You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

Robbery Petition Jurisdictionally Defective—No Nonhearsay Identification of Respondent As the Perpetrator

The Third Department determined the petition charging respondent with the equivalent of robbery in the second degree and petit larceny was jurisdictionally defective and must be dismissed, even though respondent admitted to the charged acts and did not seek dismissal of the petition.  Although the petition was supplemented by a video showing the person alleged to have committed the robbery and a letter identifying the respondent as that person, the letter was unsworn and unsigned:

A juvenile delinquency petition must contain “a plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of the crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof” (Family Ct Act § 311.1 [3] [h]…). “A juvenile delinquency petition that fails to contain non-hearsay allegations . . . establish[ing] . . . every element of each crime charged and the respondent's commission thereof is both legally insufficient and jurisdictionally defective” … . Finally, notwithstanding respondent's admission to the charged acts in Family Court and his failure to seek the dismissal of the petition, his assertion that the petition is facially insufficient can be considered for the first time on appeal as such claim regards a nonwaiveable jurisdictional defect … .

Although the statements in the victim's deposition constitute nonhearsay allegations establishing that property was forcibly stolen from him, the deposition does not establish that respondent was the individual who committed such acts. Nor do the video image and … letter identifying respondent as the individual wearing the blue jacket depicted therein cure the evidentiary deficiencies that render the petition invalid. In particular, the video image shows, among other things, a male wearing a blue jacket with a white-striped sleeve that matches the description provided in the victim's report; however, the image itself does nothing to connect respondent to the robbery. Moreover, as [the] letter to the investigating police officer identifying respondent as the person wearing a blue jacket with white stripes on the sleeve was unsigned and unsworn, it does not constitute a nonhearsay identification of respondent as the person who committed the charged acts, thereby rendering the petition facially invalid … . Matter of Jayquan Vv, 2014 NY Slip Op 09086, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


 

Grandmother’s Pro Se Petition to Modify Visitation Is To Be Construed Liberally and Should Not Have Been Dismissed Without a Hearing

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have dismissed grandmother's petition to increase her visitation with the child without a hearing.  The court noted that because the grandmother filed her petition pro se, it should be construed liberally:

“A party seeking to modify a visitation order must show a change in circumstances resulting in a need for the modification to ensure the best interests of the child” … . Inasmuch as the grandmother filed her petition pro se, it should be construed liberally when considering whether she sufficiently alleged a change in circumstances (…see also CPLR 3026). Here, the grandmother alleged that an increase in visitation was warranted given that the child was older, the grandmother and child had developed a close bond, overnight visitation had never been addressed, and an overnight would permit the grandmother and the child to do more together, including spending time with family members who live farther away. While the mere passage of time and the child getting older do not constitute unanticipated changes in circumstances …, more was alleged here. Liberally construed, the grandmother's allegations in the petition adequately asserted that a sufficient change in circumstances has occurred. Matter of Ford v Baldi, 2014 NY Slip Op 09078, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


Only the Board of Parole Has the Authority to Impose Conditions On Postrelease Supervision/Fine or Restitution Imposed Without Having Been Discussed at Sentencing Must Be Stricken—Case Remitted

The Third Department noted that County Court should not have imposed conditions upon defendant's postrelease supervision because only the Board of Parole has that power.  The Third Department also noted that County Court should not have imposed a fine or restitution which were not mentioned during the plea proceedings, but the order of protection, which was discussed, should stand:

because only the Board of Parole is authorized to impose the conditions of a term of postrelease supervision (…Penal Law § 70.45 [3]; Executive Law §§ 259-c [2]; 259-i [3], [4]), County Court erred to the extent that it imposed certain conditions of defendant's postrelease supervision at sentencing and the conditions should be stricken. Similarly, inasmuch as neither a fine nor restitution was mentioned at the plea proceedings, the matter must be remitted to allow County Court to either impose the sentence that was negotiated or to give defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea before imposing the enhanced sentence … .

In contrast, while only an order of protection against the victim was discussed during the plea agreement, “[o]rders of protection are not punitive in nature and are not necessarily dependent on, or the result of, a plea agreement” … . Accordingly, County Court did not err when it imposed an order of protection in favor of the victim and her family at sentencing and, notwithstanding this Court's determination to remit this matter, the order of protection remains in place. People v Curry, 2014 NY Slip Op 09069, 3rd Dept 12-31-14

 

, ,

Failure to Move to Withdraw Plea, and Thereby Preserve the Issue for Appeal, Did Not Prohibit Appeal Here—Defendant Was Wrongly Informed by the Court and Counsel that the Denial of His Speedy Trial Motion Would Be Appealable After the Plea

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court and vacated defendant's guilty plea because defendant was wrongly informed by the court and counsel that his statutory speedy trial issue would survive the guilty plea (for appeal).  Under the circumstances, the court determined the failure to preserve the error by moving to withdraw the plea did not prohibit the appeal:

The People concede that an essential term of the plea bargain was the parties' understanding that defendant would retain the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Defendant was thereafter sentenced … . Defendant now appeals, arguing that his plea was involuntarily entered because his counsel and County Court erroneously informed him that a statutory CPL 30.30 claim would survive a plea of guilty.

Initially, we consider whether defendant was required to preserve this claim by appropriate postallocution motion (see CPL 220.60 [3]; 440.10). While a challenge to the validity of a guilty plea is generally not preserved for appellate review unless it was first raised in the trial court …, the Court of Appeals has recognized that “where a defendant has no practical ability to object to an error in a plea allocution which is clear from the face of the record, preservation is not required” … . Here a CPL 440.10 motion was unavailable because the error is clear from the face of the record; similarly a CPL 220.60 (3) motion was practically unavailable because “'defendant [could] hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he ha[d] no knowledge'” … . Inasmuch as defendant–due to the inaccurate advice of his counsel and the trial court–did not know during the plea and sentencing proceedings that his statutory speedy trial claim would be forfeited as a direct consequence of his plea …, preservation was not required … . Moreover, under these circumstances, we agree with defendant that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary and, accordingly, we reverse and vacate the plea … . People v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 09067, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


,

Trial Testimony Rendered an Indictment Count Duplicitous Requiring Dismissal/Sexual Abuse First Degree Is Not a Lesser Included Offense Re: a Course of Sexual Conduct Against a Child First Degree

The Third Department determined that an indictment-count rendered duplicitous by the trial testimony should have been dismissed, and an indictment-count was wrongly amended because the new charge was not a lesser included offense re: the original charge:

As pertinent here, the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree requires proof that the defendant engaged in oral sexual conduct with another person who is less than 11 years old, and oral sexual conduct includes “contact between . . . the mouth and the vulva or vagina” (Penal Law § 130.00 [2] [a]; see Penal Law § 130.50 [3]). The challenged count charged defendant with this crime based upon the victim's grand jury testimony that defendant had caused the victim to use her mouth to make contact with defendant's vaginal area on a single occasion in 2004. At trial, however, the victim testified that defendant caused her to engage in this conduct multiple times during the pertinent time period, and that she did not remember any specific time when it had happened. … Unfortunately, the … testimony regarding multiple acts made it impossible to ascertain the particular act upon which the jury verdict was based. We are therefore required, despite the utterly heinous nature of the acts the victim described, to reverse defendant's conviction on this charge; further, the challenged count must be dismissed… . …

While the People may seek to amend an indictment at any time during trial to correct “matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like,” such an amendment may not alter the theory of prosecution reflected in the evidence before the grand jury (CPL 200.70 [1]; see CPL 200.70 [2]…). Further, a court may submit to a jury a lesser included offense of a crime charged in an indictment provided that the elements of the two crimes are such that “it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly committing the lesser offense by the same conduct [and] there [is] a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater” … . * * *

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 … . It is possible for a defendant to engage in an act of sexual conduct within the scope of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child through an act of sexual contact, defined in pertinent part as “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party” (Penal Law § 130.00 [3]). However, a defendant could also commit an act of sexual conduct within the scope of the originally-charged offense by an act of “sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, [or] aggravated sexual contact” (Penal Law § 130.00 [10]). The definitions of these acts do not include any element of intent; thus, it is possible for a defendant to commit an act that constitutes sexual conduct without the purpose of gratifying anyone's sexual desire that is a required element of sexual contact (see Penal Law § 130.00 [1], [2] [a], [b]; [11]…). Therefore, as it is possible to commit course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree without also committing sexual abuse in the first degree by the same conduct, defendant's conviction on that charge must be reversed, and the amended indictment count must be dismissed … . People v Baker, 2014 NY Slip Op 09068, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


,

Regulation Prohibiting/Restricting Smoking in New York Parks Properly Promulgated by Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation—“Boreali” Criteria Explained and Applied to the Facts in Some Depth

Reversing Supreme Court, the Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined that a regulation prohibiting/restricting smoking in New York parks was properly promulgated by the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).  Petitioner, an organization promoting the interests of smokers, argued the agency did not have the authority to regulate smoking in parks absent legislation on the issue and, therefore, the promulgation of the rule violated the principle of separation of powers.  The court explained the “Boreali” criteria under which the regulation was analyzed and applied the criteria to the facts (the interesting, detailed, fact-specific analysis is not summarized here):

Respondents, the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (hereinafter OPRHP) and its Commissioner, are empowered by statute to “[o]perate and maintain . . . historic sites and objects, parks, parkways and recreational facilities”(PRHPL 3.09 [2]) and to “[p]rovide for the health, safety and welfare of the public using facilities under its jurisdiction” (PRHPL 3.09 [5]). In February 2013, pursuant to this statutory authority, OPRHP adopted a rule establishing smoke-free areas in certain limited outdoor locations under its jurisdiction (see 9 NYCRR 386.1). Such regulation, among other things, also prohibits smoking in each state park located in New York City, with limited exceptions (see 9 NYCRR 386.1 [a] [2])… . OPRHP announced that this rule was needed in order to allow “patrons to enjoy the outdoors, breathe fresh air, walk, swim, exercise and experience [s]tate [p]arks' amenities and programs without being exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke and tobacco litter” (NY Reg Dec. 5, 2012 at 11). * * *

“The cornerstone of administrative law is derived from the principle that the Legislature may declare its will, and after fixing a primary standard, endow administrative agencies with the power to fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations consistent with the enabling legislation” (…see NY Const, art III, § 1). As the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, when determining whether an administrative agency has violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers, we must consider the “coalescing circumstances” set forth in Boreali v Axelrod (71 NY2d 1, 11 [1987]), namely, (1) whether the respondents improperly engaged in the balancing of their stated goal with competing social concerns and acted “solely on [their] own ideas of sound public policy”; (2) whether the respondents engaged in the “interstitial” rulemaking typical of administrative agencies or instead “wrote on a clean slate, creating [their] own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance”; (3) whether the challenged regulation concerns “an area in which the Legislature ha[s] repeatedly tried — and failed — to reach agreement in the face of substantial public debate and vigorous lobbying by a variety of interested factions”; and (4) whether the respondents overstepped their bounds because the development of the regulation did not require the exercise of expertise or technical competence by the administrative agency (id. at 12-14 …). In determining whether “the difficult-to-define line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making has been transgressed,” this Court should view these circumstances “in combination” (Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d at 11), while ever mindful that “'it is the province of the people's elected representatives, rather than appointed administrators, to resolve difficult social problems by making choices among competing ends'” … .

Applying the four Boreali considerations, we find no usurpation of the Legislature's prerogative by respondents' promulgation of 9 NYCRR 386.1. Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H. Inc v New York State Off of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv, 2014 NY Slip Op 09085, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


 

Documents Explaining Reason for Mail-Watch Order Re: Inmate Exempt from Disclosure Pursuant to Public Officers Law

The Third Department determined the petitioner-inmate was not entitled to documents explaining why a mail-watch order was issued by the Department of Corrections mandating that the petitioner's mail be monitored for two months.  The requested documents were exempt from disclosure as “communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions:”

…[T]he withheld document constitutes inter- or intra-agency deliberative material, “i.e., communications exchanged for discussion purposes not constituting final policy decisions” (…see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [g]…). The withheld document is a mail watch request and consists of “predecisional evaluations, recommendations and conclusions,” and is accordingly exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) … . Matter of Ward v Gonzalez, 2014 NY Slip OP 08931, 3rd Dept 12-24-14

 

, , ,

In a DWI Case, Operation Proved by Circumstantial Evidence

The Third Department determined circumstantial evidence the defendant had been driving while intoxicated was sufficient.  The defendant went to a witness' home seeking assistance after his car ended up in a ditch.  [Although not summarized here, the decision, which affirmed the conviction, also has in depth discussions of errors in juror selection (failure to address bias expressed by a juror re: a DWI case where peremptory challenges eventually exhausted), the criteria for juror disqualification when a juror is related to a witness but does not realize it until the witness testified, and related ineffective assistance claims.]:

A defendant need not be driving to operate a vehicle for purposes of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; it is enough if the evidence shows that he or she is behind the wheel with the engine running … . The testimony was that when defendant arrived on [a witness'] doorstep to request assistance with getting the car out of the ditch, he was alone and smelled of alcohol. In addition to the testimony of [witnesses] describing his efforts, defendant acknowledged that he was behind the wheel of the car, and that the car was running with the wheels spinning as he attempted to drive the car out of the ditch. These factors are sufficient to establish that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public highway … . People v Colburn, 2014 NY Slip Op 08875, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

“Possession of Unauthorized Medication” Charge Could Not Stand—Chain of Custody of the Pills Not Demonstrated

The Third Department determined the inmate's “possession of unauthorized medication” charge could not stand because the chain of custody of the pills was not demonstrated:

The procedure to be followed when a suspected contraband drug is found dictates that correction officials prepare “a request for test of suspected contraband drugs” and that “[e]ach person handling the suspected substance shall make an appropriate notation on the form to document . . . the chain of custody of the substance until it is identified” (7 NYCRR 1010.4 [b]). Petitioner sought a copy of the request form with proof of chain of custody and, indeed, sought to have the charges against her dismissed because that document had not been provided to her. Despite her complaints, the Hearing Officer made no effort to obtain either the request form or any other proof to establish the chain of custody… . Matter of Sanabria v Annucci, 2014 NY Slip Op 08893, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

, ,

Worker’s Compensation Award Made by Arbitrator Pursuant to an Authorized Dispute Resolution Program Is Reviewed Under the Appellate Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers (Not Under the Usual “Substantial Evidence” Standard)

The Third Department noted that a worker's compensation award made by an arbitrator pursuant to an authorized dispute resolution program is not reviewed by the Worker's Compensation Board and is reviewed by the appellate court under the court's limited arbitration-review powers:

Workers' compensation claims generally reach this Court on direct appeal from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board and are subject to the substantial evidence standard of review (see Workers' Compensation Law § 23…). On the other hand, determinations of workers' compensation claims by arbitrators pursuant to an authorized alternative dispute resolution program are not reviewed by the Board, but may be appealed directly to this Court (see Workers' Compensation Law § 25 [2-c] [d]; 12 NYCRR 314.3 [b]). The substantial evidence standard does not apply to appeals of claims reaching us through the latter procedural route … . Instead, these cases are reviewed under the standard applicable to review of arbitration awards in general (see CPLR 7511).

Pursuant to that standard, courts have limited power to review an arbitrator's award … . Courts may vacate an arbitration award only if it was procured by “corruption, fraud or misconduct,” if the arbitrator was biased (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [i]; see CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [ii]) or “if [the award] violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power” … . “[A]n arbitrator's award should not be vacated for errors of law and fact committed by the arbitrator and the courts should not assume the role of overseers to mold the award to conform to their sense of justice”…, nor should courts “otherwise pass upon the merits of the dispute” … . Matter of Diaz, v Kleinknecht Elec, 2014 NY Slip Op 0882, 3rd Dept 12-18-14

 

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