You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, , ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA VACATED AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the superior court information, determined the record did not demonstrate the defendant signed the waiver of appeal in open court in the presence of counsel:

… [T]he plea minutes are silent as to when the undated waiver was executed by defendant, and during the colloquy County Court referred to defendant as having “signed” the waiver in the past tense … . Neither the waiver nor the plea colloquy confirms that defendant signed the written waiver in the presence of counsel. Further, although County Court indicated in the undated order approving the waiver that it was generally satisfied that the requirements of CPL 195.10 and 195.20 had been met, nothing in the order explicitly confirms “that the waiver was signed in open court” in the presence of counsel . Thus, … the record does not reflect that defendant’s waiver of indictment passes constitutional and statutory muster, and it follows that defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the underlying SCI dismissed … . People v Trapani, 2024 NY Slip Op 05846, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: When a defendant waives his right to an indictment and agrees to plead to a superior court information, the record must reflect the waiver was made in open court and in the presence of counsel. Absent proof of those statutory and constitutional requirements the waiver is invalid.

Similar issue and result in People v Rupp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05845, Third Dept 11-21-24.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE RESTITUTION TO THE PROSECUTOR, MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for a restitution hearing despite defendant’s failure to preserve the error, determined the record was insufficient to support the ordered restitution. The judge merely accepted the People’s restitution order, thereby improperly delegating the court’s role to the prosecutor:

… [I]t appears County Court impermissibly delegated its authority to the People to determine the amount of restitution owed and that said amount has no factual predicate in the record before us. “Whenever the court requires restitution . . . to be made, the court must make a finding as to the dollar amount of the fruits of the offense and the actual out-of-pocket loss to the victim[s] caused by the offense. In making this finding, the court must consider any victim impact statement provided to the court. If the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing upon the issue” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2] …). At the time of sentencing, the People noted that they had submitted a restitution order for the court to sign[*2]. Seemingly reading from that order, the court ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $773, plus a five percent surcharge in the amount of $38.65, for a total sum of $811.65. The restitution order provided to this Court is not accompanied by any documentation, and neither the presentence report nor the victims’ impact statements at sentencing addressed pecuniary losses. Although defendant’s failure to object at the time of sentencing renders his restitution arguments unpreserved … , as the record before us does not include any proof to substantiate the amount of restitution ordered, we find it appropriate to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice and remit for the sole purpose of a restitution hearing … . People v Lester, 2024 NY Slip Op 05848, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: It is the judge, not the prosecutor, who makes a restitution determination, which must be supported by the record.

 

,

THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO FILE A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATEMENT RENDERED THE SENTENCE INVALID AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, noted that, absent defendant’s consent, the People’s failure to file a second felony offender statement rendered the sentence invalid as a matter of law:

… [D]efendant first argues that Supreme Court sentenced him illegally as a second felony offender. Although the People note that defendant’s argument is unpreserved, they concede that they neglected to file a second felony offender statement prior to sentencing (see CPL 400.21 [2]). “While we have previously held that substantial compliance with this statute is adequate when the defendant admits the prior felony and that errors or omissions in the statement may be waived by an admission by the defendant, we have also held that compliance with the statute is mandatory and that complete failure to file a second felony offender statement prior to sentencing renders the sentence invalid as a matter of law” … . Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed and remit the matter to Supreme Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement and resentencing in accordance with the law. People v Kane, 2024 NY Slip Op 05850, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: Where a defendant does not admit the prior felony, the People’s failure to file a second felony offender statement invalidates the sentence.

 

,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE OLDER CHILD’S OUT-OF-COURT ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE BY FATHER; THE ABUSE AND DERIVATIVE ABUSE PETITION WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined there was no evidence to corroborate the older child’s out-of-court statements. Therefore, the petition alleging abuse of the older child and derivative abuse of the younger siblings was dismissed:

At the hearing, petitioner offered the testimony of the children’s mother, two caseworkers, and the video recording of the oldest child’s interview with the Orange County Department of Social Services caseworker and a State Police investigator. The mother testified that when the oldest child was 17 years of age, she first disclosed the allegations of sexual contact to her. Thereafter, each caseworker testified that the oldest child told them that her father had sexual contact with her from approximately two years of age until she was eight. The caseworkers further testified that the oldest child explained that her memory of the abuse was triggered when she overheard her youngest sister make reference to a secret that she held with her father. The record also reveals that there was no additional evidence of any kind presented by petitioner that corroborated the oldest child’s out-of-court statements. For example, there was no medical evidence of any sort, nor did the mother or anyone else point to any change in the oldest child’s behavior, or indications of inappropriate sexual knowledge or behavior, nor was there any expert testimony to validate the oldest child’s account of sexual abuse, or to explain the nine-year gap between the cessation of the sexual contact and the allegations of same. While there was some testimony by the mother that the child has had nightmares since she was very young and has been diagnosed with anxiety, there was no testimony, expert or otherwise, linking the nightmares or diagnosis to the alleged sexual contact. While Family Court correctly noted that a child’s out-of-court allegations of sexual abuse — as testified to by the caseworkers — can be sufficiently corroborated by the child’s detailed in-court testimony … , petitioner did not present the oldest child as a sworn witness. Finally, there was no cross-corroboration of the oldest child’s statements by her siblings as the two younger children did not disclose any sexual abuse to their mother or during the initial interview. The younger two children did not give sworn testimony at the fact-finding hearing nor were the video recordings of their interviews with the caseworker admitted into evidence. Matter of Gabriella X. (Erick Y.), 2024 NY Slip Op 05856, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: Although out-of-court allegations of sexual abuse (made to caseworkers and police investigators) may support an abuse finding, the out-of-court statements must be corroborated.

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PARENTING TIME (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined mother should not have been given the authority over father’s parenting time:

… Family Court improperly delegated its authority to the mother over the father’s in-person parenting time and telephone and electronic contact with the daughter … . With respect to the father’s telephone and electronic contact with the daughter, inasmuch as the mother agrees that the father should have telephone and electronic contact three times per week, we modify that portion of the order accordingly. With respect to the father’s in-person parenting time, although we are empowered to independently review the record and decide parenting time issues, given the father’s instability, the fact that the mother has relocated to Mississippi and the passage of time, we cannot make that determination here. As such, we remit the matter to Family Court for a hearing for the purpose of fashioning a schedule of supervised in-person parenting time … . Matter of Leslie QQ. v Daniel RR., 2024 NY Slip Op 05857, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: A Family Court cannot delegate authority over parenting time schedules to mother or father.

 

,

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON TRACKED-IN-RAIN DURING AN ONGOING STORM; DEFENDANT HAD PLACED MATS NEAR THE DOOR AND ELSEWHERE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Open Kitchen) in this tracked-in-rain slip and fall case was entitled to summary judgment. Open Kitchen demonstrated plaintiff slipped and fell during an ongoing rain storm and it had placed mats near the door and elsewhere:

… [T]here is no evidence that Open Kitchen either created the wet condition in the entryway or had notice of a hazard that could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care … . Open Kitchen satisfied its duty by employing reasonable remedial measures to address the ongoing rainstorm by laying mats in front of the entrance doors and elsewhere throughout the premises … . There was no active notice in the form of prior complaints received … . Nor did the undisputed fact that it was raining at the time of plaintiff’s accident, causing water to be tracked into the premises, constitute constructive notice of a dangerous situation requiring Open Kitchen to cover the entire floor with mats or continuously mop the floor … . Moreover, plaintiff testified that that he only noticed water on the floor after his fall, and thus it cannot be inferred that Open Kitchen had constructive notice of “a hazard sufficiently visible as to permit discovery and remedy” … . Betancourt v ARC NYC123 William, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05628, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: Here a slip and fall on tracked-in-rain during an ongoing storm was not actionable. Defendant had placed mats near the door and elsewhere and was deemed not have had constructive notice of a dangerous condition.​

 

, ,

HERE THE CUSTODY CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO A NEW JUDGE; THE PREVIOUS JUDGE’S ORDERS CONSTITUTED THE LAW OF THE CASE WHICH CANNOT BE VIOLATED BY SUBSEQUENT ORDERS BY THE NEW JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge to whom the case was transferred should not have issued orders which conflicted with those issued by the previous judge, which constituted the law of the case:

The March 21, 2023 order, which directed a hearing on the father’s motion to vacate the 2017 custody order, constituted the law of the case and was thus binding on all judges of coordinate jurisdiction … . Thus, the order denying the motion to vacate the custody order, without holding a hearing, constitutes a violation of the law of the case doctrine, and the order should be reversed on that basis alone … . …

… [W]e further find that the [previous judge’s] decision to so-order the subpoena … likewise constituted law of the case. Family Court therefore erred when it denied the motion to compel solely on the basis that the judicial subpoena was overbroad. Matter of Jahir I. v Sharon E.W., 2024 NY Slip Op 05635, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: When a case is transferred to a new judge, the orders issued by the previous judge are the law of the case and must be adhered to by the new judge.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE HEARING ON WHETHER APPELLANT WAS AN INCAPACITATED PERSON IN HER ABSENCE WITHOUT FIRST FINDING SHE COULD NOT MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATE; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR APPELLANT BECAUSE SHE WAS CONTESTING THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the judgment that appellant is an incapacitated person and remanding for a hearing, determined Supreme Court should not have held the Mental Hygiene Law section 81.11 hearing in appellant’s absence without first making the finding she was unable to meaningfully participate in it. In addition, Supreme Court should have appointed counsel for the appellant because she was contesting the guardianship petition:

Under the unique facts of this case [not described in the decision], we are exercising our inherent power to vacate the order and judgment in the interest of substantial justice … . Vacatur is warranted in the interest of justice because the court held a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 in respondent’s absence and without having made a finding regarding her inability to meaningfully participate in the hearing … . In addition, the court failed to appoint counsel to represent respondent even though she was contesting the guardianship petition … . Matter of Jenkins v Gina B., 2024 NY Slip Op 05637, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: A hearing under the Mental Hygiene Law to determine whether a person is incapacitated should not be held in the person’s absence without a finding he or she could not meaningfully participate in the hearing.

Practice Point: Where a person is contesting a guardianship petition under the Mental Hygiene Law, he or she is entitled to appointed counsel.

 

,

COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION, WHICH WAS NOT MENTIONED IN DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION AGREEMENT, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have made restitution part of defendant’s sentence without giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea or accept the enhanced sentence:

​”[A] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her plea” … . The People concede that the payment of restitution was not part of the cooperation/plea agreement and that defendant should have been given the opportunity to either withdraw his plea or accept the enhanced sentence of restitution. Accordingly, we must remit the matter to County Court to either impose the agreed-upon sentence or give defendant the option of withdrawing his plea before imposing the restitution … . People v Nolasco-Gutierrez, 2024 NY Slip Op 05606, Third Dept 11-14-24

Practice Point: Here defendant pled guilty in accordance with a cooperation agreement which did not include restitution as part of the sentence. Imposing restitution without giving the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea required vacation of the restitution order.​

 

,

DEFENDANT, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF RENTING OUT THE LIMOUSINE, FAILED TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD REPAIR; BRAKE FAILURE CAUSED A CRASH WHICH KILLED 20 PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, affirmed the manslaughter convictions of the defendant who was responsible for renting out a limousine which experienced catastrophic brake failure resulting in the deaths of 17 passengers, the driver and two pedestrians: The opinion is too detailed to fairly summarize here. Each argument raised by the defense was rejected after a thorough discussion of the relevant facts:

In October 2018, a stretch limousine for hire crashed at the bottom of a hill in Schoharie County, killing all 17 of its passengers, two pedestrians and the driver of the vehicle. An investigation revealed that the limousine had experienced catastrophic brake failure, attributable to protracted neglect of proper inspection, maintenance and repairs. During the relevant period, defendant was handling the day-to-day affairs of the business that rented out the limousine, including putting the vehicle into service on the day of the accident. Defendant was subsequently indicted on 20 counts of manslaughter in the second degree and 20 counts of criminally negligent homicide. Following his guilty plea to the lesser counts and later withdrawal of that plea, the matter proceeded to trial. A jury found defendant guilty of the manslaughter counts, and Supreme Court sentenced him to 20 concurrent prison terms of 5 to 15 years. * * *

The … proof was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the state of disrepair of the limousine’s braking system — including by avoiding proper inspection, neglecting appropriate maintenance and affirmatively rejecting necessary repairs. Given the circumstances, including the age of this oversized vehicle transporting passengers, the jury could find that defendant disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. As the proof also made clear that such disregard was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of reasonable persons in defendant’s situation, the People proffered legally sufficient evidence to establish the required mental state for second degree manslaughter.  People v Hussain, 2024 NY Slip Op 05513, Third Dept 11-7-24

Practice Point: Here defendant’s failure to keep the brakes of a rental limousine in good repair, leading to the deaths of 20 people when the brakes failed, demonstrated disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, warranting the manslaughter convictions.

 

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