You are here: / Appeals
, , , ,

A PRETRIAL RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS AN UNAPPEALABLE ADVISORY RULING; THE MOTION IN LIMINE SEEKING TO SET A LIMIT ON THE VALUE OF AN LLC WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined: (1) an advisory pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is not appealable, and (2) the motion to limit the evidence of the valuation of the LLC to $2,450,000, although couched as a motion in limine, was actually an untimely summary judgment motion:

“[A]n order, made in advance of trial, which merely determines the admissibility of [*2]evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling” … . * * *

… [P]laintiff’s motion which sought, in effect, to set the minimum value of the LLC at $2,450,000 and preclude any evidence of a lower value, while styled as a motion in limine, was the functional equivalent of an untimely motion for partial summary judgment determining that the value of the LLC was at least $2,450,000 … . “[A] motion in limine is an inappropriate substitute for a motion for summary judgment” … , and “in the absence of any showing of good cause for the late filing of such a motion,” should not have been considered … . Desantis v Desantis, 2024 NY Slip Op 01699, Second Dept 3-27-24

Practice Point: A pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence is an unappealable advisory ruling.

Practice Point: The motion in limine seeking to set a limit on the value of an LLC in this divorce proceeding was actually an untimely motion for summary judgment which should not have been considered.

 

, ,

IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHETHER THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY DEEMED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED BY THE PLEA, OR WHETHER THE JUDGE REJECTED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS AFTER CONSIDERING IT AS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for consideration of youthful offender status, determined it was not clear from the record whether the judge improperly denied youthful offender status because it has been waived by the plea or whether youthful offender status had been considered and rejected:

Although the court stated at sentencing that it would not grant defendant youthful offender status with regard to Indictment Nos. 3801/16 and 583/17, “there is nothing in the record to indicate that it actually independently considered youthful offender treatment,” as required by CPL 720.20(1) and People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), “instead of denying such treatment because it was not part of the plea agreement” … . While a court need not set forth its reasons for denying youthful offender treatment … , it is still required to “clarify expressly whether it had ‘actually consider[ed] youthful offender treatment’ or whether it had improperly ‘ruled it out on the ground that it had been waived as part of defendant’s negotiated plea'” … . Because the court did not satisfy this obligation, we remand the matter for a determination of whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment as to the promoting prison contraband and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance convictions. People v J.G., 2024 NY Slip Op 01520, First Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: In rejecting youthful offender status, the judge need not give the reasons but the record must reflect the judge considered the issue and did not improperly consider it waived by the plea.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY HELD SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION BECAUSE COUNTERCLAIMS WERE STILL BEFORE THE COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that plaintiffs were properly allowed to amend their complaint, which had been dismissed without prejudice, because counterclaims were still before the court:

… [T]he Appellate Division dismissal of the second amended complaint due to lack of standing or capacity was without prejudice …. . The order contemplated that the company could “in theory, be revived,” but simply stated that [plaintiff] had done so improperly. Therefore, there is nothing in the Appellate Division’s order or opinion that would prevent plaintiffs from pursuing their claims after curing the standing or capacity issue. …

The question on appeal, then, is whether the Appellate Division’s decision required the plaintiffs to commence a separate action instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Whatever the answer to that question might be in a case in which no action remained between the parties in Supreme Court, … here the action remained pending in Supreme Court because of the [defendants’] counterclaims. Therefore, Supreme Court retained control over the parties and continued to adjudicate claims related to the same transactions that formed the subject-matter of the complaint. For that reason, the Appellate Division order also did not render the case final for purposes of appealability, as no appeal to the Court of Appeals may be taken from an order which leaves claims pending in the action between the same parties … .

Because the original action remained pending in Supreme Court even after the complaint was dismissed, Supreme Court retained the power to grant leave to plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 2024 NY Slip Op 01496, CtApp 3-19-24

Practice Point: Here the appellate court had dismissed the complaint without prejudice and the issue was whether plaintiffs could file an amended complaint, or whether plaintiffs had to start a new lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held Supreme Court retained the power to allow an amended complaint because counterclaims were still before the court.

 

, ,

THE NYPD’S FAILURE TO TIMELY COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST WARRANTED THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PETITIONER; RESPONDENT NYPD’S ABANDONING AN ISSUE IN A PRIOR APPEAL PRECLUDED APPELLATE REVIEW OF THAT ISSUE IN A SUBSEQUENT APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the NYPD’s failure to timely comply with a court order mandating a response to petitioner’s FOIL request warranted the award of attorney’s fees to petitioner:

… [T]he court properly granted attorney’s fees and costs arising from NYPD’s noncompliance with this Court’s prior order. NYPD’s argument, that this noncompliance was justified because some of the records were sealed after NYPD’s final administrative determination, was abandoned in the prior appeal … , and this Court has “no discretionary authority” to reach this unpreserved issue in the interest of justice in this article 78 proceeding challenging an administrative determination … . The court providently exercised its discretion in holding NYPD in civil contempt, given that NYPD waited several months before disclosing a video and 407 heavily redacted pages of responsive records, after which petitioner was forced to continue litigating its entitlement to complete disclosure of unredacted copies of the records. After this Court’s January 2021 order, NYPD should have disclosed all records responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request, without the need for any further proceedings. “Once the court has issued a valid order, it is not for the recipient of that order to fashion its own remedy” … . The “lengthy delay” caused by NYPD “was unreasonable under the particular circumstances of this case,” warranting an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to FOIL … . Matter of Jewish Press, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 2024 NY Slip Op 01511, First Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: Failure to timely respond to a court order requiring the release of documents pursuant to a FOIL request, necessitating further litigation by the petitioner, warrants the award of attorney’s fees to petitioner.

 

,

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.

 

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