From This Week’s “Latest Posts” Section (Below):
Does the Privilege Which Applies to Hospital-Review Proceedings Preclude Discovery of Workplace-Safety Complaints by Hospital Employees?
Adams v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2026 NY Slip Op 02706, Third Dept 4-30-26
Is the Failure to Object to the Empaneling of an Anonymous Jury Ineffective Assistance?
In a Rear-End Collision Case, Does Defendant’s Allegation that the Brakes Failed Raise a Question of Fact?
Wesa v Consolidated Bus Tr., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02690, Second Dept 4-29-26
A University Places Students in the Workplace as Part of an Educational Program; Is the University Vicariously Liable for a Student’s Negligence?
Sager v Frontpage Invs., 2026 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 4-29-26
- 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
ALTHOUGH RPTL 421-A DOES NOT EXPLICITLY ALLOW JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COMPTROLLER’S TAX RULINGS, THE CASE LAW SUPPORTS THE AVAILABILITY OF ARTICLE 78 REVIEW; THEREFORE THE STATUTE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined RPTL 421-a (16) (c) (x) does not foreclose judicial review of the Comptroller’s rulings concerning certain tax benefits available to property developers who provide affordable housing and pay construction workers at the statutory rate. Although the statute does not explicitly allow judicial review, the case law supports the conclusion that Article 78 review is available:
… Supreme Court has broad authority to provide relief from an administrative determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, both during the pendency of the proceeding and following the completion of judicial review … . During the pendency of such a proceeding, the court may “stay . . . the enforcement of [the] determination under review” (CPLR 7805 …). Correspondingly, once judicial review is complete, the reviewing court is authorized to “annul or confirm . . . or modify” the determination “in whole or part” and may “direct. . . specified action by the respondent” (CPLR 7806). The court’s authority under CPLR 7806 to direct specified action by the respondent agency encompasses “any . . . directions needed to secure to the petitioner the [a]rticle 78 relief ordered” and a court’s judgment embodying those directions “is enforceable by contempt proceedings” … . In other words, if a reviewing court found the Comptroller’s final determination under RPTL 421-a (16) (c) (x) to have been made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious or lacking in substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803 [3], [4]), it would have broad remedial power under CPLR 7806 to annul the Comptroller’s determination, which would, in effect, render the underlying administrative judgment unenforceable, and could also direct the Comptroller to take action to secure the vacatur of the administrative judgment. Matter of Bldg 44 Devs. LLC v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02898, Third Dept 5-7-26
Practice Point: Even where a statute does not explicitly allow judicial review, the case law may support Article 78 review, rendering the statute constitutional.
THE JUDGE’S ERROR IN REFUSING TO GRANT A BRIEF ADJOURNMENT WHEN THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY OFFERED A REBUTTAL WITNESS HAD A “SPILL-OVER-EFFECT” TAINTING THE OTHER COUNTS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined (1) the court erred in not granting the defense an adjournment when the People belatedly offered rebuttal testimony, and (2) the “spill-over-effect” of that error tainted the convictions:
The trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, receive belatedly disclosed rebuttal testimony, ” ‘but before doing so, it must, upon application of the … . We therefore conclude that County Court erred when, after granting the prosecution’s request to offer rebuttal proof on Monday, it then denied defendant’s application for any adjournment before the prosecution called its rebuttal witness … . Given that proof of defendant’s guilt without the rebuttal witness’ testimony was “not overwhelming,” the error cannot be deemed harmless … .
In determining whether an error in the proceedings relating to one count requires reversal of the conviction of other jointly tried counts, we apply “[s]pillover analysis” and evaluate “the individual facts of the case, the nature of the error and its potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome” … . “[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the jury’s decision to convict on the tainted counts influenced its guilty verdict on the remaining counts in a meaningful way,” reversal is required (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Because resolution of all three counts here hinged on the jury’s assessment of the victims’ credibility and the veracity of the defense claims, there is a reasonable possibility that the decimation of defendant’s alibi by the rebuttal evidence meaningfully influenced the jury’s guilty verdict on the 2018 count … . The rebuttal proof, received without affording defendant a brief adjournment to investigate, cast defendant’s alibi witness as unscrupulous and incredible. Under these unusual circumstances, we reverse defendant’s convictions and order a new trial on all counts … . People v Shaver, 2026 NY Slip Op 02895, Second Dept 5-7-26
Practice Point: An error affecting the proof of one count may have a “spill-over-effect” and taint the remaining counts, requiring a new trial.
NEW YORK’S “TOLLING” PROVISION FOR PREDICATE FELONIES REQUIRES ONLY A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION TO DETERMINE HOW LONG THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK IS EXTENDED BY PERIODS OF A DEFENDANT’S INCARCERATION; THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED FOR A JURY TO MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS BEFORE THE LOOK-BACK CALCULATION CAN BE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined that New York “tolling provision,” which extends the ten-year look-back for predicate felonies by the amount of time defendant was incarcerated, is a purely mathematical calculation that does not require consideration by a jury:
…New York’s tolling provision requires a determination of whether the defendant was incarcerated and, if so, the dates of incarceration (see Penal Law §§ 70.06[1][b][iv],[v]; 70.08[1][b]). Thus, the tolling provision requires “rote arithmetic calculation to be made based on certified public records” … . The determination is completely objective. There is no assessment of defendant’s conduct or culpability. Rather, it is a determination of the amount of time a defendant was incarcerated between a previous conviction and the instant offense. There need only be a review of the official records of incarceration—i.e., when the defendant was admitted into the facility, when the defendant was released and any time in between. People v Young, 2026 NY Slip Op 02883, First Dept 5-7-26
Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the nature and application of New York’s predicate-felony “tolling” provision.
THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO WATER INSIDE A BUILDING TRACKED IN DURING A RAIN STORM (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Taylor, clarified and reiterated the principle that the storm-in-progress rule does not apply to tracked-in water inside a building:
… [T]his Court has not expanded the storm in progress rule to include hazards that have been tracked-in to interior spaces … , and we decline [defendant property owner’s] invitation to do so. A property owner’s efforts to remove tracked-in hazards during an ongoing storm are simply not subject to the same exigencies as when removing exterior hazards. In other words, removing tracked-in hazards during an ongoing storm is not a fruitless endeavor, and therefore the suspension of a property owner’s duty of care with respect to such hazards is not justified.
Rather, tracked-in conditions from a storm in progress are to be treated by the principles governing premises liability generally … . Rowland v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 2026 NY Slip Op 02861, Second Dept 5-6-26
Practice Point: The storm-in-progress rule does not apply to water inside a building tracked in during a rain storm.
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined defendants did not demonstrate the defect was trivial as a matter of law:
In determining whether a defect is trivial as a matter of law, the court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “‘width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the time, place and circumstance of the injury'” … . There is no “minimal dimension test” or “per se rule” that the condition must be of a certain height or depth in order to be actionable … . Photographs that “‘are acknowledged to fairly and accurately represent the accident site may be used to establish that a defect is trivial and not actionable'” … . When “deciding in a given case whether photographs may sufficiently show triviality without objective measurement, it depends on what the photographs depict” … . The “persuasiveness of photographs will depend on what reasonable inferences regarding the alleged defect may be drawn from them” … .
Here, the evidence submitted by the defendants, including, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and photographs of the allegedly defective sidewalk condition, was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that the height differential was physically insignificant and that the characteristics of the defect or the surrounding circumstances did not increase the risks the alleged defect posed … . The evidence submitted did not include objective measurements of the dimensions of the defect, specifically, the height of the allegedly misleveled portion of the sidewalk. The evidence further failed to sufficiently quantify or estimate the dimensions of the defect. The plaintiff identified the photographs as fairly and accurately representing the allegedly defective sidewalk condition as it existed on the date of the accident. While the photographs demonstrated the irregular nature of the sidewalk … , it is impossible to ascertain or reasonably infer the extent of the defect from the photographs submitted … . Rosario v Wyckoff Supermarket Assoc., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02860, Second Dept 5-6-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the evidence required to demonstrate a sidewalk defect is trivial where no measurements are submitted in support of the summary judgment motion.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO VACATION OF HIS CONVICTIONS ON THE GROUND THE COUNTS WHICH WERE DISMISSED AT TRIAL HAD A PREJUDICIAL “SPILL-OVER-EFFECT” ON THE REMAINING COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction under a “prejudicial-spill-over-effect” theory should not have been granted. Defendant argued the counts which were dismissed at trial had tainted the counts for which he was convicted:
“Whether an error in the proceedings relating to one count requires reversal of convictions on other jointly tried counts is a question that can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis, with due regard for the individual facts of the case, the nature of the error and its potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome” … . “[T]he paramount consideration in assessing potential spillover error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury’s decision to convict on the tainted counts influenced its guilty verdict on the remaining counts in a meaningful way” … . “By contrast, where the jury’s decision to convict on the tainted counts had only a tangential effect on its decision to convict on the remaining counts, no reversal is warranted” … . “Spillover analysis is highly case-specific,” requiring an evaluation of “the individual facts of the case, the nature of the error and its potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome” … . * * *
… [U]nder the circumstances of this case, there was no reasonable possibility that the evidence supporting the tainted counts pertaining to the robbery on November 27, 1995, had a spillover effect on the other counts … . As the jury’s decision to convict on the tainted counts had, at most, a tangential effect upon its decision to convict on the remaining counts pursuant to the robbery on November 13, 1995, vacatur of the defendant’s convictions related to the robbery on November 13, 1995, was unwarranted on the ground of spillover prejudice … . People v Breland, 2026 NY Slip Op 02848, First Dept 5-6-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the argument that the counts on which defendant was convicted were tainted by the counts which were dismissed at trial.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER’S ADDRESS SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO THE THERPIST TO DETERMINED FATHER’S LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CHILD’S THERAPY (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the court should have held a hearing on whether mother’s address could be kept confidential; and the court should not have delegated its authority to all the therapist to decide the extent father’s participation in the child’s therapy:
Section 154-b(2)(a) of the Family Court Act authorizes the court, on its own motion or upon the motion of any party or the child’s attorney, to permit the party or the child to keep his or her address confidential from an adverse party if the court finds that disclosure of the address or other identifying information would pose an unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a party or the child. Thus, the statute requires a fact-specific determination as to the possible effects of such disclosure. Although the mother sought an address confidentiality order and Family Court acknowledged the need for a separate hearing, ultimately holding the issue in abeyance, the record is devoid of any determination as to whether disclosure of the address would pose an unreasonable risk to the child. In the absence of such a finding, the directive requiring disclosure cannot be said to reflect a proper exercise of discretion.
Family Court further erred in authorizing the father to communicate with the child’s therapist and to participate in therapy at the therapist’s discretion. This provision effectively delegates to the treating therapist the authority to determine whether, when, and under what circumstances the father may have contact with the child, which is an issue reserved to the court … . The directive also contradicts the court’s finding that contact with the father would harm the child’s mental health, and risks inhibiting the child’s openness with the child’s therapist if the child knows disclosures could be shared with or occur in the father’s presence. Thus, the order undermines the therapeutic process and risks exacerbating, rather than alleviating, the child’s emotional distress. Matter of Monet O. v Leroy L.B., 2026 NY Slip Op 02788, First Dept 5-5-26
Practice Point: Before determining whether a party’s address should be kept confidential, Family Court should hold a hearing.
Practice Point: The Family Court should not delegate its authority to determine the level of father’s participation in the child’s therapy to the therapist.
THE INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF CELL PHONES DURING A POLICE-DEPARTMENT PROMOTIONAL EXAM WERE AMBIGUOUS; THEREFORE THE DETERMINATION PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE INSTRUCTIONS WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), acted irrationally when it found that petitioners-police-officers had violated the prohibition of the use of cell phones before dismissal from a promotional examination. The petitioners did not use their cell phones during the exam. Rather the cell phones were used after completion of the exam but before dismissal from the exam room. The First Department held that the instructions concerning the use of cell phones were ambiguous:
Here, rationality is lacking, not for a want of evidence, but because the standard to which DCAS held petitioners was ambiguous. The notices of violations issued by DCAS specified, among other things, that petitioners breached a test-taking rule providing that, “[b]efore, during and after your test, you are not permitted to use, have turned on or have out in the open: cellular phones.” The rule does not indicate when the cell-phone prohibition begins or when it ends…. Nothing in the rule, which DCAS quoted from the instruction sheet provided to the candidates, suggests the location or locations to which the cell phone prohibition applied. The ambiguity of the rule, coupled with the ambiguity as to when the test concluded (which the executive deputy commissioner acknowledged) and the prevalence of cell phones in the exam room, make the determinations irrational. Matter of Bifulco v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02772, First Dept 5-5-26
Practice Point: An administrative punishment for a purported rule violation will be deemed irrational if the rule is ambiguous.
ALL PARTIES AGREE THE TWO SURROGACY AGREEMENTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE PARENTAGE BASED ON THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that both surrogacy agreements were unenforceable and the parentage determination should not have been made without a hearing on the intent of the parties and the best interests of the children:
… [T]here is no real dispute that neither surrogacy agreement meets the material requirements of Family Court Act article 5-C. The original surrogacy agreement is unenforceable because it was not signed by Robert (see Family Ct Act § 581-403 [a] [1]; [d]; see also § 581-402 [b] [3]). The second agreement is unenforceable because it was not executed prior to “the commencement of medical procedures in furtherance of embryo transfer” (§ 581-403 [b]). Thus, the court was required to determine parentage “based on the intent of the parties, taking into account the best interests of the child[ren]” (§ 581-407).
… [A]ll three parties to the second surrogacy agreement—Mary, Robert and the Surrogate—agree that their intent was for Mary and Robert to be the children’s parents, and none of them contemplated anyone else becoming a parent. … [O]n this record the court failed to give due consideration to the best interests of the children as required by the statute (see Family Ct Act § 581-407; see also § 581-701 …). We therefore reverse the … judgment of parentage, and we remit the matter to Family Court to hold an immediate hearing at which the court, in making its parentage determination, must consider evidence of the intent of the parties, taking into account evidence pertaining to the best interests of the children. Matter of Baby A. (Mary B.L.–Robert A.L.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02759, Fourth Dept 5-1-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a court should handle determining parentage where the surrogacy agreements are unenforceable.
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR A DEFAULT IN RESPONDING TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that law office failure was an adequate excuse for plaintiffs’ default in responding to defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this traffic accident case:
… [P]laintiffs proffered a reasonable excuse of law office failure for the brief delay in serving their opposition papers to defendant’s motion (see CPLR 2005…). Although plaintiffs’ counsel admittedly failed to properly calendar the motion opposition date, counsel did attempt to seek defendant’s consent for an adjournment prior to the return date of the motion, which plaintiffs’ counsel apparently believed to be the due date for the opposition to defendant’s motion. Further, plaintiffs’ counsel submitted opposition papers on the return date, albeit after business hours, upon the mistaken belief that the motion was to be taken on submission. There is no evidence of a willful default and the negligible delay cannot be said to have prejudiced defendant … . April I.O. v Taylor, 2026 NY Slip Op 02741, Fourth Dept 5-1-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for a rare instance of law office failure serving as an adequate excuse for a default in responding to a motion for summary judgment.
IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFF DONALD J TRUMP AGAINST MARY L TRUMP, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY RELEVANT TO HER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s discovery requests were relevant to her “fraudulent inducement” affirmative defense and should have been granted:
Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant for breach of the confidentiality provisions of a 2001 settlement agreement. In her answer, defendant asserted the affirmative defense of fraudulent inducement. Specifically, she alleged that she relied upon the valuation of certain assets set forth in the parties’ 2001 settlement agreement, and that those valuations were false. Defendant’s motion to compel seeks discovery of materials related to the valuations provided in the settlement agreement. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the discovery sought by defendant, which relates to an affirmative defense of fraudulent inducement that plaintiff has not otherwise challenged in this action, is improper … .
Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion. CPLR 3101(a) directs “full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action,” and is to be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . These principles entitle defendant to the requested discovery material to establish her affirmative defense … . Trump v Trump, 2026 NY Slip Op 02735, First Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: Here in this breach of contract action, defendant was entitled to discovery relevant to her “fraudulent inducement” affirmative defense.
THE EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE WHICH PROTECTS HOSPITAL QUALITY-REVIEW PROCEEDINGS DID NOT APPLY TO REPORTS ABOUT UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF IN THIS WRONGFUL TERMINATION ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this wrongful termination and retaliation action was entitled to discovery of so-called RL6 reports addressing unsafe working conditions. Defendant hospital claimed the documents were privileged under Education Law § 6527 (3) and the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (42 USC § 299b-21 et seq. [hereinafter PSQIA]):
Plaintiff was employed as a nursing assistant and technician within defendant’s secure unit for patients with behavioral health and psychiatric conditions. He commenced this action for wrongful termination and retaliation under Labor Law §§ 740 and 741, claiming that defendant unlawfully fired him after he reported unsafe workplace practices and conditions. During discovery, plaintiff demanded copies of his statements to defendant, including his June 2022 report of safety concerns submitted to defendant’s electronic reporting system. Plaintiff also requested the parties’ communications about the secure unit and defendant’s responses to prior related complaints or concerns. * * *
“[A] party does not obtain the protection of Education Law § 6527 (3) merely because the information sought could have been obtained during the course of a hospital review proceeding[.] . . . The exemption applies only where the information was in fact so obtained” … . In short, the administrator’s conclusory affidavit is insufficient to satisfy defendant’s burden under Education Law § 6527 (3) … . Moreover, defendant conceded, both in its brief and at oral argument, that the RL6 reports were not submitted to a quality assurance or peer review committee. …
Assuming, without deciding, the doubtful proposition that PSQIA applies to this state law claim, defendant failed to demonstrate that the RL6 reports at issue constitute privileged patient safety work product. Adams v Bassett Healthcare Network, 2026 NY Slip Op 02706, Third Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the scope of the Education Law privilege protecting hospital quality-review proceedings. Here the privilege did not extend to employee reports about unsafe working conditions.
UPON RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, FAMILY COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL AND HELD THE ORDER-OF-PROTECTION HEARING IN RESPONDENT’S ABSENCE; RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ORDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Family Court, vacated the order of protection issued upon respondent’s “default” based on the denial of respondent’s due process rights:
Petitioner commenced this proceeding in November 2023 seeking an order of protection against respondent. After an initial appearance and subsequent conferences at which the parties variously appeared virtually, in person or through counsel, respondent failed to appear for the April 2024 in-person hearing. Family Court directed respondent’s counsel to leave the courtroom, at which point respondent’s counsel offered to have respondent appear virtually, asserting that respondent was in “hiding” in light of criminal charges filed against petitioner in connection with her alleged stalking of, and firing a rifle at, respondent in August 2023. The court implicitly denied respondent’s request by again directing respondent’s counsel out of the courtroom. The hearing proceeded, during which petitioner testified and was subject to cross-examination by the attorney for petitioner’s children. …
Typically, “[a] party seeking to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claim” … . “No such showing is required, however, where a party’s fundamental due process rights have been denied” … . In this case, respondent’s counsel attended in person evidently ready to proceed, offered an excuse for respondent’s nonappearance and provided an alternate means to move forward in his absence … . Respondent’s counsel made no application to withdraw, and Family Court did not relieve respondent’s counsel, and thus respondent’s attorneys remained counsel of record when they were dismissed from the courtroom without explanation (see CPLR 321 [b] …). The court’s atypical conduct in that regard, coupled with the court’s choice to decline available options to proceed in respondent’s absence, deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard (see CPLR 321 [a] …). Matter of April V. v Jonathan U., 2026 NY Slip Op 02702, Third Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: An order issued upon a party’s default may be vacated when the party’s due process rights were violated by the judge. Here the judge ordered the party’s counsel to leave and held the hearing in the party’s absence after the counsel explained the party’s absence and offered to proceed virtually.
PETITIONER-INMATE PREVAILED IN THE PROCEEDING TO ANNUL THE PENALTY OF CONFINEMENT FOR 120 DAYS IN A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU); PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-inmate had prevailed in the proceeding to annul the 120-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) (imposed on him for threats of violence) and therefore was entitled to counsel fees. The 120-day confinement was annulled because the correctional facility did not comply with the requirements of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (hereinafter the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (hereinafter the SHU Exclusion Law):
… [T]he plain language of these statutes clearly required specific conduct and findings to impose a 120-day confinement sanction against an incarcerated individual housed in an RMHU [residential mental health unit]. Even putting aside the lack of the required written findings, respondent did not have a reasonable basis to conclude that petitioner’s statements — made during a crisis call while he was confined in an RMHU without any indication that he had access to the individuals who were the subject of his threats or a history of causing serious physical injury or death to another person — constituted a qualifying threat under Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) (A). Although Supreme Court recognized as much in annulling the 120-day confinement sanction, expressly stating that “the administrative record . . . does not contain facts from which the court can discern a rational basis for respondent’s determination,” it nevertheless denied petitioner’s application for counsel fees on the ground that respondent’s position was substantially justified. Given the inherent conflict in Supreme Court’s determinations and our finding that respondent’s position was not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for counsel fees on this basis … . Matter of Walker v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 02701, Third Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (the SHU Exclusion Law) with respect to the imposition of long-term solitary confinement on an inmate.
THE “RECTAL INTRUSION” BY CORRECTION OFFICERS SEEKING TO FORCE CLAIMANT-INMATE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR ORDERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES IN THIS BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE CONDUCT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT; THE STATE CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined the court should have considered the insertion of an object in claimant’s rectum as an element of damages in this suit by claimant-inmate against the State. The Court of Claims determined the State could not be vicariously liable because the conduct was outside the scope of the correction-officers’ employment. The Third Department disagreed, noting that the officers were attempting to force claimant to comply with their orders and the conduct was not motivated by sexual gratification:
There is no evidence that the rectal intrusion here was for any of the officers’ personal sexual gratification. Rather, the officers’ statements made during and immediately following the incident, as reported by claimant and credited by the Court of Claims, reflect that the sexually related conduct here was part of an overall — albeit objectively excessive — use of force to compel claimant’s compliance with a directive and, thus, was part of the officers’ employment-related function to enforce discipline within the correctional facility (see Correction Law § 137 [5]; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [d] …). … [T]he potential for such abuse of authority, if not the precise vile conduct engaged in here, is expressly addressed in the applicable instructions to correction officers in performing their employment-related disciplinary duties (see generally Correction Law § 137; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2). The record thus establishes defendant’s liability as to that part of the claim for damages related to the rectal intrusion … . Accordingly, we reverse the judgment to the extent that it excluded the same and remit for a new determination of claimant’s damages not inconsistent with this Court’s decision … . C.J. v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02699, Third Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: Here the “rectal intrusion” inflicted by correction officers upon claimant-inmate was part of an attempt to force claimant to comply with their orders. Therefore the conduct was withing the scope of the officers’ employment for which the State can be vicariously liable.
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE EMPANELING OF AN ANONYMOUS JURY CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury:
… [D]efendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when County Court empaneled an anonymous jury. In support of his motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of his trial counsel, who acknowledged that the decision to empanel an anonymous jury “did not sound right” at the time, but that he did not become aware that this was possibly a reversible error until April 2024, when this Court handed down Heidrich [.226 AD3d 1096]. Defendant’s trial counsel further stated that he “had not researched the issue before . . . trial” and that the “failure to object was not a result of any strategy on [his] part.” Although the People contend that the leading case on the anonymous jury issue existed prior to defendant’s trial and had not been expanded upon by Heidrich, the People acknowledge on appeal that “the empaneling of an anonymous jury in violation of CPL 270.15 constitutes a per se denial of a defendant’s right to a fair trial that cannot be subjected to harmless error analysis.” Indeed, a single error may qualify as ineffective assistance where it “compromise[s] a defendant’s right to a fair trial” … , particularly where, like here, the jurors were only identified by numbers and the record fails to reveal whether their names were ever provided to defense counsel — “which materially heightens the risk of prejudice” … . Accordingly, under the unique circumstances of this particular case and where the legal basis for the motion is undisputed through sworn allegations (see CPL 440.30 [3]), we substitute our discretion for that of the motion court and grant defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction … . As such, remittal for a new trial is required. People v Rahaman, 2026 NY Slip Op 02696, Third Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: Defense counsel’s failure to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury can amount to ineffective assistance and warrant a new trial in the absence of preservation.
DEFENDANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING WAS VIOLATED, DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined defendant was denied his fundamental right to be present at resentencing. Defense counsel told the court defendant’s presence was not necessary:
… [A]s to defendant’s assertion that his fundamental right to be present at resentencing was violated, we agree. Here, County Court … received a letter from DOCCS informing the court that defendant’s two sentences of 2 to 4 years for the underlying grand larceny convictions were not in compliance with state law, and, therefore, an amendment was required. The record reflects that defendant was not produced at either the preceding conference or the resentencing proceeding. The record merely indicates that defense counsel stated, orally and in writing, that defendant’s presence was not necessary, yet there is no acknowledgment that defendant was even aware of the resentencing proceeding. As such, defendant’s fundamental right to be present at his resentencing was violated, and the matter must be remitted to County Court for resentencing on the grand larceny convictions (see CPL 380.40…). People v Cobbins, 2026 NY Slip Op 02695, Third Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at resentencing. The error need be preserved and survives defense counsel’s statement that defendant’s presence is not necessary.
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, WHO REVIEWED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, MAY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN DEFENDANT’S PROSECUTION; TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
The Third Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction (CPL 440.10), determined the judge’s law clerk who reviewed the motion may have been involved in the defendant’s prosecution:
“A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality” … . As an extension of the judge that they serve, “a law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function” … . Indeed, law clerks serve as “[n]on-judges who perform judicial functions within the judicial system” … , and therefore a law clerk’s conflict may require the judge they serve to “disqualify in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned’ ” … . Although such disqualification is not automatic, a judge must insulate their law clerk from all matters in which the law clerk had any personal involvement as an attorney during the law clerk’s prior employment and disclose the law clerk’s involvement and insulation to the parties — “even where the law clerk’s involvement in the matter consisted of only a single court appearance” … . In doing so, a judge must prohibit their law clerk from participating in any way with the proceeding, including conferencing, performing legal research or drafting decisions … . The failure to do so constitutes reversible error … . People v Dickinson, 2026 NY Slip Op 02694, Third Dept 4-30-26
Practice Point: Here the “appearance of impropriety” created by the possibility the judge’s law clerk participated in defendant’s prosecution, required reversal of the denial of defendant’s post-trial motion.
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER BRAKE-FAILURE WAS THE CAUSE, THE DEFENDANT MUST DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE WAS UNANTICIPATED AND REASONABLE CARE WAS TAKEN TO KEEP THE BRAKES IN GOOD WORKING ORDER; NOT THE CASE HERE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end traffic accident case should have been granted. Defendants’ claim that the brakes failed did not raise a question of fact:
… [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 to rebut the inference of negligence” … . “A nonnegligent explanation may include a mechanical failure, a sudden, unexplained stop of the vehicle ahead, an unavoidable skidding on wet pavement, or any other reasonable cause” … . Where the defendants lay the blame for the accident on brake failure, it is incumbent upon them to show that the brake failure was unanticipated and that reasonable care was exercised to keep the brakes in good working order … .
Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by submitting his affidavit wherein he averred that his vehicle had been stopped for approximately 10 seconds for a red traffic light when it was struck in the rear by the defendants’ vehicle … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the alleged brake failure was unanticipated and whether reasonable care was exercised to keep the brakes in good working order … . Wesa v Consolidated Bus Tr., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 02690, Second Dept 4-29-26
Practice Point: Where a defendant in a rear-end collision case claims brake failure was the cause, in order to survive summary judgment defendant must demonstrate the failure was unanticipated and reasonable care had been taken to keep the brakes in good working order.
THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOW-BIRTH-WEIGHT AND AUTISM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing the plaintiffs’ verdict in this medical malpractice action and ordering a new trial, determined the expert testimony offered to demonstrate low-birth-weight has a causal relationship with autism should have been precluded:
There was no testimony at the Frye hearing that any of the studies Rubenstein [plaintiffs’ expert] relied upon concluded that premature birth causes autism. Rather, Rubenstein’s testimony established that the exact mechanism of how autism develops is unknown and that studies found a causal inference or association between prematurity and autism, not a causal relationship. Further, there was no testimony elicited at the Frye hearing that demonstrated that the medical community, specifically pediatric neurologists, have accepted that prematurity causes autism or even that a child’s birth at 25 weeks versus 27 weeks increases that child’s risk of later being diagnosed with autism. In any event, the gap between the statistical analysis relied upon by Rubenstein regarding the prevalence of autism in preterm, low-birth-weight infants and his testimony that the pathophysiology and causes of autism are unknown was too great to allow him to opine as to his theory of causation in this action. Based upon the foregoing, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to preclude Rubenstein’s testimony on this theory of causation. Terehoff v Frenkel, 2026 NY Slip Op 02688, Second Dept 4-29-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when observational studies will not support an expert’s testimony about causation. Here the testimony purporting to link low-birth-weight to autism should have been precluded.
THE DREXEL UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM (CO-OP) ARRANGES FOR STUDENTS TO WORK FOR PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS FOR COLLEGE CREDIT; DREXEL DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISION OVER THE STUDENTS TO BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY WORKPLACE NEGLIGENCE ON THE STUDENTS’ PART (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Drexel University was not the employer of two students who were operating a forklift which allegedly caused injury to plaintiff. The students were participating in a Drexel Cooperative Education Program. The Second Department found that Drexel was not exercising sufficient supervision and control over the students such that Drexel could be held vicariously liable for the forklift accident:
… [T]he Drexel Cooperative Education Program [the co-op] … permits students to apply for and obtain paid work experience with participating employers for a period of up to six months. * * *
Drexel demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked the requisite control over the students’ work and conduct during their employment with Jaidan [a participating co-op employer] to give rise to either an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship. Drexel’s evidence demonstrated that it provided an online recruiting platform on which students searched job descriptions submitted by participating employers and applied for jobs with those employers. Drexel also required that students work 32 hours per week to receive academic credit for the co-op, that students follow Drexel’s code of conduct during the co-op, and that students complete a survey at the end of the co-op to report on their experience. However, the co-op employers decided whether to hire a particular student, paid the co-op students’ salaries, and provided IRS documents. Additionally, employers set the students’ work schedule and were responsible for supervising and training the students. While participating employers were encouraged to communicate with Drexel if there were performance issues so that Drexel could provide support, the participating employer had the authority to terminate the students’ employment. During the time that the students worked at their co-op location, they would have little to no contact with Drexel, which, in the case of the students at issue here, was located approximately 130 miles from where the students were living and working for [the co-op employer]. Sager v Frontpage Invs., 2026 NY Slip Op 02686, Second Dept 4-29-26
Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the level of supervision required for an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship which will trigger vicarious liability.
AN ATTORNEY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY AN AGENT FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PROCESS; HERE DEFENDANTS’ FORMER ATTORNEY WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS’ BEHALF; PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS NOT OBTAINED (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ former attorney did not have authority to accept service on defendants’ behalf. Personal jurisdiction over defendants was therefore never attained:
”Service of process must be made in strict compliance with statutory methods for effecting personal service upon a natural person pursuant to CPLR 308″ … . CPLR 308(3) permits service upon an individual to be made “by delivering the summons within the state to the agent for service of the person to be served designated under rule 318” … . “An attorney is not automatically considered the agent of his client for the purposes of the service of process” … . “[A]n attorney who agrees to accept service on behalf of individual defendants does not automatically become an agent for the acceptance of process, in the absence of proof that his clients actually knew of that representation” … . Here, the plaintiff served the summons and complaint upon the defendant’s former attorney, who lacked authority to accept service on behalf of the defendant. Thus, personal jurisdiction over the defendant was never obtained. Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Klamm, 2026 NY Slip Op 02661, Second Dept 4-29-26
Practice Point: An attorney is not automatically an agent of his client for service of process. Here defendants’ former counsel was not authorized to accept service on their behalf.