You are here: / Court of Appeals

Tag Archive for: Court of Appeals

,

In a Risk Level Modification Proceeding, a Defendant Is Entitled to All the Documents Reviewed by the Board

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined defendant was entitled to access to all the documents reviewed by the New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) in connection with the Board’s recommendation that defendant’s classification remain at risk level 3.  However, County Court’s refusal to grant an adjournment to allow defendant to gain access to missing documents (two emails) was not an abuse of discretion. The record evidence in support of the denial of the modification was overwhelming:

Section 168-o (4), applicable when a petitioner seeks modification of the risk level, does not contain any language entitling a petitioner to pre-hearing discovery, but simply provides that a petitioner has a right to submit “any information relevant to the review” (Correction Law § 169-o [2]). Further, the right to petition the sentencing court to be “relieved of any further duty to register” under Correction Law § 168-o (1) does not permit the court to review the correctness of the initial risk level determination (see Correction Law § 168-g [4]…). While there are statutory differences in the two [*5]proceedings, we agree with defendant that the procedural due process rights, in regard to the requested documents, were the same. Thus, defendant was entitled to access to the documents.

Nonetheless, it is well-settled that the decision to grant an adjournment is a matter of discretion for the hearing court … . “When the protection of fundamental rights has been involved in requests for adjournments, that discretionary power has been more narrowly construed” … . Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said the court abused its discretion as a matter of law in failing to adjourn the hearing to gather the two emails. People v Lashway, 2015 NY Slip Op 04877, CtApp 6-11-15

 

Possession of the Note, Not the Mortgage, Confers Standing to Foreclose

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that possession of the note, not the mortgage, when the foreclosure proceedings are commenced is sufficient to confer standing upon the note-holder. ” ‘[A]ny disparity between the holder of the note and the mortgagee of record does not stand as a bar to a foreclosure action because the mortgage is not the dispositive document of title as to the mortgage loan; the holder of the note is deemed the owner of the underlying mortgage loan with standing to foreclose’… . . Accordingly, the [defendants’] argument that [plaintiff] lacked standing because it did not possess a valid and enforceable mortgage as of the commencement of this action is simply incorrect. The validity of the … assignment of the mortgage is irrelevant to [plaintiff’s]  standing;”

… [T]o have standing, it is not necessary to have possession of the mortgage at the time the action is commenced. This conclusion follows from the fact that the note, and not the mortgage, is the dispositive instrument that conveys standing to foreclose under New York law. In the current case, the note was transferred to [plaintiff] before the commencement of the foreclosure action — that is what matters.

A transfer in full of the obligation automatically transfers the mortgage as well unless the parties agree that the transferor is to retain the mortgage (Restatement [Third] of Property [Mortgages] § 5.4, Reporter’s Note, Comment b). The [defendants] misconstrue the legal principle that “an entity with a mortgage but no note lack[s] standing to foreclose” … to also mean the opposite — that an entity with a note but no mortgage lacks standing. Once a note is transferred, however, “the mortgage passes as an incident to the note” … . Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 2015 NY Slip Op 04872, CtApp 6-11-15

 

Where a Defendant Has Been Convicted of an Armed Felony or an Enumerated Sex Offense Pursuant to CPL (Criminal Procedure Law) 720.10(2)a)(ii ie (iii), Even If the Defendant Has Not Requested or Has Explicitly Waived “Youthful Offender” Status, the Court Must Determine, On the Record, Whether Mitigating Circumstances Exist, and, If So, Must Determine On the Record Whether the Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a partial three-judge dissent, determined “when a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony or an enumerated sex offense pursuant to CPL 720.10 (2) (a) (ii) or (iii), and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3). The court must make such a determination on the record ‘even where [the] defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request’ pursuant to a plea bargain … . If the court determines, in its discretion, that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors exist and states the reasons for that determination on the record, no further determination by the court is required. If, however, the court determines that one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors are present, and the defendant is therefore an eligible youth, the court then ‘must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender’ (CPL 720.20 [1]).” People v Middlebrooks, 2015 NY Slip Op 04875, CtApp 6-11-15

 

, ,

Catheter, Although Deliberately Inserted During Surgery for Temporary Monitoring Purposes, Was a “Foreign Object” Within the Meaning of CPLR 214-a—Action Brought Within One Year of the Discovery of the Catheter (22 Years after Insertion) Was Timely

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Read, determined a catheter left in plaintiff’s heart after surgery in 1986 (when plaintiff was three years old) was a “foreign object.”  Therefore the statute of limitations did not start to run until the presence of the catheter was “discovered” in 2008.  Plaintiff’s complaint, brought within one year of discovery, was therefore timely.  The issue was whether the catheter could be considered a “fixation device” because it was intentionally inserted. If so, the one-year-from-discovery “foreign object” statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-a) would not have applied and the complaint would have been untimely. The Court of Appeals held that the catheter (which was to temporarily monitor heart function after surgery) was not a “fixation device” because, although it was intentionally inserted, it was not inserted to serve a “postsurgery healing function” and it was to be removed a few days after insertion. Thus the catheter was different in kind from a “fixation device,” such as a “stent” or a “suture,” deliberately inserted to serve a “healing function:”

Here, the catheter inserted in the left atrium of plaintiff’s heart performed no securing or supporting role during or after surgery. As explained by plaintiff’s expert, and uncontroverted by defendants, the catheters functioned like a sentinel, allowing medical personnel to monitor atrial pressure so that they might take corrective measures as required; the catheters were, in the words of plaintiff’s expert, “a conduit for information from [plaintiff’s] cardiovascular system.” Because the catheters under the facts of this case are therefore not fixation devices (or chemical compounds or prosthetic aids or devices), they are not categorically excluded from the foreign object exception in CPLR 214-a.

The question then becomes whether the catheters are analogous to tangible items like … clamps … or other surgical paraphernalia (e.g., scalpels, sponges, drains) likewise introduced into a patient’s body solely to carry out or facilitate a surgical procedure. We conclude that they are … .  Walton v Strong Mem. Hosp., 2015 NY Slip Op 04786, CtApp 6-10-15

 

, ,

The Guardian of an Incapacitated Person May Not, After the Incapacitated Person’s Death, Use Guardianship Funds to Pay a Debt Incurred by the Incapacitated Person Prior to Death (Here a Debt Owed the Nursing Home Where the Incapacitated Person Was Cared For)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined Mental Hygiene Law 81.44 does not permit “a guardian to retain property of an incapacitated person after the incapacitated person has died for the purpose of paying a claim against the incapacitated person that arose before such person’s death.” “… [T]he issue [here was] whether property held by … [the] guardian at the time of [the incapacitated person’s] death automatically became the property of her estate or could be withheld by [the guardian] for the purpose of paying the claim, out of the guardianship account, that [the nursing home] had noticed before [the incapacitated person] died.” Based upon the legislative history of Mental Hygiene Law 81.44, the court determined that, after an incapacitated person’s death, the guardian may use guardianship funds only to pay claims related to the administration of the guardianship, and may not use them to pay debts incurred by the incapacitated person:

The plain language of subdivision (d) of Mental Hygiene Law § 81.44 requires that it is to be read in conjunction with subdivision (e) of the same section, which considers the property a guardian may retain following the death of an incapacitated person. Further, our precedent requires such a review … . In subdivision (e) of section 81.44, the Legislature allowed a guardian to retain from the estate of a deceased incapacitated person “property equal in value to the claim for administrative costs, liens and debts” (emphasis added). That construct suggests that the Legislature meant to permit the retention only of property equal in value to the expenses incurred with respect to the administration of the guardianship, i.e., property needed to satisfy administrative costs, administrative liens, and administrative claims. * * *

…[The legislative history] compels the conclusion that the Legislature did not intend for section 81.44 to permit a guardian to retain funds following the death of an incapacitated person for the purpose of paying a claim (other than a claim related to the administration of the guardianship) against the incapacitated person that arose before that person’s death. Inasmuch as [the nursing home’s] claim for medical services rendered to [the incapacitated person] is unrelated to the administration of her guardianship, we conclude that Mental Hygiene Law § 81.44 does not allow [the guardian] to withhold from [the incapacitated person’s] estate funds to pay [the incapacitated person’s] debt to [the nursing home]. Matter of Shannon, 2015 NY Slip Op 04789, CtApp 6-10-15

 

,

Once Payment of a No-Fault Claim Submitted by the Medical Provider to the Insurer Is Overdue (Because the Insurer Has Not Timely Denied, Paid or Asked for Verification of the Claim) the Medical Provider Is Entitled to Summary Judgment Upon the Submission of Proof, in Admissible Form, that the Statutory Claim Form Was Mailed to and Received by the Insurer—The Medical Provider Need Not Submit Proof of the Validity of the Underlying Medical Services

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined, once a no-fault claim is overdue (because the insurance company has not denied the claim, asked for verification of the claim, or paid the claim, within the statutory time-period), the plaintiff-medical-provider is entitled to summary judgment on the overdue claims after submitting proof the statutory claim forms were mailed to and received by the insurer.  There is no requirement that the plaintiff submit proof of the validity of the underlying medical services:

…[T]he Appellate Division properly determined that plaintiff met its prima facie summary judgment burden. As relevant here, to support its motion, plaintiff submitted the eight verification of treatment forms and Matatov’s affidavit. The documents submitted by plaintiff meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

Malatov’s [the billing agent’s] affidavit states that based on his business agreement with plaintiff, SUM Billing created the verification of treatment forms in the regular course of its business and that the forms were created soon after the services were provided by plaintiff … . Indeed, the tight timetable of the no-fault scheme requires prompt submission of proof of claim in order to receive reimbursement. Matatov’s affidavit outlines the office practices and procedures used by SUM Billing to mail claim forms to insurers and demonstrates that Matatov himself mails the forms. Matatov explained that SUM Billing relies on these forms in the performance of its business. Further, the affidavit states how and when the forms at issue here were created and that they were mailed to defendant within the statutory time frame. Thus, as plaintiff was able to demonstrate SUM Billing’s office mailing practices and procedures, “a presumption arises that those notices have been received by the insure[rs]” … . It is undisputed that defendant did not pay or deny seven out of the eight claims at issue. Consequently, those claims are overdue. Plaintiff, therefore, satisfied its burden on summary judgment by demonstrating the mailing of the proof of claim forms, and their receipt by the insurer. Viviane Etienne Med. Care v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 04787, CtApp 6-10-15

 

,

Allowing a Detective Who Was Involved in the Investigation of Defendant’s Case to Testify as an “Expert” Was Error (Harmless Here However)–Although the Detective Was Ostensibly to Testify as an Expert Who Could “Translate” Code Words Used in Recorded Conversations, His Testimony Extended into Many Areas Which Did Not Involve Code Words, Thereby Imbuing HIs Entire Testimony with an Aura of Expertise—Such Improper “Expert” Testimony Usurps the Jury’s Role

Although the error was deemed harmless here, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined it was error to allow a detective, who was involved in the underlying murder investigation, to testify as an “expert.” The detective was asked to explain the meaning of so-called “code words” used in recorded conversations admitted into evidence. But it was clear that the trial court allowed the detective to testify as an “expert” on matters that had nothing to do with translating code words.  As a result, the detective’s testimony was imbued with an aura of expertise which could have improperly added weight to his testimony in the eyes of the jury.  Because this issue has not been addressed by New York courts, the Court of Appeals turned to two Second Circuit cases which held the improper “expert” testimony, on topics not beyond the “ken of the jurors,” usurped the jury’s role:

We have, for example, permitted expert testimony by a police sergeant respecting the way in which street-level drug sales are transacted to help a jury understand why the failure to recover drugs or marked buy-money from an individual apprehended in a buy-and-bust operation is not necessarily indicative of the accused’s misidentification (People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500 [2002]). It is instructive to note, however, that the testimony of the sergeant in Brown was carefully limited by the trial court to a discrete issue beyond the ken of ordinary jurors, and that the sergeant was not himself involved in the underlying investigation and gave no testimony as to what had actually occurred during the buy-and-bust there involved. The situation is very different where a police officer, qualified as an expert, has participated in the investigation of the matter being tried and, with the mantel of an expert steeped in the particulars of the case, gives seemingly authoritative testimony directly instructive of what facts the jury should find. Our cases have not dealt with this problematic scenario, but those of the Second Circuit, most notably United States v Mejia (545 F3d 179 [2d Cir 2008]) and United States v Dukagjini (326 F3d 45 [2d Cir 2002]), have.

In both of those cases, law enforcement officers involved in the investigations upon which the defendants’ prosecutions were founded were duly qualified as experts but permitted to testify as apparent experts beyond their expertise and upon matters well within the grasp of lay jurors. In exploring the full reach of the permission they had been afforded, they became summation witnesses, instructing the jury comprehensively and with an aura of expertise, as to how the particular factual issues presented in each case should be resolved. This, said the Mejia court, amounted to a “usurpation of the jury’s role” (545 F3d at 191), and was objectionable as well, in both Mejia and Dukagjini, for operating to inject hearsay into the evidentiary mix and to abridge the defendants’ constitutional right to confront the witnesses against them; both case agent witnesses, as putative experts, had premised their testimony largely on inadmissible out-of-court statements, even when that testimony ceased to be expert and went only towards proving particular facts. People v Inoa, 2015 NY Slip Op 04790, CtApp 6-10-15

 

, , ,

The Medical Examiner Who Conducted an Autopsy of Plaintiffs’ 17-Year-Old Son Upon the Son’s Death in an Auto Accident Was Not Under a Statutory or Ministerial Duty to Return the Brain or to Inform Plaintiffs He Had Removed The Brain for Further Examination and Testing

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissent, determined the medical examiner, who conducted an autopsy of plaintiffs’ 17-year-old son after his death in a car accident, was under no statutory or ministerial duty to inform plaintiffs he had removed plaintiffs’ son’s brain for further examination and testing, nor was he under a duty to return the brain. Plaintiffs therefore did not have a “negligent infliction of emotional distress” or “violation of right of sepulcher” cause of action against the city. (Plaintiffs had been awarded significant damages at trial:)

When the Legislature enacted statutes granting medical examiners (and others) the authority to conduct autopsies and dissections (see Public Health Law §§ 4209; 4210), it acknowledged through the enactment of section 4215 (1) that there would be situations where the decedent’s body may not be buried or incinerated within a reasonable time after the decedent’s death, as per section 4200 (1)’s directive. Thus, section 4215 strikes a balance permitting the lawful dissection of a body, while concomitantly ensuring that once the lawful purposes have been accomplished the body will be buried, incinerated or properly disposed of as per section 4200 (1), and that the penalties for the interference or injuries to the body would “apply equally to the remains of the body after dissection . . .”

When section 4200 (1) and section 4215 (1) are read in tandem, there is no language that would cause a medical examiner to divine from section 4215 (1) that he or she is required to return not only decedent’s body, but the organs and tissue samples that the medical examiner is legally permitted to remove. Similarly, our right of sepulcher jurisprudence does not mandate that a medical examiner return decedent’s organs and tissue samples. Thus, because there was no governing rule or statutory command requiring a medical examiner to turn over organs and tissue samples, it could not be said that he or she has a ministerial duty to do so. At most, a medical examiner’s determination to return only the body without notice that organs and tissue samples are being retained is discretionary, and, therefore, no tort liability can be imposed for either the violation of the common-law right of sepulcher or Public Health Law § 4215 (1). Once a medical examiner returns a decedent’s body sans the organs and tissue samples, the medical examiner for all intents and purposes has complied with the ministerial duty under section 4215 (1). Absent a duty to turn over organs and tissue samples, it cannot be said that the medical examiner has a legal duty to inform the next of kin that organs and tissue samples have been retained. * * *

There is simply no legal directive that requires a medical examiner to return organs or tissue samples derived from a lawful autopsy and retained by the medical examiner after such an autopsy. The medical examiner’s obligations under both the common-law right of sepulcher and Public Health § 4215 (1) are fulfilled upon returning the deceased’s body to the next of kin after a lawful autopsy has been conducted. If the Legislature believes that next of kin are entitled to notification that organs, tissues and other specimens have been removed from the body, and that they are also entitled their return prior to burial of the body or other disposition, it should enact legislation delineating the medical examiner’s obligations in that regard, as it is the Legislature that is in the best position to examine the issue and craft legislation that will consider the rights of families and next of kin while concomitantly taking into account the medical examiner’s statutory obligations to conduct autopsies. Shipley v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04791, CtApp 6-10-15

 

, ,

County Was Not Responsible for the Day to Day Operation of Community College and Did Not Own the Dormitory Where Plaintiff’s Decedent Suffered Cardiac Arrest and Died—County Owed No Duty of Care to Plaintiff’s Decedent

Plaintiff’s decedent died of cardiac arrest in a Sullivan County Community College (SCCC) dormitory.  Plaintiff sued the county, alleging the dormitory should have been equipped with a defibrillator and/or should have had an emergency medical response plan in effect.  The Court of Appeals determined the complaint against the county was properly dismissed.  Although the county was the “sponsor” of the community college, it did not own the dormitory and did not manage the day-to-day operation of the community college, which was handled by the board of trustees (Education Law 6306):

While the County exercises significant influence and control over SCCC’s finances, only the College’s board of trustees is authorized to manage SCCC’s facilities; therefore, it alone is charged with the duty of care … . And here, the County additionally established that it did not even own the dormitory where decedent’s accident occurred … . Branch v County of Sullivan, 2015 NY Slip Op 04756, CtApp 6-9-15

 

,

The Acts of Applying for a Fake Non-Driver ID Card and Possessing the Fake Non-Driver ID Card Upon Arrest (Four-Months After Submitting the Application) Did Not Constitute a Single Criminal Venture—the Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy Did Not Preclude the Second Charge

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined defendant was not entitled to the dismissal of charges on double jeopardy grounds.  Defendant had used his son’s identification information to procure a non-driver ID card in Suffolk County.  Several months later defendant was stopped by police in Westchester County, presented the fake non-driver ID card, and was subsequently charged with possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. Defendant pled guilty to possession of a forged instrument third degree. When defendant’s son returned to New York State (after a four-year absence) and applied for a driver’s license in Westchester County, authorities became aware of defendant’s submission (in Westchester County) of a fake application (MV-44 form) for the non-driver ID. Defendant was then charged in Westchester County with possession of a forged instrument (the ID application form) as well as forgery.  The Court of Appeals held that the two offenses were not “integrated, interdependent acts as seen in conspiracy cases or complex frauds…”. Therefore, unlike individual acts within such conspiracies or complex frauds, the two acts did not constitute a “single criminal venture.” The court noted: “A closer case might be presented had defendant applied for a driver’s license in Suffolk County with his son’s papers and showed the temporary driver’s license later that same day when his car was stopped by police. In such circumstances, the timing and criminal purpose of the two acts would be more interrelated than the circumstances presented here:”

Under CPL 40.20, a subsequent prosecution for offenses involving the “same criminal . . . transaction,” as defined by CPL 40.10 (2), violates the statutory bar against double jeopardy unless an exception applies.

“‘Criminal transaction’ means conduct which establishes at least one offense, and which is comprised of two or more or a group of acts either (a) so closely related and connected in point of time and circumstance of commission as to constitute a single criminal incident, or (b) so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture” (CPL 40.10 [2]). * * *

Part (b) of the CPL 410.10 definition “tends to be more applicable to crimes that involve planned, ongoing organized criminal activity, such as conspiracies, complex frauds or larcenies, or narcotics rings” (7 NY Prac., New York Pretrial Criminal Procedure § 2:6 [2d ed.]). This Court has recognized statutory violations of double jeopardy protections in drug trafficking cases where the “embracive nature of the crime of conspiracy” presents unique circumstances … .

Here, under the test presented by CPL 40.10 (2) (a), the offense of submitting a forged MV-44 form and the offense of presenting a forged non-driver ID to the police were many months apart and … involved different forged instruments — the non-driver’s license and the MV-44 application form — making them different criminal transactions. The Suffolk County charge was based on defendant’s completion and filing of the application form. The offense was complete once defendant submitted the forged application to the DMV in June 2009. The Westchester offense occurred four months later and was based on defendant’s presentation of the forged non-driver’s license to the officer. With the non-driver ID card in hand, defendant could give the appearance of a clean record, which would enable him to evade his criminal history and obtain a loan or employment under a false identity. Applying the alternative test defined by CPL 40.10 (2) (b), this case does not involve the integrated, interdependent acts as seen in conspiracy cases or complex frauds, and as such does not constitute a “single criminal venture” … . People v Lynch, 2015 NY Slip Op 04754, CtApp 6-9-15

 

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