You are here: / Third Department

Tag Archive for: Third Department

THE RECORD OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS DID NOT EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY THE SHACKLING OF DEFENDANT’S HANDS DURING HIS TESTIMONY; EVEN IF HIS HANDS WERE UNDER THE TABLE, THE INABILITY TO USE HIS HANDS DURING HIS TESTIMONY WAS PREJUDICIAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined the record did not explain or otherwise support the shackling of defendant’s hands when he testified before the grand jury:

An actual justification for the use of physical restraints, specific to the defendant, is … necessary when a defendant testifies before a grand jury; in such context, the People are required to articulate a reasonable basis on the record for their use … . That threshold showing must be made on the record at the commencement of the proceeding, outside the presence of the grand jury…. .

… Review of the confidential grand jury minutes reveals that there was no relevant information offered to support the use of restraints. Shackling incarcerated defendants before the factfinder without revealing an adequate basis for doing so cannot be countenanced. …  Although the People assert that the hand shackles were hidden by the table at which defendant sat, this is disputed and was similarly unaddressed upon the record of proceedings.  It bears noting that it is customary for many people to use hand gestures in the course of describing events; for this reason, the inability to show one’s hands may connote or communicate that one is not trustworthy. Put another way, hiding one’s hands may be interpreted as withholding, may communicate in body language that one has “something to hide.” … .

… [T]here were no cautionary instructions addressing the shackles … , and the evidence presented was not so overwhelming as to eliminate the potential for prejudice … . People v Cain, 2022 NY Slip Op 05239, Third Dept 9-22-22

Practice Point: The record of grand jury proceedings must explain and justify the shackling of defendant’s hands during his testimony. Here the record did not address the shackling. Defendant’s conviction was reversed.

 

, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE COUNSEL; COUNSEL DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH DEFENDANT AND DID NOT PRESENT A DEFENSE; ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined that, although defendant waived his right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment proceeding, he did not waive his right to effective assistance of counsel. Counsel did not communicate with the defendant and did not present a defense at the hearing:

“SORA defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel, pursuant to the Due Process Clauses contained in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and article I, § 6 of the NY Constitution, because the statutory right to counsel in such proceedings … would otherwise be rendered meaningless, and because SORA determinations affect a defendant’s liberty interest” … . Moreover, “[a] fundamental aspect of the attorney-client relationship is communication” and “we have noted that an attorney’s responsibility in the representation of any client requires consulting with and counseling the client” … . Defendant waived his right to be present at the hearing but did not waive his right to challenge the Board’s risk assessment and the People’s proof … . During the hearing, counsel admitted that he lacked “the benefit of [defendant’s] input” in proceeding with the matter and County Court acknowledged that counsel was at a “disadvantage” because he had not had a chance to speak with defendant. The record further reflects that counsel failed to present a defense or raise any objections and did not require the People to present any proof at the hearing. People v Moore, 2022 NY Slip Op 05242, Third Dept 9-22-22

Practice Point: Even where a defendant waives his right to appear at a SORA risk-assessment proceeding, he is entitled to effective assistance of counsel. Counsel, to be effective, must communicate with the defendant and present a defense.

 

, , , ,

A CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ORDERED PETITIONER-TENANT TO VACATE HER APARTMENT AFTER FINDING SOME WINDOWS DID NOT OPEN; PENDING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE CITY AMENDED THE CODE TO ALLOW A HEARING IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE (RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER); THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS AN AGENT OF THE STATE AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND COUNSEL FEES AS THE PREVAILING PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE STATE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Fisher, determined petitioner-tenant was entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees in petitioner’s action against the city for ordering petitioner to vacate her apartment without first affording a hearing. The order to vacate was made after the code enforcement officer found windows in the apartment which could not be opened and an electrical problem. Before the appeal was heard, the city amended to code to provide an administrative hearing to those ordered to vacate their apartments. Petitioner was deemed to be a prevailing party and was therefore entitled to costs, disbursements and counsel fees:

Petitioner entered into a lease agreement for a second-floor apartment in the City of Schenectady … . … [P]etitioner contacted respondent City of Schenectady Code Enforcement Office and reported problems with the apartment including, among other things, that only three of the windows in the apartment could be opened. Following this complaint, the owner hired a repairperson to fix the windows … . … [A] code enforcement officer conducted an inspection of said premises. Upon finding that several of the second-floor windows still could not be opened and there was an electrical violation, the code enforcement officer issued an order to “immediately vacate” the second floor of the premises due to “sealed emergency rescue openings” and “unsafe conditions.” The order to vacate listed multiple violations of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State (19 NYCRR part 1226 [hereinafter PMCNYS]) and violations of the Code of the City of Schenectady. * * *

… [R]espondents argue that Supreme Court erred in awarding petitioner counsel fees because this matter is not a civil action against the state within the meaning of CPLR 8601 (a) and, nonetheless, respondents were substantially justified in their acts. We disagree. “CPLR 8601 (a) mandates an award of fees and other expenses to a prevailing party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the position of the state was determined to be substantially justified or that special circumstances render an award unjust” … .

… [G]iven [the] statutory and regulatory framework, we are satisfied that respondents’ code enforcement officer acted as a state agent in issuing the order in the course of his enforcement of the PMCNYS…. .

… [P]etitioners were expressly entitled to a post-deprivation administrative hearing pursuant to Property Maintenance Code of New York State § 103.2.1. That provision contemplates a prompt forum for a dispossessed occupant to address his or her concerns with the involved municipal officials. … [R]espondents’ disregard of petitioner’s repeated requests for such a hearing effectively deprived her of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Respondents’ failure to follow up on the code violations only compounded the problem. Matter of Brown v City of Schenectady, 2022 NY Slip Op 05245, Third Dept 9-21-22

Practice Point: A tenant ordered to vacate an apartment by a code enforcement officer is entitled to a prompt hearing.

Practice Point: A municipal code enforcement officer is an agent of the state. Therefore, a suit against a municipal code enforcement officer is a suit against the state entitling the prevailing party to costs, disbursements and counsel fees.

 

,

THE VIDEO DID NOT SUPPORT THE CREATING-A-DISTURBANCE CHARGE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, found that the video evidence did support the charge:

… [S]ubstantial evidence was lacking to support the charge of creating a disturbance … . As relevant here, an incarcerated individual “shall not engage in conduct which disturbs the order of any part of the facility . . .[, which] includes . . . loud talking in a mess hall, program area or corridor” (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv]). The misbehavior report stated that petitioner was talking to another incarcerated individual and that, after refusing to produce his identification card to a correction officer, “the other 38 [incarcerated individuals] began to take notice.” However, video of the incident does not reflect that petitioner’s conduct disturbed the order of the commissary bullpen area(see 7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [5] [iv]), nor did it demonstrate that he was engaging in loud talk or other misconduct indicative of a disruption … . Matter of Ramos v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 05255, Third Dept 9-22-22

Practice Point: Here the video of the incident did not support the charge that petitioner created a disturbance. The misbehavior determination was annulled.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO HEARINGS ON HER SECOND MOTION TO VACATE HER CONVICTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, ACTUAL INNOCENCE AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her convictions of predatory sexual assault of a child. Defendant presented affidavits from six witnesses stating the victim had recanted her trial testimony. Defendant’s motion warranted hearings on: (1) the newly discovered evidence (the recantation); (2) actual innocence; and (3) ineffective assistance (failure to present expert evidence to refute the People’s reliance of the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome [CSAAS]):

To prevail [the newly-discovered evidence] claim, a defendant bears the burden of establishing that the evidence meets “the following requirements: (1) it must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) it must have been discovered since the trial; (3) it must be such as could have not been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) it must be material to the issue; (5) it must not be cumulative to the former issue; and[] (6) it must not be merely impeaching or contradicting the former evidence” … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that the six affidavits, together with the copies of text messages between victim B and some of the affiants,[FN1] were sufficient to warrant the holding of a hearing, such that County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion on the ground of newly discovered evidence in the absence of such a hearing was error … . * * *

… [D]efendant has established her entitlement to a hearing on her claim of actual innocence. “A prima facie showing of actual innocence is made out when there is a sufficient showing of possible merit to warrant a fuller exploration by the court” … .* * *

… [A] defendant may establish that he or she was denied meaningful representation in connection with the failure to call an expert witness by “demonstrat[ing] that such testimony was available, that it would have assisted the jury in its determination or that he [or she] was prejudiced by its absence” … . People v Werkheiser, 2022 NY Slip Op 05188, Third Dept 9-15-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant was entitled to hearings on her second motion to vacate her convictions for predatory assault of the child. She presented newly-discovered evidence (the victim’s recantation) requiring a hearing. Her claims of actual innocence and ineffective assistant (failure to refute the People’s reliance on CSAAS) also warranted hearings.

 

, ,

LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TENANT ABANDONED THE LEASED PREMISES AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FOR THE PERIODS BEFORE AND AFTER TENANT WAS LOCKED OUT; TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH REMAINED IN THE LEASED PREMISES AFTER THE LOCKOUT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the plaintiffs’ verdict in this landlord-tenant dispute, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate defendants had abandoned the leased premises, a restaurant. Therefore plaintiffs were not entitled to recover rent after defendants were locked out by the plaintiffs, and plaintiffs did not submit sufficient proof of the alleged rent arrears (prior to the lockout). Defendants were entitled to recover on their unjust enrichment counterclaim for the value of the personal property which remained in the restaurant after the lockout:

As relating to commercial premises, “a landlord may avail himself or herself of a lease provision permitting reentry upon breach of conditions as long as he or she reenters peaceably” … . Certain evidence indicating abandonment may include failure to pay bills and rent, surrender of keys and physical relocation of business or personal items previously kept at the subject property … . Contrary conduct found not to demonstrate an intent to abandon a premises includes conduct such as leaving commercial equipment on the premises, paying the utilities, paying lump sum arrears, negotiating the sale of the business that included the leasehold and threatening to call the police on a landlord over a lockout … .

At trial, plaintiffs offered limited evidence of abandonment, namely, that plaintiff Martin P. Patton drove by the restaurant several times in May 2018 or June 2018 and observed it was closed and that defendants were behind on rent, although Patton was not exactly sure what days or what times he drove by or the total amount of rent arrears.  In contrast, Chen [the tenant] testified that, although business was declining, he continued to pay the rent and began to contact potential buyers to take over the restaurant and lease. According to Chen, the restaurant operated the day before the lockout and, when he returned the next day to find the locks changed, he called plaintiffs, who did not respond to him, and then he called the police, who generated an incident report. Defendants entered into evidence several photographs of the premises depicting equipment, furniture, powered-on televisions, liquor bottles on display at the bar and other chattel owned by defendants … . Patton v Modern Asian, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 05192, Third Dept 9-15-22

Practice Point: Here the landlord was unable to prove at trial that the tenant had abandoned the leased premises. The landlord was not entitled to rent for the period before and after the tenant was locked out. The tenant was entitled to recover the value of the personal property remaining on the leased premises after the lockout.

 

, ,

THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE HAD REPRESENTED MOTHER IN A RELATED CUSTODY MATTER YEARS BEFORE FATHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY; THE JUDGE WAS STATUTORILY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE CURRENT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined the Family Court judge in this custody proceeding should have recused himself because, as an attorney, he had represented the mother years before where custody was adjudicated. The judge did not remember representing mother, but disqualification was required by the applicable statute:

“A judge shall not sit as such in, or take any part in the decision of, an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding . . . in which he [or she] has been attorney or counsel” (Judiciary Law § 14; see Rules Governing Judicial Conduct [22 NYCRR] § 100.3 [E] [1] [b] [i]). “This prohibition is absolute and establishes a bright-line disqualification rule” … . Although neither the Judiciary Law nor the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct define “an action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding” (Judiciary Law § 14), Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “claim” as “[t]he assertion of an existing right . . . to an equitable remedy, even if contingent or provisional” … .

… [O]ur jurisprudence recognizes that, except in limited circumstances, a parent has an existing and ongoing right to custody of and/or visitation with his or her children … , and it is undisputed that the November 2012 default order and the order on appeal both deal with the custodial arrangement between the same two parents regarding the same three children. Under these circumstances, where the two proceedings involve the same claim of custody, guardianship, or visitation for the same children, we find that Family Court was statutorily disqualified from the instant proceedings … . Matter of John II. v Kristen JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 05132, Third Dept 9-8-22

Practice Point: It is a bright-line statutory rule that a judge who, as an attorney, represented mother in a custody proceeding is statutorily disqualified from presiding over the same parties in a subsequent custody proceeding.

 

AN INMATE’S RELEASE ON PAROLE DOES NOT RENDER HIS APPEAL OF A DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION MOOT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that, although petitioner had been conditionally released to parole supervision, his challenge to a disciplinary determination had not been rendered moot:

… [D]uring the pendency of this appeal, petitioner was conditionally released to parole supervision. Accordingly, petitioner’s challenge to the Board’s prior decisions denying his release have been rendered moot … . However, petitioner’s challenge to the disciplinary determination has not been rendered moot by his conditional release … .. Accordingly, and as respondents concede that the claim was not time-barred based upon the application of the tolling provisions of certain executive orders that were issued by the Governor in response to the COVID-19 pandemic … , we remit the matter to Supreme Court for respondents to file an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f) … . Matter of Ryhal v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 05117, Third Dept 9-1-22

Practice Point: An inmate’s conditional release to parole does not render the inmate’s appeal of a disciplinary determination moot.

 

THE RECORD WAS SILENT ON WHETHER DEFENDANT SIGNED THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT IN OPEN COURT; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED AND THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the superior court information, determined the record was silent about whether defendant signed the waiver of indictment in open court:

A defendant “may waive indictment by a grand jury and consent to be prosecuted on an information filed by the district attorney” and “such waiver shall be evidenced by [a] written instrument signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel” (NY Const, art I, § 6; see CPL 195.20)…. The record contains a written waiver of indictment signed by defendant and witnessed by counsel on August 3, 2020, the date he appeared before County Court and entered his guilty plea. The minutes of that appearance reflect that defendant orally agreed to waive indictment and affirmed that his signature is on the written waiver, but the minutes are silent as to whether defendant signed the written waiver in open court. Moreover, there is no reference in the written waiver or in County Court’s order approving the waiver that indicates that the waiver was signed in open court. In light of this jurisdictional defect, defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the superior court information must be dismissed …. People v Rickman, 2022 NY Slip Op 05112, Third Dept 9-1-22

Practice Point: If the record does not reflect that the waiver of indictment was signed in open court, the defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the superior court information dismissed.

 

,

ALTHOUGH NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MICHIGAN CUSTODY ORDER; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION AND HELD A HEARING ON THE CHILD’S SAFETY; THE CHILD WAS IN NEW YORK DURING FATHER’S PARENTING TIME WHEN FATHER BROUGHT A NEGLECT/CUSTODY PETITION IN NEW YORK (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined, although Family Court properly dismissed father’s neglect/custody petition on the ground New York did not have jurisdiction over the Michigan custody order, Family Court should have ordered a hearing about the child’s safety pursuant to the court’s temporary emergency jurisdiction. The child was in New York during father’s parenting time at the time father filed the petition:

Under the UCCJEA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act], a New York court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under certain limited circumstances … . Here, the parties agreed that, as Michigan is the home state of the child, none of these statutory factors apply. Nevertheless, Domestic Relations Law § 76-c provides that “New York courts have ‘temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child, a sibling or parent of the child'” … .

The AFC [attorney for the child] and the father contend that the allegations set forth in the petition were sufficient to warrant Family Court to conduct a hearing. We agree. Matter of Chester HH. v Angela GG., 2022 NY Slip Op 05002, Third Dept 8-18-22

Practice Point: Although New York did not have jurisdiction over a Michigan custody order and therefore properly dismissed father’s neglect/custody petition brought in New York when the child was in New York, Family Court should have exercised its temporary emergency jurisdiction and held a hearing on the child’s safety.

 

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