You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

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

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUED YANKEE TRAILS FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN IN THIS BUS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; THE OWNER OF THE BUS WAS ACTUALLY YANKEE TRAILS WORLD TOURS, A COMPANY WITH A DIFFERENT ADDRESS AND CEO; PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECT DEFENDANT, MADE AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined plaintiff should not have been allowed to have more time to serve defendant and amend the complaint to substitute the correct defendant. The action stemmed from a traffic accident involving a bus owned by Yankee Trails. Five days before the statute of limitations ran, plaintiff commenced an action against Yankee Trails World Tours, a different corporation with different addresses and different chief executive officers:

… [W]hether relief pursuant to CPLR 306-b and 305 (c) is available is not merely a matter of discretion. Significantly, “CPLR 306-b cannot be used to extend the time for service against a defendant as to which the action was never validly commenced” … . Similarly, although a court may allow amendment of a summons to correct the name of a defendant pursuant to CPLR 305 (c), such remedy is not available where a plaintiff seeks to substitute a defendant who has not been properly served … .

The fact that defendant and Yankee Trails use the same insurance carrier is of no significance in the circumstances presented; notably, the record reflects that the insurance carrier did not contact Yankee Trails until after the statute of limitations had expired. Nor may we consider plaintiff’s error a mere misnomer that would allow relief to be granted pursuant to CPLR 305 (c) and CPLR 306-b … . Upon this record, plaintiff’s attempt to “proceed against [Yankee Trails as] an unserved and entirely new defendant” after the statute of limitations had run should have been denied, as he failed to obtain jurisdiction over Yankee Trails for relief pursuant CPLR 306-b and, thus, to later amend the complaint pursuant to CPLR 305 … . Fadlalla v Yankee Trails World Tours, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05044, Third Dept 6-20-19

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR PAROLE WAS TAINTED BY INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE OFFENSES COMMITTED BY DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the administrative appeal of the denial of parole was tainted by inaccurate information about the offenses committed by defendant:

… [T]he claim asserted by petitioner is preserved as it could not have been raised upon administrative appeal. Specifically, petitioner challenges the fact that the administrative appeals unit relied upon inaccurate information regarding his criminal history in affirming the Board’s denial of parole. A review of the statement by the appeals unit inaccurately reported that petitioner murdered six, as opposed to four, people. “Because of the likelihood that such error may have affected” the decision to affirm the Board’s denial of petitioner’s request for parole release, proper administrative review is required … . Matter of Torres v Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 05043, Third Dept 6-20-19

 

, , ,

NO RECORD OF JUDGE’S DISCUSSION OF A JURY NOTE WITH COUNSEL, MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED; DEFENDANT AUTHORIZED HIS AGENT TO SHOW HIS LETTER TO HIS ATTORNEY TO A THIRD PARTY, NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SENTENCES CANNOT BE CONSECUTIVE FOR CRIMES WITH THE SAME ACTUS REUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined (1) because there was no record of the judge’s discussion of a jury note with counsel, the murder conviction (the only count to which the jury note was relevant) must be reversed. (2) although defendant’s girlfriend was defendant’s agent for the purpose of delivering defendant’s letter, which was mailed to her, to his attorney, there was evidence defendant authorized his girlfriend’s mother to read the letter. therefore the attorney-client privilege was lost, (3) the unauthorized use of a vehicle charge has the same actus reus as the robbery and grand larceny charges, therefore the sentence for unauthorized use of a vehicle cannot run consecutively with the sentences for robbery and grand larceny, but it can run consecutively to the sentences for the burglary and criminal possession of stolen property charges:

A divided Court of Appeals has held that meaningful notice is not provided where there is no record indicating that counsel was informed of the “precise contents” of the note before the response is given to the jury, or where the trial court paraphrases or summarizes a jury note …. Given the court’s statement to the jury that it had an off-the-record conversation with counsel regarding the note, it would not be unreasonable to believe that County Court had informed counsel of the note’s precise contents. However, the record contains no specific indication that the court provided counsel with the precise content of the note before it delivered its response to the jury, nor was the note read verbatim on the record before the response was given. Thus, the record fails to establish that counsel had the opportunity to participate in the formation of the court’s response to the jury’s substantive inquiry.  * * *

In these circumstances, we conclude that [defendant’s girlfriend]  was acting as defendant’s agent. Thus, whether the letter was protected by the attorney-client privilege turns on whether defendant had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when he sent it to [her]. In that regard, there was contradictory evidence regarding whether defendant authorized [her] to share a copy of the letter with her mother, which County Court resolved by determining that defendant had authorized disclosure to [her] mother … . The determination that defendant specifically authorized disclosure of the letter to a third party, i.e., [his girlfriend’s] mother, established that defendant had no reasonable expectation of confidentiality and, therefore, defeated the attorney-client privilege. Thus, County Court did not err in admitting the letter. People v Henry, 2019 NY Slip Op 05024, Third Dept 6-20-19

 

,

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

 

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