You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, DID NOT OBJECT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, AND ALLOWED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CRIMES TO COME IN DESPITE A SANDOVAL RULING KEEPING IT OUT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction in this sex-offense case and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel did not provide effective assistance. Defense counsel vouched for the credibility of the victim and allowed evidence of defendant’s prior crimes to come in, despite a Sandoval ruling keeping it out:

… [D]uring counsel’s opening statement, he commented that, in his training representing victims of sexual assault, “the first thing I had to do was believe the accuser. I didn’t have a problem with that. I mean, why would someone make up an important detail or leave out certain details and accuse someone of a crime like rape?” Not only did counsel seemingly vouch for the victim’s credibility in this first opportunity to address the jury, but he also did the same in his summation, again reminding the jury that he had represented victims of sexual assault, stating that he “start[s] by believing it. I don’t sense any ill will from [the victim]” and that he knew “a verdict of not guilty in this case is not going to make anyone happy.” … . * * *

… [D]efense counsel elicited testimony that defendant had been in and out of jail for 10 years, was a regular drug user, had sold cocaine before and was a parolee who was violating parole conditions by being out past curfew as well as consuming alcohol and cocaine … on the night of the incident. Thereafter, when defendant chose to testify as to his version of events, County Court determined that since defense counsel had questioned the friend regarding defendant having been on parole at the time of the incident and in and out of prison for 10 years, the door had been opened for the People to pursue those lines of questioning with defendant on cross-examination. * * *

Compounding these errors, during the People’s summation, the prosecutor repeatedly improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility … , without objection from defense counsel, one time going so far as to say that the victim “testified credibly, consistently, believably and authentically.” Defense counsel’s failure to object to this repeated vouching is even more problematic given his own insinuations that the victim, as a sexual assault victim, should be believed. People v Monk, 2025 NY Slip Op 01976, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: It is difficult to think of a defense trial strategy that would include vouching for the credibility of the victim in a sex offense case. It is difficult to think of a defense trial strategy that would include allowing evidence of defendant’s prior crimes, which was the subject of a Sandoval ruling keeping it out, to come in. A trial, first and foremost, is an adversarial proceeding.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL, AND DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO RAISE THE WINNING ARGUMENT IN THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT GRANTED DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO REMOVE THE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION FROM HIS SENTENCE; THE OFFENSE OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s judgment of conviction and reinstating it without the sex-offender certification, determined the offense of which defendant was convicted, burglary third degree as a sexually motivated felony, is not a registrable offense under the Correction Law. The court noted that a sex-offender certification is part of the sentence and therefore should have been challenged on direct appeal. Because an appeal is no longer possible, the court accepted the motion to vacate as an appropriate mechanism for correcting the error. Although the court rejected defendant’s “ineffective assistance of counsel” argument, it still granted the relief defendant sought on the constitutional ground that defendant has a “liberty interest” in not being misclassified as a sex offender:

Although defendant did not expressly raise such grounds in his motion, we note the People’s concession at oral argument that, in advocating that defendant pursue a different procedural course to obtain the requested relief, they do not oppose the ultimate result sought by defendant — the vacatur of the provisions of his judgment certifying him as a sex offender. * * * … [B]earing in mind that no party disputes that defendant should be afforded the discrete relief that he seeks in this proceeding and that defendant’s motion broadly seeks relief pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h), we believe it appropriate, in the interest of judicial economy, to address this matter now rather than require defendant to file a new motion asserting a different constitutional basis for the same relief. We therefore exercise our discretion, in the interest of justice, and grant defendant’s motion, vacate the judgment, and thereafter reinstate the judgment without the provisions thereof certifying defendant as a sex offender pursuant to SORA and requiring him to pay the $50 sex offender registration fee … . People v Richardson, 2025 NY Slip Op 01980, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here is a rare instance of an appellate court’s overlooking defendant’s failure to raise the sex-offender-misclassification issue on direct appeal and defendant’s failure to raise the winning constitutional argument in the motion to vacate the conviction. The reason? No one objected to the relief defendant sought, i.e. correction of the misclassification of the defendant as a sex offender. The objections were to the mechanism used to request the relief.

 

​

, , , ,

ISSUING A RULING BEFORE FATHER COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED THE PARTIES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge’s issuing a ruling awarding custody to father before father’s direct testimony had been completed violated due process:

The parties, as well as the attorney for the child, share the view that Family Court improperly ended the hearing before its completion, and we agree. At a hearing on an initial custody determination, due process requires that each party be provided a full and fair opportunity to be heard … . The parties must be permitted to present evidence on their own behalf and ” ‘cross-examine . . . key witness[es]’ ” … . Aside from due process considerations, a court’s “abrupt termination of the proceedings [may] preclude[ ] a meaningful best interests analysis, leaving the court . . . with insufficient information upon which to reach a reasoned conclusion” … .

Recognizing that this custody proceeding largely turned upon the credibility of the mother and the father, each of whom alleged that the other was an unfit parent, Family Court deprived both parties of a full and fair opportunity to be heard by inexplicably cutting off the father’s direct testimony and failing to allow any cross-examination of him. Further, given that the court granted the father sole legal and primary physical custody of the child in the face of the mother’s allegations that the father had committed numerous acts of domestic violence, including in front of the child, the court’s failure to allow cross-examination of the father deprived it of sufficient information to perform a meaningful best interests analysis … . Accordingly, we reverse and remit for a new fact-finding hearing … . Matter of Casey Q. v Jeffrey O., 2025 NY Slip Op 01981, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here in this child custody dispute, the judge issued a ruling awarding custody to father before father had completed his direct testimony. The premature ruling deprived the parties of due process of law.

 

, , ,

THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S CLARIFICATION OF BILLING PRACTICES FOR PHYSICIANS WHO DISPENSE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM IS VALID; THE CLARIFICATION IS NOT A “RULE” AND IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined a clarification issued by the respondent NYS Department of Health, was valid, was not a rule, and was not void for vagueness. The clarification concerned the billing practices for physicians who dispense prescription drugs:

As it regularly does, respondent [NYS Department of Health] took steps to clarify appropriate billing practices. This included issuance of the July 2022 edition of its official newsletter of the New York State Medicaid Program — Medicaid Update. In a section entitled “Policy Clarification for Practitioner Dispensing” … , which purported to “supersede[ ] previous communications on this topic,” respondent stated that the state Medicaid program reimburses for drugs furnished by practitioners to their patients on the basis of the acquisition cost to the practitioner and that additional registration or ownership of a pharmacy is not required. The clarification went on to provide that practitioners billing for medications dispensed to its fee-for-service patients should use the medical claim format and that practitioners still participating in managed care should check with the patient’s health plan to determine the billing policy for prescription drugs dispensed directly to patients. Reportedly confused by the alleged change in billing practice, petitioner subsequently contacted respondent for further clarification. In response, respondent reiterated that a practitioner that dispenses drugs to their patients is not considered a pharmacy under either statutory or enrollment requirements and therefore should not be enrolled or billing as a pharmacy provider.

Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the clarification as an unpromulgated rule, unconstitutionally vague, irrational and violative of section 504 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (see 29 USC § 794). Citing anticipated financial losses for expenses attendant to medication dispensing, that is, beyond the acquisition cost of the drugs, petitioner argued that respondent’s alleged new rule would force it to cease its physician-dispensing services altogether, thereby both irrationally depriving cancer patients from effective treatment and discriminating against them by effectively precluding them from meaningful access to the provider of their choice. Matter of North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01985, Third Dept 4-3-25

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S WORKPLACE GENDER-DISCRIMINATION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a necessarily fact-specific decision, determined plaintiff’s employment-discrimination suit should not have been dismissed:

To establish a claim for gender discrimination under the Human Rights Law, a plaintiff must “show (1) that he or she was a member of a protected class, (2) that he or she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) that he or she was qualified to hold the position for which he or she suffered the adverse employment action, and (4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination” … . “Verbal comments can serve as evidence of discriminatory motivation when a plaintiff shows a nexus between the discriminatory remarks and the employment action at issue” … . “Employers are . . . required to provide reasonable avenues for discrimination and harassment complaints, to respond appropriately to such complaints, and to take reasonable steps to eliminate the harmful conduct; where they fail to do so, they are subject to liability under [the Human Rights Law]” … . * * *

The gravamen of plaintiff’s allegations is that Gulnick’s [plaintiff’s immediate boss’s] sexist views toward women fostered a workplace where women’s legitimate grievances were met with dismissal and ridicule, and conflicts that would otherwise have been dealt with were instead allowed to fester. When plaintiff sought to have her valid claims of harassment addressed in-house and ultimately in an outside mediation, Gulnick’s rebuke of her efforts envenomed with discriminatory commentary turned to anger, ultimately leading to plaintiff’s demotion and decrease in wages. Mikesh v County of Ulster, 2025 NY Slip Op 01987, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed fact-specific analysis of the criteria for a prima facie demonstration of gender discrimination in the workplace.​

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S STATE UNIVERSITY OWED DECEDENT A DUTY TO WARN HIM OF THE HOSTILITY HARBORED BY ANOTHER STUDENT WHO ULTIMATELY MURDERED DECEDENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined there exists a question of fact whether decedent’s university (Binghamton) owed decedent a duty to warn decedent of the hostility toward decedent harbored by another student (Roque), a former friend of the decedent, who murdered decedent:

To hold defendant liable for negligence, claimant must establish that the University owed decedent a duty, breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate cause of decedent’s death … . The threshold issue in any negligence action is whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legally recognized duty of care … . The existence and scope of a duty are legal questions for the courts to resolve in the first instance … .

… Claimant … is not seeking to hold the University liable for failing to protect decedent simply by virtue of his status as a student on campus … . The crux of claimant’s argument, as we understand it, is that counselors employed by the University’s Counseling Center were negligent in failing to make a threat assessment referral to the Dean of Students’ office upon learning of Roque’s hostility toward decedent in the months before the attack and in failing to warn decedent of Roque’s threats against him. Since the specific acts of negligence occurred during the University’s provision of mental health services — a proprietary function … — we conclude that no special duty need be established to hold the University liable and it is “held to the same duty of care as private individuals and institutions engaging in the same activity” … . * * *

Given that the University had threat assessment and referral procedures in place governing actions to take when faced with a distressed student, we conclude that the University owed decedent a duty to reasonably comply with those policies, if applicable … . Cuomo v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department held a state university may have a “general” (not a “special”) duty to warn a student of hostility harbored by another student.

 

, ,

THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE RESTITUTION WAS PUNISHMENT FOR WINNING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST TRIAL; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT VACATED THE RESTITUTION; ALSO, THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution portion of the sentence, determined the presumption of vindictiveness had not been overcome. The defendant had won an appeal requiring a second trial. Defendant argued that the restitution in the amount of $139,231.87 ordered after the second trial was punishment for the successful appeal. The Third Department also dismissed the murder second degree counts a inclusory concurrent courts of murder first degree:

“[T]o insure that trial courts do not impose longer sentences to punish defendants for taking an appeal, a presumption of vindictiveness generally arises when defendants who have won appellate reversals are given greater sentences after their retrials than were imposed after their initial convictions” … . * * *

… [T]he imposition of restitution after retrial did result in an enhanced sentence following defendant’s successful appeal, and, as a result, the presumption of vindictiveness arose … . However, the court failed to engage in any on-the-record examination of the objective reasons why an enhanced sentence must be imposed, other than finding that it was not vindictive to order defendant “to make financially whole the representatives of his victims,” facts that indisputably existed at the time of the initial sentencing … . * * *

While we observe that County Court may have not actually been seeking to punish defendant for exercising his right to appeal when it imposed restitution, it was nevertheless the court’s obligation to overcome the presumption of vindictiveness by placing the reasons for the enhanced sentence on the record, and, based upon its failure to do so, we are constrained to vacate this portion of defendant’s sentence … . People v Powell, 2025 NY Slip Op 01839, Second Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here ordering restitution as part of the sentence after the second trial raised a presumption that the restitution constituted “punishment” for defendant’s winning the appeal of the first trial. The sentencing court put nothing on the record to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, so the restitution was vacated.

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree counts were dismissed as concurrent inclusory counts of murder first.

 

,

THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING-RELATED RECKLESS-ENDANGERMENT-FIRST-DEGREE CONVICTION STEMMING FROM HIS STRIKING SEVERAL CARS, CAUSING ONE TO FLIP, AND CRASHING INTO A HOUSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department affirmed defendant reckless endangerment first degree conviction over a two-justice dissent which argued the evidence did not support the “depraved indifference” element of the offense:

From the dissent:

As the majority details, on the morning of June 27, 2018, defendant was driving his vehicle in the Town of Colonie, Albany County when he collided with several vehicles — causing one to flip over — before hitting a curb and crashing into the foundation of a house. We acknowledge that the People were able to rely on the circumstantial evidence surrounding defendant’s conduct to establish that he acted with the requisite mens rea of depraved indifference to human life … . Nevertheless, in reviewing these particular circumstances, we believe there is insufficient evidence to show that he was aware of, appreciated and disregarded the risks caused by his behavior (see id.). It is uncontroverted that defendant was driving recklessly and that, in doing so, he caused significant property damage as well as various degrees of injury to the victims. However, throughout this ordeal, which lasted less than five minutes and spanned less than half a mile, defendant was not driving well in excess of the posted speed limit, and there is no evidence that he ever drove against oncoming traffic or failed to obey traffic lights … . Even viewing the particular circumstances here in the light most favorable to the People, we do not believe that this case presents one of the rare circumstances where “the mens rea of depraved indifference . . . [is] established by risky behavior alone” … . People v Bender, 2025 NY Slip Op 01678, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the proof necessary for the “depraved indifference” element of reckless endangerment first degree in context of reckless driving.​

 

, ,

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, DESPITE THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR MOTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SAME GROUND, I.E., DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHEN DEFENDANT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the defendant’s second motion to vacate his murder conviction (by guilty plea) based on his attorney’s erroneously informing him he would be eligible for parole haff-way through the 15-year sentence required a hearing. Defendant had made a prior motion on the same ground which was denied by another judge. The Third Department noted that ordinarily the prior motion would preclude the instant motion, but irregularities in the prior order denying the motion and the facts asserted in support of the instant motion justified giving the defendant a second chance:

… [T]he Legislature anticipated there would be times when it would be appropriate to reconsider issues previously decided on the merits (see CPL 440.10 [3] …). Doubtless those times should be rare; but, in our view, this is one of them.

Critically, the instant motion includes witness affidavits affirming that counsel assured defendant that he would be eligible for parole review as early as halfway through his minimum 15-year term of imprisonment (see CPL 440.30 [1] [a]; compare CPL 440.30 [4] [d]). Also attached is correspondence between defendant and counsel from December 2020. In one letter, defendant asks why counsel advised him that he would be eligible for early parole; counsel’s response does not address defendant’s question. Given defendant’s submissions, plus his relatively young age and inexperience with the criminal justice system at the time of his guilty plea, along with the irregularities in the June 2020 order, summary denial of defendant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Accordingly, in the exercise of our broad authority to substitute our discretion for that of County Court … , we set aside the procedural bars to relief on the issue of counsel’s alleged erroneous parole advice and remit the matter for a hearing … . People v Phelps, 2025 NY Slip Op 01680, Third Dept 3-20-25

Practice Point: Here irregularities in the order denying defendant’s first motion to vacate his conviction and the facts presented in support of defendant’s second motion on the same ground justified consideration of the second motion.​

 

, ,

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND A FARM IN WHICH THE TOWN ALLEGED THE FARM WAS RUNNING A COMMERCIAL MULCHING OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TOWN CODE; THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DETERMINED THE FARM WAS NOT VIOLATING THE TOWN CODE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, determined the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets had jurisdiction over the matter and had the authority to determine a farm located in the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve (Central Pine Barrens) was not running a commercial mulching operation in violation of the Code of the Town of Brookhaven:

Respondent Delea Sod Farms, Inc. (hereinafter Delea Farms) operates a farm in an agricultural district in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, where it primarily produces sod for sale that is used at, among other places, Yankee Stadium. Mulch and compost are stored and sold at the farm as well. The farm also lies within the Central Pine Barrens area as defined by the Long Island Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act (ECL 57-0101 et seq. [hereinafter the Pine Barrens Act]), the Pine Barrens being an environmentally sensitive area of Long Island that contains an aquifer from which many locals obtain drinking water and is subject to “laws and policies . . . at all government levels to protect [it] from unbridled development” (… see also ECL 57-0107 [10]). Petitioner sued Delea Farms in March 2020 to enjoin it from running what was, in petitioner’s view, a commercial mulching operation that allegedly ran afoul of the farmland bill of rights and zoning regulations contained in the Code of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Town Code) as well as the terms of a conditional discharge entered following a 2017 guilty plea by Delea Farms in a code enforcement matter. Delea Farms reacted by requesting an informal opinion from respondent Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets as to whether its storage and sale of compost and mulch on the farm was “agricultural in nature” within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law § 308 (4). The Commissioner issued an opinion in July 2020 that the storage and sale of mulch and compost was an incidental agricultural use to the production and sale of sod at the farm. * * *

The Commissioner determined that Delea Farms was primarily operating the farm for sod production and harvesting, that it was not manufacturing or processing mulch at the farm and that the mulch and compost at the farm was either used on the farm itself or sold to customers who needed it to install the sod and nursery stock that was the farm’s actual focus. Matter of Town of Brookhaven v Ball, 2025 NY Slip Op 01686, Third Dept 3-20-25

 

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