You are here: / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO...

Search Results

/ , , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY TO DETERMINE THE WAIVER WAS VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; THE INFORMATION IN THE WARRANT DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have summarily denied defendant’s request to represent himself and the motion to suppress evidence retrieved from the defendant’s cell phone should have been granted:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

… [T]he warrant was supported by [the investigator’s] affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 05152, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge must conduct a colloquy to ensure the waiver of the right to counsel is voluntary and intelligent.

Practice Point: Here the search warrant did not demonstrate probable cause to believe the search of defendant’s cell phone would reveal evidence of criminal possession of a controlled substance.

 

/

NEW YORK STATE’S SELF-FUNDED GOVERNMENT HEALTH PLAN FOR NEW YORK STATE’S PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, THE “EMPIRE PLAN,” IS SUBJECT TO THE INDEPENDENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION (IDR) PROCEDURES IN THE FEDERAL “NO SURPRISES ACT” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the state’s self-funded government health plan for New York State’s public employees (the Empire Plan) is subject to the independent dispute resolution (IDR) procedures in the federal “No Surprises Act:”

In 2014, the Legislature passed the “Surprise Bill Law” … which protects insureds from being billed directly for healthcare services they did not know were being performed by an out-of-network provider … . Under the law, the “health care plan” of an insured who receives a surprise bill is liable for the costs of the out-of-network services and may attempt to negotiate a reimbursement amount that is less than the amount billed … . “If the health care plan’s attempts to negotiate . . . do[ ] not result in a resolution of the payment dispute . . . , the health care plan shall pay the non-participating provider an amount the health care plan determines is reasonable for the health care services rendered, except for the insured’s co-payment, coinsurance or deductible” … . The law also contains an independent dispute resolution (… IDR) process to address payment disputes, which may be invoked by “[e]ither the health care plan or the non-participating provider” if certain conditions are met … . When invoked, the IDR process assigns the dispute to an independent arbitrator to determine the reasonable fees for services rendered by an out-of-network provider utilizing the factors outlined in Financial Services Law § 604 and the FAIR Health benchmarking database * * *

… [A]fter the US Congress passed the federal No Surprises Act in 2020 … — a statute substantively similar to the state’s Surprise Bill Law — the Empire Plan began using the IDR process set forth in the federal law, which uses different benchmarks to determine the reasonable fees to be paid to an out-of-network provider by an insured’s health care plan … . Joseph v Corso, 2024 NY Slip Op 05170, Third Dept 10-17-24

 

/ , , , ,

FAMILY COURT’S RULING THAT A MASSACHUSETTS COURT WAS THE MORE CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY MATTER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS OR ANY TESTIMONY OR SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES; THE RECORD WAS THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court’s ruling that a Massachusetts court was the most convenient forum for this custody matter, determined Family Court’s failure to place on the record the factors it considered in making its ruling, combined with absence of any testimony, rendered the record inadequate for review, requiring remittal:

“Where, as here, a New York court has continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter, it may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it determines that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another state is a more appropriate forum” … . A court is obliged to consider eight statutory factors in rendering that determination, and “[t]hose statutory factors include (1) ‘whether domestic violence or mistreatment or abuse of a child or sibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child,’ (2) the length of time the children have resided in another state, (3) the distance between the two states in question, (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties, (5) any agreement among the parties regarding jurisdiction, (6) the nature and location of relevant evidence, including testimony from the children, (7) the ability of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the relevant evidence, and (8) the familiarity of each court with the relevant facts and issues” (… Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [2] [a]). Notably, the “determination depends on the specific issues to be decided in the pending litigation, and must involve consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute” … .

… Family Court did not explicitly refer to the statutory factors during its conference with the Massachusetts court, which was essentially a back-and-forth between the judges on issues that included the language of the prior custody orders, the nature of the cases presently before them and the differences between New York and Massachusetts laws governing custody proceedings. The parties were not invited to, and did not, offer any testimony regarding the relative convenience of the two forums. Matter of Mark AA. v Susan BB., 2024 NY Slip Op 05173, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court did not make an adequate record to support its ruling that a Massachusetts court was the more convenient forum for this custody matter. There were no submissions by the parties and there was no testimony. The statutory factors were not explicitly referenced. The matter was remitted.

 

/ ,

THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT JUSTICE DD, A SEVERELY DISABLED MAN, REMAIN AT HIS CURRENT PLACEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT BE MOVED TO A NEW PLACEMENT IN NEW YORK; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OPWDD), NEARLY A YEAR LATER, REJECTED THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERED THE NEW PLACEMENT; BECAUSE JUSTICE DD’S CONDITION HAD WORSENED DURING THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the determination of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). The Commissioner of the OPWDD rejected the hearing officer’s findings and ordered that Justice DD, the disabled man, be removed from his current placement in Massachusetts and placed in New York. The Third Department held that the nearly one-year delay between the hearing officer’s recommendation that Justice DD remain placed in Massachusetts and the Commissioner’s rejection of the recommendation, during which Justice DD’s condition had deteriorated, required annulment of the Commissioner’s ruling:

… [D]espite the Legislature’s use of the word “shall” in specifying that respondent [the Commissioner] is to issue a determination within 30 days of adjournment of the hearing, this language was merely directory based upon the absence of any “specific consequence to flow from the administrative agency’s failure to act in violation of the time limit” … .

“When an administrative body fails to comply with procedural provisions that are merely directory, relief will be granted only if petitioners show that substantial prejudice resulted from the noncompliance” … . We find that petitioners have made such a showing here and, as a result, respondent “must face the consequences of [her] delays” … . Matter of Hannah DD. v Neifeld, 2024 NY Slip Op 05167, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The regulation that requires the Commissioner of the OPWDD to make a ruling on the placement of a disabled person within 30 days of the adjournment of the hearing is merely “directory,” not “mandatory.” However, if, as here, the failure to issue the ruling within 30 days results in prejudice to the disabled person, the delay is a valid ground for annulment of the Commissioner’s ruling.​

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined defendant had a right to be present during the Sandoval/Molineux discussions concerning the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions. The fact that the judge announced his rulings in defendant’s presence was not enough:

We reverse defendant’s conviction and grant him a new trial. The trial court held a conference in defendant’s absence on the prosecution’s motion to cross examine him on his prior criminal conduct, in violation of his right to be present (see CPL 260.20 …). The court held a subsequent hearing on the motion in defendant’s presence. However, the court did not hear arguments on the merits, did not confirm defendant’s understanding of the underlying facts or the merits of the application, and merely announced its decision. Thus, the subsequent proceeding did not provide for defendant’s meaningful participation in the determination of the merits of the motion and did not cure the earlier violation. People v Sharp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05132, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s right to be present at trial includes the right to be present during the arguments about the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions under Sandoval/Molineux. Defendant’s presence when the judge announced the Sandoval/Molineux rulings is not sufficient.

 

/ , ,

HERE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS WAS NOT “ENGAGED IN HIGHWAY WORK” WHEN HE COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF; THEREFORE THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE STANDARD, NOT THE HIGHER “RECKLESS” STANDARD FOR HIGHWAY WORKERS IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, APPLIED TO THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division and awarding summary judgment to plaintiff, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the defendant, Simone, the Superintendent of Highways for the Town of Carmel, was not engaged in highway work when he failed to look to his right before pulling out of an intersection and collided with plaintiff’s car. Simone had driven to a vantage point to see how much snow had fallen on the town’s roads and had ordered the highway department employees to salt the roads. He was on his way back to his office when the accident happened:

… [T]itle VII of the Vehicle and Traffic Law sets out a uniform set of traffic regulations, or “rules of the road,” which generally “apply to drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the United States, this state, or any county, city, town, district, or any other political subdivision of the state” … . Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b), however, provides that those rules “shall not apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work on a highway” … . Although such parties remain liable for “the consequences of their reckless disregard for the safety of others,” they bear no liability for ordinary negligence … . * * *

… [A]ccording to Simone’s own deposition testimony, the accident occurred after he had fully completed his assessment of roadway conditions at his bellwether location and mobilized his entire team to salt the town’s roads. At the time of the accident, Simone was merely using the road to return to work. Although he testified that he saw a slushy accumulation of snow to his left shortly before the collision occurred, he took no action in response to observing that condition. Indeed, he testified that as he pulled into the intersection where the collision occurred, there was nothing keeping his attention drawn to his left and he was no longer looking at the condition.

Because the uncontested evidence demonstrates that Simone was not actually engaged in work on a highway at the time the accident occurred, defendants are not entitled to the protections of [Vehicle and Traffic Law] section 1103 (b). Orellana v Town of Carmel, 2024 NY Slip Op 05131, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here ordinary negligence rules applied to the Superintendent of Highways when he had an accident returning to his office after assessing how much snow had fallen. At the time of the accident he had already ordered his employees to salt the roads. He therefore was not “engaged in highway work” when he collided with plaintiff.

 

/ , , ,

TENURED TEACHERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE BEING PLACED ON LEAVE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF VACCINATION AGAINST COVID; HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, BUT NOT WHERE, AS HERE, TEACHERS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissals of the tenured New York City teachers’ petitions, determined the teachers were properly placed on leave without pay for failing to submit proof of vaccination against COVID. The petitioners’ argument that they were entitled to a hearing pursuant to the Education Law prior to being placed on leave was rejected because the teachers were not being disciplined. Rather, they failed to comply with a condition of employment:

Petitioners were not entitled to the hearing procedures outlined in Education Law §§ 3020 and 3020-a before being placed on leave without pay. These statutory provisions establish a detailed and comprehensive system for conducting disciplinary hearings for tenured teachers. While tenured teachers have a right to these statutory hearings when faced with disciplinary proceedings, these provisions are not applicable to petitioners, who were placed on leave without pay for failure to comply with the vaccine mandate, a condition of employment.

This Court has long distinguished between disciplinary proceedings and employment conditions for employees entitled to statutory civil service protections, and has held that statutory hearings are not warranted when employment eligibility conditions are enforced … . Matter of O’Reilly v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 05130, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: The Education Law requires hearings before tenured teachers can be disciplined. But no hearing is required before placing teachers on leave for failure to comply with a condition of employment (here the submission of proof of vaccination against COVID).

 

/ , ,

THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVITS; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE THE BANK DID NOT HAVE STANDING (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action failed to prove it had standing to foreclose because the necessary business records were not attached to the foundational affidavits. The court noted that Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the defendants did not prove the bank did not have standing:

“Although [t]he foundation for admission of a business record usually is provided by the testimony of the custodian, the author or some other witness familiar with the practices and procedures of the particular business, it is the business record itself, not the foundational affidavit, that serves as proof of the matter asserted” … . Without the introduction of the records themselves, “a witness’s testimony as to the contents of the records is inadmissible hearsay” … .

Here, the plaintiff relied on the affidavits from Jackson and Smith to demonstrate that it had possession of the note prior to commencing this action. The defendants correctly contend that neither Jackson nor Smith attached any business records to their affidavits. Thus, the assertions of Jackson and Smith that the plaintiff had possession of the note prior to commencing this action were inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to establish, prima facie, the plaintiff’s standing … . Bank of N.Y. v Levy, 2024 NY Slip Op 05085, Second Dept 10-16-24

Similar failure of proof in the context of the confirmation of the referee’s report in a foreclosure proceeding, i.e., the failure to produce the business records relied upon by the affiant. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quaranta, 2024 NY Slip Op 05090, Second Dept 10-16-24

​Practice Point: In a foreclosure proceeding, the failure to attach or produce the business records relied upon by an affiant renders the affidavit inadmissible hearsay.

Practice Point: The bank’s failure to prove it has standing to foreclose (due to the failure to attach the relevant business records to a foundational affidavit) does not entitle defendants to summary judgment on the standing issue. Defendants must affirmatively prove the bank does not have standing to warrant summary judgment in their favor.

/ , , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk-level assessment, determined defendant’s attorney’s request for an adjournment to allow review of documents relevant to a downward departure should have been granted:

… County Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s request for an adjournment. The defendant’s open release date two days after the hearing was not a sufficient reason to deny the defendant’s request for an adjournment (see Correction Law § 168-l[8]). Further, the documents discussed by the defendant, including documents relating to his participation in treatment programs, may be relevant to support an application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. “A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of ‘(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the . . . Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence'” … . “In making the determinations the court shall review . . . any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender” … . “An offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” … . As the documents cited by the defendant were potentially material, the adjournment request was not made for the purposes of delay, and the necessity of the request was not due to a failure of due diligence, the court should have granted the request to adjourn the SORA hearing so that the defendant’s counsel could review the documents and determine whether they should be offered to the court as evidence at the hearing. People v Eldridge, 2024 NY Slip Op 05117, Second Dept 10-16-24

Practice Point: Here defense counsel’s request for an adjournment of the SORA risk-level proceeding to allow review of documents which may be relevant to a downward departure should have been granted. Defense counsel was not able to meet with the defendant until 15 minutes before the hearing, the request was not made to delay, and the fact that defendant had an upcoming open release date was not a sufficient reason to deny an adjournment.

 

/ , , ,

A NURSING HOME CAN BRING A PLENARY ACTION SOUNDING IN BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE AGENCY WHICH DENIED MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR A RESIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff nursing home (Kings Harbor) properly brought a plenary action against the agency which denied Medicaid coverage for a resident. Plaintiff’s remedy was not limited to bringing an Article 78 proceeding on behalf of the resident. The action against the agency properly sounded in breach of contract:

“It is well established that a nursing home may, as here, bring a plenary action in its own right against the agency designated to determine Medicaid eligibility” … . The plaintiff’s “private financial interest in recovering expenditures rendered creates a relationship of purchaser and seller, thereby permitting it to bring a plenary action in its own right against the governmental agency designated to declare eligibility” … .

Furthermore, the plaintiff is not bound by the resident’s failure to exercise his separate right to an administrative appeal of the denial of Medicaid benefits … . Thus, the authorizations executed by the resident allowing the plaintiff to represent him “in all matters pertaining to [his] Medicaid Assistance application and follow up activities” did not impair the plaintiff’s right to commence its own plenary action independent from the pursuit of administrative review … .

“[I]nasmuch as [the] plaintiff was not bound by the administrative determination denying the [resident’s] application for medical assistance, and has commenced a plenary action in its own right, [the] plaintiff is not bound by the four-month Statute of Limitations contained in CPLR 217” … . * * *

… [T]he purchaser/seller relationship between a nursing home provider and the governmental agency designated to declare Medicaid eligibility is construed as a contractual relationship, the alleged breach of which gives rise to a breach of contract cause of action … . Kings Harbor Multicare Ctr. v Townes, 2024 NY Slip Op 05093, Second Dept 10-16-24

Practice Point: An action by a nursing home against the agency which denied Medicaid coverage for a resident sounds in breach of contract and is properly brought as a plenary action, not as an Article 78 proceeding.

 

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