You are here: / Appeals
, ,

RATHER THAN ADDRESS WHETHER THE REGULATION REQUIRING HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TO BE VACCINATED AGAINST COVID WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, FLATLY STATING THE PANDEMIC IS OVER AND IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR AGAIN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the appeal of Supreme Court’s ruling that the regulation requiring hospitals to mandate COVID vaccines for certain personnel exceeded the state’s authority has been rendered moot. The state has repealed the regulation. The exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply:

“[A]lthough the issue of the lawfulness of the [regulation] implemented as part of the extraordinary response to the COVID-19 pandemic is substantial and novel, that issue is not likely to recur” given the once-in-a-century nature of the pandemic and the emergency governmental response thereto … . Moreover, “the issue is not of the type that typically evades review” … . Indeed, the regulation at issue here received significant review from numerous state and federal courts … . In any event, under the circumstances of this case, we would “decline to invoke the mootness exception” … . Matter of Medical Professionals for Informed Consent, Individually & On Behalf of Its Members, Kristen Robillard, M.D., Zarina Hernandez-schipplick, M.D., Margaret Florini, A.S.C.P., Olyesya Girich, Rt (r), & Elizabeth Storelli, R.N., Individually & On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v Bassett, 2023 NY Slip Op 05052, Fourth Dept 10-6-23

Practice Point: Health care workers lost their jobs if they refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 based upon the regulation at issue here. At this writing, the COVID booster campaign continues unabated for everyone over six months of age. Yet the Fourth Department refused to consider whether the regulation was valid and enforceable, instead declaring the pandemic over and unlikely to occur again.

 

, , ,

MOTHER WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE DEFAULTED IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER; MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED BUT DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE; ALTHOUGH AN ORDER ENTERED UPON DEFAULT CANNOT BE APPEALED, CONTESTED MATTERS DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT, HERE WHETHER MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CAN BE CONSIDERED UPON APPEAL FROM THE ORDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined Family Court properly found that mother had defaulted in this custody case, despite the appearance of her attorney, who declined to participate. The Fourth Department noted that, although orders issued pursuant to a default are not appealable, contested issues addressed by the court prior to the order can be appealed:

The court, concluding that the mother had adequate warning that she needed to appear visually at the hearing and ample time to ensure that she could so appear, denied the request for an adjournment and determined that it would proceed by inquest. Inasmuch as the mother’s attorney, although present, thereafter declined to participate in the inquest in the mother’s absence and instead elected to stand mute, we conclude that the court properly determined that the mother’s failure to appear in the manner required constituted a default … .

“[N]otwithstanding the prohibition set forth in CPLR 5511 against an appeal from an order or judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party, the appeal from [such an] order [or judgment] brings up for review those ‘matters which were the subject of contest’ before the [trial court]” … . Thus, in this appeal, review is limited to the mother’s contention that the court abused its discretion in denying her attorney’s request for an adjournment … . We reject that contention. Matter of Reardon v Krause, 2023 NY Slip Op 04880, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here mother did not appear in the custody case and her attorney appeared but declined to participate. Therefore Family Court properly found mother to be in default.

Practice Point: Although an order entered upon default is not appealable, an appeal from such an order brings up contested matters decided prior to the order. Here the appellate court considered the denial of mother’s attorney’s request for an adjournment.

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION SEEKING A CIVIL CONTEMPT DETERMINATION COULD NOT BE HEARD BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING SUIT HAD BEEN SETTLED BY STIPULATION WITH PREJUDICE, STRIPPING SUPREME COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; A SUBJECT-MATTER-JURISDICTION ISSUE CAN BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the civil contempt action should have been dismissed because the underlying lawsuit had been settled with prejudice by stipulation. Because the issue relates to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction it can be raised on appeal at any time. The underlying lawsuit was a property dispute and concerned the location of a fence. After the stipulation settling the suit, defendants refused to sign a fence location agreement. Because the underlying suit was discontinued with prejudice the plaintiffs only option is to commence a plenary action:

… [T]he defendants’ assertion, raised for the first time on appeal, that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs’ motion, is properly before this Court, as a defect in subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time … .

“A motion must be addressed to a pending action” … , and a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been “‘unequivocally terminated . . . [by the execution of] an express, unconditional stipulation of discontinuance'” … , “or actual entry of judgment in accordance with the terms of the settlement” … .

Here, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was to hold the defendants in civil contempt, since the action was unconditionally discontinued with prejudice by the parties’ stipulation, as memorialized in the settlement order … . Thus, the relief requested by the plaintiffs was not available by way of a motion, and could only be obtained by commencing a plenary action … . Riccio v Kukaj, 2023 NY Slip Op 04785, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: A stipulation settling a suit with prejudice strips the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore a subsequent motion cannot be heard by the court and any further proceedings require a plenary action. A subject-matter-jurisdiction issue can be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

,

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS, DESPITE HIS WAIVER OF APPEAL; THE ISSUE HERE WAS RAISED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE APPEALS PROCESS BY A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined defendant was entitled to consideration of whether he should be afforded youthful offender status in spite of defendant’s waiver of appeal:

Defendant … moved for a writ of error coram nobis contending that Supreme Court neglected to consider whether he should be afforded youthful offender treatment in connection with his conviction of assault in the first degree and that appellate counsel, in turn, was ineffective for failing to raise this issue upon the direct appeals. This Court granted defendant’s motion to the extent of reinstating defendant’s appeals … and permitting defendant to brief the youthful offender issue … .

The People concede — and we agree — that remittal is warranted. People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), which was decided before defendant was sentenced and the ensuing appellate process was completed, requires the sentencing court to make “a youthful offender determination in every case where the defendant is eligible, even where the defendant fails to request it, or agrees to forgo it as part of a plea bargain” … . Notably, a defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal, regardless of its validity, does not foreclose review of the sentencing court’s failure to consider youthful offender status … . Where, as here, a defendant is convicted of an armed felony … , such defendant is not automatically precluded from obtaining youthful offender status; rather, “the court is [first] required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)” … . “If the court determines, in its discretion, that neither of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors exist and states the reasons for that determination on the record, no further determination by the court is required. If, however, the court determines that one or more of the CPL 720.10 (3) factors are present, and the defendant is therefore an eligible youth, the court then must determine whether or not the eligible youth is a youthful offender”… . People v Jones, 2023 NY Slip Op 04689, Third Dept 9-21-23

Practice Point: Whether a defendant should be afforded youthful offender status can be raised on appeal, despite the waiver of appeal. Here the issue was raised after the appeals process was complete by a motion for a writ of coram nobis alleging appellate counsel was ineffective.

 

, ,

IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROOF PRESENTED BY ASSIGNED COUNSEL AT THE FIRST HEARING AND CONSIDERED “NEW” FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Family Court over a detailed and comprehensive dissent, determined mother was entitled to a new hearing on her petition to relocate to North Carolina because her assigned counsel did not adequately present evidence of the financial necessity of the move. The dissent would grant the petition to relocate based on the existing record:

… [A]s the attorney for the child argues on this appeal, the mother’s motion to this Court for a stay pending appeal (a motion this Court granted by order entered November 15, 2022 and continued by order entered April 20, 2023), raised legitimate concerns about the adequacy of representation by her assigned counsel at the fact-finding hearing on her relocation petition. Specifically, … the mother attests that counsel failed to adequately present evidence of the financial necessity that supports her decision to relocate. On account of these omissions, as well as the passage of time and intervening events that have occurred since the court’s September 6, 2022 order, we reverse the court’s denial of the mother’s petition and remand for a new hearing to determine what is in the child’s best interests … . Although the facts warranting a new hearing are outside the record on appeal, given that changed circumstances have particular significance in child custody matters, we take notice of the new facts to the extent they indicate that the record is no longer sufficient to determine the mother’s relocation petition … . Matter of Emily F. v Victor P., 2023 NY Slip Op 04634, First Dept 9-14-23

Practice Point: Here the First Department considered “new” facts which were  not part of the record on appeal in determining there should be a new hearing on mother’s petition to relocate.

 

, ,

WHERE A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITHOUT A MOTION ON NOTICE, AN APPEAL IS NOT AVAILABLE BUT A MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE; THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DEFAULT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT ABANDON THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action demonstrated it had not abandoned the action by moving for an order of reference within one year of the default judgment. The Second Department noted that where, as here, the dismissal of the complaint was not based upon a motion on notice, a motion to vacate the dismissal, as opposed to an appeal, is the appropriate procedure:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) is not subject to any specific time limitation … . Where, as here, an order directing dismissal of a complaint is not appealable as of right because it did not decide a motion made on notice, it is procedurally proper for the aggrieved party to move pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) to vacate that order … .

CPLR 3215(c) provides that “[i]f the plaintiff fails to take proceedings for the entry of judgment within one year after [a] default, the court shall not enter judgment but shall dismiss the complaint as abandoned, without costs, upon its own initiative or on motion, unless sufficient cause is shown why the complaint should not be dismissed.” “It is not necessary for a plaintiff to actually obtain a default judgment within one year of the default in order to avoid dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215(c)” … . Nor is a plaintiff required to specifically seek the entry of a judgment within a year … . As long as the plaintiff has initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment within one year of the default, there is no basis for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3215(c) … .

Here, the plaintiff initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment by moving for an order of reference in December 2008, which was within one year of the defendant’s default in the action … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Campbell, 2023 NY Slip Op 04303, Second Dept 8-16-23

Practice Point: The dismissal of a complaint not based upon a motion on notice is not appealable. A motion to vacate the dismissal, for which there is no time limitation, is appropriate.

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action where defendant defaulted, the bank need only take some action within the year following the default, here seeking an order of reference, to demonstrate the action had not been abandoned.

, , , ,

THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES IS APPEALABLE; DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES ATTRIBUTING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TO NON-PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from asserting the negligence of non-parties (CPLR article 16 defenses) as an affirmative defenses. The court noted that, although the a ruling on a motion in limine is generally not appealable, a ruling on a motion which seeks to limit the legal theories which can be asserted is appealable:

“Generally, an order ruling [on a motion in limine], even when made in advance of trial on motion papers constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission” … . There is, however, “a distinction between an order that ‘limits the admissibility of evidence,’ which is not appealable . . . , and one that ‘limits the legal theories of liability to be tried’ or the scope of the issues at trial, which is appealable” … . * * *

… [D]efendants are entitled to assert their CPLR article 16 defenses regarding the nonparty providers. “As provided in CPLR 1601 (1), a defendant may raise the CPLR article 16 defense regarding a nonparty tortfeasor, provided that the plaintiff could obtain jurisdiction over that party” … . Here, defendants are entitled to raise their pleaded affirmative defenses pursuant to CPLR article 16 … because plaintiff could have sought to maintain an action against the nonparty providers in Supreme Court … .

The crux of the issue on appeal is whether defendants were required, in response to plaintiff’s demands for bills of particulars, to particularize the pleaded CPLR article 16 defense, and thus whether the court properly precluded them from asserting that defense at trial when they did not timely particularize that defense. We conclude that no such particularization was required under the circumstances of this case, and thus that the court erred in precluding defendants from asserting the CPLR article 16 defense at trial. Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04273, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: Motions in limine generally are not appealable. But motions seeking to preclude legal theories of liability are appealable.

Practice Point: Under the unique circumstances of this case, defendants in this medical malpractice action should not have been precluded from presenting CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses on the ground the defenses were not particularized in the bill of particulars. It was not clear the demands related to the CPLR article 16 affirmative defenses.

 

, ,

THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the suppression motion was properly granted because the police blocked defendant’s car before there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or danger to the public. The majority also concluded the issue could be decided on appeal in the absence of a specific ruling by the motion court by relying on the record for the context of the ultimate ruling:

Officer Cox’s conduct in stopping the police vehicle “directly in front of the driveway” in a position “blocking the location” where the Audi was stopped with the engine running “constituted a stop, which required reasonable suspicion that the defendant or other occupants of the vehicle were either involved in criminal activity or posed some danger to the police” … . Joyette, the driver of the Audi, could not have pulled out of the driveway due to the police vehicle blocking the driveway, and thus, the police conduct constituted a “‘significant interruption with an individual’s liberty of movement'” … .

Further, the People failed to present any evidence showing that Officer Cox and his fellow officers observed any criminal activity at the time Officer Cox blocked the Audi from leaving the driveway. * * *

While CPL 470.15 bars this Court from deciding an appeal on a ground not ruled upon by the trial court … , “nothing in the language of CPL 470.15(1) . . . prohibits an appellate court from considering the record and the proffer colloquy with counsel to understand the context of the trial court’s ultimate determination” … . Moreover, “where the trial court gives a reason [for its decision] and there is record support for inferences to be drawn from that reason, the Appellate Division does not act beyond the parameters legislatively set forth in CPL 470.15(1) when it considers those inferences” … . People v Joyette, 2023 NY Slip Op 04216, Second Dept 8-9-23

Practice Point: When the police blocked defendant’s car they did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore the suppression motion was properly granted.

Practice Point: When a court’s ruling is not explicit the context of the ruling can be turned to by the appellate court to determine the exact nature of the ruling.

 

,

THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS AND WAS APPARENTLY ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT SUICIDE WHEN HE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RESULTING IN THE ASSAULT CHARGE, THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE SEVEN-YEAR SENTENCE FOR ASSAULT (THE MAXIMUM) SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE REDUCED; A CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS VALID (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent and a concurrence, determined (1) the waiver of appeal was invalid, and (2) the sentence was not harsh and excessive. The dissenters argued defendant exhibited signs of mental illness and the traffic accident which was the basis of the assault charge was a suicide attempt, warranting a lesser sentence and rehabilitative measures. The concurrence argued the appeal waiver was valid:

The written appeal waiver executed by defendant during the plea allocution is overly broad in several respects, as it purported to create an absolute bar to a direct appeal by indicating that the appeal waiver “mark[s] the end of [his] case” and precludes him from pursuing collateral relief “in any state or federal court” … . Although County Court’s brief oral allocution advised defendant that certain appellate rights survive the waiver, this was not sufficient to cure the defects in the written waiver … and did not establish that he understood that some collateral and federal review survives the waiver …  Consequently, defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive the right to appeal … .

From the dissent:

… [I]t is evident that defendant’s criminal conduct was not borne of a malicious intent nor of a conscious choice to act with reckless disregard for the lives of others; rather, the entirety of his conduct appears attributable to his profound mental illness, which was no longer adequately controlled at the time of the incident and casts serious doubt on the level of his culpability. Moreover, the record reveals that, at the time of the incident, defendant was 26 years of age, had no history of prior unlawful conduct and had been a productive member of society, as demonstrated by, among other things, his participation in a reserve officer training corps program while attending college … . Under these circumstances, we find that the societal benefits of deterrence and punishment achieved through a seven-year term of imprisonment, which is the maximum legal sentence for his conviction, are minimal and, more importantly, they are far outweighed by the rehabilitative considerations that support reducing this specific defendant’s sentence … . People v Appiah, 2023 NY Slip Op 03955, Third Dept 7-27-23

Practice Point: The appeal waiver was deemed invalid because it intimated all appellate issues were precluded.

Practice Point: Although defendant was suffering from mental illness and was apparently attempting to commit suicide when he caused the traffic accident (the basis of his assault conviction), the majority concluded his seven-year sentence should not be reduced. A two-justice dissent disagreed.

 

, , , , ,

ORDERS COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS OR PRECLUDING QUESTIONING ARE NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; A REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL AFTER THE APPEAL IS PERFECTED IS GENERALLY DENIED; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SUBJECT MEDICAL RECORDS WERE PRIVILEGED AS PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) there is no appeal as of right from the denial of a motion to compel a witness to answer deposition questions, (2) there is no appeal as of right from a protective order precluding certain questioning, (3) an appellate court will generally not consider a request for permission to appeal made after the appeal is perfected, (4) the hospital did not demonstrate certain medical records were privileged as part of a quality assurance review:

… [T]he plaintiffs sought leave to appeal after their appeal was perfected. As this Court has repeatedly observed under comparable circumstances, “‘we are disinclined to grant leave to parties who have taken it upon themselves to perfect an appeal without leave to appeal'” … . * * *

Pursuant to Education Law § 6527(3), certain documents generated in connection with the “performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function,” or reports “required by the department of health pursuant to [Public Health Law § 2805-l],” are generally not discoverable … . Nyack Hospital, as the party seeking to invoke the privilege, had the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes … . Nyack Hospital merely asserted that a privilege applied to the requested documents without making any showing as to why the privilege attached. Martino v Jae Ho Lee, 2023 NY Slip Op 03915, Second Dept 7-26-23

Practice Point: If an order is not appealable as of right (here orders re: compelling answers or precluding questions during deposition), the appellate court will not generally grant permission to appeal after the appeal is perfected.

Practice Point:  Here in this med mal case the hospital did not demonstrate the medical records were privileged as part of a quality assurance 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