You are here: / THE JUDGE DID NOT HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATED...

Search Results

/ ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATED PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 730; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a reconstruction hearing on the defendant’s competence to stand trial, determined that the judge had not followed the procedures mandated by Criminal Procedure Law article 730:

“Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedures courts of this State must follow in order to prevent the criminal trial of [an incompetent] defendant” … . The CPL expressly provides that “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous in their opinion as to whether the defendant is or is not an incapacitated person . . . the court must conduct a hearing to determine the issue of capacity” (CPL 730.30[4] …).. “That section is mandatory and not discretionary” … .

Here, once the Supreme Court made a threshold determination that the defendant’s conduct warranted an examination, it should have followed the procedures mandated by CPL article 730. The failure to comply with the statute deprived the defendant of the right to a full and fair determination of his mental capacity to stand trial … . We find, however, that the requirements of CPL article 730 can be satisfied by a reconstruction hearing … .  People v Petty, 2025 NY Slip Op 01824, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: If the court orders a psychiatric examination to determine whether defendant is an incapacitated person and the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous, the court must conduct a hearing on the issue of capacity.​

 

/ , ,

THE NEW YORK CITY CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT A MAN IN A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCormick, determined the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) was not entitled to unseal the record of a criminal action which had resulted in the acquittal of an off-duty police officer (the defendant) who shot and killed a man during a road rage incident:

At his criminal trial, the defendant presented a justification defense … [and] the jury acquitted him of all charges. As a result, the records pertaining to the defendant’s arrest and criminal prosecution were sealed (see CPL 160.50). * * *

The CCRB charged the defendant with three counts of intentionally using force without police necessity, rising to the level of assault in the second degree, in violation of the NYPD’s Patrol Guide. * * *

… [T]he CCRB moved herein to unseal the record of this criminal action … in order to conduct its disciplinary trial … . * * *

Although the New York City Charter authorizes the CCRB to compel the attendance of witnesses and to require the production of such records and other materials as are necessary for its investigations of police misconduct, and further requires the NYPD, inter alia, to provide records and other materials that are necessary for the CCRB’s investigations, the Charter specifically exempts from such disclosure “such records or materials that cannot be disclosed by law” (NY City Charter § 440[d][1]). As such, it cannot be said that the CCRB has been given a specific grant of power that would allow it to access the sealed records … . People v Isaacs, 2025 NY Slip Op 01818, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: The NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board cannon unseal the record of the criminal prosecution of a police officer which resulted in an acquittal.

 

/ ,

HERE THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT HAD ORDERED A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL RECORD WAS WOEFULLY INCOMPLETE; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS PROPERLY DONE AND AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION; THE DISSENT TOOK ISSUE WITH NATURE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction over a dissent, determined the reconstruction hearing compelled by the incomplete original record was properly done. The dissent disagreed:

We … reserved decision … and remitted the matter to County Court “to conduct a reconstruction hearing with respect to the missing and irregular transcripts” … .

Upon remittal, the court conducted a reconstruction hearing during which it heard the testimony of the trial judge and his confidential law clerk, the trial prosecutor, defendant’s former attorneys, a court clerk, and a county clerk. The court also admitted in evidence the trial judge’s notes; the court’s voir dire challenge sheet; the trial prosecutor’s notes on the jury charge and his copy of the verdict sheet; the court clerk’s minutes, exhibit list, and witness list; the county clerk’s case summary; and various court exhibits from the trial. Based on the record of the reconstruction hearing and the original record, we now affirm.

From the dissent:

Upon remittal, the court convened a reconstruction hearing without expressly delineating the missing and irregular transcripts to be reconstructed. Instead, the court heard the testimony of witnesses offered by the People and closed the hearing without determining whether the evidence submitted was sufficient to reconstruct a record that would permit defendant to review “whether genuine appealable and reviewable [trial] issues do or do not exist” … . That was error. Although the reconstruction required by the substantial irregularities in this trial transcript was considerably broader than the discrete issues for which reconstruction is more frequently directed … , the intent of our prior decision was for the court to make a determination whether the missing and irregular transcripts were sufficiently reconstructed, not merely to assist in the marshaling of evidence from which this Court could reconstruct the trial record behind closed doors … . People v Meyers, 2025 NY Slip Op 01762, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the issues raised, and the procedures to be followed, when the original record is too incomplete to allow an appellate review.

 

/ , , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WAS NEGLIGENT IN PLACING HIM IN A ROOM WITH A PERSON WITH COVID; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THAT PERSON’S MEDICAL RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHEN THE HOSPITAL BECAME AWARE OF THE COVID DIAGNOSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to discovery of another’s medical records. Plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in placing plaintiff in a room with a person with COVID. The sought medical records may reveal when the hospital became aware of the COVID diagnosis:

Although “discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse” … . CPLR 3101 (a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” “What is material and necessary is left to the sound discretion of the lower courts and includes any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … .

Pursuant to CPLR 4504 (a), “a person authorized to practice medicine . . . shall not be allowed to disclose any information which [they] acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable [them] to act in that capacity.” The physician-patient privilege may be overcome, however, where the plaintiff establishes that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to their claim … . Here, plaintiffs established that the nonparty patient’s hospital records would show when defendant, its agents, servants and employees became aware that the patient had tested positive for COVID-19 and that such information is material and necessary to establish whether defendant had notice that it was placing plaintiff in the same room as a person who had COVID-19 … . Martin v Kaleida Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01756, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery of another’s medical records because the records were “material and necessary to the prosecution of the action.”

 

/ ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED CONDITIONS ON MOTHER’S VISITATION; MATTER REMITTED FOR A SPECIFIC VISITATION SCHEDULE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the judge should not have placed conditions on mother’s visitation and remitted the matter for a visitation schedule:

We agree with the mother … that the court erred in conditioning her visitation upon either her participation in domestic violence counseling or that she no longer reside with her husband … . We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Family Court to fashion a specific and definitive schedule for visitation, if any, between the mother and the children. Matter of Seeley-Sick v Allison, 2025 NY Slip Op 01747, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Conditioning mother’s visitation on domestic violence counseling or on no longer resided wither her husband was deemed improper. Mother was entitled to a specific visitation schedule.​

 

/ ,

IN THIS STRANGULATION CASE, A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT UNRELATED ALLEGED STRANGULATIONS INVOLVING OTHER COMPLAINANT’S DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s strangulation conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the admission of the testimony of a police officer describing unrelated allegations of strangulation by other complainants deprived defendant of a fair trial:

… County Court erred in admitting in evidence testimony from a police officer who responded to the scene regarding his observations of other, unnamed complainants in prior, unspecified cases. The officer was permitted to testify that he had taken photographs “once or twice” of complainants who had “alleged strangulations,” and that he could not recall having observed bruises on those other complainants. The officer’s testimony was used by the People in order to explain that the lack of marks on the neck of the victim in the present case did not mean that defendant did not strangle her. Indeed, during closing argument the People invited the jury to “recall the testimony of [the officer], that he did not observe any signs of bruising on [the victim’s] neck. You’ll also recall that he has been to other strangulations and investigated those, and he didn’t find any injuries there either.” We conclude that the officer’s testimony regarding prior, unrelated cases is entirely irrelevant to the instant case, and that it was error to admit that “irrelevant and highly prejudicial testimony” … . People v Iqbal, 2025 NY Slip Op 01746, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here a police officer’s vague testimony about unrelated allegations of strangulation involving complainants other than the victim in this strangulation case deprived defendant of a fair trial.

 

/ ,

PRIVATE MESSAGES SENT BY THE JUVENILE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A “TERRORISTIC THREAT” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the messages sent by the juvenile did not meet the criteria for a terroristic threat:

… [A] person is guilty of making a terroristic threat when “with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population . . . [they] threaten[ ] to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby cause[ ] a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense” (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). Here, petitioner presented testimony that respondent sent private messages to another student in a different school district that respondent was planning to commit a mass shooting to end bullying in his school. There was no evidence that those threats were made to anyone other than the student or that respondent requested that the student relay the threats to others. “A private conversation between immature teenage friends, without more, does not establish the element of intent to intimidate a civilian population” … . Matter of Jose M.F. (Seneca County Presentment Agency), 2025 NY Slip Op 01734, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Threatening to commit a mass shooting to end school bullying in a private message to another student does not satisfy the criteria for a “terroristic threat.”

 

/ ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES STEMMING FROM THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO RETURN PLAINTIFF’S TESLA TO ITS PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITION AND THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH COMPARABLE TRANSPORTATION WHILE THE TESLA WAS BEING REPAIRED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated causes of action for damages relating to the alleged failure to restore plaintiff’s Tesla to its pre-accident condition and damages relating to the alleged failure to provide plaintiff with comparable transporting while the Tesla was repaired:

We agree with plaintiff … that the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of his motion, defendant offered no proof establishing as a matter of law that the repairs to plaintiff’s vehicle restored the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. Defendant relied largely on an affirmation from his attorney, who has no personal knowledge of the facts, along with plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Although defendant contends that plaintiff admitted during his deposition that the repairs to his vehicle were done to his satisfaction, plaintiff made clear during his testimony that, due to the gaps in the paneling, the vehicle was not in the same condition as before the accident. Defendant offered no evidence to the contrary, and it is well established that a party moving for summary judgment “must affirmatively establish the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … .

… [W]ith respect to the loss of use cause of action, defendant merely asserted that plaintiff was not entitled to the use of a vehicle comparable to his Tesla while the Tesla was being repaired. According to defendant, any operable vehicle will suffice regardless of its make, model, size, or safety features. We agree with plaintiff … that he is entitled to damages to the extent that he was not provided with the use of a vehicle generally comparable to his Tesla Model 3 … . Hazlett v Niezgoda, 2025 NY Slip Op 01730, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: A plaintiff can seek damages for the failure to return a vehicle to its pre-accident condition and the failure to provide plaintiff with comparable transportation during the repair-period.

 

/ ,

A MEDICAL CORPORATION CAN BE LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint against defendant medical corporations stated a cause of action for negligent failure to safeguard the confidentiality of medical records:

Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that, attendant to the health care services they received from defendant Rochester General Hospital (RGH), confidential medical records were generated and that those confidential medical records were stored on computer systems and networks maintained by RGH and defendants Rochester Regional Health ACO, Inc. (RRH) and Greater Rochester Independent Practice Association, Inc. (GRIPA). Plaintiffs further allege that defendant Christine M. Smith, R.N., a nurse at RGH, impermissibly accessed those records due to the failure of RGH, RRH and GRIPA “to exercise reasonable care in obtaining, retaining, securing, safeguarding, and protecting this confidential medical information from unlawful access.”

“A medical corporation may . . . be liable in tort for failing to establish adequate policies and procedures to safeguard the confidentiality of patient information or to train their employees to properly discharge their duties under those policies and procedures. These potential claims provide the requisite incentive for medical providers to put in place appropriate safeguards to ensure protection of a patient’s confidential information” … . Here, plaintiffs alleged that defendants generated and maintained the medical records that Smith impermissibly accessed and that they breached their duty to properly safeguard or monitor access to those records. Accepting as true the allegations in the complaint and the averments in the affidavits submitted in opposition to the motion, we conclude that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a negligence claim. * * * Hurley v Rochester Regional Health Aco, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01729, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: A medical corporation can be liable for failure to safeguard the confidentiality of medical records.

 

/ ,

THE FACT THAT THE SENTENCING COURT IN 2016 DID NOT USE DEFENDANT’S 2006 CONVICTION TO ENHANCE HIS SENTENCE DID NOT REQUIRE THE SORA COURT TO IGNORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WHICH WAS NEVER DIRECTLY ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS NEVER VACATED; THEREFORE THE 2006 CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY RELIED UPON BY THE SORA COURT TO ASSESS DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE RISK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined the fact that the resentencing court in 2016 found defendant’s 2006 conviction by guilty plea “constitutionally infirm” for purposes of sentencing did not require the SORA court to ignore the 2006 conviction. Defendant had never directly attacked the constitutionality of the 2006 conviction:

Defendant’s reliance on the resentencing court’s collateral determination that his 2006 conviction cannot be used as a predicate to impose an enhanced sentence is misplaced. As the resentencing court explained, it lacked authority to vacate the 2006 conviction and instead properly stressed that its determination governed only the question of whether the People could use the conviction to establish defendant’s status as a second child sexual assault felony offender for purposes of sentencing. Furthermore, at the resentencing hearing, defendant bore the burden of offering substantial evidence that the 2006 conviction is constitutionally infirm … . If defendant directly challenged the conviction’s constitutionality, however, he would face a higher burden of proof … . No court has determined that defendant’s 2006 conviction is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid under that more demanding standard. Nor have the People had an opportunity to be heard in opposition to defendant’s attempt to make such a showing. Against this backdrop, it is logical for the Guidelines to require an offender with a prior felony sex offense conviction to satisfy the higher evidentiary burden that they must meet to vacate or reverse that conviction, if they wish to avoid the override’s application.

Given that defendant failed to pursue any procedural pathway to vacate the 2006 conviction, we see no reason to depart from the Guidelines’ text stating that the override is triggered if “[t]he offender has a prior felony conviction for a sex crime” (Guidelines, override 1). We therefore apply the Guidelines and hold that the override was properly implemented … . People v Moss, 2025 NY Slip Op 01673, CtApp 3-20-25

Practice Point: The fact that a sentencing court found a prior conviction “constitutionally infirm” such that the conviction was not used to enhance defendant’s sentence did not require that the SORA court ignore the prior conviction. The SORA court properly relied upon the prior conviction here.

 

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