You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

Jury Instructions Which Lumped Counts Together and Did Not Give the Jury the Information Necessary to Distinguish One Count from Another Mandated a New Trial

The Second Department determined a new trial was required because the jury instructions were defective.  The court lumped counts charging the same crime together when explaining the elements, but did not give the jury any indication how the counts differed from one another.  The jury was given no indication which counts implicated defendant as an accessory and which counts implicated defendant as a principal:

We agree with the defendant that the charge, as given, suggested that if the jury found the defendant guilty of any one of the subject counts, it should find him guilty of all three counts. Furthermore, because the court’s charge failed to define the counts in a way that would distinguish them from one another, the jury could not have known which count was based on a finding that the defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant and which count was based on accessorial liability and a finding that the codefendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant. Contrary to the People’s contention, parenthetical notations on the verdict sheet cannot supplant a court’s duty to charge the jury as required by CPL 300.10(4). Since it is not possible to determine whether the jury here actually found that the defendant had himself engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant or that he had acted as an accessory to the codefendant’s sexual intercourse with the complainant, the defendant is entitled to a new trial on those charges … . People v Jadharry, 2014 NY Slip Op 04028, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

Courts Will Not Intercede to Resolve a Dispute Between Two Wrongdoers—“In Pari Delicto”

The Second Department explained the doctrine of in pari delicto, where a court will not resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers:

“The doctrine of in pari delicto mandates that the courts will not intercede to resolve a dispute between two wrongdoers. The doctrine survives because it serves important public policy purposes. First, denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer deters illegality. Second, in pari delicto avoids entangling courts in disputes between wrongdoers” … . The evidence established that the plaintiff knew that the defendants were offering to sell what amounted to a franchise as defined by General Business Law § 681(3), to multiple persons at the same time that the plaintiff and the defendants entered into their agreement, and that the plaintiff was both aware of and complicit in the defendants’ violation of the Franchise Sales Act. Under the circumstances, the court properly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto, “not to favor [the]; defendant, but as a matter of public policy” … . Burgers Bar Five Towns LLC v Burger Holdings Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 03870, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

Criteria for Setting Aside a Stipulation of Settlement Explained

In finding plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement was properly denied, the Second Department explained the operative principles:

“Stipulations of settlement are judicially favored, will not lightly be set aside, and are to be enforced with rigor and without a searching examination into their substance’ as long as they are clear, final and the product of mutual accord'” … . A stipulation of settlement may not be set aside except on a showing of fraud, collusion, mistake, or accident … . Yan Ping Liang v Wei Xuan Gao, 2014 NY Slip Op 04003, 2nd Dept 6-4-14

 

Domestic Relations Order Must Conform to Stipulation of Settlement

The Second Department noted that a domestic relations order must conform to any relevant stipulation.  If it does not conform, it must be amended to conform:

“Where a [domestic relations order]; is inconsistent with the provisions of a stipulation or judgment of divorce, courts possess the authority to amend the [domestic relations order]; to accurately reflect the provisions of the stipulation pertaining to the pension benefits” … . “A proper [domestic relations order]; obtained pursuant to a stipulation of settlement can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment”… . Mondshein v Mondshein, 2014 NY Slip Op 03806, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

, ,

Probationary Employee Fired in Bad Faith for Union Work—Supreme Court Had the Power to Reinstate Her But Not to Grant Her Tenure

The Second Department determined a probationary teacher demonstrated she was terminated in bad faith.  The court noted that Supreme Court did not have the power to grant the probationary teacher tenure, something only the administrative agency has the power to do:

A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law … . The petitioner bears the burden of presenting competent proof of the alleged bad faith, the violation of statutory or decisional law, or the constitutionally impermissible or illegal purpose … . Here, the petitioner met her burden of demonstrating that the discontinuation of her probationary employment was made in bad faith, showing that the discontinuation followed a letter she wrote to the principal, in her capacity as a union chapter leader, requesting to make up her missed preparation periods. Although, generally, evidence of unsatisfactory performance rebuts a showing of bad faith …, in response to the petitioner’s showing, the appellants failed to establish that the discontinuance of the petitioner’s probationary employment was the result of poor performance. The record demonstrates that the petitioner began [*2]to receive “Unsatisfactory” ratings only after she asked the principal to make up her missed preparation periods, and it was at that point that the evaluations of the petitioner’s performance began to precipitously decline. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly annulled the determination and reinstated the petitioner to her former position, with retroactive seniority, backpay, and benefits … .

However, the appellants correctly contend that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by granting the petitioner tenure effective as of January 25, 2009. ” While the court is empowered to determine whether the administrative body acted arbitrarily, it may not usurp the administrative function by directing the agency to proceed in a specific manner, which is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the administrative body in the first instance'” … . Matter of Capece v Schultz, 2014 NY Slip Op 03834, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic Court’s Denial of Father’s Application for Return of the Child

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed father’s petition for custody, despite a Dominican Republic court-ruling denying father’s application for return of the child. The application for return of the child was made pursuant to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention). The father’s petition for custody in New York was deemed proper under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.  The New York custody petition was not preempted by the court ruling in the Dominican Republic:

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) governs a New York State court’s jurisdiction in international child custody matters (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-d). Domestic Relations Law § 76, which establishes initial child custody jurisdiction, provides, inter alia, that a court of this Sate has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if this State is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding (see Domestic Relations Law § 76[a]). “Home state” is defined [*2]as the state in which a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-a[7]). While “state” is defined as a “state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (Domestic Relations Law 75-a[15]), pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, a “court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-d[1]).

The Convention, “done at The Hague on October 25, 1980, establishes legal rights and procedures for the prompt return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained, as well as for securing the exercise of visitation rights” (42 USC § 11601[a];[4]). “The Convention seeks to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State and to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States” … . The Convention provides that a child abducted in violation of rights of custody must be returned to his or her country of habitual residence, unless certain exceptions apply … . Return is not required, for example, if the abducting parent can establish that there is a grave risk that the child’s return would expose him or her “to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation” … . A decision under the Convention is not a determination on the merits of any custody issue, but leaves custodial decisions to the courts of the country of habitual residence … .

Here, it is undisputed that the United States was the child’s country of habitual residence, and that, at the time the petition was filed, New York was the child’s “home state.” Thus, the Family Court had jurisdiction to determine the father’s petition for custody (see Domestic Relations Law § 76[a]). Moreover, the denial, by the court in the Dominican Republic, of the father’s application for a return of the child pursuant to the Convention, did not preempt his custody proceeding … . Accordingly, the Family Court erred in dismissing the father’s petition. Matter of Katz v Katz, 2014 NY Slip Op 03841, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

,

Case Summary by Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and Sworn Felony Complaint Constitute Clear and Convincing Evidence in a SORA Proceeding

The Second Department determined the case summary provided by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the sworn felony complaint provided clear and convincing evidence of continuing sexual misconduct against the victim:

In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) (see Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n[3]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]…). ” In assessing points, evidence may be derived from . . . the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay'” … .

Here, the case summary and the sworn felony complaint constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]…)  and provided clear and convincing evidence to warrant the assessment of 20 points under risk factor four, for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct against the victim … .  People v Patronick, 2014 NY Slip Op 03816, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

,

Evidence Defendant Had Victimized Other Children Justified Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding

The Second Department determined that clear and convincing evidence defendant had victimized other children justified an upward departure in the SORA proceeding:

…[T]he court’s classification of the defendant as a level three sex offender was justified. The People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had engaged in sexual misconduct with children other than the child whose victimization led to the defendant’s conviction. This constituted aggravating factors of a kind not otherwise taken into account by the guidelines that warranted an upward departure to level three … . People v DeJesus, 2014 NY Slip Op 03815, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

“Serious Physical Injury” Element of Gang Assault Not Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence

The Second Department determined the evidence of the “serious physical injury” element of the gang assault charge was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

The defendant challenges his conviction of gang assault in the first degree, asserting that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence that [the victim] suffered a “serious physical injury,” which is defined as “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ” (Penal Law § 10.00[10]). * * *

Although [the victim] was stabbed in the right flank, his wounds required no stitches, and there was no evidence that he suffered any permanent damage to his kidney, which suffered a small laceration. Moreover, when he was examined, [the victim] was oriented and alert, able to converse, and had normal vital signs and blood pressure. Further, the only evidence of protracted disfigurement or impairment of health was that he had a scar, which the jury saw, and that he felt pain on the scar. The record, however, includes no description of the scar or what, if any, limitations [the victim] suffered as a result of his injury. Thus, the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that [the victim] suffered a “serious physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(10), which is an element of gang assault in the first degree … . People v Mazariego, 2014 NY Slip Op 03863, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department Was a Valid Ground for Sentence Enhancement

The Second Department determined the defendant’s refusing to be interviewed by the probation department was a valid ground for a sentence enhancement:

A defendant’s “failure to abide by a condition of a plea agreement to truthfully answer questions asked by [a]; probation department is an appropriate basis for the enhancement of the defendant’s sentence” … . Here, the plea condition requiring the defendant to cooperate with the Dutchess County Office of Probation and Community Corrections (hereinafter the OPCC) was explicit and objective, and the plea allocution reveals that the defendant acknowledged, understood, and accepted such condition … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly imposed an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant’s violation of the condition by refusing to be interviewed by the OPCC. People v Mazyck, 2014 NY Slip Op 03864, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

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