You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the out-of-possession landlord (AIMCO) was not liable for plaintiff’s injury from a shooting on the sidewalk outside a bar (PJ’s)i n the landlord’s building:

​

Dismissal of the complaint as against AIMCO was proper in this action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when, while standing on the sidewalk outside a bar owned and operated by codefendant [PJ’s], he was shot in the foot. The record demonstrates that AIMCO owned the commercial space and had leased it to PJ’s, and as a premises owner, AIMCO cannot be held liable in negligence for an assault that occurred on a public street over which it exercised no control … .

AIMCO also owed plaintiff no duty of care to prevent the incident since the evidence showed that AIMCO was an out-of-possession landlord when the shooting happened …  and while it had the right to reenter the premises for the purpose of effecting repairs, there is no evidence that it retained control over the premises or was involved with how PJ’s operated its bar … .The 2009 stipulation of settlement between nonparty City of New York, AIMCO and PJ’s regarding a public nuisance action fails to raise a triable issue, because it expired by its own terms before the shooting and did not require AIMCO to do anything with regard to how the bar was being operated. Ballo v AIMCO 2252-2258 ACP, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08443, First Dept 11-3017

 

NEGLIGENCE (OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY (CIVIL, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT))/OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NEGLIGENCE, THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT))

,

DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant, a doctor accused of operation a “pill mill” for persons addicted to opioids and Xanax, was properly convicted of manslaughter in the overdose deaths of two persons to whom he has supplied drugs:

Defendant argues that the manslaughter convictions should be reversed because, as a matter of law, the sale of a controlled substance can never support a homicide charge in the absence of express legislative authorization. He bases this position on a [2nd] Department decision, People v Pinckney (38 AD2d 217 [2nd Dept 1972] … ). * * *

… Nothing in Pinckney suggests that one who provides a controlled substance, whether it be heroin by a street dealer, or opioids by a medical doctor, can never be indicted on a manslaughter charge. Indeed, in People v Cruciani (36 NY2d 304 [1975]), the [Ct.] of Appeals affirmed the second degree manslaughter conviction of the defendant, who injected the victim with heroin, because he knew she was already in a highly intoxicated state. The Cruciani Court distinguished Pinckney, because in the latter case there was not “any proof, as here, of awareness of the ongoing effect of drugs in the victim’s body at the time any self-inflicted injection might have been made, or, beyond the general knowledge of the injuriousness of drug-taking, of a real threat to life. The remoteness of that fatal injection from the fact of sale diffused intent and scienter by possibly unknown or intervening events beyond Pinckney’s control” … .

At bottom, all that was needed for the manslaughter charge to be sustained was for the People to satisfy its elements. That is, that defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [death] [would] occur . . . The risk [being] of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitute[d] a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation” … .

The question then becomes whether the People presented sufficient evidence to establish that defendant consciously disregarded the risk that Haeg and Rappold would die as a result of his prescribing practices. … People v Stan XuHui Li, 2017 NY Slip Op 08438, First Dept 11-30-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (OPIOIDS, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/OPIOIDS (CRIMINAL LAW, MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))/PILL MILL (CRIMINAL LAW, MANSLAUGHTER, PILL MILL, DOCTOR WHO OPERATED A PILL MILL FOR PERSONS ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR OVERDOSE DEATHS (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, over a two-justice dissent, determined the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission’s (LPC’s) decision to allow the electrification of a landmark nineteenth century clocktower (similar in structure to Big Ben) was based upon an error of law and was irrational. The clocktower had been sold to a private party which planned to convert it to a residence. The LPC found, in effect, that the commission did not have authority over the now privately-owned clocktower:

 

We hold that the LPC has authority under the Landmarks Law to regulate the clock mechanism for two reasons.

First, this result effectuates the statutory purposes. The Landmarks Law, New York City’s first historic preservation statute, * * * declares that “the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements . . . of special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people” (Landmarks Law § 25-301[b]). … * * *

Second, the Landmarks Law defines the term “interior architectural feature” to include the “components of an interior, including, but not limited to . . . the type and style of all . . . fixtures appurtenant to such interior” (Landmarks Law § 25-302[l]). Matter of Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08457, First Dept 11-30-17

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW  (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/LANDMARKS (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))/CLOCKTOWER  (NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION LAW NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT))

AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed and reversed several rulings on defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, and common law negligence action. Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on a loose piece of sprinkler pipe on property owned by defendant One City. The 2nd Department determined the correct standard for analyzing the Labor 200 cause of action was under the dangerous condition prong, rather than the manner of work prong, of Labor Law 200 and dismissed that cause of action. There was no proof One City created or knew about the dangerous condition. The Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action properly survived summary judgment because there was a question of fact whether the fall occurred in a passageway that should be kept clear and there was a question fact whether plaintiff was cleaning up the area at the time (which would preclude suit). The 2nd Department further found that there was a question of fact whether another defendant had purchased insurance as required by a contract with One City. The court also addressed indemnification issues. With regard to the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action, the court wrote:

​

Section 200 of the Labor Law is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . “Claims for personal injury under the statute and the common law fall into two broad categories: those arising from an alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the premises and those arising from the manner in which the work was performed” … .”Where the injury was caused by the manner and means of the work, including the equipment used, the owner or general contractor is liable if it actually exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work” … . “Where an existing defect or dangerous condition caused the injury, liability attaches if the owner or general contractor created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … .

Here, the court finds that the appropriate standard to apply in this case is the dangerous condition standard and not the manner and means standard. The cause of the accident, the piece of loose pipe, was not a condition created by the manner in which the work was performed by plaintiff or his employer but was rather a condition that already existed prior to plaintiff’s arrival on the fifth floor that day.  Prevost v One City Block LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08303, First Dept 11-28-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT))

,

MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have granted defendant’s motion to vacate the default in this foreclosure proceeding. Defendant’s counsel had neglected to file opposing papers when plaintiff moved for summary judgment and moved to vacate the default a month later. The failure to answer the motion was deemed excusable. The First Department found merit in defendant’s allegations of flaws in the notice provided by the bank, flaws in the bank’s proof of standing, and flaws in the bank’s proof the note was lost:

​

The borrower’s prior counsel acknowledged that he failed to submit opposition to the summary judgment motion after stipulating to adjourn that motion. However, counsel moved to vacate the default less than one month after Supreme Court’s decision was entered. Absent a pattern of dilatory behavior, the default was an excusable, one-time oversight, resulting in no prejudice … . …

​

The borrower raised a colorable notice defense regarding plaintiff’s service of the mortgage’s 30-day default notice and the requisite 90-day notice under RPAPL 1304 … . … [T]he affidavit of plaintiff’s servicing agent failed to indicate that she had familiarity with standard office mailing procedures … . * * *

​

Plaintiff seeks to foreclose the principal sum of $327,828.34, but there are gaps in its proof. * * *

There is also a question as to the sufficiency of the content of the lost note affidavit submitted on summary judgment. The affidavit * * * does not state when the search was made or by whom, and does not indicate approximately when the note was lost. Therefore, the borrower has demonstrated a potentially meritorious standing defense … . US Bank N.A. v Richards, 2017 NY Slip Op 08299, First Dept 11-28-17

 

FORECLOSURE (MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VACATE DEFAULT, FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))/DEFAULT (FORECLOSURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT WAS DEEMED EXCUSABLE, THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE, THERE WERE MERITORIOUS ISSUES RE NOTICE AND STANDING (FIRST DEPT))

,

PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed the first degree assault convictions. The dissent argued the proof of “serious physical evidence” was not sufficient:

​

The element of serious physical injury … required for the assault convictions  … was established by evidence showing that four years after the complainant was struck by a bullet, he still felt pain and the bullet fragments in his leg and could not engage in sports at the same level as before the incident. This proof sufficiently shows a protracted impairment of health or protracted impairment of the function of a bodily organ to support a finding of serious physical injury … . * * *

​

From the dissent:

​

There is no proof of injury connected to the bullet fragments, nor is there proof that [the victim’s] life was endangered by the presence of the fragments … .Notably, the People’s expert was unable to opine as to whether [the victim] had suffered permanent deficits associated with the injury.

The fact that [the victim] suffered a gunshot wound does not ipso facto establish that he suffered a “serious physical injury” … . People v Garland, 2017 NY Slip Op 08302, First Dept 11-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT (CRIMINAL LAW, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))/SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (CRIMINAL LAW, ASSAULT, PAIN AND PRESENCE OF BULLET FRAGMENTS FOUR YEARS AFTER THE SHOOTING WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT))

,

JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should have been granted. After the trial the prosecutor informed the court that a juror in defendant’s trial had applied for a job at the district attorney’s office two days before jury selection but did not disclose the application during voir dire. Ultimately the juror was hired by the district attorney’s office. Although the juror had prior experience on the prosecution side, her position at the time of trial involved white collar criminal defense. Defense counsel stated at the hearing that the juror was chosen because of her criminal defense work and, had defense counsel been aware the juror had applied for work in the district attorney’s office, the juror would have been struck:

​

Here, due to the juror’s concealment of material information regarding her job application, which also demonstrated a predisposition in favor of the prosecution, defendant was deprived of an impartial jury comprised of 12 jurors whom he had selected and approved through voir dire. In fact, defendant was tried by only 11 jurors whom he truly selected and approved; this violated his constitutional right to a jury of 12 of his own choice in a criminal case … . He was also deprived of exercising the various safeguards put into place by our legislature. As defense counsel testified, had the juror timely disclosed this information he would have moved to strike her for cause, and if unsuccessful would have exercised a peremptory challenge against her … While we recognize that there is no rule requiring automatic reversal in these situations … , since the verdict was not returned by a fair and impartial jury and we find the juror would have been subject to removal for cause, we agree with defendant that he was denied a fair trial on the ground that he was not tried by a jury of his own choice. We thus remand for a new trial. Critically, the juror remaining on the jury was prejudicial to defendant because he was ultimately convicted by the jury. People v Southall, 2017 NY Slip Op 08344, First Dept 11-28-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/JURIES (CRIMINAL LAW, JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a comprehensive dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff could foreclose on a mortgage despite the initial fraudulent transfer of the property and the absence of the note:

…[P]laintiff Peter Weiss seeks, among other things, a foreclosure and sale based on a Mortgage and Note Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA) executed by defendant Edward Phillips. Plaintiff lent $500,000 to borrowers who purported to own the real estate property they sought to mortgage. The borrowers signed a note, in which they promised to pay the loan, and a mortgage, in which they gave the plaintiff/lender a security interest in the property they purported to own. The borrowers, however, acquired the property by fraudulent means. After the rightful owner, Phillips, reacquired the property, he executed the CEMA with the individual lender, Weiss. Pursuant to the CEMA, Phillips acknowledged Weiss’s rights under the note and mortgage; and, Weiss agreed to forbear from foreclosing on the subject property for a year, presumably to permit Phillips to obtain refinancing.

… [W]e find that Weiss’s interest in the property as a mortgagee was not rendered null and void because his borrowers, the mortgagors, had acquired the property by fraudulent means. In addition, we find that Weiss met his burden for summary judgment, on his claim for foreclosure and sale, by submitting the Mortgage and CEMA, along with undisputed evidence establishing both the existence of the note, which obviated the need to submit the note as proof that Weiss had the right to foreclose, and the nonpayment. * * *

UCC 3-804 allows one to maintain an action as a “holder” on a promissory note even though the instrument has been lost or destroyed. The section does not apply here where it is established that plaintiff has the right to sue on the note as the undisputed “holder” of the note. * * *

Forged deeds and/or encumbrances are those executed under false pretenses, and are void ab initio … . The interests of subsequent bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers for value are thus not protected under Real Property Law § 266 when their title is derived from a forged deed or one that is the product of false pretenses … . In contrast, a fraudulently induced deed is merely voidable, not void … . Weiss v Phillips, 2017 NY Slip Op 08209, First Dept 11-21-17

FORECLOSURE (DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY LAW (DEEDS, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (FORECLOSURE, HOLDER OF THE NOTE, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/HOLDER (NOTE, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, FORECLOSURE, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))/DEEDS (VOIDABLE, DESPITE THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTE, PLAINTIFF LENDER COULD FORECLOSE AS THE UNDISPUTED HOLDER OF THE NOTE, THE INITIAL FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED DEED WAS VOIDABLE, NOT VOID (FIRST DEPT))

,

IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR FRYE HEARINGS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF FRYE HEARINGS IN OTHER COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION CONCERNING LCN AND FST DNA TESTING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the trial court’s denial of a Frye hearing about DNA testing was properly denied based upon the results of an eight-month long Frye hearing on the same issues in a court of coordinate jurisdiction:

​

The motion court’s pretrial ruling … denying defendant’s motion to exclude, or alternatively to conduct a Frye … hearing on, expert testimony relating to high sensitivity, or low copy number (LCN) DNA testing, was a provident exercise of discretion. At the time that the motion court’s ruling was made, a court of coordinate jurisdiction, following an eight-month Frye hearing, had issued a decision holding that LCN DNA testing was “generally accepted as reliable in the forensic scientific community” and “not a novel scientific procedure” … . “A court need not hold a Frye hearing where it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedings as an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony” … . …

​

Likewise, the trial court’s denial of defendant’s renewed motion for a Frye hearing … , which motion was recast to include evidence relating to both LCN DNA testing and a then-recently issued FST DNA testing report, was a provident exercise of discretion. The trial court’s ruling was consistent with prior determinations of courts of coordinate jurisdiction that these procedures were not novel scientific techniques and were generally accepted by the relevant scientific community … . People v Gonzalez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08191, First Dept 11-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, FRYE HEARINGS, DNA TESTING, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR FRYE HEARINGS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF FRYE HEARINGS IN OTHER COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION CONCERNING LCN AND FST DNA TESTING (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, FRYE HEARINGS, DNA TESTING, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR FRYE HEARINGS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF FRYE HEARINGS IN OTHER COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION CONCERNING LCN AND FST DNA TESTING (FIRST DEPT))/FRYE HEARINGS (CRIMINAL LAW DNA TESTING, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR FRYE HEARINGS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF FRYE HEARINGS IN OTHER COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION CONCERNING LCN AND FST DNA TESTING (FIRST DEPT))/DNA (CRIMINAL LAW, FRYE HEARINGS, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR FRYE HEARINGS, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON THE RESULTS OF FRYE HEARINGS IN OTHER COURTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION CONCERNING LCN AND FST DNA TESTING (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the wrong advice about whether defendant could appeal after pleading guilty warranted reversal, despite the failure to preserved the error. Defendant was told he could appeal the denial of his speedy trial motion:

​

A defendant forfeits his right to appellate review of a CPL 30.30 motion upon a guilty plea … . However, here, the record is clear that the court misadvised defendant that he could pursue his 30.30 claim on appeal of a guilty plea … . Neither the defense counsel nor the prosecutor corrected the court’s misadvice. Moreover, defendant accepted a lengthier sentence, and declined to replead to a different offense with a shorter prison sentence, based on this misstatement that his 30.30 claim could be raised on appeal. Under the totality of these circumstances, defendant’s plea is vacated and the matter remanded … . As defendant had no practical ability to object to the error because he was sentenced on the date the misstatement occurred, … , he was not required to preserve his argument. People v Sanchez, 2017 NY Slip Op 08193, First Dept 11-21-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, VACATION OF (DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT (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