You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

,

Existence of Brady Material Concerning Law Suit Against Interrogating Officer for Eliciting a False Confession Required Hearing on Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction

The defendant claimed that his confession was involuntary because he was physically abused by the interrogating officer (O’Leary). After his conviction for depraved indifference murder the defendant brought a motion to vacate the conviction on the ground that the interrogating officer had been sued for allegedly extracting a false confession and the prosecution did not provide that “Brady” material to him.  In reversing the trial court’s denial of the motion to vacate and remitting the matter for a hearing, the Second Department wrote an exhaustive overview of the law concerning “Brady” material in New York.  Although rather long, the court’s explanation is provided here because of its clarity:

A defendant is entitled, under the state and federal constitutions, “to discover favorable evidence in the People’s possession material to guilt or punishment”)…. Indeed, the law requires that Brady material be produced whether or not the defendant requests any such evidence …. To establish a Brady violation, the “evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued” because the evidence was material … .

Here, the allegedly suppressed evidence clearly fell within the ambit of the prosecutor’s Brady obligation because it constituted impeachment evidence…. Moreover, the People’s failure to disclose the existence of the civil action may have denied the defendant the opportunity to conduct an investigation leading to additional exculpatory or impeaching evidence , for instance, providing a basis for the disclosure of police personnel records otherwise unavailable … .

“In New York, where a defendant makes a specific request for a document, the materiality element is established provided there exists a reasonable possibility’ that it would have changed the result of the proceedings” ….”Absent a specific request by defendant for the document, materiality can only be demonstrated by a showing that there is a reasonable probability’ that it would have changed the outcome of the proceedings” …. Here, the record does not demonstrate that the defendant made a specific request for the allegedly suppressed information. Nevertheless, we find that there was a “reasonable probability” that disclosure of the lawsuit would have changed the outcome of the defendant’s trial. The primary evidence at trial establishing the defendant’s identity as the murderer was his confession. The other evidence tying him to the crime was weak, consisting of testimony that he was seen with the victim shortly before she disappeared. Since the credibility of the detectives who obtained the defendant’s confession was of central importance in the case, the nondisclosure was material … .

Accordingly, a hearing is necessary to determine whether the District Attorney’s office had sufficient knowledge of the suit against O’Leary so as to trigger its obligations under Brady. Evidence subject to disclosure under Brady includes evidence “known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor”…, and, therefore, “the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in th[is] case, including the police” … ;This rule is based upon the principle that “[t]he government cannot with its right hand say it has nothing while its left hand holds what is of value” …. Here, the attorney’s affirmation submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion, which was based only on a review of files, is insufficient to establish that no one to whom the obligation under Brady extended, other than perhaps O’Leary himself …, had knowledge of the civil action at any time during which the prosecution’s Brady obligation was ongoing.   People v Garrett, 2013 NY Slip Op 03498, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

,

SORA Applies to Out of State Sex Offense

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination that petitioner (who pled nolo contendre to a sex offense in Florida and was registered as a sex offender in Florida) must register as a sex offender in New York (upon moving to New York), the Second Department wrote:

SORA provides that any “sex offender” must comply with its provisions (see Correction Law § 168-f). A “sex offender” is defined as “any person who is convicted” of a “sex offense” (Correction Law § 168-a[1], [2]). The definition of a “sex offense” with respect to an offense committed in another jurisdiction is “a conviction of [i] an offense in any other jurisdiction which includes all of the essential elements of any such crime” that constitutes a “sex offense” under SORA (Correction Law [*2]§ 168-a[2][d][i]). The statute also provides that a “sex offense” includes a “conviction of . . . [ii] a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred” (Correction Law § 168-a[2][d][ii]). Matter of Kasckarow v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of NY, 2013 Slip Op 03485, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

, ,

UCC Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applied to Breach of Warranty Cause of Action​

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s determination that a guarantee which stated “if any defects in manufacturing, materials or workmanship occurred within 10 years the product would be repaired, replaced or purchase price refunded” was not a warranty which extended to future performance within the meaning of UCC 2-725[2]. The four-year UCC statute of limitations therefore applied to the warranty cause of action.  In addition, the Second Department affirmed the dismissal of the “fraudulent concealment” cause of action.  The Court’s discussion of the law concerning those two issues follows:

A cause of action alleging breach of warranty is governed by a four-year statute of limitations (see UCC 2-725[1]…). Generally, a breach of warranty action accrues “when tender of delivery is made” (UCC 2-725[2];…). As an exception to this general rule, the UCC provides that “where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance,” then “the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered” (UCC 2-725[2];…). “A warranty of future performance is one that guarantees that the product will work for a specified period of time”… . However, “[w]arranties to repair or replace [a] product in the event that it fails to perform, without any promise of performance, do not constitute warranties of future performance” … . * * *

In pleading a cause of action to recover damages for fraud, “the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail” (CPLR 3016[b];…) A cause of action sounding in fraud must allege that the defendant knowingly misrepresented or concealed a material fact for the purpose of inducing another party to rely upon it, and that the other party justifiably relied upon such misrepresentation or concealment to his or her own detriment…. “A cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent concealment requires, in addition to allegations of scienter, reliance, and damages, an allegation that the defendant had a duty to disclose material information and that it failed to do so”… Schwatka v Super Millwork, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03470, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

,

Contribution and Indemnification Unavailable in Breach of Contract Action; Notice of Claim Requirement Under Education Law Never Triggered by Denial of Payment

In a complicated breach of contract action arising out of construction projects for defendant school district, the Second Department determined contribution and indemnification were unavailable for purely economic loss from breach of contractual obligations (CPLR 1401, 1403, 3019).  In addition, the Second Department determined that the need to file a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law 3813 was never triggered by a denial of payment.  On the notice of claim issue, the Second Department wrote:

Education Law § 3813(1) requires a party to serve a notice of claim upon a school district within three months after the accrual of such claim as a condition precedent to the commencement of an action …. Claims arising out of a breach of contract accrue when “payment for the amount claimed was denied” (Education Law § 3813[1]). A denial of payment is only deemed to occur “upon an explicit refusal to pay” or when a party should have viewed its claim as having been constructively rejected …. Where no express or constructive denial of payment has been made, the obligation to serve a notice of claim is not triggered…. Here, the District failed to demonstrate that it expressly or constructively denied payment to PGA for its continued work on the projects. Thus, the District did not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment …based upon PGA’s failure to serve a notice of claim in accordance with Education Law § 3813(1)… .  Capstone Enters of Port Chester, Inc v Board of Educ Irvington Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 03448, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

,

Action for Fraud Cannot Be Based on Same Facts as Breach of Contract; Fraud Must Be Pled in Detail

After noting that a cause of action for fraud does not lie when it is based on the same allegations stated in a breach of contract cause of action, the Second Department explained the pleading requirements in a fraud action, including the need for “detail,” as follows:

A cause of action to recover damages for fraud requires allegations of (1) a false representation of fact, (2) knowledge of the falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) damages…. Moreover, CPLR 3016(b) requires that the circumstances underlying a cause of action based on fraud be stated “in detail” (CPLR 3016[b];…). Here, the allegations of fraud against the remaining defendants either were bare and conclusory or do not rise to the level of fraud. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the separate motions of the remaining defendants which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted against each of them. Genovese v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 03453, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

, ,

Bank Account in Name “Ann … or Thomas…” Could Be Turned Over to Pay Debt Owed by Thomas 

In finding that the funds held in a bank account in the name of “Ann Sledjeski or Thomas Sledjeski” should have been turned over to pay Thomas Sledjeski’s debt, the Second Department wrote:

The Supreme Court should have granted the unopposed petition pursuant to CPLR 5225(b) to direct Hudson City Savings Bank to turn over the funds of an account it held in the name of “Ann Sledjeski or Thomas Sledjeski,” to partially satisfy a judgment entered in favor of the petitioner and against Thomas C. Sledjeski. ” [T]he opening of a joint bank account creates a rebuttable presumption that each named tenant is possessed of the whole of the account so as to make the account vulnerable to levy of a money judgment by the judgment creditor of one of the joint tenants'” (…see Banking Law § 675[b]). Therefore, the petitioner was not required to establish that the judgment debtor was the sole contributor of funds to the account. Moreover, since none of the respondents appeared or answered the proceeding, they failed to rebut the presumption …  Matter of JRP Old Riverhead, Ltd v Hudson City Sav Bank, 2013 NY Slip Op 03484, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

,

Statutorily-Mandated Venue Is Not Jurisdictional and Is Waivable

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, the Second Department discussed, in great detail, the relevant statutes and case law concerning the venue provisions in the CPLR and venue as mandated in the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) Act. The Second Department determined NYCHHC Act’s statutorily-mandated venue is not jurisdictional and can be waived:

In sum, since the NYCHHC chose to waive the venue provision contained in section 7401(3) of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act for actions brought against it upon the consolidation of the plaintiffs’ two actions, and absent a showing of any special circumstances demonstrating that venue be placed in Bronx County [the statutorily-mandated venue], we conclude that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in placing venue in Westchester County, where the first of the related actions was commenced. Wager v Pelham Union Free Sch Dist, 2013 NY Slip Op 03475, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

Criteria for Motion to Amend a Complaint and for the “Relation Back” Doctrine Explained

In affirming the denial of a motion to amend a complaint the Second Department described the law concerning amendment (CPLR 305) and “relation back” (CPLR 203):

CPLR 305(c) authorizes the court, in its discretion, to “allow any summons or proof of service of a summons to be amended, if a substantial right of a party against whom the summons issued is not prejudiced” (CPLR 305[c]). Where the motion is to cure “a misnomer in the description of a party defendant,” it should be granted even after the statute of limitations has run where “(1) there is evidence that the correct defendant (misnamed in the original process) has in fact been properly served, and (2) the correct defendant would not be prejudiced by granting the amendment sought”…. CPLR 305(c) does not apply in this case, where the plaintiff’s mistake in failing to commence the action against Keyspan-Ravenswood within the statute of limitations period had nothing to do with the misnomer… . * * *

As codified in CPLR 203(c), “what is commonly referred to as the relation back doctrine allows a claim asserted against a defendant in an amended filing to relate back to claims previously asserted against a codefendant for Statute of Limitations purposes where the two defendants are united in interest’ (CPLR 203[b])” ….. For the rule allowing relation back to the original date of filing under CPLR 203(c) to apply, a plaintiff is required to prove that: “(1) both claims arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence, (2) the new party is united in interest with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the action that the new party will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits by the delayed, otherwise stale, commencement, and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against that party as well” … .  Sally v Keyspan Energy Corp, 2013 NY Slip Op 03469, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

 

,

Hybrid Article 78 and Declaratory Judgment Proceeding Requires Separate Treatment of Both

In a hybrid proceeding— an Article 78 proceeding to review a Town Board’s stop work order for a quarry acting without a permit, and a related declaratory judgment action—the Second Department determined Supreme Court could not dismiss the declaratory judgment action as if it were part of the Article 78 proceeding.  The two actions must be treated as separate proceedings:

…[I]n the absence of a dispositive motion addressed to the causes of action which sought declaratory relief, the Supreme Court improperly, in effect, dismissed those causes of action …. In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those which seek declaratory relief, on the other hand (see id. at 1008). “The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment”…. “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action”…. Here, since no party made such a motion, the Supreme Court should not have summarily disposed of the causes of action which sought declaratory relief, and the matter must be remitted … .  Matter of Lake St Granite Quarry, Inc v Town/Village of Harrison, 2013 NY Slip Op 03487, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

,

Two Options to Recover on Note and Mortgage; One in Law (Note); One in Equity (Foreclosure)

In finding that CPLR 5236(b) did not apply in the case, the Second Department described the two options a mortgagee has with respect to recovery based on a note and mortgage:

CPLR 5236(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[r]eal property mortgaged shall not be sold pursuant to an execution issued upon a judgment recovered for all or part of the mortgage debt.” Typically, a mortgagee has the choice of “two remedies: one at law in a suit on the debt as evidenced by the note, the other in equity to foreclose the mortgage” …. A mortgagee who elects to proceed on the note becomes “subject to the statutory restrictions which direct that when a judgment is recovered for all or part of the mortgage debt, the execution shall direct that no part of the mortgage[d] property shall be levied upon or sold thereunder” (Goddard v Johnson, 96 Misc 2d 230, 231). Matter of Ivy Hill Commodities Corp v Beekharry, 2013 NY Slip Op 03483, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

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