You are here: / Second Department

Posts

,

A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THAT A KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS HAD A POOR REPUTATION FOR TRUTHFULNESS AND VERACTIY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED FROM TESTIFYING; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the witness who would have testified that the complainant’s mother, a prosecution witness, had a poor reputation for truthfulness and veracity should not have been prohibited from testifying:

… [T]he defendant sought to introduce testimony from Marie Anisca-Oral, a friend of his older sister, on the subject of the reputation for truthfulness and veracity of the eight-year-old complainant’s mother (hereinafter the mother), who testified for the prosecution. In order to lay the foundation for such testimony, Anisca-Oral, a staff sergeant in the United States Army, described a community of seven or eight friends and acquaintances, predominantly of Haitian nationality, and predominantly living within certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Anisca-Oral testified that she had known the mother since 1999, that almost everyone she knew also knew the mother, and that every time she saw her acquaintances among this group, the mother’s reputation for truthfulness and veracity was discussed. “[T]he presentation of reputation evidence by a criminal defendant is a matter of right, not discretion, once a proper foundation has been laid”… . “A reputation may grow wherever an individual’s associations are of such quantity and quality as to permit him to be personally observed by a sufficient number of individuals to give reasonable assurance of reliability” … . “The trial court must allow such testimony, once a foundation has been laid, so long as it is relevant to contradict the testimony of a key witness and is limited to general reputation for truth and veracity in the community; the weight given to such evidence should be left in the hands of the jury” … . People v Lisene, 2022 NY Slip Op 00194, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s right to counsel had not been adequately protected and returned the case to pre-suppression-hearing status. Defendant refused to speak with his attorney and the judge, despite defendant’s presence in the courtroom, never discussed the issue with the defendant before denying a request to assign new counsel:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. The defendant’s request for new counsel, made through assigned counsel, contained serious factual allegations concerning the defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel and the breakdown of communications between assigned counsel and the defendant … . Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court failed to meet its ongoing duty to make inquiries to determine whether there was good cause for the requested substitution by denying the request without speaking directly with the defendant … . Thus, reversal is warranted. Further, on the record presented, the matter should be restored to pre-suppression-hearing status. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s suppression determination and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v English, 2022 NY Slip Op 00189, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE REPORT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the referee’s report was inadmissible hearsay because the documents upon which the calculations were based were not produced:

The defendant correctly contends, however, that the referee’s calculation was not substantially supported by the record. Modlin’s [the loan servicer’s] affidavit, which was submitted to the referee for the purpose of establishing the amount due on the mortgage loan, appeared to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the business records on which she relied, including the payment history for the loan, in making her calculations. Modlin averred that she was an authorized signatory of Caliber, U.S. Bank’s loan servicer and attorney-in-fact, that she had reviewed Caliber’s electronic records regarding the defendant’s account, and that she had “knowledge of how those electronic records [were] kept and maintained” … . Modlin further averred that the business records of any prior servicer had been “uploaded and boarded into [Caliber’s] computer records” and were “maintained in connection with the servicing of [the subject] loan”,,, , In addition, U.S. Bank Trust demonstrated Caliber’s authority to act on its behalf by submitting the limited power of attorney.

Nevertheless, computations based on the review of unproduced business records amount to inadmissible hearsay and lack probative value … . Here, U.S. Bank Trust did not submit to the referee copies of the business records upon which Modlin purportedly relied in computing the amount due on the mortgage loan. Consequently, the referee’s findings in that respect were not substantially supported by the record … . U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v Bank of Am., N.A., 2022 NY Slip Op 00213, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED PLAINTIFF WOULD PAY DEFENDANT ABOUT $38,500 AND PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MONTHLY PAYMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S REVENUE TOTALING ABOUT $52,500 WAS NOT A “LOAN” TO WHICH THE USURY DEFENSE COULD BE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract between plaintiff and defendant (I Do) in which plaintiff paid defendant about $38,500 in return for monthly payments from defendant’s revenue totally about $52,500 did not constitute a “loan” to which the usury defense would apply:

Unless a principal sum advanced is repayable absolutely, the transaction is not a loan. Usually, courts weigh three factors when determining whether repayment is absolute or contingent: (1) whether there is a reconciliation provision in the agreement; (2) whether the agreement has a finite term; and (3) whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy” … .

… [T]he plaintiff established that the transaction set forth in the agreement was not a loan. The terms of the agreement specifically provided for adjustments to the monthly payments made by I Do to the plaintiff based on changes in I Do’s monthly sales. Concomitantly, as the amount of the monthly payments could change, the term of the agreement was not finite. Moreover, no contractual provision existed establishing that a declaration of bankruptcy would constitute an event of default … . Principis Capital, LLC v I Do, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00203, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the level three SORA risk assessment, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to make a motion for a downward departure. The only arguments defense counsel made were without merit, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the facts, and would not have reduced the risk assessment to level two even if successful:

… [C]ounsel only challenged 35 of the 155 total points assessed against the defendant, and a resulting score of 120 would have still been within the range (between 110 and 300 points) of a presumptive level three (high) offender. Counsel did not seek a downward departure from the defendant’s presumptive risk level designation as a level three sex offender, and the record supports the defendant’s claim that his counsel failed to articulate any argument that would have had any effect on the outcome of the SORA proceeding … . … [T]he record does not demonstrate that counsel made a “strategic decision to attack the assessment of points, while foregoing any request for a downward departure.” Any such strategy in this case “would have made no sense” because it would not have had any effect on the outcome of the SORA proceeding … . Counsel’s failure to make any application for a downward departure, under the particular circumstances of this case, worked to deprive the defendant of his right to zealous advocacy, and amounted to less than meaningful representation … . People v Morancis, 2022 NY Slip Op 00202, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

/0 Comments/by

SEVERAL COUNTS CHARGING CONTEMPT WERE RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE TRIAL EVIDENCE, COUNTS DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined several counts charging contempt were rendered duplicitous by the trial evidence and therefore must be dismissed. The contempt charges alleged the violation of two orders of protection in favor of four people. Neither the jury instructions nor the verdict sheet allowed the jury to pinpoint which alleged violation applied to whom:

Here, counts 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Indictment No. 5685/14 all charged the defendant with criminal contempt in the second degree, arising from his alleged violation of two orders of protection during two separate incidents that occurred on June 27, 2014. The first order of protection was in favor of a single individual; the second order was in favor of that same individual, as well as three others.

Neither the verdict sheet nor the jury charge, however, explained how the testimony and evidence adduced at trial applied to the seven counts—i.e., which counts pertained to which of the two orders of protection and which of the four alleged victims. Therefore, as the People effectively concede, the challenged counts were duplicitous because it is impossible to determine the particular acts upon which the jury reached its verdict with respect to each of the counts … . People v Woodley, 2022 NY Slip Op 00201, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND INDICTED WHILE OUT ON BAIL; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE REVOKING THE ORDER RELEASING DEFENDANT ON BAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the courts was required to hold a hearing before revoking the order releasing defendant on bail. Defendant was out on bail when he was arrested three times and indicted on one set of charges:

… CPL 530.60(2)(a) states that “[w]henever in the course of a criminal action or proceeding a defendant charged with the commission of a felony is at liberty as a result of an order of recognizance, release under non-monetary conditions or bail issued pursuant to this article it shall be grounds for revoking such order that the court finds reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed one or more . . . violent felony offenses.” By its express terms, this statutory section applies to situations where a principal is accused of committing violent felony offenses while he or she was “at liberty as a result of . . . bail” on a pending felony charge (id.). A principal charged with a felony who was out on bail on that charge necessarily includes individuals charged with qualifying offenses since the setting of bail is not initially authorized for nonqualifying offenses (see CPL 510.10[1], [3], [4]). … CPL 530.60(2)(a) clearly applies to the circumstances here. Since the People applied for remand on the sole basis that the principal was accused of committing violent felony offenses while at liberty on the underlying felony charges, the court was required to apply the standard in CPL 530.60(2)(a) and to conduct the hearing mandated in CPL 530.60(2)(c). People ex rel. Rankin v Brann, 2022 NY Slip Op 00153, Second Dept 1-11-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE BANK WHICH COMMENCED THE 2006 FORECLOSURE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AND DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING IN 2006; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined that the bank (Option One) which commenced foreclosure proceedings in 2006 did not have standing to do so because it had already assigned the note and mortgage (to Residential). Therefore the six-year statute of limitations did not start to run in 2006. The dissent argued Option One, as the original lender, did in fact have standing. Much of the majority’s decision was devoted to demonstrating the dissenting argument was not valid:

We disagree with our dissenting colleague’s assertion that Option One, after its assignment of the note and mortgage to Residential, continued to have standing to commence and prosecute the 2006 action. Our dissenting colleague misreads the holding in Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Matamoro (200 AD3d 79, 90-91), wherein we held that there are three bases to establish standing in residential foreclosure actions. There is no dispute with regard to the second two bases for finding standing; to wit: a plaintiff’s physical possession of the note prior to commencement of the foreclosure action with an allonge or endorsement in blank or to the plaintiff (second basis), or an assignment of the note to the plaintiff prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action (third basis). However, while the Matamoro Court described the first basis for standing as being “where the plaintiff is the original lender in direct privity with the defendant” … , the second part of the description explained that “[t]he direct privity is rarely seen in residential mortgage foreclosure litigations, given the nature of the home lending business where financial instruments are routinely sold, assigned, or ‘bundled’ from one institution to another between the time funds are initially dispersed by a lender and the commencement of a later foreclosure action” … .  The Matamoro Court’s holding and description of the nature of the market falls squarely into the facts of this case. Contrary to our dissenting colleague’s rationale that the original lender retains the right to sue on a note that it has fully assigned, we have held that”‘[a]n absolute assignment of a bond and mortgage transfers to the assignee all rights theretofore conferred upon the assignor-mortgagee to enforce the bond and mortgage'” … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Rudman, 2022 NY Slip Op 00031, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE INTERVENTION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; STRONG TW0-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s murder conviction. The majority noted that some of the trial judge’s remarks would have been better left unsaid, but held the judge did not intervene excessively. The dissent disagreed:

… [W]hile many of the Supreme Court’s interventions were proper attempts to clarify testimony and facilitate the progress of the trial, we agree with our dissenting colleagues that other remarks would better have been left unsaid. Nevertheless, when the record is viewed as a whole, the court’s conduct, to the extent it was improper, did not prevent the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits … . * * *

From the dissent:

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court’s conduct, taken together with, inter alia, its disparate treatment of the two experts … , its efforts to point out inconsistencies in the testimony of the defendant’s wife … , and its assistance in eliciting testimony from the People’s witnesses … , “demonstrated apparent bias in favor of the People” … . This improper interference deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and thus, a new trial is warranted before a different Justice … . People v Martinez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00037, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

DEFENDANT PROPERLY REJECTED THE MACHINES AS NONCONFORMING GOODS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT CURE THE NONCONFORMITY, AND DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOST PROFITS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly found that defendant had rejected the machines as nonconforming goods, plaintiff did not cure the nonconformity, and defendant was properly awarded consequential damages and lost profits:

… [T]he Supreme Court found … the defendant[] demonstrated that the plaintiff had breached express and implied warranties by showing that the machines which were delivered to [defendant] Expansion did not conform to the descriptions set forth in the invoice. The court determined that Expansion was entitled to damages in the principal sum of $53,298.75 for breach of express and implied warranties, representing the amount of lease payments it made on the machines, as well as damages in the principal sum of $2,852,430 for lost profits resulting from that breach. …

… [T]he evidence established that Expansion rejected the machines with particularity as required by UCC 2-605. …

… [W]hile Expansion’s rejection triggered the plaintiff’s right pursuant to UCC 2-A-513 to cure the alleged nonconformity, the … determination that the plaintiff failed to do so was warranted by the facts. …

… [T]he determination that, at the time the parties entered into the contract, damages for lost profits were within the contemplation of the parties is warranted by the facts. It was foreseeable that a breach on the part of the plaintiff with respect to delivering functioning machines would result in Expansion being unable to manufacture sufficient ammunition to fill existing orders, or to accept new orders, culminating in lost profits … . Mil-Spec Indus. Corp. v Expansion Indus., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00035, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

/0 Comments/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy