You are here: / Appeals
, ,

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.

 

, ,

AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE A NEW INDICTMENT; THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT (WHICH WAS STILL VALID) THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND; THE CONVICTION ON THE COUNT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT WAS REVERSED; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH AFTER A MISTRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction on one of three counts, determined the superseding indictment which came down after a mistrial on the original indictment was a nullity because the trial judge did not dismiss the original indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment. The issue was not preserved and the Third Department considered it in the interest of justice. Because defendant had been convicted of two counts which were in the original indictment, those convictions were allowed to stand because the original indictment was never dismissed. The Third Department noted that double jeopardy principles do not attach to a mistrial. The conviction on the third count, which was not in the original indictment, was reversed:

… [B]ecause the court did not, upon declaring the mistrial on the original indictment, “dismiss the indictment or authorize the People to re-present a new indictment to the [g]rand [j]ury[,] . . . the People were limited to retrying defendant upon the same accusatory instrument” … ; thus, the superseding indictment is a nullity … . However, reversal of the judgment of conviction is not required given that both indictments contained two identical counts … . * * * This conclusion, however, does not extend to count 1 of the superseding indictment, charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree … , which was not charged in the original indictment; therefore, we reverse that conviction. To the extent that defendant raises double jeopardy concerns, as the first trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy principles do not attach … . People v Gentry, 2023 NY Slip Op 03818, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, the judge does not dismiss the indictment or authorize a new indictment, the original indictment remains. Double jeopardy does not attach.

Practice Point: If, after a mistrial, a superseding indictment is brought without the trial court’s authorization, the superseding indictment is a nullity and the original indictment remains in effect.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ASSERT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THE ANSWER, THE DEFENSES WERE NOT WAIVED AND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE PROVIDING THAT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE WAS NOT WAIVED WAS NOT ENACTED AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS DECIDED, THE APPELLATE COURT CAN APPLY THE LAW AS IT EXISTS AT THE TIME OF THE APPELLATE DECISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the defendant’s failure to assert the plaintiff’s lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction in the answer did not waive those affirmative defenses, Defendant’s motion to amend the answer should have been granted. The court noted that even though RPAPL 1302-a, which provides that the failure to assert plaintiff’s lack of standing in the answer does not waive the defense, had not been enacted at the time the motion below was decided, the statute can be applied on appeal:

RPAPL 1302-a … provides that, notwithstanding the provisions of CPLR 3211(e), “any objection or defense based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing in a foreclosure proceeding related to a home loan, as defined in [RPAPL 1304(6)(a)], shall not be waived if a defendant fails to raise the objection or defense in a responsive pleading or pre-answer motion to dismiss.” “‘The general rule holds that an appellate court must apply the law as it exists at the time of its decision'” … . Accordingly, RPAPL 1302-a may be considered in connection with the present appeal, even though that statute had not been enacted at the time the relevant orders in this action were decided by the Supreme Court … .

… Although the defendant did not assert lack of personal jurisdiction in her answer and thereby waived this defense under CPLR 3211(e), such a defense can nevertheless be interposed in an answer amended by leave of court pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Groder, 2023 NY Slip Op 03768, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: Although defendant in this foreclosure action did not assert the affirmative defenses of lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction in the answer, the defenses were not waived and defendant should have been allowed to amend the answer accordingly.

Practice Point: An appellate court can apply the law as it exists at the time of the appellate decision, even where, as here, the relevant statute had not been enacted when the lower court issued its decision.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT’S ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER CONVICTION RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF A JAILHOUSE INFORMANT WHICH WAS AT ODDS WITH THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO; THE TESTIMONY OF THE INFORMANT WAS REJECTED, RENDERING DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s accomplice-to-murder conviction, determined the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. There was evidence the shooter came to and left the area where the shooting took place in a white sedan. Defendant owned a white sedan but it was not possible to tell whether the white sedan in the surveillance video was defendant’s. The People presented the testimony of a jailhouse informant who claimed defendant admitted dropping off and picking up the shooter. But the evidence given by the informant did not comport with the video surveillance of the white sedan and was therefore rejected by the Fourth Department:

… [W]e find that the version of events that the informant attributed to defendant is completely at odds with the video evidence establishing that the codefendant took an efficient, one-block circuitous route from the side street where the white sedan parked to the bar and then back to the sedan. The timing of events as established by the video evidence is too tight to permit any potential diversions or alternate routes to have been taken by the codefendant, much less the irrational choice of running along a busy thoroughfare several blocks away from the white sedan. Further, the informant’s testimony is too specific to permit the conclusion that any inconsistency between it and the video evidence is the innocuous result of an imprecise account. We therefore conclude that this is an appropriate case to substitute our own credibility determination for that made by the jury and find that the informant’s testimony is not credible ,,, . Absent the informant’s testimony, there is no evidence from which to reasonably infer that defendant shared the codefendant’s intent to cause the death of another person … or that defendant knew that the codefendant was armed at the time defendant transported him to the bar … . People v Ramos, 2023 NY Slip Op 03755, Fourth Dept 7-6-23

Practice Point: This decision is a clear example of the difference between a “legal sufficiency of the evidence” and a “weight of the evidence” analysis. Here the informant’s testimony describing a jailhouse confession by the defendant rendered the evidence legally sufficient. However the informant’s testimony was deemed incredible because it conflicted with the video evidence. The informant’s testimony was rejected by the appellate court rendering the conviction against the weight of the evidence.

Practice Point: If you search this website by clicking on the category “Criminal Law” and type “weight of the evidence” in the search bar, you will find many cases which are decided using the “weight of the evidence” label but which actually find the evidence legally insufficient. Appellate courts are now willing to reverse convictions as against the weight of the evidence where the legal sufficiency argument was not raised in the trial order of dismissal motion or where the TOD motion was not renewed upon the close of proof. Therefore, if there are deficiencies in the proof at trial, even if the legal insufficiency argument cannot be raised on appeal because it was not preserved, the “weight of the evidence” argument should be raised.

 

 

, , ,

THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BY LANDLORDS AGAINST POTENTIAL TENANTS BASED UPON SOURCE OF INCOME; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BELOW IT PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for a violation of the Executive Law prohibiting discrimination in renting an apartment based upon source of income. Although the issue was raised for the first time on appeal, the issue presented a question of law which could not have been avoided had it been raised below:

Executive Law § 296 (5) (a) (2) provides in relevant part that it “shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or any agent or employee thereof . . . [t]o discriminate against any person because of . . . lawful source of income . . . in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of any such housing accommodation or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith.” Plaintiff alleged in its amended complaint that it sent two testers to defendants’ properties seeking to rent the properties. The testers asked defendants if they accepted security agreements, which are issued by the Erie County Department of Social Services to landlords in the amount of one month’s rent in lieu of a cash deposit. Defendants responded that they accepted those agreements, but that they also required tenants to put down a cash deposit of one-half of a month’s rent for the security deposit.

… The allegations in the amended complaint support the inference that, for a person whose lawful source of income is public assistance … , defendants imposed a different term or condition for the rental than for a person whose lawful source of income was not public assistance. In particular, for a person on public assistance, defendants required one-half’s month rent, in cash, as a security deposit in addition to the security agreements. Housing Opportunities Made Equal v DASA Props. LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03607, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: The Executive Law prohibits landlords from discriminating against potential tenants by requiring a cash deposit in addition to security agreements issued by the county.

Practice Point: An issue not raised below will be considered on appeal if it presents a question of law which could not have been avoided if raised below.

 

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