You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined the relation-back statute (CPLR 203 (f)) allowed the amendment of a sex-and-disability-discrimination complaint to allege otherwise untimely employment discrimination causes of action based upon plaintiff’s sexual orientation. The original sex-and-disability-discrimination complaint did not mention plaintiff was a lesbian and had suffered discrimination because of her sexual orientation. The First Department held that the wording of the relation-back statute, which refers to “transactions” or “occurrences,” not “claims,” allowed the amendment in the absence of prejudice:

All of plaintiff’s claims are based on the same occurrences — namely the underlying employment actions taken against her – and the original complaint put defendants on notice of those occurrences. To be sure, plaintiff’s original complaint did not allege the specific facts that she is a lesbian, that defendants were aware of her sexual orientation, that defendants discriminated against her on that basis, or that another lesbian colleague was demoted for supporting her internal dispute … . Nevertheless, the motion court correctly determined that the new claims are based on “the same subject matter alleged in the original complaint.” Defendants need not have been put on notice of every factual allegation on which the subsequent claims depend, because the original complaint put them on notice of the occurrences that underlie those claims … .

Viewing “transactions [or] occurrences” through this broad lens for the purposes of relation back under CPLR 203(f) is especially important in the context of anti-discrimination actions – particularly those actions brought under the City HRL [Human Rights Law] – in which it is frequently difficult for plaintiffs to articulate their employers’ motivations for treating them less well than other employees … . O’Halloran v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 06237, First Dept 8-22-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (GENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/GENDER DISCRIMINATION  (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/SEX DISCRIMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SEX AND DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROPERLY AMENDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK STATUTE WITH OTHERWISE UNTIMELY CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-employers’ motion to dismiss the NYC and NYS Human Rights Law (NYCHRL, NYSHRL) gender discrimination causes of action should not have been granted. The employers were husband (Nicolai) and wife (Adams). The complaint alleged plaintiff-employee had nothing but a professional relationship with Nicolai. Adams allegedly sent an email to plaintiff telling her to stay away from her husband and family. Nicolai then allegedly sent an email to plaintiff telling her she was fired. The complaint further alleged defendants filed a complaint with the police falsely stating plaintiff had threatened them. Supreme Court allowed the defamation cause of action to stand, but dismissed the gender discrimination causes of action:

It is well established that adverse employment actions motivated by sexual attraction are gender-based and, therefore, constitute unlawful gender discrimination … . Here, while plaintiff does not allege that she was ever subjected to sexual harassment at [the workplace]. she alleges facts from which it can be inferred that Nicolai was motivated to discharge her by his desire to appease his wife’s unjustified jealousy, and that Adams was motivated to discharge plaintiff by that same jealousy. Thus, each defendant’s motivation to terminate plaintiff’s employment was sexual in nature.

Defendants’ reliance on certain cases in the “spousal jealousy” context is misplaced. … [A]ssuming the truth of the allegations of the amended complaint, as we are required to do upon a motion to dismiss, plaintiff had always behaved appropriately in interacting with Nicolai, and was fired for no reason other than Adams’s belief that Nicolai was sexually attracted to plaintiff. This states a cause of action for gender discrimination under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL … . Edwards v Nicolai, 2017 NY Slip Op 06235, First Dept 8-22-17

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (GENDER DISCRIMINATION,  ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/GENDER DISCRIMINATION ( ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT))/SEX DISCRIMINATION  (HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT)

,

APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appointment of an outside attorney [Mr. Zauderer] to serve as the sole member of a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to determine the merits of claims asserted in this LLC derivative suit was not allowed by the operating agreements:

Neither operating agreement provides for the delegation of decision-making authority to other than a member, or to an outsider like Mr. Zauderer to serve as SLC. The agreements are explicit that while day-to-day management is vested in the manager, “major decisions” need the consent of the other members. We reject the argument that the appointment of the SLC (as opposed to the ultimate decision as to whether to proceed with the derivative litigation) was not a “Major Decision” within the meaning of the agreements. The SLC was specifically granted the authority to “determine the positions and actions that the Companies should take with respect to the claims, considering, among other things, whether the claims have merit, whether they are likely to prevail, and whether it is in the Companies’ best interests to pursue them.”

That is not to say that the appointment of an SLC would in all cases be improper in the LLC context. Indeed, the members may so provide in the operating agreement, and such provision will be enforced in accordance with those same principles concerning the parties’ freedom to contract … . LNYC Loft, LLC v Hudson Opportunity Fund I, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06147, First Dept 8-15-17

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVE ACTIONS,  APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))OPERATING AGREEMENTS (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,  APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged that he fell off the edge of a service ramp in an area where trucks were unloaded. The plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact about whether the ramp was negligently designed or maintained. There were no building code or other safety code provisions which were violated, or even applicable:

​

Defendants’ expert report stated that the Building Code applicable to the premises, which was enacted in 1968 … , was silent concerning the components of a loading dock, delivery truck parking, material loading and unloading, and in regard to an access ramp between the truck parking floor and the top of the loading dock. As a result, the expert concluded, the ramp did not violate the Building Code. The expert also concluded that because the service ramp was not part of the required egress from the loading dock area, those parts of the Building Code applicable to “Means of Egress” did not apply.

Based on his conclusion that the Building Code did not contain sections specifically applicable to the instant facts, defendants’ expert reviewed the standards promulgated by OSHA. He concluded, however, that no section of OSHA applied to the instant facts. He also found that National Fire Protection Agency “Life Safety Code” did not apply to the instant facts. Defendants’ expert opined that the portion of the curb of the ramp where plaintiff was alleged to have tripped was not a foreseeable pedestrian path, since it runs parallel, not across the path of pedestrians walking up and down the ramp. He noted that the use of bright yellow paint to alert pedestrians to the presence of walkway conditions was proper and in compliance with the American Society for Testing and Materials. Overall, defendants’ expert concluded that plaintiff had not cited to any valid authority in support of his contention that the ramp caused the accident, and established that the ramp did not violate any standards referenced by plaintiff’s expert in his expert exchange.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to any negligence on the part of defendant … . Schmidt v One N.Y. Plaza Co. LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 06047, First Dept 8-8-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, RAMP, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (NEGLIGENCE, SLIP AND FALL, BUILDING AND SAFETY CODES, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (RAMP, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/BUILDING CODES (SLIP AND FALL, RAMPS, PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))/SAFETY CODES (SLIP AND FALL, RAMPS., PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT))

,

CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE WHICH OF THE TWO RESPONDENTS ABUSED THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the child abuse allegations against mother and grandmother (respondents) were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. It was not necessary to prove which of them abused the child (Syriah):

​

The evidence submitted on petitioner’s direct case supports the court’s finding that respondents abused Syriah by showing that, while she was in their care, Syriah suffered an injury that would not ordinarily occur absent an act or omission of the person responsible for her care … .”[Petitioner] was not required to establish whether the mother or the [grandmother] actually inflicted the injuries, or whether they did so together”… .

A preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that Syriah’s injuries were inflicted and not accidentally caused. She suffered a traumatic brain injury, which resulted in anoxic ischemic encephalopathy and subdural hematoma, from which she died. Doctor Cahill, a pediatrician qualified as an expert in child abuse pediatrics, opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Syriah’s injuries were the result of a shaking event. Among other things, Syriah had no skull fracture, and, as one expert testified, without a skull fracture, the most likely explanation for subdural hemorrhage and anoxic change is vigorous shaking.

Respondents failed to demonstrate that Syriah’s injuries “could reasonably have occurred accidentally” so as to rebut petitioner’s prima facie showing of abuse … . The testimony of petitioner’s experts ruled out the possibility that the injuries were caused, as respondents contend, by a short fall from a mattress to the floor. Indeed, respondents’ own experts testified that it would be “unusual” and “extremely rare” for a child to suffer the injuries that Syriah suffered from a short fall.  Matter of Syriah J. (Esther J.), 2017 NY Slip Op 06048, First Dept 8-8-17

 

FAMILY LAW (CHILD ABUSE, EVIDENCE, CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE WHICH OF THE TWO RESPONDENTS ABUSED THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FAMILY LAW, CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE WHICH OF THE TWO RESPONDENTS ABUSED THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))/CHILD ABUSE (FAMILY LAW, EVIDENCE, CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE WHICH OF THE TWO RESPONDENTS ABUSED THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined that defendant’-trustee’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action should not have been granted. Although the defendant indenture trustee did not owe the plaintiffs a fiduciary duty with regard to the sale of securities, the trustee still owed plaintiffs a duty of care as described in the trust agreement, including a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Here the plaintiffs alleged the trustee sold the securities below market price and then sold them for a profit, thereby depriving plaintiffs of the equity in the securities:

​

This appeal concerns the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the termination of certain REMIC (real estate mortgage investment conduit) trusts. The assets held by the trusts were mortgage loans. The trusts originally sold securities to outside investors, representing two classes of holders, i.e., regular security holders and residual security holders. Plaintiffs … are holders of the residual security interests in those trusts. While the holders of regular securities were entitled to receive regular payments on distribution dates, the residual security holders had no such right. Instead, they were entitled to receive the proceeds of the disposition of any asset remaining in the trust REMICs upon their termination, but only after each class of regular security holder had been paid. Plaintiffs’ interest is referred to as the trust “equity.” The residual holder interest was the riskiest tranche of ownership and any right to payment was subordinate to payment in full of amounts due to the regular interest holders.

… The trustee argues that under the trust documents, it had the right to purchase trust assets at below market, even though it could resell them within days of acquiring them, allowing the trustee to realize millions of dollars in personal profit. The trustee is alleged to have kept for itself the profit it realized on the forward sale, which was in excess of $3,000,000.

… Even if the sale of assets to the trustee had been conclusively established by documentary evidence, there is still a valid claim that the trustee’s actions create a conflict of interest prohibited under the operative trust agreements and in violation of the trustee’s contractual obligations. The trust documents do not give the trustee the express right to purchase the trust assets for its own financial benefit at less than market value and to thereby diminish, let alone extinguish, plaintiffs’ interest as residual security holders. NMC Residual Ownership L.L.C. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 05923, First Dept 8-1-17

​

​

Similar issues and result in Cece & Co. Ltd. v U.S. Bank N.A., 2017 NY Slip Op 05924, First Dept 8-1-17 (Gische, J)

 

SECURITIES (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CONDUIT TRUSTS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT INDENTURE TRUSTEE DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFFS A FIDUCIARY DUTY, THE TRUSTEE DID OWE PLAINTIFFS A DUTY OF CARE AS DESCRIBED IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT, THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a detailed decision, over a dissent, determined that the illegal search of defendant’s belongings at the hospital did not taint the subsequent search of an area near defendant’s residence (his uncle’s apartment) which turned up a gun. Defendant, although charged with robbery, was convicted only of criminal possession of a weapon. The victim had been robbed by a masked man who fired a gun in the elevator where the robbery took place. Because the police could not find evidence a shot was fired in the elevator they believed the robber may have shot himself. The police found the defendant at a hospital, suffering from a gunshot wound in his leg. Defendant’s belongings were searched at the hospital and items taken in the robbery were seized. The police spoke with the defendant and his girlfriend and eventually searched the apartment where defendant lived with his uncle, with the uncle’s consent. The majority held that the investigation would have continued even if the illegal search at the hospital had not been conducted. The dissent argued the police would have had no reason to continue the investigation without the items found in the illegal search:

​

“[W]here the evidence sought to be suppressed is the product of an independent source entirely free and distinct from proscribed police activity, it should be admissible and not subject to a per se rule of exclusion based solely on the unlawful conduct” … . “[T]he independent source rule is applicable . . . [where] there is no causal connection, direct or indirect, proximate or attenuated, between the illegality and the subsequent seizure. In cases where this causal nexus is lacking, the exclusionary rule simply does not apply” … . A key consideration in determining whether this rule applies is whether “the prosecution has somehow exploited or benefitted from its illegal conduct, [whether] there is a connection between the violation of a constitutional right and the derivative evidence” … .

Here, the challenged searches were attenuated from the illegal search of defendant’s clothing bags. When the detective entered the hospital room, his theory of the crime was that it had been committed by a black male who had a gunshot wound to the leg. Defendant fit that description. Thus, we disagree with the dissent’s statement that, even if the search of the clothing bags turned up no evidence, the police “would have had little cause to pursue the investigation, let alone . . . search defendant’s vehicle and home.” To the contrary, regardless of what the detective were to find in defendant’s possession, he was likely to continue investigating defendant as a possible suspect. Such investigation would have included the routine and natural investigatory step of interviewing defendant and his girlfriend, which is what led him to learn about the car and the apartment. Further, none of the items recovered during the illegal search was used to procure defendant’s uncle’s consent to search the apartment, so the police did not engage in “exploitation of [the] illegality” as charged by the defense. People v Hill, 2017 NY Slip Op 0592, First Dept 8-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))/INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE (CRIMINAL LAW, PURSUANT TO THE INDEPENDENT SOURCE RULE, THE ILLEGAL SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BELONGINGS AT THE HOSPITAL DID NOT TAINT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH NEAR DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT))

,

ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a detailed decision describing all the evidence, determined the defendant's attempted murder conviction survived a weight of the evidence analysis, but the admission of documentary evidence was error which required reversal. The victim, Russo, had been shot in the head and could not remember who shot him. Before the grand jury, Russo testified that both the defendant (Bell) and a man named Diaz were in the apartment at the time of the shooting. At trial, however, Russo testified Diaz was not in the apartment. A detective testified Diaz had been interviewed in Florida and provided time sheets on his employer's corporate letterhead indicating he was in Florida at the time of the shooting. Those time sheets were erroneously admitted in evidence without meeting the criteria for the business records exception to the hearsay rule:

… [W]e find that the court committed reversible error in admitting Diaz's time sheets into evidence. The business records of Diaz's employer were admitted without a proper foundation, and the court failed to clearly instruct the jury that the time sheets could not be considered for the truth of their content. The jury was not told that the time sheets could not be relied upon to conclude that Diaz was not in the apartment at the time of the shootings. The business records exception to the hearsay rule is codified in CPLR 4518(a), and it also applies in criminal cases (CPL 60.10) … . For a business record to be admissible, it must be made in the regular course of business, it must be the regular course of business to make the record, and “the record must have been made at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter, assuring that the recollection is fairly accurate and the entries routinely made” … . Business records are customarily offered through a foundation witness, such as the custodian of the records or an employee who is familiar with the record-keeping procedures of the record maker … . …

The People argue that the time sheets were admitted not for the truth of their content, but only to rebut defense counsel's extensive challenges to the adequacy of the police investigation, and that the court's limiting instruction was adequate. The limiting instruction that the court gave was imprecise and confusing. The court only instructed the jury that the time sheets were “being received in evidence as documents which [Detective Hennessey] says reflect what efforts he did and what information he received on a very particular subject matter . . . .” The court did not clearly instruct the jurors that they were not to consider the time sheets in determining whether Diaz was in the apartment at the time of the shootings. This error was not harmless. There was a substantial disputed issue about whether Diaz was the additional person in the apartment, whom [a co-defendant] identified as the shooter. This conclusion was also supported by Russo's grand jury testimony, even though Russo later repudiated it. The time sheets established an alibi for Diaz, that he was in Florida on October 25, 2007. Bell's defense was that he did not shoot Russo, and someone else in the apartment did the shooting. Allowing the time sheets into evidence was not harmless error because there was “a significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error” … . People v Bell, 2017 NY Slip Op 05919, First Dept 8-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, BUSINESS RECORDS, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))/HEARSAY (CRIMINAL LAW, BUSINESS RECORDS, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))/BUSINESS RECORDS (CRIMINAL LAW, HEARSAY, ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RECORDS WITHOUT THE PROPER FOUNDATION REQUIRED REVERSAL OF THE ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT))

THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS’S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS’S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the motion court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because of a violation of the speedy trial statute should have been granted. The People were aware of a key witness's plan to vacation out of the country. Therefore, the witness's unavailability could not be considered an “exceptional circumstance” justifying the exclusion of time under the speedy trial statute:

… [T]he mere fact that a necessary witness plans to go on a vacation does not relieve them of their speedy trial obligation … .

… The People knew that their cooperative witness was planning a vacation to the Dominican Republic, yet they failed to call him or to otherwise secure his presence before he left the country. The prosecutor admitted that although learning of the witness's proposed vacation plans on July 25, 2013, and being specifically asked by the witness to contact him the next day to discuss the trial schedule and his proposed vacation, no one from the District Attorney's office tried to contact the witness until July 30, 2013, at which time they learned he had already left on vacation. Although the witness indicated a willingness to work with the prosecutor on scheduling his vacation and had not yet bought his ticket to the Dominican Republic, the prosecutor never subpoenaed the witness, sought a material witness order, or even communicated with him prior to his departure. People v Ricart, 2017 NY Slip Op 05922, First Dept 8-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS'S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS'S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THEIR WITNESS'S PLANS TO VACATION OUT OF THE COUNTRY, THE WITNESS'S ABSENCE WAS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING AN EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE (FIRST DEPT))

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department vacated defendant's guilty plea because, although the court told the defendant he could receive “jail time” if he violated the plea agreement, the defendant was not informed he could be sentenced to state prison:

The court improperly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The record, viewed as a whole, demonstrates that defendant lacked sufficient information about the potential scope of sentencing in the event he violated the plea agreement … . Although the court clearly told defendant that he was pleading guilty to a class D felony, reckless endangerment in the first degree, its repeated statements, over the course of multiple court appearances, that defendant's sentence would involve “jail” time, and its failure to clearly apprise defendant that he could receive a state prison sentence, and the potential maximum term thereof, if he violated the plea agreement, taken together, rendered his pleas unknowing and involuntary … . People v Renvill, 2017 NY Slip Op 05921, First Dept 8-1-17

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))/GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO VACATE (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT))/PLEA AGREEMENT (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (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