, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND A REPORT TO THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter and holding the appeal, determined the judge should have conducted an inquiry when defendant stated he wished to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant did not have a reasonable opportunity to present his reasons:

“When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances” … . “[O]ften a limited interrogation by the court will suffice” … . “[W]hen a motion ‘is patently insufficient on its face, a court may simply deny the motion without making any inquiry'” … . Nevertheless, “[t]he defendant should be afforded reasonable opportunity to present his [or her] contentions and the court should be enabled to make an informed determination” … .

Here, the defendant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his contentions regarding his application to withdraw his plea of guilty and, consequently, the court was not able to make an informed determination of that application … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the defendant’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty, and thereafter a report to this Court limited to the County Court’s findings with respect to the application and whether the defendant established his entitlement to the withdrawal of his plea of guilty. People v Nesbitt, 2025 NY Slip Op 02611, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: A defendant must be afforded a “reasonable opportunity” to explain any request to withdraw a guilty plea. The appellate court can hold the appeal and remit the case to afford the defendant that opportunity.

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT, AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL, AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER WHO RESIDES IN FLORIDA; THE CHILDREN APPEALED; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSED AND AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER, IN PART BECAUSE FAMILY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN AGES 12 AND 15 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an appeal by the children, reversing Family Court’s order issued after a nonjury trial, determined the record did not support the award of sole custody to plaintiff father who resides in Florida and who indicated during the proceedings he was not seeking residential custody of the children. The Second Department awarded sole custody to defendant mother:

“The court’s paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child” … . “In determining an initial petition for child custody, the totality of the circumstances, includes, but is not limited to, (1) which alternative will best promote stability; (2) the available home environments; (3) the past performance of each parent; (4) each parent’s relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the child, provide for the child’s overall well being, and foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent; and (5) the child’s desires” … . “Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, and therefore, deference is accorded to the trial court’s findings in this regard” … . “However, an appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a trial judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .

Here, the Supreme Court’s determination to award sole legal and residential custody of the children to the plaintiff lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record. The plaintiff, who resides in Florida, represented during the proceedings that he was not seeking residential custody of the children. Moreover, while strict application of the factors relevant to relocation petitions … is not required in the context of an initial custody determination, the record does not indicate the court fully considered the impact of moving the children away from the defendant, and the only home they have known, to live with the plaintiff in Florida … . In addition, under the circumstances presented, the court failed to give sufficient weight to the expressed preference of the children, who were 12 and 15 years old, respectively, as of the conclusion of the trial, to reside with the defendant … . Joseph P. A. v Martha A., 2025 NY Slip Op 02562, Second Dept 4-30-25

Practice Point: Here the appellate court reversed Family Court which had awarded sole custody to father after a nonjury trial. It appears that the main basis for the reversal was Family Court’s failure to consider the wishes of the children who were 12 and 15. The children appealed Family Court’s order.

 

, , , ,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COURT SHOULD USE ITS AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY WHICH SHOULD BE EMPLOYED SPARINGLY, FACTORS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a concurring decision and an extensive dissent, determined the juvenile delinquency petition should be dismissed in the interest of justice. The concurrence argued the dismissal should be based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. The dissent argued this difficult situation was properly handled:

Although we are mindful that “[d]ismissal in the furtherance of justice is an extraordinary remedy that must be employed sparingly,” it is our opinion that this is one of “those rare cases where there [are] compelling factor[s] which clearly demonstrate[ ] that prosecution [resulted in an] injustice” .. . … [A]ttempted assault in the third degree, a class B misdemeanor, is not serious … . … [T]he DSS caseworker was not seriously injured. * * * … [A]t the time of the attempted assault, respondent was in DSS’ care and custody because her mother was deceased and her grandmother, who subsequently adopted respondent, ultimately surrendered her rights. Respondent has a reportedly low IQ and a history of mental illness which was so severe that Family Court ordered a capacity evaluation … . Indeed, respondent had been brought to the hospital emergency room based on what was legally designed to be a temporary Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41 hold. Respondent remained in what was essentially a lock and key detention in the hospital, mostly in the emergency room, under dubious circumstances for an outrageous period of six months.

… Respondent already had numerous strikes against her, not only her lack of a parent/guardian and her serious mental health challenges, but also a previous juvenile delinquency adjudication. This additional juvenile delinquency finding is a red flag that will undoubtedly hinder opportunities and could cause difficulty for respondent should she seek mental health assistance in the future. Simply put, respondent needs no additional baggage, especially not baggage stemming from a juvenile delinquency petition that was admittedly filed and continued because of the difficulty of placing her in a suitable setting … . Matter of A. WW., 2025 NY Slip Op 02377, Third Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed analysis of an appellate court’s authority under the Family Court Act to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition “in the interest of justice.”

 

, , , , , ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS NOTIFIED OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT HEARING AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT; THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT; LEVEL-THREE RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing County Court’s level-three SORA risk-level assessment and remitting the matter, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant waived his right to be present at the virtual SORA risk-assessment hearing. The judge relied on an email from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision stating that defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court,” which was not sufficient proof defendant was notified of the hearing and his rights and voluntarily waived his rights. Although defense counsel did not object, the issue did not require preservation for appeal because the defendant had “no practical ability to object” to the due process error:

The record does not establish that defendant was advised of the hearing date, the right to be present or of the consequences of failing to appear and/or participate. County Court’s passing remark at the outset of the hearing that defendant had been “served” and did not wish to be present did not demonstrate such advisement or the basis for finding a waiver, and defense counsel did not represent that he had provided such advisements to defendant, that defendant was aware of his rights or that defendant had “expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing” … .

Although the People submitted a July 19, 2022 email correspondence indicating that an order to produce defendant for the SORA hearing was sent by County Court to the facility where defendant was apparently incarcerated, the responsive email from a Department of Corrections and Community Supervision employee stated only that defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court” for the SORA hearing, which was insufficient to establish that defendant was advised of the hearing date, his right to participate remotely or the consequences of failing to appear or participate. As such, the record fails to establish that defendant voluntarily waived his right to participate in the hearing, where County Court may have had the opportunity to assess any cognitive impairment and its impact, if any, on the appropriate risk level classification. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the appropriate risk level, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to County Court for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, preceded by the required notice (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). People v Santiago, 2025 NY Slip Op 02381, Thrid Dept 4-24-25

Practice Point: Here an email from the Department of Corrections stating defendant “is waiving his right to be present in court” was deemed insufficient to prove defendant was notified of the SORA risk-level-assessment hearing and voluntarily waived his right to be present, a due process violation.

Practice Point: Although defense counsel did not object to the hearing being held in defendant’s absence, the issue need not be preserved for appeal because defendant had “no practical ability to object.”

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A DIRECT APPEAL, AND DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO RAISE THE WINNING ARGUMENT IN THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT GRANTED DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO REMOVE THE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION FROM HIS SENTENCE; THE OFFENSE OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED IS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s judgment of conviction and reinstating it without the sex-offender certification, determined the offense of which defendant was convicted, burglary third degree as a sexually motivated felony, is not a registrable offense under the Correction Law. The court noted that a sex-offender certification is part of the sentence and therefore should have been challenged on direct appeal. Because an appeal is no longer possible, the court accepted the motion to vacate as an appropriate mechanism for correcting the error. Although the court rejected defendant’s “ineffective assistance of counsel” argument, it still granted the relief defendant sought on the constitutional ground that defendant has a “liberty interest” in not being misclassified as a sex offender:

Although defendant did not expressly raise such grounds in his motion, we note the People’s concession at oral argument that, in advocating that defendant pursue a different procedural course to obtain the requested relief, they do not oppose the ultimate result sought by defendant — the vacatur of the provisions of his judgment certifying him as a sex offender. * * * … [B]earing in mind that no party disputes that defendant should be afforded the discrete relief that he seeks in this proceeding and that defendant’s motion broadly seeks relief pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h), we believe it appropriate, in the interest of judicial economy, to address this matter now rather than require defendant to file a new motion asserting a different constitutional basis for the same relief. We therefore exercise our discretion, in the interest of justice, and grant defendant’s motion, vacate the judgment, and thereafter reinstate the judgment without the provisions thereof certifying defendant as a sex offender pursuant to SORA and requiring him to pay the $50 sex offender registration fee … . People v Richardson, 2025 NY Slip Op 01980, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here is a rare instance of an appellate court’s overlooking defendant’s failure to raise the sex-offender-misclassification issue on direct appeal and defendant’s failure to raise the winning constitutional argument in the motion to vacate the conviction. The reason? No one objected to the relief defendant sought, i.e. correction of the misclassification of the defendant as a sex offender. The objections were to the mechanism used to request the relief.

 

​

,

HERE THE PARTY WHO WAS AWARDED COSTS ON APPEAL WAS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF PROCURING THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE RECORD ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the party who has been awarded costs on appeal is entitled the cost of procuring the transcripts included in the record on appeal:

Pursuant to CPLR 8301(a)(13), a party to whom costs are awarded on appeal is entitled to tax his or her necessary disbursements for “reasonable and necessary expenses as are taxable according to the course and practice of the court, by express provision of law or by order of the court.” Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was entitled to disbursements for the expense of procuring trial transcripts for the purpose of preparing a record on appeal pursuant to CPLR 8301(a)(13) … . Thandi v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 01967, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: Here is a concrete example of what it means to be awarded “costs” after an appeal.

 

, ,

THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE RESTITUTION WAS PUNISHMENT FOR WINNING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST TRIAL; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT VACATED THE RESTITUTION; ALSO, THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution portion of the sentence, determined the presumption of vindictiveness had not been overcome. The defendant had won an appeal requiring a second trial. Defendant argued that the restitution in the amount of $139,231.87 ordered after the second trial was punishment for the successful appeal. The Third Department also dismissed the murder second degree counts a inclusory concurrent courts of murder first degree:

“[T]o insure that trial courts do not impose longer sentences to punish defendants for taking an appeal, a presumption of vindictiveness generally arises when defendants who have won appellate reversals are given greater sentences after their retrials than were imposed after their initial convictions” … . * * *

… [T]he imposition of restitution after retrial did result in an enhanced sentence following defendant’s successful appeal, and, as a result, the presumption of vindictiveness arose … . However, the court failed to engage in any on-the-record examination of the objective reasons why an enhanced sentence must be imposed, other than finding that it was not vindictive to order defendant “to make financially whole the representatives of his victims,” facts that indisputably existed at the time of the initial sentencing … . * * *

While we observe that County Court may have not actually been seeking to punish defendant for exercising his right to appeal when it imposed restitution, it was nevertheless the court’s obligation to overcome the presumption of vindictiveness by placing the reasons for the enhanced sentence on the record, and, based upon its failure to do so, we are constrained to vacate this portion of defendant’s sentence … . People v Powell, 2025 NY Slip Op 01839, Second Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here ordering restitution as part of the sentence after the second trial raised a presumption that the restitution constituted “punishment” for defendant’s winning the appeal of the first trial. The sentencing court put nothing on the record to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, so the restitution was vacated.

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree counts were dismissed as concurrent inclusory counts of murder first.

 

, , , , ,

FAMILY COURT LOST SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AFTER THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED THE CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed. Therefore the child’s placement in foster should not have been continued by the court. The First Department also noted that mother’s mental-health records from the period after the filing and after the dismissal of the neglect petition were improperly admitted:

We … find that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue R.C.’s foster care placement for the reasons articulated in Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.) (30 NY3d 275 [2017]), in which the Court of Appeals held that “Family Court’s jurisdiction terminates upon dismissal of the original neglect or abuse petition” … .

The “court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, but may be raised at any stage of the action, and the court may . . . on its own motion . . . at any time, when its attention is called to the facts, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action” … .

Here, once the neglect petition against the mother was dismissed, Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue the child’s temporary removal from the mother’s care and placement in foster care … . Accordingly, it should have immediately returned the child to the mother’s care and terminated the child’s foster care placement. It erred when it determined that it could hold permanency hearings based on the pending neglect petition against the putative father, since the child was not removed from his care, but from the mother’s. … Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that the child ever resided with the putative father and no indication that he ever sought custody of the child.

Furthermore, we find that the failure of Family Court to immediately return the child to the care of the mother after the dismissal of the neglect petition against her—as well as the subsequent protracted proceedings, including the dispositional hearing, which lasted nearly a year and a half—violated her due process rights … . Matter of R.C. (D.C.–R.R.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01859, First Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed and did not have the authority to continue the child’s placement in foster care.

Practice Point: The protracted proceedings after the dismissal of the neglect petition, during which the child remained in foster care, violated mother’s right to due process.

 

,

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.

 

, , ,

WHERE THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE A LEGAL ISSUE, THE FACTUAL DISPUTE MUST BE RESOLVED IN A HEARING BEFORE THE COURT CAN DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE; WHETHER THE RECORD GIVES RISE TO A FACTUAL DISPUTE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE IS A QUESTION OF LAW (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined a factual dispute about whether an attorney (Santamarina) validly waived personal jurisdiction on behalf of defendant Koukis required a hearing:

Supreme Court decided Mr. Koukis’s motion without a factual hearing, holding that Mr. Santamarina lacked authority to act on Mr. Koukis’s behalf and vacating his waiver of personal jurisdiction and service defenses. But Supreme Court concluded that personal jurisdiction existed over Mr. Koukis pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (2). It therefore set the matter down for a traverse hearing to determine if service on Mr. Koukis of the summons and complaint was proper.

Before the traverse hearing occurred, the Appellate Division modified the order of Supreme Court by vacating the default judgment and granting Mr. Koukis’s motion to dismiss based upon a lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Division held that “there was no basis to conclude that Koukis authorized Santamarina to appear and waive all jurisdictional defenses on his behalf” … . Additionally, the majority departed from Supreme Court in its analysis of CPLR 302 (a) (2), concluding that the court did not have personal jurisdiction and dismissing the complaint in its entirety … . Two Justices partially dissented on the ground that Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether Mr. Santamarina had the authority to represent Mr. Koukis … . We now reverse on the basis that there is a material factual dispute as to whether Mr. Koukis authorized or ratified the waiver of personal jurisdiction

[Plaintiff] was entitled to a factual hearing to determine whether Mr. Santamarina validly appeared on Mr. Koukis’s behalf and waived personal jurisdiction. Where the record shows a “factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue,” the court may not grant the motion without first holding a hearing (… see … CPLR 2218). Whether the record gives rise to such a factual dispute is a question of law … .Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v Koukis, 2025 NY Slip Op 01565, CtApp 3-18-25

Practice Point: Here there was a factual dispute on a material issue which had to be decided before the related legal question could be answered. Therefore a hearing was required to resolve the factual issue before the court addressed the legal issue. Whether a factual dispute on a material issue exists raises a question of law.