You are here: / / THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, WHO REVIEWED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE...
, ,

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.

 

You might also like
RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA DEAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers Described—Collateral Estoppel Precluded the District from Raising the “Faithless Servant Doctrine” in a Related Lawsuit Because the Arbitrator Concluded the Doctrine Did Not Apply
INTERPRETER WAS AN EMPLOYEE, NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
Worker’s Compensation Award Made by Arbitrator Pursuant to an Authorized Dispute Resolution Program Is Reviewed Under the Appellate Court’s Limited Arbitration-Review Powers (Not Under the Usual “Substantial Evidence” Standard)
DEFENDANT HAD SERVED HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE BY THE TIME THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED, THE IMPOSITION OF MORE PRISON TIME UPON HIS SUBSEQUENT PLEA TO THE ASSAULT SECOND CHARGE VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT REQUESTING TIME SERVED, BECAUSE THE ERROR AFFECTED THE VOLUNTARINESS OF DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA THE WAIVER OF APPEAL DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A MAKESHIFT PLATFORM ON A LULL (FORKLIFT) USED TO REACH ELEVATED AREAS; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE HOMEOWNER WHO LEASED THE LULL AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF’S WORK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS NEVER INTERPOSED AN ANSWER SO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY DENIED, MATTER REMITTED SO PLAINTIFF CAN MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR BODILY INJURY INTENDED OR EXPECTED BY THE INSURED; HERE THE INSURED UNINTENTIONALLY STRUCK COLE, WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP A FIGHT BETWEEN THE INSURED AND A THIRD PERSON; BECAUSE THE INJURY TO COLE WAS UNINTENDED, THE INSURER WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE INSURED IN COLE’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED (THIRD 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

IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER...