Page 26 - WCBA CLE 6-14-2022

24

new counsel for the defendant. In any event, new counsel appeared for the defendant and opposed the

motion, and the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion.

The Second Department held that while noncompliance with the notice provision of CPLR 321(c) at the
time a motion is made renders the Supreme Court’s determination of the motion unenforceable, under
the circumstances, the defendant waived the protective provisions of CPLR 321(c).

MOORE v CITY OF NEW YORK, 197 AD3d 93 (July 2021) by Barros, J.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff was struck by a truck
owned and operated by the defendant, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that
the truck driver was not negligent. In its charge to the jury, the Supreme Court instructed that, pursuant
to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(d), the truck driver was “parked” at a red light and although required
to signal his intention to turn, he was not required to signal at least 100 feet before turning his vehicle,
as the plaintiff contended.

The Second Department held that a vehicle stopped for a traffic light is not “parked” such that it is only
required under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(d) to signal its turn without the need to do so
continuously 100 feet before turning. As such, the Supreme Court erred in refusing to give a jury
instruction that the truck driver was required to have continuously signaled no less than 100 feet before
turning, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1163(b).

CRIMINAL CASES:
PEOPLE v COULIBALY, 198 AD3d 84 (August 2021) by Brathwaite Nelson, J.

The defendant was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and
sentenced to two years imprisonment followed by postrelease supervision. Nine years later, the
conviction was vacated and the defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled
substance in the third degree in satisfaction of the same indictment and was sentenced to time served.
The defendant then moved pursuant to CPL 160.59 to seal his conviction and the County Court denied
his motion on the ground that the 10-year period following imposition of sentence had not yet passed.
The defendant appealed, and the People argued that his appeal should have been dismissed, as there is
no mechanism in the CPL to appeal from the denial of a motion pursuant to CPL 160.59.

The Second Department held that although a motion pursuant to CPL 160.59 relates to a criminal
matter, the determination of such a motion is properly characterized as civil in nature. Accordingly, a
motion pursuant to CPL 160.59 falls within the court’s civil jurisdiction and a defendant may appeal from
such an order.

PEOPLE v LOCKLEY, 200 AD3d 117 (November 2021) by Chambers, J.

In a prosecution for felony murder and other related charges, the Second Department held that the
defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the People introduced the
testimony of a police detective who recounted statements made to him by a non-testifying accomplice
which directly implicated the defendant in the charged crimes. The error was not harmless beyond a