You are here: / / PURPORTED WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL NOT VALID, NOTHING ON THE RECORD.

PURPORTED WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL NOT VALID, NOTHING ON THE RECORD.

The Second Department determined the sex offender did not validly waive his right to a jury trial. Although there was evidence he intended to waive a jury trial (emails) there was no on-the-record waiver:

The State moves to enlarge the record on appeal to include emails from the appellant’s trial counsel which, the State contends, demonstrate that the appellant validly waived his right to a jury trial. However, in Matter of State of New York v Ted B. (132 AD3d 28), we held that a respondent in a Mental Hygiene article 10 proceeding may validly waive the right to a jury trial only where an on-the-record colloquy shows that the respondent made a knowing and voluntary waiver of such right, after an opportunity for consultation with his or her attorney. As an alternative to a personal appearance in court, a respondent may participate in such a colloquy via video conferencing  … . While the State urges us to find a valid waiver based on emails from the appellant’s trial counsel, such off-the-record communications, regardless of content, are insufficient to ensure that a respondent’s decision to “forgo his [or her] state constitutional and statutory right to a jury trial is the product of an informed and intelligent judgment and, thereby, protect the important liberty interests at stake in article 10 proceedings'” … . Matter of State of New York v Jesus M., 2017 NY Slip Op 01557, 2nd Dept 3-1-17

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PURPORTED WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL NOT VALID, NOTHING ON THE RECORD)/JURY TRIAL (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PURPORTED WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL NOT VALID, NOTHING ON THE RECORD)

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION THE MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH PROOF MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY HAS TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT AND HAS CONDUCTED A TIMELY INVESTIGATION INTO THE ALLEGATIONS, LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO FILE ON TIME (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING DEFENDANT AS ONE OF THE ROBBERS WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BUT DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PARKED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE VIOLATED TRAFFIC RULES RE: PARKING SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CLOSE PROXIMITY IS NOT ENOUGH.
THE MEANING OF ‘SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE’ SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY RESTRICTED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE POLICY... ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED...