You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF’S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants demonstrated plaintiff's emerging from between parked cars and attempting to cross the street where there was no crosswalk constituted the sole proximate cause of the pedestrian-vehicle accident

… [T]he defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff, given his actions in crossing the street as he did at the time of the accident, violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1152(a) and was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion on the ground, among others, that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant driver operated the vehicle in a negligent manner. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion, and the defendants appeal.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the conduct of the plaintiff in crossing the street at a location other than at an intersection, while emerging from between vehicles in the left lane of eastbound traffic, was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and that the defendant driver was free from fault despite the plaintiff's allegation that he failed to avoid a collision with the plaintiff … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver operated the vehicle in a negligent manner or failed to see that which, through proper use of his senses, he should have seen … . Pixtun-Suret v Gevinski, 2018 NY Slip Op 06581, Second Dept 10-3-18

NEGLIGENCE (PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF'S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF'S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/PEDESTRIANS (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF'S EMERGING FROM BETWEEN PARKED CARS AND ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE STREET WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant Department of Education's (DOE's) motion for summary judgment in this negligent hiring, training, retention and supervision action was properly denied. The suit alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a school employee (Denice). Although the abuse did not take place on school premises, it was preceded by inappropriate conduct in the school, including touching:

… [T]he DOE defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that the DOE was not negligent with respect to the hiring, retention, and supervision of Denice. The DOE defendants' own submissions in support of their motion for summary judgment raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the DOE took the appropriate measures to evaluate Denice's employment and fitness at the time he was allowed to intern at the school… . Moreover, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the DOE had notice of the potential for harm to the infant plaintiff such that its alleged negligence in supervising and retaining Denice “placed [Denice] in a position to cause foreseeable harm” … .

Generally, liability may not be imposed upon school authorities where all of the improper acts against a student occurred off school premises and outside school hours … . Here, however, the DOE defendants' submissions demonstrated that, although the sexual abuse ultimately occurred in the infant plaintiff's home, it was preceded by time periods when the infant plaintiff was alone with Denice during school hours on a regular basis. During these times, Denice engaged in inappropriate behavior, including physical touching. Thus, triable issues of fact exist regarding, inter alia, whether the DOE knew or should have known of such behavior and Denice's propensity for sexual abuse … . Johansmeyer v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 06518, Second Dept 10-3-18\

NEGLIGENCE (NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT)

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined questions of fact raised by the police reported precluded summary judgment in plaintiff's favor in this rear-end collision case. Although the police report included inadmissible statements, plaintiff waived any objections by submitting the report with the motion papers:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. In support of the motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit wherein he averred that he gradually brought his vehicle to a stop for a red traffic light and that his vehicle was stopped for approximately three to five seconds when it was struck in the rear by the defendants' vehicle. The plaintiff also submitted, however, an uncertified copy of a police accident report, which stated that according to the defendant driver, the plaintiff's vehicle came to a sudden stop even though the traffic light was green. Although the police report contained self-serving statements not in admissible form, the plaintiff waived any objection to the admissibility of the report by submitting it in support of his motion … . Under the circumstances, triable issues of fact exist, inter alia, as to whether the defendant driver had a nonnegligent explanation for striking the plaintiff's vehicle in the rear … . Grant v Carrasco, 2018 NY Slip Op 06516, Second Dept 10-3-18

NEGLIGENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/REAR-END COLLISIONS (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS  (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))/POLICE REPORTS (EVIDENCE, REAR END COLLISIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT))

,

LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to vacate a default judgment was properly denied because the law-office-failure excuse was insufficient:

” A party seeking to vacate a default in appearing or answering pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), and thereupon to serve a late answer, must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action'” … . “Where a delay or default results from law office failure, a court may exercise its discretion to excuse that delay or default” (…see CPLR 2005). A claim of law office failure should be supported by a “detailed and credible” explanation of the default … . “[M]ere neglect” …  or “[b]are allegations of incompetence on the part of prior counsel”…  are insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse … .

Here, in support of their motion, the corporate defendants submitted an affidavit … , which alleged, without supporting evidence, that prior retained counsel had not informed him of the need to answer the complaint. Such a bare allegation is insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the corporate defendants' default … . Ferraro Foods, Inc. v Guyon, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06515, Second Dept 10-3-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2005 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT  (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE  (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015 (LAW OFFICE FAILURE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT VACATION OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion to cancel and discharge the mortgage based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations should have been granted. The court noted that Supreme Court's imposition of an equitable mortgage was improper under the facts:

RPAPL 1501(4) provides that “[w]here the period allowed by the applicable statute of limitation for the commencement of an action to foreclose a mortgage . . . has expired,” any person with an estate or interest in the property may maintain an action “to secure the cancellation and discharge of record of such encumbrance, and to adjudge the estate or interest of the plaintiff in such real property to be free therefrom”… .

Here, the defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on her counterclaim pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge the mortgage by demonstrating that more than six years had passed since the mortgage was accelerated and therefore this foreclosure action was time-barred … . The plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Thus, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was for summary judgment on her counterclaim pursuant to RPAPL 1501(4) to cancel and discharge the mortgage (see CPLR 213[4]; RPAPL 1501[4]…).

We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination to impose an equitable mortgage in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff never requested this relief, and the defendant was not afforded any notice nor an opportunity to be heard on this issue which amounted to a denial of the defendant's due process rights … . In any event, the doctrine of equitable mortgage is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case, where a legal written mortgage existed … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Nweke, 2018 NY Slip Op 06509, Second Dept 10-3-18

FORECLOSURE (DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (FORECLOSURE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/EQUITABLE MORTGAGE  (DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although defendants received timely notice of a lawsuit, they were never served with the summons and complaint. The affidavit of the process server demonstrated due diligence in a failure to serve defendants, residents of Israel, at a New York address. The default judgment, therefore, was a nullity:

CPLR 317 applies where a defendant was served by means other than personal delivery, did not receive notice of the action, and has a potentially meritorious defense… . Here, the defendants claimed they were never served. Therefore, they sought to vacate the default judgment against them pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) for lack of personal jurisdiction. On this point, the affidavit of service of a process server generally constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service… . In this case, however, the process server submitted affidavits of exercising due diligence to attempt service, not affidavits of service.

If service is not made, the default judgment is a nullity … . If a defendant is not served, “notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot serve to bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court”… .

Since the defendants were not served, the defendants' motion to vacate so much of the judgment entered December 19, 2013, as was in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $676,928.23, and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them should have been granted. 2004 McDonald Ave. Corp. v KGYM Holdings Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 06508, Second Dept 10-3-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER'S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 317 (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER'S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5015  (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER'S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (CIVIL PROCEDURE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER'S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT))/SERVICE OF PROCESS  (ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS, RESIDENTS OF ISRAEL, HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF A NEW YORK LAWSUIT, THE PROCESS SERVER'S AFFIDAVIT INDICATES DUE DILIGENCE IN A FAILED ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANTS AT A NEW YORK ADDRESS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WERE NEVER SERVED, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT))

,

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EVIDENCE IN AN UNSWORN PRESENTENCE REPORT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant's motion to set aside his conviction was properly denied. The defendant argued that the complainant's version of events as stated in the presentence report was newly discovered evidence because it differed from the complainant's trial testimony. The court held that the unsworn presentence report did not meet the statutory requirements for a motion to set aside a conviction:

The “power to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is of statutory origin and strict compliance with the statute is necessary” … . In support of the defendant's motion, he submitted his attorney's affirmation, to which the attorney attached a copy of the presentence report. However, the presentence report did not satisfy the requirement that the defendant submit sworn allegations in support of his motion (see CPL 330.40[2][a]).

A presentence report does not contain sworn allegations. Indeed, probation officers are directed, in preparing their report, to include “an analysis of as much of the information gathered in the investigation as the agency that conducted the investigation deems relevant to the question of sentence” (CPL 390.30[3][a]). It is not mandated, nor expected, that a presentence report include a verbatim account of the complainant's words. Indeed, some presentence reports do not contain victim impact statements. The presentence report is not sworn to by the probation officer who prepares the report. Accordingly, while a presentence report is deemed generally reliable for sentencing purposes, its information “need not always be credited” and at best constitutes “reliable hearsay” … .

Since the “moving papers [did] not contain sworn allegations of all facts essential to support the motion,” the Supreme Court was able to make its determination on the basis of the motion papers and, thus, did not err in failing to hold a hearing … . People v Windsor, 2018 NY Slip Op 06576, Second Dept 10-3-18

CRIMINAL LAW (MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EVIDENCE IN AN UNSWORN PRESENTENCE REPORT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED, EVIDENCE IN AN UNSWORN PRESENTENCE REPORT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, ISSUE REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined defendant was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender. The issue was not preserved but was reviewed in the interest of justice:

The predicate felony statement filed by the People did not set forth the dates of the defendant’s incarceration since the commission of his prior felony in 1996, as required by CPL 400.21(2). Consequently, the People failed to establish a sufficient tolling period to qualify the defendant’s 1996 conviction as a predicate felony under Penal Law § 70.06(1)(b)(iv) and (v) … . People v Spencer, 2018 NY Slip Op 06574, Second Dept 10-3-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, ISSUE REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING  (DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, ISSUE REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER  (DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, ISSUE REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, ISSUE REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant's conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed on a lesser included offense, evidence of defendant's pretrial silence should not have been admitted, and there was misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. The prosecutorial misconduct issues were not preserved, but the issues were reviewed in the interest of justice. The prosecutorial misconduct alone justified reversal:

… [C]riminally negligent homicide, in addition to manslaughter in the second degree, is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree … , and, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, should have been charged. Had the jury credited the defendant's account of the incident, it reasonably could have concluded that the defendant did not intend to cause serious physical injury and that he failed to perceive that his conduct created a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would occur … . …

… [T]the defendant correctly contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to question him about his post-arrest silence, because, although the defendant initially responded to certain questions asked by the police, he effectively invoked his right to remain silent and offered no information regarding the essential facts of his involvement in the crime … . …

The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial due to the prosecutor's improper comments during summation is, for the most part, unpreserved for our review (see CPL 470.05[2]). However, we reach the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . The prosecutor engaged in misconduct throughout his summation, inter alia, by continuously referring to the defendant as a liar, misstating evidence, denigrating the defense, shifting the burden of proof, attempting to arouse the sympathies of the jurors, and vouching for his witnesses' credibility … . The cumulative effect of the prosecutor's improper comments deprived the defendant of a fair trial … . People v Flores, 2018 NY Slip Op 06557, Second Dept 10-3-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT  (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))/INTEREST OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS EXPLAINED, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined evidence of prior domestic abuse was properly admitted in this criminal contempt proceeding. The court explained the criteria for the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and bad acts (Molineux evidence):

“[E]vidence of a defendant's uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged” … . Even where there is a proper nonpropensity purpose, “the decision whether to admit evidence of defendant's prior bad acts rests upon the trial court's discretionary balancing of probative value and unfair prejudice” … . Thus, “[a]dmissibility of evidence under these principles is determined by reference to a two-part inquiry . . . The first level of this inquiry requires the proponent of the evidence, as a threshold matter, to identify some issue, other than mere criminal propensity, to which the evidence is relevant . . . Once such a showing is made, the court must go on to weigh the evidence's probative worth against its potential for mischief to determine whether it should ultimately be placed before the fact finder. This weighing process is discretionary, but the threshold problem of identifying a specific issue, other than propensity, to which the evidence pertains poses a question of law”… .

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did conduct the requisite “two-part inquiry.” The court determined that evidence of the defendant's prior acts of abuse against the complainant were admissible “as relevant background material regarding the defendant's relationship with the complainant, to explain the issuance of a temporary order of protection, and as evidence of the defendant's motive and intent in the commission of the charged crimes” … . The court then concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant …. Furthermore, the court gave the jury appropriate limiting instructions, to which defense counsel did not object, as to the limited purpose for which that evidence was received … . People v Bittrolff, 2018 NY Slip Op 06551, Second Dept 10-3-18

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE, CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS EXPLAINED, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS EXPLAINED, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT)/MOLINEUX (CRIMINAL LAW, CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS EXPLAINED, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT))/UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS (CRIMINAL LAW, EVIDENCE, CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS EXPLAINED, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT))

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