You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS TESTIFYING ABOUT DNA TRANSFER, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO ACCEPT A POLICE OFFICER’S EXPLANATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the trial judge should not have limited cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness about DNA transfer, and should not have instructed the jury, during defense counsel’s summation, to accept the testimony of a prosecution witness:

… [T]he defendant’s contention that his right to confrontation was violated when the Supreme Court limited cross-examination of a prosecution witness on the issue of DNA transfer is preserved for appellate review  … . Furthermore, the court’s limitation of defense counsel’s cross-examination with regard to DNA transfer was an improvident exercise of discretion, since the testimony defense counsel sought to elicit would have been relevant and would not have confused or misled the jury … . Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the error was not harmless, as there is a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant’s convictions … .

We also agree with the defendant’s contention that his right to a fair trial was violated when, during summation, defense counsel attacked the credibility of the testimony of certain police officers regarding wanted posters, and the Supreme Court instructed the jury, “there was testimony on that. The jurors will be bound by its recollection of the testimony and the explanation.” Since a “jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions” … , the court’s instruction, which bound the jury to accept the officer’s explanation, rather than to rely on its recollection of the testimony and the evidence, was erroneous. People v Kennedy, 2019 NY Slip Op 07899, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s risk assessment from level 2 to level 1, determined a downward department was appropriate because the statutory rape conviction involved consensual sex and defendant had no other sexual offenses in his history:

In cases of statutory rape, the Board has long recognized that strict application of the Guidelines may in some instances result in overassessment of the offender’s risk to public safety. The Guidelines provide that “[t]he Board or a court may choose to depart downward in an appropriate case and in those instances where (i) the victim’s lack of consent is due only to inability to consent by virtue of age and (ii) scoring 25 points in this category results in an over-assessment of the offender’s risk to public safety” … .

Considering all of the circumstances present here, including that this offense is the only sex-related crime in the defendant’s history, as well as the fact that the defendant’s overall score of 80 points, as reduced by the Supreme Court, was near the low end of the range applicable to a presumptive level two designation (75 to 105 points), the assessment of 25 points under risk factor 2 results in an overassessment of the defendant’s risk to public safety … . Accordingly, a downward departure was appropriate, and the defendant should have been designated a level one sex offender. People v Fisher, 2019 NY Slip Op 07893, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT, REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TWO DRIVERS’ NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-passenger’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case should have been granted, despite questions of fact about whether either driver was negligent:

The right of an innocent passenger to summary judgment on the issue of whether he or she was at fault in the happening of an accident is not restricted by potential issues of comparative negligence as between two defendant drivers (see CPLR 3212[g] …). Here, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on their motion, and in opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . It is uncontested that the injured plaintiff was a passenger seated in the rear passenger seat of the Freed vehicle. While both drivers involved in the accident submitted affidavits in which each maintained that they were free from fault, neither driver suggested that the injured plaintiff bore any fault in the happening of the accident … . Romain v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 07885, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

,

A FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DOES NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DOES NOT TRIGGER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the prior foreclosure action which was dismissed on the ground the bank did not demonstrate standing did not serve to accelerate the mortgage debt. Therefore the statute of limitations did not start running and the current foreclosure action is timely:

… [T]he Supreme Court in the 2009 action determined that the defendant was entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of standing. “Where, as here, the prior action is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing, the purported acceleration is a nullity, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run at the time of the purported acceleration” … . Further, the record contains no evidence of either a written assignment or physical delivery of the underlying note to the plaintiff prior to April 2, 2009, so as to establish the plaintiff’s standing to commence the 2009 action … . Thus, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the commencement of the 2009 action did not accelerate the mortgage debt, and the statute of limitations did not begin to run when the 2009 action was commenced … . HSBC Bank USA v Rinaldi, 2019 NY Slip Op 07878, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

, , , ,

A PARTY NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO BE ENTITLED TO A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER NEGLIGENT, BUT FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Connolly, overruling precedent and disagreeing with the 3rd and 4th Departments, determined (1) a party need not make a motion to set aside the verdict to be entitled to an “against the weight of the evidence” review by the appellate court, and (2) the verdict finding defendant bus driver negligent but also finding the negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s slip and fall was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff stepped into a pothole when getting off the bus which had stopped to let her off after she had missed her stop:

A … source of this Court’s authority to review the weight of the evidence absent a motion to set aside the verdict comes from CPLR 4404(a), the provision authorizing postverdict motions for a new trial. CPLR 4404(a) provides, in pertinent part: “After a trial of a cause of action or issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may . . . order a new trial of a cause of action or separable issue where the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence” … . Insofar as the trial court is permitted to order a new trial “on its own initiative” (CPLR 4404[a]), and “the power of the Appellate Division . . . is as broad as that of the trial court” … , this Court also possesses the power to order a new trial where the appellant made no motion for that relief in the trial court. …

… [I]t was logically impossible for the jury to conclude that [the bus driver] was negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with a safe location to alight from the bus but that such negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. It was uncontradicted that the plaintiff stepped directly from the bus into the pothole, and immediately fell to the ground. The unbroken chain of events was witnessed by … a neutral witness with no relationship or prior affiliation with the parties, and corroborated by photographs of the scene taken immediately after the accident occurred. Assuming, as the jury found, that [the driver]  was negligent, it is logically impossible under the circumstances to find that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Under these circumstances, the issues of reasonable care and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven that the jury’s verdict could not have been reached upon any fair interpretation of the evidence … . Evans v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 07872, Second Dept 11-6-19

 

, ,

THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the motion to suppress should not have been granted without a hearing because defense counsel had not been provided with a copy of the search warrant at the time the motion was made:

In evaluating whether a defendant’s factual allegations in a suppression motion are sufficient to warrant a hearing, the court must assess “(1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” … .

We disagree with the County Court’s decision to deny that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought to controvert the search warrant without holding a hearing, as defense counsel did not have access to even a redacted copy of the search warrant applications at the time the motion was made … . Although in moving to controvert the search warrant, defense counsel did not make precise factual averments, he was not required to do so as he did not have access to the search warrant applications at issue … . People v Lambey, 2019 NY Slip Op 07793, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO WHITE JURORS NOT SUPPORTED BY RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS; THE ALLEGED ERROR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defense peremptory challenges to prospective white jurors were not justified on race-neutral grounds and the alleged error in instructing the jury on the justification defense was not preserved:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in disallowing his peremptory challenges to two prospective white jurors because he provided sufficient race-neutral explanations for challenging them … . However, defense counsel’s proffered explanations for challenging the two jurors “amounted, essentially, to no reason at all” … . Thus, we agree with the court’s determination that the proffered explanations were pretextual and with the court’s disallowal of the defendant’s peremptory challenges. Moreover, the court did not act improperly by, sua sponte, directing the defendant’s counsel to provide race-neutral explanations for the peremptory challenges … .

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court’s instruction to the jury regarding the defense of justification was erroneous because the court included an instruction regarding the use of physical force to resist arrest. This contention is without merit. The justification charge, taken as a whole, correctly instructed the jury as to the defense of justification, and was a correct statement of the applicable law (see CPL 300.10[2] … ). The defendant also contends that the justification instruction was erroneous because the court did not instruct the jurors that, if they found the defendant not guilty of charges of attempted murder in the first degree based on the defense of justification, they were not to consider the lesser counts of aggravated assault upon a police officer and attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer. The defendant failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, and we decline to review this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction … . People v Foxworth, 2019 NY Slip Op 07790, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT; THE NOTICE OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM FOR THE REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSES WERE NOT VALID AND THE VILLAGE DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined: (1) the 42 USC 1983 action was not subject to the notice of claim requirement of the General Municipal Law; the notice of claim for the malicious prosecution cause of action was timely because the limitations period began when the underlying charges were dismissed; and (3) the petition for leave to file late notices of claim for the state law discrimination, false arrest, abuse of process, excessive force, failure to intervene, denial of access to the courts, intimidation and intentional infliction of emotional distress actions should not have been granted:

The petitioner’s explanation that the counsel who represented him during the criminal proceeding did not advise him of the notice of claim requirement and that he did not learn of the requirement until … he retained his current attorney to represent him in a potential civil action did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely serve the Village with a notice of claim for the remaining state law claims … . The petitioner’s ignorance of the law does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . Moreover, the petitioner’s assertion that he knowingly delayed commencing any action against the Village while the criminal charges were pending due to unsubstantiated claims of fear and intimidation does not constitute a reasonable excuse … . …

The petitioner did not establish that the Village acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the remaining state law claims within 90 days after they arose or a reasonable time thereafter. “Generally, knowledge of a police officer or of a police department cannot be considered actual knowledge of the public corporation itself regarding the essential facts of a claim” … . “[F]or a report to provide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that report that a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation” … . Here, the involvement of a Village police officer in arresting the petitioner did not, without more, establish that the Village acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the petitioner’s remaining state law claims within 90 days following their accrual or a reasonable time thereafter … . Matter of Nunez v Village of Rockville Ctr., 2019 NY Slip Op 07783, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, ,

HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined a hearing was necessary on whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction for the petition seeking an order of protection:

… [T]he petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 seeking an order of protection against Cynthia J. Brock. The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that she and Brock were in an intimate relationship in that the petitioner was the paternal great grandmother of Brock’s child, and that she and Brock had “lived together in the past.” The petitioner further alleged that although her grandson and the child had moved out of her home a month earlier, Brock continued to routinely drop off the child at the petitioner’s home after Brock’s parental access time with the child, and used these opportunities to threaten, abuse, and annoy the petitioner. The petitioner also alleged that Brock telephoned the child on a daily basis, and verbally harassed the petitioner on the phone. Subsequently, Brock made an application to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the relationship between her and the petitioner did not qualify as an “intimate relationship” within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e). The Family Court granted the application and dismissed the petition.

The Family Court is a court of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and “cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute”… . Pursuant to Family Court Act § 812(1), the Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings is limited to certain proscribed criminal acts that occur “between spouses or former spouses, or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household” … . For purposes of Family Court Act article 8, “members of the same family or household” include, inter alia, “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . Expressly excluded from the ambit of “intimate relationship” are “casual acquaintance[s]” and “ordinary fraternization between two individuals in business or social contexts” … . Beyond those delineated exclusions, what qualifies as an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Court Act § 812(1)(e) is determined on a case-by-case basis … . Relevant factors include “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship … . Matter of Hamrahi v Brock, 2019 NY Slip Op 07781, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

, , ,

THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GRIEVANCE AND THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA); THE CITY’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the city-employer’s motion to permanently stay arbitration should not have been granted:

In determining whether a grievance is arbitrable, a court must “first ask whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance,” and if there is no prohibition against arbitration, the court must “then examine the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] to determine if the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue” … . …

Where, as here, the relevant arbitration provision of the CBA is broad, providing for arbitration of any grievance “involving the interpretation or application of any provision of this Agreement,” a court “should merely determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA” … . “If there is none, the issue, as a matter of law, is not arbitrable. If there is, the court should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them” … . …

According to Local 628, the City, by offering a paramedic training course to its firefighters, violated article 33 of the CBA, which contains various provisions concerning the EMS Program, including a provision stating that the “EMS Program shall mean the level of services provided as of the date of this Agreement.” Contrary to the City’s contention, a reasonable relationship exists between Local 628’s grievance and the general subject matter of the CBA … . “[T]he question of the scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA is a matter of contract interpretation and application reserved for the arbitrator” … . Matter of City of Yonkers v Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628, IAFF, AFL-CIO, 2019 NY Slip Op 07776, Second Dept 10-30-19

 

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