CRIMINAL LAW



Sentence for Possession of Marijuana Deemed Unduly Harsh



The Fourth Department determined the sentence of a determinate term of incarceration for 2 ½ years for criminal possession of marijuana in the second degree was unduly harsh and severe.  The sentence was reduced to 1 ½ years.  People v Hirsh, KA 12-00043, 4th Dept, 5-17-13





Court’s Quashing of Defense Subpoena Deprived Defendant of Right to Present a Defense​

The Second Department determined the trial court quashing of an subpoena served upon a defense witness deprived defendant of his constitutional right to present a defense and required a new trial. People v Eastment, 2013 NY Slip Op 03687, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

​

Trial Judge Can Rescind Mistrial Declaration/Retrial Okay Where Defendant Consents to Mistrial​

The Second Department determined that a trial judge can rescind a mistrial declaration and noted that a mistrial granted with the consent of the defendant does not bar retrial:

           When a mistrial is declared in a criminal case without the consent, or over the objection, of the defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York Constitution precludes a retrial for the same offense unless " there is a manifest necessity for [the mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated'"…. Conversely, when a defendant requests or consents to a mistrial, double jeopardy typically does not bar a retrial ….
 

           The mere declaration of a mistrial does not terminate a criminal trial and thereby divest the trial court of the authority to rescind the declaration…. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the District Court did not retain the discretion to rescind its previous declaration of a mistrial prior to the discharge of the jury. Moreover, the District Court's initial declaration of a mistrial, made without the petitioner's consent, was rescinded and, thereafter, a mistrial was declared upon the petitioner's consent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the petition to the extent that it did, and in barring a retrial of the petitioner on the ground of double jeopardy. Matter of Gorman v Rice, 2013 NY Slip Op 03673, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

​

Conviction for Possession With Intent to Sell Against Weight of Evidence​

In finding defendant’s conviction for possession with intent to sell was against the weight of the evidence, the Second Department (with a dissent) wrote:

            …[T]he amount of cocaine recovered from the defendant was relatively small and not inconsistent with personal use. Indeed, convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance involving intent to sell generally stem from situations where a significantly greater quantity of drugs is recovered from the defendant's person…. Even more important, the defendant was found to be in possession of no drug paraphernalia or weapons, and he had only $20 in cash … .Although there was testimony that street drug sales often involve bags of drugs costing $20 each, the mere fact that the defendant was in possession of a single $20 bill cannot be considered indicative of an intent to sell.  People v McFadden, 2013 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept, 5-22-12

​

Defense Counsel Deemed Ineffective/Failed to Examine Evidence

The First Department determined defense counsel was ineffective (requiring a new trial) because he emphasized the difference between the Ziploc bags (containing drugs) the defendant was alleged to have sold to an undercover officer and the bags which were in defendant’s possession upon his arrest without ever comparing them.  When the jury asked to see the bags which were in defendant’s possession, defense counsel was forced to acknowledge that they matched those purchased by the undercover officer:
 

           In focusing on the Ziploc bags, counsel eviscerated his entire strategy. No longer could the jury believe that no physical evidence tied defendant to the charges; to the contrary, counsel pointed them in the direction of strong physical evidence. Further, the jury could not be expected to acquit defendant on the theory that the People's case lacked credibility when his own counsel demonstrated a lack of believability on a critical issue at trial. In addition, defendant's own credibility was directly undermined by counsel's failure to conduct due diligence, since he testified about a discrepancy between the drugs purchased by the undercover and those recovered from him by the police. There was no sound strategy underlying counsel's decision to focus the jury on the evidence bags. By his own admission, it was a mistake, and he would not have highlighted the Ziploc bags had he known their actual contents. This self-sabotage of counsel's defense strategy, albeit inadvertent, was inherently unreasonable and prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial under New York law… .  People v Barnes, 2013 NY Slip Op 03757, 2nd Dept, 5-23-13

​

Expert Evidence About a “Date Rape” Drug Not Implicated in the Trial Did Not Require Reversal/Jury Deemed to Have Considered Only Evidence Supported by the Record​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, the First Department upheld the conviction for rape and for facilitating a sex offense with a controlled substance.  The controlled substance referenced in the indictment and the subject of proof at trial was ecstasy.  However, expert evidence of the effects of another drug, GBH, was allowed in at trial. The First Department determined the unsupported testimony about GBH did not require reversal because it could be assumed the jury relied upon the allegations supported by the evidence:

           …[T]he reference in the experts' testimony to GHB and its symptoms, and the People's reference to that evidence in support of their summation, did not impermissibly present the jury with a new, legally inadequate theory…. Rather, at worst, the suggestion that the complainant may have also been drugged with GHB was merely a "factually unsupported theory" …. "[W]here jurors are given a choice between a factually supported and factually unsupported theory, it is assumed they have chosen the one with factual support" …. Here, we can assume that in determining whether the complainant was "rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling [her] conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to [her] without [her] consent," the jurors relied on those of the People's assertions that were supported by the evidence. People v Blackwood, 2013 NY Slip Op 03764, 2nd Dept, 5-23-13

​

Transfer to Another County for Probation Did Not Divest Sentencing Court of Jurisdiction Over Defendant’s Violation of His Intermittent Sentence​

In this case Columbia County Court sentenced defendant to intermittent imprisonment in the Columbia County jail and five years probation in Greene County where defendant resided.  After defendant failed to report to Columbia County Jail, County Court revoked the intermittent sentence and sentenced defendant to four months. Defendant contended Columbia County Court had relinquished jurisdiction by transferring the probation term to Greene County.  The Third Department disagreed:
 

           Defendant's reliance on CPL 410.80 – which provides for transfer of probation supervision by the sentencing court to the Probation Department in the jurisdiction (county) where  the defendant  resides at sentencing –  is misplaced … . Defendant was not charged  with violating probation but, rather, was  alleged to have violated his intermittent sentence of imprisonment.  The transfer in CPL  410.80 (2) of "all powers  and  duties" of the sentencing court over supervision of probationers to the receiving court does not, as defendant argues, divest the sentencing court of its express jurisdiction to modify  or revoke a sentence of intermittent imprisonment pursuant to Penal Law § 85.05 (1) (b) … .  People v Dick, 104424, 3rd Dept, 5-23-13

​

​

Matter Remitted/County Court Did Not Follow Procedure Mandated by Drug Law Reform Act


In remitting the matter, the Third Department explained County Court failed to follow the procedure mandated by the Drug Law Reform Act:
 

           The record contains no written order denying defendant's application for resentencing and setting forth County  Court's "findings of fact and the reasons for such order" as is required under the Drug Law Reform Act (L 2004, ch 738, § 23). Absent the necessary written order, we are without jurisdiction to consider defendant's appeal … .  People v Allen, 104967, 3rd Dept, 5-23-13​







CIVIL PROCEDURE



Unsigned Depositions Deemed Admissible



In a Labor Law action stemming from a fall through an open manhole, the plaintiffs submitted transcripts of one the plaintiff’s deposition testimony as part of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion on the ground that the certified deposition transcripts submitted by them were not signed.  In determining that Supreme Court should not have denied plaintiffs’ motion on that ground, the Second Department wrote:



           By submitting the transcript of [plaintiff’s] deposition, the plaintiffs adopted it as accurate …. Further, the … defendants … did not challenge the accuracy of any of the transcripts submitted by the plaintiffs …. Consequently, those deposition transcripts were admissible ….  Carey v Five Bros, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03626, 2nd Dept. 5-22-13

​

No Proof of Service of Notice of Entry of Default Judgment/One Year Deadline Never Triggered​

The Second Department noted that the one-year deadline for a motion to vacate a default judgment (CPLR 5015) was never triggered because the record included no proof that the notice of entry of the default judgment was served.  Gottlieb v Northriver Trading Co, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03618, 2nd Dept, 5-21-13

​

​

Consolidation and Joint Trial Explained​

The Second Department explained the criteria for a motion to consolidate and explained when consolidation, as opposed to joining two actions for trial, is not appropriate:

           "A motion to consolidate two or more actions rests within the sound discretion of the trial court" (… see CPLR 602). "Where common questions of law or fact exist, consolidation is warranted unless the opposing party demonstrates prejudice to a substantial right" … . * * *
 

           …[A]ctions should be joined for trial, rather than consolidated, [when] certain parties would appear as both the plaintiff and the defendant if the actions were consolidated, and the actions involve certain different defendants … .  Matter of Joseph J, 2013 NY Slip Pp. 03676, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

​

Expert’s Affidavit Should Have Been Considered in Summary Judgment Motion Even though Expert Had Not Been Disclosed​

In a slip and fall case, the defendant moved for summary judgment.  Because the plaintiff’s expert had not been previously disclosed, Supreme Court refused to consider the expert’s affidavit.  In reversing, the Second Department wrote:

           "[A] party's failure to disclose its experts pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) prior to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness does not divest a court of the discretion to consider an affirmation or affidavit submitted by that party's experts in the context of a timely motion for summary judgment" …. Under the circumstances of this case, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to refuse to consider the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert submitted in opposition to the respondents' motion … .  Salcedo v Weng Qu Ju, 2013 NY Slip Op 03656, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

​

Subpoena Can Not Be Used for Discovery Purposes​

The Second Department noted that a subpoena duces tecum may not be used for discovery purposes:

           "[A] subpoena duces tecum may not be used for purposes of discovery or to ascertain the existence of evidence"…. Here, the subpoena duces tecum served by the defendants improperly sought production of certain materials that the defendants had failed to seek during the discovery process, or that had previously been the subject of an unsuccessful motion to compel disclosure. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the separate motions of the plaintiff and the third-party defendant to quash the subpoena duces tecum … .  Wahab v Agris & Brenner, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03667, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13







CONTEMPT



Civil Versus Criminal Contempt Explained in Context of Imposition of Fines or Monetary Penalties

In a divorce proceeding plaintiff sought a contempt finding and the imposition of monetary penalties or fines in connection with defendant’s failure to comply with a court order.  The Second Department explained the principles underlying civil versus criminal contempt as follows:
 

           "[U]nlike fines for criminal contempt where deterrence is the aim and the State is the aggrieved party entitled to the award, civil contempt fines must be remedial in nature and effect. The award should be formulated not to punish an offender, but solely to compensate or indemnify private complainants"…. In the instant matter, the Supreme Court held the defendant in civil contempt. "Coercive penalties designed to modify the contemnor's behavior, generally speaking, are civil in nature, while penalties meant to punish the contemnor for past acts of disobedience are criminal…. Thus, a fine "is considered civil and remedial if it either coerces the recalcitrant party into compliance with a court order, or compensates the claimant for some loss . . . If a fine is not compensatory, it is civil only if the contemnor is given an opportunity to purge" … . Here, where the plaintiff failed to prove an actual loss, any penalty that punished the defendant for her past acts of disobedience would have been within the rubric of a criminal contempt and thus improper within this civil contempt adjudication … .  Ruesch v Ruesch, 2013 NY Slip Op 03655, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13​

​





CONTRACT

Unambiguous Release Is a Jural Act of High Significance Which Must Be Enforced

In explaining the legal principles underlying the enforcement of releases, the Second Department wrote:

           Public policy favors the enforcement of settlements …, and a release is "a jural act of high significance without which the settlement of disputes would be rendered all but impossible" ….. Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release…, and should not "be converted into a starting point for renewed litigation" …
"[A] release is governed by principles of contract law"…, and a release "that is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"…. "Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts" … . Inter-Reco, Inc v Lake Park 175 Froehlich Farm, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03637, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

Theory of Damages in Contract Action​

The Second Department explained the theory underlying damages for breach of contract and noted that damages are usually ascertained as of the date of the breach:
It has long been recognized that the theory underlying damages for breach of contract is to make good or replace the loss caused by the breach… . Damages are intended to return the parties to the point at which the breach arose and to place the nonbreaching party in as good a position as it would have been had the contract been performed (…Restatement [Second] of Contracts §§ 347, comment a; § 344). Thus, damages for breach of contract are ordinarily ascertained as of the date of the breach… .. Seidman v Industrial Recycling Props, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03659, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

​

Question of Fact About Whether Release Procured by Fraud or Duress​

In upholding the denial of defendant’s (Countrywide’s) motion for summary judgment based upon the execution of a release, the Second Department determined that the allegations of fraud and duress in procurement of the release raised a question of fact:

           The Countrywide defendants' motion was properly denied. Although the plaintiff's execution of the release in favor of the defendants was "a jural act of high significance" …, "a motion to dismiss should be denied where fraud or duress in the procurement of the release is alleged"… . Here, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the Countrywide defendants procured the release by means of fraud or duress, so as to warrant denial of their motion.   Warmhold v Zagarino, 2013 NY Slip Op 03668, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13







ATTORNEY'S FEES/CONTRACT

​

Doctrine of Continuous Representation/Retainer Agreement in Estate Proceeding “Unconsionable”​

In a case involving “gifts” and a 40% contingency fee for three defendant attorneys’ work on an estate worth several tens of millions, the Second Department applied the “doctrine of continuous representation” to toll the statute of limitations and found the fee arrangement(s) “unconscionable:”
 

           The claims relating to the gifts the widow made to the three individual defendants are not time-barred. Rather, they were tolled under the doctrine of continuous representation …. Contrary to the individual defendants' contention, the doctrine applies where, as here, the claims involve self-dealing at the expense of a client in connection with a particular subject matter….  * * *
 

           The revised retainer agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable…. The evidence shows that the widow believed that under the contingency arrangement, she would receive the "lion's share" of any recovery. In fact, as it operated, the law firm obtained over 50% of the widow's share of proceeds. Thus, the law firm failed to show that the widow fully knew and understood the terms of the retainer agreement--an agreement she entered into in an effort to reduce her legal fees … .

​

           In considering the substantive unconscionability of the revised retainer agreement, the Referee correctly considered such factors as the proportionality of the fee to the value of the professional services rendered… , and the risks and rewards to the attorney upon entering into the contingency agreement … .
 

           The amount the law firm seeks ($44 million) is also disproportionate to the value of the services rendered (approximately $1.7 million) … . Matter of Lawrence, 2013 NY Slip Op 03759, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13

​





UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS



Deputy Sheriff Fired for Incompetence and Insubordination Was Entitled to Unemployment Benefits​

In upholding the finding that a former sheriff’s deputy was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, even though he was terminated for incompetence and insubordination, the Third Department noted that collateral estoppel applied to the factual findings in the Civil Service proceeding, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board could make its own determination whether the facts supported denial of unemployment benefits:

           Given that claimant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at the Civil Service Law § 75 hearing, the Board properly accorded collateral estoppel effect to the factual findings of the Hearing Officer… .  It was, however, incumbent upon the Board to draw its own conclusion as to whether such factual findings amounted to misconduct disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits….  Significantly, "[t]he  same conduct that leads to a claimant being discharged for cause may not necessarily rise to the level of misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes….  The Board's decision in this regard will not  be  disturbed  if supported  by substantial evidence … . Matter of Guynup, 515235, 3rd Dept, 5-23-13







WORKERS' COMPENSATION



Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff was Special Employee​

The Second Department determined the defendant did not demonstrate plaintiff was its special employee and therefore plaintiff was not restricted to Workers’ Compensation as his remedy:
 

           In determining whether a special employment relationship exists, a court should consider factors such as the right to control the employee's work, the method of payment, the furnishing of equipment, and the right to discharge…. "A significant and weighty factor . . . is who controls and directs the manner, details and ultimate result of the employee's work'"….
 

           Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendant failed to come forward with sufficient evidence of a special employment relationship to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since its submissions on the motion did not establish, inter alia, that it controlled and directed the manner, details, and ultimate result of the plaintiff's work… . Nolan v Irwin Contr, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03648, 2nd Dept, 5-22-13







CONSTITUTIONAL LAW



New York City Administrative Code Imposing a $2000 Fine for Removal Recyclable Material from Curb Violated Excessive-Fines Clauses​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, the First Department determined the New York City Administrative Code provision which imposed a $2000 fine for the removal of recyclable material from the curb violated the Eighth Amendment as applied.  The code provision was designed to prevent large scale removal of recyclable material which deprived the City of recycling income. The petitioner was an artist who used recyclable material in his work.  He picked up a television antenna which had been put out on the curb.  He was pulled over by the NYC sanitation police, given a summons mandating a $2000 fine, and his vehicle was seized.  The First Department wrote:

           It is undisputed that petitioner violated the relevant Administrative Code provision---he removed and transported a recyclable object using a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, under the specific circumstances here, we conclude that the mandatory $2,000 penalty amounts to an unconstitutionally excessive fine. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids the imposition of "excessive fines." The New York State Constitution contains the same prohibition (art I, § 5). The Excessive Fines Clause " limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as punishment for some offense''"… . A fine is unconstitutionally excessive if it "notably exceeds in amount that which is reasonable, usual, proper or just" …. Thus, the Excessive Fines Clause is violated where the fine is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of [the] offense"… . Matter of Prince v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03623, 2nd Dept, 5-21-13