CRIMINAL LAW

 

Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference

 

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott which addressed both the proof requirements for depraved indifference murder and ineffective assistance of counsel, determined that the brutal beating of a 15-month-old baby combined with the failure to summon assistance for 2 hours met the criteria for depraved indifference to human life.  The Court found that the facts proved a brutal course of conduct over a prolonged or extended period of time.  In explaining the operative principles, Judge Pigott wrote:

 

This appeal is governed by the requirement that, in proving the existence of "circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life," the People must show that, at the time the crime occurred, defendant had a mens rea of "utter disregard for the value of human life" …. Put simply, the People must prove that defendant did not care whether his victim lived or died … . Additionally, the People must prove a second mens rea, namely recklessness. * * *

 

A brutal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim occurring over a prolonged or extended period of time is more likely to be associated with the mental state of depraved indifference to human life than brutality that is short in duration and is not repeated. This is because the actor had the opportunity to regret his actions and display caring, but failed to take the opportunity. In the present case, defendant argues that his course of conduct against the child was not prolonged. But defendant's argument focuses exclusively on the duration of his physical assault on the child, which may have been brief. However, this argument ignores the evidence that, by his later inaction “ his failure, over some two hours, to seek medical attention for the child “ defendant turned a brutal assault into a brutal and prolonged course of conduct against a vulnerable victim.  People v Barboni, 102, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

 

Proper Procedures for Handling Pro Se Motions to Withdraw Guilty Pleas (Alleging Coercion by Defense Counsel) Explained

 

The Court of Appeals considered two cases in which, after pleading guilty, the defendant made a pro se motion to withdraw the plea, claiming coercion and undue pressure by defense counsel. In both cases the sentencing judge asked for the defense attorney’s position on the pro se motion, which forced both attorneys to take a position adverse to the client’s, which, in turn, required the assignment of new counsel.  The Court explained how the situation should be handled:

 

…[W]hen a motion to withdraw a plea is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry. When certain actions or inaction on the part of defense counsel are challenged on the motion, it may very well be necessary for defense counsel to address the matter when asked to by the court. When doing so, defense counsel should be afforded the opportunity to explain his performance with respect to the plea …, but may not take a position on the motion that is adverse to the defendant …. At that point, a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion. People v  Mitchell …, Nos 116, 117, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

 

 

Witness’ Offering Testimony About a “Jailhouse Confession” in Unrelated Case May Constitute Brady Material

 

In affirming the defendant’s conviction, the Third Department determined a witness’ [Henry’s] agreement to testify about a “jailhouse confession” in an unrelated case may have constituted Brady material in defendant’s case because she also entered an agreement to testify about defendant’s “jailhouse confession.”  The Court determined reversal was not required because the potential Brady error was harmless under the facts:

 

“….[A]ssuming, without deciding, that the full terms of Henry’s cooperation agreement – including those aspects pertaining to the other matter – were Brady material subject to disclosure, reversal is not required.   Where, as here, nondisclosure follows the defense’s specific request for materials, evidence is deemed material and reversal is required only “if there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that, had that material been disclosed, the result would have been different”… . People v Johnson, 104919, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

 

People’s Expert Was Not Qualified to Testify About “Reverse Extrapolation” in DWI Prosecution/”Reverse Extrapolation” Is an Accepted Theory However

 

In this DWI prosecution, the Third Department determined the People’s expert was not qualified to offer testimony about “reverse extrapolation,” but that the theory itself was sound:

 

[We reject defendant’s generalized challenge to] the  theory  of  reverse extrapolation – the process by which an expert, taking into consideration, among other  things, an individual's known  BAC at a particular point  in time, renders  an  opinion  as  to  the  individual's BAC at an earlier point in time. Assuming the expert in question is qualified and a proper foundation has been laid for such opinion, reverse extrapolation testimony may be….  Here, however, the People failed to lay a proper factual foundation for [the expert’s] testimony and, therefore, defendant's objection in this regard should have been sustained.  People v Menegan, 105337, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

 

Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts and Its Acceptance of a Partial Verdict Okay

 

The First Department determined the trial court, after several days of deliberation, properly questioned the jury whether it had reached a verdict on any of the counts and properly accepted a partial verdict:

 

The court, which was aware of the travel plans and upcoming religious observance of some of the jurors, properly exercised its discretion when it inquired whether the jury, which had been deliberating for several days, had agreed upon a verdict as to any of the counts submitted, and then accepted a partial verdict…. In accordance with CPL 310.70(1)(b), the court properly instructed the jury to resume deliberations on the remaining counts. The court’s actions did not coerce a verdict as to any counts…, and defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by any of these actions.  People v Campbell, 2013 NY Slip Op 04418, 1st Dept, 6-13-13

 

 

Submission of Intentional and Depraved Indifference Murder to Jury in Conjunctive Rather than Alternative Okay

 

The Second Department determined the trial court did not err when it submitted intentional murder and depraved indifference murder to the jury in the conjunctive, rather than the alternative, because more than one potential victim was present:

 

The defendant, relying on People v Molina (79 AD3d 1371), contends that the submission of the counts of intentional murder (and attempted murder) and depraved indifference murder to the jury in the conjunctive, rather than in the alternative, violated his right to due process. However, the defendant's contention is without merit. "Where, as here, more than one potential victim was present at the shooting, a defendant may be convicted of both counts because he or she may have possessed different states of mind with regard to different potential victims"…. To the extent that the Appellate Division, Third Department, held differently in Molina, we disagree and decline to follow that holding. People v Dubarry, 2013 NY Slip Op 04354, 2nd Dept, 6-12-13

 

 

Objection to Molineux Evidence Not Preserved for Appeal

 

The Fourth Department noted that failure to request a limiting instruction with respect to Molineux evidence and the failure to object to the court’s failure to provide a limiting instruction rendered the issue unpreserved for appeal.  The Molineux evidence in this sexual abuse case was evidence of the physical (not sexual) abuse of the victim’s brother:

 

On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [a]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]), defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because Supreme Court neglected to give limiting instructions with respect to Molineux evidence establishing that he had subjected the victim’s brother to physical abuse (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264). As defendant correctly concedes, that contention is unpreserved for our review because his attorney did not request a limiting instruction and failed to object to the court’s failure to provide one (see CPL 470.05 [2]…).    Because the Molineux evidence in question did not relate to prior sexual abuse, and because it appears from the record that defense counsel knew of the court’s failure to give limiting instructions and yet remained silent when the error could have been corrected, we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . People v Willians, 392, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

Statement Not Tainted by Unwarned Statement Made an Hour Before/Failure to Inform Defendant of Post Release Supervision Did Not Require Reversal

 

The Fourth Department determined County Court properly denied a motion to suppress a statement, finding that the statement was not tainted by an unwarned statement made an hour earlier.  In addition, over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department held that the failure to explain the five-year post release supervision (PRS) portion of the sentence when the plea was taken did not require reversal, in part because the error was not preserved:

 

Although defendant made an inculpatory statement after she was placed in a patrol vehicle and additional inculpatory statements after she was transported to the police station, the court granted suppression of the statement made in the patrol vehicle on the ground that her detention constituted an arrest for which the police officer lacked probable cause. The court refused, however, to suppress the subsequent statements at the police station based on its determination that they were “attenuated from the unlawful arrest.” We agree with the People that the record supports the court’s determination .. . Although there was a period of only one hour between the time of the illegal arrest and the time of defendant’s statements at the police station …, we note that defendant was given Miranda warnings before the stationhouse interview … Moreover, the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator constitutes a significant intervening event … inasmuch as that identification provided the police with probable cause for defendant’s arrest…  Lastly, there was no flagrant misconduct or bad faith on the part of the police officer who took defendant into custody … . * * *

 

In this case the prosecutor informed the court,“ ‘before the imposition of sentence’ ” (…see generally CPL 220.60 [3]), that he could not recall whether PRS had been discussed at the time of the plea. The prosecutor noted that they “should probably make a record of that . . . so it is clear.” At that point, the court informed defendant that it “intend[ed] to make a five year period of [PRS].” Defendant was then asked if she had a chance to talk about that with her attorney, and defendant answered, “[y]es.” Defendant was also asked if she understood that the PRS was a “part of [her] plea” and that she would be on parole supervision for five years at the end of her prison sentence. Defendant answered, “[c]orrect.”  When asked if she “still wish[ed] to go through with sentencing today,” defendant again answered, “[y]es.” In our view, the record is clear that “defendant could have sought relief from the sentencing court in advance of the sentence’s imposition…”… .  People v Turner, 529, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

Naming Different Victim Rendered Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective

 

The Fourth Department reversed the defendant’s conviction (by guilty plea) because the superior court information (SCI) was jurisdictionally defective.  The SCI and the felony complaint named different victims:

 

We note that defendant’s contention that the SCI is jurisdictionally defective does not require preservation, and that contention survives defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal….“[T]he designation of a[n individual] in the [SCI] different from the [individual] named in the felony complaint renders the crime contained in the information a different crime entirely”…. Thus, defendant was not held for action of a grand jury on the charge in the SCI inasmuch as “it was not an offense charged in the felony complaint or a lesser-included offense of an offense charged in the felony complaint”… .   People v Stevenson, 648, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

Plea Colloquy Deficient Re: Depraved Indifference State of Mind

 

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction because the plea colloquy cast doubt on whether the defendant had the requisite “depraved indifference” state of mind:

 

Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary survives his waiver of the right to appeal … . Preservation of the contention is not required inasmuch as defendant correctly contends that his statements during the plea colloquy cast significant doubt upon his guilt….Defendant stated that he struggled with his wife for control of the knife and that he acted recklessly when he stabbed her, and thus his statements suggest that he did not act with the requisite “depraved indifference state of mind”… . Indeed, it is well established that a “one-on-one . . . knifing . . . can almost never qualify as depraved indifference murder”…. We therefore conclude that County Court erred by accepting the plea without further inquiry … .  People v Robinson, 688, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

Statute of Limitations Tolled Until Defendant Identified by DNA/Police Had “Tacit Consent” to Enter Apartment

 

The Fourth Department determined the statute of limitations was tolled until defendant was identified through DNA collected in an unrelated conviction.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the police had “tacit consent” to enter defendant’s apartment:

 

Here, “[t]he record supports the court’s determination that the identity of defendant as the sexual assailant, and thus his whereabouts, were not ascertainable by diligent efforts” before 2008, when the State DNA Indexing System matched the DNA profile from the semen found on the victim’s night shirt with DNA obtained from defendant in conjunction with an unrelated 2007 conviction … .  * * *

 

Even assuming, arguendo, that there was a warrantless arrest of defendant in his apartment, we note that it is well settled that “tacit consent by a person with apparent authority . . . [is] sufficient to obviate any possible violation of the Payton rule”…. Here, the People established that the police officers entered the apartment with the consent of defendant’s father…. Although “the police may not have received express permission to enter the premises, [the] gesture [of defendant’s father] of opening the door, leaving it wide open, and then walking  away from it could certainly be interpreted by the police to consist of tacit approval for them to enter”….  People v Sigl, 716, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

Improper to Characterize Trial as “Search for Truth”

 

The Fourth Department noted that the prosecutor’s characterization of the trial as “a search for the truth” was improper (but did not warrant reversal).  People v Ward, 758, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE

 

Motion to Resettle Explained

 

In determining petitioner’s motion was not a motion to resettle because it sought to amend, rather than merely clarify, a judgment, the Third Department explained:

 

[A motion to resettle] is designed "not for substantive changes [in, or to amplify a prior decision of, the court], but to correct errors or omissions in form, for clarification or to make the [judgment] conform more accurately to the decision"…. Such  motions  rest on  the inherent power  of courts to  "'cure mistakes,  defects  and  irregularities that  do  not  affect substantial rights of [the] parties'"…. Here, petitioners' motion  sought, unsuccessfully, to amplify and substantively amend, not merely to clarify, Supreme Court's prior judgment … .  Matter of Torpey v Town of Colonie, 515902, 3rd Dept,. 6-13-13

 

 

Plaintiff’s Lack of Knowledge About Contract Breaches Did Not Toll Statute of Limitations
 

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s lack of knowledge about alleged annual breaches of contract by the village for which he served as police commissioner was not the result of fraud and, therefore, the 18-month statute of limitations for each breach was not tolled:

 

Pursuant to CPLR 9802, "no action shall be maintained against the village upon or arising out of a contract of the village unless the same shall be commenced within eighteen months after the cause of action therefor shall have accrued, nor unless a written verified claim shall have been filed with the village clerk within one year after the cause of action shall have accrued." Where the claim is for the payment of a sum of money allegedly owed pursuant to a contract, the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff possesses a legal right to demand payment…. Here, as the Village correctly contends, the causes of action alleging breach of contract accrued at the end of each year that the plaintiff allegedly was not paid in accordance with his contract…. Since this action was not commenced until September 28, 2011, the Village established, prima facie, that the action was time-barred to the extent that the plaintiff sought to recover damages accruing prior to March 28, 2010, that is, 18 months prior to the commencement of the action…. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations had been tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether he actually commenced the action within the applicable limitations periods…. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, his lack of knowledge that the several breaches had occurred did not toll the running of the limitations period… Reid v Incorporated Vil of Flora Park, 2013 NY Slip Op 04321, 2nd Dept, 6-12-13

 

 

Procedure Re: “Improper Service” Affirmative Defense and Criteria for “Account Stated” Pleadings

 

The Fourth Department explained the law with respect to dismissal based on the “improper service” affirmative defense, and the pleading requirements for an “account stated:”

 

Because defendants failed to move to dismiss the complaint against them on that ground within 60 days after serving their respective answers, which set forth objections to service (see CPLR 3211 [e]), they thereby waived those objections…. As plaintiff further contends, defendants did not demonstrate the requisite “undue hardship” to justify an extension of defendants’ time for moving to dismiss the action on the ground of improper service (CPLR 3211 [e…).* * *

 

…[W]e reject plaintiff’s related contention that it is entitled to judgment on the account stated cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3016 (f). That statute provides in relevant part that, where the plaintiff in an action involving the “performing of labor or services” sets forth “the items of his [or her] claim and the reasonable value or agreed price of each,” the defendant, in his or her answer, must “indicate specifically those items he [or she] disputes.” Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to judgment because defendants’ answers set forth only general denials…. Here, however, plaintiff’s itemization of the charges fails to meet the specification standards of CPLR 3016 (f). Although plaintiff contends that defendants made a partial payment … toward the amount due, plaintiff failed to specify to which of the invoice items defendants’ payment was applied …. As a result, “the [complaint] ‘did not trigger a duty on the part of [defendants] to specifically dispute each item’ ” ….  Anderson & Anderson, LLP…v Incredible Investments…425, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

Court Is Powerless After Release Signed and Filed

 

The Fourth Department noted that a court loses jurisdiction over a case after a release has been signed and filed:

 

Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of … (defendant) to compel plaintiff to comply with the release agreement between plaintiff and defendants. Defendant brought his motion after the related third-party action was settled and an unconditional stipulation of discontinuation as to him with respect to this action was signed by the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant and filed. Although a trial court has the power “to exercise supervisory control over all phases of pending actions an proceedings”…, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been “unequivocally terminated . . . [by the execution of] an express, unconditional stipulation of discontinuance”….  Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc v Johnson…, 723, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE/INSURANCE LAW

Bear Stearns Complaint Stated a Cause of Action for Indemnification and Should Not Have Been Dismissed

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and allowed a suit by Bear Stearns against its insurers (which had denied coverage) to go forward.  In response to a Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into late trading and market timing activities, Bear Stearns agreed to pay a 160-million-dollar disgorgement fee.  Bear Stearns then sought indemnification from the defendant insurance companies.  The complaint, which had been dismissed, alleged that 140 of the 160 million constituted profits that flowed to Bear Stearns’ customers, not funds improperly acquired by Bear Stearns. The Court of Appeals determined that it could not be discerned from the SEC order alone whether or not the funds were deemed improperly acquired by Bear Stearns.  Therefore the complaint stated a cause of action:

 

In the context of these dismissal motions, we must assume Bear Stearns' allegations to be true unless conclusively refuted by the relevant documentary evidence, in this case, the SEC order. Contrary to the Insurers' position, the SEC order does not establish that the $160 million disgorgement payment was predicated on moneys that Bear Stearns itself improperly earned as a result of its securities violations. Rather, the SEC order recites that Bear Stearns' misconduct enabled its "customers to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profits." Hence, at this CPLR 3211 stage, the documentary evidence does not decisively repudiate Bear Stearns' allegation that the SEC disgorgement payment amount was calculated in large measure on the profits of others.  JP Morgan Securities, Inc v Vigilant Insurance Company, No 113, CtApp 6-11-13

 

 

 

INSURANCE LAW

 

Breach of Duty to Defend Precludes Reliance on Policy Exclusions

 

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, the Court of Appeals held that “when a liability insurer has breached its duty to defend its insured, the insurer may not later rely on policy exclusions to escape its duty to indemnify the insured for a judgment against him.”  The Court wrote:

 

…”[A]n insurance company that has disclaimed its duty to defend "may litigate only the validity of its disclaimer." If the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would otherwise have negated the duty to indemnify. This rule will give insurers an incentive to defend the cases they are bound by law to defend, and thus to give insureds the full benefit of their bargain. It would be unfair to insureds, and would promote unnecessary and wasteful litigation, if an insurer, having wrongfully abandoned its insured's defense, could then require the insured to litigate the effect of policy exclusions on the duty to indemnify.  K2 Investment Group, LLC v American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, No 106, CtApp, 6-11-13

 

 

Excess Insurance Policies Re: Same Risk Cancel Out

 

In determining that two insurance policies insuring the same risk were both excess insurance policies (cancelling each other out), the Fourth Department explained the relevant law as follows:

 

In resolving disputes between insurers, “we first look to the language of the applicable policies” …, and we note that New York law “recognize[s] the right of each insurer to rely upon the terms of its own contract with its insured”…. “[W]here there are multiple policies covering the same risk, and each generally purports to be excess to the other, the excess coverage clauses are held to cancel out each other and each insurer contributes in proportion to its [policy] limit,” unless to do so would distort the plain meaning of the policies…. By contrast, “if one party’s policy is primary with respect to the other policy, then the party issuing the primary policy must pay up to the limits of its policy before the excess coverage becomes effective”….  Utica Mutual Insurance Company…v Erie Insurance Company, 430, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

 

 

NEGLIGENCE/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

 

Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Reversed

 

The First Department, over a substantial dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s grant of defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in a medical malpractice action:

 

"The question of whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence is discretion-laden, and the critical inquiry is whether the verdict rested on a fair interpretation of the evidence"…. On this record, we conclude that the Supreme Court erred in setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, because it cannot be said that the jury could not have reached its verdict upon any fair interpretation of the evidence…. The jury was entitled to resolve in plaintiff's favor the conflict between the decedent's and Dr. Conte's testimony as to the nature and timing of her complaints and whether he later made referrals for CT scans that she declined.  Rose v Conte, 2013 NY Slip Op 04297, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

 

 

CONTRACT

 

Criteria for Fraudulent Inducement and Attachment

 

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, the First Department outlined the criteria for fraudulent inducement where the parties are “sophisticated entities,” as well as the strict criteria for attachment:

 

The elements of fraud are a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was known to be false by the defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or omission, and injury …. In this case, the buyers have not sufficiently alleged justifiable reliance. "[R]eliance must be found to be justifiable under all the circumstances before a complaint can be found to state a cause of action in fraud"…. What constitutes reasonable reliance is "always nettlesome" because it is so fact-intensive…. Sophisticated investors must show they used due diligence and took affirmative steps to protect themselves from misrepresentations by employing what means of verification were available at the time … . * * * 

 

We conclude that, on the extant record which consists of competing affidavits, the grant of an attachment and its confirmation was an abuse of discretion. "[T]he mere fact that defendant is a non-domiciliary residing without the State of New York is not sufficient ground for granting an attachment”…. The sellers have shown no evidence that the buyers lack sufficient assets, or that they will choose to hide or otherwise dispose of their assets. We note that no hearing was held at which the credibility of the buyers' averments regarding their financial status and resources could be evaluated. At most, the sellers' affidavits establish that there is potentially a significant amount of bureaucracy involved in obtaining the assets as converted funds. This is not, in itself, sufficient to order an attachment. The orders of the motion court granting and confirming the orders of attachment, and granting discovery to aid in attachment, as well as the order that the buyers transfer assets into New York State, should therefore be reversed.  VisionChina Media Inc v Shareholder Representative Servs, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04298, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

 

Oral Evidence in Quantum Meruit Case Rejected by Appellate Court

 

In vacating a damages award in a quantum meruit case, the Fourth Department concluded the self-serving oral proof offered by plaintiff should not have been accepted as sufficient by the trial court and that the defendants’ proof of the value of plaintiff’s work should be the basis of damages award:

 

Plaintiff is correct that “[p]roof of damages may be based upon oral testimony alone, so long as the witness has knowledge of the actual costs”…, and that the customary means of calculating damages on a quantum meruit basis in a construction case is actual job costs plus profit minus amount paid…. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the court’s award of $31,720 is supported by a fair interpretation of the….    That award was based on plaintiff’s self-serving testimony and invoice, while defendants presented the testimony and estimates of three nonparty witnesses establishing that plaintiff’s work was not worth more than $8,290.    Under the unique circumstances of this case, i.e., the seven-month lapse between the time that plaintiff completed the project and the time that he drafted and tendered the invoice to defendants, we conclude that the proper remedy is to adopt the highest of the project estimates from defendants’ trial witnesses as the basis for the award of damages … SJ Kula, Inc v Kevin Carrier…, 520, 4th Dept, 6-14-13