You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, , ,

Valid Waiver of Appeal Does Not Preclude Review of Whether Ineffective Assistance Affected Voluntariness of Plea

The Second Department noted that a valid waiver of appeal precludes review of the factual sufficiency of a plea allocution, but does not preclude review of a claim of ineffective assistance where the voluntariness of the plea may have been affected:

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution … . While the valid waiver of his right to appeal would typically preclude review of the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel, here, the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance may have affected the voluntariness of his plea, and, as such, his claim is reviewable … . Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, his attorney provided him with meaningful representation … . Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea … . People v Milton, 2013 NY Slip Op 07507, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Unpreserved Erroneous Denial of Challenge to Juror Required Reversal

The Second Department, in the interest of justice, reversed defendant’s conviction based on the trial court’s (unpreserved) error in denying defense counsel’s challenge to a juror for cause.  (Defense counsel did not challenge the juror on the specific ground raise on appeal):

Here, during voir dire, a prospective juror stated, “[j]ust my upbringing tells me that the police saw fit to arrest and the District Attorney saw fit to prosecute, so that automatically renders my opinion.” The prospective juror never unequivocally stated that his prior state of mind regarding the police and the District Attorney would not influence his verdict, and that he would render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence. His responses as a whole showed that there was doubt as to his ability to be impartial. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying defense counsel’s application to discharge this prospective juror for cause … . Because defense counsel exercised a peremptory challenge against this prospective juror, and also exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, this error cannot be considered harmless … . People v Campbell, 2013 NY Slip Op 07500, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

, , ,

Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Evidence Relating to Victim’s Recantation at SORA Hearing

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court should have allowed defendant to present evidence (at the SORA hearing) of the victim’s (his daughter’s) recantation of her allegations of sexual abuse, including the testimony of the victim:

The Supreme Court erred in precluding the defendant from offering into evidence affidavits from his daughter recanting the underlying allegations of sexual abuse, and denying the defendant’s motion in limine to permit his daughter to testify at the SORA hearing. At a SORA hearing, “[t]he court shall allow the sex offender to appear and be heard” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). The People bear of the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the assessment of points under the Guidelines issued by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C [hereinafter SORA]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]). The SORA court “shall review any victim’s statement and any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender and the district attorney and the recommendation and any materials submitted by the board, and may consider reliable hearsay evidence submitted by either party, provided that it is relevant to the determinations” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Further, “[f]acts previously proven at trial or elicited at the time of entry of a plea of guilty shall be deemed established by clear and convincing evidence and shall not be relitigated” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Here, the only facts elicited at the time of the defendant’s plea of guilty were that, on one occasion, he touched his daughter’s breasts and that he did so for sexual gratification, and therefore he was barred from relitigating those facts in this SORA proceeding (see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). However, the defendant was entitled to rely upon the proffered evidence for the limited purpose of contesting the People’s allegations that he engaged in intercourse with his daughter and that the sexual misconduct was ongoing, which resulted in the assessment of points under risk factors 2 and 4. Since the excluded evidence was relevant to material issues at the hearing (i.e., the nature and duration of the sexual contact), the defendant should have been permitted to introduce it… . People v Holmes, 2013 NY Slip Op 07459, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

,

Statutory 9% Interest Rate, Not Contractual 18% Rate, Should Have Been Applied to Breach of Contract Damages (Even Though the Monthly Payments Were Deposited in an Escrow Account During Litigation)

The Second Department determined plaintiff should have been awarded prejudgment interest on the principal amount of the damages awarded for breach of contract at the statutory 9% rate, not the contractual 18% rate which was included in the agreed monthly installment payments:

…CPLR 5001(a) mandates an award of prejudgment interest on the principal amount of the damages awarded for its breach of contract even though the monthly payments due were deposited in an escrow account during the pendency of this action, and [defendant] received no benefit from the disputed payments while they were held in escrow … . However, the Surrogate’s Court improperly applied interest on the monthly payments due at the rate of 18% per annum. “When a claim is predicated on a breach of contract, the applicable rate of prejudgment interest varies depending on the nature and terms of the contract” … . The contract rate of interest will be “used to calculate interest on principal prior to loan maturity or a default in performance,” and in the absence of “a provision in the contract addressing the interest rate that governs after principal is due or in the event of a breach, New York’s statutory rate will be applied as the default rate” … . Under the terms of the agreement at issue here, each monthly payment includes interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Since the contract rate has already been applied to each monthly payment prior to its maturity, and the agreement does not include a provision addressing the interest rate that governs after each monthly payment is due or in the event of a breach, the Surrogate’s Court should have applied interest upon each monthly payment from the date it became due at the statutory rate of 9% per annum (see CPLR 5004…). Ross v Ross Metals Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 07466, 2nd Dept 11-13-13

 

“Assessor’s Formula” for Determining Property Tax Assessment for Golf Course Approved

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dickerson, the Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s approach to the determination of real property tax assessments for a private, not-for-profit golf course.  The country club challenged the tax assessment imposed by the respondents (the board of assessors, et al). After a trial, Supreme Court adopted the assessment method used by the country club’s expert, called the “assessor’s formula,” rather than the respondents’ “triple net lease” method (which had previously been approved by the Second Department).  The opinion has an extensive description and discussion of the valuation techniques used by both experts and ultimately determined there is no reason to rigidly mandate that a particular valuation technique be used in all cases:

Contrary to the appellants’ contentions, we conclude that there is no basis to categorically preclude the application of this approach [the “assessor’s method] to the valuation of golf courses. Further, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the methodology employed by the Country Club yielded a fair market value, and we discern no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination on appeal. Matter of Hempstead Country Club v Board of Assessors, 2013 NY Slip Op 07178, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

,

Criteria for Taxpayer Lawsuit Against School District for Misuse of Public Property Not Met; Failure to Serve Notice of Claim Fatal

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined that the failure to serve a notice of claim upon the school district (in a tort action) required dismissal and the criteria for a taxpayer suit against the district under General Municipal Law 51 had not been met:

Pursuant to Education Law § 3813, a plaintiff commencing a tort action against a school district must serve a notice of claim upon the school district. “Service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to bringing an action against a school district or a board of education'”… . * * *

“A taxpayer suit under General Municipal Law § 51 lies only when the acts complained of are fraudulent, or a waste of public property in the sense that they represent a use of public property or funds for entirely illegal purposes'” … .. Further, to establish “common-law taxpayer standing,” a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she is “personally aggrieved by those actions in a manner different in kind and degree from the community generally” and that “the failure to accord [him or her] standing would be in effect to erect an impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny of legislative action”… . Fauvell v Miglino, 2013 NY Slip Op 07150, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

Failure to Identify Industrial Code Violation in Pleadings Not Fatal/Supervisory Criteria for Labor Law 200(1) Action Explained

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendants on the Labor Law 241(6) and 200(1) causes of action.  Plaintiff was injured when he prevented himself from falling because of a missing plank on a scaffold.  The court noted that the plaintiff’s failure to identify the breach of an Industrial Code provision in the complaint and bill of particulars was not fatal to the 241(6) claim (the allegation of a specific code violation was subsequently provided). And the court explained the criteria for liability under Labor Law 200(1):

Although a plaintiff asserting a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action must allege a violation of a specific and concrete provision of the Industrial Code …, a failure to identify the Code provision in the complaint or bill of particulars is not fatal to such a claim … . The plaintiff’s belated allegations that the defendants third-party plaintiffs violated 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(c), 23-5.1(e)(1), 23-5.1(f), and 23-5.3(f) involved no new factual allegations, raised no new theories of liability, and caused no prejudice to the defendants third-party plaintiffs …. The defendants third-party plaintiffs were put on sufficient notice that the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 241(6) related to missing scaffold planks through the plaintiff’s bill of particulars and deposition testimony. Thus, they cannot reasonably claim prejudice or surprise. * * *

Where, as here, a plaintiff’s claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, to prevail on a Labor Law § 200 cause of action, the plaintiff must show that the defendant “had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[T]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence”… . Klimowicz v Powell Cove Assoc, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07158, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

,

Police Officer (a Passenger in a Police Car) Who Was Injured by Underinsured Driver Was Covered By Police-Officer-Driver’s (Private) Underinsured Motorist Endorsement

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hall, the Second Department determined that a police car is a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of an uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement in a [State Farm] policy held by the driver.  The plaintiff, a police officer, was injured in an automobile accident with an underinsured driver. The question was whether the State Farm policy held by the driver of the police car, another police officer, could be financially responsible under the uninsured/underinsured endorsement in the driver’s policy.  The Second Department held that the driver’s underinsured endorsement covered the injured (police-officer) passenger.  The question at issue was whether the exclusion of “police vehicle” from the definition of “motor vehicle” in Vehicle and Traffic Law 388(2) applied.  The court ruled it did not and determined the operative definition of “motor vehicle” in this context was in Vehicle and Traffic Law 125:

Contrary to State Farm’s contention, VTL § 125, instead of VTL § 388(2), should be used to define the term “motor vehicle,” as it appears in the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement. VTL § 125 is a general provision that defines the relevant terminology for the entire VTL. In fact, VTL § 388(2) acknowledges this by incorporating by reference the VTL § 125 definition of “motor vehicle.” Additionally, it has been recognized that uninsured motorist coverage extends to all “motor vehicles,” as defined by VTL § 125 (…Insurance Law § 5202[a]…).

Police vehicles fall within the definition of a “motor vehicle” under VTL § 125 because they constitute a “vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,” and they do not fall within any of the exclusions provided in the statute. Thus, the police vehicle at issue here falls within the definition of a “motor vehicle” under the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement.  Matter of State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Fitzgerald, 2013 NY Slip Op 07186, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

Burden of Proof for Relocation with Child Not Met

In reversing Family Court, the Second Department determined there was not a sound and substantial basis for granting the mother’s request to return to South Africa with the couple’s child.  The court explained the analytical criteria for relocation:

A parent seeking to relocate with a child bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child’s best interests … . In determining whether relocation is appropriate, the court must consider a number of factors, which include “each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent’s and child’s life may be enhanced economically emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements”… . In assessing these factors, “no single factor should be treated as dispositive or given such disproportionate weight as to predetermine the outcome” … . However, “the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern” … . “In the end, it is for the court to determine, based on all of the proof, whether it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed relocation would serve the child’s best interests” … .

… [T]he record is devoid of evidence that he has ever harmed the child or directed his anger toward her, and many of the incidents described by the mother involved the father’s suicidal ideation and infliction of harm upon himself. Significantly, the court-appointed psychologist found that the father was currently emotionally and mentally stable, and at low risk of neglectful or abusive behavior toward the child. Moreover, the record shows that the mother sought permission to relocate primarily because she feels lonely and isolated in the United States, and not to escape domestic violence … . The record also establishes that the father consistently exercises his right to visit the child twice a week, and that he desires to spend more time with her …. Further, there is no economic necessity for the proposed relocation because the mother has been steadily employed as a payroll analyst for more than six years.  Matter of Francis-Miller v Miller, 2013 NY Slip Op 07177, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

,

Child Qualified as “Special Immigrant;” Abandoned by One Parent

In reversing Family Court, the Second Department determined the subject child, Brenda, qualified as a “special immigrant” who could apply for lawful permanent residency in the US because she had been abandoned by one (not both) of her parents:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) (as amended by the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub L 110-457, 122 US Stat 5044) and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, is unmarried, and has been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile to qualify for special immigrant juvenile status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]…), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c][6]…).

Brenda is under the age of 21 and unmarried. Inasmuch as the Family Court placed Brenda under her mother’s custody, Brenda has been “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of . . . an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court” within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i)…). Based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, which includes a detailed affidavit from Brenda, fully supports Brenda’s contention that, because her father neglected and abandoned her, reunification with her father is not a viable option … . Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the fact that Brenda’s mother did not also neglect and abandon her does not preclude the issuance of the order requested … . Lastly, the record reflects that it would not be in Brenda’s best interests to be returned to El Salvador… .  Matter of Maria PEA v Sergio AGG, 2013 NY Slip Op 07168, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

For a similar case with the same result, see Matter of Karen C, 2013 NY Slip Op 07170, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

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