You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

, ,

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing the Appellate Division, determined evidence of a consent order, in which defendant physician acknowledged a negligent failure to adequately monitor a dozen patients for whom he prescribed medication, should not have been admitted in evidence. The essence of the malpractice claim was defendant’s continued prescription of an anti-depressant for plaintiff’s decedent over a ten-year period, without seeing plaintiff’s decedent in his office, proximately caused plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide:

The record establishes that the Consent Order was neither probative of defendant’s negligence or the question of proximate cause. As part of the Consent Order defendant agreed not to contest negligent treatment of certain anonymous patients, none of whom was the decedent. As such, defendant preserved his objections to factual allegations related to decedent and any charges of misconduct based on those allegations. Since the Consent Order did not establish facts concerning defendant’s treatment of decedent, it was not probative as to that issue. In any event, given defendant’s pre-trial concession that he deviated from accepted medical practice, the issue of negligent treatment did not require resolution by the jury.

Further, any possible relevance of the Consent Order’s contents was outweighed by the obvious undue prejudice of his repeated violations of accepted medical standards … . The Consent Order was nothing more than evidence of unrelated bad acts, the type of propensity evidence that lacks probative value concerning any material factual issue, and has the potential to induce the jury to decide the case based on evidence of defendant’s character … . Mazella v Beals, 2016 NY Slip Op 05182, CtApp 6-30-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)/EVIDENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)/PRIOR BAD ACTS (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED)

,

LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE; FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED ON THE RELIANCE OF A THIRD-PARY, AS OPPOSED TO THE PLAINTIFF, UPON A MISREPRESENTATION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over two dissenting opinions, determined: (1)  a laboratory (LabCorp) which tests urine for the presence of drugs did not owe a duty of care to a testee based upon the violation of a federal regulation which did not involve a scientific testing procedure; and (2), a fraud cause of action against the laboratory could not be based upon a third party’s, as opposed to the plaintiff’s, reliance upon a misrepresentation.  Here plaintiff, a physician and a pilot, was selected for a random drug test. Plaintiff could not produce enough urine for the test and left the laboratory, returning the next day. Under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, plaintiff’s leaving the laboratory constituted a refusal to take the test. The FAA revoked plaintiff’s airman certificates and his authority to conduct FAA mandated pilot examinations. A court ultimately restored plaintiff’s certificates and examination authority. In his lawsuit against the laboratory, plaintiff alleged: (1) the laboratory was negligent in not informing him of the procedures and rules surrounding the inability to provide a urine sample; and (2) a laboratory employee (Montalvo) misrepresented to the FAA that plaintiff was uncooperative during the test.

… [I]n Landon (22 NY3d 1) we held that a drug testing laboratory can be liable to a test subject under the common law for negligent testing of a biological sample. We decline to extend Landon’s reasoning to impose a duty upon a laboratory to test subjects that requires the laboratory to adhere to aspects of the federal regulations and guidelines that do not implicate the scientific integrity of the testing process. * * *

Plaintiff alleges fraud against LabCorp, contending that Montalvo, LabCorp’s employee, made false statements to the FAA investigators, which they relied on to plaintiff’s detriment. Specifically, plaintiff points to Montalvo’s statement to the FAA investigators that plaintiff was on his cell phone and uncooperative during the test, making it impossible to warn him of the consequence of leaving the testing site without giving a sample, which statement the FAA relied on in revoking plaintiff’s airman certificates. We hold that under New York law, such third-party reliance does not satisfy the reliance element of a a fraud claim. Pasternack v Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings, 2016 NY Slip Op 05179, CtApp 6-30-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE); DRUG-TESTING (LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE)/LABORATORIES (DRUG-TESTING, NEGLIGENCE, LABORATORY WHICH TESTS URINE FOR THE PRESENCE OF DRUGS DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO A TESTEE TO FOLLOW REGULATIONS NOT RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCEDURE)/FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED ON THE RELIANCE OF A THIRD-PARY, AS OPPOSED TO THE PLAINTIFF, UPON A MISREPRESENTATION)

,

MANUFACTURER’S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY.

The Court of Appeals, in an extensive opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, with a concurring opinion, determined the manufacturer of valves used on Navy ships had a duty to warn of the dangers associated with the necessary replacement of asbestos packing made by a third-party.:

Under our precedent, “[a] manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which it knew or should have known” … . Additionally, the manufacturer must warn of dangers arising from the product's “intended use or a reasonably foreseeable unintended use” … . The manufacturer's duty also includes a legal obligation to issue warnings regarding hazards arising from foreseeable uses of the product about which the manufacturer learns after the sale of the product … . The duty “extends to the original or ultimate purchasers of the product, to employees of those purchasers and to third persons exposed to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm by the failure to warn” … . * * *

Accordingly, we recognize a manufacturer's duty to warn of the peril of a known and foreseeable joint use of its product and another product that is necessary to allow the manufacturer's product to work as intended. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2016 NY Slip Op 05063, CtApp 6-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (MANUFACTURER'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)/PRODUCTS LIABILITY (MANUFACTURERS'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)/DUTY TO WARN (NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCTS LIABILITY, MANUFACTURER'S DUTY TO WARN EXTENDS TO JOINT USE OF ITS PRODUCT AND A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY A THIRD PARTY)

, ,

SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a two-judge dissent, determined the SORA court did not err when it assessed 30 points for defendant's prior conviction (involving a different victim) for endangering the welfare of a child which did not involve a sexual offense. Based upon the language of the guidelines. the majority concluded the non-sexual offense could properly be considered subject to a possible downward departure. Here the SORA court, taking into consideration all the relevant evidence, was deemed justified in rejecting a downward departure:

As we recently stated, “[i]n determining whether to depart from a presumptive risk level, the hearing court weighs the aggravating or mitigating factors alleged by the departure-requesting party to assess whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a departure is warranted” … . Here, the only mitigating factor defendant presented to the SORA court was that the prior endangering the welfare of a child conviction was not sexual in nature. Although the SORA court considered this argument when deciding whether to downwardly depart, it certainly was not required to consider the mitigating factor in a vacuum without considering any aggravating factors that would weigh against a downward departure … . In this case, there were numerous aggravating factors not adequately captured by the [risk assessment] that countered defendant's argument for a downward departure. Therefore, the SORA court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the “totality of the circumstances” did not warrant a downward departure because such a departure would have resulted in an “under-assessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Sincerbeaux, 2016 NY Slip Op 05062, CtApp 6-28-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA, SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)/SORA (SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE)

,

POLICE OFFICERS MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED BASED ON ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A PENDING CIVIL SUIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, clarified the criteria for cross-examination of police officers who are defendants in a pending law suit alleging bad acts such as false arrest and fabrication of evidence. The court looked at three cases and applied the criteria to the facts of each. With respect to the one case which was reversed, the court wrote:

Specific allegations of prior bad acts in a federal lawsuit against a particular witness do establish a good faith basis for cross-examining that witness about the misconduct. Because defendant had the necessary good faith basis to ask about the prior bad acts alleged in the complaint, and there was no danger that such cross-examination would go to anything other than the police officers’ credibility, the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing cross-examination into the acts alleged in the federal lawsuit based on the reasoning that the prejudicial value outweighed the probative value merely because the lawsuit was still pending. While we recognize that the scope of cross-examination rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge … , in this case, it was an abuse of discretion to restrict defendant’s right to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses based on a finding that some unidentified prejudice outweighed the probative value of the questions. The questions had a good faith basis and there is no suggestion in this record that the main issues would have been obscured and the jury confused … . People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 05061, CtApp 6-28-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED BASED ON ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A PENDING CIVIL SUIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED BASED ON ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A PENDING CIVIL SUIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/POLICE OFFICERS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, (POLICE OFFICERS MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED BASED ON ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A PENDING CIVIL SUIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/CROSS-EXAMINATION (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICERS MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED BASED ON ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A PENDING CIVIL SUIT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

,

CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

The Court of Appeals, over a three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion (as a matter of law) when it denied defendant’s motion to present expert evidence about eyewitness identification. The Court of Appeals clarified how its precedent on the topic should be applied:

The decision to admit or exclude expert testimony concerning factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications rests within the sound discretion of the trial court … . When the motion is considered during the People’s case-in-chief, the trial court performs this function by weighing the request to introduce such testimony “against other relevant factors, such as the centrality of the identification issue and the existence of corroborating evidence” (… see … People v LeGrand, 8 NY3d 449, 459 [2007]). To the extent LeGrand has been understood to require courts to apply a strict two-part test that initially evaluates the strength of the corroborating evidence, it should instead be read as enumerating factors for trial courts to consider in determining whether expert testimony on eyewitness identification “‘would aid a lay jury in reaching a verdict'” … . Courts reviewing such a determination simply examine whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the “standard balancing test or prejudice versus probative value” … .

Here, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law when it precluded the introduction of the expert testimony. The trial court was entitled to reject the expert testimony after balancing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial or otherwise harmful effects. In light of the fact that “trial courts generally have the power to limit the amount and scope of evidence presented,” … on this record, the Appellate Division erred in holding that Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law in precluding the testimony. People v McCullough, 2016 NY Slip Op 05060, CtApp 6-28-16

CRIMINAL LAW (CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/IDENTIFICATION (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)/EXPERT EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE RELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION CLARIFIED; EXCLUDING THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE HERE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION)

HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIER WHICH ERRONEOUSLY PAID INJURED PARTY’S NO-FAULT BENEFITS CAN NOT RECOVER FROM THE NO-FAULT CARRIER.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined Aetna, the health insurance carrier which erroneously paid the injured party's (Herrera's) no-fault benefits, could not recover from Hanover, the no-fault carrier:

The applicable regulation, 11 NYCRR 65.3.11 (a) provides, in relevant part, that “an insurer shall pay benefits for any loss, other than death benefits, directly to the applicant or, . . . upon assignment by the applicant . . .shall pay benefits directly to providers of health care services. . .” … . Aetna concedes that as a health insurer it is not a “provider of health care services” as contemplated by the language of this regulation … . Aetna argues, however, that it stands in Herrera's shoes because Herrera assigned her no-fault rights to it.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, since Herrera's health care providers were able to bill and recoup payment from Aetna, an assignment by Herrera of her no-fault rights had already been made, leaving her with no rights to assign to Aetna. Second, by its very language, the no-fault regulation permits only the insured — or providers of health care services by an assignment from the insured — to receive direct no-fault benefits. Because Aetna does not fall under the term “health care provider,” Herrera could not assign her rights to it.  Aetna Health Plans v Hanover Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 04658, CtApp 6-14-16

INSURANCE LAW (HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIER WHICH ERRONEOUSLY PAID INJURED PARTY'S NO-FAULT BENEFITS CAN NOT RECOVER FROM THE NO-FAULT CARRIER)/NO-FAULT INSURANCE (HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIER WHICH ERRONEOUSLY PAID INJURED PARTY'S NO-FAULT BENEFITS CAN NOT RECOVER FROM THE NO-FAULT CARRIER)

,

EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, reversing the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the evidence was not sufficient to support defendant's conviction for permitting children to enter or remain in a place of drug activity (unlawfully dealing with a child). Defendant was an occasional guest in the apartment where mother and her children resided. The Court of Appeals held that the People did not demonstrate a relationship between defendant and the children or the apartment such that defendant could control whether children were allowed to enter or remain:

… [W]e hold that to establish that a defendant permitted a child to enter or remain in a particular place, premises, or establishment, under Penal Law § 260.20 (1), the People must show that defendant's relation to the child or to the place, premises or establishment was of such a kind that defendant had some ability to control the child, so as to permit the child to enter or remain in the place in question. Moreover, a mere ability to notify authorities does not constitute such ability to control, or the statute might apply to anyone who comes into contact with a child entering or remaining in one of the proscribed places. People v Berry, 2016 NY Slip Op 04656, CtApp 6-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/UNLAWFULLY DEALING WITH A CHILD (EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)/CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (UNLAWFULLY DEALING WITH A CHILD, EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT COULD CONTROL WHETHER CHILDREN ENTERED OR REMAINED IN AN APARTMENT WHERE DRUGS WERE FOUND)

,

SHACKLES, QUESTIONS ABOUT A PENDING INDICTMENT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY OF A WITNESS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT WERE NOT MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS AND WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the shackling of defendant during the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor's questions during the grand jury proceedings about a pending indictment, and the prosecutor's failure to inform the grand jury of a witness requested by the defendant, were not mode of proceedings errors. Therefore, preservation of the errors by objection was required:

Defendant argues that the preservation rule should be disregarded with respect to the shackling challenge because the prosecution inaccurately stated on the record that the Court had previously denied such a challenge when he sought to move to dismiss the indictment on that basis. No circumstances excuse the preservation requirement: defense counsel was present during the Grand Jury proceeding while defendant was shackled. In any event, the failure to make an adequate showing on the record of the need for restraints does not constitute an unwaivable mode of proceedings error … . …

Defendant made no attempt to preserve his challenge to the prosecution's questions before the Grand Jury of his awareness of the potential for increased penalties in an unrelated pending indictment as a result of his conviction in this matter. Such a challenge requires preservation … .

Finally, defendant's challenge to the indictment based on the prosecution's failure to inform the Grand Jury about the requested witness is unpreserved. Here the record demonstrates that before defense counsel was relieved, he likely knew of the fact that the requested witness had not actually testified and was discussing the matter with the prosecution. Defendant relieved counsel before he could fully address the issue with the court, and defendant and his legal advisor, who were aware of and had every incentive to follow up and seek to preserve an objection on this basis, did not do so. Moreover, any error does not rise to the level of a mode of proceedings error. People v Griggs, 2016 NY Slip Op 04655, CtApp 6-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SHACKLES, QUESTIONS ABOUT A PENDING INDICTMENT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY OF A WITNESS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT WERE NOT MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS AND WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SHACKLES, QUESTIONS ABOUT A PENDING INDICTMENT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY OF A WITNESS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT WERE NOT MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS AND WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS (SHACKLES, QUESTIONS ABOUT A PENDING INDICTMENT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE GRAND JURY OF A WITNESS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT WERE NOT MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERRORS AND WERE NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL)

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARK (THAT SHOULD BE FINE) IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S INDICATION THAT COURT CONGESTION REQUIRED A LONGER ADJOURNMENT THAN DEFENSE COUNSEL REQUESTED WAS NOT EXPRESS CONSENT TO THE LONGER ADJOURNMENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, reversing the Appellate Division, determined defense counsel did not expressly consent to an adjournment which the court imposed because of court congestion. When the court stated the adjourned date, defense counsel said “that should be fine:”

This Court has held that “[a]djournments consented to by the defense must be clearly expressed to relieve the People of the responsibility for that portion of the delay” … . Such consent does not arise by counsel merely indicating that a date suggested by the court is convenient. Thus, a defense counsel's ambiguous comment such as “[t]hat should be fine” when the court proposes a date is not sufficient to constitute clear consent to defendant being charged with the entire adjournment, including time necessitated by the court's calendar. Rather, such a generic statement likely signals nothing more than counsel's availability on a proposed date after the court has indicated that it could not accommodate the date requested by defense counsel when, in the first instance, the adjournment was “precipitated by the People's failure to be ready for trial” … .

… [T]he People bear the burden of establishing which time periods should be excluded from the statutory six months, with no burden being placed on the defendant … . The general rule — that the People should be charged with pre-readiness delays caused by court congestion … — is premised on the idea that such delays do not inhibit the People from declaring readiness in writing, through an off-calendar statement … . That reasoning applies equally well to any portion of a pre-readiness adjournment that is associated with court congestion, regardless of which party is chargeable with the remaining portion or portions of that adjournment. Here, the People could have filed an off-calendar statement of readiness at any time to stop the speedy trial clock, but they never did so. If the People were unsure of whether defense counsel's statement was an indication of consent to the entire period of the adjournment, they could have asked for clarification on the record; again, the People did not do so. Because the People did not meet their burden, Supreme Court erred to the extent it failed to charge the People with the 16 extra days …, which the court, itself, requested. Because those 16 days put the People over the statutory limit, defendant's CPL 30.30 motion should have been granted and the indictment should have been dismissed. People v Barden, 2016 NY Slip Op 04659, CtApp 6-14-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REMARK (THAT WOULD BE FINE) IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S INDICATION THAT COURT CONGESTION REQUIRED A LONGER ADJOURNMENT THAN DEFENSE COUNSEL REQUESTED WAS NOT EXPRESS CONSENT TO THE LONGER ADJOURNMENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REMARK (THAT WOULD BE FINE) IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S INDICATION THAT COURT CONGESTION REQUIRED A LONGER ADJOURNMENT THAN DEFENSE COUNSEL REQUESTED WAS NOT EXPRESS CONSENT TO THE LONGER ADJOURNMENT, INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS)

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