You are here: / AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE ARRESTING OFFICER TESTIFIED HIS PARTNER...

Search Results

/ ,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE ARRESTING OFFICER TESTIFIED HIS PARTNER TOLD HIM THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST AFTER HIS PARTNER SPOKE TO THE DRIVER; THE DEFENSE CHALLENGED THE INFORMATION IMPARTED BY THE DRIVER TO THE PARTNER UNDER THE FELLOW OFFICER RULE; BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED TO DEMONSTRATE THE PARTNER HAD THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF SUSPICION, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s suppression motion, determined the People did not present evidence at the suppression hearing justifying handcuffing the defendant after a “tinted windows” traffic stop. The officer who testified at the hearing said his partner told him there was probable cause but he was not aware of what the driver told his partner. Because the defense challenged the information under the fellow officer rule, the People were required to demonstrate the officer who spoke with the driver had the requisite level of suspicion, but no evidence on that issue was presented:

We agree with defendant that, under these circumstances, by placing him in handcuffs after directing him to exit the vehicle, the troopers transformed the traffic stop into, at minimum, a “forcible stop and detention” … , which “must be justified by some additional circumstances, such as a threat of evasive conduct . . . ; a need to transport the defendant for a showup procedure . . . ; a fear that the suspect may interfere with the execution of a search warrant . . . ; or a concern for officer safety” … .

Although … the Trooper testified that he observed an “orange pill bottle with no markings on it in the center console of the vehicle,” that alone is insufficient to justify the forcible stop and detention … . The Trooper conceded that he could not see inside the bottle and did not know what was inside. He also did not observe any other indicia of criminality and did not see defendant acting in a suspicious manner. Although a conversation took place between the Trooper and his partner, defendant challenged that information under the fellow officer rule. The People were thus required to establish at the hearing that the partner, who imparted information to the Trooper, in fact possessed the requisite level of suspicion to act … . Here, however, the Trooper’s partner did not testify, and the Trooper testified that his partner did not relay the substance of the conversation with the driver to him. We are therefore unable to infer that the Trooper received information sufficient to justify his subsequent actions … . People v Purrier, 2026 NY Slip Op 04681, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: This case presents another example of a defense challenge to information passed from one police officer to another in the context of a probable-cause determination at a suppression hearing. The officer who testified at the hearing relied on information from his partner who told him there was probable cause to arrest after the partner spoke with the driver.  Because of the challenge under the fellow officer rule, the People were required to demonstrate the partner had the requisite level of suspicion after speaking with the driver, but the People presented no testimony on that issue.

 

/ , ,

THE DEFENSE SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED THE RELIABILITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH WAS RELAYED TO THE POLICE BY A CIVILIAN PROPERTY OWNER; THE PEOPLE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTIFICATION WAS BASED UPON THE PROPERTY OWNER’S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, AS OPPOSED TO SPECULATION; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined the People did not establish the legality of the defendant’s arrest, granted suppression and dismissed the indictment. The defendant specifically challenged the reliability of the identification of the defendant by a civilian property owner. The People failed to demonstrate the civilian’s identification was based upon personal knowledge as opposed to speculation:

The first officer testified that the civilian property owner had identified defendant in the video as the shooter and that she had reported having interacted with him more than 100 times.

We conclude that the civilian’s basis of knowledge was not established at the hearing. “The ‘basis-of-knowledge’ prong of the test may be satisfied upon a showing that the information furnished is so detailed as to make it clear that it must have been based upon personal knowledge” … . “The basis of knowledge component . . . requires that the information provided by the informant be corroborated orthrough details sufficient in number and suggestive of, or directly related to, the criminal activity informed about” … . Although the first officer testified that the civilian property owner had previously had more than 100 interactions with defendant, the record reflects that the level of detail needed to enable the court to determine whether her identification of defendant was “more than mere speculation” is lacking … . Notably, the People never offered the supporting deposition or the video of the underlying incident at the suppression hearing, and the hearing testimony failed to provide the requisite evidence of the civilian’s “own description of underlying circumstances personally observed” … . Although police observations can provide the corroborating details required to allow a court to properly infer a basis of knowledge, no such details were offered at the hearing … . As an example, the first officer testified that he had observed defendant “half a dozen times or so” prior to defendant’s arrest, but that he could not identify defendant in the video “because the video was grainy.” As another example, the court asked the first officer, “Did [the third officer] relay to you that he had had any prior involvement with [defendant]?,” to which the first officer responded, “I did not ask him.” As a result of the lack of detail, the court was relegated to reliance upon the first officer’s conclusory statement—provided to him by the civilian property owner—that defendant was the shooter in the underlying incident—”in order to determine the reliability of the information claimed to have established probable cause” … . People v Asbury, 2026 NY Slip Op 04617, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Where the police rely on information provided to them by other officers, a computer database, civilians, etc,, for probable cause, if the defense specifically challenges the reliability of the source of the information the People must demonstrate its reliability at the suppression hearing. Here the police relied on an identification of the defendant by a civilian property owner who was shown a video. The basis of the property owner’s knowledge was not demonstrated at the suppression hearing and the indictment was dismissed on appeal.

/

CALLING PLAINTIFF A PEDOPHILE, THREATENING TO HAVE PLAINTIFF ARRESTED, AND THE STATEMENT “YOU’RE TAKING PICTURES OF 10-YEAR-OLD KIDS” CONSTITUTED NONACTIONABLE RHETORICAL OPINION, NOT DEFAMATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this defamation action should have been granted. The court found that the statements accusing plaintiff of being a pedophile were expressions of opinion, not assertions of fact:

…[T]he employee [defendant] accused plaintiff of either “playing politics or [being] a fucking pedophile.” After plaintiff denied playing politics, the employee responded “Then you’re a fucking pedophile” and stated, “I’m going to Town right now and fucking see if I can get you arrested for being a fucking pedophile. You’re taking pictures of 10-year-old kids, are you crazy or what?” * * *

“Expressions of opinion, as opposed to assertions of fact, are deemed privileged and, no matter how offensive, cannot be the subject of an action for defamation” ,,, .. “A pure opinion may take one of two forms. It may be a statement of opinion which is accompanied by a recitation of the facts upon which it is based, or it may be [a]n opinion not accompanied by such a factual recitation so long as it does not imply that it is based upon undisclosed facts” … . “Whether a particular statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law” … . “The dispositive inquiry . . . is whether a reasonable [listener] could have concluded that [the statements were] conveying facts about the plaintiff” … .* * *

“Rather than sifting through a communication for the purpose of isolating and identifying assertions of fact, the court should look to the over-all context in which the assertions were made and determine on that basis whether the reasonable [listener] would have believed that the challenged statements were conveying facts about the . . . plaintiff” … . Indeed, the court should consider “the circumstances and . . . the broader social context (i.e., the factual background leading to the [statement])” to determine whether the “message would be taken by the ordinary person not literally, but figuratively” … , particularly where an “audience may anticipate [the use] of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole” … . Bieber v Town of Hamburg, 2026 NY Slip Op 04605, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the difference between statements which constitute “rhetorical opinion” and statements which constitute “defamation.”

 

/

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS MADE IN AN ACTION IN WHICH A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ARE NOT BARRED BY THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE; DEFENDANT, NOW AS A PLAINTIFF, CAN BRING A NEW ACTION BASED ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS; NEW YORK IS A “PERMISSIVE COUNTERCLAIM” JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the causes of action first brought as counterclaims in a prior action were not barred by the res judicata doctrine after a default judgment in the prior action:

“New York does not have a compulsory counterclaim rule” … . Thus, a defendant who fails to bring a counterclaim in an action that results in an adverse judgment will be barred from bringing that same claim only if ” ‘the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first’ ” … . Stated another way, “the permissive counterclaim rule operates to save from the bar of res judicata those claims for separate or different relief that could have been but were not interposed in the parties’ prior action so long as the second action is not based on a preexisting claim for relief that would impair the rights or interests established in the first action” … .

Inasmuch as the judgment sought by plaintiff in this action would not ” ‘destroy or impair rights or interests established’ ” by defendant’s default judgment in the prior action … , plaintiff’s complaint is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The mere fact that a counterclaim may serve as an offset to lessen the net amount owed to a plaintiff is not, in and of itself, sufficient to “impair” the rights established as a result of a default judgment inasmuch as every counterclaim—to the extent established by a defendant—provides an offset to the initial claim … . Vince’s Pizza Plus, Inc. v Dion DeFedericis, 2026 NY Slip Op 04598, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: New York is a “permissive counterclaim” jurisdiction. Therefore counterclaims made by a defendant in a prior action which resulted in a default judgment can be the basis of a new action brought by the defendant, now as a plaintiff, without triggering the res judicata doctrine.

 

/ , ,

THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT, WITHOUT A WARRANT, THREE DAYS AFTER THE SHOOTING, BASED UPON THEIR INVESTIGATION WHICH INCLUDED VIEWING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE TAPES; AN ARREST IN A PUBLIC HALLWAY OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING DOES NOT VIOLATE “PAYTON;” TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE AFFIRMED COUNTY COURT’S RULING THAT THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s suppression of a handgun, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant based upon video evidence showing the defendant entering the victim’s apartment with the victim, showing the defendant leaving the apartment and demonstrating no one else entered the apartment during the relevant period of time (when the victim was shot).. County Court’s ruling that the arrest in the common hallway of an apartment building was a Payton violation was rejected because the defendant had no expectation of privacy there:

The police “may arrest a person without a warrant when [they] ha[ve] probable cause to believe that such person has committed a crime” … . “Probable cause ‘does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been . . . committed’ by the person arrested” … . “When determining whether the police had probable cause to arrest, the inquiry is not as to [the person’s] guilt but as to the sufficiency for arrest purposes of the grounds for the arresting officer’s belief that [the person] was guilty” … . “[T]he basis for such a belief must not only be reasonable, but it must appear to be at least more probable than not that a crime has taken place and that the one arrested is its perpetrator” … . ” ‘[T]he legal conclusion [as to whether probable cause existed] is to be made after considering all of the facts and circumstances together’ ” … . “A synoptic evaluation is essential because ‘[v]iewed singly, these may not be persuasive, yet when viewed together the puzzle may fit and probable cause found’ ” … .

… [O]n January 24, 2024, the tenant who actually rented the victim’s apartment in Jamestown found the victim deceased in the apartment and then reported the discovery to a neighbor, who then accompanied the tenant back to the apartment and called 911 to report the discovery of the victim’s body. The police thereafter discovered that the victim had sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the back of the head. As of that day and into the next, the murder weapon had not been located. During their investigation into the homicide, the police obtained security footage that depicted the hallway outside of the victim’s apartment. The security footage showed the victim and another male entering the victim’s apartment on January 22, 2024, but only the yet-to-be-identified male left the victim’s apartment later that same day. The investigative section commander with the investigating police department testified that, after obtaining a still photograph from the security footage and conducting further investigation, the police determined that defendant was the other male shown entering the apartment with the victim on January 22, 2024. Indeed, another officer recognized the other male—defendant—as the same person with whom he had a brief street encounter on January 22, 2024 in an alleyway on the backside of the victim’s apartment complex, i.e., defendant’s presence at the victim’s apartment complex was independently confirmed by a law enforcement source. Notably, during the street encounter that day, defendant partially misrepresented his name by giving his middle name as his surname. The police thus developed knowledge that defendant was the other male depicted leaving the victim’s apartment that same day. Based upon the police department’s review of the relevant duration of the security footage, however, no one else, including the victim, ever exited or entered the apartment from January 22, 2024 until January 24, 2024, i.e., the day that the victim’s body was discovered and the discovery was reported to the police. People v Kadenhead, 2026 NY Slip Op 04680, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department determined the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant in the hallway of his apartment building, without a warrant, three days after the shooting.​

 

/ , ,

DEFENDANT SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED THE ACCURACY OF THE DMV DATABASE WHICH PURPORTEDLY INDICATED DEFENDANT’S DRIVER’S LICENSE HAD BEEN SUSPENDED (THE BASIS FOR THE TRAFFIC STOP): THE PEOPLE THEREFORE WERE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV DATABASE TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE; BY FAILING TO INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the judgment of conviction, suppressing the physical evidence and dismissing the indictment, over a two-justice dissent, determined the People did not demonstrate that the traffic stop was justified because the People offered no proof defendant’s license had been suspended at the time of the stop. An officer testified, just prior to stopping the defendant, he checked the DMV database on his in-vehicle computer where the suspension of defendant’s license was indicated. But no evidence establishing the license suspension or the accuracy of the DMV database was introduced:

Defendant contends that the People were required to establish, at the suppression hearing, that defendant’s license had been suspended, because defendant challenged the reliability of the DMV information, and that the court therefore erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence. We agree.

“It is well settled that, although ‘a defendant who challenges the legality of a search and seizure has the burden of proving illegality, the People are nevertheless put to the burden of going forward to show the legality of the police conduct in the first instance’ ” … . As relevant here, a vehicle stop is permissible when based on probable cause that the driver has committed a traffic violation … .

Under the “fellow officer rule” …. , “[a] police officer is entitled to act on the strength of a radio bulletin or a telephone or teletype alert from a fellow officer or department and to assume its reliability” … , and the same rule applies to the DMV database accessible on an in-vehicle computer … . “[T]he probabilities are that such detailed information of the type in these communications does not find its way onto the police air waves [or mobile data terminal] without substantial basis” … .

“But where on a motion to suppress, a challenge to the [officer’s] action is made, the presumption of probable cause that originally cloaked that action disappears from the case” … .  If a defendant raises a “specific challenge” to the reliability of certain transmitted information, that information may not be relied upon by the suppression court … . “[B]are reliance on an unsubstantiated hearsay communication from the instigating officer or department will not suffice for probable cause” … . “[T]he People must demonstrate that the sender or sending agency itself possessed the requisite probable cause to act” … . “The pertinent inquiry in all situations has been directed to the nature and reliability of the information possessed by the person or agency transmitting the information” … . People v McGuire, 2026 NY Slip Op 04597, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: When the accuracy of information transmitted to the arresting officer is specifically challenged, the People must prove the reliability of the information. Here the accuracy of the DMV database (showing that defendant’s license had been suspended) was specifically challenged. Because the People did not attempt to prove the information in the DMV database was reliable, they did not demonstrate probable cause for the traffic stop.

 

/ , ,

THE POLICE ASKED FOR DEFENDANT’S NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH; HE PROVIDED A FALSE NAME; HE PROVIDED HIS REAL NAME ONLY AFTER HE WAS WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROVIDING A FALSE NAME AND DETAINED; THE POLICE QUESTIONING DID NOT TRIGGER THE NEED FOR THE MIRANDA WARNINGS BECAUSE THE POLICE WERE SEEKING ONLY “PEDIGREE” INFORMATION; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

he Fourth Department, affirming the conviction, determined there was no Miranda violation because the police asked only pedigree questions. The two dissenters disagreed:

… [T]he police officer, accompanied by two other members of the police department, responded to a residence after receiving a complaint that there were unwanted guests there. Upon their arrival, the complainant reported to the police that there were two unwanted guests in the residence: a female guest identified by name and a male guest supposedly named “Rodney.” The police identified the female guest by name and she agreed to leave without argument.

The police located the male guest—later identified as defendant—in the closet of a back bedroom underneath some clothes and other items. The police asked defendant to identify himself by name and date of birth. Defendant provided the police with the false name “Rodney Miller” and a purported date of birth. The police gave defendant multiple warnings that it was illegal to lie to them about his name, but defendant continued to provide the false name. The officer testified that defendant was not free to leave during the interaction until the police identified him. The officer explained, among other things, that the police did not provide defendant with Miranda warnings prior to asking for his name and date of birth because they were merely attempting to obtain defendant’s pedigree information as a routine matter for any such encounter. The officer further testified that the police then informed defendant that he was going to be detained and, upon being detained, defendant provided his real name. Thereafter, the police ultimately determined that there was an order of protection in place against defendant and in favor of the female guest. The police then arrested defendant for violating the order of protection and for providing false pedigree information. * * *

… [W]e conclude that the court properly determined that the pedigree exception applied and thus properly denied that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statements to the police. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that the purpose of asking pedigree questions of both the female guest and defendant was “[t]o identify who they were and advise them they were no longer welcome there,” and that requesting general information such as names and dates of birth was routine for any such encounter. The officer’s testimony thus established the administrative purpose for seeking pedigree information during an encounter of that nature: the police must know with whom they are speaking in a residence … . The People “thereby established the threshold basis for the pedigree exception to apply, i.e., the questions were reasonably related to the police’s administrative concerns” … . * * *

As the Court of Appeals has cautioned, “[a]lthough there may be some circumstances where asking a suspect for core identifying information such as name, date of birth, and address will not qualify for the pedigree exception to Miranda, those circumstances will be rare” (id. at 416). People v Milton, 2026 NY Slip Op 04584, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point; The police may ask for a person’s name and date of birth without providing Miranda warnings, even when the police are aware the person has provided a false name.

 

/ , ,

THE ATTEMPTED RAPE AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the attempted rape and robbery convictions, determined there was insufficient evidence defendant intended to have intercourse with the victim there was insufficient evidence defendant intended to deprive the victim of her emergency alarm which he possessed only briefly and then discarded. The convictions were deemed “against the weight of the evidence.” The defendant was an inmate in a correctional facility and the victim a civilian employee. The defendant attacked and fell on top of the victim after following her to a secluded area of the prison kitchen. The assault conviction was affirmed:

… [W]e conclude that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended and attempted to have sexual intercourse with the victim. Beyond the surrounding circumstances, such as the location of the attack and defendant’s insistence that the victim be quiet, the sole evidence presented by the People from which a factfinder could infer any sexual component to defendant’s actions was the victim’s testimony that, after they fell to the floor and defendant was on top of her, defendant’s “hands were all over [her] at that point.” The victim further acknowledged, however, that defendant never physically reached underneath any of her clothing and never attempted to remove her pants. Unlike comparable cases, the People here adduced no evidence of a particularized sexual motivation or component underlying defendant’s actions, nor did the People present evidence—beyond the generalized testimony that defendant’s hands were “all over” the victim—that defendant attempted to engage specifically in sexual intercourse with the victim … . Even though “the absence of an explicit demand for sex does not undermine a finding of attempted rape” under circumstances from which a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the defendant intended and attempted to engage, specifically, in forcible sexual intercourse … , we conclude that the evidence is not strong enough to establish the existence of such circumstances in this case. People v Jenkins, 2026 NY Slip Op 04677, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for two rare examples of “against the weight of the evidence” reversals.

 

/ , ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; DECISION RESERVED AND MATTER SENT BACK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision on this appeal of the denial of a suppression motion, determined the trial judge did not conduct the requisite “searching inquiry” before allowing the defendant to represent himself:

As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his request to represent himself. “[A]n application to proceed pro se must be denied unless defendant effectuates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel . . . To this end, trial courts must conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ to clarify that defendant understands the ramifications of such a decision” … . In other words, a “searching inquiry” is required to “warn defendant of the risks inherent in representing [themself]” and to “apprise [them] of the value of counsel” … , including that “going pro se would be ‘extraordinarily dangerous’ and ‘that most defendants who represent themselves are not successful’ ” … . “When a record lacks the requisite ‘searching inquiry’ or fails to measure up to the prescribed standards, a waiver of the right to counsel will be deemed ineffective” … .

Here, the court erred in allowing defendant to proceed pro se inasmuch as it did not “undertake a searching inquiry . . . to insur[e] that . . . defendant [was] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . We conclude that “the tainted proceeding had an adverse impact on defendant” … and, therefore, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with our prior determination … . People v Ocasio, 2026 NY Slip Op 04595, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the “searching inquiry” a judge must engage in before allowing a defendant to represent himself.

 

/ , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED RESPONDENT CO-TRUSTEE WITHOUT A HEARING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Surrogate’s Court, determined the respondent co-trustee should not have been removed without a hearing. Where the facts are disputed, a hearing is required:

… “[The] removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 [or] 719 is equivalent to ‘a judicial nullification of the [settlor’s] choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established’ ” … . Under either SCPA 711 or 719, ” ‘[t]he Surrogate may remove without a hearing only where the misconduct is established by undisputed facts or concessions [or] where the fiduciary’s in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court’s knowledge’ ” … , and the removal of a trustee without a hearing “will constitute an abuse of discretion ‘where the facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom . . . or where there are claimed mitigating facts that, if established, would render summary removal an inappropriate remedy’ ” … . Here, in response to the factual averments by petitioners as to his misconduct, respondent submitted, inter alia, an affidavit in which he denied having ever improperly removed Trust assets or interfering with the leasing of Trust property, explained how his actions accorded—in his view—with his powers and obligations under the Trust documents, and disputed petitioners’ underlying factual averments. Presented with the competing claims, a hearing was required inasmuch as “the Surrogate must make a credibility determination concerning those issues, and then exercise [their] discretion concerning whether respondent should be removed from [his] appointment[ ]” … . Matter of Simmons (Simmons), 2026 NY Slip Op 04675, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when a hearing is required before a co-trustee can be removed under the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SPCA).

 

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