You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

TRIAL COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE THE VERDICT PURSUANT TO CPL 330.30 ON A GROUND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL AS A MATTER OF LAW–HERE THE ALLEGED FACTUAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD AND THE ACQUITTALS ON ALL THE OTHER SEXUAL-OFFENSE COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court on the People’s appeal, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the verdict should not have been set aside based upon an alleged inconsistency between the conviction on one count and the acquittals on all other counts:

This appeal by the People and cross appeal by the defendant presents a rare opportunity to consider the circumstances under which a trial court, in reviewing the record on a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30(1) to determine whether a conviction on one count is supported by legally sufficient evidence, may consider a jury’s factually inconsistent acquittal on another count.

The defendant was charged with two counts of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25[2]), three counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.40[2]), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10[1]). * * *

The jury returned a verdict of guilty on count six [endangering the welfare of a child] and acquitted the defendant of all other charges. * * *

… [T]he defendant contends that a factual inconsistency in the verdict may … , under appropriate circumstances, provide grounds for a reviewing court to “consider a jury’s acquittal on one count in reviewing the record to determine if a factually inconsistent conviction on another count is supported by legally sufficient evidence” … .  …  [T]here is some support in the case law for the defendant’s contention—at least within the context of a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, where this Court has both a unique power of factual review … as well as the discretionary authority, in the interest of justice, to reach unpreserved errors that deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . However, we now explicitly hold that a trial court determining a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 lacks the power to overturn a verdict on this ground where, as here, the contention does not present an issue that “would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court” (CPL 330.30[1] …). People v Taylor, 2020 NY Slip Op 04790, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

,

PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the Darden hearing did not support the finding that the purported confidential informant existed and provided sufficient information for the issuance of the search warrant:

The Darden rule is necessary to insure “that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant’s identity” … . The rule, which “gives clear guidance to lower courts and guarantees that the protections of the Fourth Amendment have not been circumvented” … , “is necessary to properly test the officer’s credibility” … , and is “designed to protect against the contingency, of legitimate concern to a defendant, that the informer might have been wholly imaginary and the communication from him [or her] entirely fabricated” … . …

Here, the Supreme Court’s credibility determinations are not supported by the record. As will be shown, there were substantial material discrepancies between the detective’s affidavit in support of the search warrant, and the testimonies of the alleged CI and the detective at the Darden hearing pertaining to (1) the CI’s track record of reliability, (2) the prior relationship between the detective and the CI, and (3) the facts and circumstances of the alleged controlled buy or buys at the subject apartment. Consequently, we find that the People failed to meet their burden at the Darden hearing. People v Nettles, 2020 NY Slip Op 04776, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

CONVICTION OF A LESSER INCLUDED COUNT OF PREDATORY SEXUAL ASSAULT (I.E. COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT AGAINST A CHILD) VACATED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department vacated defendant’s conviction of a lesser included count:

… [T]he defendant’s conviction of predatory sexual assault against a child under Penal Law § 130.96 requires dismissal of the lesser included count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree under Penal Law § 130.75(1)(a) … . People v Mendez-Huales, 2020 NY Slip Op 04774, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED DESPITE FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT IT BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the inclusory concurrent count must be dismissed despite the failure to request that it be presented to the jury in the alternative:

… [U]nder the facts of this case, the defendant could not have committed the crime of criminal contempt in the first degree as charged in count 10 of the indictment (Penal Law § 215.51[b][i]) without also having committed the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree as charged in count 11 of the indictment (Penal Law § 215.50[3]). As these counts were “inclusory concurrent counts” as defined by CPL 300.30(4), a verdict of guilty upon the greater is deemed a dismissal of every lesser (see CPL 300.40[3][b]). Thus, although the defendant did not request that the subject counts be charged in the alternative, the conviction of the lesser count must be dismissed … . People v Bentley, 2020 NY Slip Op 04753, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

, ,

CERTAIN DISCOVERY DEMANDS IN THIS NEGLIGENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY ON BEHALF OF A FORMER RESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined certain discovery demands by plaintiff should have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was a resident at defendant’s residential care facility and plaintiff brought an action against the facility alleging negligent care and violations of Public Health law 2801-d:

Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were to compel the defendants to comply with (1) his discovery demand number 30, (2) his discovery demand number 32 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to meals provided to” the decedent, (3) his discovery demand number 33 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to bed changing records for” the decedent, (4) his discovery demand number 34 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to [the] movement of” the decedent, (5) his discovery demand number 35 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to [the] washing of” the decedent, (6) his discovery demand number 36 to the extent that it demands “[a]ll documents relating to the change of position of” the decedent, and (7) his discovery demand number 51. Those demands related to the decedent’s care, the staffing of nurses and nursing assistants who provided care to the decedent, and complaints or investigations of alleged substandard care or abuse involving the decedent … . Olmann v Willoughby Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04750, Second Dept 8-26-20

 

, ,

PETITION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER A CONDOMINIUM TO MAKE REPAIRS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the petition for a license pursuant to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 881 to temporarily enter a condominium to make repairs was properly granted:

RPAPL 881 allows the owner of “real property” to petition for a license to enter the “premises” of an adjoining owner when such entry is necessary for making improvements or repairs to the petitioner’s property and the adjoining owner has refused such access … . RPAPL 881 applies to “real property,” defined as “lands, tenements and hereditaments” (Real Property Law § 2). Similarly, Real Property Law § 339-g provides that “[e]ach unit, together with its common interest, shall for all purposes constitute real property.” Thus, the petitioners’ condominium unit constitutes “real property” within the meaning of RPAPL 881. …

… [W]e agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the petition which was pursuant to RPAPL 881 for a license to temporarily access the appellants’ unit. The court directed that access be limited to 10 consecutive days, that the petitioners return the unit to its original condition, that the appellants be financially protected by the naming of the appellants as additional insureds on the relevant construction insurance policy, that the petitioners pay the appellants a license fee of $100 per day, and that the petitioners indemnify the appellants for any loss … . Matter of Voron v Board of Mgrs. of the Newswalk Condominium, 2020 NY Slip Op 04747,  Second Dept 8-26-20

 

PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL, FOR THE WITNESSES’ SAFETY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a memorandum which did not discuss the facts, determined the People’s request to withhold discovery until 15 days before a hearing or trial, for the witnesses’ safety, should have been granted:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), a party who has unsuccessfully sought, or opposed the granting of, a protective order relating to the name, address, contact information, or statements of a person may obtain expedited review by an individual justice of the intermediate appellate court to which an appeal from a judgment of conviction would be taken. Where, as here, “the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion” … .

Applying these standards to the matters at hand, I conclude that the Supreme Court’s determination to grant the People’s request only to the extent indicated was an improvident exercise of discretion. Under the particular facts and circumstances presented, concerns for witness safety and protection far outweigh the usefulness of the discovery of the material or information in question. People v Morales-Aguilar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04721, Second Dept 8-24-20

 

, ,

BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THIS DIRECTORS & OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST FORMED TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion applied to the Directors & Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy:

Plaintiff Westchester Fire Insurance Co. … commenced this action seeking a declaration that it has no coverage obligations to defendants insureds, arguing primarily that the “insured versus insured” exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy, procured by RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), bars coverage of claims asserted against defendants, … RCAP’s former directors and officers. Defendants insureds contend, among other things, that coverage exists under the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion. The claims, herein, arose after RCAP’s bankruptcy.

The Creditor Trust was formed, pursuant to the reorganization plan, to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of the unsecured creditors … . …

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 04627, First Dept 8-20-20

 

,

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s assault third conviction, determined the evidence of “physical injury” was legally insufficient:

Physical injury is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain” (Penal Law § 10.00[9]). Although the question of whether physical injury has been established is generally for the jury to decide, “there is an objective level . . . below which the question is one of law” … . Here, the complainant testified that the defendant pushed him to the ground, and slapped him several times in the face. The complainant testified that he cried because he “was in a lot of pain.” There was no evidence, however, corroborating the complainant’s subjective description of the degree of pain he experienced … . There was no testimony about the duration of the pain, whether the shove or slaps left any visible bruising, swelling, or redness, or whether the defendant sought medical treatment or missed any time from work or school … . Under these circumstances, there was legally insufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant suffered substantial pain as a result of being pushed to the ground and slapped several times in the face … . People v Jhagroo, 2020 NY Slip Op 04580, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

,

RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED CONVICTIONS IF HE TESTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming defendant’s murder conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined Molineux the ruling that defendant could be cross-examined about his three prior gun-related convictions if he were to testify the shooting was an accident did not deprive defendant of the right to put on a defense. The dissenter argued that it did:

Prior to trial, the Supreme Court ruled that if the defendant were to testify that the shooting was an accident, the People would be permitted to offer evidence, through their cross-examination of him, of the facts underlying his three prior gun-related convictions … . The defendant contends that this ruling deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial as it deterred him from testifying at trial. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, and the position of our dissenting colleagues, the court’s Molineux ruling did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial … . Moreover, any error in the ruling was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and no reasonable possibility that any error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction … . * * *

From the dissent:

… [T]he fact that the defendant committed gun-related offenses against persons other than the victim nearly 20 years before the subject shooting bears no relevance whatsoever to the issue of whether the subject shooting was an accident. In my view, permitting the People to elicit the underlying facts of prior gun-related acts that were totally unrelated to the victim would serve only to demonstrate that the defendant had a propensity for gun violence … . Consequently, the Supreme Court’s pretrial ruling in this case cannot be justified under Molineux and, thus, the ruling effectively precluded the defendant from presenting a defense. People v Huertas, 2020 NY Slip Op 04577, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

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