You are here: / Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy

Search Results

/ , ,

Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy

In precluding a retrial on double jeopardy grounds after the trial judge ordered a mistrial over defendant’s objection (granting the Article 78 prohibition petition), the Second Department explained the relevant criteria:

In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches (see CPL 40.30[1][b];..), and the defendant has a “valued right to have his [or her] trial completed by a particular tribunal” ….  ” [W]hen a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, double jeopardy will, as a general rule, bar retrial'”…. “However, the right to have one’s case decided by the first empaneled jury is not absolute, and a mistrial granted as the product of manifest necessity will not bar a retrial”… .”Manifest necessity” means “a high degree of necessity”; “the reasons underlying the grant of a mistrial must be necessitous, actual and substantial” …. ” Even if the reasons for granting a mistrial are deemed actual and substantial, the court must explore all appropriate alternatives prior to granting a mistrial'”…. Mistrials premised on the prejudicial effect of improper evidence or argument are entitled to “great deference” …, since “the Trial Judge, better than any other, . . . can detect the ambience of partiality”…. Nonetheless, the trial judge must “temper the decision whether or not to abort the trial by considering the importance to the defendant of being able, once and for all, to conclude his [or her] confrontation with society through the verdict of a tribunal he [or she] might believe to be favorably disposed to his [or her] fate” … . Matter of Taylor v Dowling, 2013 NY Slip Op 05089, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

/ ,

Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement Not a Lease—No Permissive Referendum Required

The Third Department determined that a Solid Waste Facility Operating Agreement between the Town of Colonie and Capital Region Landfills, Inc (CRL) was not a lease, and therefore a permissive referendum was not a pre-requisite to the agreement.  The Third Department wrote:

Town  Law  § 64 (2) provides that, upon adopting a resolution, a town board may “convey or lease real property in the name  of the town, which resolution shall be subject to a permissive referendum.” The petition and amended petition  allege  that, as  the  agreement  is “the  functional equivalent of a lease,” the Town violated Town Law § 64 (2) by adopting  the resolution and  entering into the agreement  without first conducting  a  permissive referendum … . * * *

In view of the significant restrictions on CRL’s authority and control of the landfill and the rights and powers retained by the Town, the agreement does not convey “absolute control and possession” to CRL and is not a lease as a matter of law….

Accordingly, petitioners’ claim  that a  permissive referendum was required by Town Law § 64 (2) is without merit. Matter of Connors v Town of Colonie, 516058, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/ , ,

Arbitrator Exceeded Powers Afforded by Collective Bargaining Agreement Re: Time Limitations for Filing Grievances

In affirming Supreme Court’s determination that an arbitrator had exceeded a limitation on his power enumerated in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Third Department explained:

It is well established that an arbitrator’s award is largely unreviewable….  However, such an award may be      vacated upon a showing that it “‘violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on  the arbitrator’s power'” ….  Here, Supreme Court properly concluded that the arbitrator exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation on his power by failing to recognize the grievance and arbitration procedures as outlined in the CBA and, more particularly, the time limitation for filing grievances that is contained therein.  Matter of Adirondack Beverages Corporation…, 516022, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Career-Related Relocations Did Not Result in Change of Domicile

In affirming Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff in a divorce action met the durational residency requirements of Domestic Relations Law section 230, in spite of several career-related relocations, the Third Department wrote:

Given the absence of any proof that plaintiff intended to abandon her existing New York domicile and adopt any of the temporary locations as her new  permanent  home,  neither the fact that the parties – of necessity or convenience – established homes  and  all of the accouterments of family and  community  life in each location where  defendant’s career took the family nor that they generally paid income  taxes as residents of the respective locations demonstrates a change of domicile. Black v Black, 516094, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Neglect Based on Failure to Provide Child with Cleft Palate Proper Nutrition

The Third Department affirmed Family Court’s finding of neglect based upon the father’s failure to ensure that the child (born with a cleft palate) was receiving adequate nutrition and medical care.

Here, the record establishes that the father attended many of the  child’s pediatric appointments,  as  well as  the  evaluation conducted by the feeding and swallowing specialist, during the course of which medical professionals repeatedly explained that the child’s cleft palate made  it difficult for her to feed, stressed the importance of ensuring that the child was fed consistently and gained weight at a steady rate and offered instruction and specific recommendations for different feeding techniques. Matter of Mary YY, 514692, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Court Can Not Order Treatment as Condition of Future Visitation—Okay to Order Treatment as Component of Supervised Visitation

The Second Department noted that Family Court should not have ordered a parent to undergo treatment as a condition of future visitation.  Rather treatment should have been ordered as a component of supervised visitation:

…”[A] court may not order that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future visitation or reapplication for visitation rights, but may only direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of visitation”…. Thus, the Family Court should have directed the mother to enroll in an assisted outpatient treatment program as a component of supervised visitation. Matter of Torres v Ojeda, 2013 NY Slip Op 05091, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

/ , ,

Consent Order Not Appealable; Open Court Stipulation Valid

The Second Department noted that an order made on consent is not appealable and affirmed Family Court’s determination that a stipulation entered into in open court was valid:

Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and a stipulation made on the record in open court will not be set aside absent a showing that it was the result of fraud, overreaching, mistake, or duress”…. Here, the Family Court conducted a proper allocution of the mother, determining that she understood the terms of the stipulation, that she had sufficient time to consult with her attorney, and that she consented to the terms of the stipulation, and thus properly determined that she voluntarily and knowingly accepted the terms of the stipulation…. The mother’s contentions in support of her motion that she felt “forced into settling” and “misle[]d” by her attorney, and that she “did not fully understand what [she] was agreeing to” are insufficient to establish a claim of mistake or duress so as to warrant setting aside the stipulation of settlement… . Matter of Strang v Rathbone, 2013 NY Slip Op 05088, 2nd Dept 7-3-18

 

 

/ ,

Factual Question About Whether Family Court Had Jurisdiction Over Visitation Modification Where Supreme Court Originally Ordered Visitation

In remitting the matter to Family Court, the Second Department determined Family Court should have examined the evidence to determine whether it had jurisdiction over a petition to modify visitation where the initial visitation determination was part of a divorce action in Supreme Court:

The Family Court erred in declining to sign the order to show cause accompanying the father’s petition to modify visitation …. Since the initial visitation determination in this matter was made as part of a stipulation of settlement entered into during the parties’ divorce proceedings before the Supreme Court, it was error for the Family Court to summarily decline to sign the order to show cause on jurisdictional grounds. Instead, the Family Court should have signed the order to show cause and then directed the parties to submit evidence on the issue of whether the Family Court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the visitation issues…. Matter of Ramirez v Gunder, 2013 NY Slip Op 05086, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

/

Criteria for Allowing Parent Relocation

In affirming Family Court’s allowing a parent’s relocation, the Second Department explained the criteria:

A parent seeking to relocate bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child’s best interests …. In determining whether relocation is appropriate, the court must consider a number of factors, including the children’s relationship with each parent, the effect of the move on contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the lives of the custodial parent and the child may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move, and each parent’s motives for seeking or opposing the move …. Inasmuch as “[t]he weighing of these various factors requires an evaluation of the testimony, character and sincerity of all the parties involved” …, the Family Court’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference and its decision will be upheld if supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record… . Matter of Pietrafesa v Pietrafesa, 2013 NY Slip Op 05082, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

/ ,

Family Court committed reversible error by depriving father of his right to self-representation

In determining Family Court committed reversible error by depriving father of his right to self-representation, the Second Department wrote:

The father, as a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, had a right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][iii];…). A party, however, may waive the right to counsel and opt for self-representation… .. Before permitting a party to proceed pro se, the court must determine that the party’s decision to do so is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily …, by conducting a “searching inquiry” of that party…. Where a respondent has made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary choice to represent himself or herself, “forcing a lawyer upon [him or her] is contrary to his [or her] basic right to defend himself [or herself]” … .  Matter of Massey v Van Wyen, 2013 NY Slip Op 05078, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

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