You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

COCAINE-POSSESSION OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) WERE NOT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES OF THE THE COCAINE-POSSESSION OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMLAINTS; SCI IS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE.

The Third Department determined the superior court informations (SCI’s) to which defendant pled guilty were jurisdictionally defective because neither SCI charged a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the original felony complaints. If it is possible, under any set of facts, to commit the greater offense but not the lesser, the lesser is not a lesser included offense. The offenses at issue here involved the possession of cocaine:

“A crime is a lesser included offense of a charge of a higher degree only when in all circumstances, not only in those presented in the particular case, it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly, by the very same conduct, committing the lesser offense” … . To be guilty of the offense charged in the SCI, a defendant must attempt to “knowingly and unlawfully possess cocaine” that weighs “[500] milligrams or more” (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.06 [5]). The first felony complaint charged defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which requires proof of knowing, unlawful possession of substances containing narcotic drugs that have “an aggregate weight of one-half ounce or more” (Penal Law § 220.16 [12]). Considered in the abstract, it is possible to possess or attempt to possess one-half ounce of a mixture of cocaine and some other substance in which the proportion of cocaine is less than 500 milligrams. Thus, it is possible to commit criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree without also committing attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and the offense charged in the SCI is not a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the first felony complaint.

The second felony complaint charged defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, which is committed when a person “knowingly and unlawfully possesses a controlled substance with intent to sell it” (Penal Law § 220.06 [1]). It is possible to possess cocaine with the intent to sell it while not concurrently possessing cocaine weighing more than 500 milligrams, or attempting to do so, as required to commit the crime charged in the SCI (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.06 [5]). Thus, the crime charged in the SCI is not a lesser included offense of the crime charged in the second felony complaint … . People v Seals, 2016 NY Slip Op 00065, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, OFFENSES WERE NOT LESSER INCLUDEDS)/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATIONS (JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, OFFENSES NOT LESSER INCLUDEDS)/COCAINE OFFENSES (SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, OFFENSES NOT LESSER INCLUDEDS)

PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE GRAND JURY ON THE AGENCY DEFENSE IN THIS CRIMINAL SALE OF MARIJUANA CASE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Third Department determined County Court properly reinspected the grand jury minutes pursuant to a second motion by defense counsel and properly dismissed the indictment because the People failed to instruct the grand jury on an applicable defense. Because the first motion to inspect argued the evidence before the grand jury was insufficient, the law of the case doctrine did not prohibit the second motion, which argued the proceedings were defective. The defendant was charged with criminal sale of marijuana.  However, the facts supported the theory the defendant was acting as an agent for the buyer:

 

… [W]hile there is no requirement that the grand jury “be charged with every potential defense suggested by the evidence” … , the People “must charge . . . those defenses that the evidence will reasonably support” … . As this Court recently reiterated, “[u]nder the agency doctrine, a person who acts solely as the agent of a buyer in procuring drugs for the buyer is not guilty of selling the drug to the buyer, or of possessing it with intent to sell it to the buyer. Whether the defendant was a seller, or merely a purchaser doing a favor for a friend, is generally a factual question [to be resolved] . . . based upon [considerations of] factors such as the relationship between the buyer and the defendant, who initiated the transaction, whether the defendant had previously engaged in drug transfers and whether he or she profited from the sale” … . * * *

 

…. [T]he evidence before the grand jury reasonably supported the defense of agency; hence, the People’s failure to instruct the grand jury in this regard rendered that proceeding defective — particularly in view of the fact that the People were on notice of this potential defense prior to the commencement thereof. There is no question that it was the buyer who initiated the sale and, given the relationship between defendant and the buyer’s stepbrother, the evidence reasonably suggested that defendant was doing a favor for the stepsister of one of his friends. Additionally, none of the testimony offered before the grand jury revealed that defendant had a prior history of drug sales, and the evidence that defendant profited from the subject transaction was tenuous at best. Under these circumstances, County Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment under CPL 210.35 (5) … . People v Gallo, 2016 NY Slip Op 00064, 3rd Dept 1-7-16

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRIMINAL LAW (GRAND JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON AGENCY DEFENSE)/GRAND JURIES (PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED JURY ON AGENCY DEFENSE)/AGENCY DEFENSE (GRAND JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON AGENCY DEFENSE)/MARIJUANA, CRIMINAL SALE (GRAND JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON AGENCY DEFENSE)

PHARMACEUTICALS COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES.

The Third Department determined couriers for a pharmaceuticals warehouse (SDS) were employees entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Here, SDS advertised for couriers and screened interested parties. Couriers are assigned routes by SDS, set up geographically by SDS’s clients, worked an agreed upon set weekly schedule at a pay rate negotiated between the couriers and SDS and were required to either pick the pharmaceuticals up at an SDS warehouse or at the SDS client’s location. SDS would have an on-site coordinator present when pickups were made at the client’s location. Couriers were provided a daily manifest bearing SDS’s name that identifies the stops for their routes. Couriers were required to obtain proof of delivery signatures on the manifests and return a copy of them to SDS. Couriers also provided invoices to SDS in order to get paid and SDS would bill its clients, and couriers were paid whether or not SDS was paid by its clients … . Couriers were required to wear SDS uniforms and were provided badges identifying themselves as being contracted through SDS. SDS also provided scanners to couriers to be used in order to electronically track their pickups and deliveries. Matter of Gill (Strategic Delivery Solutions LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 09576, 3rd Dept 12-24-15

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (PHARMACEUTICALS COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES)

AGREEMENT ALLOWING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ “HOME RULE” RIGHTS.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the petitioners, the Town of Vernon and the Town of Verona, did not have standing to attack an agreement (ratified by the New York Gaming Economic Development Act of 2013 [UNYGEDA]) allowing the Oneida Nation to implement legalized casino gambling. The towns argued that the agreement violated the towns’ “home rule” rights by removing land from their zoning and environmental authority, as well as preventing the collection of property taxes. The Third Department held that it was the placing of Oneida Nation land in trust (by the federal Department of the Interior) which caused these negative consequences and the trust was created before the agreement at issue:

These negative consequences … did not result from the agreement or from the UNYGEDA, but, instead, from the decision by the Department to place the lands in trust. That decision had already been made when the agreement was executed, and it was unaffected by any State action other than the agreement’s provision that the State and the Counties would discontinue then-pending federal litigation that challenged the Department’s decision. In 2014, the State and Counties did so … . The State has no constitutional obligation to pursue litigation, nor have petitioners established that the litigation would have resulted in the reversal of the Department’s decision to place the lands in trust if it had not been settled. Further, the discontinuance of the State’s claims did not foreclose the Towns from pursuing separate federal litigation that challenged the Department’s action, which they did until the action was dismissed on the merits in 2015 … . Thus, the State’s actions did not cause the harm that forms the basis of the Towns’ claims. Accordingly, the Towns failed to establish that the agreement and the UNYGEDA impinged upon their home rule powers, and Supreme Court properly ruled that they lacked the capacity to bring this action/proceeding. Matter of Town of Verona v Cuomo, 2015 NY Slip Op 09338, 3rd Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

MUNCIPAL LAW (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)/HOME RULE (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)/GAMBLING (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)/ONEIDA NATION (AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ HOME RULE RIGHTS)

SUPERMARKET EMPLOYEES HAD NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN A CAR IN THE SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT.

The Third Department determined employees of Tops supermarket did not have a duty to come to the aid of decedent, who died in his parked car in the Tops parking lot. Decedent and companions were drinking and doing drugs. When decedent was unconscious, his companions placed him in his own car and allegedly told Tops employees decedent was in need of emergency aid. The court held that the Tops employees did not have a legal duty to aid decedent:

“In any negligence action, the threshold issue before the court is whether the defendant owed a legally recognized duty to the plaintiff” … . This is frequently a “difficult task [and,] [d]espite often sympathetic facts in a particular case before them, courts must be mindful of the precedential, and consequential, future effects of their rulings, and limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree” … . Consonant with the premise that a moral duty does not equate with a legal duty … , it is the general rule that “one does not owe a duty to come to the aid of a person in peril” … . Exceptions to the general rule exist, such as, for example, a common carrier’s duty to take reasonable action to protect a passenger who is being assaulted … .

Here, although Tops was open to shoppers, this did not necessarily create an affirmative duty to come to the aid of anyone who was anywhere on its property no matter how unrelated such person’s presence was to Tops’ function as a grocery store. Decedent was not a customer of Tops, neither he nor his companions were on the premises for any activity related in any manner to Tops’ business, Tops’ employees did not participate in any fashion in the conduct of decedent’s companions, it is not alleged that Tops’ employees saw or had any contact with decedent on the premises, and Tops’ employees did not take any actions that put decedent in a worse position than the one in which his companions left him. Daily v Tops Mkts., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 09336, 3rd Dept 12-17-15

NEGLIGENCE (NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT)/DUTY OF CARE (NO LEGAL DUTY TO AID UNCONSCIOUS PERSON IN SUPERMARKET PARKING LOT)

INTERPRETERS ARE EMPLOYEES.

The Third Department determined interpreters were employees of CP Language Institute, Inc (CPLI):

The record establishes that CPLI advertises for language service interpreters, like claimant, to provide translation services for its clients. An interpreter is required to submit a resume and, after being interviewed by CPLI and receiving a sufficient score on a written language proficiency test, CPLI adds the interpreter to its roster. CPLI maintains a file of each interpreter’s qualifications that includes a resume, reference letters, proficiency exam and availability. CPLI notifies an interpreter of assignments, which can be accepted or declined by the interpreter. Once an assignment is accepted, however, the interpreter is required to notify CPLI if he or she becomes unavailable and CPLI, not the interpreter, provides a substitute if needed.

Furthermore, claimant signed an agreement with CPLI that included guidelines regarding punctuality, attire, performance and conduct when providing services to CPLI clients. Although claimant could work for other agencies that provided translation services, she was subject to a 12-month noncompete clause following termination of her relationship with CPLI. In addition, claimant was provided with a picture identification badge with CPLI’s name. Claimant was paid by CPLI following the submission of time sheets, regardless of whether CPLI was paid by the client. Any complaints from a client were handled by CPLI. Matter of Karapetyan (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 09324, 3rd Dept 12-17-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INTERPRETERS ARE EMPLLOYEES)/INTERPRETERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, EMPLOYEES NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, DRIVER’S LICENSES. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she headds … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAS THE POWER TO DENY RELICENSING TO DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI WHO HAD TWO SIX POINT SPEEDING TICKETS DURING THE LOOK-BACK PERIOD.

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to the new DWI relicensing regulations, properly refused to relicense petitioner, who had been convicted of three alcohol-related offenses during ten years, based upon two six point speeding tickets during the look-back period. The question presented was whether two five point speeding tickets could properly constitute a “serious driving offense” justifying a denial of relicensing. The majority concluded the relevant regulation was a valid exercise of the Commissioner’s powers. The court noted that the Commissioner has the discretion to grant a license under unusual, extenuating and compelling circumstances, but petitioner did not make an application under that provision:

In the broadest sense, 15 NYCRR part 136 was promulgated to “establish[] criteria to identify individual problem drivers,” that is, applicants for new licenses that “ha[ve] had a series of convictions, incidents and/or accidents . . . which in the judgment of the [C]ommissioner . . . upon review of the applicant’s entire driving history, establishes that the person would be an unusual and immediate risk upon the highways” (15 NYCRR 136.1 [a], [b] [1]). In developing these regulations, the Commissioner considered empirical data, which indicated that drivers with three or more alcohol- or drug-related driving convictions are involved in a disproportionate number of motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the Commissioner rationally determined that such drivers “pose the highest risk to the general population” (NY Reg, Mar. 13, 2013 at 43) and, thus, should not be granted new, unrestricted licenses until after a waiting period of several years (see 15 NYCRR 136.5 [b] [3], [4]). With that in mind, we cannot consider the Commissioner’s decision to subject such recidivist impaired or intoxicated drivers to a longer — or even a presumptively permanent — ban on relicensure to be arbitrary when, like petitioner, such drivers may independently qualify as “problem drivers” because of the presence of speeding or other violations on their driving records (see 15 NYCRR 136.1 [b] [1]; 136.5 [a] [2]; [b] [2]).

As for petitioner’s claim that her two six-point speeding violations during the 25-year look-back period are not serious enough to be expressly defined as a “serious driving offense” (see 15 NYCRR [a] [2] [iii]), we defer to the Commissioner’s determination, as it was made pursuant to her discretionary authority (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 510 [5], [6]), and it was within the area of expertise of the agency she heads … . Matter of Matsen v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 2015 NY Slip Op 09159, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (DRIVER’S LICENSES, COMMISSIONER HAS POWER TO DENY RELICENSING A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI BASED UPON TWO FIVE-POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/DRIVER’S LICENSES (RELICENSING OF DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)/SPEEDING TICKETS (TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS DRIVING OFFENSE FOR WHICH RELICENSING CAN BE DENIED TO A DRIVER CONVICTED OF DWI)/RELICENSING OF DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI (CAN BE DENIED BASED UPON TWO FIVE POINT SPEEDING TICKETS)

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA RENDERED THE PLEA INVALID.

he Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction by guilty plea because the defendant was not informed of the period of postrelease supervision at the time of the plea. Defendant was told by the sentencing judge (at the time of the plea) if he violated interim probation (which was to lead to a felony probation) he would be sentenced to four years in prison. No mention was made of postrelease supervision. Defendant violated the terms of the interim probation and was sentenced to four years incarceration plus two years of postrelease supervision:

… [I]t is well settled that, for a defendant’s plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered into, a court must advise him or her of the direct consequences of a plea prior to sentencing, including the existence and duration of any postrelease supervision requirement … . Here, as the People concede, at the time of his plea, defendant was not properly made aware of the postrelease supervision component of his sentence. Accordingly, defendant’s decision to plead guilty was not a knowing, voluntary and intelligent one and, therefore, the judgment of conviction must be reversed … . People v Binion, 2015 NY Slip Op 09142, 3rd Dept 12-10-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

CRIMINAL LAW (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/SENTENCING (POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF)/PLEA (GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY IF DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION)

,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S REFERENCES TO STRICKEN TESTIMONY CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE REQUIRING REVERSAL.

The Third Department determined defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s references to stricken testimony in summation amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel requiring reversal. The defendant was accused of running over his girlfriend with a pickup truck:

Here, during direct examination by the People, the witness testified that he heard defendant yell, “I hope you f***ing die, bitch.” Finding that this testimony went to defendant’s state of mind, County Court overruled counsel’s objection and permitted the statement into evidence. The witness then testified that he assumed defendant was directing such comment toward [the victim]. Upon defendant’s further objection, County Court held that the witness could not speculate as to whom defendant had directed his comment, and the witness’s testimony in that regard was stricken from the record. Despite this evidentiary ruling, during summation, the People twice made improper references to the stricken testimony and twice those references went without objection from defense counsel or curative instructions from the court. Specifically, at one point during closing argument the prosecutor stated, “If this was some sort of an accident, then why would the defendant scream at [the victim], I hope you f***ing die, bitch? Is that consistent with an accident or is that consistent with an intent to injure? If you accidentally just ran over your significant other, is that what you would say to them?” … . People v Ramsey, 2015 NY Slip Op 08874, 3rd Dept 12-3-15

CRIMINAL LAW (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, FAILURE TO OBJECT TO REFERENCES TO STRICKEN TESTIMONY)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FAILURE TO OBJECT TO REFERENCES TO STRICKEN TESTIMONY)

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