You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROPERLY NOTIFIED OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PROBATION AND THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT VIOLATED A CONDITION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was not properly notified of alleged violations of probation and the proof did not support a finding that defendant violated a condition of probation:

Where a violation of probation is alleged to have occurred, a written statement must be filed with the court and provided to defendant “setting forth the condition or conditions of the sentence violated and a reasonable description of the time, place and manner in which the violation occurred” (CPL 410.70 [2] …). Here, the details of the alleged violations in the uniform court report only included the   that defendant violated condition 2, which required her to obey all state and federal laws, by engaging in conduct that led to her September 2015 and March 2016 arrests. Although a different section of the uniform court report summarizing defendant’s probation supervision referenced other incidents that County Court made findings with respect thereto, the uniform court report only alleged that defendant violated condition 2 of the terms of her probation (see CPL 410.70 [2]). Moreover, defendant’s probation officer acknowledged in her testimony that defendant was not charged in the uniform court report with violating conditions 8, 12 and 16. Notwithstanding the testimony that was allowed at the hearing with regard to conditions 8, 12 and 16, defendant was not provided with a written statement informing her that she was also being charged with violating these conditions of her probation. Accordingly, County Court’s finding that defendant violated these terms of her probation was improper (see CPL 410.70 [2]…). …

Condition 2 of the terms of defendant’s probation required her to obey all federal, state and local laws and notify her probation officer immediately if questioned or arrested by a law enforcement agency or if convicted of a new offense. In support of its allegation that defendant violated this condition, the People adduced the testimony of defendant’s probation officer who testified, in relevant part, that defendant notified her of both the September 2015 and March 2016 arrests and charges. Beyond the probation officer’s testimony that defendant had been arrested on two occasions, no additional evidence or proof was offered as to the underlying acts. Accordingly, County Court’s finding that defendant violated condition 2 of her probation was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence … . People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 05018, Third Dept 6-20-19

 

,

LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE SUBSTANCE REFERENCED IN THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS COCAINE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in an appeal by the People, affirmed County Court’s dismissal of the indictment because there was legally insufficient evidence that the substance involved was cocaine:

“‘Legally sufficient evidence’ means competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof” (CPL 70.10 [1] …). “The reviewing court must consider whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the People, if unexplained and uncontradicted — and deferring all questions as to the weight or quality of the evidence — would warrant conviction” … . “[I]n a drug-related prosecution[, as we have here,] the People’s case is legally sufficient if the evidence provides a ‘reliable basis’ for inferring the presence of a controlled substance” … . “More than conclusory assertions that the defendant possessed a drug are required at the [g]rand [j]ury stage” … . …

The evidence presented to the grand jury consisted of sparse testimony from the CI and an investigator involved in the controlled transactions, with most of the substance of that testimony having been supplied through leading questions. As to the first transaction, the CI testified, in a conclusory manner, that he believed the substance to be crack cocaine, without providing any description of the substance or explanation for his belief … , and, with respect to the second transaction, the CI did not express any belief as to the nature of the substance he received from defendant … . Additionally, although the investigator testified that he received white chunky substances from the CI, his testimony surrounding the testing of those substances was sorely lacking. He did not provide any detail as to his training and experience in field testing, explain how field testing occurs or specifically identify what he did in this case to determine that both substances were cocaine. People v Carlin, 2019 NY Slip Op 04788, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

ATV’S ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (1) (FIRST DEGREE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER); CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (3) DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department dismissed certain counts of the indictment which stemmed from an accident involving an ATV (all-terrain vehicle). A passenger in the ATV, driven by defendant, was thrown from the ATV and killed. Defendant was alleged to have been driving while intoxicated and was convicted of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, aggravated driving while intoxicated and driving while intoxicated. The Third Department determined that one of the first degree vehicular manslaughter counts must be dismissed because ATV’s are not motor vehicles within the meaning of that statute (Penal Law 125.13 (1)).  The court also found that three concurrent inclusory counts must be dismissed:

ATVs are specifically excluded by the plain language of the relevant definition of motor vehicle. As relevant herein, the Penal Law defines “vehicle” to include a “motor vehicle,” which is further defined in the Vehicle and Traffic Law as “[e]very vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power, except. . . [ATVs] as defined in [Vehicle and Traffic Law] article [48-B]” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 …; see Penal Law § 10.00 [14]). This specific exclusion of ATVs from the definition of motor vehicle is further evident from two statutes that contain provisions that would be unnecessary if ATVs were included in the definition of motor vehicle. First, the crime of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree contains separate provisions for incidents that arise from the operation of motor vehicles (see Penal Law § 125.12 [1]) and ATVs (see Penal Law § 125.12 [3]) and, second, the Vehicle and Traffic Law contains a provision specifically providing that ATVs are motor vehicles for the purpose of Vehicle and Traffic Law article 31, which prohibits the intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 2404 [5]). Thus, we are constrained to conclude that ATVs are not motor vehicles for purposes of the Penal Law. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence does not support defendant’s conviction for vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under Penal Law § 125.13 (1) (count 1). * * *

Defendant contends that his convictions under counts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under count 2 (see CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). “Concurrent counts are ‘inclusory’ when the offense charged in one is greater than any of those charged in the others and when the latter are all lesser offenses included within the greater” (CPL 300.30 [4]). The People concede that defendant’s conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree under count 2 requires that counts 3, 4, 6 and 7 be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts. However, they accurately note that count 5 — charging aggravated driving while intoxicated — is not an inclusory concurrent count of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree as charged pursuant to Penal Law § 125.13 (3) in count 2 because it is possible to commit the latter without also committing the former … . People v Wager, 2019 NY Slip Op 04786, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff, who is five feet seven inches tall, was injured when a six-foot high stack of scaffold partially fell over. The difference between the plaintiff’s height and the height of the stacked scaffolds was deemed de minimus:

In a previous appeal from an order deciding the parties’ motions for summary judgment, we determined that the scaffolding frames, estimated to be about six feet tall, established an elevation differential, but that questions of fact remained as to plaintiff’s actual height, “the number of scaffolds stacked in the pile that collapsed, the weight of each scaffold and the manner in which the scaffold(s) struck plaintiff” … . These details are significant because “[i]n determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimus, we must consider not only the height differential itself, but also ‘the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent'” … . …

To support their motion, defendants submitted the affidavit of Ernest Gailor, an engineer. Gailor opined that “the [five]-inch differential between the top of . . . plaintiff’s head and the maximum height of [the] frames . . . did not significantly contribute to the ‘total’ force at impact of the offending frame as it struck plaintiff.” * * *

In our view, defendants’ submissions established a prima facie basis to conclude that the elevation differential here was de minimus and that plaintiff’s claim falls outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Wright v Ellsworth Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04803, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

, ,

THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE CURRENT INSURER FOR INDEMNIFICATION, PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT, ONE INSURER HAD SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR THE CONTAMINANT, THE OTHER TWO WERE NOT PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF THE CLAIM AS REQUIRED BY THEIR POLICIES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the summary judgment motions brought by three prior insurers of the property contaminated by oil were properly granted. The three insurers, Arch, AAIC and NSC, were third-party defendants in an action for indemnification brought by the current insurer of the property, Utica Mutual. The Arch policy had a specific exclusion of coverage for the contaminant. Arch’s failure to comply with the filing requirement of Insurance Law 2307 did not void the exclusion because there was no evidence Arch violated any regulations or statutes. The actions against AAIC and NSC were properly dismissed because notification of the potential contamination claim by Utica was not made for three years after Utica was aware of the contamination:

… [The] evidence established that the petroleum cleanup and removal costs sought to be recovered by plaintiff arose out of, or were the result of, MTBE contamination at both the spill site and the Honeoye Municipal District Well and, thus, satisfied Arch’s prima facie burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint fell completely within the MTBE exclusion … . …

… Insurance Law § 2307 … states that “no policy form shall be delivered or issued for delivery unless it has been filed with the superintendent [of financial services] and either he [or she] has approved it, or [30] days have elapsed and he [or she] has not disapproved it as misleading or violative of public policy” … . However, as Supreme Court correctly noted, the failure to file under Insurance Law § 2307 “does not, by itself, void the policy clause . . .[; rather,] such clause is void only if the substantive provisions of the clause are inconsistent with other statutes or regulations” … . …

… Utica Mutual failed to tender sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to whether it was justifiably ignorant of AAIC’s and NSC’s prior insurance coverage. Indeed, despite having access to Kirkwood and Kirkwood’s records immediately after learning of the contamination and its purported cause, Utica Mutual produced no evidence to show that it made any effort to discover AAIC’s and NSC’s existence before July 2010, when Utica Mutual’s counsel sent a letter to Kirkwood’s former insurance broker seeking information regarding Kirkwood’s prior insurers. Utica Mutual provided no explanation as to why it waited until July 2010 to inquire about prior insurers. State of New York v Flora, 2019 NY Slip Op 04801, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

PETITIONER HAD AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR WITH MOTHER WHO REMAINS MARRIED, PETITION FOR GENETIC TESTING PROPERLY DENIED BASED UPON THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Family Court properly denied the petitioner’s request for genetic testing, citing the presumption of legitimacy and the best interests of the child. Petitioner had an extramarital affair with mother, who remains married:

The testimony at the hearing established that respondents were married at all relevant times, including when the child was conceived and when the child was born. The husband was present at the child’s birth and was named on the child’s birth certificate as the father. Since the birth of the child, who was three years old at the time of the hearing, it is undisputed that the husband has taken an active role as a parent and has developed a strong and loving bond with the child … . The mother testified that she believes the husband to be the child’s biological father and, to date, the husband is the only father that the child has known. Although petitioner’s expert and the school social worker who testified on respondents’ behalf disagreed on the ultimate question of whether genetic testing should be performed, petitioner’s expert specifically qualified his recommendation, stating that, although he believed genetic testing should be performed, he “would not want that to suddenly mean that the child has to find [the results] out” and opined that, to do so at such a young age, would be “ill-advised” and that any such revelation should occur sometime “within [10] years” and “before puberty,” with the aid of “counseling or consultation.” Meanwhile, the social worker opined that, given the child’s young age, it would be confusing, traumatic and potentially disruptive to his development and ability to form proper attachments throughout the rest of his life should such information be revealed at the present time. Family Court also appropriately considered the hostility that petitioner harbors toward respondents in determining that granting petitioner’s application would only serve to create uncertainty and unnecessarily disrupt the child’s otherwise stable, loving and established family dynamic … . Matter of Mario WW. v Kristin XX., 2019 NY Slip Op 04798, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

, , ,

COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner must seek review of the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to CPL 40.40 by direct appeal, not by the instant Article 78 action for prohibition or mandamus re: the district attorney and the judge. Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People had legally sufficient evidence to support the indictment at the time he pled guilty to a prior indictment. County Court denied that motion without a hearing, even though County Court noted it could not determine whether the People had legally sufficient evidence at the time petitioner pled guilty:

The District Attorney contends that petitioner may not obtain collateral review of County Court’s denial of his motion through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We agree. “Neither [of the extraordinary remedies of] prohibition nor mandamus lies as a means to obtain collateral review of an alleged error of law particularly where, as here, there is an adequate remedy at law by way of a direct appeal” … . Any error in County Court’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss indictment No. 3 without a hearing is, at most, a mere error of law that does not justify the invocation of the extraordinary remedies sought … . Matter of Davis v Nichols, 2019 NY Slip Op 04794, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, REVERSING FAMILY COURT, DETERMINED IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (BORN 2003) TO ORDER A DNA TEST FOR PETITIONER, IN PART BECAUSE NOT KNOWING WHO HER BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS IS A SOURCE OF TURMOIL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined it was in the child’s best interests that petitioner undergo a paternity test:

In light of [the] evidence, as well as evidence revealed at the Lincoln hearing, we disagree with Family Court’s determination that equitable estoppel applies and find that it is in the child’s bests interests for DNA testing to occur. The record is clear that the child understands that William P. is her “legal” father and that there is a significant chance that petitioner is her biological father. Although testing could possibly impact the child’s relationship with William P., the record reveals that this relationship is already tumultuous and that some of this tumult may stem from the child’s uncertainty as to whether petitioner is in fact her biological father. Indeed, it is evident from the record that if the child learns that William P. is her biological father, this information would positively benefit their relationship. The record also reveals that communication between petitioner and the child has occurred, possibly in violation of a court order, but that communication nevertheless occurred and it has had a clear effect on the child that cannot be mitigated by refusing to order a DNA test. In fact, DNA testing can mitigate the turmoil in the child’s life that presently exists because she does not know who her biological father is. Although we are certainly mindful of the inherent inequities in allowing a DNA test to occur given the child’s age [born 2003], our analysis must turn exclusively on the best interests of the child … . To that end, we are also mindful that, if petitioner is found to be the child’s biological father, given his lengthy incarceration, the child will not be able to enjoy a “traditional” parent-child relationship with him. However, petitioner and the child would be able to communicate by way of letters, telephone contact and potentially through visitation at the prison. Matter of Stephen N. v Amanda O., 2019 NY Slip Op 04510, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS WARNED HE WOULD BE SENTENCED EVEN IF HE DIDN’T APPEAR AT SENTENCING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SENTENCED DEFENDANT IN ABSENTIA WITHOUT FIRST INQUIRING INTO THE REASON AND WHETHER DEFENDANT COULD BE LOCATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the defendant’s sentence, determined defendant should not have been sentenced in absentia:

Defendant had a waivable right to be present at sentencing, and he was indisputably informed of that right “and of the consequences for failing to appear, including the fact that the proceedings would go forward in his . . . absence” … . Nevertheless, “before proceeding in the absence of a defendant who fails to appear, the court must conduct an inquiry into the reason for the absence and consider whether the defendant could be located within a reasonable period of time” … . County Court did not make that inquiry and, indeed, rejected defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to look into the reasons for defendant’s absence. Thus, County Court erred in sentencing defendant in absentia … . People v Cutler, 2019 NY Slip Op 04504, Third Dept 6-619

 

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE INTEGRITY OF THE GRAND JURY WAS COMPROMISED BY THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INQUIRE FURTHER INTO THE POTENTIAL BIAS OF A GRAND JUROR, A TEACHER, WHO HAD TAUGHT THE DEFENDANT TEN YEARS BEFORE, INDICTMENT REINSTATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined, on the People’s appeal, that the integrity of the grand jury was not affected by the prosecutor’s alleged failure to inquire about the potential bias of a grand juror. One of the grand jurors was a teacher and the defendant had been his student 10 years before:

“Dismissal of an indictment pursuant to CPL 210.35 (5) is a drastic, exceptional remedy and should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the grand jury” . “The likelihood of prejudice turns on the particular facts of each case, including the weight and nature of the admissible proof adduced to support the indictment and the degree of inapp… ropriate prosecutorial influence or bias” … . Prejudice may arise based upon a close relationship between a grand juror and a witness … . …

The record discloses that one of the grand jurors knew one of the testifying witnesses. The grand juror, who used to be a teacher and had been retired for 10 years, stated that the witness was a former student and that he had not seen the witness since the student left his class. The grand juror was then asked whether there was anything else that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial, to which he responded, “No.” In our view, the relationship between the grand juror and the witness was not a close relationship so as to give rise to the possibility of prejudice … . Furthermore, although the prosecutor’s voir dire of the grand juror was brief, we are satisfied that, based upon his unequivocal response thereto, the grand juror’s impartiality was not compromised … . People v Henriquez, 2019 NY Slip Op 04503, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

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