From This Week’s “Latest Posts” Section (Below):
Two Attorneys Who Share the Same Address Represented Defendant and the Codefendant, Could a Conflict of Interest Result in Ineffective Assistance?
What Are the Criteria for a Valid Inventory Search (Not Met Here)?
People v Grandoit, 2025 NY Slip Op 05720, Third Dept 10-16-25
What Happens When Defense Counsel Misunderstands the Charge and Allows the Client to Admit All the Elements of the Offense in His Testimony?
People v Calderon, 2025 NY Slip Op 05755, First Dept 10-16-25
What Happens If the Administrator Waits Six Years Before Moving to Be Substituted for the Deceased Plaintiff in a Personal Injury Action?
.Watson v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 05718, Second Dept 10-15-25
- Searchable, Organized Database of Over 17,000 Decision-Summaries
- “Latest Posts” Updated Weekly
- Weekly Reversal Reports
- Monthly Personal Injury Reversal Reports
- Monthly Civil Procedure Reversal Reports
- Monthly Criminal Law Reversal Reports
- Civil Procedure Update CLE’s
- Personal Injury Update CLE’s
- Criminal Law Update CLE’s
POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) CAN PROPERLY BE IMPOSED WHERE A DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); DEFENDANT WAIVED HER RIGHT TO APPEAL THE SENTENCE AS EXCESSIVE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined five years post-release supervision (PRS) was properly imposed as part of defendant’s sentence and defendant waived the right to appeal her sentence as excessive. Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to ten years incarceration under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA):
Defendant does not challenge the carceral component of her sentence. Instead, she asserts that the court had no statutory authority to impose five years’ PRS on a defendant convicted of a class A felony and sentenced under the DVSJA. We may review defendant’s claim that her sentence is illegal even though, as we explain, her appeal waiver is valid … . However, defendant misinterprets the statutory scheme, and her claim boils down to a policy argument best suited for the legislature, not the judiciary. * * *
The legislative history of the DVSJA supports our straightforward reading of the Penal Law, and our conclusion that the legislature only intended to give judges discretion to reduce the periods of incarceration for certain defendants who are domestic violence survivors, not to wholly eliminate PRS in such cases … . * * *
… [T]he court specifically advised defendant that certain issues would survive the waiver, and counsel confirmed that they had reviewed those issues with defendant. The written waiver further clarified that, as explained in defendant’s conversation with the court and counsel, defendant was waiving any claim that her sentence is excessive. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division properly concluded that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her excessive sentence claim. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 05874, CtApp 10-23-25
Practice Point: Post-release supervision (PRS) can properly be imposed where a defendant is sentenced under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA).
THE DEFENSE WAS TIMELY PROVIDED WITH IMPEACHMENT INFORMATION REGARDING AN ARRESTING OFFICER; THE FACT THAT AN ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AFTER THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) WAS FILED, DID NOT RENDER THE PROSECUTION UNTIMELY (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a two-judge dissent, determined the prosecution’s failure to turn over an Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) report which was relevant to the credibility of one of the arresting officers (Congedo) before the filing of the certificate of compliance (COC) with the discovery timetable did not render the prosecution untimely. The opinion is fact-specific. The prosecution had timely alerted the defense to a federal lawsuit based on the alleged misbehavior of the arresting officer described in the IAB report. The majority concluded the allegations in the lawsuit constituted timely notice of the relevant information in the IAB report. The dissent disagreed because the report included information not referenced in the federal lawsuit:
… CPL 245.20 (1) (k) (iv) does not require production of a document just because it provides additional information not in other impeachment material. The question instead is whether the document “tends to . . . impeach the credibility of a testifying prosecution witness” … Here, the IAB report does not. Our conclusion is not based on any prejudice analysis, but on application of the relevant statutory language. * * *
Because the IAB report did not contain any separate allegations of misconduct against Congedo nor any support for the amended complaint’s allegations as they pertained to Congedo, it did not have any “tend[ency] to . . . impeach” her credibility (CPL 245.20 [1] [k] [iv]). …
… [T]he IAB report itself has no impeachment value. This is not a prejudice consideration … . Rather, CPL 245.20 (1) (k) (iv)’s “tends to . . . impeach” standard inserts considerations of evidentiary value into the disclosure requirement itself. Nothing in CPL 245.20 (1) (k) (iv) additionally requires the People to disclose every single document referencing impeachment material subject to disclosure based solely on that reference. People v Fuentes, 2025 NY Slip Op 05872, CtApp 10-23-25
Practice Point: Re: discovery of information which may be used to impeach an arresting officer, the prosecution is not required to turn over every document which references the impeachment material. Here the defense was given timely notice of a federal lawsuit which included the impeachment material. The fact that a report which referenced the impeachment material was not turned over to the defense until after the certificate of compliance (COC) was filed did not invalidate the COC.
AFTER BREAKING UP A FIGHT BETWEEN TWO MEN ON THE STREET AND HANDCUFFING THEM, THE POLICE QUESTIONED DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION HE HAD PUNCHED THE VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation when he was questioned on the street after he was handcuffed. Because the Miranda warnings were not given, defendant’s admission to punching the victim should have been suppressed. However the error was harmless in light of the other evidence, including a video. The police approached defendant and the victim, who were fighting, on the street. Both men were handcuffed and then questioned:
… [I]t is not dispositive that defendant was questioned in the immediate aftermath of the altercation, while the officers were still determining whether a crime had occurred—circumstances Supreme Court seemingly relied on in deeming the encounter a “classic case of investigatory questioning” that did not require Miranda warnings. Our case law draws no categorical distinction between interrogation and so-called investigatory questioning. Interrogation is almost definitionally investigatory in nature. And while we have recognized a “distinction between coercive interrogation and permissible street inquiry” … , the most salient difference between these categories is not when the questioning takes place, but the presence or absence of custody … . As we have explained, “routine police investigation of suspicious conduct on the street generally does not entail a significant deprivation of freedom which would require Miranda warnings” … . Absent “both the elements of police ‘custody’ and police ‘interrogation,’ ” there is no “constitutional requirement that the police recite interrogation warnings when they direct questions or comments at members of the public or solicit information and assistance” … . But where, as here, investigatory questions are directed to a person who is in custody, under circumstances police should know are likely to yield an incriminating response, Miranda warnings are required. People v Robinson, 2025 NY Slip Op 05871, CtApp 10-23-25
Practice Point: Here the police broke up a street fight, handcuffed both men, and then questioned them. Even though the police were still investigating what happened when defendant was questioned, defendant was “in custody” and was being “interrogated,” mandating the Miranda warnings.
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NYC PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST BLACK AND LATINO STUDENTS FAILED AS A MATTER OF LAW (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a partial dissent and a dissenting opinion, determined the complaint alleging the NYC public education system discriminates against Black and Latino students failed as a matter of law. The opinion is too complex to fairly summarize here:
Plaintiffs allege that the New York City public education system, through its admissions and screening policies, curriculum content, and lack of diversity among the teacher workforce, discriminates against and disproportionately affects Black and Latino students, leading to unequal educational opportunities and negative outcomes for those students. Plaintiffs further allege that these practices and policies deprive Black and Latino students of a sound basic education in contravention of the Education Article of the State Constitution (NY Const, art XI, § 1), denies them equal protection of the laws (NY Const, art I, § 11), and denies them access to educational facilities in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296 [4]). Although plaintiffs identify troubling aspects of New York City’s public education system, the claims as presented in the complaint fail as a matter of law. IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 05870, CtApp 10-23-25
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a detailed discussion of the issues raised by a claim that a public school system discriminates against minority students. Here the court acknowledged the complaint identified “troubling aspects” of New York City’s public education system, but held the causes of action failed as a matter of law.
THE DEFENDANT, PERSONALLY, MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROVERT THE PROSECUTION’S PREDICATE FELONY ALLLEGATIONS, AND TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PREDICATE FELONY SENTENCING SCHEME, EVEN WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL CONCEDES THE ISSUE; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, remitted the matter to give defendant the opportunity to personally controvert the prosecution’s predicate felony allegations, and to challenge the constitutionality of the predicate felony sentencing scheme, despite the defense attorney’s concession of the issue:
… [D]efendant’s challenge to his sentence has merit. The court denied defendant his statutory right to personally controvert the prosecution’s predicate felony allegations when it refused to consider his specific challenge and instead accepted defense counsel’s concession of the issue. Since the court summarily declared defendant a predicate felon and imposed an enhanced sentence, we modify and remit to Supreme Court, where defendant may controvert the predicate felony allegations and have an opportunity to assert his separate constitutional challenge to the Criminal Procedure Law’s predicate felony sentencing scheme. * * *
… Based on the full text of CPL 400.15 (3) and its placement in the predicate sentencing statutory scheme, we conclude that a court must ask the defendant personally if they wish to controvert any allegations in the prosecution’s statement. A totality of factors support this conclusion. First, CPL 400.15 (3) requires that the defendant receive a copy of the statement and that the court ask them if they wish to controvert any allegation contained therein. This procedure thus mandates that the defendant personally has notice of the allegations against them and a corresponding opportunity to be heard. Second, CPL 400.15 (3) refers to the defendant using personal pronouns, which is a deviation from the rest of the statute’s impersonal diction … .
Third, given the significant consequences of the decision to controvert and the information relevant to making that decision, it is unlikely that the legislature intended for defense counsel to be able to refuse to controvert in the face of the defendant’s opposition, without any further inquiry by the court. Indeed, the failure to controvert results in an automatic sentence enhancement in the present case and in any future sentences and therefore has lifetime ramifications … . …
These factors, considered together, make clear that the term “defendant,” as written in CPL 400.15 (3), refers to the defendant personally. In these key ways, CPL 400.15 (3) differs from provisions of the CPL that refer to the “defendant” interchangeably with “the defense,” without additional language suggesting that the legislature requires a court to direct its inquiry to the defendant. People v Wright, 2025 NY Slip Op 05869, CtApp 10-23-25
Practice Point: A defendant, personally, must be given the opportunity to controvert the prosecution’s predicate felony allegations, and to challenge the constitutionality of the predicate felony sentencing scheme, even in the face of defense counsel’s concession of the issue. Here the matter was remitted for that purpose.
THE PROOF OF ALL THE CHARGES, INCLUDING THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER OF A TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILD, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS; HOWEVER THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF MOLINEUX EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENTIARY ERRORS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that the proof was sufficient to support all the convictions, including depraved indifference murder of a two-year-old child. Defendant claimed the child fell from a bunk bed. But the injuries were catastrophic and included a depressed skull fracture. A new trial was required because of evidentiary errors by the judge, including the admission of prior crimes and bad acts as Molineux evidence:
Prior to trial, County Court partially granted the People’s Molineux application to the extent of allowing testimony pertaining to defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence and aggression toward the mother, as well as his 2011 conviction of aggravated driving while intoxicated (hereinafter DWI) with a minor in the car. … The People elicited trial testimony from the mother about a December 2017 incident in which defendant became explosively angry while drinking and “trash[ed]” her house; however, “[n]othing was physical” on that occasion. The mother also testified about a January 2018 incident in which defendant was physically violent, revealing that he had repeatedly punched her in the face and in the arm on that occasion. The People were allowed to introduce photographs of the bruises the mother sustained during the January 2018 incident. The evidence regarding defendant’s DWI conviction was referenced during his interview at the Sheriff’s Department in connection with the underlying incident, which was published to the jury.
The December 2017 incident of aggression did not involve physical violence, as alleged here, and was not probative of any issue in this case … . … [T]he photographs depicting the mother’s injuries from the January 2018 incident should not have been admitted into evidence, as they provided the ]jury with a visualization of defendant’s past violent conduct and were extremely prejudicial in the context of a prosecution requiring proof that defendant acted with a level of depravity sufficient to sustain a conviction under Penal Law § 125.25 (4) … . … The evidence pertaining to defendant’s 2011 DWI conviction also should not have been admitted, as it was not probative of any issue in the case, did not fit within any recognized Molineux exception, and was unduly prejudicial since it involved a different child and tended to suggest to the jury that defendant was previously reckless with a minor in his care while consuming alcohol. Since the proof of defendant’s guilt was entirely circumstantial and was not overwhelming, these improper Molineux rulings cannot be considered harmless … . People v Bohn, 2025 NY Slip Op 05846, Third Dept 10-23-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what is and what is not admissible prior crime and bad-act (Molineux) evidence in a murder trial.
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO RETURN THE CHILD TO MOTHER DURING THE PENDENCY OF NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS FOR THE CHILD’S RETURN WILL ENSURE THE CHILD’S SAFETY (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s application during the neglect proceedings for the return of her child should have been denied:
Family Court’s finding that the child should be returned to the mother lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record … . Although the court properly determined, based on the evidence of the child’s physical injuries and her statements, that the mother was the person who inflicted the injuries, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to determine that the risk of harm could be mitigated by the conditions it imposed on the mother in the order under review … .
The court improvidently minimized both the nature and extent of the risk to the child and overstated the potential impact of its order on the child’s safety. Nothing in the mother’s testimony indicated that she understood the emotional harm she caused the child or expressed any genuine remorse over her actions. Initially, she tried to attribute the child’s injuries to an unrelated incident that took place several months earlier. She then claimed to be unaware of how the injuries occurred and ultimately opted to “plead the fifth.” Taken as a whole, the mother’s testimony reflects a lack of insight into how her conduct led to the child’s removal from her care. This lack of understanding further undercuts Family Court’s conclusion that services would be sufficient to mitigate the risk of harm posed to the child while in the mother’s care, and its belief that the mother would comply with the service plan. Although the mother took steps to enroll in services, the mere enrollment is insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence indicating that returning the child to her care would pose a risk to the child’s health and safety. Matter of M.M. (Chelsea B.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05887, First Dept 10-23-25
Practice Point: Here Family Court’s determination that imposing conditions for the child’s return to mother, who had injured the child, would ensure the child’s safety was not supported by the evidence. Therefore it was an abuse of discretion to order the child’s return to mother during the pendency of the neglect proceedings.
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE WAIVER-OF-INDICTMENT PROCEDURE, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; PLEA VACATED; PLEA TO A SUBSEQUENT INDICTMENT INDUCED BY A CONCURRENT SENTENCE PROMISE VACATED AS WELL (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions by guilty pleas, determined the failure to comply with the waiver-of-indictment procedure required vacation of the plea, as well as the vacation of a plea induced by a concurrent sentence promise:
The record fails to demonstrate compliance with CPL 195.20. There is no evidence that defendant signed the indictment waiver in open court when the plea was entered because it is not dated as the same day as the plea. The court’s order affirming compliance with CPL 195.10 and 195.20 is also not dated and the court did not confirm on the record that defendant signed the waiver or make any reference whatsoever to it at the time of the plea. …
The failure to comply with CPL 195.20 is a jurisdictional defect that requires reversal of the judgment of conviction and dismissal of the superior court information … .
… [D]ismissal of the information necessitates dismissal of defendant’s subsequent plea … . Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for a sentence of five years’ incarceration and five years’ postrelease supervision, to run concurrently … . Where, as here, a defendant’s guilty plea is “induced by the understanding that the sentence would be concurrent with the sentence imposed for [the prior] conviction, since set aside, the plea must be vacated” … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 05902, First Dept 10-23-25
Practice Point: Failure to comply with the waiver-of-indictment procedure is a jurisdictional defect requiring vacation of the plea. A plea to a subsequent indictment induced by a concurrent sentence promise must also be vacated.
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE OFFICER WHO FRISKED THE DEFENDANT AND REMOVED A WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET SUSPECTED THE WALLET WAS A WEAPON; THE WALLET, WHICH HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; BECAUSE THE WALLET TENDED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS THE ROBBER, THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE ROBBERY-RELATED OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing the robbery-related convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the police did not have a lawful basis for removing a wallet from defendant’s pocket and examining its contents. There was no evidence that the lawful frisk of the defendant indicated the presence of a weapon. The wallet, which had been stolen from the victim, should have been suppressed. Because the robber was wearing a mask, finding the wallet on defendant’s person tended to identify defendant as the robber. The error in failing to suppress the wallet, therefore, was not harmless:
… [E]ven assuming that the officers were justified in performing a protective frisk … , there was no justification for searching the defendant’s pants pocket, reaching into it, and removing the wallet. In the course of conducting a protective pat-down based upon reasonable suspicion, “[o]nce an officer has concluded that no weapon is present, the search is over and there is no authority for further intrusion” … . There was no evidence presented at the suppression hearing that, during his frisk of the defendant, Nelson [the police officer] felt anything in the defendant’s pocket that seemed to be a weapon or that could have posed a danger to the officers at the scene. Indeed, Nelson did not testify at the hearing. Accordingly, there was no lawful basis for removing the wallet from the defendant’s pocket … , and that act violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures … . The officers committed an additional constitutional violation when, after retrieving the wallet from the defendant’s pocket, they opened it and conducted a warrantless search of its contents … . Since the officers lacked the factual predicate necessary to search the defendant’s pocket and the wallet’s contents, the People failed to satisfy their burden of going forward to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, and thus the wallet and its contents, seized as a result of that search, should have been suppressed … . People v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 05823, Second Dept 10-22-25
Practice Point: If a street frisk does not indicate the presence of a weapon, the seizure and examination of a wallet found in defendant’s pocket has no lawful basis.
THE CLASS HAD STANDING TO SEEK DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND MONETARY RELIEF BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS THE COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM WAS IRRATIONAL, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULTING IN A SHIFT OF THE TAX BURDEN FROM THE WEALTHIER PREDOMINANTLY WHITE COMMUNITIES TO THE LOWER INCOME PREDOMINANTLY NONWHITE COMMUNITIES (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Barros, determined the class of property owners in Nassau County had standing to seek declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief stemming from the “irrational, discriminatory and unconstitutional” real property tax system:
… [T]he plaintiffs allege that the County’s tax assessment policies and procedures, i.e., its freeze on reassessments from January 2010 until January 2018 and its use of a grievance procedure which was voluntary and yielded unscientific results unrelated to property values, shifted the property tax burden from wealthier, predominantly white communities in the County to lower income, predominantly nonwhite communities. The plaintiffs allege that from 2010 through 2016, property taxes on 61% of the County’s residential and commercial properties increased by only $466, or 5%, on average, whereas the average increase for the other 39% of County properties was six times that amount: $2,748, or 35.7%. They allege that most properties in predominantly nonwhite communities comprised that 39%, which amounted to an aggregate shift in the property tax burden onto the plaintiffs and those similarly situated in a sum in excess of $1.7 billion. * * *
… [T]he allegations in the complaint, if true, … establish standing, including that the plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact … . The plaintiffs “allege[d] that publicly-criticized systemic inequities have resulted in [more expensive] properties increasingly shouldering less of a tax burden than properties worth far less” … and alleged that they were “being treated differently from other, similarly-situated property owners, and that no rational basis exists for this allegedly disparate treatment” … . Hall v Nassau County, 2025 NY Slip Op 05796, Second Dept 10-22-25
Practice Point: Here the allegations made by the plaintiff class demonstrated an injury-in-fact stemming from the county’s property tax system, i.e., a shift in the tax burden from the wealthier predominantly white communities to the lower income predominantly nonwhite communities. Therefore the class demonstrated standing to bring the lawsuit.
A DEFAULT JUDGMENT CANNOT EXCEED IN AMOUNT OR DIFFER IN THE KIND OF RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the default judgment must be vacated because the judgment awarded relief which was not requested in the complaint:
“A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief from that demanded in the complaint” … . Moreover, “‘at an inquest, the court may not permit amendments of the pleadings which would broaden the scope of the inquest and increase the amount of damages provable by the plaintiff'” … . Here, the complaint only sought damages … in the principal sum of $20,357. Accordingly, the judgment must be vacated and the matter remitted … for entry of an amended judgment limiting the award … to the amount originally demanded in the complaint. Deutsch v Levy, 2025 NY Slip Op 05790, Second Dept 10-22-25
Practice Point: A default judgment cannot exceed in amount or differ in the kind of relief requested in the complaint.
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AND DEFENDANT APPLIED FOR BAIL; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE REQUEST WITHOUT THE REQUIRED EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT MAKING THE REQUIRED FLIGHT RISK DETERMINATION; DEFENDANT FILED A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; PETITION HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW SECURING ORDER (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a two-judge concurring opinion, determined the habeas petition should be held in abeyance and a new securing order which complies with Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 510.10 should be issued:
While awaiting retrial after his criminal conviction was reversed on appeal, defendant Diego Guerra applied for a new securing order under the current version of the bail law. That statute requires a court to “make an individualized determination” as to the defendant’s flight risk and to “explain the basis for its determination and its choice of securing order on the record or in writing” (CPL 510.10 [1]; see also 530.40 [4]). Supreme Court ordered the defendant remanded to custody but neither explained that decision nor made an explicit determination as to flight risk.
Defense counsel filed this habeas petition in the Appellate Division, and we now review that Court’s dismissal of the writ. We conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion by failing to make an individualized flight risk determination and to explain both the basis for that determination and the choice of securing order, as required by statute. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Appellate Division for issuance of a new securing order in compliance with CPL 510.10. People ex rel. Kon v Lynelle Maginley-Liddie, 2025 NY Slip Op 05785, CtApp 10-21-25
Practice Point: Pursuant to CPL 510.10, in denying a request for bail, the judge must make an individualized flight-risk determination and explain the basis of that determination and the choice of securing order. The failure to comply with those statutory requirements is an abuse of discretion.
HERE THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION’S (OCA’S) BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE RE: THE FOIL REQUEST FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OCA AND JUDGES WAS REJECTED; ALTHOUGH UPON REMAND THE PRIVILEGE MAY BE SHOWN TO APPLY TO INIDVIDUAL, IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE OCA DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL THE JUDGES SUCH THAT A BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE WAS APPROPRIATE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the Office of Court Administration (OCA) was not entitled to a blanket assertion of attorney-client privilege in response to a FOIL request by the NY Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) that followed the leak of a 2021 internal OCA memorandum proposing a narrow reading of a recent court decisions which was widely distributed to judges:
… “[W]hether a particular document is or is not protected is necessarily a fact-specific determination, most often requiring in camera review” … . Without having identified or produced any documents for in camera review, OCA cannot assert a blanket privilege over the entire universe of potentially responsive documents. In reaching this conclusion, we do not suggest that Counsel’s Office could never establish such a relationship. But we decline to recognize the sweeping, ex ante privilege that OCA claims here.
We hold that OCA has failed to meet its preliminary burden of establishing an attorney-client relationship with all UCS judges. Should OCA continue to assert this privilege over any specific documents identified in response to the limited request upon which the parties have now agreed, the court on remittal should assess whether such documents fall within the asserted exemption, including by in camera review as necessary … . Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v New York State Off. of Ct. Admin., 2025 NY Slip Op 05784, CtApp 10-21-25
Practice Point: Here, in this FOIL case, the blanket assertion of the attorney-client privilege for communications between the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and all judges was rejected. Whether the privilege applies must be assessed in the context of a review of the individual documents identified in the request.
THE FOIL REQUIREMENT THAT THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS BE “REASONABLY DESCRIBED” IS DISTINCT FROM THE ABILITY TO RETRIEVE THE DOCUMENTS WITH “REASONABLE EFFORT;” THE TWO STANDARDS SHOULD NOT BE CONFLATED; HERE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S PROFESSED INABILTY TO RETRIEVE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WERE “REASONABLY DESCRIBED;” MATTER REMANDED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division for a remand to the NYC Department of Education (DOE), clarified the FOIL requirements that the requested documents be “reasonably described” and that the documents can be retrieved with “reasonable effort.” Courts have been conflating the two distinct requirements:
Despite the distinct nature and purposes of the reasonable description and reasonable effort requirements, several Appellate Division decisions have adopted a single test that merges those requirements … . But … application of that test has led to inconsistent outcomes … .
Evaluating the reasonable description and reasonable effort requirements separately should alleviate the confusion that the combined test has produced. Whether a requestor has reasonably described an electronic record does not turn on the degree of effort necessary to retrieve it, and the inability of an agency to retrieve a document with reasonable effort does not implicate whether the description in the request was sufficient to allow the agency to locate it. * * *
While the DOE’s professed inability to retrieve the documents is not determinative of whether the request reasonably describes those documents, such inability may bear on whether the DOE has the ability to retrieve the documents with reasonable effort. We therefore conclude that the matter should be remanded to the DOE for a new determination under the proper standard. Matter of Wagner v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2025 NY Slip Op 05783, CtApp 10-21-25
Practice Point: In this FOIL case, the Court of Appeals clarified that whether the requested documents are “reasonably described” is not determined by whether the requested documents can be retrieved with “reasonable effort.” The two distinct standards have been improperly conflated in several Appellate Division decisions.
THE GUARANTY OF RENT DUE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WAS A “GOOD GUY” GUARANTY; THE GUARANTOR’S LIABILITY ENDED WHEN THE TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES, NOT SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE LANDLORD ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a two-judge dissent, determined Mr. Lieberman’s guaranty of the rent due under the commercial lease terminated when the tenant vacated the premises, not when the landlord subsequently accepted the surrender of the premises. The opinion turns on interpreting the language of the guaranty and the lease:
In the world of commercial leases, a “good guy” guaranty is a limited guaranty in which the guarantor’s obligation extends only up to the point that the tenant surrenders the premises to the landlord, leaving the tenant solely responsible for rent due from that point forward … . The question in this case is whether the guaranty at issue operates in that manner. The guarantor’s liability ended when the tenant vacated the premises and, under the terms of the guaranty in this agreement, was not conditioned on the landlord’s acceptance of that surrender. Accordingly, we reverse. * * *
It would be a simple matter for parties intending to enter into a “good guy” guaranty to say so explicitly, with clear language that does not require courts to resort to rules of construction regarding superfluity or canons that aid in determining the parties’ intent. Here, although the parties could have expressed their intent in a much simpler and clearer way and avoided this litigation entirely, we conclude that the guaranty in this case is limited, confining the guarantor’s liability to damages accruing prior to the date the tenant surrendered possession of the Premises. Under the terms of the guaranty, WSA [the tenant] surrendered possession of the Premises on or about November 30, 2020 when it provided 1995 CAM [the landlord] notice, completely vacated the Premises, and relinquished control of the Premises. 1995 CAM LLC v West Side Advisors, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05782, CtApp 10-21-25
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an analysis of a “good guy” guaranty of rent due under a commercial lease.
MOTHER IS PRECLUDED FROM RECOVERING PURELY EMOTIONAL DAMAGES FOR PRENATAL TORTS BASED ON A LACK-OF-INFORMED-CONSENT THEORY; THE CHILD WAS BORN ALIVE IN SERIOUS CONDITION AND DIED SOON THEREAFTER; MOTHER ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE FAILED VACUUM EXTRACTION PROCEDURE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over two dissenting opinions (three judges), determined plaintiff mother was precluded from recovering purely emotional damages for prenatal torts based on lack of informed consent. The child was born alive but died shortly thereafter. Mother alleged she did not consent to the unsuccessful vacuum extraction procedure:
In this appeal, we must determine whether this Court’s precedent limiting recovery of purely emotional damages for prenatal torts, as reaffirmed in Sheppard-Mobley v King (4 NY3d 627 [2005]), applies to medical malpractice claims premised on lack of informed consent. We hold that it does. We are further asked, by plaintiff and the Appellate Division, to overrule our unanimous holding in Sheppard-Mobley and prior cases dictating that result. Adherence to stare decisis principles leads us to decline that invitation. * * *
Though Sheppard-Mobley involved a “traditional” medical malpractice claim, its holding was clear: a birthing parent may not “recover damages for emotional harm where . . . alleged medical malpractice causes in utero injury to the fetus, subsequently born alive” (4 NY3d at 634). As our case law and the Public Health Law make clear, a lack of informed consent claim is a type of medical malpractice claim … . Thus, a straightforward reading of Sheppard-Mobley forecloses plaintiff’s claim. SanMiguel v Grimaldi, 2025 NY Slip Op 05780, CtApp 10-21-25
Practice Point: Adhering to precedent, the Court of Appeals determined mother was precluded from recovering purely emotional damages for prenatal torts based on a lack-of-informed-consent theory. The child was born alive in serious condition. Mother alleged she did not consent to the failed vacuum extraction procedure.
THE NYC ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN TO PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO HELP REUNITE FATHER WITH HIS CHILD IN THIS PARENTAL-RIGHTS-TERMINATION PROCEEDING (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, reversing Family Court, determined the NYC Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) did not demonstrate “that it undertook ‘diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship’ or that such efforts would have been ‘detrimental to the best interests of the child’…” in this termination of parental rights proceeding:
The record below demonstrates that the child services agency failed to present evidence of diligent efforts to help reunite father and his child before it petitioned to terminate father’s parental rights. First, the agency failed to adequately accommodate and account for father’s linguistic needs. Father does not speak or understand English, but the agency never provided interpretive services during family visits, which were the most significant interactions between father, the child, the agency caseworker, and the child’s foster parents. The agency also failed to provide interpretation services at the child’s medical appointments or even give father advance notice of when those appointments were scheduled, precluding him from taking part in that critical aspect of his child’s care. Second, despite the child services agency’s belief that father’s lack of insight into mother’s mental health needs and their impact on parenting the child was the weightiest barrier to reunification, it failed to refer father to individual counseling or a support group so he could gain that insight. Finally, although the child services agency identified father’s living arrangements and onerous work schedule as further obstacles to reunification, it took few steps to help him secure appropriate housing or employment, which could have made it easier for father to visit his child.
In short, in this proceeding, rather than foster reunification, almost all of the child services agency’s actions—and its failures to take action—ensured that the parent-child bond disintegrated. Thus, the child services agency failed to meet its burden as a matter of law … . Matter of K.Y.Z. (W.Z.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05781, CtApp 10-21-25
Practice Point: Here Children’s Services did not provide an interpreter for father for meetings with the caseworker and foster parents, did not give father advance notice of the child’s medical appointments, made no effort to help father find less burdensome employment or better housing, and did not provide counseling to help him gain insight into mother’s mental illness. “Diligent efforts” to reunite father and child were not made by the agency.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER’S MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IMPAIRED THE CHILDREN; ONE INCIDENT IN WHICH MOTHER SLAPPED HER SON WHEN HE WAS RUDE AND DISRESPECTFUL DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence did not support the finding that mother had neglected her children. There was no evidence mother’s mental health issues put the children at risk. The evidence also did not support neglect based on excessive corporal punishment. Mother slapped her 14-year-old son once with an open hand when he refused to provide the password for his phone and was rude and disrespectful:
Although the record here suggests that the mother, who had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, cannabis use disorder, adjustment disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, may have been non-compliant with her mental health treatment, the record does not contain evidence sufficient to support a finding of “a link or causal connection between the basis for the neglect petition and the circumstances that allegedly produce the child’s impairment or imminent danger of impairment” … . The only conduct linked to the mother’s mental health was the 14-year-old child’s statements to the caseworker that he feared being with the mother outside of the home because she believed they were being watched, and that she once took a photograph of a man on the subway platform whom she believed was following them. * * *
The mother slapped the 14-year-old child with an open hand when he refused to provide her with the passcode to his cell phone, was rude and disrespectful, and told her he wished she were dead. The mother testified that she demanded to see the child’s cell phone after the school called her to express concern over a change in the child’s behavior and his cell phone usage. The record indicates that the child did not report that the slapping caused him pain, nor were there any marks or bruising on his face or body. A parent has a common-law privilege to use reasonable physical force to discipline a child … . Matter of I.G. (D.V.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05766, First Dept 10-21-25
Practice Point: In the context off child neglect it is not enough to prove mother has mental health issues, it must be shown that mother’s mental health issues impair the children.
Practice Point: A parent has a common-law privilege to use reasonable physical force to discipline a child. A single open-handed slap in response to disrespectful and rude behavior by a 14-year-old is not “excessive corporal punishment.”
DEFENDANT TOOK A CELL PHONE PICTURE OF THE VICTIM IN THE SHOWER THROUGH A HIGH WINDOW; HE CLAIMED THE PHOTO WAS TAKEN ACCIDENTALLY WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO PHOTOGRAPH LIGHTNING; DEFENDANT, IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION BY THE POLICE ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS A “PATTERN,” ADMITTED HE HAD SURREPTITIOUSLY TAKEN SIMILAR PHOTOS OF HIS WIFE; THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF HIS APPARENT ADMISSION TO A “PATTERN” OF SIMILAR BEHAVIOR OUTWEIGHED ITS PROBATIVE EFFECT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that prior bad act “Molineux” evidence should not have been admitted because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Defendant, using his cell phone, had taken a picture of the victim in the shower through a high window. In his interview with the police defendant admitted taking similar pictures of his wife: “When confronted with a conversation that law enforcement allegedly had with his wife and whether the subject conduct was in fact part of a ‘pattern,’ defendant … admitted that he had previously engaged in similar surreptitious photography of his wife.” Defendant claimed the picture of the victim was taken accidentally when he was trying to photograph lightning:
[From the police interview with defendant:] “Now what’s the deal with when I asked your wife if this has been an issue in the past, she says you’ve done it to her, the exact same thing in the shower, and you guys have had blowouts,” adding, “So this has been a pattern, you know, it’s not like it was an accidental lightning strike thing.” Defendant replied, “I understand that. Yes, it’s my wife. I’m madly in love with her. I think she’s absolutely beautiful. Yeah, I’ve done that to my wife.” * * *
A criminal purpose cannot be readily inferred from the generally equivocal act of taking a photograph, later deleted, in the location where defendant was standing. Thus, defendant’s admission to previously taking surreptitious photographs of another woman while she showered because of his sexual interest in her was directly relevant to that legitimate nonpropensity issue … . Further, by inserting an innocent explanation for the charged conduct into the case, defendant’s prior similar acts had obvious relevance as tending to refute the possibility of mistake or accident … . * * *
… [A]lthough the challenged prior bad act evidence was highly probative with respect to the foregoing legitimate purposes, there is no way around the fact that the gratuitous “pattern” allegation made by law enforcement while questioning defendant substantially tipped the scale. It was an abuse of discretion not to redact that portion of the interview, together with defendant’s ambiguous “I understand that” response, prior to admitting the recording into evidence — particularly in view of how excisable it was. People v Siciliano, 2025 NY Slip Op 05721, Third Dept 10-16-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of evidence which fits a Molineux category [here a seeming admission to a “pattern” of taking surreptitious photos of women in the shower to counter defendant’s claim the photo of the victim in the shower was taken accidentally], but is inadmissible because the evidence is more prejudicial than probative.
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S AND THE CODEFENDANT’S ATTORNEYS SHARED THE SAME OFFICE AND WORKED CLOSELY TOGETHER REQUIRED A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION; DEFENDANT ARGUED HE WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined a hearing was required on defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on the ground that his attorney was ineffective because of a conflict of interest between his attorney and the codefendant’s attorney. The two attorneys (Reilly and Roberts) have the same address and there was evidence that they worked closely together, even if they were not members of the same firm:
… [W]hen “an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised upon a perceived conflict of interest, the law draws a distinction between actual and potential conflicts” … . First, “[a]n actual conflict exists if an attorney simultaneously represents clients whose interests are opposed and, in such situations, reversal is required if the defendant does not waive the actual conflict” … . The same is true for attorneys associated with the same firm simultaneously representing clients in a criminal matter … . Alternatively, where a potential conflict exists, reversal is only required where “a defendant shows that a potential conflict actually operated on the conduct of [the] defense” … . * * *
… County Court … recognized that it was undisputed that Reilly and Roberts maintained the same address for their law practice. Each of the affidavits in support further reflected that the attorneys gave the impression that they were associated in the same law firm or that they had worked closely with each other. Both defendant and the codefendant acknowledged that they were not advised of a potential conflict of interest, and our review of the record fails to reveal any consent or waiver by defendant for such alleged conflicts. While it is true that defendant failed to provide an affidavit from either attorney, or explain why he was unable to obtain same, this is not automatically fatal to his motion — particularly where many of the facts are corroborated in the record … . This is particularly true considering that the codefendant alleged his speedy trial challenge was waived by Roberts to allow defendant to accept a plea and be sentenced, demonstrating that Reilly and Roberts had been at least aware of each other’s strategy in resolving the charges against their respective client. Yet, there exists a stark contrast of the sentences between defendant, who received 12 years of incarceration with 5 years of postrelease supervision, and the codefendant, who allegedly received time served. These differences are not explained in the record before us, and give rise to questions of fact about whether the relationship between Reilly and Roberts may have operated on the defense by impairing the best strategy for defendant … . People v Rasul, 2025 NY Slip Op 05722, Third Dept 10-16-25
Practice Point: Defendant moved to vacate his conviction on the ground he was deprived effective assistance of counsel because of a conflict of interest. There was evidence his and the codefendant’s attorneys shared the same address and worked closely together. The nonrecord evidence of a potential conflict of interest required a hearing.
THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE HANDGUN FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing County Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, determined the search of defendant’s vehicle was not a valid inventory search and the handgun should have been suppressed:
“To be constitutionally valid, an inventory search must be [reasonable and] conducted according to a familiar routine procedure” … . The established procedure should be designed to “meet the legitimate objectives of the search,” such as protecting the owner’s property and insuring police against claims of lost or stolen property, “while limiting the discretion of the officer in the field”. Here, the second deputy failed to adhere to the requirements set forth in the relevant inventory policy. Namely, he did not obtain the approval of his shift supervisor before beginning the alleged inventory procedure. Further, although not explicitly written in the policy, the second deputy also admitted that he deviated from normal procedure when he failed to complete the inventory report as he conducted the inventory. People v Grandoit, 2025 NY Slip Op 05720, Third Dept 10-16-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how the legitimacy of an inventory search is determined by a reviewing court.
THE COLLAPSE OF A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE WAS FORESEEABLE; PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF CONCRETE FROM THE STRUCTURE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the collapse of a neighboring structure which resulted in a piece of concrete striking the plaintiff, was foreseeable. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:
Contrary to defendants’ position, the event was foreseeable, rendering Labor Law § 240(1) applicable and summary judgment on that claim appropriate … . Whether the collapse of a permanent structure is foreseeable is analyzed “not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of foreseeability of exposure to an elevation-related risk” … . Here, the possibility of insecurity in the foundation developing after adjacent demolition was well known to defendants, as evinced by the need for a support plan in the first instance. As noted by an expert engaged by defendants themselves in earlier motion practice, photographs of the facade showed poorly consolidated and deteriorated concrete with numerous voids, obvious discontinuities, several cold unbonded joints, and the appearance of having been constructed without steel reinforcing bars. It was thus foreseeable that the newly exposed and unsupported wall, or a portion thereof, would fail.
Moreover, plaintiffs established that [plaintiff’s] injuries were caused by the lack of any safety device of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to secure the neighboring foundation. Plaintiffs’ expert established that defendants failed to properly underpin the foundation of the adjoining building by bracing and shoring the “poor conditions of the concrete and the obvious presence of cold joints within the excavated pins of the underpinning work.” Moises-Ortiz v FDB Acquisition LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05746, First Dept 10-16-25
Practice Point: Here the collapse of the neighboring structure, injuring plaintiff, was foreseeable, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ELEMENTS OF A CHARGED OFFENSE RESULTED IN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE DEFENDANT WHICH PROVED THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to understand the nature of one of the criminal charges and presenting evidence which proved defendant’s commission of the charged offense. “Penal Law § 120.05(7) provides that a person is guilty of assault in the second degree when “[h]aving been charged with or convicted of a crime and while confined in a correctional facility, . . . with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person” … . Defendant presented evidence he intended to punch another inmate but struck a corrections officer, thereby proving all the elements of the offense:
… [T]he record reveals that defense counsel’s trial strategy rested on the erroneous theory that defendant could not be found guilty of the charged offense if it could be proved that the correction officer was not the intended target of the assault. At trial, defense counsel called his client to testify. Defendant testified that while incarcerated, he became involved in an altercation with another inmate. He explained that during the encounter, he threw a “sucker punch” at that inmate, but in so doing, struck the correction officer instead. Defendant averred that the correction officer was not his intended target.
During summation, defense counsel compounded this error by incorrectly stating the required elements of Penal Law § 120.05(7) and declaring that in order to find defendant guilty of the charge, it must be proved that defendant intended to hit the correction officer. However, proving that the intended target of the assault was the correction officer is not a material element of the crime charged. Thus, counsel’s defense strategy constituted an admission to the jury of the elements necessary to prove the assault in the second-degree count (see Penal Law § 120.05[7]). Moreover, defense counsel’s argument to the court that he did not believe that the prosecution could amend its theory based on defendant’s testimony demonstrated yet another critical misunderstanding, of settled New York law that pertained to the entire defense strategy … . People v Calderon, 2025 NY Slip Op 05755, First Dept 10-16-25
Practice Point: Here, defense counsel’s failure to understand the elements of a charged offense constituted ineffective assistance, resulting in reversal and a new trial.
DEFENDANT WAS PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED BY A SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO DID NOT MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTY LAW; THE ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Fourth Department, determined the court was without authority to appoint a special district attorney who did not meet the residency requirements in the County Law. The defendant, who was convicted, raised the issue for the first time on direct appeal. The indictment was dismissed:
Defendant was charged in Orleans County with various counts of larceny based on allegations that he improperly sold a vehicle that was given to him for repairs and retained the proceeds. The Orleans County District Attorney moved to be disqualified from the case due to his relationship with the alleged victim. County Court granted the application and appointed a special district attorney pursuant to County Law § 701 (1) (a). That statute provides that when the district attorney is disqualified from acting in a particular case, “a superior criminal court in the county wherein the action is triable may . . . appoint some attorney at law having an office in or residing in the county, or any adjoining county, to act as special district attorney during the absence, inability or disqualification of the district attorney and such assistants as he or she may have.”
It is undisputed that the special district attorney did not have an office in or reside in Orleans County or any adjoining county and therefore did not satisfy the statute’s residency requirement. Although defendant received correspondence during the course of the prosecution that listed addresses for the special district attorney located in Erie County—which does not adjoin Orleans County—defendant did not challenge the special district attorney’s appointment or otherwise raise the issue before the trial court. After defendant was convicted, however, he raised the issue on direct appeal. The Appellate Division agreed with defendant that the court exceeded its authority by appointing a special district attorney who did not satisfy the residency requirement and dismissed the indictment on this ground … . People v Callara, 2025 NY Slip Op 05739, CtApp 10-16-25
Practice Point: Here defendant was prosecuted and convicted by a special district attorney who did not meet the residency requirements in the County Law. The issue was first raised on appeal. The appellate court properly dismissed the indictment because the lower court did not have the authority to appoint a special district attorney in violation of the residency provisions of the County Law.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICED BY CODEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S SUMMATION-ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT WAS A SHOOTER AND THE CODEFENDANT WAS NOT; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT POINT TO THAT CONCLUSION AND THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT SUMMATIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, affirming the Fourth Department, determined that the trial judge properly denied the defendant’s motion to sever the trials of the codefendants. The charges stemmed from a drive-by shooting in which two guns were fired. The trial evidence did not demonstrate defendant’s lack of involvement. In summation the codefendant’s attorney argued defendant was one of the shooters and the codefendant was not:
Where counsel for a codefendant essentially functioned as “a second prosecutor” and elicited damaging evidence against the defendant, we have held that severance was required based on the “compelling prejudice” to the defendant … . No similar degree of prejudice was created by codefendant’s closing argument here.
… [D]efendant raised the specter of a potential irreconcilable conflict between the defenses prior to trial, but apart from the comments made in summation, the defenses were remarkably consistent in their primary focus on discrediting the eyewitness. Although Bordies’ [the codefendant’s] argument that the evidence supported the conclusion that defendant was guilty was diametrically opposed to defendant’s claim of innocence, this type of discord emerging between codefendants only in summation did not rise to the level of an irreconcilable conflict for purposes of severance in these particular circumstances.
Moreover, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the attorneys’ arguments were not evidence and should not be considered as evidence when they judged the facts. That being so, and given that the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions … , any conflict raised solely by counsel’s arguments could not have formed the basis of the jury’s verdict. In sum, there was no “undue” prejudice to defendant. People v Everson, 2025 NY Slip Op 05738, CtApp 10-16-25
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when the severance of codefendants’ trials is required and when it is not.
THE ELEVEN YEAR ELECTION LAW (EYEL), WHICH MANDATES EVEN-YEAR COUNTY ELECTIONS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE MUNICIPAL HOME RULE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION; THE CHALLENGE BY COUNTIES WITH CHARTER PROVISIONS MANDATING ODD-YEAR ELECTIONS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the state had the authority to pass the Even Year Election Law (EYEL) which mandates even-year local elections. Several counties with charters setting odd-year elections challenged the EYEL as violating the home rule provisions of article IX of the State Constitution:
The Municipal Home Rule Law was enacted contingent on the passage of the current form of article IX to “provide for carrying into effect provisions of article nine of the constitution . . . and to enable local governments to adopt and amend local laws for the purpose of fully and completely exercising the powers granted to them under the terms and spirit of such article” (see Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 50, 59). As relevant here, Municipal Home Rule Law § 33 (3) (b) requires that county charters must “provide for . . . the manner of election or appointment” and “terms of office” for “agencies or officers responsible for the performance of the functions, powers and duties of the county,” while Municipal Home Rule Law § 34 (3) contains a list of topics that a county charter cannot address in a manner inconsistent with enacted state legislation. * * *
Nothing in article IX limits, expressly or by implication, the otherwise plenary authority of the legislature to mandate the timing of certain elections, as the EYEL does … . Consequently, without any such constitutional limitation, the EYEL is a proper exercise of that authority. County of Onondaga v State of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 05737, CtApp 10-16-25
A JUDGE CANNOT ORDER DISCOVERY IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION WHICH IS A SIGNATORY TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONVENTION (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ordered discovery of a nonparty’s electronic devices in a foreign jurisdiction without complying with the Hague Convention. The nonparty, de Putron, resides in the island country of Jersey in the United Kingdom:
… Supreme Court improperly directed the discovery of de Putron’s electronic devices. First, “when discovery is sought from a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction [that is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters … , application of the . . . Convention . . . is virtually compulsory” … . An order directing discovery of such a party without complying with the Hague Convention is therefore an “improper assertion of power beyond the . . . Court’s jurisdiction” … . As it is undisputed that de Putron is a nonparty in a foreign jurisdiction that is a signatory to the Hague Convention, Supreme Court lacked the power to direct discovery of his electronic devices without complying with the Hague Convention. Dorilton Capital Mgt. LLC v Stilus LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05744, First Dept 10-16-25
Practice Point: Here discovery of a foreign nonparty’s electronic devices was improperly ordered by the judge. The country in which the nonparty resided was a signatory to the Hague Convention. Compliance with the Convention is a prerequisite to any discovery order.
APPELLANT WAS SLOWING DOWN APPROACHING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE WHICH WAS STOPPED WHEN APPELLANT WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND AND PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE; APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellant was entitled to summary judgment in this rear-end collision case. Appellant was slowing down approaching plaintiff’s car in front, which was stopped, when appellant was struck from behind and pushed into plaintiff:
“A ‘defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident'” … . “A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the rear vehicle, requiring that operator to come forward with evidence of a nonnegligent explanation for the collision in order to rebut the inference of negligence” … . “‘Evidence that a vehicle was struck in the rear and propelled into the vehicle in front of it may provide a sufficient non-negligent explanation for the collision'” … . The operator of the middle vehicle in a three-vehicle chain-collision accident may establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the middle vehicle was stopped or safely slowing down to a stop behind the lead vehicle when it was struck from behind by the rear vehicle and propelled into the lead vehicle … .
Here, the appellant submitted evidence that demonstrated that his vehicle was struck in the rear by the respondents’ vehicle while his foot was on the brake and he was in the process of slowing down. Since the appellant was in the process of safely slowing down to a stop behind the plaintiffs’ vehicle, which was at a stop, when his vehicle was struck from behind, he established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Sherman v Edwards, 2025 NY Slip Op 05713, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: When a driver is in the process of braking approaching a stopped vehicle and is struck from behind and pushed into the stopped vehicle, the driver is not negligent.
THE ADMINSTRATOR’S SIX-YEAR DELAYING IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTFF, COUPLED WITH THE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE, WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the administrator’s six-year delay in substituting the estate for the deceased in this personal injury case, warranted dismissal of the complaint:
“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made” … . CPLR 1021 provides that “[a] motion for substitution may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” … and requires that such substitution “be made within a reasonable time” …. If substitution is not made within a reasonable time, “the action may be dismissed as to the party for whom substitution should have been made” (CPLR 1021). “[T]he determination of whether the timing is reasonable requires consideration of several factors, including the diligence of the party seeking substitution, the prejudice to the other parties, and whether the party to be substituted has shown that the action or the defense has potential merit” … .
Here, the administrator’s protracted delay of almost six years in obtaining limited letters of administration so as to be substituted in this action, for which he provided no explanation in his initial motion papers and only an unsubstantiated, partial explanation in his reply attorney affirmation, demonstrated a lack of diligence. Furthermore, in this 16-year-old personal injury action, in which the deposition of the bus driver was never obtained, the administrator failed to rebut the defendants’ showing of prejudice arising both from the passage of time and the unavailability of the bus driver. Finally, the administrator did not submit in support of his motion the complaint, a bill of particulars, deposition transcripts, or any proof at all as to the potential merit of the cause of action. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the administrator’s motion and, in effect, denying the defendants’ application to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely seek substitution ..Watson v New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 05718, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: Here an administrator’s six-year delay in seeking substitution for the deceased plaintiff, coupled with prejudice to the defendant, warranted dismissal of the personal injury complaint.
DEFENDANT DEFAULTED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING HE SEXUALLY ABUSED PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DENY THE ABUSE IN THE DAMAGES TRIAL; NEW DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, ordering a new trial on damages, determined defendant, who had defaulted in this Child Victims Act case alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiff by the defendant, should not have been allowed to deny the abuse in the damages trial:
…Supreme Court erred in permitting the defendant to testify that the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual abuse were untrue and that he had never sexually abused the plaintiff. The testimony violated the court’s pretrial order expressly prohibiting such testimony. Moreover, a defaulting defendant “admits all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability, but does not admit the plaintiff’s conclusion as to damages” … . “Accordingly, at a trial to determine the amount of a plaintiff’s real damages, the defendant will not be allowed to introduce evidence tending to defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action” … . The defendant’s testimony denying the basic allegation of liability prejudiced a substantial right of the plaintiff, as that issue had been decided in her favor, and possibly affected the jury’s verdict on the issue of damages. Accordingly, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of damages in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the issue of damages … . Reilly v Grieco, 2025 NY Slip Op 05711, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: Here defendant defaulted in this Child Victims Act case but was allowed to deny the abuse in the damages trial. That was error requiring an new trial on damages.
ONE OF THE THREE DEFENDANTS, THE OWNER OF THE OTHER TWO, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW; THEREFORE THE $10,000,000 PUNITIVE-DAMAGES JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OWNER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED; NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing the $10,000,000 judgment for punitive damages in this Labor Law 220, 240(1) and 241(6) action, noted that New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. Summary judgment was granted against two defendants. but was denied with respect to Berger, the owner of the other two defendants. The jury was instructed to decide whether to award punitive damages based on Berger’s conduct and did so:
The plaintiff and his wife …, with leave of court, served an amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The defendants answered the amended complaint, and the matter proceeded to a trial limited to the issue of damages. After both parties rested, the jury was instructed to decide whether to award punitive damages based upon conduct of Berger. The jury awarded the plaintiff and his wife punitive damages in the sum of $10,000,000, and the Supreme Court entered a judgment … in favor of the plaintiff and his wife and against the defendants … in the principal sum of $10,000,000 for punitive damages. The defendants appeal from that portion of the judgment.
“New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. Instead, ‘[a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action'” … . Here, the Supreme Court erroneously instructed the jury that the issue of Berger’s liability had already been determined against him, and the jury was not asked to consider Berger’s liability under the Labor Law or otherwise. Because Berger was never determined to be liable with respect to any substantive cause of action, no punitive damages could be awarded based upon his alleged conduct … . Petrosian v B & A Warehousing, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05708, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: Here plaintiffs were awarded a $10,000,000 punitive-damages judgment against a defendant who was not determined to have been liable. New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for punitive damages. The punitive-damages judgment was therefore reversed.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants in this Child Victims Act case against the school district for negligent hiring, retention and supervision did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff-student by a custodian. Therefore the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:
“To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … .
Here, the defendants’ evidence included testimony given by the plaintiff during his deposition that he was abused on dozens of occasions over three to four years, that there were several other students who were similarly abused, and that other custodians employed by the District were present in the school building after hours and on weekends and saw the plaintiff alone with the custodian in the building. Thus, contrary to the defendants’ contention, they failed to establish, prima facie, that the District lacked constructive notice of the custodian’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . PC-14 Doe v Lawrence Union Free Sch. Dist., 2025 NY Slip Op 05693, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a question of fact is raised about a school-defendant’s constructive notice of sexual abuse of a student by a school employee.
AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the foreclosure complaint, determined the plaintiff did not demonstrate standing to foreclose and did not demonstrate compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304:
… [S]ince the witness on the issue of standing proffered by the plaintiff at the trial testified, among other things, that the purported allonges that were with the original note were not stapled to the note, and further testified that he did not know when the allonges were executed or attached to the note, the plaintiff failed to establish its standing as the holder of the original note at the time of the commencement of the action. * * *
… [P]laintiff’s witness on the issue of notice did not have knowledge of the mailing practices of the entity which, according to the plaintiff, sent the requisite 30-day and 90-day notices … . Moreover, the business records that were submitted in evidence failed to show that the requisite certified and first-class mailings of the RPAPL 1304 notices or the default notices were actually made to the defendants or that the default notices were actually delivered to their notice address. Thus, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 and failed to show that the default notices were sent in accordance with the terms of the mortgage agreement … . Onewest Bank FSB v Thomas, 2025 NY Slip Op 05692, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: If a foreclosure action goes to trial and standing is contested, the bank must prove it has standing to foreclose. In addition, the bank must prove compliance with the notice-of-foreclosure mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. Here the failure of proof on those issues resulted in dismissal of the complaint.
IT WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE FORECLOSURE SALE DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC; HOWEVER IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY THE MOTION TO TOLL THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the deadline for the foreclosure sale mandated by RPAPL 1351 was properly extended due to the COVID pandemic, but the accumulation of interest during the delay should have been tolled:
… Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 2004 to extend the time to conduct the foreclosure sale to the extent of extending the time to conduct the sale to 90 days from the date of the order … . The plaintiff demonstrated that “the delay [wa]s largely attributable to, among other things, . . . the COVID-19 pandemic” … . Further, the defendant failed to establish that the delay caused him any prejudice … .
“A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court” … . “Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require” … . Thus, “[i]n an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party” … . “Further, a tolling and cancellation of interest may also be warranted where there is an unexplained delay in prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … . “[A] plaintiff should not benefit financially, in the form of accrued interest, from an unexplained delay in the prosecution of a mortgage foreclosure action” … .
… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross-motion to toll the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan … . The plaintiff asserted that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted its ability to proceed with the sale of the property … . However, the pandemic-related stays on foreclosure sales did not go into effect until after the expiration of the 90-day deadline to conduct the sale of the property … , and the plaintiff failed to adequately explain its failure to conduct the sale within that 90-day period … . Under the circumstances presented, the court should have granted the defendant’s cross-motion to the extent of tolling the accrual of interest on the subject mortgage loan after February 17, 2020 … . M&T Bank v Givens, 2025 NY Slip Op 05677, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: A foreclosure is an equitable proceeding triggering the exercise of discretion by the the judge. Here the extension of the deadline for the foreclosure sale due to the COVID pandemic was a proper exercise of discretion, but the denial of the motion to toll the accrual of interest during the delay was an abuse of discretion.
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 RESULTED IN DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, determined plaintiff in this foreclosure action did not strictly comply with the provisions of RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint after trial:
… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304. “‘Strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 notice to the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action'” … . When this action was commenced in 2015, RPAPL 1304(1) required that the notice sent to borrowers contain the following language: “As of . . . , your home loan is . . . days in default. Under New York State Law, we are required to send you this notice to inform you that you are at risk of losing your home. You can cure this default by making the payment of . . . dollars by . . .” … .
Here, at the nonjury trial, the plaintiff submitted the notice sent to the defendant, which omitted the cure date as required by the statute. Thus, the plaintiff failed to establish its compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Christiana Trust v Larmond, 2025 NY Slip Op 05664, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: Here the notice of foreclosure presented as evidence at trial did not comply with RPAPL 1304, requiring dismissal of the complaint.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN IDENTIFYING THE PARTY INITIALLY SUED AS “JOHN DOE TRUCKING COMPANY;” COMPLAINT DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the complaint as time-barred, determined plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in identifying the party initially sued as “John Doe Trucking Company” prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations:
Pursuant to CPLR 1024, “[a] party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his [or her] name and identity as is known.” “However, a plaintiff cannot rely on CPLR 1024 unless he or she ‘exercise[s] due diligence, prior to the running of the statute of limitations, to identify the defendant by name and, despite such efforts, [is] unable to do so'” … . “Any failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the ‘Jane Doe’s’ [or ‘John Doe’s’] name subjects the complaint to dismissal as to that party” … . Additionally, the “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” party must “be described in such form as will fairly apprise the party that she [or he] is the intended defendant” … .
Here, the plaintiff failed to establish that it made diligent efforts to ascertain Werner’s identity prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations … . Further, the description in the amended complaint was insufficient to fairly apprise Werner that it was the intended defendant … . Abrego v Tile World Import Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 05661, Second Dept 10-15-25
Practice Point: Failure to exercise due diligence in identifying a party initially sued as a “John Doe” before the expiration of the statute of limitations will result in dismissal of the complaint.
CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED PARENTAL NEGLECT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE CHILDREN FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT AND FAILURE TO ENSURE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the evidence supported finding the parents neglected the children by failing to provide medical and dental care and failing to ensure school attendance:
A neglected child is defined, in relevant part, as a child less than 18 years of age “whose physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [their] parent or other person legally responsible for [their] care to exercise a minimum degree of care . . . in supplying the child with adequate . . . education . . . , or medical[ or] dental . . . care, though financially able to do so or offered financial or other reasonable means to do so” (Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]). “The statute thus imposes two requirements for a finding of neglect, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence . . . First, there must be proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional or mental impairment to the child . . . Second, any impairment, actual or imminent, must be a consequence of the parent’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care . . . This is an objective test that asks whether a reasonable and prudent parent [would] have so acted, or failed to act, under the circumstances” … .
… [T]he evidence of respondents’ ” ‘failure to follow through with necessary treatment for [Rocky M.’s] serious medical condition support[s] [a] finding of medical neglect” against them … . …[R]espondents’ failure to take Jemma M. to medical appointments for most of the first year of her life, particularly in light of her prematurity, condition and weight at birth, and subsequent developmental delays, caused impairment of her physical and emotional condition sufficient to support a finding of medical neglect with respect to her … . … [T]he evidence … , including medical records, establishes that respondents were financially able or had other reasonable means to provide adequate medical care … . The evidence further establishes that respondents neglected Cynthia M., Gwen M., Emmitt C. and Rocky M. by failing to provide adequate dental care … . … [P]etitioner presented unrebutted evidence of excessive school absences for Cynthia M., Gwen M., James M., and Emmitt C., which is sufficient to establish respondents’ educational neglect of those children … . Finally, we conclude that the evidence of neglect with respect to the aforementioned children “demonstrates such an impaired level of . . . judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm for any child in [respondents’] care,” thus warranting a finding of derivative neglect with respect to Nova M. and Trenton M. Matter of Cynthia M., 2025 NY Slip Op 05621, Fourth Dept 10-10-25
Practice Point: The parents’ failure to provide the children with medical and dental care, and the failure to ensure school attendance warranted neglect and derivative neglect findings with respect to all the children, criteria explained.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUGHT HER HEEL AND CAUSED HER TO FALL, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT A MIS-LEVELED CONCRETE SLAB CAUSED THE FALL COULD ALLOW THE JURY TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE WITHOUT RESORT TO SPECULATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case should have been denied. Plaintiff testified “something caught her heel” when she was walking backwards from a gravel driveway to the garage and she fell onto concrete in the garage. Plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, but the circumstantial evidence indicated her heel caught on the mis-leveled concrete slab:
… [W]e conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the cause of plaintiff’s fall was speculative … . ” ‘Although [mere] conclusions based upon surmise, conjecture, speculation or assertions are without probative value . . . , a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiff[ ] show[s] facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant[ ] and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred’ ” … .
Although plaintiff testified that she did not know what caught her heel and caused the fall, she also stated that she fell in the immediate vicinity of the entry to the garage from the gravel driveway and landed inside the garage. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , we conclude that the testimony and the allegations in the bill of particulars regarding the mis-leveled concrete slab “render[ed] any other potential cause of her fall ‘sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” … . Withers v Roblee, 2025 NY Slip Op 05620, Fourth Dept 10-10-25
Practice Point: Here the plaintiff could not say precisely what “caught her heel” and caused her to fall, but the circumstantial evidence was such that a jury could determine the cause without resort to speculation. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied.
THE DEFENDANT SAID “HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT …” AND THE POLICE STOPPED QUESTIONING HIM; AN HOUR AN A HALF LATER THE POLICE RESUMED QUESTIONING WITHOUT RE-READING THE MIRANDA RIGHTS; THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the statements made by defendant after he invoked his right to remain silent should have suppressed. The questioning stopped after defendant said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. The questioning resumed an hour and a half later without a re-reading of defendant’s Miranda rights:
… [A]fter the police told defendant that they considered him a suspect in the underlying shooting and asked him “for his side of the story,” defendant continually stated that “he didn’t want to talk about that and [that] he’d rather take his chances.” We conclude that defendant thereby unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent … inasmuch as “[n]o reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police” … . Indeed, the actions of the police in response to defendant’s statement demonstrated that they understood his statement to be an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent—i.e., they promptly ceased their questioning of defendant and left the interrogation room for a prolonged period of time … . Defendant’s responses to a police officer when the officer resumed the interrogation—which occurred about an hour and a half after the prior questioning ceased—did not negate defendant’s prior unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent because the police officer failed to reread the Miranda warnings to defendant before resuming the interrogation and therefore failed to scrupulously honor his right to remain silent … . People v Surles, 2025 NY Slip Op 05603, Fourth Dept 10-10-25
Practice Point: Here the police stopped questioning defendant when he said “he didn’t want to talk about that …”. An hour and half later the police resumed questioning without re-reading the Miranda rights. Those statement should have been suppressed.
THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing the SORA risk level determination, held that the judge violated defendant’s right to due process of law by assessing points that were not requested by the People, and violated the Correction Law requirements for imposing an upward departure:
Although defendant failed to object to the assessment of points … when the court rendered its oral decision, we “review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice in light of the substantial infringement upon [her] due process and statutory rights” … .
… [T]he court failed to comply with the requirement of Correction Law § 168-n (3) that it set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it based its decision to grant the People’s request for an upward departure … . In its decision, the court merely concluded, under the first part of the relevant three-part analysis, that the People had identified “aggravating . . . circumstances . . . of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . At no time in its decision did the court render a determination on the other two parts of the relevant analysis. Rather, after identifying the aggravating circumstances, the court conclusorily granted the People’s application for an upward departure, without ever “weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over- or under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Ridley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05599, Fourth Dept 10-10-25
Practice Point: If a judge assesses SORA risk-level points not requested by the People, the defendant’s due process rights are violated.
Practice Point: In granting an upward departure in a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding, the judge must make the findings required by the Correction Law.