You are here: / Fourth Department

Tag Archive for: Fourth Department

, , ,

DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the lead-paint exposure complaint should not have been dismissed because, although the exposure occurred after the judgment of foreclosure on the property, it occurred before the foreclosure sale, when defendants still held title:

​

… [D]efendants sought partial summary judgment dismissing those claims because defendants had lost title to the property by order of foreclosure entered on that date. We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in granting that part of defendants’ motion.

Although defendants established in support of that part of their motion that a judgment of foreclosure had been entered, it is well settled that ” [t]he entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale does not divest the mortgagor of its title and interest in the property until [a] sale is actually conducted’ ” … . It is undisputed that the actual sale of the property did not take place until April 1993, after plaintiff had allegedly been exposed to lead paint, and thus defendants failed to meet their burden on that part of their motion. Nero v Kendrick, 017 NY Slip Op 08980, Fourth Department 12-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (LEAD PAINT, DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT))/FORECLOSURE (TITLE, DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY (FORECLOSURE, TITLE, DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT))/LEAD PAINT (DEFENDANTS LOST TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHEN THE FORECLOSURE SALE TOOK PLACE, NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO LEAD PAINT TOOK PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANTS STILL HELD TITLE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the complaint against the company which owned a truck which struck plaintiff should not have been dismissed. The driver of the truck, an employee, was using it for personal purposes (driving bar to bar) at the time of the accident and was not acting within the scope of his employment. The company was not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, there was a question of fact whether the driver was using the truck with the company’s permission at the time of the accident, rendering the company liable pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

​

“It is well settled that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) creates a strong presumption that the driver of a vehicle is operating it with the owner’s permission and consent, express or implied, and that presumption continues until rebutted by substantial evidence to the contrary” … . Even in the case of substantial evidence to the contrary, the issue of implied permission is ordinarily a question of fact for a jury … . The Court of Appeals … went so far as to state that “uncontradicted statements of both the owner and the driver that the driver was operating the vehicle without the owner’s permission will not necessarily warrant a court in awarding summary judgment for the owner” … . Baker v Lisconish, 2017 NY Slip Op 08943, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, EMPLOYMENT LAW, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PERMISSIVE USE, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS,  ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW,  ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))/PERMISSIVE USE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS USING THE TRUCK WITH THE COMPANY’S PERMISSION, RENDERING THE COMPANY LIABLE PURSUANT TO VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment finding defendant negligent in this traffic accident case. Defendant made a left turn in front of an oncoming car and testified he did not see the oncoming car. That constituted negligence as a matter of law, irrespective of whether defendant stopped at a stop sign before the accident:

​

Plaintiffs met their initial burden by establishing that defendant was negligent in violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) by turning left at an intersection directly into the path of an oncoming vehicle and that defendant’s violation of the statute was unexcused … . Additionally, inasmuch as defendant admitted in his deposition testimony that he never saw the oncoming vehicle prior to the collision, we conclude that defendant was negligent as a matter of law in failing to see what was there to be seen and in crossing in front of an oncoming vehicle when it was hazardous to do so … . Although we agree with defendant that there are conflicting accounts concerning whether he stopped at the posted stop sign prior to the accident, we conclude that this minor discrepancy does not raise an issue of fact precluding an award of summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of defendant’s negligence because in either scenario defendant was negligent as a matter of law … . Peterson v Ward, 2017 NY Slip Op 09024, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence of corporal punishment was not sufficient to justify a finding of neglect:

 

According to the testimony of the father, he was called into the school by the child’s teachers in March 2014 because the child was misbehaving. When the father stated that he was taking the child home, the child began running around the classroom. The father chased the child around the classroom and, in attempting to grab him, accidentally caught him in the face with his hand, causing the marks. The father further testified, consistent with the child’s statement to the caseworker, that the child sustained a bruise in January 2014 while roughhousing with his siblings.

“[A] finding of neglect requires proof that the child’s physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired’ as a result of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care’ ” … .Although the use of excessive corporal punishment constitutes neglect … , a parent has the right to use reasonable physical force to instill discipline and promote the child’s welfare … . Here, we conclude that petitioner failed to establish that the father intentionally harmed the child or that his conduct was part of a pattern of excessive corporal punishment … , and petitioner thus failed to meet its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the child was in imminent danger … . Matter of Damone H., Jr. (Damone H., Sr.), 2017 NY Slip Op 09023, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

FAMILY LAW (NEGLECT, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLECT (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH DEPT))/CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (NEGLECT, EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH DEPT))

SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the separation agreements were unconscionable. Defendant wife was represented by counsel in the divorce, plaintiff husband was not, there was a vast difference in assets, wife’s pensions were not valued, and financial disclosure was not complete. The matter was sent back for new rulings on equitable distribution and maintenance:

 

A separation agreement should be set aside as unconscionable where it is “such as no person in his or her senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair person would accept on the other . . . , the inequality being so strong and manifest as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of any person of common sense” … . We note that the unconscionability or inequality of a separation agreement may be the result of overreaching by one party to the detriment of another … .

​

Here, at the time the parties entered into the agreements, defendant wife was represented by counsel but plaintiff was not, which, while not dispositive, is a significant factor for us to consider … . Another factor to consider is that the agreements did not make a full disclosure of the finances of the parties … . In particular, defendant, who had a master’s degree in business administration and was a professor at a SUNY college, would receive two pensions upon retirement, neither of which was valued. The separation agreement did not provide for any maintenance for plaintiff despite the gross disparity in incomes and the length of the marriage and, while the modification agreement provided maintenance for plaintiff, it also required plaintiff to transfer his interest in the marital residence to defendant. In opposition to the motion, defendant averred that the parties “wanted an agreement whereby [plaintiff] would keep his income and retirement assets and I would keep mine.” As shown by their statements of net worth, which were prepared after the agreements were executed, plaintiff’s assets totaled approximately $77,000 whereas defendant’s assets, which included the marital residence, totaled approximately $740,000. Based on our consideration of all the factors, we conclude that the agreements here are unconscionable and were the product of overreaching by defendant and thus should be set aside … . Tuzzolino v Tuzzolino, 2017 NY Slip Op 08991, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

FAMILY LAW (SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))/SEPARATION AGREEMENTS (FAMILY LAW, SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))/UNCONSCIONABLE (FAMILY LAW,  MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))/DIVORCE (SEPARATION AGREEMENTS UNCONSCIONABLE, MATTER REMITTED FOR NEW EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND MAINTENANCE FINDINGS (FOURTH DEPT))

,

POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the police officer did not have the authority to reach inside defendant’s pocket and the People did not demonstrate the defendant’s vehicle was searched pursuant to a valid inventory search. The officer approached the defendant who was sitting in a parked vehicle lacking a valid inspection:

​

With respect to the marihuana seized from defendant’s pocket, we agree with defendant that the police officer lacked any basis upon which to search defendant’s person. The police officer observed defendant sitting inside a parked vehicle lacking a valid inspection. The officer approached the vehicle and, upon seeing a kitchen knife on the floorboard of the vehicle, asked defendant to exit the vehicle. Without any further provocation from defendant, the officer conducted a search of defendant’s person, discovering a small amount of marihuana in defendant’s pocket. That search was unlawful for a variety of reasons.

First, the search cannot be justified as a frisk for officer safety inasmuch as there was no evidence that, after defendant exited the vehicle, the officer “reasonably suspected that defendant was armed and posed a threat to [the officer’s] safety”… . Second, even assuming, arguendo, that the officer was entitled to conduct a protective frisk, we conclude that he was not entitled to search defendant’s pockets. “A protective frisk is an intrusion tailored to discover the presence of concealed weapons, usually consisting of a pat-down of a person’s outer clothing . . . [It] should not be extended beyond its purpose of securing the safety of the officer and preventing an escape’ ” … . Where, as here, there is no evidence that the officer believed that the individual’s pockets contained weapons, the search of those pockets is unlawful … . …

​

We likewise agree with defendant that the court erred in refusing to suppress the physical evidence found inside the uninspected vehicle inasmuch as the People failed to establish that the purported inventory search was valid (… . Even if we were to conclude that the uninspected vehicle could be impounded and subjected to an inventory search, a questionable proposition at best, the People failed to establish the existence of any departmental policy concerning inventory searches or that the officer properly conducted the search in compliance with established and standardized procedures … . People v Solivan, 2017 NY Slip Op 09021, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT))/INVENTORY SEARCH   (POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT))/STREET STOPS (CRIMINAL LAW, POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT))

,

ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, PLACING DEFENDANT NEAR THE MURDER SCENE, DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Whalen, determined the acquisition of data indicating the location of defendant’s cell phone close in time to the murder did not require a warrant supported by probable cause. The court also found that the reason for the prosecutor’s elimination of a juror, offered in response to defendant’s Batson challenge, was not pretextual. With respect to the cell phone location data, the court wrote:

​

… [W]e conclude that the acquisition of the cell site location information was not a search under the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution because defendant’s use of the phone constituted a voluntary disclosure of his general location to his service provider, and a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties … . In contending otherwise, defendant relies on United States v Jones (565 US 400 [2012]) — particularly Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in that case (565 US at 413-418) — and Riley v California (___ US ___, 134 S Ct 2473 [2014]). In our view, that reliance is misplaced. Jones is distinguishable because it involved direct surveillance of the defendant by the police using a GPS device as opposed to information that the defendant had voluntarily disclosed to a third party …  Notwithstanding Justice Sotomayor’s suggestion that “it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties” … , we remain bound by the third-party doctrine when interpreting the Fourth Amendment “[u]ntil a majority of justices on the [Supreme] Court instructs us otherwise” … . Riley, in turn, is distinguishable because it involved an inspection of the contents of the defendant’s phone, rather than mere location information … . People v Jiles, 2017 NY Slip Op 08944, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, PLACING DEFENDANT NEAR THE MURDER SCENE, DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, PLACING DEFENDANT NEAR THE MURDER SCENE, DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT))/CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA (CRIMINAL LAW, ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, PLACING DEFENDANT NEAR THE MURDER SCENE, DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, (ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, PLACING DEFENDANT NEAR THE MURDER SCENE, DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT))/SUPPRESSION (CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, (ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE LOCATION DATA, PLACING DEFENDANT NEAR THE MURDER SCENE, DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence of constructive possession of drugs found in defendant’s sister’s (not defendant’s) residence was sufficient. Defendant’s sentence was deemed too harsh, even for a repeat offender, and was reduced in the interest of justice:

​

” Constructive possession can be established by evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the [drugs and drug paraphernalia] or the area in which [they were] found’ . . . Exclusive access, however, is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession’ ” … . Here, the drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered from various locations inside a residence in which defendant’s sister, her boyfriend and her children resided. It is undisputed that defendant did not reside in that residence. Nevertheless, there was ample evidence that defendant constructively possessed the contraband. * * *

Unlike other constructive possession cases, where the testimony at trial is limited to physical evidence linking a defendant to a location and possession of the drugs must be inferred from the defendant’s ties to the residence … , here there was testimony that defendant on three occasions admitted that the drugs in the house belonged to him, and the sister’s boyfriend testified that the drugs in his residence belonged to defendant. Moreover, the evidence established that defendant had sold cocaine from that residence less than three weeks before the search warrant was executed. People v Tuff, 2017 NY Slip Op 08971, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION  (EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED DRUGS THAT WERE LOCATED IN HIS SISTER’S (NOT HIS) RESIDENCE SUFFICIENT, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SENTENCE REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department granted the petition for a writ of coram nobis, considered the appeal (which had affirmed the conviction) de novo, and ordered a new trial in this attempted murder, assault case. The reversal was based upon the trial judge’s failure to put on the record the reasons for restraining the defendant in the presence of the jury (an issue not raised in the appeal). The court rejected the People’s argument that the applicable Court of Appeals ruling should not be applied retroactively:

​

… [W]e agree with defendant “that the court erred in failing to make any findings on the record establishing that defendant needed to wear a stun belt during the trial . . . Contrary to the People’s contention, harmless error analysis is not applicable” (… see People v Buchanan, 13 NY3d 1, 4 [2009] … . We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial … .

We reject the People’s further contention that defendant’s conviction became final before the Court of Appeals’s decision in Buchanan and that the decision should not be applied retroactively to allow a collateral attack on the judgment. In granting defendant’s motion for a writ of error coram nobis, we vacated our prior order and are considering the appeal de novo … . This appeal is therefore not a collateral attack on the judgment. In addition, we are not persuaded by the People’s position that Buchanan should be applied prospectively only. Buchanan did not announce ” new’ rules of law that represent sharp departures from precedent or raise concerns about the orderly administration of justice” … . Instead, we apply the “traditional common-law” rule of deciding this appeal in accordance with the law as it now exists… . People v Hall, 2017 NY Slip Op 09074, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/CORAM NOBIS (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CORAM NOBIS, FAILURE TO RAISE IMPORTANT ISSUES ON APPEAL, ETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, CORAM NOBIS, FAILURE TO RAISE IMPORTANT ISSUES ON APPEAL, ETITION FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED, APPEAL CONSIDERED DE NOVO, TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PUT REASONS FOR RESTRAINING DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT))

,

WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was insufficient:

​

We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was not valid because, during the plea colloquy, County Court “conflated the appeal waiver with the rights automatically waived by the guilty plea” … . The court indicated that the waiver of the right to appeal was “[o]ne other condition,” and that statement “was immediately preceded by a colloquy concerning the rights automatically forfeited by a guilty plea”… . In addition, the court further muddied the distinction by indicating that the waiver of the right to appeal “is separate and part [sic] from your plea of guilty,” rather than indicating that it was a condition of the guilty plea but separate from the rights that defendant automatically forfeited by the plea … . Consequently, ” the record fails to establish that defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ “… . People v Smith, 2017 NY Slip Op 08949, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

CRIMINAL LAW (WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID (FOURTH 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