You are here: / Appeals
,

NEW FACTS RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING; MATTER REMITTED FOR A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN” HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, sending the matter back for a “best interests of the children” hearing in this termination-of-parental rights proceeding, determined new facts prohibited an adequate review:

… [T]he three oldest children, along with the father, assert that new facts and allegations warrant remittal for a new dispositional hearing to determine the best interests of those children. We may “consider . . . new facts and allegations ‘to the extent [that] they indicate that the record before us is no longer sufficient’ to determine whether termination of . . . parental rights is in [a child’s] best interests” … . * * * … [W]e conclude that the record before us is no longer sufficient to determine whether termination of respondents’ parental rights is in the best interests of those children … . Matter of Noah C. (Greg C.), 2024 NY Slip Op 01430, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: In a Family Court case, new facts which render the record inadequate for appellate review require remittal for a hearing.

 

, , ,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG “DEBOUR” LEVEL TO THE INITIAL INQUIRY BY THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT AND REQUESTED THAT HE STEP OUT OF THE CAR; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RULED UPON UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD, THE APPELLATE COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUE AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision, remitted the matter for another ruling on defendant’s suppression motion. The trial judge determined that the police officer conducted a level one (DeBour) inquiry when he ordered the defendant out of the car. In fact, the officer conducted a level three inquiry which required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Because the ruling on defendant’s suppression motion was based upon the wrong standard, the matter was remitted for a ruling under the correct standard:

… [T]he patrol lieutenant engaged in a level three intrusion under De Bour when he ordered the occupants out of the vehicle … . Although an “officer’s initial approach of [a person] and request for identification [may constitute] a permissible level one encounter” under De Bour, it is well established that an “officer’s request that [a person] exit [a] parked vehicle elevate[s] the situation to a level three encounter under De Bour” and requires reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot … .

Because the court erroneously concluded that the patrol lieutenant engaged in only a level one intrusion when he directed defendant to step out of the vehicle, the court had no occasion to consider whether the patrol lieutenant had reasonable suspicion justifying that directive … . Although the People concede that the patrol lieutenant lacked reasonable suspicion, we are precluded “from reviewing an issue that . . . was not decided by the trial court” … . People v Taylor, 2024 NY Slip Op 01449, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: When the police officer approached defendant and asked defendant to get out of the car, the officer was conducting a level three DeBour inquiry which required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The suppression judge erroneously applied the criteria for a level one inquiry and denied suppression. Because the correct suppression issue was never ruled upon, the appellate court was forced to remit the matter for a ruling under the correct DeBour standard.

 

, ,

THE DECLARATORY RULING BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) WAS FINAL AND THEREFORE WAS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined the ruling by the Public Service Commission (PSC) was ripe for an Article 78 review and, therefore, the PSC’s motion to dismiss the petition should not have been granted. The declaratory ruling by the PSC was final and could not be altered by he PSC:

“A declaratory ruling shall be binding upon the agency unless it is altered or set aside by a court” by virtue of a CPLR article 78 proceeding (State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 [1]). Particularly relevant here, State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 (1) does not permit an agency to “retroactively change a valid declaratory ruling,” only allowing such changes to apply “prospectively.” Thus, the explicit language of State Administrative Procedure Act § 204 did not allow the PSC to modify its initial ruling … . * * *  … [T]he … declaratory ruling issued by the PSC is quasi-judicial in nature and, at the moment it was issued, was “accorded the [same] conclusiveness that attaches to judicial judgments,” thus rendering it ripe for review … . Matter of Clean Air Coalition of W. N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commission, 2024 NY Slip Op 01233, Third Dept 3-7-24

Practice Point: A declaratory ruling by the Public Service Commission (PSC) is final and cannot be altered by the Commission. Therefore the ruling is ripe for an Article 78 review by a court.

 

, ,

THE SEARCH OF A CAR AFTER DEFENDANT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST; SUPPRESSION GRANTED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined the search of defendant’s car was not a valid search incident to arrest because defendant and the driver had already been removed from the car. The People elected not to rely on the appeal waiver because of the erroneous suppression ruling:

The court improperly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the PCP recovered from the vehicle. As the People concede, the search of the vehicle could not be justified as a search incident to arrest because, at the time of the search, defendant and the driver had already been removed from the car and were in handcuffs. Anything inside of the car was no longer in defendant’s grabbable area or immediate control, and the People failed to demonstrate the existence of exigent circumstances to justify the search … . People v Ortiz, 2024 NY Slip Op 00745, First Dept 2-13-24

Practice Point: Once a defendant has been removed from a car, a search of the car cannot be a search incident to arrest because the interior of the car is no longer in defendant’s grabbable area or immediate control.

 

, , ,

RE-READING THE ORIGINAL JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT ADDRESS THE CONFUSION EXPRESSED IN THE NOTE FROM THE JURY; IN ADDITION, THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE INITIAL DETERMINATION WHETHER A WITNESS WAS QUALIFIED TO OFFER EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, over a dissent, determined the judge’s response to a jury note was inadequate and the judge did not make the required initial determination that a witness was qualified to offer expert-opinion evidence on the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). The jury wanted to know whether a guilty verdict required that the three alleged acts of sexual abuse take place within the three-month period described in the indictment. The answer was “es,” but the judge merely re-read the original charge about which the jury was confused. With respect to the CSAAS witness, the judge left it up to the jury to decide whether she was qualified as an expert:

… [T]he jury had already been provided with a complete written copy of the court’s original instructions for its reference during deliberations. Under these circumstances, County Court’s response to the jury’s inquiry was not meaningful, as it did nothing to clarify the very specific point on which the jury was confused. “[I]n our view, this is one of those rare cases where interest of justice review is warranted. Where the court fails to give information requested upon a vital point no appellate court may disregard the error” … . * * *

Although “[t]he court is not required to explicitly declare a witness an expert before permitting [expert] testimony” … , “the trial court is vested with the initial responsibility of evaluating whether an expert possesses the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the information imparted or the opinion rendered is reliable” … . Here, County Court abdicated its responsibility to make the initial determination as to whether [the witness] qualified as an expert. People v Goff, 2024 NY Slip Op 00656, Third Dept 2-8-24

Practice Point: A response to a jury note must clarify the confusion expressed in the note. Here, re-reading the original instruction was not sufficient.

Practice Point: Although a judge is not required to explicitly declare a witness an expert, the judge must make the initial determination whether the witness is qualified to offer reliable testimony.

 

, , ,

THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALFORD PLEA WOULD BE PREMISED ON HIS ABILITY TO APPEAL A GRAND-JURY EVIDENCE ISSUE; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD SUCH CONDITIONAL PLEAS ARE GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED IN NEW YORK; MATTER SENT BACK TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, sending the matter back for a motion to withdraw the plea (if defendant so chooses), determined County Court’s telling the defendant he could appeal his claim that the grand jury was tainted by inadmissible hearsay was erroneous. Defendant, with the judge’s and prosecutor’s permission, decided to enter an Alford plea based on the understanding he could appeal the grand-jury-evidence issue. But the Third Department held that such conditional pleas are generally not accepted in New York and sent the matter back to allow defendant to withdraw the plea:

“As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered,” such as evidentiary or technical defects. Although defendant, the People and the court all agreed that defendant’s Alford plea would be premised on the preservation of his right to raise these issues on appeal, conditional pleas such as this are generally not accepted in this state … , and the contentions he sought to preserve do not fall within the “extremely limited group of issues [that] survive[ ] the entry of a guilty plea” … . In this respect, we cannot overlook defendant’s assertion that his decision to enter an Alford plea was predicated on County Court granting the People’s motion to preclude his defenses and the corresponding promise that he could challenge that determination on appeal. Accordingly, as defendant is no longer receiving the full extent of his bargain, we remit the matter for County Court to allow defendant to withdraw his plea, should he elect to pursue that course … . People v Hafer, 2024 NY Slip Op 00341, Third Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s Alford plea, with the permission of the judge and prosecutor, was conditioned on his being able to appeal a Grand Jury evidence issue. The Third Department held that such conditional pleas are generally not accepted in New York. Defendant was allowed to move to withdraw his plea if he so chooses.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT CANNOT APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING; HE MUST FIRST BE ADJUDICATED BY THE SORA COURT AND MAY SUBSEQUENTLY APPEAL REQUESTING AN ANNULMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in full-fledged opinion by Judge Pitt-Burke, determined the defendant could not appeal an interlocutory order which denied his motion to dismiss the SORA proceeding. Defendant had been convicted of a federal offense and argued the Penal Law did not criminalize the use of morphed images which did not depict actual sexual conduct by a child. The First Department held the defendant must go through with the SORA hearing and subsequently make this argument on appeal:

By its plain language, Correction Law § 168-n (3) only permits an appeal “as of right” from the SORA court’s risk level determination order. To find otherwise would be to ignore the legislative intent of the statutory language … . Namely, the procedural safeguards afforded to defendant in Correction Law § 168-n (3) require the SORA court to conduct a risk assessment hearing before it renders an order requiring him to register as a sex offender in New York and assigns him a risk level designation. Until a hearing is held and a determination made, the defendant’s liberty interest as related to the SORA proceeding has not yet been adjudicated (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). …

Under to CPLR 5701 (a) (2) (v), “[a]n appeal may be taken to the appellate division as of right . . . from an order . . . where the motion it decided was made upon notice and it . . . affects a substantial right.” Even assuming defendant’s interpretation of Correction Law § 168-n (3) is correct, the interlocutory order appealed from does not require defendant to register as a sex offender. In fact, the very procedural safeguards noted above prevent the SORA court from issuing such an order without a hearing. People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 00248, First Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: Defendant could not appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the SORA risk-level proceeding before it was conducted. Defendant contended the federal offense of which he was convicted involved morphed images that did not depict actual sexual conduct by a child, a circumstance, he argued, not covered by the New York Penal Law.

 

, , , ,

THERE IS NO INDICATION MOTHER WAS INFORMED OF HER COUNSEL’S WITHDRAWAL BEFORE THE PERMANENCY HEARING WAS HELD IN MOTHER’S AND COUNSEL’S ABSENCE; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT AND MOTHER’S ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined it was not demonstrated mother was informed of her counsel’s intent to withdraw from representing her before the judge conducted the permanency hearing in counsel’s and mother’s absence and found against her. The two-justice dissent argued no appeal lies from a default and mother’s recourse was to move to vacate the default pursuant of CPLR 5015(a):

It is well established that the mother, as a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Ct Act, had both a constitutional and a statutory right to the assistance of counsel … . Once counsel has been assigned, an attorney of record may withdraw from representation only upon reasonable notice to his or her client … . Such requirement remains true even where a party fails to appear at proceedings or there are allegations of a breakdown in communication between the client and the attorney … .

Here, there is no indication in the record that the mother’s assigned counsel had informed her that she was seeking to withdraw as counsel … . Nor does the record reveal that Family Court made any inquiry into such notice or whether there was good and sufficient cause for such withdrawal … . Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), 2024 NY Slip Op 00215, Third Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: There is no evidence mother in this neglect proceeding was informed of her counsel’s withdrawal before the court made the neglect finding in her and her counsel’s absence. Matter reversed and remitted.

Practice Point: Two dissenters argued no appeal lies from a default and mother’s only remedy is a motion to vacate the default.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FILED A PETITION FOR CUSTODY AFTER GRANDMOTHER WAS AWARDED CUSTODY, FATHER’S APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) the fact that father filed a petition for custody after custody had been awarded to grandmother did not render father’s appeal of the custody-award to grandmother moot; (2) because the judge failed to make a searching inquiry, father did not effectively waive his right to counsel:

“Once a court makes a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist” to conclude that a parent relinquished his or her otherwise superior right to custody as compared to a nonparent, “that issue cannot be revisited in a subsequent proceeding seeking to modify custody and, thus, such a finding may have enduring consequences for the parties” … . In the order appealed from, the Family Court determined that the requisite extraordinary circumstances existed. This appeal is therefore not academic, among other reasons, because the court’s determination in the order appealed from imposes enduring consequences upon the father that will “impact the scope of the pending proceedings” … . …

Family Court failed to conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that the father’s waiver of his right to counsel was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently … . The hearing record demonstrates that the father did not wish to proceed pro se, but felt that he had no other option but to do so … . To the extent the attorney for the child contends that the court was not required to conduct a searching inquiry because the father did not demonstrate that he was entitled to assigned counsel, this contention is without merit. A court’s obligation to ensure the validity of a party’s waiver of his or her right to counsel extends beyond indigent parties … . In any event, the father indicated that he lacked the funds necessary to afford an attorney, and the court failed to inquire into the father’s financial capability to retain counsel … . The court had an independent obligation to conduct such an inquiry and could not rely solely upon information received from the Legal Aid Society of Orange County regarding whether the father qualified for its services … . Matter of Turner v Estate of Laura Katherine Jane Turner, 2024 NY Slip Op 00193, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: Here father’s appeal of the award of custody to grandmother was not moot, even though father first filed for custody after the award of custody to grandmother.

Practice Point: A sufficient inquiry into whether a party’s waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, voluntary and intelligent must go beyond whether the party is financially entitled to assigned counsel.

 

,

IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that the combined hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law sections 9.31 and 9.39 was improper but the patient was not prejudiced by the procedure. The respondent had been released from the hospital, so the appeal was moot. But the Third Department heard the case because the issue was likely to otherwise evade review:

As we understand respondent’s position, she maintains that in the context presented — where a patient is admitted on an emergency basis under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 and has demanded a hearing, but whose status is converted to an involuntary admission on medical certification under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27 prior to the hearing — the ensuing hearing must be limited to a section 9.39 format. Respondent emphasizes that she never requested a hearing under section 9.31 to challenge her involuntary admission. By holding a combined hearing, respondent contends that County Court deprived her of her statutory right to demand a later hearing under section 9.31. * * *

The … question is whether County Court improperly combined the hearings … to conclusively resolve whether respondent was entitled to release that day, assuming the proof fell short under either standard. That question is resolved by the procedures outlined in Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31 (a) and 9.39 (a) (2), which vest in the patient — not the court or hospital — the right to request a hearing under each section. In that regard, we agree with respondent that, because she never requested a hearing under section 9.31, the court erred in holding a combined hearing and she retained the right to later request a hearing under section 9.31. On the other hand, had respondent also requested a section 9.31 hearing, we see no reason why a combined hearing could not be held by the court, provided it did so within the applicable statutory deadlines and considered both statutory standards in rendering its decision. Matter of Julie O., 2024 NY Slip Op 00015, Third Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: Here an “emergency” hospital admission under the Mental Hygiene Law and an “involuntary” admission were pending at the same the time. The admissions have different standards. Therefore, if the patient does not request a combined hearing the court should not hold one. However a patient could request a combined hearing.

Practice Point: Here the patient had been released from the hospital and the appeal of the patient’s admission was moot. However the Third Department considered the case because the issue was likely to evade review.

 

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