You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED A PLEA WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT IN MANDATORY DEPORTATION COULD HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT; THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel should not have been denied without a hearing. The defendant presented sufficient evidence that defense counsel could have negotiated a plea which would not result in mandatory deportation:

Where the basis of a claim for ineffective counsel is counsel’s failure to attempt to negotiate an immigration friendly plea, defendant has to show that there is a reasonable probability that the People would have made such an offer … . If the likelihood that the People would have made such an offer is speculative, then the motion may be denied without a hearing … . Here, however, defendant’s motion shows that there was a reasonable possibility that his plea counsel could have secured a plea deal with less severe immigration consequences. …

Defendant has adequately alleged that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have offered defendant such a plea, despite the fact that the drug possession charge is a lesser-included offense to the drug sale charge. First, the People agreed to a sentence of one year in prison and one year of post-release supervision in order to cover defendant’s drug offenses. This suggests that there was a reasonable possibility that the People would have agreed to a different, immigration-favorable disposition resulting in the same aggregate prison time … . …

Second, both offenses subject defendant to equally enhanced sentences if he were to be convicted of another felony within 10 years … . …

Third, if the People had only been willing to offer the lesser-included offense together with a longer sentence, defendant might well have been willing to agree to that. …

Finally, there is no evidence that the People specifically sought a conviction on the drug sales offense in order to secure a harsher immigration consequence for defendant … . …

‘… [D]efendant demonstrated a reasonable possibility that he would have rejected his plea had he known that he could have obtained a sentence that had less harsh immigration consequences … . People v George, 2020 NY Slip Op 02852, First Dept 5-14-20

 

, , ,

THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy applied to a Creditor Trust. The Creditor Trust was formed pursuant to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan for the insured, RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of unsecured creditors of the insured:

… [T]he Creditor Trust sued RCAP’s directors and officers alleging they had breached their fiduciary duties to the company. The directors and officers sought coverage under RCAP’s D & O liability policy with Westchester (the insurer). Westchester commenced this action in response, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no coverage obligations.

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception, to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 02895, First Dept 5-14-20

 

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT VOTED IN CONNECTICUT WHILE IN COLLEGE THERE, NEW YORK REMAINED HIS ELECTORAL RESIDENCY; THEREFORE RESPONDENT WAS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR STATE SENATE IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined New York, not Connecticut, was respondent’s (Koffman’s) electoral residency. Therefore respondent was eligible to run for the State Senate in New York. Respondent had attended college in Connecticut and registered to vote a there during college:

Petitioner submitted proof that respondent had registered to vote and had voted in Connecticut from 2015 to 2018 instead of voting by absentee ballot in New York. In opposition to the summary judgment motion, respondent presented his affidavit and documentary evidence which demonstrated, among other things, that he was born and raised in New York; that he used his New York home as his permanent address; maintained his New York driver’s license; paid New York taxes; completed New York jury service while he was a student at Yale; lived in New York when school was not in session; returned to New York to live and work after graduation, and always considered himself a New York resident. * * *

Under the circumstances here, where there was ample proof that Koffman was a New York resident and that Koffman’s presence in Connecticut as a college student was temporary, together with the fact that he was not required under Connecticut law to renounce any voter registration in another state … , petitioner fell short of meeting his burden by clear and convincing evidence that respondent does not meet the residency requirement of the NY Constitution. Matter of Quart v Kaufman. 2020 NY Slip Op 02904, First Dept 5-14-20

 

BELATED FILING OF COVER SHEETS, UNDER THE UNIQUE COVID-19-RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES IN NEW YORK CITY, WAS NOT A FATAL DEFECT (DISAGREEING WITH THE SECOND DEPARTMENT) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, disagreeing with the Second Department, determined that, given the unique Covid-19-related circumstances in New York City, the belated filing of designating-petition cover sheets was not a fatal defect:

This election law proceeding involves the belated filing of cover sheets where the delay in filing is attributable to illness or quarantine because of the current COVID-19 pandemic. We hold that under the unique circumstances existing in New York City during the past few months, and the specific health challenges alleged here, the belated filing of these specific documents is not a fatal defect. In so holding, we note that no challenge has been presented to the number of signatures in the designating petitions and no claim of fraud has been alleged. Indeed, there is no evidence of specific actual prejudice presented. Although respondent Board of Elections contends that a cover sheet is necessary for administrative convenience, that cannot outweigh the right to ballot access in the current unique circumstances. Matter of Mejia v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 02902, First Dept 5-14-20

Similar issue and result in Matter of Mujumder v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 02903, First Dept 5-14-20

 

APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant’s pro se application for remission of the forfeited bail should have been granted. Appellant put up her own money for the bail. In support of her application for remission of the bail she submitted her own affidavit, defendant’s affidavit and a letter from a psychiatrist who had treated the defendant. Supreme Court refused to consider the affidavits and letter which explained defendant had become depressed upon the death of his younger brother, began abusing drugs and went off his mental health medication, resulting in his missing his court date. Instead Supreme Court relied on the court’s form application for remission of bail which was submitted by the appellant. The form application did not have any space for an explanation of the reasons for defendant’s missing his court date:

A court may forfeit a bail bond “[i]f, without sufficient excuse, a principal does not appear when required or does not render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the criminal court wherein bail has been posted” (CPL 540.10[1]). When this occurs, the surety may make an application for remission of the forfeited bail, which the court may grant “upon such terms as are just” (CPL 540.30[2]). “[S]uch an application should be granted only under exceptional circumstances and to promote the ends of justice. In making the application, a defendant or surety has the burden of proving that the defendant’s failure to appear was not deliberate and willful, and that the failure did not prejudice the People or deprive them of any rights” … . We find that appellant met all of these requirements. People v Nichols, 2020 NY Slip Op 02741, First Dept 5-7-20

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMANDED; DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT BY PLEADING GUILTY TO A PROBATION VIOLATION HE WAS GIVING UP HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING; APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter, determined defendant was not advised he could be deported based on his guilty plea, and further determined defendant’s plea to a probation violation was defective because he was not informed he was giving up his right to a hearing. Although the issue was not preserved by a motion to withdraw the plea, the appeal was heard in the interest of justice:

When defendant, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a firearm, the court did not advise him that if he was not a citizen, he could be deported as a consequence of his plea. Even though he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, there is no evidence that defendant knew about the possibility of deportation during the plea and sentencing proceedings. As such, the claim falls within the “narrow exception” to the preservation doctrine (People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 183 [2013], cert denied 574 US 850 [2014]). Therefore, defendant should be afforded the opportunity to move to vacate his plea upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation (id. at 198). Accordingly, we remit for the remedy set forth in Peque (id. at 200-201), and we hold the appeal in abeyance for that purpose.

Furthermore, defendant’s guilty plea to violation of probation was defective because there was no allocution about whether defendant understood that he was giving up his right to a hearing on the violation. While there is no mandatory catechism, Supreme Court failed to “advise defendant of his rights or the consequences regarding an admission to violating probation, including that he understood that he was entitled to a hearing on the issue and that he was waiving that right” … . Although defendant never moved to withdraw this plea and his claim is unpreserved, we review it in the interest of justice. People v Pinnock, 2020 NY Slip Op 02731, First Dept 5-7-20

 

THE STANDARD FOR VACATING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A ‘REASONABLE’ EXCUSE, NOT A ‘PLAUSIBLE’ EXCUSE; IF NO REASONABLE EXCUSE IS OFFERED THE MERITS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant Swanston’s motion to vacate the default judgment should not have been granted. The excuse was not deemed reasonable and, therefore, the merits of the case need not be considered:

The motion court thought that Swanston’s excuses might not be valid but that they were “plausible.” However, plausibility is not the standard; rather, on a CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion, the movant must show a reasonable excuse for his default … . Swanston’s one-sided understanding that plaintiffs would refrain from prosecuting their lawsuit while defendant JackFromBrooklyn Inc. (JFB) negotiated to sell itself did not constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to answer … .

Given the absence of a reasonable excuse, we “need not determine whether a meritorious defense exists” … . Kowal v JackFromBrooklyn Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02715, First Dept 5-7-20

 

,

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS SELLING TICKETS TO A SPORTING EVENT OUTSIDE THE ARENA, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE TICKETS WERE FORGED WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN HE SAW THE POLICE WAS EQUIVOCAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of a forged instrument, determined the evidence that defendant knew the Rangers tickets were forged was legally insufficient. The defendant briefly held an envelope containing the tickets and fled when he say the police:

Defendant approached Rangers fans outside of Madison Square Garden before a game, and at one point said “tickets, tickets.” He was on a cell phone call for a few seconds with an unspecified caller, the substance of which was not overheard. Defendant then met an unapprehended man, who gave defendant an envelope, which he immediately passed to a codefendant. The envelope, which the police recovered from the codefendant, contained a birthday card and the four forged Rangers tickets.

The evidence suggested that defendant sought to buy or sell tickets, but it did not show that he knew the tickets in question were forged. Even if the evidence established that defendant knowingly acted in concert with one or more other persons to sell tickets, in the circumstances presented this failed to support an inference that he knew he was selling forged tickets. His momentary possession of the envelope as he took it from one man and handed it to another, without looking inside or otherwise seeing the tickets, and the lack of any evidence of the codefendant’s conduct, besides his walking with defendant and receiving the tickets, does not suffice to establish that defendant knew the tickets were forged, either personally or while acting in concert with the codefendant.

Defendant’s flight from a plainclothes officer, whom defendant may have recognized, was too equivocal to prove that he knew the tickets inside the envelope were forged. There are other reasonable explanations for defendant’s flight, such as his potential awareness that it is unlawful to sell tickets, even if genuine, in the vicinity of the Garden … . People v Johnson, 2020 NY Slip Op 02708, First Dept 5-7-20

 

,

THE MOTION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG CRITERIA WHEN RULING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; ASSESSING DEFENDANT’S CHANCES AT TRIAL IS NOT THE PROPER ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a dissent, determined the motion court applied the wrong criteria for assessing whether the defendant was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant moved to vacate his conviction, alleging defense counsel did not inform him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea. The defendant’s chance of success at trial is irrelevant to whether defendant was entitled to a hearing. The First Department succinctly summarized the issues and the ruling as follows:

We find that the trial court improperly denied the motion without a hearing pursuant to CPL 440.30(4)(d) (i) & (ii). This section permits a court to reach the merits of a postjudgment motion without a hearing to dismiss frivolous claims … . In the case at bar, however, as the dissent concedes, there is independent support for defendant’s assertion that his plea was induced by erroneous advice given by his trial counsel, namely that his felony guilty plea would not subject defendant to mandatory deportation. Nevertheless, the dissent argues that summary denial of the CPL 440.10 motion is still proper, because defendant’s allegations did not raise a reasonable possibility that he was prejudiced by the misadvice. We disagree. Like the court below, the dissent applies the wrong prejudice standard, by focusing exclusively on defendant’s alleged lack of a viable defense and the likelihood he would have been convicted after trial, and disregards the particular circumstances of defendant’s desire to remain in the United States. The dissent’s reasoning is contradicted by the recent United States Supreme Court holding in Lee v United States (582 US __, 137 S Ct 1958, 1966 [2017]), which rejects any per se rule that prevents a defendant from establishing prejudice by an attorney’s erroneous advice simply because the defendant may not have a strong defense. Instead, as Lee v United States mandates, even if the chance of success at trial is low, the prejudice inquiry should focus on the defendant’s decision-making and whet her it was reasonable for one in defendant’s position, facing mandatory deportation, to choose to take a shot a trial. People v Lantigua, 2020 NY Slip Op 02557, First Dept 4-30-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF SOCIAL WORKER WAS MENACED BY A TENANT IN CITY HOUSING WIELDING A KNIFE AND SUED THE CITY; THE CITY WAS ACTING IN A GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY; THERE WAS NO SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF BY THE CITY; THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE; SECURITY WAS ADEQUATE; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff social worker’s suit against the city based on a tenant’s menacing her with a knife  was properly dismissed. The incident happened at city housing for mentally ill and homeless persons:

The court correctly concluded that the City defendants were acting in a governmental capacity when they provided funding for the facility and its services. A party seeking to impose liability on a municipality acting in a governmental capacity must establish the existence of a special duty to plaintiff, which is more than the duty owed to the public generally … . Here, plaintiff presented no evidence that would provide a basis for finding that a special duty was owed to her by the City defendants.

Regarding defendants owner and managing agent of the premises, a landowner must act as a reasonable person in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury and the burden of avoiding the risk … . The owner and managing agent demonstrated that the incident was not reasonably foreseeable in that the tenant was a resident in the facility for nine years and had no record of violent behavior or threats of violence to others … . Plaintiff asserts that the tenant was an unsuitable tenant for the facility because of his mental illness and prior criminal conduct. However, the tenant’s criminal conduct took place 15 years before the incident.

Plaintiff argues that the facility lacked adequate security given its “high risk” population. However, surveillance cameras controlling building access and functioning locks on office doors, which were present here, have been found to be sufficient to satisfy the “minimal precautions” standard … . Furthermore, since the incident was over in less than a minute and security personnel were alerted and responded, additional security could not have prevented the incident … . Musano v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 02368, First Dept 4-23-20

 

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