You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

Nature of a Repugnant Verdict Explained—Here the Verdict Convicting Defendant of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Acquitting Defendant of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance Was Not Repugnant—The Proof at Trial Plays No Part in the Repugnancy Analysis

The Third Department determined County Court should not have determined a verdict was repugnant and sent the jury back for further deliberations.  The Third Department vacated the defendant's conviction on the relevant count.  In the course of the decision the Third Department explained the nature of a repugnant verdict, noting that the proof at trial plays no part in the analysis:

Contrary to defendant's assertion, the jury's initial verdict — convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and acquitting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree — was not repugnant. “[A]; verdict as to a particular count shall be set aside [as repugnant]; only when it is inherently inconsistent when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury” … . In assessing a repugnancy claim, “we must review the elements of the offenses as charged to the jury without regard to the proof that was actually presented at trial. Thus, [i];f there is a possible theory under which a split verdict could be legally permissible, it cannot be repugnant, regardless of whether that theory has evidentiary support. . . . In this context, the apparently illogical nature of the verdict — as opposed to its impossibility — is viewed as a mistake, compromise or the exercise of mercy by the jury, none of which undermine[s]; a verdict as a matter of law” … .

Here, upon reviewing the elements of the subject offenses, it is readily apparent that the jury's verdict was not repugnant. Criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree requires proof that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully sold a narcotic drug (see Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), whereas criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree requires only, insofar as is relevant here, that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully possessed a narcotic drug with intent to sell it (see Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). Notably, a “[d];efendant's acquittal on the [sale count]; does not negate the elements of the [possession count], for a person can possess and intend to sell a narcotic drug, but not actually accomplish a sale” … . Defendant's argument to the contrary is predicated upon the specific proof adduced at trial, which — the Court of Appeals has instructed — is to play no role in our analysis of a repugnancy claim … . As the jury's initial verdict was not repugnant, County Court should have denied defendant's motion, accepted the jury's verdict and adjourned the matter for sentencing. Instead, County Court implicitly granted defendant's motion, devised a special verdict sheet and directed the jury to resume deliberations. People v Kramer, 2014 NY Slip Op 04085, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

,

Taking a Position Adverse to Client’s Pro Se Motion to Withdraw a Guilty Plea Constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The Third Department noted that counsel may not take a position adverse to the client’s pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea.  To do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel:

We agree with defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as his new counsel took a position adverse to his with regard to the motion to withdraw his plea. “While defense counsel is not required to support a pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea, counsel ‘may not take a position . . . that is adverse to the defendant'” … . Although defendant was properly permitted to obtain a new attorney, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when such counsel “affirmatively undermined arguments [that defendant]; wished the court to review” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for reconsideration of defendant’s motion, for which he must be represented by new counsel. People v Russ, 2014 NY Slip Op 04084, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Parole Violators May Apply for Resentencing Under Drug Law Reform Act—County Court Properly Denied the Application Based Upon the Nature of Defendant’s Convictions and Serious Prison Infractions

In affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion for resentencing under the Drug Law Reform Act, the Third Department noted that the fact that defendant violated parole did not prevent him from applying for resentencing:

While parole violators may indeed apply for resentencing, denial of such an application may be warranted if they “have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences” … . Defendant has a violent criminal history and, indeed, his most recent criminal conviction and parole violation stem from his possession of a defaced and loaded handgun. The record further reveals that defendant has a lengthy record of serious prison disciplinary infractions, many of them involving violence. We thus find that, notwithstanding defendant’s positive programming achievements while incarcerated, “County Court properly exercised its discretion in finding that substantial justice would not be served by resentencing” him … . People v Allen, 2014 NY Slip Op 04087, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

,

Court Is Not Required to Notify Defendant of His Right to Contest the Constitutionality of His Prior Conviction Before Sentencing Defendant as a Second Felony Offender

The Third Department noted that the sentencing court was not required to notify defendant of his right to contest the constitutionality of his prior conviction before sentencing defendant as a second felony offender:

” ‘County Court was not obligated to expressly advise defendant of his right to contest the constitutionality of the prior conviction'” … . Here, the record reveals that defendant was provided with the prior felony information before sentencing and, while represented by counsel during sentencing, declined to deny or controvert any of the allegations in the information. Accordingly, County Court substantially complied with the requirements of CPL 400.21 (3), and defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender … . People v Wilkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 04083, 3rd Dept 6-5-14

 

Warrantless Entry Justified by Exigent Circumstances

The Third Department, over a dissent, affirmed County Court’s finding that the warrantless entry of a building was justified by exigent circumstances:

“Appraising a particular situation to determine whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless intrusion into a protected area presents difficult problems of evaluation and judgment. This difficulty is highlighted by the fact that Judges, detached from the tension and drama of the moment, must engage in reflection and hindsight in balancing the exigencies of the situation against the rights of the accused” … . Pursuant to the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, the police may make a warrantless entry into a protected area if three prerequisites are met: “(1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched” … . The requisite reasonable grounds for the belief that an emergency exists must be based upon objective facts, rather than the subjective feelings of the police … . * * *

In our view, the information known to law enforcement rendered it objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that the armed perpetrator could still be inside the building. Although the dissent stresses the fact that the subject building was a multi-family house, thus discounting the officer’s observation of people on the second floor, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing does not establish that the responding officers had any knowledge of the building’s configuration. To the contrary, both the arresting officer and one of the officers who ultimately entered the apartment testified that, at that point in time, they were unaware of the layout of the building. While further investigation and consideration removed from the exigencies of the situation may have uncovered this fact, “the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency existed must be applied by reference to the circumstances then confronting the officer, including the need for a prompt assessment of sometimes ambiguous information concerning potentially serious consequences” … . People v Gibson, 2014 NY Slip Op 03877, 3rd Dept 5-29-14

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Defense Waived By Absence from Answer—Objections to Authority to Sign Lease Waived by Ratification of the Signed Documents

The Third Department, in a dispute over what was due and owing under a lease agreement, determined the “lack of standing” defense had been waived by the failure to raise it in the answer, and allegedly unauthorized execution of relevant documents had been ratified:

Initially, defendant claims that plaintiff lacks standing to enforce any obligations created by the lease or confirmation agreement, as it was not a party to either document. We agree with Supreme Court that this claim was waived by defendant’s failure to assert it in the answer (see CPLR 3211 [a]; [3]; [e]…).. Defendant further argues that the confirmation agreement is not legally valid, as it was not signed by plaintiff and … PDC [the original lessor, Provident Development Corporation] had transferred the building to plaintiff prior to executing the confirmation agreement. However, “[a];n unauthorized execution of an instrument affecting the title to land or an interest therein may be ratified by the owner of the land or interest so as to be binding upon him [or her];” … . Such a ratification may be shown by the owner’s failure to timely repudiate the unauthorized actions, or by conduct consistent with an intent to be bound … . Here, plaintiff has never repudiated PDC’s execution of the confirmation agreement; on the contrary, the record reveals that, beginning on the commencement date established by the agreement and continuing through 2011, plaintiff regularly invoiced defendant for payments due at the intervals and in the amounts specified in that agreement and accepted defendant’s resulting payments — thus ratifying the confirmation agreement by accepting benefits due thereunder … . Provident Bay Rd LLC v NYSARC Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03895, 3rd Dept 5-29-14

 

Violation of Defendant’s Right to Remain Silent Was Harmless Error—Elements of “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” Defense to Murder Explained

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined that the error in eliciting testimony, in violation of defendant’s post-Miranda right to remain silent, about defendant’s failure to apprise law enforcement that he shot the victims while under extreme emotional disturbance, was harmless error.  The decision includes a detailed discussed of the relevant criteria for “extreme emotional disturbance:”

As the Court of Appeals has instructed, the extreme emotional disturbance defense is comprised of both subjective and objective elements. “The subjective element focuses on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime and requires sufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was actually influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance” …, i.e., “that the [defendant’s]; claimed explanation as to the cause of his [or her]; action [was]; not contrived or [a]; sham” … . This subjective element is “generally associated with a loss of self-control” … . The objective element, in turn, “requires proof of a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance . . . [, which]; must be determined by viewing the subjective mental condition of the defendant and the external circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be at the time, however inaccurate that perception may have been, and assessing from that standpoint whether the explanation or excuse for [the]; emotional disturbance was reasonable” … .

To be sure, the extreme emotional disturbance defense “is significantly broader in scope than the ‘heat of passion’ doctrine [that]; it replaced” … and, for that reason, the “[a];ction[s]; influenced by [such defense]; need not be spontaneous” … . “‘Rather, it may be that a significant mental trauma has affected a defendant’s mind for a substantial period of time, simmering in the unknowing subconscious and then inexplicably coming to the fore'” … . That said, evidence demonstrating a defendant’s “high degree of self-control” … , as well as any “postcrime conduct . . . suggest[ing]; . . . that [the defendant]; was in full command of his [or her]; faculties and had consciousness of guilt” … , is entirely inconsistent with an extreme emotional disturbance defense.  People v Pavone, 2014 NY Slip Op 03881, 3rd Dept 5-29-14

 

,

Sufficient Evidence Supported Finding that Sole Shareholder, Who Did Not Oversee the Day to Day Operations of a Corporation, Was a “Responsible Person” Who Could Be Held Personally Liable for the Failure to Pay Corporate Sales and Use Taxes

The Third Department determined that petitioner, who was the sole shareholder of a corporation, was a “responsible person” personally liable under Tax Law 1131 and 1133 for outstanding sales and use taxes.  Petitioner did not oversee the day to day operations of the corporation, did not sign checks, hire or fire employees, or assist in the preparation of tax returns.  However, she had the capacity to appoint officers and directors, had appointed her husband as the sole director, co-signed an alcoholic beverage license, , and alone signed an application for registration as a sales tax vendor:

Tax Law § 1133 (a) imposes personal liability on any person who is responsible for collecting tax under Tax Law article 28 … . A person required to collect tax includes “any officer, director or employee of a corporation . . . who . . . is under a duty to act for such corporation . . . in complying with any requirement of [Tax Law article 28];” (Tax Law § 1131 [1]). Moreover, a person who is not an officer, director or employee of a corporation is required to collect tax if he or she “possessed all the indicia of control that would impose liability upon an officer, director or employee of a corporation” … . Whether a person has a duty to act for a corporation and is responsible for collecting sales tax is a factual determination to be made on a case-by-case basis … . Such determination turns on a variety of factors, including the status of a stockholder, the authority to hire and fire employees and responsibility for the corporation's management … . In this regard, an important consideration is “petitioner's authority and responsibility to exercise control over the corporation, not his [or her]; actual assertion of such authority” … . Matter of Luongo v Tax Appeals Trib of the State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03714, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

,

Criteria for Reformation of a Deed (Removing a Restrictive Covenant) Not Met

The Third Department explained the criteria for reformation of a document, in this case a deed.  The court determined that the plaintiff, who was seeking to have a restrictive covenant removed from a deed, did not demonstrate the criteria for reformation of the deed.  The criteria were described as follows:

“A party seeking reformation must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the writing in question was executed under mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with fraud” … . The burden is on the proponent of reformation to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the relief is warranted … .

Here, it is undisputed that the deed’s restrictive covenant was not set forth in the contract of sale and Salenger testified that he first became aware of it when he received the deed after the closing. Thus, plaintiff established the existence of a unilateral mistake regarding whether the restrictive covenant was intended to be included as a condition of the sale. Nonetheless, plaintiff’s proof fell short of establishing fraud on decedent’s part, which requires “‘a misrepresentation that is false and that the defendant knows is false, made to induce the other party to rely on it, justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by the other party, and injury'” … . Timber Rattlesnake LLC v Devine, 2014 NY Slip Op 03718, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

Applicant Eligible for Relief Under Drug Sentencing Reform Statute Must Be Afforded a Hearing

The Third Department noted that an applicant who is eligible of for a relief under the “drug sentencing reform” statute, CPL 440.46, must be afforded a hearing.  People v Cain, 2014 NY Slip Op 03711, 3rd Dept 5-22-14

 

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