consequences of choosing that form of ownership. The New York City Council could rationally conclude that a corporation engaged in the provision of advertising to others, even others who have an ownership interest in the corporation, should be subjected to greater financial disincentives for violating signage laws than natural persons who are advertising themselves. Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 2019 NY Slip Op 08976, CtApp 12-17-19

 

, , ,

CITY’S DETERMINATION IT WOULD NOT DEFEND A POLICE OFFICER IN A SUIT ALLEGING THE OFFICER’S USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; HIS CONDUCT CONSTITUTED “INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING” WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the City of Buffalo’s ruling that petitioner police officer was not entitled to defense and indemnification by the City in an action against the officer alleging use of excessive force. The facts were described in the dissent as follows: “Numerous Buffalo police officers, including Officer Corey Krug, were deployed to keep order at Chippewa Street, a popular location for late-night drunken revelry. In the course of doing his job, a 30-second excerpt of a video filmed by a local TV station crew shows Officer Krug performing his duties with what appears to be excessive force: asking an unarmed young man, Devin Ford, why he returned to the area, throwing him onto the hood of a car, striking him in the leg several times with a baton and stopping only when another officer saw the incident and told him to stop. Criminal charges were filed against Officer Krug for the use of excessive force, and Mr. Ford filed a civil suit against him.” The Court of Appeals upheld the determination that Officer Krug was not acting within the scope of his employment when he dealt with Mr. Ford:

Given the narrow question before us and under the circumstances presented here, we cannot say that the City’s determination was “irrational or arbitrary and capricious”… . Insofar as the record supports the City’s conclusion that petitioner was not “acting within the scope of his public employment” under Buffalo City Code § 35-28 because his conduct constituted “intentional wrongdoing” and violated the City’s rules regarding the use of force, the City’s determination was not “taken without regard to the facts” … . Matter of Krug v City of Buffalo, 2019 NY Slip Op 08546, CtApp 11-26-19

 

,

IN AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, THE WAIVERS OF APPEAL IN TWO OF THE THREE APPEALS BEFORE THE COURT WERE DECLARED INVALID BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THE ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION THAT ALL AVENUES OF APPEAL AND COLLATERAL RELIEF ARE CUT OFF BY THE WAIVER; IN ADDITION THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE OMISSION OF THE APPROXIMATE TIME AND PLACE OF AN OFFENSE FROM A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) OR A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL ERROR (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge DiFiore, over several concurring and two dissenting opinions, determined that the waivers of appeal in two of the three appeals before the court were invalid. The opinion is an important clarification of the law and is too detailed to fairly summarize here. In a nutshell, a court should not give the defendant the impression that all appellate avenues, including the filing of a Notice of Appeal, collateral relief, and the availability of counsel, are cut off by the waiver of appeal. The court approved the Unified Court System’s Model Colloquy. In addition the Court of Appeals held that the omission of the approximate time and place of an offense from a superior court information (SCI) or a waiver of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect, an important clarification which contradicts many decisions in the lower courts:

… [T]he Model Colloquy for the waiver of right to appeal drafted by the Unified Court System’s Criminal Jury Instructions and Model Colloquy Committee neatly synthesizes our precedent and the governing principles and provides a solid reference for a better practice. The Model Colloquy provides a concise statement conveying the distinction missing in most shorthand colloquies — that: “[b]y waiving your right to appeal, you do not give up your right to take an appeal by filing a notice of appeal . . . within 30 days of the sentence. But, if you take an appeal, you are by this waiver giving up the right to have the appellate court consider most claims of error,[] and whether the sentence I impose, whatever it may be, is excessive and should be modified. As a result, the conviction by this plea and sentence will normally be final” (NY Model Colloquies, Waiver of Right to Appeal [emphasis added]). There is no mention made of an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal or any purported waiver of collateral or federal relief in the Model Colloquy or to the complete loss of the right to counsel to prosecute the direct appeal … .

* * *

… “[A] purported error or insufficiency in the facts of an indictment or information to which a plea is taken does not constitute a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect and must be raised in the trial court” … . By parity of reasoning, the omission from the indictment waiver form of non-elemental factual information that is not necessary for a jurisdictionally-sound indictment is similarly forfeited by a guilty plea. As relevant here, the legislative history accompanying enactment of CPL article 195 makes plain that the purpose of the written waiver of indictment form is to ensure the defendant had notice of the charges upon which the prosecution by SCI would proceed … . Executed solemnly in open court, the waiver form must memorialize with sufficient specificity the charges for which a defendant waives prosecution by indictment. Here, the statutory notice was accomplished as the six counts of sexual abuse designated in the waiver form were identical to the crimes for which [defendant] was held for grand jury action and originally charged in the local court accusatory instruments. People v Thomas, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545, Ct App 11-26-19

 

,

DEFENDANT, A PAIN MANAGEMENT PHYSICIAN WHO OPERATED A “PILL MILL,” WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER IN THE DEATHS OF TWO PATIENTS WHO DIED OF OPIOID OVERDOSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a dissenting opinion, determined that defendant, a pain-management doctor, was properly convicted of manslaughter, recklessly causing the death of two persons [Haeg and Pappoid] to whom defendant prescribed opioids as part of a “pill mill” operation:

… [W]e conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant acted recklessly. A rational juror could have concluded, based on a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences, that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Haeg and Rappold would take more drugs than prescribed and would die by overdose, and, given defendant’s position as their medical doctor, that defendant’s conduct constituted a “gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” (Penal Law § 15.05 [3]). * * *

The fact that Haeg and Rappold took the substances defendant prescribed for them in a greater dosage than prescribed is neither an intervening, independent agency nor unforeseeable. It is a direct and foreseeable result of defendant’s reckless conduct. As explained, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational juror could conclude that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Haeg and Rappold would take the medications he prescribed at a higher dose than prescribed in order to attain a narcotic high rather than for legitimate pain management, and that they would die as a result. People v Stan XuHui Li, 2019 NY Slip Op 08544, Ct App 11-26-19

 

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TWO CROSS-EXAMINE THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS WHO IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF THE OFFICERS’ DISHONESTY ARISING FROM OTHER COURT PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defense counsel’s requests to cross-examine the two police witnesses about prior acts of dishonesty. The two officers presented the only evidence which identified the defendant as the shooter in this attempted murder prosecution:

At the suppression hearing held before trial, that officer’s testimony supported defendant’s contention that, in preparing to testify in an unrelated federal criminal proceeding, he had misled the prosecutor in that case with respect to his involvement in a ticket-fixing scheme. … Defense counsel … was not permitted to explore what defense counsel characterized as that officer’s lies to the federal prosecutor regarding those activities.

… [T]he court limited exploration of that officer’s prior bad acts to his participation in the ticket-fixing scheme, and did not permit inquiry with respect to that officer’s deceit of the federal prosecutor.

That ruling was an abuse of discretion as a matter of law. * * *

We also conclude that the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law in precluding cross-examination of both officers with respect to prior judicial determinations that addressed the credibility of their prior testimony in judicial proceedings. People v Rouse, 2019 NY Slip Op 08522, Ct App 11-25-19

 

, ,

BRUTAL, UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON CLAIMANT, AN INMATE, BY CORRECTION OFFICERS WAS DEEMED TO HAVE NO RELATION TO THE DUTIES OF A CORRECTION OFFICER; THEREFORE THE ATTACK WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT AND THE STATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IS NOT LIABLE UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissent, determined that the state’s motion for summary judgment in this assault and battery action by an inmate was properly granted. Claimant was brutally beaten, without cause, by three correction officers and sued the state under a respondeat superior, vicarious liability theory.  The Court of Appeals held the state had demonstrated the officers were not acting within the scope of their employment when they assaulted the claimant:

Correction officers are authorized to use physical force against inmates in limited circumstances not present here, such as in self-defense or to suppress a revolt (see Correction Law § 137 [5]; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a], [b]). DOCCS regulations require correction officers to exercise “[t]he greatest caution and conservative judgment” in determining whether physical force against an inmate is necessary (7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a]). To be sure, correction officers at times use excessive force. Such conduct will not fall outside the scope of employment merely because it violates department rules or policies or crosses the line of sanctioned conduct. Under our multi-factored common-law test for determining respondeat superior liability, an employee’s deviation from directions or governing standards is only one consideration in the analysis. Here, the gratuitous and utterly unauthorized use of force was so egregious as to constitute a significant departure from the normal methods of performance of the duties of a correction officer as a matter of law. This was a malicious attack completely divorced from the employer’s interests.

Further, there is no evidence in the record that DOCCS should — or could — have reasonably anticipated such a flagrant and unjustified use of force, in which, assisted by other officers who immobilized and handcuffed claimant, Wehby [the primary assailant] repeatedly punched and kicked him during a prolonged assault, removing claimant’s protective helmet in order to facilitate more direct blows to his head. As such, based on the uncontested facts, it is evident that claimant’s injuries were not caused by actions taken within the scope of employment and thus, there were no triable issues of fact as to the State’s vicarious liability for assault and battery. Rivera v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 08521, Ct App 11-25-19

 

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