You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

IN A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT BASED UPON A NOVEMBER 2019 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE, APPROXIMATE TIME OR PLACE OF A CHARGED OFFENSE IN A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) OR A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THEREFORE MUST BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, departing from its precedent based upon a recent (November 2019) ruling by the Court of Appeals, determined the failure to include the date, approximate time or place of the charged offense in a superior court information (SCI) and/or a waiver of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect. Any challenge to the SCI or waiver of appeal on this ground must be preserved and, if it is not, the challenge is forfeited by a guilty plea:

… [W]e note that this Court, relying on People v Boston (75 NY2d 585, 589 [1990]), has previously held that the failure to strictly comply with the statutory requirements for waiving indictment pursuant to CPL 195.20 — including the failure to include the approximate time of each offense charged in the waiver of indictment or SCI — constitutes a jurisdictional defect that may be raised at any time, is not subject to the preservation requirement and is not precluded by a defendant’s guilty plea or waiver of the right to appeal … . However, the Court of Appeals recently decided People v Lang (___ NY3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545 [2019]) wherein it rejected the argument that omission of the approximate time of the charged offense in the waiver of indictment and/or SCI constitutes a jurisdictional defect — the same argument presently raised by defendant — specifically holding that the omission of such a fact presents a mere “technical challenge” as it constitutes “non-elemental factual information that is not necessary for a jurisdictionally-sound indictment” … . Accordingly, insofar as the subject waiver of indictment and SCI provided defendant with adequate notice of the date and location of the charged offenses, and as omission of the approximate time of the charged offense from the waiver of indictment and/or SCI constituted a nonjurisdictional defect … to which defendant did not object at a time when Supreme Court could have addressed the alleged deficiency, defendant’s present challenge was forfeited by his guilty plea … . People v Shindler, 2020 NY Slip Op 00327, Third Dept 1-16-20

 

,

FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, INFORMED FAMILY COURT HE WISHED TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; FAMILY COURT DENIED THE REQUEST STATING THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT HELD FATHER, WHO HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BY PHONE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that father, who was incarcerated in Pennsylvania, should have been allowed to appear in the custody proceeding by telephone. Father had informed the court of his wish to appear and had not challenged the court’s jurisdiction and informed Family Court he wished to appear by telephone. Family Court denied father’s request stating that the court did not have jurisdiction over father:

“The right to be heard is fundamental to our system of justice” … . Further, “[p]arents have an equally fundamental interest in the liberty, care and control of their children” … . “[E]ven an incarcerated parent has a right to be heard on matters concerning [his or her] child, where there is neither a willful refusal to appear nor a waiver of appearance” … . Here, the father had notice of the proceeding, did not challenge Family Court’s jurisdiction and the court could have permitted him to testify telephonically … . Because the record demonstrates that the father was not given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings, we must reverse and remit for a new hearing … . Matter of Starasia E. v Leonora E., 2020 NY Slip Op 00334, Third Dept 1-16-20

 

, ,

THE CO-DEFENDANT’S REDACTED STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR THE REDACTED PORTIONS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AND WERE INCULPATORY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the redacted statement of the co-defendant (Quaile) should not have been admitted in evidence because it was clear the redacted portions referred to the defendant and were inculpatory. Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him was violated:

… [A]lthough Quaile’s statement was redacted, the jury was allowed to see where portions were blacked out and, given that the statement focused upon defendant’s arrest and the items found in the trailer, there were “obvious indications that it was altered to protect the identity of a specific person,” namely, defendant … . The redacted statement further advised the jury that defendant was Quaile’s live-in boyfriend, that she did not know what the plastic bottle and tissues found in their bedroom were used for, that she did not know how to make methamphetamine and that she “did not know the answers” to some of [a sheriff’s] questions at the trailer. When those comments are considered in tandem with the location of the blacked-out text in the statement, they can “only be read by the jury as inculpating defendant” by suggesting that he had the information and know-how that Quaile lacked and was involved in the charged crimes … . The admission of the statement therefore violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. In view of County Court’s failure “to give the critical limiting instruction that the jury should not consider the statement itself against anyone but” Quaile, as well as the lack of methamphetamine in the trailer or test results tying the items found in the trailer to methamphetamine production, we cannot say that the evidence against defendant is overwhelming or ” that ‘there is no reasonable possibility that the erroneously admitted [statement] contributed to the conviction'” … . People v Stone, 2020 NY Slip Op 00323, Third Dept 1-16-20

 

, ,

WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a partial dissent, determined the plaintiff municipality breached its contract with defendant sewage-treatment company. The plaintiff municipality argued that, although there was competitive bidding under General Municipal Law 103 and 120-w, the contract was void because the bid specifications were improperly developed with the defendant and were designed to ensure defendant got the contract, but that argument was rejected by both Supreme Court and the Third Department:

… [P]laintiff provided nothing to contradict the proof that [use of defendant’s technology] served the public interest because it was safer, more reliable and less likely to generate troublesome odors than other technologies.

[D]efendant produced an affidavit from plaintiff’s then-mayor, who stated that the options for sludge treatment had been thoroughly investigated and that the type of equipment offered by defendant would further the public interest by stabilizing plaintiff’s sludge disposal costs, providing an environmentally sensitive means for that disposal and decreasing odors emanating from the WWTF [wastewater treatment facility] that might affect ongoing waterfront development. The then-mayor further averred that the bid documents were prepared by municipal employees and that the specifications included nothing of peculiar benefit to defendant. … Defendant’s president, a mechanical engineer, confirmed that point and averred that “[n]early any sludge drying pelletizing system on the market” could have satisfied the bid specifications. Plaintiff accordingly failed to meet its burden of showing that the 2004 agreement was void, and defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment on claims relating to that agreement’s validity … . City of Kingston v Aslan Envtl. Servs., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 00192, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH A HEAT PUMP SYSTEM DRAWS HEAT FROM SOLAR ENERGY STORED IN THE GROUND, IT IS NOT A QUALIFIED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAX LAW FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR A $5000 TAX CREDIT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a heat pump system, although it draws heat from solar energy stored in the ground, is not a qualified solar energy system within the meaning of Tax Law 606 (g-1). Therefore, as the Tax Tribunal found, petitioners were not entitled to a $5000 tax credit for the heat pump system:

… [S]olar energy system equipment is defined as “an arrangement or combination of components utilizing solar radiation, which, when installed in a residence, produces energy designed to provide heating, cooling, hot water or electricity for use in such residence” … . Here, the Tribunal limited the applicability of the tax credit to those systems that “directly” utilize solar radiation, an interpretation which petitioners assert is too narrow, …

… [W]e do not agree with petitioners’ assertion that the plain language of the statute unambiguously includes ground source heat pump systems simply because they utilize solar energy … . As the record reveals, heat harvested by a ground source heat pump system is not, strictly speaking, “solar radiation” since it is being radiated from the ground after being absorbed by the crust. Thus, although a broad reading of the phrase “utilize[es] solar radiation” could certainly include the system at issue, an interpretation excluding indirect utilization of solar energy is not unreasonable. Further, we find that the fact that the system removes heat from indoor air during the warm summer months and moves it to the ground, thereby not utilizing solar radiation, presents another reason to exclude the system from the purview of the tax credit … . Matter of Suozzi v Tax Appeals Trib. of the State of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 00193, Third Dept 1-9-20

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGING PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT ALLEGED DEFENDANT POSSESSED LESS THAN 25 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF ‘DANGEROUS CONTRABAND,” AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the indictment, charging defendant with promoting prison contraband in the first degree was jurisdictionally defective because it alleged possession of less that 25 grams of marijuana:

Defendant asserts that the indictment is jurisdictionally defective based on the Court of Appeals’ decision in People v Finley (10 NY3d 647 [2003]). In that case, the Court held that the possession of a small amount of marihuana, specifically less than 25 grams, did not, absent aggravating circumstances, constitute dangerous contraband within the meaning of Penal Law §§ 205.00 (4) and 205.25 as is necessary to support the charge of promoting prison contraband in the first degree … . Defendant contends that there is no valid basis in the indictment for this charge because he possessed less than 25 grams of marihuana. The People concede that this is a jurisdictional defect warranting reversal of the judgment of conviction. In addition, defendant requests that the indictment be dismissed in its entirety, and the People consent to such relief given that defendant’s guilty plea satisfied both charges contained therein. Accordingly, based upon our review of the record, the case law and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the judgment of conviction must be reversed, thereby vacating the plea and sentence, and that the indictment must be dismissed in its entirety. People v Lawrence, 2020 NY Slip Op 00004, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER RE THE DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA); THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Count Court had not issued a written order with respect to the defendant’s risk assessment under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) and therefor the appeal was not properly before the court:

Following a hearing at which the People advocated for an upward departure, County Court granted the request and classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender with a sexually violent offender designation. Defendant appeals.

It is a statutory requirement that County Court “render an order setting forth its determinations and findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n [3] … ). That written order then must be “entered and filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is triable” (CPLR 2220 [a] …).

Although the record before us contains a decision of County Court that sets forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court did not issue a written order and the risk assessment instrument does not contain the “so ordered” language so as to constitute an appealable order. Absent any order by the court, this appeal is not properly before us and must be dismissed … . People v Johnson, 2020 NY Slip Op 00006, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, ,

UPON LEARNING THE STATE, BY EFFECTIVELY MISLEADING THE COURT, OBTAINED A JUDGMENT DETERMINING IT OWNED LAND IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK, THE COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly vacated a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 in the interests of substantial justice because plaintiff (the State of New York) had misled the court in proceedings leading to the judgment that it owned land in the Adirondack Park:

Plaintiff argued at trial that, although it could not identify the specific instrument that gave it a superior claim to the parcel at issue, several instruments granted it title to most of Township 40 and that the parcel “was not included within the bounds of any exception” …  Plaintiff was aware that the success of this argument would threaten the claims of hundreds of individuals to land in Township 40, and misrepresented to Supreme Court that it would rely upon a judgment in this action to bring RPAPL article 15 actions against those individuals. Upon succeeding, plaintiff instead enforced the 2001 judgment against defendants alone … . It … became evident that plaintiff sought the 2001 judgment despite the doubts … regarding its ownership claims in Township 40 … . Plaintiff subjected defendants to selectively harsh treatment under a judgment about which it harbored doubts, in other words, and Supreme Court stated that it would not have granted the judgment had plaintiff taken the legal position it later adopted. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that these circumstances afforded sufficient reason to vacate the 2001 judgment in the interest of substantial justice … . State of New York v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 00008, Third Dept 1-2-10

 

, ,

DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE INFORMED AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA TO A SEX OFFENSE THAT HE OR SHE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL ACTION AS THE RELEASE DATE APPROACHES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant, a sex offender who was found to suffer from a mental abnormality after Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 trial, was not entitled specific performance of his plea agreement, which made no mention of the of potential Mental Hygiene Law proceedings:

Respondent next challenges Supreme Court’s denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as his 1997 plea agreement is a legal and binding contract — one that entitled him to specific performance. Proceedings pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act “are expansive civil proceedings, which are entirely separate from and independent of the original criminal action” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that trial courts are required to advise defendants who plead guilty regarding the direct consequences of such plea, but they have no obligation to iterate every collateral consequence of the conviction” … . As relevant here, “the potential for either civil confinement or supervision pursuant to [the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act] is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea and, therefore, the current state of the law does not require that defendants be informed of it prior to entering a plea of guilty” … . As such, we discern no error in Supreme Court’s denial of respondent’s request for specific performance. Nor are we persuaded by respondent’s assertion that specific performance is appropriate because the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 litigation ensued following the expiration of his sentence, as the article 10 proceeding commenced upon the date that the petition was filed, prior to respondent’s release date … . Matter of State of New York v Robert G., 2020 NY Slip Op 00009, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

, , , ,

PENSION OF POLICE OFFICER CONVICTED OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CAN, UNDER THE SON OF SAM LAW, BE REACHED TO SATISFY A $1 MILLION JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE CRIME VICTIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Son of Sam Law trumped the CPLR, the Retirement and Social Security Law, and the Administrative Code of the City of New York with respect to the pension of a former NYC police officer who was convicted of murder and attempted murder and against whom plaintiff obtained a personal injury judgment of more than $1 million:

“Executive Law § 632-a sets forth a statutory scheme intended to improve the ability of crime victims to obtain full and just compensation from the person(s) convicted of the crime by allowing crime victims or their representatives to sue the convicted criminals who harmed them when the criminals receive substantial sums of money from virtually any source and protecting those funds while litigation is pending” … . … [I]n 2001, the Legislature amended the [Son of Sam] law to allow a crime victim to seek recovery from “funds of a convicted person,” which includes “all funds and property received from any source by a person convicted of a specified crime,” but specifically excludes child support and earned income (Education Law § 632-a [1] [c]). * * *

This Court has found … that CPLR 5205 (c) is superseded by the Son of Sam Law … . Defendant’s assertions that Retirement and Social Security Law § 110 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-264 protect his pension from assignment to satisfy plaintiff’s money judgment are similarly without merit due to the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law … . Prindle v Guzy, 2020 NY Slip Op 00011, Third Dept 1-2-20

 

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