You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PHYSICAL INJURY IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED MURDER; REQUEST FOR MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE COMPLAINANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY PROPERLY DENIED; PERSISTENT FELONY SENTENCING PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s attempted murder conviction, noting that proof of attempted murder does not require proof of serious injury, or any injury at all. The court further noted that the complainant was not under the People’s control and therefore the request for the missing witness jury instruction was properly denied. Defendant, however, was not properly sentenced:

… [W]e note that while none of the complainant’s injuries in this case were life-threatening, “the crime of attempted murder does not require actual physical injury to a victim at all” … . Here, the forensic evidence showing that two separate knives were used in the attack, coupled with the fact that the defendant, still holding a knife, chased the complainant outside the apartment complex and broke off his attack only after a bystander intervened, provides factually sufficient evidence of the defendant’s intent to kill.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the County Court properly declined to give a missing witness charge with regard to the complainant, as the record reflects that the complainant was not under the People’s control … . …

The sentencing minutes do not establish that the County Court asked the defendant whether he wished to controvert any allegations made in the statement filed pursuant to CPL 400.16(2) … . Accordingly, we vacate the sentences and remit the matter to the County Court, Suffolk County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 400.16 … . People v Gunn, 2019 NY Slip Op 07279, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, ,

UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE DEFENDANT’S AGENCY DEFENSE; THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT IN THAT GUILTY AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS CAN NOT BE RECONCILED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department vacated defendant’s convictions in this drug/possession/sale case, finding the People did not disprove the agency defense with respect to one of the two transactions, and the verdict was repugnant in the sense guilty and not guilty findings could not be reconciled.  With respect to the agency defense, the Second Department applied a “weight of the evidence” analysis. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here:

The following factors are considered in evaluating the strength of an agency defense: “(1) did the defendant act as a mere extension of the buyer throughout the relationship, with no independent desire to promote the transaction; (2) was the purchase suggested by the buyer; (3) did the defendant have any previous acquaintance with the seller; (4) did the defendant exhibit any salesman like behavior; (5) did the defendant use his [or her] own funds; (6) did the defendant procure from many sources for a single buyer; (7) did the buyer pay the seller directly; (8) did the defendant stand to profit; and (9) was any reward promised in advance” … . …

A verdict is repugnant only if, when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury, “it is legally impossible—under all conceivable circumstances—for the jury to have convicted the defendant on one count but not the other” … . The purpose of the rule is to ensure that an individual is not convicted of a crime of which a jury has necessarily decided that one of the essential elements was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt … . People v Cruz, 2019 NY Slip Op 07273, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, ,

THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN AN ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE CASE WAS NOT MET IN THIS MURDER PROSECUTION; CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. There was no forensic evidence linking defendant to the murder, which occurred 11 years before the trial, and the circumstantial evidence merely raised the possibility defendant committed the murder. The decision recounts the evidence in a level of detail which cannot be fairly summarized here:

Where the prosecution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence, before the fact-finder can draw an inference of guilt, that inference must be the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the proven facts, and the evidence must exclude beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence … . The inferences to be drawn from the People’s evidence in this case as to coincidence of time, place, and behavior are sufficient only to create suspicion. The evidence presented at trial is not inconsistent with the defendant’s innocence, and any determination of guilt requires too much speculation to fill the gaps in the People’s evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *

[T]he evidence presented at trial supports the possibility that the defendant was the person who killed Perez. “[H]owever, speculation and conjecture are no substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt” … . It is not enough for the jury to determine “that the defendant is probably guilty” … . The People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is the person who committed the crime. On this record, we find that the jury was not justified in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Clavell, 2019 NY Slip Op 07271, Second Dept 10-10-19

 

REVIEW POWERS OF A MASTER ARBITRATOR EXPLAINED; HERE THE MASTER ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS PROPERLY VACATED AND THE ORIGINAL ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WAS PROPERLY REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court had properly vacated the master arbitrator’s award and reinstated the original arbitrator’s award in this no-fault benefit case. The court explained the authority of a master arbitrator:

A master arbitrator may not review the facts by weighing the evidence, assessing the credibility of witnesses, or making independent findings of fact … . A master arbitrator’s review powers, however, do include reviewing the facts to determine “whether or not the evidence is sufficient, as a matter of law, to support the determination of the arbitrator” … . Here, there is no rational basis for the determination of the master arbitrator that the original arbitrator committed an error of law … . Matter of V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 07265, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, ,

REFERENCES TO JUDGMENTS IN A LICENSE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDACTED IN THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIRS OFFICE IN RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the response of the Nassau County Office for Consumer Affairs to a request for documents relating to licenses held by Home Beyond Center, LLC should not have had the references to judgments redacted:

FOIL requires government agencies to “make available for public inspection and copying all records,” subject to a number of exemptions (Public Officers Law § 87[2]). One such exemption permits an agency to deny access to records that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b) provides that “[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to” seven specified kinds of disclosure … . Where none of the seven specifications is applicable, a court “must decide whether any invasion of privacy . . . is unwarranted’ by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … .

Here, the respondent failed to demonstrate that the redactions of information contained in the license application file of Home Beyond Center, LLC, relating to “judgments” should be exempt from disclosure as an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Matter of Liang v Nassau County Off. of Consumer Affairs, 2019 NY Slip Op 07251, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

,

NEW JERSEY PAROLEE’S CONSENT TO SEARCH AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE DID NOT APPLY TO A SEARCH DONE BY NEW YORK CITY POLICE IN QUEENS; STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT MIRANDA WARNINGS, INCLUDING THE CONSENT TO SEARCH, AS WELL AS THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH, PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly suppressed statements made without Miranda warnings, including the consent to search a safe, as well as the firearms seized from the safe. Although defendant was on parole in New Jersey, the search was done in Queens by New York City police. Therefore the consent to search provided by parolees as a condition of parole was not applicable:

… [A]lthough Soto had consented to searches by New Jersey parole officers as a condition of his parole, the record reveals that the NYPD officers, not the New Jersey parole officers, searched the safe after they were notified that the New Jersey parole officers found what appeared to be heroin in the apartment. Accordingly, the People cannot rely on Soto’s consent given as a condition of parole to justify the warrantless search of the safe … . Furthermore, since the NYPD officers failed to advise Soto of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him and obtaining his consent to open the safe, his statements regarding the safe and his consent to open it cannot be characterized as voluntary … . Moreover, the People failed to proffer any argument as to why the warrantless search was proper as to Santiago. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting those branches of Soto’s omnibus motion which were to suppress the firearms evidence and the statements made by him to the NYPD officers without the benefit of Miranda warnings, and that branch of Santiago’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the firearms evidence … . People v Santiago, 2019 NY Slip Op 07099, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

, ,

NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect:

… [A] motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 seeking to withdraw a plea to an indictment is part of a criminal action or, at the least, “related to a . . . completed criminal action,” so as to come within the statutory definition of a “[c]riminal proceeding” (CPL 1.20[18]; … ). Moreover, in light of the nature of the relief sought in the motion, the motion is, by its nature, criminal, rather than civil … . Accordingly, proper statutory authority under the Criminal Procedure Law must exist in order for the defendant to appeal from the denial of the motion … .

Such statutory authority does not exist. CPL 450.10 only provides that a defendant may appeal as of right from a judgment, sentence, or order made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and thus, does not provide for appellate review, as of right, from an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60, to withdraw a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. Nor does CPL 450.15 allow for such an appeal by permission, as that statute only permits an appeal from orders made pursuant to specified provisions of CPL article 440, and “[a] sentence . . . not otherwise appealable as of right” (CPL 450.15[3]). Finally, there is no avenue for appeal through CPL 330.20, which permits a party “to proceedings conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section” to appeal, by permission, from certain orders rendered under CPL 330.20 (CPL 330.20[21]). The orders specified do not include an order denying a motion pursuant to CPL 220.60 to withdraw the plea … . People v Delano F., 2019 NY Slip Op 07089, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

THE PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS RAISED BY THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE PHOTO ARRAYS USED BY THE WITNESS TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT WAS OVERCOME BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE SHEER NUMBER OF PHOTOS VIEWED BY THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the witness’s identification of the defendant from photographs properly survived the motion to dismiss. The presumption of suggestiveness was overcome by the evidence of the sheer number of photographs shown to the witness. The court also held that rape first degree is a lesser included count of predatory sexual assault which was dismissed by the conviction on the higher court:

… [A]lthough the People did not produce in court the photographic arrays displayed through the use of the photo manager system, which gives rise to a presumption of suggestiveness, the People nevertheless rebutted that presumption and sustained their initial burden through the testimony of the detective, which established that she utilized the various databases applying the description of the perpetrator supplied by the complainant … . The detective testified that the complainant was shown the computer-generated photo arrays a day after the incident occurred and then again three days later. The detective’s unrebutted testimony established that 700 to 1,000 photographs were generated by the photo manager system, which were displayed in smaller arrays of photographs, from which, during the third viewing session, the complainant identified the defendant as the person who assaulted her … . “[W]hen a photographic identification procedure involves showing a witness a preexisting file consisting of a large number of photographs, the sheer volume and scope of [the] procedure militates against the presence of suggestiveness'” … . Moreover, the complainant eventually identified the defendant in a lineup. People v Castello, 2019 NY Slip Op 07085, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

IN DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION AND GRANTING MOTHER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE HER CHILD SUPPORT, FAMILY COURT RELIED ON HEARSAY AND EVIDENCE NOT TESTED BY CROSS-EXAMINATION, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s petition for modification of child support should not have been denied and mother’s motion to terminate her child support obligations should not have been granted based on hearsay and evidence not tested by cross-examination:

… [F]ather filed a petition to modify the child support order … . The father asserted, as a change of circumstance, that the child was living with him. The mother moved for summary judgment dismissing the father’s petition, and for termination of her child support obligation, on the ground of parental alienation, contending that the father had unjustifiably frustrated and interfered with her relationship with the child. * * *

The Family Court, in making its determination that the father alienated the child from the mother, improperly relied on inadmissible information that had been provided at court conferences in earlier proceedings before a different judge. The court also improperly relied on hearsay statements and conclusions by an expert, whose credibility was not tested by either party, from an earlier forensic evaluation, and on statements and conclusions by two therapists, whose opinions and credibility were not tested by either party, made at a conference before a different judge … .

Accordingly, we disagree with the Family Court’s determination to grant the mother’s motion for summary judgment and for termination of her child support obligation, we reinstate the father’s petition to modify the child support order … , and we remit the matter to the Family Court … for a hearing on that petition. Matter of McNichol v Reid, 2019 NY Slip Op 07073, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

,

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1306 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted because the bank did not submit proof of compliance with the filing requirements of RPAPL 1306:

Pursuant to RPAPL 1306, lenders “shall file with the superintendent of financial services . . . within three business days of the mailing of the notice required by [RPAPL 1304]” a form containing certain information regarding the borrower and the mortgage (RPAPL 1306[1]; see RPAPL 1306[2]). RPAPL 1306(1) further states that “[a]ny complaint served in [an action] initiated pursuant to [RPAPL article 13] shall contain, as a condition precedent to such [action], an affirmative allegation that at the time the [action] is commenced, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of this section.”

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of compliance with RPAPL 1306. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lyon, 2019 NY Slip Op 07060, Second Dept 10-2-19

 

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