You are here: / THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE AND DEFENDANT’S LIMITED HISTORY OF ALCOHOL...

Search Results

/ ,

THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE AND DEFENDANT’S LIMITED HISTORY OF ALCOHOL ABUSE DID NOT WARRANT A PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING CONSENT TO SEARCHES FOR WEAPONS, DRUGS AND OTHER CONTRABAND (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department struck the probation condition requiring defendant’s consent to searches for weapons, drugs and other contraband:

The court improperly imposed, as a condition of defendant’s probation, a requirement that he consent to a search by his probation officer of his person, vehicle, or home for weapons, drugs, drug paraphernalia, and other contraband. Defendant was not armed with a weapon during the underlying offense and had no history of violence or use of weapons … . Defendant did not have a history of abusing illicit substances and was not assessed as being in need of drug abuse treatment … . Although defendant admitted to a limited history of alcohol abuse, before and at the time of the instant offense, the consent-search condition, as written, “is not limited to conform” to the “certain limited circumstances where alcohol becomes contraband for the purposes of” that condition … . People v Aquirre, 2026 NY Slip Op 00025, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: The First Department struck a probation condition requiring consent to searches for weapons, drugs and other contraband, which was not justified by the underlying offense or defendant’s limited history of alcohol abuse.

 

/ , , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION ON AN EVIDENTIARY GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure action should not have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on an evidentiary ground which was not raised by the defendant:

Plaintiff … moved for summary judgment, submitting an affirmation by counsel, to which the loan documents were annexed, and an affidavit from the same first vice president, which did not attach the subject loan documents. The affiant attested that defendant failed to make monthly payments and that defendant owed plaintiff $2,302,848.55 through June 15, 2024. He did not attest that he based his knowledge of the default and amount due on his review of any records. Defendant did not oppose plaintiff’s motion.

… Although it is the movant’s burden to establish its entitlement to summary judgment and the failure of the nonmovant to oppose summary judgment does not obviate the movant’s need to establish its prima facie case … , “a court should not examine the admissibility of evidence submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment unless the nonmoving party has specifically raised that issue in its opposition to the motion” … . This is because courts “are not in the business of blindsiding litigants, who expect us to decide their appeals on rationales advanced by the parties, not arguments their adversaries never made” … .

On its original motion, plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by establishing, through the affidavit of a first vice president who was also the loan officer in charge of the loan’s collection and enforcement, the existence of the consolidated note, consolidated mortgage, and the existence and amount of defendant’s default … . Defendant did not oppose the motion and thus did not raise any objections as to the admissibility of plaintiff’s evidence, and the court should not have raised evidentiary objections sua sponte … . Valley Natl. Bank v Community Prot. Church of Co-op City, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00036, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: A judge should not, sua sponte, deny a motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the nonmoving party.

 

/ , ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING ASSOCIATION WITH GANGS WAS STRICKEN BECAUSE THE CONDITION WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE OR DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND A LACK OF PRESERVATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, striking a probation condition, determined the condition prohibiting defendant’s association with gangs was not related to defendant’s rehabilitation: The First Department noted that the issue survives a waiver of appeal and a lack of preservation:

Defendant’s appeal waiver does not foreclose her challenges to the legality of the conditions of her probation under Penal Law § 65.10(1) and do not require preservation … . …

… [T]he probation condition requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation” must be stricken because there is no evidence that defendant’s actions were connected to gang activity or that she had a history of gang membership, rendering this condition neither reasonably related to her rehabilitation nor necessary to ensure that she leads a law-abiding life ( … Penal Law § 65.10[1]). People v Johnson, 2026 NY Slip Op 00029, First Dept 1-6-25

Practice Point: The appellate courts are striking probation conditions not shown to be relevant to the underlying offense or criminal history.

Same issue and result in People v Seymore, 2026 NY Slip Op 00028, First Dept 1-6-25

 

/ , ,

HERE DEFENDANT’S NON-LAWYER HUSBAND REPRESENTED HER AT THE FORECLOSURE TRIAL; THE FACT THAT THE HUSBAND HAD A POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING HIM TO ACT ON HIS WIFE’S BEHALF DID NOT AUTHORIZE HIM TO PRACTICE LAW; ALTHOUGH REPRESENTATION BY A NON-LAWYER DOES NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS A “NULLITY,” HERE THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY HER HUSBAND’S REPRESENTATION AND THE JUDGE ERRED BY NOT ALLOWING THE HUSBAND TO TESTIFY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment of foreclosure and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was prejudiced by her non-attorney husband’s representation of her in the trial. Although the husband, John Chae, had a power of attorney authorizing him to act on his wife’s behalf, the power of attorney did not authorize him to practice law. In addition, Supreme Court erred by not allowing the husband to testify:

“‘New York law prohibits the practice of law in this State on behalf of anyone other than himself or herself by a person who is not an admitted member of the Bar, regardless of the authority purportedly conferred by execution of a power of attorney'” … . “The designation as an attorney-in-fact under General Obligations Law §§ 5-1502A-N does not confer upon a designated agent the right to provide representation as an attorney-at-law, and ‘cannot be read to displace the provisions of Judiciary Law § 478′” … .

In this case, none of the exceptions to Judiciary Law § 478 apply. Moreover, John Chae’s marriage to the defendant did not permit him to appear pro se on her behalf … . “As a general rule, the fact that a party has been represented by a person who was not authorized or admitted to practice law under the Judiciary Law—whether a disbarred attorney or a person practicing law without a license—does not create a ‘nullity’ or render all prior proceedings void per se” … . Here, however, the record demonstrates that the defendant was prejudiced as a result of being represented by an unauthorized attorney at the trial … . Further, the Supreme Court erred in precluding the defendant from testifying at the trial (see CPLR 321[a]). Ventus Props., LLC v Mo Chae, 2025 NY Slip Op 07429, Second Dept 12-31-25

 

/ , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT USED DRUGS TO EXCESS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE OR IN THE PAST; THE 15 POINT ASSESSMENT UNDER RISK FACTOR 11 WAS THEREFORE ELIMINATED, REDUCING THE RISK LEVEL FROM THREE TO TWO (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reducing the SORA risk assessment from level three to level two, determined the evidence did not support assessing 15 points for using drugs to excess:

“In order to support the assessment of points under risk factor 11, . . . the People must show by clear and convincing evidence that the offender used drugs or alcohol in excess either at the time of the crime or repeatedly in the past” … . Here, the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s marijuana use on the date of the offense was excessive or “causally linked to the sexual assault” … . The People’s evidence was also insufficient to establish that the defendant used marijuana or other substances in excess repeatedly in the past … . Without the assessment of points under risk factor 11, the defendant’s point total was 100, which is within the range for a presumptive level two designation. People v Gregory, 2025 NY Slip Op 07420, Second Dept 12-31-25

 

/ , ,

THE PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED REVERSAL AFTER TRIAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment (without prejudice), determined the prosecutor erroneously failed to explain the justification defense to the grand jury. Although defendant had a knife, there was evidence the victim had a gun and was the initial aggressor:

If the District Attorney fails to instruct the grand jury on a defense that would eliminate a needless or unfounded prosecution, the proceeding is defective, mandating dismissal of the indictment (see id. § 210.35[5] …). “‘[A] prosecutor should instruct the [g]rand [j]ury on any complete defense supported by the evidence which has the potential for eliminating a needless or unfounded prosecution'” … . “Where the evidence before the grand jury supports it, the charge on justification must be given” … .

“In determining whether the evidence supports a justification defense, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant” … . Here, a surveillance video shown to the grand jury indicated that the defendant approached Graves inside a store while holding a knife. Nevertheless, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant was not the initial aggressor, Graves pointed a gun at the defendant, the defendant stabbed Graves to defend himself from the imminent use of deadly physical force against him, and the defendant could not safely retreat (see Penal Law § 35.15[2][a] …). People v Mead, 2025 NY Slip Op 07412, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Where the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant satisfies the criteria for a defense to the offense, the prosecutor must so instruct the grand jury. Failure to do so renders the grand jury proceeding defective and the indictment must be dismissed, even after a conviction at trial.

 

/ , ,

THE JUDGE’S RESTRICTIONS ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENSE “FALSE CONFESSION” EXPERT, AND THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “PROMISE BY POLICE” JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge erroneously restricted the defense false-confession-expert’s testimony and erroneously denied defendant’s request for a “Promise by Police” jury instruction (defendant testified the police made promises to him during the 12-hour interrogation):​

… [T]he court limited the scope of the defendant’s expert’s testimony by precluding the mention of a study by the Innocence Project, which found that of the more than 300 people who had been, at the time, exonerated by DNA, approximately 25% of those people had confessed, and a study conducted at the University of Michigan Law School, where researchers found that of the 1,405 exonerations that took place between 1989 and 2012, 10% of the people had falsely confessed, and people with mental illness or intellectual disability were overrepresented in those who had done so. Here, the court improperly concluded that those studies were not relevant … .

…[T]he studies were relevant to illustrate the risk of false confessions, and specifically, a study related to mental disability is proper in this case where the defendant was found to have an IQ lower then 93% of individuals in his age group. … [T]he court limited the scope of the expert’s testimony as to existing research on false confessions … . The court further compounded this error by denying admission of a portion of the defendant’s expert’s curriculum vitae, ruling, without basis, that the titles of certain articles listed therein would be inappropriate for a jury to see, thereby depriving the jury of information relevant to the credibility and weight of the expert’s testimony … . Moreover, these errors allowed the People’s expert to testify that research in the area of false confessions is scant and that the study of false confessions and the evaluation of psychological vulnerabilities was a “primitive subdiscipline.” … [T]he court also scheduled the trial on a date that the defendant’s expert was not available. Although the use of video recorded testimony is not error, “[l]ive televised testimony is certainly not the equivalent of in-person testimony” … . As such, the jury was able to observe the in-court testimony of the People’s expert, but was only able to observe the defendant’s expert on a television screen, and even that testimony was edited to exclude the aforementioned studies. People v Grigoroff, 2025 NY Slip Op 07400, Second Dept 12-31-25

​Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how restrictions placed on an expert’s testimony can create the impression there is little or no support for the expert’s conclusions in the relevant literature. Here, because the defense expert was not allowed to discuss the studies upon which his “false confession” conclusions were based, the People’s expert was able to tell the jury “false confession” research is “scant” and is a “primitive subdiscipline.” In addition, the trial was scheduled when the People’s expert could attend, but the defense expert could not, forcing the defense expert to submit videotaped testimony.

 

/ , ,

NOXIOUS ODORS FROM A PLASTIC-MANUFACTURING FACILITY CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE THE ODORS HAVE NOT CAUSED PHYSICAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE (ECONOMIC LOSS IS NOT SUFFICIENT); THE NOXIOUS ODORS DO SUPPORT A PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION EVEN THOUGH A LARGE NUMBER OF PRIVATE CITIZENS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ARE AFFECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this class action lawsuit, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, over a concurrence and partial dissent, determined (1) noxious odors emanating from defendant’s plastic-manufacturing facility are properly the subject of a private nuisance cause of action on behalf of a collective of individuals, and (2) the noxious odors are not a proper subject for a negligence cause of action because no tangible physical harm or property damage was alleged (diminution in property value is not enough):

“‘To recover in negligence [or gross negligence], a plaintiff must sustain either physical injury or property damage resulting from the defendant’s alleged negligent conduct . . . This limitation serves a number of important purposes: it defines the class of persons who actually possess a cause of action, provides a basis for the factfinder to determine whether a litigant actually possesses a claim, and protects court dockets from being clogged with frivolous and unfounded claims'” … .

“Although [the] defendant undoubtedly owes surrounding property owners a duty of care to avoid injuring them . . . , the question is whether [the] plaintiff[s] sustained the required injury” … . “‘[T]he economic loss resulting from the diminution of [the] plaintiff[s’] property values is not, standing alone, sufficient to sustain a negligence claim under New York law'” … . * * *

“‘The elements of a private nuisance cause of action are: (1) an interference substantial in nature, (2) intentional in origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failing to act'” … . …

A private nuisance cause of action is one where “[t]he rights invaded . . . are not suffered by the [plaintiffs] in their status as citizens or part of the public” … . Rather, the harm is suffered by the plaintiffs “in their private capacity in respect of an interference with the comfortable enjoyment of their homes,” which does not become a public nuisance “merely because a considerable number are injured” … . Dudley v API Indus., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07379, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Noxious odors do not support a negligence cause of action because there is no physical injury of property damage (diminished property value is not enough).

Practice Point: Noxious odors support a private nuisance cause of action, even where a large number of private citizens are affected.

 

/ , , , ,

WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING DEPENDED ON WHETHER THERE WAS AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT; THE EXISTENCE OF AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” IS A FACT-INTENSIVE INQUIRY WHICH, WHEN IN DISPUTE, REQUIRES A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should have ordered a hearing to determine whether the respondent had an “intimate relationship” with the petitioner such that a family offense proceeding alleging identify theft could be brought by the petitioner against the respondent. Whether an “intimate relationship” exist is a fact-intensive inquiry and when it is in dispute a hearing should be held:

Family Court’s jurisdiction in family offense proceedings, as defined by Family Ct Act § 812 (1), extends to enumerated offenses occurring between members of the same family or household, including those “persons who are not related by consanguinity or affinity and who are or have been in an intimate relationship regardless of whether such persons have lived together at any time” … . While the statute does not define “intimate relationship,” it expressly excludes casual acquaintances and ordinary social or business associations … . In determining whether an intimate relationship exists, courts consider, among other things, “the nature or type of relationship, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual in nature; the frequency of interaction between the persons; and the duration of the relationship” … . Additionally, “the relationship should be direct [and] not one based upon a connection with a third party” … . Whether an intimate relationship exists is a fact-intensive inquiry to be resolved on a case-by-case basis … . When the existence of an intimate relationship is in dispute, or the record is insufficient to permit determination as a matter of law, Family Court should conduct a hearing before dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction … . Matter of McCarra v Chiaramonte, 2025 NY Slip Op 07352, Third Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Family Court has jurisdiction over family offense proceedings involving unrelated parties if there exists an “intimate relationship” between the parties. Determining whether there is an “intimate relationship” is a fact-intensive inquiry usually requires a hearing.

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT REHABILITATION FACILITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) RE: PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-RELATED INFECTION AND DEATH (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the suit against defendant rehabilitation facility alleging plaintiff’s decedent was infected with COVID at the facility, causing her death, should have been dismissed. The defendant facility was immune from suit pursuant to the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA):

… [T]he EDTPA initially provided, with certain exceptions, that a health care facility shall have immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, for any harm or damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission in the course of arranging for or providing health care services as long as three conditions were met: [1] the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; [2] the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State’s directives; and [3] the services were arranged or provided in good faith” … . * * *

The defendant’s submissions, including, inter alia, its various COVID-19 pandemic-related policies and protocols, the directives issued by the New York State Department of Health and the New York State Department of Health and Human Services, and the decedent’s medical records, conclusively established that the defendant was entitled to immunity as the three requirements for immunity under the EDTPA were satisfied (see Public Health Law former § 3082[1] …). Costiera v MMR Care Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 07373, Second Dept 12-31-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation of the criteria for the COVID-related immunity afforded health care facilities pursuant to the EDTPA.​

Similar issues and result in Byington v North Sea Assoc., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07372, Second Dept 12-31-25

 

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