You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

, ,

Padilla v Kentucky, Which Held Attorney’s Failure to Inform Client of Immigration Consequences of Plea Was Ineffective Assistance, Not Applied Retroactively Under New York Constitution

The Second Department determined Padilla v Kentucky, 559 US 356, which held an attorney’s failure to inform his or her client of the immigration consequences of a plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, should not be applied retroactively under the New York Constitution:

In People v Pepper (53 NY2d 213, cert denied sub nom. New York v Utter, 454 US 1162), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether a new rule should be retroactively applied under the New York Constitution. It recognized three factors a court should weigh to determine whether to retroactively apply a new rule: (1) the purpose to be served by the new standard, (2) the extent to which law enforcement authorities relied upon the old standard, and (3) the effect a retroactive application of the new standard would have on the administration of justice (see id. at 220). The Court of Appeals explained that “the extent of the reliance and the nature of the burden on the administration of justice are of substantial significance only when the answer to the retroactivity question is not to be found in the purpose of the new rule itself” (id.). Thus, a new rule that goes “to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence” will be retroactively applied “where otherwise there could be a complete miscarriage of justice” (id. at 221). However, a new rule which is “only collateral to or relatively far removed from the fact-finding process at trial” (id.), will have only prospective application. Although the Supreme Court in Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to inform their clients whether a guilty plea carries a risk of deportation, this new rule, rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution … .

Retroactive application of Padilla is also not warranted under the second and third Pepper factors. With regard to law enforcement reliance, prior to Padilla, a defendant could prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim only if it was established that counsel rendered incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of the guilty plea and that the defendant was prejudiced thereby … . The failure to advise a defendant of the possibility of deportation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel …, and such failure to advise did not “affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction” (CPL 220.50[7]). Thus, under the old standard, prosecutors could recommend acceptance of plea allocutions even where the defendant had not been advised of the immigration consequences of entering into the plea …. As to the third factor, retroactive application of the Padilla rule would potentially lead to an influx of CPL 440.10 motions to vacate the convictions of defendants whose guilty pleas were properly entered and accepted by courts under the old standard …, thus adversely affecting the criminal justice system. Accordingly, we further find that under New York law, the Padilla rule should not be retroactively applied to cases like this one where the convictions became final prior to March 31, 2010, the date Padilla was decided.  People v Andrews, 2013 NY Slip Op 05469, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

Where There Are Sharp Factual Disputes, Forensic Evaluations Are Required for a Guardianship Determination

In a case with sharp factual disputes, the Second Department determined Family Court should not have decided the issue of guardianship without the aid of forensic evaluations:

The Family Court erred in deciding the issue of guardianship without the aid of forensic evaluations of Stephanie, Shanika, and Jada. Although forensic evaluations are not always necessary, such evaluations may be appropriate where there exist sharp factual disputes that affect the final… . Under the circumstances of this case, the record is inadequate to determine the best interests of the child, particularly as there was no expert assessment of the psychological impact of separating Jada from Shanika. In addition, given Stephanie’s allegations of alcohol abuse by Shanika, and Shanika’s allegations of alienation by Stephanie and Stephanie’s current partner, forensic evaluations of Stephanie, Shanika, and Jada are proper to aid in the resolution of these factual issues.  Matter of Shanika M v Stephanie G, 2013 NY Slip Op 05460, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

Mother Did Not Stipulate to Order of Reference; Therefore Referee Only Had Power to Hear and Report

The Second Department determined mother did not stipulate to the order of reference (referring the custody and visitation proceeding to a referee) in the manner required by CPLR 2104.  Therefore, although the order of reference authorized the referee to “hear and determine the parties’ rights to custody … and visitation…,” absent the parties’ consent to the reference, the referee only had the power to hear and report.

…[T]he mother did not consent to the reference merely by participating in the proceeding without expressing her desire to have the matter tried before a judge… .

Accordingly, the Court Attorney Referee had no jurisdiction to determine, but only to hear and report, with respect to the parties’ respective petition and cross petition regarding custody and visitation…. Thus, the Court Attorney Referee’s decision … must be deemed a report (see CPLR 4320[b]), and the matter must be remitted for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 4403 before a judge of the Family Court.  Matter of McClarin v Valera, 2013 NY Slip Op 05461, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

Father’s Petition to Relocate to North Carolina Properly Denied

The Second Department determined Family Court had properly denied father’s petition for permission to relocate to North Carolina.  A prior consent order had awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the father.  The father, who is in the military, was transferred from West Point to Fort Bragg in North Carolina.  The court explained the applicable (relocation) considerations as follows:

“Relocation may be allowed if the custodial parent demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed move is in the child’s best interests”…. When evaluating whether a proposed move is in the child’s best interest, “the factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the children and each parent, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the children’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the children may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the children through suitable visitation arrangements” … . Although a multitude of factors may be considered, “ the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern’”…. Matter of Hirtz v Hirtz, 2013 NY Slip Op 05457, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

Out of State Visitation for All School Breaks and Three-Day Weekends (In Addition To Summers) Should Not Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined Family Court correctly awarded visitation with the father in Kentucky for the entire summer, but should not have awarded visitation with the father in Kentucky for school breaks and three-day weekends throughout the year:  In remitting the matter for re-working the The visitation, the court wrote:

The provision of the visitation schedule which, in addition to the summer visitation, awards the father visits in Kentucky during school breaks for “every Thanksgiving, Christmas, winter, mid-winter, spring, and Easter,” effectively deprives the mother “of any significant quality time” with the children, and is therefore “excessive… . While that provision takes into account the children’s need to spend time with the father and his family, it does not take into account the importance of their relationship with the mother and her extended family, in that it deprives the children of contact “during times usually reserved for family gatherings and recreation” … . We note that the court-appointed forensic evaluator recommended that the parties share parenting time during major holidays such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. There was no contrary evidence that awarding all parenting time during these holidays to the father furthers the children’s best interests. The opinions of experts “are entitled to some weight” …, and, under the circumstances presented here, the Family Court should have awarded equal parenting time to the parties for these school breaks. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court to set forth a new visitation schedule regarding “Thanksgiving, Christmas, winter, mid-winter, spring, and Easter” that apportions those school breaks equally between the parties.  Matter of Felty v Felty, 2013 NY Slip Op 05454, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

,

Family Offense of Disorderly Conduct Not Proven—No Proof of Public Inconvenience, Annoyance, or Alarm

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Skelos, the Second Department determined the wife’s allegations against her husband did not demonstrate the family offense of disorderly conduct.  The wife alleged the husband tried to push her down stairs, twisted her arm and pushed her against a wall. Under the Penal Law, disorderly conduct requires an intent to cause or the reckless creation of a risk of causing public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.  However, Family Court Act section 812 provides: “For purposes of this article, disorderly conduct included disorderly conduct not in a public place.”  The Second Department determined that, even in the context of a family offense proceeding, the “public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” element must be proven:

We … hold that, even where the conduct at issue is alleged to have occurred in a private residence, in order for a petitioner to meet his or her burden of establishing the family offense of disorderly conduct, there must be a prima facie showing that the conduct was either intended to cause, or recklessly created a risk of causing, public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. The intent to cause, or recklessness in causing, public harm, is the mens rea of the offense of disorderly conduct … . The plain language of the subject provision of Family Court Act § 812, in contrast, provides only that the conduct need not occur in a public place (see Family Ct Act § 812). The plain language of Family Court Act § 812 therefore pertains only to the actus reus of the offense—specifically, the place where it is committed—and does not speak to the mens rea of the offense. Indeed, since Family Court Act § 812 does not specify an alternative culpable mental state, if the mens rea provided for in the Penal Law were not applicable in family offense proceedings, it is unclear what the mens rea of this family offense would be. * * *

One can certainly contemplate conduct occurring in a private residence that is intended to cause, or evinces a reckless disregard of causing, public harm. Such conduct might include, for example, a loud fight, or a loud argument with disturbing content, occurring in an apartment building late at night, or under other circumstances where the public may reasonably be expected to hear or see the altercation. As the Court of Appeals has observed, “the risk of public disorder does not have to be realized,” in order to infer that an individual intended to cause, or recklessly disregarded the risk of causing, such a threat… . Matter of  Cassie v Cassie, 2013 NY Slip Op 05446, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

, ,

E-Mail Met All Criteria for a Stipulation of Settlement Including the “Subscribed Writing” Requirement

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sgroi, the Second Department determined an e-mail message satisfied the criteria of CPLR 2104 as a binding and enforceable stipulation of settlement.

The e-mail, written by plaintiff’s counsel, read:

“Per our phone conversation today, May 3, 2011, you accepted my offer of $230,000 to settle this case. Please have your client executed [sic] the attached Medicare form as no settlement check can be issued without this form.

“You also agreed to prepare the release, please included [sic] the following names: Xerox Corporation, Gelco Corporation, Mitchell G. Maller and Sedgwick CMS. Please forward the release and dismissal for my review. Thanks Brenda Greene.”

The court determined the phrase “Thanks Brenda Greene” rendered the e-mail a subscribed writing:

…[W]e hold that where, as here, an email message contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature, such an email message may be deemed a subscribed writing within the meaning of CPLR 2104 so as to constitute an enforceable agreement. Forcelli v Gelco Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 05437, 2nd Dept 7-24-13

 

, ,

Review Criteria for Municipal Disability Hearing Explained

The Second Department, in an Article 78 proceeding, explained the review criteria where there has been a disability hearing (re: a firefighter) held by a municipality pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-a:

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law at which evidence is taken is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4]…). Substantial evidence means more than a “mere scintilla of evidence,” and the test of whether substantial evidence exists in a record is one of rationality, taking into account all the evidence on both sides … .

When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, “the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists”… .. Moreover, where there is conflicting expert testimony, in making a General Municipal Law § 207-a determination, a municipality is “free to credit one physician’s testimony over that of another” … . Thus, even if “conflicting medical evidence can be found in the record,” the municipality’s determination, based on its own expert’s conclusions, may still be supported by substantial evidence… . Matter of Solano v City of Mount Vernon, 2013 NY Slip Op 05322, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling

The Second Department determined a Labor Law 240(1) action should have been dismissed.  As plaintiff was attempting to paint the ceiling while standing on a ladder, a portion of the ceiling fell, causing injury.  In explaining why section 240 does not apply to the facts, the court wrote:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires property owners and contractors to provide workers with “scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to the workers (Labor Law § 240[1]). The purpose of the statute is to protect against “such specific gravity-related accidents as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured”…. “With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'”… . Thus, to recover damages for violation of the statute, a “plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker” … . The plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was “being hoisted or secured” (id. at 268) or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking”… . Flossos v Waterside Redevelopment Co LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05297, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

, ,

Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action Under Municipal Law 205-e Allowed

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined a police officer who was injured when she fell off the back of a flat bed truck while loading police barricades could not sue in negligence (based on the firefighter rule) but could sue under General Municipal Law 205-e based on an alleged violation of Labor Law 27-a (which imposes a general duty to provide a safe work environment):

Re: the applicability of the firefighter rule:

…[T]he firefighter rule provides that “[p]olice and firefighters may not recover in common-law negligence for line-of-duty injuries resulting from risks associated with the particular dangers inherent in that type of employment” …. The rule bars a police officer’s or a firefighter’s recovery ” when the performance of his or her duties increased the risk of the injury happening, and did not merely furnish the occasion for the injury'” … * * *

While loading a flatbed truck may not be a task that is typically associated with police work, the alleged accident occurred while the plaintiff was on a police vehicle, loading police barriers, and while she was assigned to the barrier truck detail, a location and job detail to which she was exposed solely as a result of her duties as a police officer… .  * * *

Re: the viability of the General Municipal Law 205-e cause of action:

As observed by the Court of Appeals, the Legislature has, on several occasions, “sought to ameliorate the harsh effects of the [firefighter] rule” …. To that end, in 1935, the Legislature first enacted General Municipal Law § 205-a, which created a cause of action for firefighters who, while in the line of duty, are injured as a result of violations of statutes or regulations (see General Municipal Law § 205-a; L 1935, ch 800, § 2; L 1936, ch 251, § 1). In 1989, the Legislature enacted General Municipal Law § 205-e in direct response to Santangelo v State of New York (71 NY2d 393), which ,,,had extended the firefighter rule to police officers… .  * * *

…[T]he plaintiff has alleged that the defendants’ Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) violation is a predicate for her General Municipal Law § 205-e cause of action. Section 205-e does not stand alone and must be predicated on a violation of a separate legal requirement. …[T]he Court of Appeals, in addressing the various amendments to General Municipal Law § 205-e, has stated “that we should apply this provision expansively’ so as to favor recovery by police officers whenever possible”… .

Since section 27-a provides an objective standard by which the actions or omissions of a public employer, such as the City, can be measured for purposes of liability, Labor Law § 27-a(3)(a)(1) can serve as a predicate for a section 205-e claim… .  Gammons v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05298, Second Dept 7-17-13

 

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