You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

,

Proceedings Pursuant to CPL 440.10 Required to Determine Whether Defense Counsel Was Ineffective for Failing to Move to Reopen the Suppression Hearing When Trial Evidence Called Into Question the Arresting Officer’s Credibility

The First Department, over a dissent, found that  the trial record was insufficient to determine whether defendant’s counsel was ineffective for failing to ask to reopen a suppression hearing when the trial evidence called into question the arresting officer’s credibility.  The conviction was affirmed without prejudice and the matter was sent back for further proceedings under a motion to vacate the conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10:

The issue of effective assistance of counsel is generally not reviewable on direct appeal, because it involves facts dehors the record, such as trial counsel’s strategy … . Accordingly, a defendant who seeks to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim usually must first expand the record by way of a CPL 440.10 motion before this Court can consider it … . However, there are rare instances where the full record is sufficient to resolve the issue of counsel’s effectiveness without a 440.10 motion … . This is not one of those rare cases.  * * *

The extant record potentially supports a finding that counsel fundamentally misunderstood the necessity of making the motion to reopen the suppression hearing during trial, rather than waiting for a motion to set aside the verdict, in the event of a conviction. Defense counsel’s remarks at sentencing, seemingly prompted by the court’s denial of the motion to set aside the verdict, were a belated attempt to explain counsel’s failure to move to reopen the hearing. Whether defense counsel was effective or not necessarily requires an evaluation of the credibility and logic of the proffered explanation, that defense counsel was afraid he would “lose that jury” and that he believed the witness “was on the ropes.” Although defense counsel may have genuinely been hopeful that the jury would acquit his client, this explanation cannot be accepted at face value. After all, as the trial court’s decision indicates, had defense counsel timely moved to reopen the suppression hearing, the application would have been granted, and the court could have quickly ruled upon it while giving the jury a short recess. The “witness” referred to was the arresting officer, and was available. On the other hand, there may have been legitimate concerns about the jury undeveloped on this record. In short, we cannot decide on the extant record whether defense counsel’s failure to move to reopen the hearing was truly “strategic.”  People v Medina-Gonzalez, 2014 NY Slip Op 02531, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Age Discrimination and Retaliation Claims Survived Summary Judgment

The First Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff had raised questions of fact about both her age-discrimination and her retaliation claims.  The findings were entirely fact-based and centered on evidence the non-discriminatory motives asserted were pretextual.  A sample follows:

Defendants failed to demonstrate that they did not discriminate against plaintiff on the basis of her age … . Plaintiff, who was 49 when she was hired by defendant Concentric Health Care LLC, was among the oldest of Concentric’s approximately 70 employees, was qualified for her position of billing manager, and was subjected to a disadvantageous employment action, i.e. termination. Defendant Ken Begasse, Jr. (Junior), a principal of Concentric, testified, in effect, that Concentric, an advertising agency serving the pharmaceutical industry, preferred to hire younger workers because they tended to be cheaper and advertising is generally a “young industry.”

Defendants contend that they terminated plaintiff because they were in financial trouble and their independent consultant recommended terminating plaintiff and replacing her with an employee whose annual salary would be $40,000 less than hers. However, the independent consultant made this recommendation, and others, in February 2009, and, although defendants terminated a number of people based on these recommendations, they did not terminate plaintiff until November 2009, some nine months later. Moreover, Junior and defendant Michael Sanzen, another of Concentric’s principals, testified that, in the months after the consultant made his report, new employees were hired and at least one existing employee was given a $20,000 raise. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation of financial distress is pretextual … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation of poor performance is pretextual. The only documentary evidence of poor performance is a negative review that plaintiff received in September 2009, and there is evidence that, by this time, defendants had already decided to terminate her. Indeed, the review prepared by plaintiff’s immediate superior, Concentric’s comptroller, was only mildly critical of plaintiff; defendant Ken Begasse, Sr. (another of Concentric’s principals) intervened and added extensive negative comments. In an earlier employee review (December 2007), plaintiff had been lauded as “an outstanding professional with vast experience and very high standards,” who “keeps the company’s interest foremost in her mind,” and “always seems to get the work done and done properly.”  McGuinness v Concentric Health Care LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02534, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

, ,

Eviction Based Upon Firearm and Drugs Found in Petitioner’s Apartment Affirmed Despite the Lack of Evidence Petitioner Was Aware the Items Were In the Apartment (Apparently They Were Brought Into the Apartment by Her Older Children) and Despite Petitioner’s Unblemished Record as a Tenant

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and upheld the New York City Housing Authority’s eviction of petitioner based upon the police finding marijuana, oxycodone and an operable firearm in petitioner’s apartment.  Petitioner was not in the apartment at the time the items were found, and there was evidence the items were brought into the apartment by petitioner’s older children.  There was no evidence petitioner was aware the items were in the apartment.  Supreme Court had determined eviction “shocked the conscience” because petitioner had lived in the apartment for 23 years and had an otherwise unblemished record.  The First Department reinstated the eviction order:

…[W]e review the sanction of termination in accordance with the standard set forth in Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County (34 NY2d 222 [1974]). There, the Court of Appeals defined a penalty that is unsustainable as “shocking to one’s sense of fairness” as one which

“is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the derelictions of the individuals. Additional factors would be the prospect of deterrence of the individual or of others in like situations, and therefore a reasonable prospect of recurrence of derelictions by the individual or persons similarly [situated]” (34 NY2d at 234).

Applying this standard, we find that the facts here support petitioner’s eviction. Eviction is undoubtedly a “grave” sanction. However, in permitting drugs and a lethal weapon to be present in her apartment, petitioner committed a serious breach of the code of conduct that is critical to any multiple dwelling community, and which warrants the ultimate penalty … . Petitioner’s neighbors have a right to live in a safe and drug-free environment, and petitioner significantly compromised their ability to do so, her alleged ignorance of the activities in her apartment notwithstanding … . Matter of Grant v New York City Hous Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 02535, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Where Defendant Abutting Property Owner Has Cleared a Snow-Free Path on the Abutting Sidewalk There Will Be No Liability for a Fall in “Non-Cleared” Area

The First Department determined the clearance of a snow-free path on a sidewalk by the defendant abutting property owner created a reasonably safe condition and defendant could not be held liable for plaintiff’s fall in a non-cleared area:

A property owner … has a duty to keep a sidewalk abutting its property sufficiently clear of snow and ice so that the sidewalk is maintained in a “reasonably safe condition” (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210). The property owner will have discharged its duty if a snow-free path is cleared between the street and the sidewalk within a reasonable walking distance of the property, since it is not reasonably foreseeable that a person would attempt to climb over a significantly obstructive curbside mound of snow rather than walk to a nearby unobstructed path … . Since plaintiff’s accident resulted, by his own account, from his unforeseeable decision to climb over the knee-high heap of snow, it is of no moment whether he lost his footing before or after he planted his foot on the sidewalk. McKenzie v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02533, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Expert Opinion About Link Between Trauma and a Stroke Erroneously Precluded/Frye Hearing Erroneously Ordered/The Opinion Evidence Was Not Controversial and Was Sufficiently Supported by the Relevant Literature to Obviate the Need for a Frye Hearing

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, with a concurring and a dissenting opinion, found that the trial court erred in precluding plaintiff’s experts from testifying about a causal link between an automobile accident and a subsequent embolic stroke.  The First Department further concluded that the opinion testimony about the causal link was supported by enough relevant literature to obviate the need for the Frye hearing which was (erroneously) ordered by the trial court.  The First Department went on to criticize the defense’s submission of motions in limine on the eve of trial, which, when erroneously granted, led to the plaintiff’s inability to make a prima facie case.  With respect to the criteria for a Frye hearing, the court wrote:

We reject the trial court’s determination that a Frye hearing was necessary. In the first place, defendants’ moving papers failed to justify the need for a Frye hearing at all. The affidavit by defendants’ expert in support of the motion merely asserted that the expert had “conducted a search of the relevant medical literature” and had found no support for plaintiff’s theory that the trauma from a motor vehicle collision caused the embolic stroke. Notably, defendants’ expert did not even point to literature or studies disproving such a link. Therefore, when, in response, plaintiff’s expert provided proof that literature supporting the theory existed and had been published in reputable professional journals and cited or discussed in others, the basis for defendants’ claim was negated; no factual issue was presented. At that point, it was up to the jury to decide whether to accept the assertion that the physical impact experienced by plaintiff in this accident was a competent producing cause of the embolic stroke.

Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, the opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the impact of the collision was a competent producing cause of the dislodgement of a clot, resulting in his stroke, is not the type of novel theory of causation that necessitates a Frye hearing; it was merely an opinion explaining the physiological process that caused the stroke plaintiff suffered.

Even assuming that the assertion by defendants’ expert warranted an evidentiary hearing to assess the reliability of plaintiff’s expert’s causation claims, the evidence presented at the Frye hearing sufficiently established the reliability of those claims.

Frye hearings are used “to determine whether the experts’ deductions are based on principles that are sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance as reliable” … . The test is particularly useful for newly minted or experimental processes or newly posited psychological theories, in order to weed out baseless and unreliable theories; a Frye hearing “should be held only if the basis for the expert’s conclusion is novel” … . “[W]here the proposed expert testimony concerns a claim that the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the actions taken by the defendants, the whole concept of the Frye analysis is of limited applicability” ….

As the [2nd] Department observed in Zito v Zabarsky (28 AD3d 42, 44…), “general acceptance does not necessarily mean that a majority of the scientists involved subscribe to the conclusion. Rather it means that those espousing the theory or opinion have followed generally accepted scientific principles and methodology in evaluating clinical data to reach their conclusions.” There is no need here for the consensus the dissent claims is necessary. Sadek v Wesley, 2014 NY Slip Op 02551, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

,

Breach of Contract Allegations Did Not Give Rise to Tort Causes of Action—No Duty Independent of the Contract Itself

The First Department determined that the negligence causes of action were subsumed in the breach of contract allegations and could not be separately pled:

Breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated … . Allegations of negligence based on defects in construction of a condominium sound in breach of contract rather than tort … . A claim for negligent misrepresentation is not separate from a breach of contract claim where the plaintiff fails to allege a breach of any duty independent from contractual obligations … . Here, plaintiff failed to allege any legal duty that would give rise to an independent tort cause of action. Neither General Business Law art 23-A nor its regulations create a special duty or support a private right of action. Thus, the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims were duplicative of the breach of contract claim and did not state a cause of action. Board of Mgrs of Soho N 267 W 124th St Condominium v NW 124 LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02513, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

, ,

Service of a Notice of Claim on the City Did Not Constitute the Service of a Notice of Claim on the New York City Transit Authority

The First Department determined the service of a notice of claim on the City did not constituted the service of a notice of claim on the New York City Transit Authority:

It is well settled that service of a notice of claim on the City through the Comptroller’s Office is not service upon a separate public authority … . Since plaintiff did not comply with the condition precedent of service of a notice of claim upon the Transit Authority defendants, and they deny having received the notice of claim from the Comptroller’s Office, dismissal is required.  Glasheen v Valera, 2014 NY Slip Op 02512, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

,

Intent Must Exist Simultaneously with the Act/Accidental Discharge of a Firearm, Even Where the Shooter Intends to Assault the Victim, Does Not Constitute Intentional Assault/Loss of Police Officer’s Handwritten Notes Did Not Mandate Adverse Inference Jury Charge—Insufficient Showing of Prejudice

The First Department determined the trial court did not give the right response to a question from the jury and reversed the intentional assault conviction.  The jury asked whether a person who intends to commit assault is guilty of intentional assault if the gun goes off accidentally.  The trial court answered “yes.”  The First Department determined the answer should have been “no” because the intent must be simultaneous with the act.  The First Department further determined that the loss of the police officer’s handwritten notes was a Brady/Rosario violation, but the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice flowing from the loss:

We agree with defendant that the court’s response erroneously allowed the jury to find defendant guilty of intentional assault without finding that the intent element of that crime existed beyond a reasonable doubt. “It is a well-established rule of law that the intent to commit a crime must be present at the time the criminal act takes place” … . The intent element is not satisfied if, as in the jury’s hypothetical, the individual does not intend to pull the trigger at the moment the gun discharges. While those facts might have supported liability for a crime requiring a lesser mens rea than acting intentionally, defendant here was not charged with such a crime. Because the court’s response to the jury’s note incorrectly signaled that an accidental firing of the gun could support a conviction for intentional assault, the conviction on that count must be reversed. People v Lee, 2014 NY Slip Op 02507, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

,

No Justification for Handcuffing Defendant/Handcuffing Constituted an Arrest Before Officer Had Probable Cause to Arrest

The First Department determined probable cause for defendant’s arrest did not exist when defendant was handcuffed and the act of handcuffing constituted an arrest, not a detention pending information providing probable cause:

During a buy and bust operation, a ghost undercover detective issued a radio transmission identifying defendant as a participant in a drug sale, made to another undercover officer. Based on that radio transmission describing defendant and his location, a third officer approached defendant on the sidewalk, identified himself, and asked defendant to put his hands up. When defendant acted “a little resistant,” the officer attempted to handcuff him. Defendant then resisted, and the police forcibly handcuffed him.

The suppression court [ruled] that although when the officer stopped the defendant, he did not have probable cause to arrest him based on the information that he had received from the radio transmission, the officer obtained probable cause to arrest defendant after the purchasing undercover officer subsequently radioed his confirmatory identification. …[By] finding that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant until the confirmatory identification, the court implicitly found that the initial apprehension, which preceded that identification, was a proper temporary detention based on reasonable suspicion and that the application of handcuffs on defendant did not transform the detention into a full-scale arrest.

…[W]e reject the People’s argument that defendant was not under arrest at the point when he was handcuffed. Although the use of handcuffs is not dispositive of whether an investigatory detention on reasonable suspicion has been elevated to an arrest, handcuffing is permissible in such a detention only when justified by the circumstances … . In this case, the police had no reason to believe that defendant was either armed or dangerous. Nor was there any indication on the record that defendant offered any resistance prior to the handcuffing, or gave the police any reason to believe that he might flee. People v Blanding, 2014 NY Slip Op 02508, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Is Not Identity Theft Where the Card Owner’s Identity Is Not Otherwise Assumed/Unauthorized Use of Another’s Credit Card Number Can Constitute Possession of Stolen Property

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined: (1) the use of another’s credit card number does not constitute identity theft unless the person using the number assumes the other’s identity; and (3) the use of another’s credit card number constitutes possession of stolen property: THIS CASE HAS BEEN REVERSED

This appeal raises questions about the elements of identity theft and whether intangible property can be criminally possessed, where a defendant used his associate’s credit card number to pay for hotel expenses without authorization. Specifically, we are called upon to determine, first, whether assumption of identity is a discrete element of identity theft or whether it occurs automatically when a person uses another’s personal identifying information, and second, whether criminal possession of stolen property includes intangible property, namely a credit card number. Regarding the first issue, we find that to secure a conviction for identity theft the People must prove not only that a defendant used another’s personal identifying information, but that he or she consequently assumed the identity of that person. Because the hotel was aware of defendant’s identity, he did not assume the identity of his associate by charging the credit card and, accordingly, the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of identity theft. As to the second issue, we have determined that the legislature intended intangibles, including credit card numbers, to fall within the ambit of criminal possession of stolen property. Defendant constructively possessed his associate’s stolen credit card number, and thus he was properly convicted of the latter offense. People v Barden, 2014 NY Slip Op 02527, 1st Dept 4-10-14

 

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