You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff mother was entitled to the infant plaintiff’s foster care records in connection with her claim that SCO Family Services negligently certified the individual defendant as a foster parent, and failed to properly supervise the foster home:

Pursuant to Social Services Law § 372(1), SCO was required to maintain records while the children were in foster care. Those records are confidential, but are discoverable pursuant to article 31 of the CPLR (Social Services Law § 372[3]). The statutory confidentiality requirement is intended to protect the privacy of children in foster care and their natural parents … , not to prevent former foster children from obtaining access to their own records.

When a former foster child “seeks her own records, so she can further her own suit against the defendant custodian of those records, who would otherwise have unequal access to them”… , she is “presumptively entitled to her own records” and “only a powerfully compelling showing would justify the court in potentially restricting” her access to the records … .

In this case, the court properly undertook in camera review of the foster care records to ensure that no private information of nonparties would be disclosed. However, the court erred in determining that the identities of ACS caseworkers, mental health professionals and other professionals should be redacted. Plaintiffs sought access to those witnesses to determine whether they had any relevant knowledge, and SCO did not articulate any privacy interests of those professionals that would warrant redacting their names from the foster care records. K.B. v SCO Family of Serv., 2018 NY Slip Op 01400, Second Dept 3-1-18

FAMILY LAW (FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/DISCOVERY (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE,  ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/FOSTER CARE (DISCOVERY, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (DISCOVERY, FOSTER CARE RECORDS, ALTHOUGH FOSTER CARE RECORDS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, A FOSTER CHILD IS ENTITLED TO HER OWN FOSTER CARE RECORDS WITHOUT THE REDACTION OF THE NAMES OF CASEWORKERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS (FIRST DEPT))

PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the prosecutor’s closing argument rendered an indictment count duplicitous by suggesting the robbery count could apply to either a cell phone or a bicycle (different victims). The indictment count charged robbery of the cell phone:

The indictment, as amplified by the bill of particulars, charged defendant in the first count with robbery in the second degree, for forcibly stealing one victim’s cell phone, and in the second count with criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, for possession of a bicycle, stolen from another victim, on which defendant attempted to flee the scene. In summation, the prosecutor repeatedly argued — in apparent response to defense counsel’s argument that the evidence showed that defendant abandoned the phone before striking one of his pursuers, and therefore that a robbery could not be established — that even if the court did not find that defendant used force to retain the phone, it could still find that he used force to retain the bicycle. Defense counsel objected to these arguments and the court overruled them.

We find that these arguments rendered the first count duplicitous by newly alleging that defendant was guilty under the first count if he forcibly stole either the phone or the bicycle (see CPL 200.30[1]). The lesser included offense of petit larceny, of which defendant was ultimately convicted, suffered from the same infirmity. People v Perez, 2018 NY Slip Op 01416, First Dept 3-1-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (DUPLICITOUS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))/DUPLICITY (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, PROSECUTOR’S CLOSING ARGUMENT RENDERED THE ROBBERY INDICTMENT COUNT DUPLICITOUS BY SUGGESTING THE COUNT COULD APPLY TO THE THEFT OF A BICYCLE WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED IN THAT COUNT (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s negligence action against a security company (US Security) hired by Kmart did not state a cause of action for tort liability stemming from a contract (Espinal criteria). Plaintiff was injured in a fight with a Kmart employee in a Kmart store. The First Department held that plaintiff was not a third party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and US Security, did not rely to his detriment on the performance of US Security’s duties, and US Security did not entirely supplant Kmart’s duty to secure the store:

Plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security, which contains a “No Third Party Beneficiaries” clause … .

Nor can a duty be imposed on U.S. Security on the ground either that plaintiff relied to his detriment on the continued performance of U.S. Security’s contractual duties or that U.S. Security had entirely displaced Kmart’s duty to secure its store … . Plaintiff’s affidavit says nothing about having knowledge of the contract between Kmart and U.S. Security or about detrimental reliance on U.S. Security’s continued performance thereunder … .

As for entire displacement, while the written scope of U.S. Security’s services included “the protection of … customers … in the Premises,” the deposition testimony of the loss prevention manager at the relevant Kmart store makes it clear that, in actual practice, U.S. Security’s services at that store were limited to deterring shoplifting … . Furthermore, U.S. Security did not totally displace Kmart’s duty to secure its store, because Kmart retained supervisory authority over the security guards and required U.S. Security’s staff to complete training in accordance with its (Kmart’s) safety policies and procedures … . Santiago v K Mart Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01296, First Dept 2-27-18

NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/ESPINAL (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT LIABILITY, SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/SECURITY COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT, TORT LIABILITY BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORT LIABILITY STEMMING FROM, ESPINAL CRITERIA, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (FIRST DEPT))

,

PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER (UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim based upon a fall from a ladder. The court noted that the property owner was liable even if the property owner was unaware the plaintiff had been hired by a tenant (here a deli, also a defendant). The deli owner had provided the A-frame ladder which moved side to side and fell to the ground. The court noted that the defendant owner’s opposition papers were entirely hearsay, which cannot defeat summary judgment:

Plaintiff’s fall from an unsecured ladder establishes a violation of the statute …  for which defendant property owner is liable, even if the tenant contracted for the work without the owner’s knowledge … . Plaintiff sufficiently identified the location of the deli at his deposition, and also stated that the deli owner offered him money to paint the sign.

In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. The statements of the owner of the deli and the deli worker were unsworn and inadmissible as hearsay. It should be noted that in the over 2 ½ years since the statements were taken, defendant never attempted to obtain affidavits from these witnesses or attempted to depose them, proffering their statements only after plaintiff had moved for summary judgment. Indeed, in its responses to discovery requests, defendant affirmatively represented that it was “not presently in possession of any statements from witnesses to the accident.”

While hearsay statements may be offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, hearsay statements cannot defeat summary judgment “where it is the only evidence upon which the opposition to summary judgment is predicated” … . Gonzalez v 1225 Ogden Deli Grocery Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 01280, First Dept 2-27-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY, PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHILE WORKING FOR A TENANT, EVEN IF THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE THE TENANT HIRED THE PLAINTIFF, WHERE ONLY HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT RAISED (FIRST DEPT))

LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was standing on suddenly moved:

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his testimony that he was caused to fall to the ground when the unsecured ladder on which he was standing suddenly shifted and kicked out from underneath him … .

Defendants’ opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. None of coworkers who provided affidavits actually witnessed plaintiff fall from the ladder, and they did not contradict his testimony that the ladder suddenly moved. Although defendants also submitted an unsworn accident report containing a statement from a coworker that plaintiff lost his balance and fell, this did not contradict plaintiff’s consistent testimony that he fell because the ladder suddenly moved… .. Furthermore, defendants’ reliance on O’Brien v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (29 NY3d 27 [2017]) is misplaced because that case, which found an issue of fact about whether a slippery exterior staircase provided adequate protection to the plaintiff, left intact the presumption that Labor Law § 240(1) is violated where, as here, a ladder collapses or malfunctions for no apparent reason … . Rom v Eurostruct, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01262, First Dept 2-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff testified the ladder he was using was unsecured and damaged. The ladder wobbled causing plaintiff to fall

[Defendant’s] submission of an ambiguous affidavit from plaintiff’s supervisor was insufficient to rebut plaintiff’s prima facie showing. Notably, the supervisor did not address the fact that he was at the scene of the accident shortly after plaintiff fell, and provided only vague references to other available ladders, without addressing plaintiff’s testimony that other workers were using those ladders  … . Furthermore, [defendant’s] argument that questions of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident is unavailing given that [defendant] failed to make a showing that adequate safety devices were provided to plaintiff … . Pena v Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1, 2018 NY Slip Op 01255, First Dept 2-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

RESPONDENT FELL USING A WALKER TO GET OFF A BUS, HER INJURY RESULTED FROM USE OR OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROPERLY AWARDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined no-fault benefits were properly awarded to respondent, who fell using a walker to exit a bus. Although the lift device was used when respondent got on the bus, the driver refused to activate the lift device when respondent got off. Respondent’s injury was deemed to stem form the use or operation of a motor vehicle:

Here, the bus driver activated the lift device of the bus to assist Valerie Mathis when she boarded the bus. Subsequently, when she was exiting the bus, the bus driver refused to activate the lift device or to lower the bus. As a result, she was forced to place her walker out in the street, and then fell over while attempting to exit the bus.

Thus, the arbitrator and master arbitrator rationally found that the bus was a “proximate cause” of the injury and that the accident involved the “use or operation” of a motor vehicle within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5104(a). Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Physical Medicine & Rehab of NY PC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01260, First Dept 2-22-18

INSURANCE LAW (NO-FAULT, RESPONDENT FELL USING A WALKER TO GET OFF A BUS, HER INJURY RESULTED FROM USE OR OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROPERLY AWARDED (FIRST DEPT))/NO-FAULT BENEFITS (INSURANCE LAW,  RESPONDENT FELL USING A WALKER TO GET OFF A BUS, HER INJURY RESULTED FROM USE OR OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROPERLY AWARDED (FIRST DEPT))/BUSES (INSURANCE LAW, NO-FAULT, RESPONDENT FELL USING A WALKER TO GET OFF A BUS, HER INJURY RESULTED FROM USE OR OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, NO-FAULT BENEFITS PROPERLY AWARDED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s silence after defendant real estate broker’s counteroffer for the brokerage fee, coupled with plaintiff’s going ahead to enter the lease procured by the broker, constituted acceptance of the counteroffer:

…[T]he plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to a judgment declaring that the brokerage commission due was five percent of the rent for the first five years of the lease agreement by submitting evidence that the defendant did not reject the counteroffer, but instead proceeded to have its client enter into the lease agreement. “While mere silence, when not misleading, cannot be construed as acceptance, a counteroffer may be accepted by conduct”… . The defendant’s conduct of moving forward with the lease agreement upon receiving the plaintiff’s counteroffer established that the objective manifestation of the parties’ intent was an agreement to the brokerage rate set forth in the counteroffer … . Gator Hillside Vil., LLC v Schuckman Realty, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-21-18

CONTRACT LAW (PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/COUNTEROFFER  (CONTRACT LAW, REAL ESTATE, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (BROKERAGE FEE, CONTRACT LAW, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))/SILENCE (CONTRACT LAW, COUNTEROFFER, PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT))

,

VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and reinstating defendant’s sentence of probation, determined the finding that defendant had violated a condition of probation was improperly based entirely on grand jury minutes, which constituted hearsay:

A finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant has violated a condition of probation … may not be based on hearsay evidence alone … . Here, on several occasions during the probation revocation hearing, the court indicated that its determination that defendant had violated probation by traveling outside the jurisdiction without permission, and by failing to lead a law abiding life, was based solely on the grand jury minutes related to his 2012 indictment (which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and did not result in a conviction) … . One of these statements, in which the court stated that “the government prevailed by the properly unsealed and complete [g]rand [j]ury minutes,” occurred directly after defense counsel explicitly argued that the court could not base a finding of a violation solely on the grand jury minutes, which constituted hearsay.

Based on this record, regardless of whether there was other evidence in the record that might have satisfied the requirement for “a residuum of competent legal evidence” … , we are compelled to find that the court’s determination was based on hearsay alone and therefore cannot stand. People v Hubel, 2018 NY Slip Op 01154, First Dept 2-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/GRAND JURY MINUTES (HEARSAY, VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))/PROBATION (VIOLATION OF PROBATION DETERMINATION CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY ON GRAND JURY MINUTES, WHICH CONSTITUTE HEARSAY, PROBATION REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT))

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the request that the jury be instructed on the justification defense in this manslaughter case should have been granted. There was evidence that the decedent, Cabbagestalk, was aggressively striking the defendant and trying to grab a gun defendant was holding:

… [A] jury could conclude that defendant reasonably believed that Cabbagestalk, who was younger and taller than defendant, and just two feet away, would gain control of defendant’s gun … . A jury could also reasonably conclude that Cabbagestalk’s statement to defendant — “[Y]ou going to pull a gun out, you better use it” — constituted a threat that if defendant did not use the gun, Cabbagestalk would take the gun and use it to shoot defendant. This is particularly true in light of the evidence that Cabbagestalk was advancing toward defendant, throwing punches at his face, and grabbing for the gun at the same time he made the threat. People v Brown, 2018 NY Slip Op 01173, First Dept 2-20-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT))/JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT))

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