You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Flawed Procedure Following “Batson” Challenges to the Prosecution’s Exclusion of Two Nonwhite Jurors Required Reversal

The Third Department determined reversal and a new trial were necessary because of flaws in the procedure used following the “Batson” challenge of the prosecution’s peremptory challenges to two nonwhite members of the jury panel.  The judge denied the Batson challenges. The Third Department explained the correct procedure and the flawed procedure actually used:

A Batson challenge implicates a three-step process in which, “[a]t step one, ‘the moving party bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges'” … . “Once a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the nonmovant must come forward with a race-neutral explanation for each challenged peremptory — step two” … . The explanation at step two is “not required to be ‘persuasive, or even plausible’; as long as the reasons for the challenges are ‘facially neutral,’ even ‘ill-founded’ reasons will suffice” … , and determining whether the step two explanation is adequate is “a question of law” … . If the nonmoving party provides an adequate explanation, “the burden then shifts back, at step three, to the moving party to persuade the court that reasons are merely a pretext for intentional discrimination” … . This step is a factual issue in which the trial court has broad discretion in determining credibility … .

Initially, we note that the Batson application, made before the end of jury selection, was timely … and any issue regarding the sufficiency of defendant’s step one showing is now moot since the People offered step two race neutral reasons for the challenged peremptory challenges … . The reasons offered by the People included, as to juror No. 19, that the father of her children had been prosecuted by the Schenectady County District Attorney’s office for robbery and “presumably” was in prison. Regarding juror No. 127, the People explained in some detail that there were jurors after her that they preferred to use to fill the twelfth and final seat. Although these reasons were facially race-neutral satisfying the People’s step two burden, defendant points out that the People’s statement regarding juror No. 19 had significant factual errors embellishing on her actual comment, and also that the People did not challenge a white juror whose sister had “been in and out of trouble for years, felonies, in trouble with the law.” As such, there were important factual issues implicating credibility that needed to be resolved at step three. However, as conceded by the People in their brief on appeal, County Court ruled on the Batson application at the conclusion of step two.

The improper compressing of a Batson inquiry does not necessarily mandate reversal, as the movant must preserve the issue as to whether a meaningful step three inquiry occurred … . Indeed, whatever procedural problems may exist in a Batson inquiry, the overriding concern is that a properly preserved question regarding the ultimate issue of discrimination is meaningfully addressed … . Here, defendant sufficiently preserved the issue and the ultimate issue was not adequately addressed. After the People offered their race neutral reasons as to the second relevant juror, defendant began to respond and urged that the record was not complete. County Court stated that the record was complete and summarily denied defendant’s Batson challenge. “[T]he court did not appear to give any consideration to pretext, nor was the basis of its ruling reflected in the record”… . People v Grafton, 2015 NY Slip Op 07701, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Hearsay Alone Will Not Support Revocation of Probation/Failure to Pay Restitution Will Not Support Revocation of Probation If Due to an Inability to Pay

In reversing the judgment revoking defendant’s probation, the Third Department noted that hearsay alone cannot be the basis for revocation and failure to pay restitution will only support revocation if defendant has the ability to pay:

It is settled that, “in revocation proceedings for failure to pay a fine or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay” … . “If the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay, the court may revoke probation and sentence the defendant to imprisonment within the authorized range of its sentencing authority” … . If, on the other hand, “the probationer could not pay despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so, the court must consider alternate measures of punishment other than imprisonment” … .

Here, there was neither an adequate inquiry into defendant’s ability to pay nor a determination that his failure to pay was willful … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for further proceedings to determine whether defendant’s failure to make the required monthly restitution payments was willful and, if so, whether such failure, standing alone, serves as a valid basis for revocation of his probation and the imposition of a sentence of incarceration … . People v Songa, 2015 NY Slip Op 07704, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Broken Sentence Promise Required Vacatur of the Guilty Plea

The Third Department determined defendant’s guilty plea was induced by County Court’s promise to impose a sentence of shock incarceration. At sentencing, County Court refused to order shock incarceration. Because the plea was induced by the broken promise, the plea was not knowing and voluntary. The fact that neither the People nor County Court could guarantee defendant’s participation in the shock incarceration program was deemed irrelevant:

We start with the principle that a trial court always “retains discretion in fixing an appropriate sentence up until the time of sentencing” … . However, when the court wishes to depart from a promised sentence, it must either honor the promise or give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea … . Accordingly, “[a] guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … .

Here, prior to defendant’s guilty plea, County Court indicated its belief that defendant was eligible for shock incarceration and then unequivocally promised that it “would order him into it.” When defendant specifically asked if shock incarceration was guaranteed, the court stated that it “would order it absolutely” and that a failure on the part of prison authorities to admit him would “defy an order of the [c]ourt.” Furthermore, defense counsel stated that he was recommending that defendant accept the plea agreement “especially with a shock commitment.” Thus, regardless of the fact that “neither County Court nor the People possessed the authority to guarantee [defendant’s] participation” in the shock incarceration program … , the record reflects that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied upon County Court’s promise to do exactly that. Consequently, we find that defendant’s plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and that, because County Court’s promise to defendant cannot be honored as a matter of law, he is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea … . People v Muhammad, 2015 NY Slip Op 07702, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Custody Should Not Have Been Awarded to Nonparent

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined custody of mother’s child should not have been awarded to mother’s sister. Mother was being treated for mental illness and had lost her home. The relationship between mother and sister was acrimonious. Mother, however, despite her difficulties, had tried to maintain her relationship with her child and the child was described well-adjusted, doing well in school, and involved in activities. The court explained the heavy burden placed on a nonparent seeking custody:

“A determination of whether extraordinary circumstances exist takes into consideration such factors as the length of time the child has resided with the nonparent, the quality of the child’s relationships with the parent and the nonparent, the prior disruption of the parent’s custody, separation from siblings and any neglect or abdication of responsibilities by the parent” … . Generally, such a finding is rare and exists where the extraordinary circumstances “drastically affect the welfare of the child” … .

In our view, no such finding was warranted here. When this proceeding was commenced, the child had been residing with petitioner in her home — located more than an hour drive from the mother — for only a few days. During her 10-day hospitalization, the mother continued to attempt to maintain contact with the child. When she was released from the hospital, the mother’s attempts to see the child were hindered not only by her health issues, the loss of her home, distance and lack of transportation, but also by the extreme and unfortunate animosity between the mother and petitioner. The mother did not neglect her responsibilities; rather, during the pendency of the hearing, she was obtaining regular mental health treatment, sought help and obtained a suitable apartment and car, and was employed as an adjunct professor. While a health crisis of any sort can be frightening and upsetting to a child, the record does not reflect that the child’s relationship with her mother was any worse than the one she shared with petitioner. Notably, Family Court recognized that the child was “a wonderful young lady[, well-adjusted, very knowledgeable, intelligent, doing well in school [and] involved in activities,” and that the mother “played a significant role and ha[d] done a very good job of raising” the child. Matter of Lina Y. v Audra Z., 2015 NY Slip Op 07708, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

Statute of Limitations for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Tolled Until Fiduciary’s Roles Terminated

In an action against a fiduciary stemming from the distribution of an estate, Supreme Court determined the six-year statute of limitations applied to the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and precluded any evidence from prior to 2007.  The Third Department agreed that the six-year statute was the correct one, but held that the statute never started running because the fiduciary’s roles were never terminated. Therefore pre-2007 evidence was not precluded:

Although “New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims [and] the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks” …, the parties do not dispute that a six-year period applies to these two remaining causes of action. However, the statute of limitations for a claim alleging a breach of fiduciary duty is tolled until there has been an open repudiation by the fiduciary or the relationship has otherwise been clearly terminated … .

There is nothing in this record indicating that respondents’ relevant fiduciary roles have terminated. Although many of the actions about which petitioners complain were done openly, petitioners also allege that they were repeatedly assured that such actions were ultimately in their best interests. The amended petition alleges that respondents have not to date repudiated their positions as fiduciaries. That allegation is not denied in this pre-answer motion, which was supported only by an attorney’s affirmation and memorandum of law. Matter of Therm, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07732, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court Act 812 Does Not Necessarily Involve Sexual Intimacy

An “intimate relationship” (Family Court Act 812) must exist before one party to the relationship can petition Family Court seeking relief based upon family offenses. The Third Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed the petition on the ground that one party identified as heterosexual and the other as homosexual, indicating there was no sexual relationship. Sexual intimacy is not required to establish an “intimate relationship” under the Family Court Act. On the other hand, cohabitation, standing alone, is not enough. The matter was sent back for a determination (re: the existence of an “intimate relationship”) applying he statutory factors:

… [W]e agree with petitioner that her implicit acknowledgment that she had not had a sexual relationship with respondent did not justify Family Court ruling, as a matter of law, that the two did not have an intimate relationship within the meaning of Family Ct Act § 812 (1) (e). Initially, “the governing rule of statutory construction is that courts are obliged to interpret a statute to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, it should be construed so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” … . Turning to the relevant provision, Family Court’s subject matter jurisdiction includes family offense petitions involving people who are or were previously engaged in an “intimate relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]). Factors relevant to determining the existence of an intimate relationship “include but are not limited to: the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…).

Considering these enumerated factors, the Legislature unambiguously established that the phrase “intimate relationship” is not limited to relationships that include sexual intimacy (Family Ct Act § 812 [1] [e]…). Matter of Arita v Goodman, 2015 NY Slip Op 07719, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

, ,

Dismissal of Criminal Case Did Not Collaterally Estop Civil Case Based Upon the Same Forged-Deed Allegation/No Statute of Limitations Applies to Case Based Upon Forged-Deed Allegation

In an action based upon the allegation the signature on a deed was forged, the Third Department determined no statute of limitations applies to forged deeds which are void ab initio and the dismissal of a Spanish criminal case based upon the forged-deed allegation did not collaterally estop the New York civil action:

We agree with plaintiffs that they are not collaterally estopped from maintaining this action. It is well established that “dismissal of a criminal charge . . . does not generally constitute collateral estoppel in relation to a civil action because of the difference in the burden of proof to establish the factual issues” … . Indeed, the Spanish court dismissed the Spanish criminal action “without prejudice,” expressly permitting the matter to “be referred to civil jurisdiction.” Inasmuch as this dismissal of the Spanish criminal action did not conclusively establish whether the signature was forged, and did not preclude plaintiffs from commencing a similar civil action, defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of proving “that this identical issue was necessarily decided in the [prior action] and is conclusive in the [present] action” … .

Nor should plaintiffs’ action have been deemed time-barred by the statute of limitations. While the limitations period for a cause of action sounding in fraud is the greater of six years after the cause of action accrued or two years after it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence (see CPLR 213 [8]), the Court of Appeals has recently held that this period does not apply when the particular species of fraud alleged is the forgery of a deed. The Court found that, unlike other fraud-based causes of action, “a claim against a forged deed is not subject to a statute of limitations defense” because of “the clarity of our law that a forged deed is void ab initio, and that it is a document without legal capacity to have any effect on ownership rights” … . Mazo v Mazo, 2015 NY Slip Op 07721, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

Petitioner’s Knowledge the Child Was Not His When He Signed the Paternity Acknowledgment Precluded Vacation of the Acknowledgment

The Third Department noted that petitioner, in his petition to vacate his acknowledgment of paternity, stated that he signed the acknowledgment in spite of his being aware the child was not his. Therefore, his signature was not procured by fraud and the petition did not state a ground for vacation:

“Once 60 days have elapsed following the execution of an acknowledgment of paternity, the mother or acknowledged father may challenge that document in court only on the basis of fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact, with the burden of proof on the party challenging the voluntary acknowledgment” … . To establish material mistake of fact, a party must demonstrate that such mistake “was truly material — i.e., substantial and fundamental to the nature of the [acknowledgment] — so as to entitle a party to void that document” … . To establish fraud, a petitioner must show that he or she justifiably relied on the respondent’s fraudulent statements or representations at the time the acknowledgment of paternity was signed … .

Here, in his petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, petitioner alleged that his signature was procured either by material mistake of fact or fraud based upon respondent’s history of infidelity. However, the petition also explained that petitioner put his name on the birth certificate of the child “despite all parties acknowledging that it was [another man’s] child.” Because petitioner’s claim that he knew that he was not the father of the child negates a finding of fraud or material mistake of fact, as such findings are necessarily predicated on a lack of knowledge … , petitioner failed to plead sufficient facts constituting fraud or material mistake of fact … . Matter of Joshua AA. v Jessica BB., 2015 NY Slip Op 07718, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

,

Zoning Board Applied an Incorrect Definition of a Term in a Zoning Ordinance—Court Has the Power to Impose Its Own Interpretation as a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined that the town’s zoning board of appeals did not apply the correct definition of a “neighborhood place of worship” when it denied petitioner’s application to convert a day spa to a “mikvah” in an area zoned for “neighborhood places of worship.” Submitted papers demonstrated that immersion in the waters of a mikvah is a basic religious ritual for Orthodox Jews and involves the recitation of blessings or prayers. Because the matter necessitated the interpretation of the terms of a zoning ordinance, the court need not defer to the zoning board’s interpretation:

The parties agree that the term “neighborhood place of worship” is neither defined in the Town’s zoning law, nor does it appear elsewhere in the Town’s ordinances. The zoning law does provide, however, that “[w]ords not specifically defined shall have their ordinary dictionary meanings” (Town of Mamakating Zoning Code § 199-6 [A]). Thus, the pertinent inquiry distills to whether petitioner’s proposed mikvah comports with the dictionary definition of a neighborhood place of worship. Although courts will ordinarily defer to a zoning board’s interpretation of a local ordinance, when “the issue presented is one of pure legal interpretation of the underlying zoning law or ordinance, deference is not required” … . The issue posed is susceptible to resolution as a matter of law by interpretation of the ordinance terms. Matter of Winterton Props., LLC v Town of Mamakating Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 NY Slip Op 07734, 3rd Dept 10-221-5

 

, ,

The Precise Terms of the Stipulation Were Not Demonstrated to Have Been Violated—Contempt Finding Improper

The Third Department determined the wife was improperly held in contempt re: a stipulation about refinancing the marital residence. The stipulation required that the wife make a good faith effort to refinance, but did not address the consequences of a failed attempt. By finding the wife in contempt for failing to refinance, the court improperly re-wrote the stipulation:

“To sustain a civil contempt finding based upon the violation of a court order, it must be established that there was a lawful court order in effect that clearly expressed an unequivocal mandate, that the person who allegedly violated the order had actual knowledge of its terms, and that his or her actions or failure to act defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced a right of the moving party” … . Such violation, in turn, “must be established by clear and convincing evidence” … . “The decision of whether to hold in contempt a party who fails to comply with a court order rests within the court’s sound discretion” … .

Here, a review of the underlying order makes clear that Supreme Court found the wife to be in contempt of the parties’ April 2012 stipulation based upon her failure to refinance the marital residence “as agreed or otherwise take action to remove [the husband’s] name from the existing mortgage.” The parties’ stipulation, however, did not require the wife to successfully refinance the marital residence and remove the husband’s name from the existing mortgage; rather, the stipulation only imposed upon her the obligation to “make a good faith effort to obtain [such] financing . . . and remove [the husband’s] name from the mortgage within 45 days after receiving the [quitclaim deed].” Notably, the stipulation was silent as to the parties’ respective rights and obligations in the event that the wife attempted — but did not actually succeed — in obtaining such financing … and, by directing the sale of the marital residence in the event that the wife did not obtain refinancing within a specified time period, Supreme Court essentially revised the parties’ agreement to supply a solution to a problem that, on the face of the agreement, the parties themselves apparently did not contemplate. Howe v Howe, 2015 NY Slip Op 07709, 3rd Dept 10-22-15

 

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