You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

THE SECOND TRIAL VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITION; THE FIRST TRIAL COULD HAVE CONTINUED WITH ELEVEN JURORS AFTER A JUROR WAS DISQUALIFIED DURING DELIBERATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, after the second trial was finished, determined that the second trial violated the double jeopardy prohibition. In the first trial, a juror talked to an attorney about the evidence and, during deliberations, told the other jurors what the attorney said. That juror was disqualified. The People moved for a mistrial. The defendant opposed and was willing to proceed with eleven jurors. The judge declared a mistrial:

When a mistrial is declared without the consent of or over the objection of a defendant, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . …

… [T]he People have not met their burden of demonstrating that the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary. While it is undisputed that juror number 11 was grossly unqualified to continue serving, the Supreme Court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial without considering other alternatives. The defendant specifically indicated his desire to waive trial by a jury of 12 individuals and proceed with the remaining 11 jurors, an option that has been endorsed by the Court of Appeals … . Under the circumstances presented, as urged by defense counsel, it would have been appropriate to poll the remainder of the jurors to ascertain whether they could render an impartial verdict … . Moreover, as the improper information imparted to the jurors did not significantly prejudice the People, the court should have considered whether a specific curative instruction could have clarified what constituted “evidence” and whether such an instruction could have cured the impropriety … . Accordingly, there was an insufficient basis in the record for the declaration of a mistrial, and thus, a retrial was precluded. People v Smith, 2019 NY Slip Op 07622, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THE JUDGE TOLD HIM NOT TO DISCUSS HIS TRIAL TESTIMONY WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL DURING A TWO-DAY ADJOURNMENT; ALTHOUGH THE LEGAL-SUFFICIENCY AND RIGHT-TO-COUNSEL ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions on several counts in the interest of justice because the evidence was legally insufficient, noted that a new trial was required on the remaining counts because defendant was deprived of his right to counsel. The trial judge told the defendant he could not discuss his trial testimony with his counsel during a two-day adjournment:

With regard to the third and seventeenth through twenty-third counts of the indictment, the defendant’s convictions must be reversed because he was deprived of the right to counsel when the County Court instructed him not to discuss his trial testimony with his attorney during a two-day adjournment … . Although the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Peloso, 2019 NY Slip Op 07614, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; HERE, BECAUSE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the court was wrong when it informed defendant he retained the right to appeal the ruling on the speedy trial motion (CPL 30.30) after his guilty plea. Therefore defendant was entitled to the opportunity to withdraw his plea in this attempted murder case:

A defendant who has entered a plea of guilty “forfeit[s] his [or her] right to claim that he [or she] was deprived of a speedy trial under CPL 30.30” … . However, where a defendant’s plea is predicated upon a false assurance that, notwithstanding the plea, the defendant can nonetheless contest the denial of a CPL 30.30 motion, the defendant is entitled, if he or she wishes, to withdraw the plea of guilty … .

Here, it is clear from the record that the defendant pleaded guilty in reliance upon a promise from the Supreme Court that, upon his plea of guilty, he would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment. However, that promise cannot be fulfilled … . Therefore, as the People concede, the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea of guilty … .  People v Hernandez, 2019 NY Slip Op 07605, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

, ,

TRANSCRIPT OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1028 HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN ABUSE-NEGLECT FACT-FINDING HEARING BECAUSE THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE WITNESS AT THE 1028 HEARING WAS UNAVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the transcript of the Family Court Act 1028 hearing (seeking the quick return of a child temporarily removed pending a fact-finding hearing) should not have been used to replace the abuse/neglect fact-finding hearing because the proof requirements are different:

Family Court Act § 1028 permits a parent to apply for the return of a child who has been temporarily removed from the custody of the parent pending the fact-finding hearing on the issue of abuse or neglect … . “[A] section 1028 hearing is intended to give a parent an opportunity for a prompt reunion with the child, pending trial” … . In analyzing an application for a child’s return under Family Court Act § 1028, a court must engage in a test balancing the imminent risk with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal … . Section 1028 hearings, however, were not intended to replace fact-finding hearings, as the evidentiary standards are different. Family Court Act § 1046 provides that “only competent, material and relevant evidence may be admitted” at a fact-finding hearing, whereas evidence “[i]n a dispositional hearing and during all other stages of a proceeding under” Family Court Act article 10 need only be “material and relevant” … . A determination on an application pursuant to section 1028 “should not be taken as any indication of what ultimate determination should be made by the Family Court as to [a] petition alleging abuse and neglect” … . “At a fact-finding hearing, any determination that a child is an abused or neglected child must be based on a preponderance of the evidence” … .

CPLR 4517, which governs the admissibility of prior testimony in a civil action, is applicable here … , as the Family Court Act does not prescribe the issue of whether testimony from a prior hearing pursuant to Family Court Act article 10 may be admitted into evidence on the petitioner’s direct case in a fact-finding hearing. Pursuant to CPLR 4517(a)(3), prior trial testimony of a witness may be used by any party for any purpose against another party if the court finds that such witness is dead or otherwise unavailable. In this matter, the Family Court made no such finding.

Here, the Family Court should not have admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing transcripts of testimony from the hearing conducted pursuant to Family Court Act § 1028. As ACS now correctly concedes, the caseworker’s testimony at the prior hearing, which included hearsay statements, actually formed the basis of the court’s neglect finding at the subsequent fact-finding hearing. Matter of Louie L. V. (Virzhiniya T. V.), 2019 NY Slip Op 07592, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS INDEFINITE AND NONFINAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitration award should not have been confirmed because it was indefinite and nonfinal:

Although judicial review of arbitration awards is limited …, an award will be vacated when the arbitrator making the award “so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made” (CPLR 7511[b][1][iii] … ). An arbitration award will be vacated as indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR 7511 if it does not “dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties” … , or “if it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations, if it does not resolve the controversy submitted or if it creates a new controversy” … .

Here, the appellant established that the arbitration award was indefinite and nonfinal inasmuch as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable that were incurred prior to the date of the award were to be distributed. Moreover, the provision at issue created a new controversy between the parties with respect to the distribution of those funds. Accordingly, that portion of the award should have been vacated and the matter remitted … . Matter of Rosenberg v Schwartz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07587, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

THE INSURED, WHO WAS SEEKING UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS, DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY HER INSURER OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THEREFORE THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s petition to permanently stay arbitration in this rear-end collision should have been granted. The insured sought to recover uninsured motorist benefits but did not timely notify the insurer of the accident:

The respondent, Irina Ostapenko, allegedly was injured when the vehicle she was driving was struck in the rear by another vehicle that then left the scene. The vehicle Ostapenko was driving was insured by the petitioner. Ostapenko filed a request for uninsured motorist arbitration. The petitioner commenced this proceeding, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration. In an order … , the Supreme Court, among other things, in effect, denied that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration. The petitioner appeals.

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration. The subject insurance policy required the insured or someone acting on the insured’s behalf to report the collision within 24 hours or as soon as reasonably possible to a “police, peace or judicial officer or to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.” Ostapenko’s failure to comply with this requirement in the absence of a valid excuse vitiates coverage … . Matter of Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v Ostapenko, 2019 NY Slip Op 07586, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

, , , ,

THE ZONE OF DANGER THEORY OF LIABILITY IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE RELATIVES OF THE INJURED PARTY; PETITIONERS’ CHILDREN WITNESSED THE FATAL INJURY TO ANOTHER STUDENT WHO WAS NOT RELATED; PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ALLEGING INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the school district should not have been granted. The petitioners are the parents of students who were participating in football training when the pole or log they were carrying dropped and fatally injured another student. The late notice of claim asserted intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon the petitioners’ children being in the “zone of danger.” However, the “zone of danger” theory can be raised only by the immediate relatives of the injured party:

“The zone-of-danger rule . . . allows one who is himself or herself threatened with bodily harm in consequence of the defendant’s negligence to recover for emotional distress resulting from viewing the death or serious physical injury of a member of his or her immediate family” … . Here, the petitioners’s children were not immediate family members of the decedent. Thus, they have no legally cognizable claim to recover damages for emotional distress they allegedly sustained from witnessing the accident … , or based upon the District’s alleged refusal to provide continued counseling and maintain the coaching staff support system, as such damages are a financial consequence of their emotional trauma … . Moreover, the District demonstrated that, under the circumstances presented, it was not authorized to pay for continued outside counseling services for the petitioners’ children, and the record reflects that the District provided ongoing counseling from mental health professionals employed by the District. Under the circumstances, the proposed claim against the District is patently meritless … . Matter of Kmiotek v Sachem Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 07583, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING; CUSTODY PETITION MAY BE HEARD JOINTLY WITH A PERMANENCY HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined than mother’s petition for custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing and noted that a custody petition may be heard jointly with a permanency hearing:

The appeal from the order dated September 27, 2018, has not been rendered academic by the permanency hearing order dated November 13, 2018, which apparently changed the permanency goal from working toward legal guardianship by the maternal grandmother to guardianship by a different relative. The order appealed from denied the mother’s petition for custody, and the issue of whether that order was proper will continue to affect the mother’s rights … .

Custody determinations should “[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry” … . Here, the record does not reveal the existence of circumstances that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the general right to a hearing … .

However, the petition for custody may be heard jointly with any permanency hearing held pursuant to Family Court Act article 10-A (see Family Ct Act § 1089-a[a] …). Matter of Barcene v Parrilla, 2019 NY Slip Op 07575, Second Dept 10-23-19

 

,

DNA EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLAINANT’S SEXUAL HISTORY PROPERLY EXCLUDED AS A VIOLATION OF THE RAPE SHIELD LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court correctly refused to allow defendant to present DNA evidence to demonstrate the complainant’s sexual history in this sexual offense case:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the introduction of certain DNA evidence at trial. Introducing evidence of additional DNA donors not linked to the defendant for the purpose of demonstrating the complainant’s sexual history with persons other than the defendant falls “squarely within the ambit of the Rape Shield Law, which generally prohibits [e]vidence of a victim’s sexual conduct’ in a prosecution for a sex offense under Penal Law article 130 (CPL 60.42) because such evidence . . . serves only to harass the alleged victim and confuse the jurors'” … . Moreover, the evidence sought to be admitted was not relevant to any defense … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, introducing the evidence through a witness other than the complainant does not render the Rape Shield Law inapplicable … . People v Hubsher, 2019 NY Slip Op 07416, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT REMAIN VALID AFTER DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO A DIFFERENT CRIME WHEN THE INITIAL SENTENCE PROMISE COULD NOT BE FULFILLED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid because his consent to the waiver was not renewed after he pled to a different crime after the initial sentence promise could not met:

… [T]he Supreme Court was unable to fulfill its sentencing commitment because the sentence it had promised was illegal … . Although the defendant ultimately agreed to plead guilty to a different crime in return for a different sentence, the modification of the material terms of the original plea agreement “vitiated defendant’s knowing and intelligent entry of the waiver of appeal”… . Under such circumstances, “it was incumbent on the court to elicit defendant’s continuing consent to waive his right to appeal” … . Since the court did not obtain the defendant’s continuing consent to waive his right to appeal after the material terms of the original plea agreement were changed, the defendant is not precluded from arguing that the sentence imposed was excessive … . People v Ellison, 2019 NY Slip Op 07413, Second Dept 10-16-19

 

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