You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

,

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

 

,

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

 

Petitioner Not Given Adequate Employee Assistance—Determination Annulled—New Hearing Ordered

The Third Department determined the petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because a report he requested was never provided to him, and no explanation for the failure to provide the report was made:

…[W]e agree with petitioner’s contention that he was denied adequate employee assistance. Specifically, the record reflects that petitioner’s assistance form requested the “injury report,” but the record does not reveal that petitioner was either provided with the report or informed that it did not exist. While the Hearing Officer noted petitioner’s request at the hearing and advised petitioner that he would check into this, no further mention of this issue was made. Under these circumstances, we cannot say on this record that such omission did not prejudice petitioner’s defense, and the determination must be annulled … . Matter of Rupnarine v Prack, 2014 NY Slip Op 04093, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

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

 

Parole Conditions Did Not Require Parolee to Report Brief, Incidental Contact with Children to His Parole Officer—Parole Violation Determination Annulled

The Third Department annulled the finding that petitioner had violated his parole by not reporting brief contact with a child.  Petitioner was doing construction work when a coworker’s daughter emerged briefly approached petitioner and the coworker:

“It is well established that a parole revocation decision will be upheld so long as ‘the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such determination'” … . Notably, in order to warrant revocation, the alleged parole violation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Executive Law § 259-i [3]; [f]…), which we find lacking in the record before us. * * *

The parole conditions did not clearly require petitioner to report such an insignificant encounter to his parole officer, however, and petitioner testified that he did not know that he needed to do so. Further, while the coworker’s children were occasionally present during lunch breaks at the work site, they largely remained outside the eating area and there was no showing that petitioner had any contact with the children during such times. In view of this, petitioner’s parole conditions did not plainly require him to report such information to his parole officer. Accordingly, given the absence of probative evidence supporting the charge that petitioner failed to truthfully report his activities to his parole officer, the determination finding that he violated his parole in this regard must be annulled… . Matter of Peck v Evans, 2014 NY Slip Op 04107, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Should Not Have Been Denied Without a Hearing

The Third Department determined County Court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea without a hearing.  The court was aware defendant was under medication which was affecting her ability to think at the time she entered the plea:

…[A]n evidentiary hearing is … required upon a motion to withdraw a guilty plea “[w];here the record raises legitimate questions as to whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered into” … . County Court was well aware that defendant was being medicated for longstanding mental health issues, and was further on painkillers due to a recent injury. When she appeared before County Court …, defendant stated that her psychological issues were “out of control” and that she could not think. She further advised County Court that the painkillers she was taking left her unable to attend to her personal needs without assistance. County Court then adjourned the case pending trial, only to have defendant reappear a short time later and plead guilty. People v Bass, 2014 NY Slip Op 04079, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

,

In the Absence of a Colloquy Conducted by the Court, the Circumstances Indicated that Mother Knowingly, Intelligently and Voluntarily Waiver Her Right to Counsel In a Custody Proceeding

In the course of a decision affirming Family Court’s finding that a change of circumstances warranted modification of the custody arrangement, the Third Department determined the mother had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her right to counsel.  In the absence of a colloquy conducted by the court, the Third Department found that the relevant circumstances indicated the waiver was valid:

“[A]; party is entitled to self-representation once the court determines that the decision to do so is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. Although it is preferable that the court’s determination be made following an appropriate colloquy with the party on the record, it may also be made upon an examination of all the potential relevant circumstances” .. . Here, at the initial court appearance on April 8, 2011, the mother was represented by an attorney, whom she states was assigned. By the next court date, July 15, 2011, she had terminated the services of the assigned attorney and appeared with a substituted retained attorney. At the next appearance, the father told the court that he was switching attorneys and, at the ensuing appearance on August 10, 2011, the mother informed the court that she wanted to terminate the services of her retained attorney. Her attorney was present and, after confirming that the mother had discussed such action with the attorney, the court permitted the attorney to withdraw.

Noting the multiple adjournments and delays that had occurred by such time, many caused by the switching of attorneys by both parties, the mother was admonished to obtain substitute counsel before the next court date. Over a month later, on September 14, 2011, the mother appeared and stated that she had not been able to retain a new attorney and was involved in a dispute with her former retained attorney about fees. The court stated that it would grant yet another adjournment, but that a trial date would be set with no more adjournments permitted, and the court also reminded the mother that she could apply for assigned counsel. The mother next appeared on November 30, 2011, stating that she was representing herself and that she was ready to proceed with the hearing. The mother had already appeared and prepared documents in many of the proceedings pertaining to the child without an attorney and, among other things, she had obtained subpoenas for several witnesses prior to the hearing. Under all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the record sufficiently reflects that the mother waived her statutory right to counsel knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily… . Matter of Joshua UU v Martha VV, 2014 NY Slip Op 04089, 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