You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

FATHER, WHO DID NOT SUBMIT A PETITION FOR CUSTODY, WAS PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF HIS FITNESS AS A PARENT IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY MOTHER; FATHER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; ALTHOUGH FATHER DID NOT OBJECT, THE APPELLATE COURT HAS INHERENT AUTHORITY TO CORRECT FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father was deprived of due process of law because he was not allowed to put in evidence of his fitness as a parent in this custody proceeding brought by mother. Father did not file a custody petition. For that reason Family Court refused to allow father to put in evidence. The Third Department noted father did not object at trial but exercised its inherent authority to correct fundamental errors:

An initial custody determination must be based upon the best interests of the child, taking into account all relevant factors, including “the parents’ past performance and relative fitness, their willingness to foster a positive relationship between the child and the other parent, as well as their ability to maintain a stable home environment and provide for the child’s overall well-being” … . By this standard, the court must assess the qualifications of both parents in determining what custody determination best serves the interests of the child. In its decision, Family Court expressly held that because the father did not also file a custody petition, it could “only take into consideration the testimony brought by the mother.” There were several instances during the trial where the court precluded testimony from the father and his witness because he did not file a petition. As a result, the father was prevented from addressing all of the relevant factors, including who should be the primary custodian and what he did to foster a relationship between the child and the mother. The father’s stepfather was precluded from testifying as to his observations of the father as a parent. The father was allowed to briefly testify as to his average day with the child at the conclusion of testimony … . …

We are mindful that the father did not raise any objections at trial to Family Court’s evidentiary limitations. We are also mindful that the father was able to briefly testify as to his interactions with the child. That said, this court has inherent authority to exercise its discretion and correct fundamental errors … . In our view, the court’s failure to allow the father a full and fair opportunity to present evidence, coupled with the court’s own limitations on its decision, constitutes a fundamental due process error requiring reversal of Family Court’s order … . Matter of Liska J. v Benjamin K., 2019 NY Slip Op 05347, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF VICTIM’S DISCLOSURE TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A PROMPT OUTCRY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined detailed evidence of prior uncharged sexual offenses was not admissible under Molineux. The defendant was charged with criminal sexual act alleging defendant asked a six or seven year old boy to perform oral sex on him. The People presented in their direct case the testimony of two female relatives of the defendant alleging sexual offenses occurring more than seven years before the victim’s disclosure in the instant case. County Court also erroneously allowed hearsay about the victim’s disclosure, two and a half years after the alleged incident, under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule:

The female relatives specifically testified to repeated instances of oral sex, vaginal sex and digital penetration by defendant, and one of the female relatives stated that defendant forced her and the other female relative to perform sexual acts upon each other as he watched. Contrary to County Court’s conclusion, such detailed testimony was not necessary to complete the narrative as to how and why the victim’s disclosure occurred … . Additionally, the prior uncharged acts did not bear a sufficient similarity to the incident underlying the charged crimes so as to constitute, as the People argued, a common scheme or plan or demonstrate defendant’s intent or motive … . Accordingly, as the People failed to establish that the proffered evidence was probative of a material issue other than defendant’s criminal propensity, County Court erred in permitting such evidence … . Moreover, even if the proffered evidence were relevant to some nonpropensity purpose, County Court erroneously determined that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect … . People v Saxe, 2019 NY Slip Op 05345, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS, OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AWARE OF A NOTE FROM THE JURY SUCH THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY COUNSEL WAS TRIGGERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, holding the appeal in abeyance, determined a hearing was required to determine whether the trial court was aware, or should have been aware, of the existence of a note from the jury such that the court’s responsibility to alert counsel was triggered:

We find this case similar to People v Meyers (___ NY3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 03658 [2019]), in which the Court of Appeals addressed the circumstance where a purported jury note that had been marked as a court exhibit was discovered in the court file after the trial, presenting circumstances suggesting that it may have been a draft that the jury discarded or chose not to submit to the trial court. * * *

Here, as in Meyers, we are presented with a scanty and ambiguous record, precluding this Court from determining whether County Court’s core responsibilities were triggered by its knowledge of the note or by circumstances that should have alerted the court to its presence. Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing to assess the circumstances pertaining to the events at trial during the jury’s deliberations and the acceptance of its verdict, including the transmission, receipt, marking and communication to the court of all three notes, and for a report to this Court setting out the court’s findings. People v Johnson, 2019 NY Slip Op 05344, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED UPON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON ALL THE RELATED LESSER COUNTS REQUIRED REVERSAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the jury was not properly instructed on the justification defense. The defendant was acquitted of the top count, attempted murder, and was convicted attempted assault first, a lesser included offense. The jury was not told that an acquittal on the top count based upon the justification defense required an acquittal on all the counts to which the justification defense applied. The issue was not preserved but was considered in the interest of justice:

“[I]n a case involving a claim of self-defense, it is error for the trial court not to instruct the [jury] that, if [it finds] the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, [it is] not to consider any lesser counts” … . Such failure constitutes reversible error … . …

… [T]he court’s instructions, together with the verdict sheet, failed to adequately convey to the jury that, if it found defendant not guilty of attempted murder in the second degree based on justification, it was not to consider the lesser counts to which the justification defense applied … . People v Daniels, 2019 NY Slip Op 05343, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

, , ,

RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF PREJUDICE CAUSED BY PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE PHONE WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAPTURED IMAGES OF THE INCIDENT AT THE HEART OF THE LAWSUIT, DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined that the record was not sufficient to conclude whether dismissal of the complaint was a proper sanction for spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff alleged defendant negligently or intentionally struck defendant with an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Defendant asked plaintiff to preserve a phone which allegedly contained images of the incident. Plaintiff did not preserve the phone but provided one image and one video which were alleged to have been on the phone. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as a sanction for spoliation. The Third Department noted there was evidence that all the metadata on the phone had been preserved and remitted the matter for discovery and, if necessary, an appropriate sanction:

… [T]he factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sanctions for such failures are “the extent that the spoliation of evidence may prejudice a party and whether a dismissal will be necessary as a matter of elementary fairness” … . …

… [W]e remit to Supreme Court with direction for plaintiff to promptly obtain and provide to defendant all photos, videos and metadata pertinent to the incident that have been preserved in any source, or to provide defendant with full access to any such stored photos, videos and metadata. The retrieval and examination of this information — or the continued failure to do so — will permit Supreme Court to reexamine, upon a full record, whether pertinent electronic information has been lost as a result of plaintiff’s failure to preserve the phone, to what extent defendant has been prejudiced by that loss and, thus, whether dismissal, an adverse inference charge or some other sanction may be appropriate … . LaBuda v LaBuda, 2019 NY Slip Op 05372, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

CLAIMANT HAD THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CARRIER’S CONSULTANT, WHO DETERMINED CLAIMANT SUFFERED A 40% SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE, DESPITE THE FACT CLAIMANT NEVER FILED A COMPETING MEDICAL OPINION (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department determined claimant’s counsel’s request to cross-examine the carrier’s consultant, who concluded claimant suffered a 40% schedule loss of use, should not have been denied on the ground claimant had not filed a competing medical opinion (C-4.3 form):

12 NYCRR 300.10 (c) provides, in relevant part, that “[w]hen the employer or its carrier or special fund desires to produce for cross-examination an attending physician whose report is on file, the referee shall grant an adjournment for such purpose.” As the Board correctly noted, although a claimant’s right to cross-examine a carrier’s consulting physician is not expressly referenced in the cited regulation, it “is permitted under tenets of due process” … . In this regard, a “claimant’s request for cross-examination is not invalidated by the failure to produce a C-4.3 [form]” … , but this right may be waived if not asserted in a timely manner … . Notably, “[t]he only requirement is that the request for such cross-examination must be timely made at a hearing, prior to the WCLJ’s ruling on the merits” … . Matter of Ferguson v Eallonardo Constr., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05255, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

PAROLE BOARD MAY CONSIDER SUCH FACTORS AS REMORSE AND INSIGHT INTO THE OFFENSE, EVEN THOUGH THOSE FACTORS ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, affirming the denial of release on parole, noted that the parole board may properly consider remorse and insight into the offense, even though those factors are not listed in the statute:

Petitioner argues that the Board improperly questioned him regarding both what caused him to commit the crimes and why he initially failed to accept responsibility, resulting in the two young victims having to testify in court against him. “[W]hile the Board may not consider factors outside the scope of the applicable statute . . ., it can consider factors — such as remorse and insight into the offense — that are not enumerated in the statute but nonetheless relevant to an assessment of whether an inmate presents a danger to the community” … . As the Board’s questions challenged by petitioner were aimed at petitioner’s remorse, his acceptance of responsibility and insight into the crimes, they were not improper … and did not deprive petitioner of a fair hearing. Matter of Payne v Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 05242, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

,

SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the superior court information (SCI) to which defendant pled guilty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not include the time of the offense. The error survives the guilty plea and waiver of appeal and is not subject to the preservation requirement:

… [T]he People concede and we agree that the waiver of indictment is invalid and the SCI is jurisdictionally defective for failure to set forth the approximate time of the offense in accordance with CPL 195.20 … . People v Jones, 2019 NY Slip Op 05236, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AT SENTENCING RAISED THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE REQUIRING FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, ISSUE CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT, CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea,  determined defendant’s statements at sentencing, indicating that he was intoxicated at the time he committed the crimes (assault), required further inquiry by the court. The Third Department noted that the issue constitutes an exception to the preservation requirement:

The statements made by defendant at sentencing, which raised the possibility of an intoxication defense and called into question the intent element of assault in the first degree (see Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), were sufficient to trigger the narrow exception to the preservation requirement, thereby imposing a duty of further inquiry upon County Court “to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary” … . … [D]efendant did not say anything during the course of the plea colloquy that suggested a possible intoxication defense  … , and defendant’s statements at sentencing contradicted his sworn admissions during the plea colloquy … . However, “statements made by a defendant that negate an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered, raise the possibility of a [particular] defense or otherwise suggest an involuntary plea require[] the trial court to then conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … . County Court did not pursue either of those avenues here. People v Skyers, 2019 NY Slip Op 05233, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

, ,

PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE REPRESENTED DEFENDANT AND THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that the public defender’s office represented both the defendant and the confidential informant (CI) creating a conflict of interest. Although the issue was apparently not preserved, the appellate court considered the issue in the interest of justice:

“A defendant is denied the right to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment when, absent inquiry by the court and the informed consent of [the] defendant, defense counsel represents interests which are actually in conflict with those of [the] defendant” … . “Discussions of the effect of a lawyer’s conflict of interest on a defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel distinguish between a potential conflict and an actual conflict” … . “An actual conflict exists if an attorney simultaneously represents clients whose interests are opposed and, in such situations, reversal is required if the defendant does not waive the actual conflict. In contrast, a potential conflict that is not waived by the accused requires reversal only if it operates on or affects the defense” … .

Here, the People concede that the Public Defender’s office was simultaneously representing both defendant and the CI during the pendency of this criminal action, and defendant and the CI had opposing interests. Inasmuch as defendant never waived the conflict, reversal of the judgment is warranted … . People v Palmer, 2019 NY Slip Op 05228, Third Dept 6-27-19

 

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