You are here: / / THE JUDGE ADOPTED A DECISION DRAFTED BY COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DETERMINATION...
, ,

THE JUDGE ADOPTED A DECISION DRAFTED BY COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE AND THEREBY VITIATED THE PURPOSE SERVED BY JUDICIAL OPINIONS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT VACATED THE JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the judgment, determined the judge erred by adopting a proposed decision drafted by counsel as the final determination of the case:

… [T]he court erred in adopting, almost verbatim, the proposed decision drafted by petitioners’ counsel as the final determination in this case … . “When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own, the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that [respondent] CME could or should have objected to the court’s error, we would exercise our discretion to correct that error notwithstanding CME’s failure to object. We therefore vacate the judgment in its entirety and remit the matter to Supreme Court for consideration and determination of any pending issue or motion. Bruckel v Town of Conesus, 2022 NY Slip Op 00580, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER ABANDONED THE CHILD, THE PERMANENT NEGLECT FINDING, HOWEVER, WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE REFUSAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Police-Monitored, Recorded Phone Conversation Between Minor Victim and Defendant Was Admissible
Suppression Ruling Reversed—Pat Down Search Justified for Officer Safety​
Trial Court’s Refusal to Allow Defense Witness to Be Called Required Reversal 
A PROSECUTION WITNESS’S WRITTEN STATEMENT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE JUDGE’S USE OF THE PHRASE “POTENTIALLY AIDS” INSTEAD OF “INTENTIONALLY AIDS” IN THE ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY JURY INSTRUCTION PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH THE JURY INSTRUCTION ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER PROPERLY ADMITTED IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL TO SHOW LARCENOUS INTENT.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A NURSING HOME,... DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE (NO FORCE) WHEN HE WAS 18 IN...