You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

ALTHOUGH THE FREIGHT ELEVATOR WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CODES, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A GATE CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION OF WHICH THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE AWARE, THE OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the building owners’ motion for summary judgment in this elevator accident case should not have been granted. Although the freight elevator was in compliance with all applicable rules, regulations and codes, there was a question of fact whether the absence of a gate constituted a dangerous condition of which the defendants were aware:

… [T]he plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the … defendants were negligent. The plaintiff submitted evidence demonstrating that prior to the accident, the Waterfront defendants were on notice of the dangerous condition of the elevator when they were provided with proposals from their own elevator service company, which proposals stated that because there was no gate on the inside of the elevator platform, an extremely dangerous condition existed … . Romero v Waterfront N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 00486, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

THE DEFECT, A PROTRUDING BOLT UNDER THE HANDRAIL IN A STAIRWAY, WAS TRIVIAL AND NONACTIONABLE, THE $650,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in this slip and fall case should have been granted. The defect, a protruding bolt, was deemed trivial and nonactionable:

… [T]he plaintiff’s evidence at trial included her own testimony, the testimony of her expert engineer, as well as photographs identified and marked by the plaintiff showing the alleged defect as it existed at the time of the subject accident. Accepting such evidence as true, and affording the plaintiff every favorable inference that may be properly drawn from the facts presented … , the alleged defect was not actionable. Considering the appearance and dimensions of the protruding bolt, as well as its location on the sidewall of the staircase, directly underneath a handrail and away from the walking surface of the stairway… , the defect was trivial as a matter of law. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint should have been granted … . Rambarran v New York City Tr. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00484, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, , ,

UNWARNED STATEMENTS MADE DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION AND STATEMENTS MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, SOME UNPRESERVED APPELLATE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a partial dissent, reversed defendant’s bribery and falsely reporting an incident convictions, in the interest of justice, and ordered a new trial. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. Defendant was accused of assault by her husband. The police called her to the station where she was interviewed. After she was told she would be placed under arrest she allegedly offered sex and money to the interviewing officer (Officer Persaud) to make the charges go away. The officer wore a wire to record further conversations about the bribery. After defendant was arraigned and represented by counsel, defendant was again interviewed in the back of a police car (by Sargeant Klein and her partner) concerning the alleged bribery. That conversation was also recorded. Statements made during custodial interrogation that were not preceded by Miranda warnings and statements made to police officers in the absence of counsel should not have been admitted. Defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object:

Officer Persaud should have known that in telling the defendant that she needed to come to the precinct station house in connection with his investigation into the allegations her husband had made against her, allegations about which she had already been told she would be arrested, placing her in an interview room, and then confronting her with the allegations and the evidence against her, including the existence of the order of protection, he was reasonably likely to elicit from the defendant an incriminating response … . * * *

… [T]the defendant’s alleged bribery of Officer Persaud and her allegedly false reporting of his sexual misconduct during that same encounter were “so inextricably interwoven in terms of both their temporal proximity and factual interrelationship” as to render unavoidable the conclusion that any interrogation concerning the allegedly false report would inevitably elicit incriminating responses regarding the matter in which there had been an entry of counsel… . Furthermore, the police were aware that the defendant was actually represented by an attorney and the interrogation actually entailed an infringement of her constitutional right to counsel by impermissible questioning on the represented crimes … . * * *

… [T]he defendant demonstrated the absence of “a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented” … for defense counsel’s stipulation to admission of a recording of the entire interview between the defendant and Sergeant Klein and her partner, and his failure to object to Sergeant Klein’s testimony recounting the same interview, or Officer Persaud’s testimony in which he recounted numerous statements made by the defendant, of which the People failed to provide notice as required by CPL 710.30(1)(a). People v Stephans, 2019 NY Slip Op 00473, Second Dept 1-23-19

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, RIGHT TO COUNSEL

,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED AT SENTENCING WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating an order of protection issued at sentencing and affirming the conviction, determined defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal was invalid:

… [T]he record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it … . The Supreme Court did not provide the defendant with an adequate explanation of the nature of the right to appeal or the consequences of waiving that right … . The court’s explanation was little more than a tautology: “[Y]ou have given up your right to appeal. Which means there will be no appeal with regards to anything in your case, and the only exception to that would be an illegal sentence or some constitutional issue. But basically you have given up your right to appeal. Do you understand?” … . Furthermore, the court’s statements at the plea allocution suggested that waiving the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right which the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish, and the court never elicited an acknowledgment that the defendant was voluntarily waiving his right to appeal… .

Although the record on appeal reflects that the defendant signed a written appeal waiver form, a written waiver “is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal” … . * * *

… [T]the Supreme Court failed to state on the record the reasons for issuing the order of protection at the time of sentencing …  Furthermore, … the court failed to fix the duration of the order of protection … . Under these circumstances, we vacate the order of protection issued at the time of sentencing … . People v Moncrieft, 2019 NY Slip Op 00466, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

,

BASED ON THE SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY CULPABILITY IN THIS RAPE AND MURDER CASE, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his murder conviction. The defendant and his codefendant, DiPippo, were convicted of the 1995 rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. At DiPippo’s third trial DiPippo was allowed to present evidence of third culpability. The third party, Gombert, had allegedly confessed to a fellow inmate. After DiPippo’s acquittal, defendant moved to vacate his conviction based upon the newly discovered evidence of third party culpability. The motion was denied without a hearing. The matter was remitted for a hearing:

The court which entered a judgment of conviction may, on motion of the defendant, vacate the judgment on the ground that “[n]ew evidence has been discovered since the entry of a judgment based upon a verdict of guilty after trial, which could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial even with due diligence on his part and which is of such character as to create a probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant; provided that a motion based upon such ground must be made with due diligence after the discovery of such alleged new evidence”… .

“Once the parties have filed papers and all documentary evidence or information has been submitted, the court is obligated to consider the submitted material for the purpose of ascertaining whether the motion is determinable without a hearing to resolve questions of fact'”… . “[W]hether a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a CPL 440.10 motion is a discretionary determination” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the County Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction. In view of the parties’ submissions, particularly the third-party culpability evidence relating to Gombert, a hearing is necessary to promote justice … . Following a full evidentiary hearing, the court will be in a position to “make its final decision based upon the likely cumulative effect of the new evidence had it been presented at trial” … . People v Krivak, 2019 NY Slip Op 00464, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

AFFIRMATION CONTESTING SERVICE DID NOT CONFORM TO NEW YORK LAW AND THEREFORE DID NOT REBUT THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined that defendant’s affirmation did not conform to New York law and therefore was not sufficient to rebut the process server’s affidavit of service. Defendant’s made his affirmation in front of a notary in Israel, but the affirmation did not indicate it was made under penalty of perjury:

“[A]ny person who, for religious or other reasons, wishes to use an affirmation as an alternative to a sworn statement may do so,” but such affirmation “must be made before a notary public or other authorized official,” and the affirmant must “be answerable for the crime of perjury should he make a false statement” … . Furthermore, an affirmation from a person physically located outside the geographic boundaries of the United States must comply with the additional formalities of CPLR 2309 (c), and must, in substance, affirm that the statement is true under the penalties of perjury under the laws of New York (see CPLR 2106 [b]). While the defendant’s identity was verified by an authorized official in Israel acting in the capacity of a notary, the affirmation itself failed to indicate that the statements made therein were true under the penalties of perjury. Therefore, the affirmation was without probative value … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Langner, 2019 NY Slip Op 00492 [168 AD3d 1021], Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

PROVIDING ILLEGAL HIV MEDICATIONS TO A PHARMACY FOR RESALE: (1) DID NOT CONSTITUTE GRAND LARCENY BECAUSE THE AGENT OF THE PHARMACY TO WHOM THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED KNEW THE DRUGS WERE ILLEGAL AND THAT KNOWLEDGE IS IMPUTED TO THE CORPORATION; AND (2) DID NOT CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BECAUSE THE DRUGS WERE PROVIDED TO A CORPORATION, NOT TO A PERSON WHO HAD NO MEDICAL NEED FOR THEM. AN UNSEALED COMPILATION OF WIRETAP RECORDINGS CONSTRUCTED FROM SEALED ORIGINALS WAS ADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, reversing defendant’s grand larceny and criminal diversion of prescription medications convictions, determined that: (1) the knowledge of the agent of the pharmacy to whom the illegal HIV drugs were provided must be imputed to the corporation, therefore the corporation was deemed to know it was receiving and selling illegal drugs; (2) the statute prohibiting criminal diversion of prescription drugs is aimed at street sales of prescription drugs to those who have no medical need for them, therefore the statute does not apply to supplying illegal drugs to a pharmacy for resale; (3) the moneylaundering convictions and related sentences should be affirmed; and (4) a compilation of wiretap recordings, although not sealed, was made from properly sealed recordings and was properly authenticated, therefore the compilation was admissible:

… [T]here is no statutory requirement that a properly authenticated composite recording be compared against the sealed original recording. Three simultaneous original recordings of the intercepted communications were created in this case. The composite recording was compared against an original version of the recordings, and [a witness] testified that the composite recording was a true and accurate reflection of the content of the original. ,,, [A] sealed version of the original recording existed to deter alteration of, and permit challenge to, the composite, thus satisfying the statute. * * *

[Re; Grand Larceny:] The People’s theory in this case was that the defendant … wrongfully took money from [the pharmacy] by falsely representing that the medications they were selling were lawful to sell, transfer, and dispense. The defendant argues … that the People failed to prove that such a false representation of past or existing fact was made to [the pharmacy] because [the agent] , a high managerial employee of [the pharmacy], knew that the medications were not lawful to sell, transfer, and dispense, and thus, [the pharmacy], by imputation, also knew this fact. We agree. * * *

[Re: Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medications Penal Law § 178.25:] The defendant does not challenge the People’s premises that (1) the medications had left the legitimate stream of commerce rendered them “adulterated,” and (2) one cannot have a “medical need” for adulterated medications, as the term “medical need” is used in the statute. Thus, we do not address the validity of these premises. However, the defendant challenges the applicability of this statute to his alleged conduct on the basis that, by its terms, the statute cannot apply to a transfer of prescription medications to a corporation, as opposed to a person capable of having medical needs. Again, we agree. People v Gross, 2019 NY Slip Op 00461, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VAN AFTER HE LEARNED THAT DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, WAS SMOKING A CIGAR, NOT MARIJUANA, SUPREME COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH WAS ERROR, THERE WAS UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THE VAN WAS DEFENDANT’S WORK VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined that the police officer did not have probable cause to search the van where the weapon was found. The defendant was sitting in the passenger seat smoking a cigar when the officer approached and removed him from the van, apparently because the officer thought defendant was smoking marijuana. At the time the officer searched the van, he know defendant was smoking a cigar. Although defendant was sitting in the passenger seat, there was no evidence to contradict his claim that the van was his work vehicle. Contrary to Supreme Court’s contrary finding (made sua sponte), the defendant had standing to contest the search:

The officer testified that he removed the defendant from the minivan and frisked him out of a fear for the officer’s own safety; no weapon was recovered. The officer further testified that, at that time, he realized that the two men were smoking cigars, not marijuana. Nevertheless, the officer went around the minivan to the driver’s side and opened the sliding door on that side, whereupon he observed a firearm sticking out of a bag behind the driver’s seat.

We disagree with the hearing court’s determination, sua sponte, that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the minivan. The defendant, who had told the police at the police station that the minivan was his work van, had standing to challenge the search. Although the defendant had been sitting in the front passenger seat of the minivan, no evidence was presented to contradict his statements that it was his work van. The defendant’s statements were sufficient to establish that he exercised sufficient dominion and control over the minivan to demonstrate his own legitimate expectation of privacy therein… .

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … . Contrary to the People’s contention, under the circumstances here, where the defendant already had been removed from the minivan and no one else was in the minivan, the police lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless search by opening the sliding door of the minivan, and the weapon found as a result of the unlawful search should have been suppressed … . People v Dessasau, 2019 NY Slip Op 00456, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THIS DIVORCE ACTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint in this divorce action, sua sponte, on a ground not raised by the parties:

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised in the defendant’s motion … . “[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court”… . The plaintiff had no opportunity to address the issue regarding the allegedly defective summons, and this “lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion and cross motion, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a determination of the motion and cross motion on the merits … . Patel v Sharma, 2019 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

,

IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT IT MUST CONSIDER, THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE MATTER REMITTED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department annulled the zoning board’s determination and remitted the matter for reconsideration of the petition seeking an area variance allowing a two-family home in a single-family zone:

In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board must engage in a balancing test weighing “the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted . . . against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant” (…see Town Law § 267-b[3][b]…). The zoning board must also consider: “(i) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (ii) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (iii) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (iv) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (v) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance” … .

We agree with the Supreme Court that, although the Board engaged in the required balancing test, the Board failed to meaningfully consider the relevant statutory factors. While the proposed variances were clearly substantial and the alleged difficulty was self-created, the Board’s failure to cite to particular evidence as to whether granting the variances would have an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood, adversely impact physical and environmental conditions, or otherwise result in a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community requires reconsideration of the application, weighing all of these factors … . Matter of Mengisopolous v Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Glen Cove, 2019 NY Slip Op 00440, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

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