You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE CONSENT-TO-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT INDIVIDUALLY TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED; IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL AND APPEAL WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no justification for the “consent-to-search” probation condition. Defendant stole a cab driver’s cell phone and pled guilty to attempted assault. The court noted it was not necessary to preserve the error for appeal and appeal was not prohibited by the waiver of appeal:

The probation department [requested] that as a condition of probation, the defendant be required to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm or other weapon, or other contraband found (Condition No. 28). At sentencing, the Supreme Court imposed the consent to search condition of probation. On appeal, the defendant argues that this condition of his probation was improperly imposed.

The defendant correctly argues, and the People do not dispute, that this issue was not required to be preserved for appellate review, and that appellate review is not precluded by his waiver of the right to appeal … .

… [T]he defendant was a first-time offender and was not armed with a weapon at the time he committed the offense. While the defendant told the probation department that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offense, he was not assessed as being in need of alcohol or substance abuse treatment. Under the circumstances, the consent to search condition of probation was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored in relation to the offense, and was not, therefore, reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law abiding life … . People v Dranchuk, 2022 NY Slip Op 01312, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

A SEX OFFENDER CERTIFICATION IS NOT PART OF A DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE; THEREFORE THE CERTIFICATION CANNOT BE SET ASIDE PURSUANT TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s certification as a sex offender was not part of his sentence. Therefore the certification could not be set aside pursuant to CPL 440.20:

Prior to the defendant’s release from prison, the defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his certification as a sex offender on the ground that his certification was unlawful because the crime he was convicted of was not a sex offense or a sexually violent offense under Correction Law § 168-a. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion and set aside so much of the sentence as certified the defendant as a sex offender and required him to pay a sex offender registration fee. The court then resentenced the defendant to the originally-imposed term of imprisonment and post-release supervision. The People appeal.

While a defendant’s certification as a sex offender under SORA is part of the judgment of conviction … , “SORA certification is not part of a sentence” … . Thus, the relief sought by the defendant was not available to him under CPL 440.20(1), which only authorizes a motion to set aside a sentence … . People v David, 2022 NY Slip Op 01310, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS OF WHAT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW WHEN THEY APPROACHED THE VAN IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF THE VAN; THE WEAPON SEIZED FROM THE VAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the possession of a weapon conviction, determined defendant’s motion to suppress a handgun found in a van in which defendant was a passenger should have been granted. Inconsistencies in the police officer’s accounts of what the officers saw when they approached the van rendered the People’s proof at the suppression hearing insufficient to demonstrate a lawful search incident to arrest:

The Supreme Court credited the accounts of both Ramos and Pimentel and concluded that what Pimentel testified that he had observed gave the officers probable cause to search the minivan for a gun … . However, the officers’ versions of events sharply conflicted with each other as to where the defendant was sitting in the minivan, and what he was doing, when the officers arrived at the minivan’s front windows. According to Ramos, the defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat, while Pimentel claimed that the defendant was sitting in the middle row, and attempting to conceal a gun in a bag at his feet. Ramos, though, did not see a gun, furtive movements, or a bag. It seems improbable that, if the defendant did what Pimentel said he did, Ramos could somehow have failed to notice it.

Ramos’s and Pimentel’s accounts both could not have been true, since both officers acknowledged that they approached the minivan simultaneously and reached the front seats at the same time. People v Austin, 2022 NY Slip Op 01306, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION; UPON HER RETURN FROM MATERNITY LEAVE SHE WAS TOLD HER POSITION HAD BEEN ELIMINATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s gender-discrimination action against defendant employer should not have been dismissed. Upon returning from maternity leave, plaintiff was informed her management-level position had been eliminated and replaced by a position for which she was not qualified. Defendant did offer plaintiff a job as a temporary social worker at the same salary:

“Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a form of gender discrimination” … . …

… [T]he defendant failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the position offered to the plaintiff involved a materially adverse change in the terms of her employment, since the social worker position did not involve any of the management responsibilities that the plaintiff had performed … . …

… [T[here were triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s supervisor, Segree, made remarks [re: her pregnancy] indicative of a discriminatory motive to terminate the plaintiff’s employment … . …

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, it also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the proffered explanation for terminating the plaintiff’s employment was a pretext for discrimination … . Although McDonald averred that the plaintiff’s employment was terminated because she had no business education and no sales or marketing experience, he acknowledged that a business education was not required. Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2022 NY Slip Op 01294, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE FOR THE MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank violated the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 by including other documents in the envelope containing the notice of default in this foreclosure action:

RPAPL 1304(1) provides that “at least ninety days before a lender, an assignee or a mortgage loan servicer commences legal action against the borrower . . . including mortgage foreclosure, such lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer shall give notice to the borrower.” RPAPL 1304(2) states that “[t]he notices required by this section shall be sent by the lender, assignee or mortgage loan servicer in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice.”

Here, the inclusion of additional “Important Disclosures” regarding bankruptcy and rights for military personnel on page 7 of the 90-day notice violated RPAPL 1304(2), which requires strict compliance … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Salva, 2022 NY Slip Op 01290, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, ,

THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO SHOW THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action. The failure to attached the business records referred to in the affidavit purporting to demonstrate compliance rendered the affidavit inadmissible hearsay:

Although the plaintiff submitted copies of the 90-day notices purportedly sent to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the notices were actually mailed, through either an affidavit of service, other proof of mailing by the United States Postal Service, or evidence of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure … . The assertion in an affidavit of an employee of the plaintiff’s loan servicer that the 90-day notices were sent in accordance with RPAPL 1304 was insufficient to establish that the notices were actually mailed to Blackman by first-class and certified mail. The affiant based his assertions upon his review of records which were created by a third-party vendor, and as those business records were not incorporated into the servicer’s own electronic files, they were inadmissible hearsay … . “It is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Blackman, 2022 NY Slip Op 01289, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

,

THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 BECAUSE ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal of this foreclosure action did not meet the requirements of CPLR 3216 because issue was never joined. Therefore the action should not have been dismissed:

“‘A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met'” … , including that issue has been joined in the action (see CPLR 3216[b][1] …). Here, the dismissal of the action pursuant to the conditional order of dismissal was improper, since none of the defendants had submitted an answer to the complaint and, thus, issue was never joined … . Central Mtge. Co. v Ango, 2022 NY Slip Op 01286, Second Dept 3-2-22​

 

, , , , ,

REMARKS BY THE JUDGE AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL PREJUDICED THE JURY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defendants’ verdict in this medical malpractice action and considering the appeal in the interest of justice, determined the trial judge and a defendant’s attorney made comments which prejudiced the jury:

… [T]he Supreme Court’s repeated prejudicial comments and interjections prejudiced the plaintiff. For example, the court barred the plaintiff’s counsel from referring to the growth at issue on the plaintiff’s left foot as a tumor, ordered that the growth be referred to as a wart, and continued to refer to it as a wart through the trial. Thus, the court, in effect, determined a pivotal issue of fact that was properly for the jury to resolve … . In addition, the court opined multiple times before the jury that there was no proof that the plaintiff was misdiagnosed by the defendants, despite testimony by the plaintiff’s expert to the contrary which had already been elicited. Although the court later directed the jury to disregard its remarks, the instruction was not sufficient to cure the prejudice caused by its improvident comments and interjections … .

The comments of [defendant] Oami’s counsel also prejudiced the plaintiff. Oami’s counsel made multiple improper and inflammatory comments about the relationship between counsel for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s expert pathologist during the cross examination of that expert and during his summation to the jury on behalf of Oami. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, these remarks were so inflammatory and unduly prejudicial as to have deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial … . Valenti v Gadomski, 2022 NY Slip Op 01342, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, , ,

THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT THE CITY BUS STOPPED “VIOLENTLY,” CAUSING HER TO FALL; THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVICENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant Transit Authority’s motion to set aside the plaintiff’s verdict in this bus-passenger-injury case should have been granted. Plaintiff’s testimony that the bus stopped “violently,” causing her to fall, was not supported by any objective evidence:

… [V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found for the plaintiff against the defendants. Although the plaintiff characterized the stop as “violent,” neither her testimony regarding the nature of her fall nor the circumstances surrounding the stop nor any other evidence she presented was sufficient to provide the objective support necessary to demonstrate that the movement of the bus was “unusual and violent” … . Stark v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 01338, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which had a station in the vicinity of where plaintiff tripped over a bolt protruding from the sidewalk, was not entitled to summary judgment in this slip and fall case. A town ordinance required abutting property owners to maintain the sidewalk and the MTA did not demonstrate the protruding bolt was not in an area of the sidewalk for which it was responsible:

… [T]he MTA defendants failed to affirmatively demonstrate that they were not tenants or occupants of a lot or building abutting the subject sidewalk or that, for any other reason, section 191-16(A) of the Town Code did not apply to them. Among other things, the evidence they submitted did not clearly show the location of the sidewalk in relation to the station house and train platform, or clearly establish the Town’s and the MTA defendants’ relative use of, and duties with respect to, the portions of the property at issue. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the MTA defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, without regard to the sufficiency of the opposition papers … . Sanon v MTA Long Is. R.R., 2022 NY Slip Op 01337, Second Dept 3-2-22

 

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