You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE.

The Third Department, in an extensive decision, reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and found that claimant, a blog writer for the The Nation magazine, was not an employee and therefore was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

At the outset, we are satisfied that claimant — an experienced, well-known and established writer, author and media critic — qualifies as a professional for purposes of our analysis. Hence, our focus will be whether the company exercised “control over important aspects of the services performed” by claimant … . …

While it is true that claimant was required to identify himself as a writer for The Nation, was paid an annual salary in monthly installments and was reimbursed for certain business-related expenses, it is equally true that claimant received a 1099 form each year, filed his taxes as self-employed, was not required to obtain permission prior to taking a vacation and neither received fringe benefitnor was covered by the union contract pertaining to The Nation’s staff writers … . …

Turning to the actual degree of supervision or control exercised over claimant’s work, the record reveals that claimant was not formally interviewed for his position … , worked from home utilizing his personal laptop, set his own hours and did not suffer any adverse consequences if he did not post a story … . Additionally, claimant did not have a supervisor …  and was not permitted to work from The Nation’s offices. Significantly, the record makes clear that claimant generally was not assigned to write on a particular topic and could post a story to his blog prior to it being edited by The Nation’s staff … . * * *

Although claimant was given “a broad direction to write about the media . . . and politics,” “the contents of the post and the topic were really . . . entirely his choice.” Unlike staff writers, claimant could not be compelled to write on a particular topic and, while The Nation preferred that claimant post his articles early in the workday and that such articles be submitted for editorial review prior to posting on the website, the senior editor made clear that claimant had no established work hours, could post whenever and from wherever he wished and that there were “no repercussions” and “no consequences” if claimant posted an article later in the day without editorial review or, alternatively, did not post at all on a given day. Matter of Mitchell (Nation Co. Ltd. Partners — Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 08923, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/WRITERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)/BLOGGERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BLOGGER FOR THE NATION MAGAZINE NOT AN EMPLOYEE)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether the Workers’ Compensation Law precluded a lawsuit in negligence against the defendant, who was the president and a shareholder of plaintiff’s employer, Total Recall, and was the owner, in an individual capacity, of the building in which Total Recall is located. Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot behind the building:

… [W]hen an employee, during the course of his or her employment, is injured due to the negligence of a coemployee, the employee’s right to compensation lies under the exclusive provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]…). Where the defendant is both the property owner and a corporate officer of the plaintiff’s employer, the defendant’s responsibility to provide the plaintiff with a safe place to work may be merged, in which case, workers’ compensation benefits are the sole remedy for the plaintiff … . If, however, the “defendant’s duty of care toward [the] plaintiff was owed purely in [the] capacity as owner of the property at the accident site, and not at all as a coemployee,” Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) will not bar the plaintiff’s negligence action … .

The issue distills to whether the accident site was in an area that was exclusive to Total Recall and its employees such that defendant, as the property owner and an executive officer of Total Recall, had indistinguishable obligations to maintain the area in a reasonably safe condition. Garelle v Geinitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 08916, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/SLIP AND FALL (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)/CORPORATION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL)

,

PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, after finding the notice of claim was sufficient notice of the negligent supervision cause of action, determined the defendant town was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Town workers were in the process of delivering a load of wood chips to plaintiff. When the wood chips stopped flowing from the dump truck, plaintiff attempted to free the chips by slamming the tailgate. Plaintiff's thumb and wrist were crushed by the tailgate. Although plaintiff alleged that he called out to the driver (Klopfer) to ask if he should slam the tailgate, there was no response. The Third Department found plaintiff's unilateral decision to slam the tailgate was the sole proximate cause of his injury:

The dispute centers on whether defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff and, if so, whether defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. From a general perspective, we recognize that Klopfer had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a municipal dump truck. Moreover, Klopfer was certainly aware of plaintiff's presence during the unloading process. That said, the Court of Appeals has emphasized a “reluctance to extend liability to a defendant for failure to control the conduct of others” … . By his testimony, plaintiff confirmed that he acted of his own accord, slamming the tailgate twice within only a few seconds, providing little if any opportunity for Klopfer to respond — even if he heard plaintiff call out … . There was no defect in the tailgate and the risk of injuring one's hand when slamming a tailgate is obvious as a matter of common sense. No resident, including plaintiff, had ever previously attempted to intervene in the discharge process and, while [a second town worker] had stepped away, plaintiff knew he was on site and could have sought his assistance. Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiff's intervening action in slamming the tailgate was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Barone v Town of New Scotland, 2016 NY Slip Op 08927, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF'S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION)/NOTICE OF CLAIM (NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (PLAINTIFF'S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW)/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (PLAINTIFF'S ACTIONS WERE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENT NOTIFICATION OF THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION)

AUTHORIZATION TO FORCE FEED INMATE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS INCARCERATION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Third Department affirmed the grant of a petition by the prison warden authorizing the force feeding of an inmate for the duration of his incarceration:

When an inmate commences a hunger strike, which, if continued, would create a substantial risk of imminent death or serious permanent injury, a force-feeding order is warranted if the state’s intervention, even if contrary to the inmate’s constitutional rights, is reasonably related to its legitimate penological interests, including those in preserving the inmate’s life and maintaining safety and discipline within the facility (see Matter of Bezio v Dorsey, 21 NY3d 93, 99, 101-107 [2013]). The record shows that respondent had repeatedly engaged in hunger strikes since May 2013 with the stated purpose of obtaining a transfer to a maximum A security facility, and that respondent had stated that he would continue his hunger strike until he died or was transferred. …

We look no further than the holding in Matter of Bezio v Dorsey (supra) to reach the conclusion that the state’s interest in preserving respondent’s life outweighs any claimed infringement of respondent’s constitutional rights. On the record before us, Supreme Court properly issued a force-feeding order for the duration of respondent’s incarceration. Matter of Martuscello v Jua TT., 2016 NY Slip Op 08905, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

INVOLUNTARY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND FEEDING (INMATES) (AUTHORIZATION TO FORCE FEED INMATE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS INCARCERATION PROPERLY GRANTED)/INMATES (INVOLUNTARY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND FEEDING, AUTHORIZATION TO FORCE FEED INMATE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS INCARCERATION PROPERLY GRANTED)

DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUESTS REVERSED, CASE REMITTED TO DETERMINE IF REDACTION CAN ADEQUATLEY PROTECT PRIVACY.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the requests for information about former public employees who applied for positions in state college police departments should not have been denied. The argument that redaction of identifying information from the documents (to which petitioner agreed) would not protect the applicants’ privacy was rejected. The matter was remitted for court review of the documents:

… [R]espondents argue — and Supreme Court agreed — that, given the prominent nature of the positions and the limited number of applicants, disclosure of the requested documents, even with appropriate redactions, could lead to the identification of the unsuccessful applicants. Such speculation, however, “does not rise to the level of ‘a particularized and specific justification for denying access’ to the [entirety of] the records requested” … . Respondents have failed to demonstrate any factual basis for their assertion that the requested documents cannot be redacted in such a manner as to protect the identity of the individual applicants … . …

… [T]he matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for an in camera inspection of the requested documents to determine the extent to which they contain information exempt from disclosure and whether such information can be redacted while still protecting the personal privacy of those individuals … . Matter of Police Benevolent Assn. of N.Y. State, Inc. v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 08918 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUESTS REVERSED, CASE REMITTED TO DETERMINE IF REDACTION CAN ADEQUATLEY PROTECT PRIVACY)

MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION WITH HER DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONTROLLING HER ADDICTION AND WAS MAINTAINING A FULL TIME JOB.

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother had sufficiently demonstrated a change in circumstances to warrant unsupervised visitation with her child. Mother was successfully controlling her addiction and was maintaining a full-time job:

“As the party seeking to modify a prior order of visitation, the [mother] bore the initial burden of showing that a change in circumstances has occurred since the entry thereof that is sufficient to warrant Family Court undertaking a best interests analysis in the first instance; assuming that requirement is met, the [mother] then must show that modification of the prior order is necessary in order to ensure the child’s continued best interests” … . In this regard, “expanded visitation is generally favorable absent proof that such visitation is inimical to the child[‘s] welfare” … .

The mother’s modification request stemmed from certain changes that had occurred in both her personal life and the child’s schedule since entry of the prior order. With respect to the child’s schedule, the mother explained that, now that the child was enrolled in school, there was a narrow window of opportunity during the school week (60 to 90 minutes each day) when she could enjoy visitations with her daughter. As to her personal life, the mother testified — without contradiction — that she had completed a detox program, was actively engaged in both group therapy and a community-based support group (Alcoholics Anonymous), the latter of which she attended three or four times each week, had obtained a sponsor (with whom she spoke daily and tried to meet in person twice a month), was participating in a Suboxone treatment program (for which she underwent regular testing to monitor the level of Suboxone in her system), was subject to regular drug testing for illegal substances (all of which came back negative), was successfully maintaining a full-time job and, as of the date of the hearing, had been “clean” for more than one year … . Matter of Beeken v Fredenburg, 2016 NY Slip Op 08919, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

 

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION WITH HER DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONTROLLING HER ADDICTION AND WAS MAINTAINING A FULL TIME JOB)/VISITATION (FAMILY LAW, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY VISITATION WITH HER DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTHER WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONTROLLING HER ADDICTION AND WAS MAINTAINING A FULL TIME JOB)

, ,

COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.

The Third Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, determined several statements in this defamation action were not merely opinions and were therefore actionable against the defendant who made the statements in a letter to town officials. The republication of the defamatory statements as well as other statements by town officials were entitled to either absolute privilege or qualified immunity.  The decision includes substantive discussions of the elements of defamation, opinion versus fact, mixed opinion and fact, absolute immunity and qualified immunity, which cannot be fairly summarized here. With regard to (actionable) fact versus (nonactionable) opinion, the court explained:

It is well settled that, “[s]ince falsity is a necessary element of a defamation cause of action and only facts are capable of being proven false, only statements alleging facts can properly be the subject of a defamation action” … . “Distinguishing actionable fact from a protected expression of opinion is a question of law in which several factors are weighed, including whether the allegedly defamatory words have a precise meaning that is readily understood, whether the statement can be proven as true or false, and whether the context and surrounding circumstances would indicate that the comment is an opinion” … .

While a pure expression of opinion is not actionable, a “mixed opinion” — i.e., one that “‘implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it'” — can be the subject of a defamation claim … . “Rather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact,” we must “look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made and determine on that basis whether the reasonable reader would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the plaintiff” … . Hull v Town of Prattsville, 2016 NY Slip Op 08917, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

DEFAMATION (COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/MUNICIPAL LAW (DEFAMATION, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)/IMMUNITY (DEFAMATION, TOWN OFFICIALS, COMPLAINT INCLUDED ACTIONABLE DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MADE THE STATEMENTS IN A LETTER TO TOWN OFFICIALS, TOWN OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY)

, ,

TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA.

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the motion to suppress drugs seized from defendant’s car should have been granted. The deputy stopped defendant’s car based solely on a temporary inspection sticker without any suspicion of criminal behavior. The court noted that the denial of the suppression motion was appealable because defendant did not waive his right to appeal, and the harmless error standard applied because defendant pled guilty after the motion was denied:

The deputy candidly admitted that he had no idea whether the sticker was valid when he made the stop, nor did he indicate that the temporary sticker gave him any other reason for suspicion. He instead stated that his “general practice” was to stop any vehicle he encountered with a temporary inspection sticker in order to “ensure [that the sticker had] not expired.” It is entirely proper to operate a motor vehicle with a temporary inspection sticker under certain circumstances and, as a result, the display of one does not constitute grounds for a traffic stop absent a “specific articulable basis” to believe that illegality is afoot … . The practice of stopping any vehicle with a temporary inspection sticker, without more, represents impermissible “idle curiosity” as to the sticker’s validity rather than the “reasonable suspicion” of illegality needed to effect a traffic stop … . People v Driscoll, 2016 NY Slip Op 08902, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/STREET STOPS (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TEMPORARY INSPECTION STICKER NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY TRAFFIC STOP, DRUGS SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, HARMLESS ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO APPEALS AFTER A GUILTY PLEA)

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE DETERMINING WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED.

The Third Department determined defendant’s summary judgment motion in this wrongful death action should have been denied as premature. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a workplace accident and workers’ compensation death benefits were paid out. In addition to arguing that workers’ compensation was plaintiff’s sole remedy, defendant argued the corporation plaintiff sued had been dissolved and assets transferred to another corporation. Because piercing the corporate veil might be an issue, the Third Department held that plaintiff was entitled to discovery to flesh out the relationship among plaintiff’s decedent and the two corporations:

“[A] summary judgment motion is properly denied as premature when the nonmoving party has not been given reasonable time and opportunity to conduct disclosure relative to pertinent evidence that is within the exclusive knowledge of the movant or a codefendant” … . Although we have held that, “in certain situations, . . . more than one entity may be considered a plaintiff’s employer for purposes of workers’ compensation” … , defendant’s submissions fall far short of establishing that premise as a matter of law. A determination as to whether two entities are alter egos of each other requires a far more detailed record than is present here … . Pringle v AC Bodyworks & Sons, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08924, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/CORPORATION LAW (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)/WRONGFUL DEATH (DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED)

,

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED.

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea to attempted robbery should not have been accepted by County Court. The error, although unpreserved, can properly be considered on appeal because defendant’s statement during the plea colloquy (that he had no recollection of committing the crime due to his drug use) raised the question whether he could have formed the intent to forcibly steal property:

Defendant’s sole contention is that his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Preliminarily, we note that, inasmuch as defendant failed to make an appropriate postallocution motion, this claim is unpreserved for our review … . Nevertheless, we find that the narrow exception to the preservation rule is applicable because defendant’s statement during the plea colloquy that he had no recollection of committing the crime due to drug use raises the unaddressed question of his ability to form the intent to forcibly steal property, an essential element of the crime of attempted robbery … . Under these circumstances, defendant’s statement “casts significant doubt upon [his] guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea,” such that County Court was required to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary … . People v Laflower, 2016 NY Slip Op 08899, 3rd Dept 12-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED)/GUILTY PLEAS (DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD NO MEMORY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME DUE TO DRUG USE REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED, NARROW EXCEPTION TO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT APPLIED)

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