You are here: / ALTHOUGH THE BIPOLAR-DISORDER DIAGNOSIS WAS MADE “POST-CRIME,”...

Search Results

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THE BIPOLAR-DISORDER DIAGNOSIS WAS MADE “POST-CRIME,” THE EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT TO DEFENDANT’S “MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the psychiatric evidence regarding defendant’s “post-crime” mental health (bipolar disorder) was relevant to defendant’s “mental disease or defect” affirmative defense and should not have been precluded. The psychiatrist could not testify defendant suffered from “bipolar disorder” at the time of offense, but could testify that the disorder takes years to develop, which meets the flexible “relevancy” test:

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence” … . …

We conclude that “[i]nasmuch as the psychiatrist’s [prospective] testimony that defendant was suffering from [bipolar disorder, type 1, most recent episode manic with psychotic features] would render a finding of lack of criminal responsibility more probable than it would be without such evidence, the [psychiatrist’s] diagnosis [was] . . . relevant” … . …

Here, although the psychiatrist did not evaluate defendant prior to the crimes and thus could not render a medical opinion that defendant had bipolar disorder on the date of the crimes, “there were indications in [his] testimony that the mental disease from which defendant was suffering could take [years] to develop [before diagnosis] and [that] . . . the [prior medical] records . . . suggest[ed] the existence of some mental disorder a considerable time before the crime[s]” … . …

Finally, we conclude that the error is not harmless … . The preclusion of the psychiatrist’s testimony effectively prevented defendant from mounting his affirmative defense (see Penal Law § 40.15) and severely undermined his ability to separately argue that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit the charged offenses … . Inasmuch as ” ‘it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict, the error cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and reversal therefore is required’ ” … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 04095, Fourth Dept 6-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the relevancy of evidence. Here a post-crime bipolar disorder diagnosis was deemed relevant to defendant’s “mental disease or defect” affirmatve defense.​

 

/ ,

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE INFORMATION DEMONSTRATING THE TEMPORARY TEXAS REGISTRATION WAS INVALID AT THE TIME THEY IMPOUNDED THE CAR; THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS IMPROPER AND THE HANDGUNS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the officers who stopped defendant’s vehicle did not have any information that the temporary Texas registration was invalid at the time the vehicle was impounded. Therefore the inventory search was invalid and the handguns should have been suppressed:

“An inventory search is exactly what its name suggests, a search designed to properly catalogue the contents of the item searched” … . Inventory searches may not be used as “a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence” … and, unlike a traffic stop, “will be constitutionally invalid where the search was merely a pretext to search for evidence of a crime” … . “Only a lawfully impounded vehicle may be subjected to an inventory search” … , and “[t]he People bear the threshold burden of demonstrating that the subject vehicle was lawfully impounded at the time of the inventory search” … . People v Boatwright, 2026 NY Slip Op 04071, Fourth Dept 6-26-26

Practice Point: Without a valid reason to impound a car, an inventory search of the car is not justified.​

 

/ , ,

THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION; NEITHER MOTHER NOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND (WHO DID NOT APPEAR) CONSENTED TO THE REFEREE’S HEARING THE MATTER; THE POWERS OF A REFEREE ARE EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversal the order by the referee dismissing the family offense proceeding, determined the referee was without jurisdiction to decide the matter because neither mother nor respondent husband (who did not appear) consented the referee hearing the matter:

“A referee derives authority from an order of reference by the court (see CPLR 4311), which can be made only upon consent of the parties, except in limited circumstances” … . “Absent the parties’ consent to the reference, the . . . [r]eferee ha[s] the power only to hear and report [their] findings” … . An appropriate order of reference is thus an “essential jurisdictional predicate” to the authority of the referee to act … , and a referee “who attempts to determine matters not referred to [them] by the order of reference acts beyond and in excess of [their] jurisdiction” … .

Here, as noted, petitioner never consented to the Referee hearing the matter. Although CPLR 4317 (b) permits a referee to hear and determine an issue without the consent of the parties where the trial of the issue “will require the examination of a long account,” where the issue is one “of damages separately triable and not requiring a trial by jury,” or “where otherwise authorized by law,” none of those exceptions to the consent requirement applies here. Thus, the Referee “lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the petition” … , even without prejudice. We note in any event that, absent a fact-finding hearing, which did not take place, the Referee had no grounds to dismiss the petition based on insufficient evidence. Matter of Fournier v Perez, 2026 NY Slip Op 04063, Fourth Dept 6-26-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the powers of a Family Court referee.

 

/

A RARE SITUATION WHERE SUSPENSION OF THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WAS WARRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, over an extensive dissent, affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of mother’s motion for pendente lite child support in the amount of $25,000/month and $10,000/month travel allowance. It was determined mother deliberately and actively alienated the child from the father:

Based on clear and convincing evidence presented at the 35-day custody trial, the court determined that the mother had deliberately and actively alienated the child from the father in “one of the most clear-cut and disturbing examples of parental alienation that this court has observed through thousands of custody cases over many years.” Accordingly, the court reasonably determined that this is one of the unfortunate and rare situations where suspension of the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation was warranted. Specifically, the court decided the pendente lite motion by directing the father to pay 90% of the child’s unreimbursed medical and mental health expenses and otherwise suspended the father’s child support obligation until the child’s visitation with the father was “meaningfully resumed” or “there is otherwise good cause to resume the support” … . * * *

As the motion court found, the child’s reasonable and appropriate needs are being met … . It is undisputed that the mother and child continue to reside in a 1,500 square foot luxury apartment with views of Central Park and that the father continues to pay all of the child’s expenses for private school, extracurricular activities and tutoring, in addition to 90% of her unreimbursed medical and mental health expenses. Rosenfeld v Rosenfeld, 2026 NY Slip Op 04048, First Dept 6-25-26

 

/ , ,

MOTHER’S BEHAVIOR DID NOT AMOUNT TO A FORFEITURE OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the order of Family Court in this visitation proceeding, determined mother was denied her right to counsel. After attempts to assign counsel failed, the judge essentially forced mother to proceed without an attorney:

Pursuant to Family Ct Act § 262 (a), respondents in visitation proceedings have a right to be represented by counsel and, if they are financially unable to obtain counsel, have the right to have counsel assigned by the court … . * * *

“Here, the record is clear that the mother did not wish to proceed pro se, but was forced to do so” … ; as such, “the record . . . does not indicate that [she] made a knowing and intelligent waiver of [her] rights to be represented by counsel” … . It appears from the record that Family Court determined that the mother had forfeited her right to counsel. Indeed, “[a] litigant may forfeit the right to assigned counsel through a persistent pattern of threatening, abusive, obstreperous, and uncooperative behavior with successive assigned counsel” … . However, such a forfeiture is an “extreme, last-resort” based upon “egregious conduct by a [respondent]” … . Simply put, while we are certainly mindful of the difficult position Family Court was in, “the record fails to clearly reflect that the mother engaged in the sort of egregious conduct that would justify a finding that she forfeited her right to assigned counsel” … . Matter of Carlene R. v Heather A., 2026 NY Slip Op 04015, Third Dept 6-25-24

Practice Point: In a Family Court visitation proceeding a party’s waiver of the right to counsel must be explicit. Here it was clear mother did not wish to go forward pro se.

 

 

/ ,

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, INCLUDING A VIDEO AND PLAINTIFF’S DESCRIPTION OF THE FALL, WERE SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (THRID DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant grocery store’s motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall action should not have been granted. A video depicted plaintiff coming around the corner of a bottled water display and falling. She testified cases of water protruded into the aisle. Although she she could not say exactly what caused her to trip, the circumstantial evidence of the cause of the fall was sufficient to create a question of fact:

…”[E]ven when a plaintiff is unable to identify the cause of a fall with certainty, a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiff shows facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred” … . It is true that Grant never observed the actual item he tripped over, nor its precise location. However, given Grant’s deposition testimony indicating that he tripped over something made of soft plastic, plaintiff’s deposition testimony that there were cases of water hanging over the edge of the endcap and the video portraying a case being knocked off the display as Grant tripped and fell, defendant’s negligence could reasonably be inferred.

Even if defendants had met their initial burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the endcap display was inherently dangerous … . In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a commercial space designer and retail safety expert who opined that the endcap display was hazardous, inasmuch as the bottom layers of water cases were stacked below a customer’s typical line of sight, which ranges between three to six feet from the ground. According to the expert, defendants failed to conform with certain industry standards concerning the proper height of floor displays and the need for endcap displays to be fully stocked to prevent tripping hazards. Grant v Golub Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 04013, Third Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of sufficient proof of causation of a slip and fall by circumstantial evidence. Usually the failure to pinpoint the exact cause of a slip and fall will be fatal to the action.

 

/ , ,

THE PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING; PERMANENT NEGLECT FINDING VACATED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner in this termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, did not demonstrate make a diligent effort to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship. The permanent neglect finding was vacated:

“When a foster care agency brings a proceeding to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, it must, as a threshold matter, prove by clear and convincing evidence that it has fulfilled its statutory duty to exercise diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parent-child relationship” (… see Social Services Law § 384-b[7][a]). “Those efforts must include counseling, making suitable arrangements for parental access, providing assistance to the parents to resolve the problems preventing the child’s discharge, and advising the parents of the child’s progress and development” … . “An agency must always determine the particular problems facing a parent with respect to the return of his or her child and make affirmative, repeated, and meaningful efforts to assist the parent in overcoming these handicaps” … .

Here, the petitioner failed to meet its initial burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between the father and the children … . The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing failed to establish that the petitioner arranged any parental access between the father and the children, referred the father to any services, or assisted the father with obtaining suitable housing. Matter of Elijah L. Jr. (Elijah L.), 2026 NY Slip Op 03963, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: In a termination-of-parental-rights proceeding the agency must demonstrate that diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship were made. Here the proof of diligent efforts was lacking.

 

/ , , ,

THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PERSONAL-SERVICE-OF-A-CLAIM REQUIREMENT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT FOR ACTIONS SEEKING DAMAGES FOR THE STATE’S APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY; HERE SERVICE BY REGULAR FIRST-CLASS MAIL WAS NOT A JURIDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in the property-appropriation-by-the-state action, determined an exception to the usual service requirements applies. Failure to serve the State with a copy of the claim by personal service or by certified mail is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore the State’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

The claimants served the claim upon the Office of the Attorney General by regular first-class mail. * * *

… [W]here the claim sought only to recover damages for the State’s appropriation of the claimants’ property, service upon the Attorney General by personal service or certified mail was not required … .

Court of Claims Act § 10 reflects a similar unique exception for appropriation claims. While most types of claims must be both “filed and served upon the attorney general” to be properly commenced within the time prescribed by the statute … , a “claim for the appropriation by the state of lands” does not require service upon the Attorney General within the statutory time limit … . Port Grove Assoc. v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03990, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed discussion of the service requirements for a Court of Claims action seeking damages for the State’s appropriation of claimant’s property. Failure to effect personal service on the Attorney General is not a jurisdictional defect.

 

/ ,

DEFENDANT WAS OBSERVED WALKING UP AND DOWN DRIVEWAYS IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD; WHEN THE POLICE ASKED HIM TO STOP, HE RAN AND THE POLICED PURSUED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING PURSUIT; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the conviction by plea, determined the police did not have “reasonable suspicion” defendant was committing a crime at the time the defendant ran from them. The police were justified in exercising the “common law right of inquiry” because defendant was seen walking in different yards in a residential neighborhood. But the police were not justified in pursuing the defendant when he ran. The gun defendant discarded that the statements made to the police should have been suppressed:

… [T]he encounter began as a level two intrusion, with the officers parking and exiting their vehicle, stating “police,” and asking the defendant to stop … . The officers’ pursuit of the defendant constituted a level three intrusion, requiring a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in a felony or misdemeanor … .. Here, however, the circumstances, which included the defendant’s actions of walking up and down the driveways of 105-31 and 105-33 Farmers Boulevard and across a lawn and toward the rear of a residence on 109th Avenue, “although not inconsistent with culpable [conduct,] are also susceptible of many innocent interpretations” … , and were, “[a]t most . . . equivocal and suspicious” … . Importantly, the officers did not observe the defendant looking into any houses or backyards, and did not observe him carrying or attempting to conceal any tools or weapons. Therefore, the defendant’s actions preceding his interaction with the officers and his flight therefrom did not support a reasonable suspicion of particularized criminal action … . People v Bryant, 2026 NY Slip Op 03976, Second Dept 6-24-25

Practice Point: Walking up and down residential driveways, carrying nothing and not looking into houses, justified exercise of the common law right of inquiry by the police. But defendant’s immediate flight from the police did not justify pursuit.

 

/ , ,

HERE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE UNEVEN SIDEWALK WAS “OWNER OCCUPIED” SUCH THAT THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE EXCEPTION TO THE SIDEWALK-MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION APPLIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. The NYC Administrative Code creates an exception to the sidewalk-maintenance requirement for “owner occupied” properties. That term is undefined. Here the defendants did not submit sufficient proof that the “owner-occupied” exception applied:

“‘Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York unambiguously imposes a nondelegable duty on certain real property owners to maintain city sidewalks abutting their land in a reasonably safe condition'” … . “However, this liability-shifting provision does not apply to ‘one-, two- or three-family residential real property that is (i) in whole or in part, owner occupied, and (ii) used exclusively for residential purposes'” … . “The statute does not expressly contain a primary residence requirement as part of the owner-occupied exemption, but the term ‘owner occupied’ generally is used to mean that the owner regularly occupies the property as a residence” … . Although “owner occupied” is not defined in the statute, it is clearly a lower standard than that of a primary residence. Furthermore, “[t]he purpose of the exception in the Code is to recognize the inappropriateness of exposing small-property owners in residence, who have limited resources, to exclusive liability with respect to sidewalk maintenance and repair” … .

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they were entitled to the exemption from liability under Administrative Code § 7-210(b). Although the defendants submitted proof that they are the owners of the subject property, which is a one-family home, they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the property was “owner occupied” within the meaning of the statute … . Mantinaos v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03957, Second Dept 6-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the meaning of “owner occupied” in the NYC Administrative Code such that the sidewalk-maintenance obligation does not apply.

 

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