You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

ALTHOUGH AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ISSUED, NO JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS ENTERED; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS STILL VIABLE AND PLAINTIFFS COULD MOVE TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to extend time to serve the defendants in the interest of justice should have been granted. Although defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction had been granted, no judgment dismissing the complaint had been entered. Therefore the action was still viable when plaintiff moved to extend time:

The defendants … moved, … pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the order and judgment entered upon their default, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. After a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the Supreme Court, by order entered March 5, 2018, granted those branches of the defendants’ motion. However, no judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction was entered. The plaintiff thereafter moved pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant … . * * *

… [A]n extension of time was warranted in the interest of justice. The plaintiff demonstrated that a potentially meritorious cause of action existed, that while it timely commenced this action, the statute of limitations had expired by the time it moved to extend the time for service, and that there was no demonstrable prejudice to the defendants as a consequence of the delay in service … . Moreover, as the interest of justice standard permits consideration of “any other relevant factor” … , this Court may consider the fact that the process server failed to comply with a subpoena to appear and give testimony at the hearing to determine the validity of service of process, thereby hampering the plaintiff’s ability to meet its burden of proof at that hearing … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Tanvir H. Chaudhury, 2020 NY Slip Op 07021, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES FOR NONCITIZENS; MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE HER GUILTY PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JUDGE THAT DEFENDANT SAID SHE WAS A CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter to allow defendant the opportunity to move to vacate her plea of guilty based upon the sentencing court’s failure to inform the defendant of the immigration consequences for noncitizens. Defense counsel had informed the court that defendant had informed him she was a citizen:

… [D]efense counsel’s statement during the plea proceeding that the defendant had informed him that she was a citizen of the United States did not absolve the court of its obligations pursuant to Peque [22 NY3d 168]. As we explained in People v Williams, “a trial court should not ask a defendant whether he or she is a United States citizen and decide whether to advise the defendant of the plea’s deportation consequence based on the defendant’s answer. Instead, a trial court should advise all defendants pleading guilty to felonies that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty plea may expose them to deportation” … .

… [I]n the present case … the presentence investigation report explained that an “immigration record check” had revealed, among other things, that the defendant was not in the United States “legally.”

The defendant’s due process claim is thus properly presented on the defendant’s direct appeal, and in the absence of the warning required under Peque, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to afford the defendant an opportunity to move to vacate her plea, and for a report by the Supreme Court thereafter … . People v Ulanov, 2020 NY Slip Op 07108, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

,

CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD DEGREE IS NOT AN ARMED FELONY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was eligible for youthful offender status because criminal possession of a weapon third degree is not an armed felony:

The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application for youthful offender status based upon its mistaken belief that he had been convicted of an armed felony, which required the court to find either mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the manner in which the crime was committed or that the defendant was only a minor participant in the crime (see CPL 720.10[3]). The People correctly concede that the court erred in finding that the defendant had been convicted of an armed felony, since criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree pursuant to Penal Law 265.02(7) does not require proof that the firearm was loaded (see CPL 1.20[41] …). Thus, the defendant was eligible for youthful offender treatment without any finding of mitigation (see CPL 720.10[2]). Accordingly, we remit the matter … for a new determination of the defendant’s application for youthful offender status and resentencing thereafter. People v Javon L., 2020 NY Slip Op 07094, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

,

EVIDENCE OF A 1990 ROBBERY AND SEXUAL ASSAULT TO PROVE IDENTITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE SIMILARITIES WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s attempted rape conviction, determined the evidence of a 1990 robbery and sexual assault should not have been admitted as evidence of the identity of the perpetrator. But the burglary, robbery and sexual abuse convictions, apparently stemming from the same incident, were not disturbed:

… [T]he similarities between the alleged 1990 robbery and sexual assault and the attack on the complainant were not sufficiently unique or unusual and did not establish a distinctive modus operandi relevant to establishing the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator in this case. While both incidents involved robberies and sexual assaults of unaccompanied Caucasian women, during daytime hours, in the lobbies of residential buildings, these similarities were not so unique as to give rise to an inference that the perpetrator of each crime was the same individual … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in permitting the People to present evidence regarding the 1990 robbery and assault in order to establish the defendant’s identity … .

The error was harmless as to all of the charges except the attempted rape in the first degree since the proof of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the erroneously admitted Molineux evidence, was overwhelming as to those other charges, and there was no reasonable possibility that the jury would have acquitted the defendant on those charges had it not been for the error … . Furthermore, the erroneous admission of the Molineux evidence did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial … . We reach a different conclusion with respect to the defendant’s conviction of attempted rape in the first degree. Because the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of that charge was not overwhelming, the error cannot be deemed harmless, and the defendant’s conviction of that charge must be vacated and a new trial ordered as to that charge … . People v Duncan, 2020 NY Slip Op 07090, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

AN ALLEGED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS NOT IN PLAIN VIEW IN THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A CLOSED CONTAINER IN THE VEHICLE, WHICH REVEALED A WEAPON, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; WEAPONS CHARGES DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the weapons charges, determined the search of defendant’s vehicle was not justified. The officer (Chowdhury) saw the top of a prescription bottle, pulled the bottle out of a pouch, determined it contained a controlled substance, a searched a closed container to find the weapon:

Chowdhury observed “two clear cups of brown liquid, alcohol” in the cup holders in the vehicle’s front console and smelled an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. Chowdhury asked the defendant and an individual in the front passenger seat to exit the vehicle, and they complied. Chowdhury further testified that the rear passenger side door was open and that, with the aid of a flashlight, he observed the “white top” of a prescription bottle sticking out of the pouch on the back of the front passenger seat. Chowdhury then entered the vehicle, pulled the bottle out, and observed that it was clear, with no prescription label, and had unlabeled white pills inside that Chowdhury and [officer] Carrieri identified as Oxycodone. Carrieri then began searching the vehicle for any weapons or other contraband and found a handgun inside of a closed compartment under the rug behind the driver’s seat. The defendant was arrested, and later made a statement to the police regarding the gun. …

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the gun and his statement. The officers’ observations of the brown liquid in the cups in the front console and the smell emanating from the vehicle gave them probable cause to suspect a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1227, which prohibits the possession of open containers containing alcohol in a vehicle located upon a public highway, and would have justified their entry into the vehicle to seize the cups of liquid and search for additional open containers … . However, since there was nothing from Officer Chowdhury’s observation of the top of the prescription bottle located in the seat pocket that indicated that the bottle contained contraband, there was no justification for his removal of the bottle and detailed inspection of it and its contents or for the subsequent search of the car for weapons or other contraband. Chowdhury testified that it was only after he pulled the bottle out of the pouch and pulled upward on the top of it that he was able to see that it was unlabeled and contained what he identified as Oxycodone. Thus, contrary to the People’s contention, it cannot be said that a suspected controlled substance was in plain sight … . People v Boykin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

,

THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial, determined the application for a warrant to search defendant’s cell phone did not provide probable cause for the search:

At the time of the arrest, a cell phone was recovered from the defendant’s person. Shortly thereafter, the arresting officer submitted an affidavit in support of an application for a warrant to search the cell phone. In relevant part, the officer averred that individuals involved in robberies and other crimes “utilize mobile telephones to facilitate their illegal activities,” and opined, without further elaboration or factual support, that the cell phone recovered on the defendant’s person “possesses information concerning the communications related to the instant robbery,” “had been utilized to speak with co-conspirators, suppliers and/or customers in furthering illegal activities,” and contained “information that would lead to further apprehensions.” …

… [T]he arresting officer’s conclusory statement that the cell phone contained information relevant to the robbery was bereft of any supporting factual allegations—hearsay or otherwise—and, therefore, plainly insufficient to establish probable cause … . Although the arresting officer later testified, at trial, that he had observed photographs of a gun on the cell phone at the time of the defendant’s arrest, such information—which arguably could have established probable cause provided it had been lawfully obtained … —was never included in the officer’s supporting affidavit. Under these circumstances, the warrant application did not provide a reasonable factual basis for the issuance of the warrant … . People v Boothe, 2020 NY Slip Op 07084, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION VACATED; UNPRESERVED ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating the assault second conviction, considering the issue in the interest of justice, determined the evidence of physical injury was legally insufficient:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution … , it was legally insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the child complainant sustained a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9). Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain”… . The several witnesses described only a minor injury, stated variously that they saw “a redness” on the child’s cheek, or a slight swelling under his eye and cheek, or a bruise to the right cheek, which was treated with a cold pack. Nor did the record support a finding that the child complainant experienced substantial pain because he experienced only tenderness for one to two hours after the incident. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence that the child complainant suffered a “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9) … . People v Bernazard, 2020 NY Slip Op 07083, Second Dept 11-25-20

 

,

PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of the notice required by RPAPL 1304 was insufficient:

Notice must be sent both “by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail” (RPAPL 1304[2]). “‘[P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition” … . “Proof of the requisite mailing is established with proof of the actual mailings, such as affidavits of mailing or domestic return receipts with attendant signatures, or proof 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 plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit from a witness who attested to having personal knowledge of either the actual mailing or “a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed” … . Moreover, the records submitted with the plaintiff’s motion did not establish as a matter of law that the requisite RPAPL 1304 mailings were completed. A copy of a letter and envelope addressed to the defendant, each bearing a 20-digit number, was insufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the certified mailing actually occurred … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence substantiating the assertions that a second copy of the notice was mailed to the defendant by regular first-class mail, as required by the statute … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Feeney, 2020 NY Slip Op 06753, Second Dept 11-18-20

Similar issues and result in JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Gold, 2020 NY Slip Op 06765, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO WORK ON A SIDEWALK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE PEDESTRIANS HAD A SAFE PASSAGEWAY; PLAINTIFFS WERE STRUCK BY A CAR WHEN THEY WALKED IN THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WAS BLOCKED; THE THEORY OF LIABILITY APPEARS TO STEM FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED CREATION OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION UPON A PUBLIC STREET OR SIDEWALK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about whether defendant contractor, CSI, was responsible for providing a safe alternative passageway while construction work blocked the sidewalk. Plaintiffs were struck by a car when they attempted to walk in the street. The CSI was hired by the general construction manager hired by Taco Bell, the owner of the premises:

“A contractor may be liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk” … . Here, CSI failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as its submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether it created the dangerous condition alleged to have caused the accident. Byrd v Hughes, 2020 NY Slip Op 06741, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

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