You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, reversing the appellate division, determined that a Cayman Islands rule (Rule 12A) governing prerequisites for bringing a shareholder derivative action was procedural, not substantive. Therefore the New York suit, which must apply Cayman Islands substantive law, should not have been dismissed for failure to comply with the rule. Whether plaintiff had standing to sue under substantive Cayman Islands law was not determined by the Court of Appeals:

 

In Tanges [93 NY2d 48] we … described general policy considerations that ought to be weighed when determining whether a rule is substantive or procedural. Specifically, we consider whether our determination would impose a burden on the foreign court (Connecticut in that instance) or federal courts operating under diversity rules and whether it would threaten to cause delay in the “conduct of judicial business and impair judicial efficiency” … . Here, these factors further weigh in favor of our conclusion that Rule 12A is procedural.

Holding that Rule 12A is procedural does not impose a burden on our courts, or the courts of the Cayman Islands (see Tanges, 93 NY2d at 58). However, were Rule 12A held to be substantive, it is unclear what procedural path a party seeking to bring a derivative action in New York on behalf of a Cayman company would follow to comply with Rule 12A. …

Therefore, a Tanges analysis also leads to the conclusion that Rule 12A is procedural in nature. Because the procedural law of the forum typically applies under our conflict of law rules … , plaintiff’s failure to first comply with Rule 12A’s leave application procedure does not bar his derivative claims … . Davis v Scottish Re Group Ltd., 2017 NY Slip Op 08157, CtApp 11-20-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/CORPORATION LAW  (SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION (CORPORATION LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/DERIVATIVE ACTION (SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION, CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP))

INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST INSURERS IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three judge dissenting opinion, reversing the appellate division, determined several motions to dismiss in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed when a DHL delivery truck driven by an employee of another company crossed the center line, causing a head-on crash. At issue was the reach of Insurance Law 3240 with respect to an insurance policy issued to DHL by AAIC. The appellate division held that Insurance Law 3240 did not allow suit because the policy was not “issued or delivered in this state.” The Court of Appeals held the suit is allowed under Insurance Law 3240 because the insureds and risks are located in New York (two other issues, whether the DHL truck was a “hired auto” and whether it was driven with “permission” are not summarized here):

​

AAIC adopts the Appellate Division’s rationale that because AAIC’s policy was issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and then in Florida, it was neither issued nor delivered in New York, and therefore plaintiff cannot recover from AAIC pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420. …

Insurance Law § 3420 allows a limited cause of action on behalf of injured parties directly against insurers. Section 3420 applies to policies and contracts “issued or delivered in this state” … . Insurance Law § 3420 does not define the term “issued or delivered in this state,” but other provisions of the Insurance Law are instructive: “[T]he proper interpretation of the term ‘issued or delivered in this state’ refers both to a policy issued for delivery in New York, and a policy issued for delivery outside of New York” … . In Preserver, we interpreted section 3420 (d), which then required insurers to provide written notice when disclaiming coverage under policies “issued for delivery” in New York. We held that “[a] policy is ‘issued for delivery’ in New York if it covers both insureds and risks located in this state” (10 NY3d at 642). Thus, under Preserver, “issued for delivery” was interpreted to mean where the risk to be insured was located — not where the policy document itself was actually handed over or mailed to the insured. We interpreted section 3420 to provide a benefit — deliberately in derogation of the common law — to New Yorkers whenever a policy covers “insureds and risks located in this state” … . Applying the Preserver standard to the facts of this case, it is clear that DHL is “located in” New York because it has a substantial business presence and creates risks in New York. It is even clearer that DHL purchased liability insurance covering vehicle-related risks arising from vehicles delivering its packages in New York, because its insurance agreements say so. Carlson v American Intl. Group, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08163, CtApp 11-20-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/INSURANCE LAW 3240  (INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP))

,

ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the appellate division, determined that, with respect to a child who has been removed from the home and placed in foster care based upon a pending neglect petition, once the underlying neglect petition has been dismissed, Family Court loses jurisdiction of the matter and cannot entertain permanency hearings to continue the foster care placement:

​

Here, the Department seizes on a hyperliteral reading of [Family Court Act] section 1088, divorced from all context, to argue that Family Court’s pre-petition placement of Jamie J. under (Family Court Act] section 1022 triggered a continuing grant of jurisdiction that survives the eventual dismissal of the neglect petition. In other words, even if the Family Court removes a child who has not been neglected or abused, it has jurisdiction to continue that child’s placement in foster care until and unless it decides otherwise. Section 1088’s place in the overall statutory scheme, the legislative history of article 10-A, and the dictates of parents’ and children’s constitutional rights to remain together compel the opposite conclusion: Family Court’s jurisdiction terminates upon dismissal of the original neglect or abuse petition. Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.), 2017 NY Slip Op 08161, CtApp 11-20-17

 

FAMILY LAW (ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/NEGLECT (FAMILY LAW, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/FOSTER CARE (FAMILY LAW, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/PERMANENCY HEARINGS (FAMILY LAW, NEGLECT, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, JURISDICTION, ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))/JURISDICTION (CIVIL PROCEDURE, FAMILY LAW, (ONCE THE NEGLECT PETITION WHICH LED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN FOSTER CARE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, FAMILY COURT LOSES JURISDICTION AND CANNOT ENTERTAIN PERMANENCY HEARINGS TO CONTINUE FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT (CT APP))

,

STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a dissenting opinion, answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, determined the appropriate standard of proof for the imposition of punitive damages in an employment discrimination (here gender and pregnancy discrimination) suit pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL):

The New York City Human Rights Law makes clear that punitive damages are available for violations of the statute, but does not specify a standard for when such damages should be awarded. The Second Circuit has, by certified question, asked us to determine the applicable standard. We conclude that, consistent with the New York City Council’s directive to construe the New York City Human Rights Law liberally, the common law standard as articulated in Home Insurance Co. v American Home Prods. Corp. (75 NY2d 196, 203-204 [1990]) applies. Accordingly, a plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages where the wrongdoer’s actions amount to willful or wanton negligence, or recklessness, or where there is “a conscious disregard of the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard” … . Chauca v Abraham, 2017 NY Slip Op 08158, CtApp 11-20-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISCRIMINATION, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (NYC) (PUNITIVE DAMAGES, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES (EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/DISCRIMINATION (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/GENDER DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))/PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION  (EMPLOYMENT LAW, NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, STANDARD FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SUIT PURSUANT TO THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW DETERMINED (CT APP))

, ,

NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over two dissenting opinions, determined that defendant was not entitled to coram nobis relief based upon ineffective assistance for failure to perfect an appeal:

 

In People v Syville (15 NY3d 391 [2010]), we held that, in rare circumstances, a defendant may seek coram nobis relief despite failing to move for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal within the one-year grace period provided by CPL 460.30. Specifically, we concluded that coram nobis may be available for a defendant who demonstrated that he or she timely requested that trial counsel file a notice of appeal, the attorney failed to comply, and the omission could not reasonably have been discovered within the one-year time limit … . Defendant now asks us to expand Syville to situations in which retained trial counsel filed a timely notice of appeal but allegedly failed to advise the defendant of his or her right to poor person relief, or to take any action when served with a motion to dismiss the appeal years after the notice of appeal was filed. Because defendant has not met his burden of proving that counsel was ineffective, we decline to expand Syville under the circumstances presented here. * * *

​

Given this … Court’s holdings … that a defendant is not constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel in seeking poor person relief as long as he or she is given written notice that is similar to the one defendant received here — defendant has a heavy burden to demonstrate entitlement to a writ of error coram nobis premised on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to assist in procuring poor person relief. … He failed to meet that burden here, both in terms of his specific claim that counsel did not advise him of his right to seek poor person relief in connection with his appeal and the more general claim, advanced by both Judge Rivera and Judge Wilson in dissent, that counsel did not consult with him regarding an appeal.

​

With respect to the other prong of defendant’s coram nobis motion (based on failure to respond to the dismissal motion four years after the notice of appeal was filed) defendant and Judge Rivera, in her dissent, essentially seek a rule that trial counsel has a constitutional responsibility in connection with an appeal for an indefinite period of time extending for years after the notice of appeal is filed. Neither defendant nor that dissent cite any legal support for the imposition of such a rule. Moreover, the cases … do not support imposing either … an open-ended obligation on behalf of trial counsel or a rule that counsel is ineffective for failing to assist a defendant in obtaining poor person relief. People v Arjune, 2017 NY Slip Op 08159, CtApp 11-20-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/CORAM NOBIS  (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (NO CORAM NOBIS RELIEF FOR DEFENDANT WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL BUT ALLEGEDLY DID NOT ADVISE DEFENDANT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF POOR PERSON RELIEF AND DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, DEFENDANT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM (CT APP))

, ,

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined that he New York City charter provisions governing service of a Notice of Violation (NOV) of the building code require only one unsuccessful attempt at personal service before the affix and mail provisions kick in. The CPLR nail and mail provisions (which require due diligence in the attempts at personal service) do not apply:

​

The question presented is whether, prior to use of the affix and mail procedure, the City Charter requires more than a single attempt to personally serve the NOV at the premises. * * *

​

… [T]he plain language of the relevant statute speaks in the singular — “[s]uch notice may only be affixed . . . where a reasonable attempt has been made” at personal delivery — indicating that only one attempt is required … . * * *

​

Moreover, the alternate service procedure authorized by the statute — a single attempt to personally deliver the NOV, coupled with affixing the NOV to the property and mailing copies to the owner at the premises and other addresses on file with related City agencies — is reasonably calculated to inform owners of violations relating to their properties. Matter of Mestecky v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08162, CtApp 11-20-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (NYC) (NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (NYC, BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (NYC, BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NOTICES OF VIOLATION (NYC BUILDING CODE, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NAIL AND MAIL (NYC BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))/NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NOV)  (NYC BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS, NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP))

,

BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP).

Defendant was convicted in town court of criminal contempt stemming from anti-drone protests at Hancock Field, an Air National Guard base. The town court proceedings were recorded electronically and no stenographer was present. The defendant filed a notice of appeal, but did not file an affidavit of errors. County Court heard the appeal and reduced defendant’s sentence from one year to six months. The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, determined County Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because an affidavit of errors was not filed. However, because defendant had moved for an extension of time to file the affidavit of errors should the transcript of the electronic recording be deemed insufficient (never ruled on by County Court), the matter was sent back to County Court:

​

Criminal Procedure Law § 460.10 requires an appellant to file an affidavit of errors with the criminal court in order to take an appeal from a judgment of a local criminal court if the underlying proceedings were not recorded by a court stenographer. We have already held that the filing of the affidavit of errors in this circumstance is a jurisdictional prerequisite … . …[W]e conclude that the failure to file the required affidavit of errors renders the intermediate appellate court without jurisdiction to hear the case. People v Flores, 2017 NY Slip Op 08037, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/TOWN COURT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/COUNTY COURT (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TOWN COURT, BECAUSE NO AFFIDAVIT OF ERRORS WAS FILED AFTER A CONVICTION IN TOWN COURT, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL (CT APP))

,

WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).

The majority, over an extensive three-judge dissent, determined whether the search of a vehicle after a street stop was valid presented a mixed question of law and fact that was not reviewable by the Court of Appeals:

​

From the dissent:

​

… [W]here the issue presented is whether the People have demonstrated “the minimum showing necessary” to establish the legality of police conduct, “a question of law is presented for [our] review” … .

Accepting the facts as found by the Appellate Division and the suppression court, which are not disputed here, the People failed to adduce the minimum showing required to justify a protective search of defendant’s vehicle — namely, a substantial likelihood of the presence of a weapon and an actual and specific threat to officer safety. I, therefore, disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the question of whether the protective search was lawful is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable only for record support, and I would hold that the search of defendant’s vehicle was unlawful. People v Hardee, 2017 NY Slip Op 08038, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS,  WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/MIXED QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/STREET STOPS (SEARCH, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))/PROTECTIVE SEARCH (CRIMINAL LAW, STREET STOPS, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WAS VALID PRESENTED A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP))

DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, reversing the appellate division, determined a defendant has a right to be present when, after moving to vacate the sentence because the period of post-release supervision (PRS) was not mentioned, the sentencing court imposes the original sentence without a period of PRS:

​

There is only one enumerated exception to the statute where the defendant is convicted of a misdemeanor or petty offense, on motion of the defendant the court may sentence the defendant in absentia (CPL 380.40 [2]). We have also previously held that a defendant convicted of a felony may waive the right to be present at sentencing, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . However, absent such a waiver — or a forfeiture of the right to be present … — … “[t]here is no statutory basis for [a] [futility] exception” … .

Here, the Appellate Division concluded that there was no reason to remand the case because [defendant] was not adversely affected by his re-imposed sentence, citing People v Covington(88 AD3d 486, 486 [1st Dept 2011]), and People v Mills (117 AD3d at 1556). The majority in Mills cited CPL 470.15 [1] for the proposition that the Appellate Division cannot consider a sentence that did not “adversely affect[] the appellant.” CPL 470.15 (1) says, “Upon an appeal to an intermediate appellate court from a judgment, sentence or order of a criminal court, such intermediate appellate court may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact involving error or defect in the criminal court proceedings which may have adversely affected the appellant.” Here, as there was no voluntary waiver, [defendant’s] absence from the sentencing proceeding was in itself, under our precedents, an error as it constitutes a violation of his right under CPL 380.40. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. People v Estremera, 2017 NY Slip Op 08036, CtApp 11-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/SENTENCING (DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))/POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (SENTENCING, DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHERE, IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO VACATE BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) WAS NOT MENTIONED AT THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING, THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE WITHOUT A PERIOD OF PRS (CT APP))

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE, STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a brief memorandum decision reversing the appellate division, determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendant retail store in this slip and fall case. The facts of the case were not discussed:

​

In a slip-and-fall case, a defendant property owner moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing that it neither (1) affirmatively created the hazardous condition nor (2) had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence … . Triable issues of fact exist as to whether Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. had notice of a hazardous condition and a reasonable time to correct or warn about its existence.  Parietti v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06479, CtApp 9-14-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE, STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION (CT APP))/SLIP AND FALL (SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT RETAIL STORE, STORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION (CT APP))

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