You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

, ,

Sex Offender May Not Avoid Civil Commitment Proceeding by Renouncing Citizenship and Leaving the Country

The Third Department determined the respondent in a Mental Hygiene Law 10.06 proceeding (called a SOMTA proceeding) to determine whether he, as a sex offender, should be committed to a secure mental health treatment facility, could not defeat the proceeding by renouncing his citizenship and leaving the country:

It is well established that “Congress has broad authority to set the conditions and procedures that an individual must satisfy in order to renounce his [or her] citizenship” … . In accord with its authority, Congress enacted 8 USC § 1481, which, in relevant part, provides that “[a] person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his [or her] nationality by voluntarily performing [certain enumerated] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality” … . A citizen seeking to renounce his or her nationality must make an application therefor and, generally, must be outside the United States to do so … . To this end, respondent argues that the SOMTA petition must be dismissed so that he may be released from DOCCS’s custody in order to leave the United States and return to Israel, where he will effectuate his expatriation… .

We flatly reject this argument, which presupposes, among other things, that respondent would actually exit this country if he were released from custod. Even if he did leave, the state is not required to bear the risk that petitioner — an experienced international fugitive — would not return to New York thereafter. In any event, at this juncture, respondent remains a United States citizen confined in New York who is a sex offender alleged to have a mental abnormality and in need of civil management, and petitioner continues to have a legitimate interest in protecting society from the risks he poses… . Matter of State of New York v Horowitz, 2014 NY Slip Op 05001, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

,

Hearsay Evidence of Another’s Admission to the Crime Warranted a Hearing Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Conviction

The Third Department determined newly discovered evidence, including hearsay evidence of the admission of another (Melton) to the commission of the crime, warranted a hearing pursuant to the defendant’s motion to set aside his conviction:

“[A] defendant has a fundamental right to offer into evidence the admission of another to the crime with which he or she is charged” … . “Depriving a defendant of the opportunity to offer into evidence another person’s admission to the crime with which he or she has been charged, even though that admission may only be offered as a hearsay statement, may deny a defendant his or her fundamental right to present a defense” … . The People’s claims regarding Melton’s unwillingness to testify were themselves hearsay, and simply created issues of fact as to whether he was available and, if not, whether his posttrial statements were admissible as declarations against his penal interest … . A statement is admissible under this hearsay exception if (1) the declarant is unavailable because of death, absence or a refusal to testify on constitutional grounds, (2) the declarant knew when making the declaration that it was contrary to his or her penal interest, (3) he or she had competent knowledge of the facts, and (4) other independent evidence supports the reliability and trustworthiness of the declaration … . Where, as here, the statement at issue tends to exculpate a criminal defendant, a more lenient standard of reliability is applied than to inculpatory statements; an exculpatory declaration is admissible if competent independent evidence “establishes a reasonable possibility that the statement might be true” .. . .  People v Sheppard, 2014 NY Slip Op 04982, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement

The Third Department upheld the determination that claimant was an employee, entitled to unemployment benefits, despite the existence of an independent contractor agreement.  Claimant was hired by AML, a consulting firm, for a four-week research project for one of AML’s clients.  Claimant worked at the client’s location:

Initially, we note that the existence of an employment relationship is a factual issue for the Board to decide and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence … . In making this determination, particularly where the work of professionals is involved, the relevant inquiry is whether the employer exercised “control over important aspects of the services performed” … . Here, undisputed evidence was presented that AML set claimant’s rate of pay, established her work hours, provided training, conferred with her on a regular basis, reviewed her work product and submitted her final report to the client. Significantly, although claimant physically worked at the client’s location, an AML representative was present on a daily basis to discuss the project with claimant. Under the circumstances presented, notwithstanding the existence of the independent contractor agreement, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant and those similarly situated research analysts were AML’s employees … . Matter of Stewart…, 2014 NY Slip Op 04539, 3rd Dept 6-19-14

 

Workers’ Compensation Carrier Not Liable After Liability Has Shifted to Special Fund—Board Overruled Precedent Holding Otherwise When the Carrier is Responsible for Delay Until the Special Fund Is Available to Assume Liability

The Third Department upheld the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination that the workers’ compensation carrier is not liable for medical expenses after liability has been shifted to the Special Fund. The Board had the power to overrule prior precedent which allowed the carrier to remain liable if it was attempting to delay providing benefits in order to have liability shifted to the Special Fund:

Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) provides that, where seven years have passed from the date of claimant’s injury and three years have passed from the date of the last payment of compensation, “if an award is made it shall be against the [S]pecial [F]und” (emphasis added). Both of those time periods have undoubtedly been met in this case. The Board has previously observed, however, that a carrier with a pending application to shift liability may be tempted to delay in approving necessary medical expenses in order to avoid the complications of paying for them and later seeking reimbursement from the Special Fund. In an effort to address that concern, the Board had held that, in certain instances, a carrier would be held liable for medical expenses that would otherwise be the responsibility of the Special Fund if it “had attempted to delay payment for the surgery until after a determination was made regarding the applicability of [Workers’ Compensation Law] § 25-a, and not based . . . on a good faith objection to the surgery” … .

In the decision at issue here, the Board discussed that precedent at length and overruled it, which it was free to do given that it “set forth its reasons for doing so” and considered appropriate statutory and judicial authorities … . * * *

“The purpose of [Workers’ Compensation Law § ] 25-a is to save employers and insurance carriers from liability . . . for stale claims of injured employees” … . Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (1) furthers that purpose by requiring that any award “shall be [made] against the [S]pecial [F]und” if the requisite time periods have elapsed (emphasis added). As both the language and purpose of the statute demonstrate, the carrier “has no further interest in [the] payment of the claim” once liability has shifted to the Special Fund … , and “the Board ha[s] no power to direct that the award be paid by the [carrier] instead of out of the [S]pecial [F]und” under those circumstances … . Thus, the Board properly concluded that the statute does not permit a carrier to be held liable for medical expenses incurred after liability has been shifted to the Special Fund. Matter of Ercole v New York State Police, 2014 NY Slip Op 04550, 3rd Dept 6-19-14

 

,

Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Standing to Challenge Search of Vehicle

The Third Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate he had standing to contest the inventory search of a vehicle, parked and empty at the time the police seized it, which turned up a weapon.  A police officer had seen the defendant driving the vehicle just before it was seized and a confidential informant had told the police where the defendant kept a handgun in the vehicle. Because the People did not rely solely on the statutory presumption of possession of a weapon (Penal Law 265.15 (3)) the defendant needed to allege and demonstrate standing.  Because the defendant did not own the vehicle and denied driving it on the day it was seized, he was unable to challenge the search:

A defendant seeking to suppress evidence has the burden to allege and, if disputed, establish standing to challenge a search … . “Standing exists where a defendant was aggrieved by a search of a place or object in which he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy” … . While a defendant is entitled to “automatic standing” if the People “rely solely on the statutory presumption [of possession of a weapon] contained in Penal Law § 265.15 (3) to establish his [or her] guilt” …, defendant here cannot rely on that exception to his burden regarding standing. The People did not depend entirely upon the statutory presumption of standing, but had other evidence, including one officer who witnessed defendant driving the vehicle and the CI who provided information that defendant had a handgun in the vehicle and where within the vehicle the gun would be located … . Inasmuch as defendant did not own the BMW and denied that he was driving it on the day in question, he failed to allege any legitimate expectation of privacy in that vehicle. People v Anderson, 2014 NY Slip Op 04269, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

Exclusive Access Not Required for Constructive Possession

The Third Department determined the proof of constructive possession of a weapon was sufficient.  The gun was found in a boot outside the door to the apartment where defendant lived.  He had been seen entering the building with a gun. The court noted that exclusive access to the area where contraband is found is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession:

Constructive possession can be established by evidence that the defendant had dominion and control over the weapon or the area in which it was found … . Exclusive access, however, is not required to sustain a finding of constructive possession … . Here, the People established that defendant resided in the first-floor apartment with his girlfriend and their young son, and the loaded handgun was found in a man’s boot located in a hallway leading to that apartment among shoes belonging to defendant’s girlfriend and his son. The only other tenant in the building was an elderly woman who lived on the second floor. Although defendant denied ownership of the boots, he admitted that he kept some of his belongings in the hallway, and the People established the presence of his DNA on the weapon. The rational inferences to be drawn from this evidence are sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant exercised dominion and control over the weapon and the area in which it was found … . People v Bellamy, 2014 NY Slip Op 04262, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

Defendant Did Not Make a Sufficient Showing to Justify Severance of Counts (Counts Related to Different Victims of Sexual Abuse)—-Nor Did the Defendant Make a Sufficient Showing to Justify a “Taint” Hearing (to Explore whether Allegations by a Child Were the Result of Suggestive Questioning)

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion to sever the counts of the indictment, which involved different child victims of sexual abuse, was properly denied.  The court further determined the defendant’s motion for a taint hearing (to explore whether a child-victim’s allegations were the result of suggestive questioning) was properly denied:

Although charges arising out of different criminal transactions are properly joinable where, as here, “such offenses are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law” (CPL 200.20 [2] [c]…), a court nonetheless may — “in the interest of justice and for good cause shown” — exercise its discretion and order that such offenses be tried separately (CPL 200.20 [3]…). Good cause, in turn, may be established by demonstrating, among other things, that there is “[s]ubstantially more proof on one or more such joinable offenses than on others and there is a substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the proof as it relates to each offense” (CPL 200.20 [3] [a]…). Simply put, defendant failed to make such a showing here. * * *

Notwithstanding the absence of “express statutory authority for a hearing to determine whether the testimony of [a] child witness[] has been tainted by suggestive interviewing techniques,” a court nonetheless may — “[u]pon a proper showing” by the defendant — direct that a pretrial taint hearing be held … . Noticeably absent from defendant’s motion papers was any indication that victim B’s mother engaged in leading or otherwise suggestive questioning of victim B regarding any inappropriate contact that she may have had with defendant. Moreover, “any suggestibility, the manner of questioning and its effects on [victim B’s] testimony could be, and was, addressed on cross-examination of [victim B and her mother]” at trial… . People v Milford, 2014 NY Slip Op 04278, 3rd Dept 6=12=14

 

, ,

Past Domestic Violence Admissible to Show Intent in Rape Case—Victim’s Statements in Hospital Report Admissible under Business Records Exception/Confrontation Clause Not Implicated Because Statements Were Not Testimonial—Victim’s Statements Shortly After the Rape Admissible as Excited Utterances

In a case where the defendant was charged with raping his ex-girlfriend, the Third Department determined past incidents of domestic violence were properly allowed in evidence to demonstrate intent, statements made by the victim (who died before trial from an unrelated cause) included in a hospital report were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and statements made by the victim shortly after the rape were admissible as excited utterances.  With respect to the hospital records, the court wrote:

County Court properly allowed admission of statements that the victim made during her medical examination. “Hospital records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule as long as the information relates to diagnosis, prognosis or treatment” … . Details of the abuse, even including the perpetrator’s identity, may be relevant to diagnosis and treatment when the assault occurs within a domestic violence relationship because the medical provider must consider the victim’s safety when creating a discharge plan and gauging the patient’s psychological needs … . The physician who examined the victim testified that all of the information in the medical records was relevant to and gathered for purposes of diagnosis or treatment, and the primary purpose of the examination was to care for the patient’s health and safety, although a secondary purpose of the forensic examination was to gather evidence that could be used in the future for purposes of prosecution. Considering this information, although the victim was unavailable to testify because she died before trial (from causes unrelated to defendant’s crimes), defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated because the statements were not testimonial… . People v Pham, 2014 NY Slip Op 04276, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

,

Failure to Advise Respondent of His Right to Counsel at a Temporary Removal Hearing Not Condoned—Reversal Not Required Because No Evidence from the Temporary Removal Hearing Was Elicited in the Subsequent Neglect Proceedings

The Third Department determined that Family Court’s failure to advise respondent on his right to counsel in a temporary removal hearing did not require the reversal of a subsequent neglect adjudication.  None of the evidence elicited at the temporary removal hearing was used during the neglect proceedings:

It is well established that failure to fully advise a respondent of his or her right to counsel is a deprivation of a fundamental right that requires reversal of any “resulting adjudication” in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, whether or not prejudice is shown … . “[A] Family Ct Act § 1022 removal hearing is no exception” to this requirement … . Here, Family Court undisputedly failed to advise respondent of his right to counsel “[w]hen [he] first appear[ed] in court . . . before proceeding” with the temporary removal hearing (Family Ct Act § 262 [a]). We do not condone this failure … .

Nonetheless, we agree with the attorney for the children that the circumstances present here are distinguished from the precedent cited above –not due to the lack of any resulting prejudice, which would not suffice — but rather and specifically relative to whether the determination ultimately rendered after the fact-finding hearing constituted a “resulting adjudication.” Here, the neglect adjudication was based solely upon evidence elicited during the course of the fact-finding hearing; no testimony from the temporary removal hearing — in which respondent did not participate — was introduced. The adjudication following fact-finding did not therefore rely, in any part, on the evidence adduced at the temporary removal hearing … . Matter of Elijah ZZ, 2014 NY Slip Op 04280, 3rd Dept 6-12-14

 

Mother’s Consent to Adoption Not Required

The Third Department determined mother’s consent to adoption was not required due to her failure to seek treatment for drug and alcohol problems and lack of contact with the child:

“Consent to adoption is not required of a parent who ‘evinces an intent to forego his or her parental or custodial rights and obligations as manifested by his or her failure for a period of six months to visit the child and communicate with the child or person having legal custody of the child, although able to do so'” … . “Once the petitioner makes such a showing by clear and convincing evidence, the burden shifts to the parent to demonstrate sufficient contact or an inability to engage in such contact”… . * * *

The record not only reflects that the mother failed to demonstrate an acceptable reason for the absence of contact or communication for over six months, but also that the impediments contributing to such absence of contact resulted from the mother’s own acts and lack of effort … . Matter of Lori QQ, 2014 NY Slip Op 04105, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

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