You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Challenge to Environmental Impact Statement Premature/Not Ripe for Adjudication Until the Special Use Permit and Site-Plan Approval (which Precipated the Enviromental Review) Are Issued

The Second Department determined a challenge to finding pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was not ripe.  The environmental review was precipitatied by an application for a special use permit and site-plan approval.  Although the town board had approved the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), the special use permit and site-plan approval were still pending:

An action taken by an agency pursuant to SEQRA may be challenged only when such action is final (see CPLR 7801[1]). An agency action is final when the decisionmaker arrives at a ” definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'” … . The position taken by an agency is not definitive and the injury is not actual or concrete if the injury purportedly inflicted by the agency could be prevented, significantly ameliorated, or rendered moot by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party … .Here, the issuance of a SEQRA findings statement did not inflict injury in the absence of an actual determination of the subject applications for a special use permit and site-plan approval and, thus, the challenge to the adoption of the findings statement is not ripe for adjudication… . Matter of Patel v Board of Trustees of Inc Vil of Muttontown, 2014 NY Slip Op 01756, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

,

County Not Necessary Party In Suit to Recover Taxes Wrongfully Paid to Town

The Second Department determined plaintiff [Verizon] could seek the refund of wrongfully collected taxes against the town which collected them and the town could then seek reimbursement from the county.  The county was not a necessary party in the action brought by the plaintiff.  Plaintiff was the owner of “mass property” (power lines, poles, transformers, etc) which had been subject to taxes for refuse collection.  The Court of Appeals ruled “mass property,” which produced no garbage, could not be so taxed:

Pursuant to the County Guaranty, the County is liable for refunds of tax payments made in connection with levies for special ad valorem taxes … . However, in the actions at bar, Verizon chose to seek refunds from the Town, to which the payments had been made, rather than from the County directly. That was proper in light of our determination that the County is not a necessary party to actions seeking refunds of tax payments made in connection with levies for special ad valorem taxes … . Accordingly, while the Town may seek indemnification from the County pursuant to the County Guaranty, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the Town is liable for these refunds in the first instance, and can be sued directly by a taxpayer. Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in entering the judgments against the Town defendants.  New York Tel Co v Supervisor of Town of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 01726, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

, ,

Plaintiff Arrested Without a Warrant Based Upon Illegally Seized Evidence Granted Summary Judgment in False Arrest/Imprisonment Action

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his false arrest/imprisonment cause of action. Plaintiff was arrested without an arrest warrant based upon evidence seized in an illegal search:

“In order to prevail on a cause of action seeking to recover damages for false arrest or imprisonment, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was aware of the resulting confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged” … . ” The existence of probable cause serves as a legal justification for the arrest and an affirmative defense to the claim'” … .When an arrest is made without a warrant, a presumption arises that it was unlawful, and a defendant must then show that a factual question exists as to whether the arrest was based on probable cause … . Evidence which is illegally obtained in violation of a plaintiff’s rights may not be used to establish probable cause … . Fakoya v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 01709, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

,

Prosecutor’s Remarks in Summation, in Combination with the Erroneous Admission of Portions of a Recorded Phone Call Made by the Defendant from Jail, Warranted Reversal

In reversing defendant’s conviction, in part, because of the prosecutor’s remarks in summation, the Second Department wrote:

…[C]ertain comments in the prosecutor’s summation were improper, including the comments in which the prosecutor denigrated the defense, vouched for the truthfulness of prosecution witnesses, and shifted the burden of proof to the defense by, inter alia, stating that the defendant had not established reasonable doubt or established that the People’s witnesses were untruthful or engaged in a “conspiracy,” and improperly commented on the defendant’s failure to call a certain witness… .  People v King, 2014 NY Slip Op 01770, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

Motion to Renew Granted in Interest of Justice Despite Knowledge of Facts at Time of Original Motion/Motion to Vacate Default Granted Based On Law Office Failure

The Second Department determined a motion to renew was properly granted, in the interest of justice, even though the facts were known at the time of the original motion.  The court also determined, under the facts, the motion to vacate a default judgment was properly granted on the ground of law office failure:

A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion which would change the prior determination, and must contain a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e][2]…). However, “[t]he rule is not inflexible, and renewal may be granted in the court’s discretion, in the interest of justice, even on facts that were known to the movant at the time of the original motion” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion of the defendants …  which was for leave to renew that branch of their prior motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court as granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to enter a default judgment … .

Upon renewal, the Supreme Court also properly permitted the Lee defendants to interpose an answer to the complaint and precluded the plaintiff from enforcing the default judgment … . In moving pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) to vacate a default, the movant is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005). Here, the … defendants’ principal affirmed that he retained prior counsel to oppose the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment, but that prior counsel nevertheless failed to oppose the motion, which was granted without opposition. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in accepting this explanation as an excusable default … . The …defendants also demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the action … . In addition, there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff from the delay in answering, and no evidence of an intent by the Lee defendants to abandon any defenses to the action.  Shin v ITCI Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01600, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

“Law Office Failure” Excuse for Failure to Enter a Default Judgment Within One Year Not Sufficient

The Second Department determined that the offered “law office failure” excuse for failing to enter a default judgment within the one-year time limit was not sufficient:

CPLR 3215(c), entitled “Default not entered within one year,” provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after the default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed” (emphasis added). “To avoid dismissal of the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215(c), a plaintiff must offer a reasonable excuse for his or her delay and must demonstrate that the complaint is meritorious” … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse as to why it did not seek to enter a judgment against the defendant until nearly three years after his failure to answer or appear (see CPLR 3215[c]…). The excuse of law office failure proffered by the plaintiff in its moving papers was “vague, conclusory, and unsubstantiated” and, thus, did not constitute a sufficient excuse for the plaintiff’s extended delay in moving to enter a default judgment after the defendant’s default… . GMAC v Minewiser, 2014 NY Slip Op 01581, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

Defendant Properly Sentenced As a Youthful Offender on One Indictment But Not on a Second Indictment

The Second Department determined the sentencing court properly sentenced defendant as a youthful offender under one indictment and properly declined to sentence defendant as a youthful offender under a second indictment:

The defendant contends that, because the sentencing court granted him youthful offender status with respect to Indictment No. 12-00529, it was required to do so with respect to Indictment No. 12-01380. The defendant was not convicted of two crimes set forth in separate counts of a single indictment, nor was he convicted of two crimes set forth in two separate indictments consolidated for trial purposes (see CPL 720.20[2]). Therefore, the sentencing court was authorized in its discretion to determine that the defendant was a youthful offender with respect to either or both convictions … . Accordingly, the sentencing court properly determined that it may find the defendant a youthful offender with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 12-00529, but not with respect to his conviction under Indictment No. 12-01380.  People v Shaquille Mc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01633, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

, ,

Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that a new trial was required because the prosecutor created the impression a non-testifying witness [Drake] had identified the defendant as the shooter.  Although the error was not preserved by objection, the court addressed the issue in the interest of justice.  The court noted as well that the defense counsel’s objections to the prosecutor’s comments during summation (which reinforced the impression) were erroneously overruled:

Generally, during cross-examination, a party cannot introduce extrinsic evidence or call another witness to contradict a witness’s answers concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching such witness’s credibility … . As the defendant correctly contends, during the cross-examination of Lloyd, the prosecutor improperly gave the impression that Drake, who did not testify, implicated the defendant while the police questioned her … . Notably, the prosecutor acknowledged at the second trial that Drake had testified at the initial trial, and that Drake had not identified the defendant as having been present at the party.

The defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he [or she] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant ha[s] had a prior opportunity for cross-examination” (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 53-54; see People v Pealer, 20 NY3d 447, 453, cert denied _____US_____, 134 S Ct 105). Here, the defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him was violated.  People v Lloyd, 2014 NY Slip Op 01631, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

Defendant Company’s Failure to Keep Current Address On File With Secretary of State Was Not an Adequate Excuse for Default

The Second Department determined that the failure of defendant limited liability company to maintain its current address with the Secretary of State precluded defendant from successfully opposing the motion to enter a default judgment (based upon defendant’s failure to answer:)

To successfully oppose a motion for leave to enter a default judgment based on the failure to appear or timely serve an answer, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1]…). The defendant contended that it maintained an old address on file with the Secretary of State, and denied receipt of copies of the summons and complaint. However, the defendant’s unexplained failure to keep the Secretary of State apprised of its current address over a significant period of time did not constitute a reasonable excuse … .

Furthermore, the defendant was not entitled to vacatur of its default pursuant to CPLR 317. The defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence that, for a period of more than five years, the defendant failed to file, with the Secretary of State, the required biennial form that would have apprised the Secretary of State of its current address (see Limited Liability Company Law § 301[e]). Under these circumstances, the defendants’ failure to personally receive copies of the summons and complaint was a result of a deliberate attempt to avoid notice of actions commenced against it… . Cruz v Keter Residence LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01575, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

, ,

Youthful Offender Privilege Explained/Privilege Not Waived By Denial of the Act Which Was the Subject of the Youthful Offender Adjudication in Subsequent Civil Suit

The Second Department determined the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege associated with his youthful offender status. Although defendant’s son had pled guilty to an assault based upon his throwing an egg, he denied throwing the egg in his deposition during the related civil proceedings.  That denial did not waive the privilege and the plaintiff could not gain access to the records of the criminal proceedings:

The youthful offender statute (CPL article 720) provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders, which ” emanate from a legislative desire not to stigmatize youths between the ages of 16 and 19 with criminal records triggered by hasty or thoughtless acts which, although crimes, may not have been the serious deeds of hardened criminals'” … . Thus, “[a] youthful offender adjudication is not a judgment of conviction for a crime or any other offense” (CPL 720.35[1]). Further, pursuant to CPL 720.35(2), all official records and papers concerning the adjudication are sealed. * * *

The privilege created by this statute attaches not only to the physical documents constituting the official record, but also to the information contained within those documents … . Thus, a person adjudicated a youthful offender may refuse to answer questions regarding the charges and police investigation, whether he or she pleaded guilty, and whether a youthful offender adjudication was made. However, the person must still answer questions regarding the facts underlying the adjudication … . * * *

Here, the defendant’s son did not waive the privilege afforded by the statute since he did not commence an action which places the conduct at issue … . The defendant did not assert counterclaims or cross claims in this action placing the conduct at issue …, and the defendant’s son did not testify as to the confidential contents of the records … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the testimony of the defendant’s son at his deposition denying that he threw the egg which allegedly struck the plaintiff’s daughter did not waive the protections of the statute … . Castiglione v James FQ, 2014 NY Slip Op 01571, 2nd Dept 3-12-14

 

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