You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A PARTIAL VERDICT WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THE JUROR WHO HAD INFORMED THE COURT SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE DELIBERATING BECAUSE SHE WAS SUFFERING ANXIETY ATTACKS; BECAUSE THE JUROR WAS NOT QUESTIONED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER THE PARTIAL VERDICT WAS REACHED BEFORE THE JUROR BECAME UNABLE TO CONTINUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have interviewed a juror who said she was suffering anxiety attacks and could not continue deliberations. The judge did not question the juror and accepted a partial verdict, without knowing whether the partial verdict was reached before the juror became unable to continue:

“The Court of Appeals, in People v Buford (69 NY2d 290, 299), set forth the basic framework to be followed when conduct occurs during a trial that may be the basis for disqualifying a juror. The court should conduct an in camera inquiry of the juror, in which counsel should be permitted to participate if they desire, and evaluate the nature and importance of the information and its impact on the case. In addition, the trial court’s reasons for its ruling should be placed on the record . . . [and] the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror” … . “Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that an ‘in camera inquiry may not be necessary in the unusual case . . . where the court, the attorneys, and defendant all agree that there is no possibility that the juror’s impartiality could be affected and that there is no reason to question the juror,’ here, defense counsel wanted the juror to be questioned” … .

The Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera “probing and tactful inquiry” (People v Buford, 69 NY2d at 299) of juror number 11 before accepting the partial verdict … . As a result of the court’s failure to make any inquiry of the juror, it is unknown whether the juror became unable to serve before, or after, the jury had reportedly reached a verdict on one of the counts … . People v Moody, 2021 NY Slip Op 07559, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

,

THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive concurrence and an extensive dissent, determined: (1) the order issued after a traverse hearing finding that defendant was not properly served in this foreclosure action was an appealable order pursuant to CPLR 5501 (c); (2) the order brings up for review the finding that a traverse hearing was necessary; and )3), defendants’ affidavit denying proper services was conclusory and, therefore, a traverse hearing was not required. The central issue in the decision is whether the order directing the traverse hearing had been brought for review by the order dismissing the complaint after the hearing:

… [O]ur jurisdiction is premised upon CPLR 5501(c), which directs that this Court “shall review questions of law and questions of fact on an appeal from a[n] . . . order of a court of original instance,” as well as the consistent line of cases from this Court holding that an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction—issued after a hearing—also brings up for review the issue of whether a hearing was necessary to determine the motion … . Since an order directing a hearing to aid in the determination of a motion holds the determination of the motion in abeyance, the subsequent order made after the hearing is “the proper order to appeal from” … . OneWest Bank FSB v Perla, 2021 NY Slip Op 07550, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of a recurring condition, i.e., windows in need repair in defendant’s (Luna’s) building. Plaintiff alleged a cracked window shattered, injuring her hand:

Luna’s submissions, which included a transcript of the deposition testimony of its building superintendent, failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of a recurrent dangerous condition. The superintendent testified that in the period of approximately two years preceding the accident, Luna was made aware of 33 instances in which a window in the building needed to be repaired … . Moreover, the superintendent testified that it was “normal” for windows in the building to break. While “[a] general awareness of a recurring problem is insufficient, without more, to establish constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the accident” …, the superintendent’s testimony regarding the frequency of specific complaints of window damage in the building raised triable issues of fact as to whether Luna had an obligation to inspect the windows … . Butnik v Luna Park Hous. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 07314, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE TIME-BARRED ENDANGERING-THE-WELFARE-OF-A-CHILD COUNTS; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s former appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the misdemeanor endangering-the-welfare-of-child charges were time-barred. Therefore the writ of coram nobis was granted and the relevant counts were vacated:

The misdemeanors of which the defendant was convicted, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, were barred by the statute of limitations. The defendant demonstrated that trial counsel was not seeking a compromise verdict from the jury and thus did not have a strategic reason for failing to move to dismiss the misdemeanor counts as time-barred. The two counts of endangering the welfare of a child were not lesser included offenses of the rape and burglary counts of which the defendant was also convicted. Further, when the Supreme Court told counsel that it was “not going to charge everything,” trial counsel did not request that the misdemeanors be submitted to the jury, and replied that the jury would “either believe that my client is a rapist, or not.” Then, during his summation, trial counsel’s sole argument was that the defendant was misidentified. There was no reasonable explanation for trial counsel’s “failure to raise a defense as clear-cut and completely dispositive as a statute of limitations” … . People v Louis, 2021 NY Slip Op 07307, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS WHO WERE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined for cause challenges to three jurors should have been granted:

One of the three prospective jurors demonstrated that he would give more credence to a police officer testifying than to a civilian witness, and the court failed to elicit an unequivocal assurance that the prospective juror could render an impartial verdict based on the evidence … . The other two prospective jurors provided answers that demonstrated an inability to comprehend the People’s burden of proof even after the court provided a straightforward explanation of this principle during voir dire … . People v Wilson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07305, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

,

THE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213-B(1) WHICH ALLOWS A VICTIM OF A CRIME TO SUE THE PERPETRATOR WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF THE DATE OF CRIME APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PERPETRATOR HAS BEEN “CONVICTED OF [THE] CRIME;” A PERPETRATOR WHO HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER HAS NOT BEEN “CONVICTED OF A CRIME” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 213-B(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connelly, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 213-b(1) does not extend the statute of limitations for civil actions against someone “convicted of a crime” where that person has been adjudicated a youthful offender. Here plaintiff, Anthony Pitt, was accused of rape by Ericka Feagles. The charges against Pitt were resolved in his favor in October 2011. Although Feagles was subsequently charged with falsely reporting an incident and making a false written statement, she was adjudicated a youthful offender in connection with those charges in April 2012. Plaintiff’s August 2016 suit against Feagles would only be timely if the seven-year extension of the statute of limitations in CPLR 213-b(1) applied. The Second Department determined being adjudicated a youthful offender does not equate to being “convicted of a crime.” Therefore the extension in CPLR 213-b(1) did not apply and plaintiff’s suit was time-barred. The court noted the plaintiff could have brought an intentional tort action within the applicable one-year statute of limitations:

CPLR 213-b, entitled “Action by a victim of a criminal offense,” provides, as relevant, that “an action by a crime victim . . . may be commenced to recover damages from a defendant: (1) convicted of a crime which is the subject of such action, for any injury or loss resulting therefrom within seven years of the date of the crime” … . * * *

… [W]e … must consider the competing legislative purpose of the youthful offender statute. In enacting the youthful offender statute, the legislature sought to relieve youthful offenders of the consequences of a criminal conviction and give them a “second chance” … . It would be inconsistent with that legislative purpose to allow plaintiffs to commence civil actions against youthful offenders long after the conduct underlying the adjudication occurred … .

Our determination does not prohibit civil actions against defendants for the conduct underlying youthful offender adjudications. We simply hold that plaintiffs must commence such actions within the applicable statutes of limitations, without the benefit of the seven-year extension provided in CPLR 213-b(1). We note that here, the plaintiffs commenced the prior action within the applicable one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts and would have had a timely action against Feagles had they properly served her. The plaintiffs did not do so. Pitt v Feagles, 2021 NY Slip Op 07299, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

,

WITH RESPECT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BY A WITNESS TO THE CRIME: NO HEARING ON THE SUGGESTIVENESS OF COMMENTS MADE TO THE WITNESS BY THE POLICE WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE WITNESS WAS A LONG-TIME ACQUAINTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that where a witness to the crime is a long-time acquaintance of the defendant, a hearing about the suggestiveness of comments made to the witness by the police is not necessary. In addition, any identification of the defendant by the witness from a photo array was “merely confirmatory:”

“‘When a crime has been committed by a . . . long-time acquaintance of a witness there is little or no risk that comments by the police, however suggestive, will lead the witness to identify the wrong person'” … . Thus, when “the protagonists are known to one another, suggestiveness is not a concern” and a hearing regarding suggestiveness is not required … . Here, the detective’s testimony at the suppression hearing and the complainant’s testimony at trial demonstrated that the complainant knew the defendant for approximately three years through mutual friends, the complainant knew the defendant by his alias “Kilo,” and the defendant admitted to knowing the complainant. The Supreme Court therefore properly determined that the complainant was impervious to suggestion due to his familiarity with the defendant … . People v Richardson, 2021 NY Slip Op 07287, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

,

THE PISTOL LICENSING SERVICE’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL LICENSE HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Pistol License Section’s (PLS’s) denial of petitioner’s application for a pistol licenses had a rational basis and should not have been annulled:

… [T]he denial of the petitioner’s application for a pistol license had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. The PLS’s investigation of the petitioner’s application revealed a lengthy history of domestic incidents that involved, at various points, the petitioner, the petitioner’s wife, a close family member of the petitioner, and the close family member’s domestic partner. These incidents included heated verbal disputes, arguments where property was damaged, shoving matches, and a situation where the close family member wielded a loaded shotgun in the presence of police officers. During many of these incidents, the close family member was intoxicated; in several others, the close family member threatened suicide. These incidents provided a rational basis for denying the petitioner’s application … . Moreover, the petitioner’s rationale for not disclosing these incidents to the PLS—that the close family member was not a member of the petitioner’s “household” because the close family member lived in an allegedly private basement apartment in the petitioner’s home—was misleading and provided a “rational basis for the [PLS] to conclude that [the] petitioner did not meet the good moral character standard” … . Matter of Franzese v Ryder, 2021 NY Slip Op 07285, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN; THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE ALLOWS A TRAIN OPERATOR TO PROCEED NORMALLY AND ASSUME A PERSON SEEN AHEAD ON THE TRACKS WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY; THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE “OPEN RUN” DEFENSE APPLIES WHETHER THE ACCIDENT HAPPENS IN DAYLIGHT OR, AS HERE, AT NIGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the jury instruction for the “open run” defense was proper. Plaintiff was lying near train tracks with one leg over the rails when he was struck by the defendant’s train at night. The “open run” defense allows the train operator to proceed normally when someone is seen ahead on the tracks and assume he or she will get out of the way. The question raised by this case is whether the “open run” defense applies only in the daylight hours. The Second Department held the trial judge properly concluded the defense applied at night because the sound of the train would be heard by, and the light from the train would be seen to, anyone on the tracks. Although the jury was instructed on the “open run” defense, the uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated the train personnel sounded the horn and initiated an emergency stop when plaintiff was first spotted on the tracks. Any error in the jury instruction, therefore, would have been harmless:

… [W]e hold that the open run defense is not exclusively limited to cases involving daytime train accidents, but rather may be applicable under any circumstances in which an oncoming train would be readily observable to a person on or near the tracks making reasonable use of his or her senses. Kunnemeyer v Long Is. R.R., 2021 NY Slip Op 07281, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

, ,

THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT TURNED 21 DURING THE FAMILY OFFENSE HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION; NOR DID THE INCAPACITY OF THE COMPLAINANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter, determined Family Court did lose jurisdiction over the family offense proceeding when complainant turned 21. The court noted that even if the complainant is incapacitated (but not judicially declared incompetent) Family Court has jurisdiction:

In the context of a family offense proceeding, the question of subject matter jurisdiction is generally confined to whether a qualifying offense has been committed between parties in a qualifying relationship (see Family Ct Act §§ 115[e]; 812[1] … ), irrespective of the complainant’s age. Thus, the fact that the complainant attained the age of 21 during the hearing did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

To the extent the respondent’s motion may be construed as challenging the petitioner’s ability to prosecute this matter in a representative capacity for the complainant, this does not amount to a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the proceeding … . Indeed, “[a]n incapacitated individual who has not been judicially declared incompetent may sue or be sued in the same manner as any other person” … , and courts must not “shut their eyes to the special need of protection of a litigant actually incompetent but not yet judicially declared such” … . Rather, insofar as the record raises questions of fact as to whether the complainant may require the assistance of a guardian ad litem to protect her interests, the Family Court should have granted the petitioner’s request to appoint a guardian to the extent of conducting a hearing to determine whether such an appointment was necessary pursuant to CPLR 1201… . Matter of Vellios v Vellios, 2021 NY Slip Op 07276, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

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