You are here: / Appeals
, ,

TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED, STRONG DISSENT.

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction on ineffective assistance grounds was properly denied because the issue could have been appealed. Defendant pled guilty to three counts charging robbery second. However the underlying factual allegations for two of the counts only supported robbery third. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive five year terms of imprisonment, one for each robbery second count. The issue was not raised on appeal and a writ of error coram nobis was denied:

FROM THE DISSENT:

I understand that we are constrained by CPL 440.10(2)(2), which provides that a court must deny a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction where the ground or issue raised upon the motion could have been raised on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and the defendant unjustifiably failed to do so … . Here, the defendant, although represented by appellate counsel, failed to raise, on his direct appeal, the meritorious issues he now raises on his CPL 440.10 motion … . The defendant filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis, claiming that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues. However, that application was summarily denied … . Under these unique circumstances, where the defendant has no other apparent avenue of relief in the New York State court system, it would be fundamentally unfair and unjust to apply the procedural bar set forth in CPL 440.10 to his claims.

Accordingly, while I understand the reasoning the majority applies in reaching its determination, I cannot join it, and must respectfully dissent. People v McKenzie, 2017 NY Slip Op 05243, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

,

THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATE GROUND FOR A VALID SEARCH WHICH WAS ARGUED BUT NOT RULED UPON BELOW. ​

The First Department determined the seizure of a knife from the defendant was not the result of a valid search incident to arrest. Because the People also argued the seizure was justified for officer safety, but the suppression court did not rule on that issue, the matter was remitted:

Although the record supports a finding that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for assault based on reliable information from the assault victim, the People failed to meet their burden … of demonstrating that the officer intended to arrest defendant for the assault at the time he recovered the knife … . The officer’s testimony, viewed as a whole, indicates that, when he noticed the knife upon approaching defendant and retrieved it from defendant’s pocket, the officer’s intent was to inquire about the assault in order to verify that defendant was indeed the man who had assaulted the victim. Further, it was not until after the officer had retrieved the knife and confirmed that it was a gravity knife that he asked about the assault.

The People argue, in the alternative, as they did at the hearing, that the officer’s act of taking the knife from defendant’s pocket, where the handle of the knife and its clip were in plain view, was permissible as a self-protective minimal intrusion … . . However, as the hearing court did not rule on this issue in denying the suppression motion, and therefore did not rule adversely against defendant on this point, we may not reach it on this appeal … . People v Simmons, 2017 NY Slip Op 05179, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

,

DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, in the absence of preservation of the error, determined the plea colloquy negated an essential element of the crime. Unlawful possession of a weapon requires an intent to use the weapon unlawfully. Although such intent can be presumed, here defendant expressly negated it:

​

This is a “rare case” where the preservation requirement for challenges to guilty pleas does not apply because “defendant’s factual recitation negate[d] an essential element of the crime pleaded to” and the court “accept[ed] the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that defendant underst[ood] the nature of the charge and that the plea [was] intelligently entered” .. . The crime of attempted possession of a weapon in the second degree requires that a defendant intend to use the weapon unlawfully against another. However, during the plea colloquy, defendant explicitly, repeatedly and consistently denied any intent to use the weapon against anyone, lawfully or otherwise, at the time the police recovered it or at any other time. The court asked followup questions, but they were ineffectual because defendant’s responses only reconfirmed that he expressly denied having the requisite intent. Although an express admission of unlawful intent may not have been necessary in the first place, particularly because such intent is presumed (see Penal Law § 265.15[4]), defendant expressly negated that intent. People v Medina-Feliz, 2017 NY Slip Op 05053, 1st Dept 6-20-17

CRIMINAL LAW (GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/APPEALS, (CRIMINAL LAW, GUILTY PLEA, DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/GUILTY PLEA (DEFENDANT EXPRESSLY DENIED THE INTENT ELEMENT OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, THE JUDGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE, CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR)/WEAPON POSSESSION (UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON REQUIRES AN INTENT TO USE THE WEAPON UNLAWFULLY, EXPRESS DENIAL OF THAT ELEMENT REQUIRED REVERSAL OF GUILTY PLEA)

,

FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Fourth Department determined defendant was not accorded the opportunity to contest the constitutionality of a prior conviction. Therefore the sentence as a second felony offender was vacated even though the error was not preserved for review (interest of justice). Defendant was not provided with a statement of conviction. The fact that the prior conviction was an element of the charged offense in a special information did not obviate the need for a statement of conviction:

​

…[D]defendant contends that the People failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CPL 400.15 in seeking to have him sentenced as a second violent felony offender inasmuch as they did not file a predicate felony offender statement as required by CPL 400.15 (2). Although that contention is not preserved for our review… , we nonetheless exercise our discretion to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … . Contrary to the assertion of the prosecutor at sentencing, “the need for a predicate felony offender statement was not obviated by defendant’s pretrial admission to a special information setting forth his prior felony conviction as an element of a count charging criminal possession of a weapon. The special information did not permit defendant to raise constitutional challenges to his prior conviction, as he had the right to do before being sentenced as a second felony offender” … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for the filing of a predicate felony offender statement pursuant to CPL 400.15 and resentencing. People v Edwards, 2017 NY Slip Op 04983, 4th Dept 6-16-17

CRIMINAL LAW (SENTENCING, SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/STATEMENT OF CONVICTION (SECOND FELONY OFFENDER, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SENTENCING, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION OF HIS SENTENCE AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER)

, ,

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

The Fourth Department reversed the dismissal of this Labor Law retaliatory discharge cause of action in the interest of justice. The two-year statute of limitations ended on a Saturday. The action was commenced on the next business day (a Tuesday following Columbus Day), rendering the action timely. The correct calculation had not been raised below or on appeal:

​

Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing that the statute of limitations period had expired … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on October 10, 2013, we note that the two-year statute of limitations period ended on a Saturday and therefore was extended until “the next succeeding business day” (General Construction Law § 25-a [1]…). Because Columbus Day fell on the Monday following that Saturday (see § 24), the next business day was October 13, 2015, the date on which the action was commenced. Plaintiff’s complaint therefore was timely.

Although plaintiff did not assert that calculation in opposing defendant’s motion before the motion court or on this appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider it sua sponte in the interest of justice … . As noted above, defendant had the burden of establishing that the statute of limitations period had expired, and it could not refute that such period was extended by operation of law to October 13, 2015 … . Wilson v Exigence of Team Health, 2017 NY Slip Op 04993, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CALCULATION, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LAW (CALCULATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)/APPEALS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENDED ON A SATURDAY, ACTION COMMENCED ON THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DAY WAS TIMELY, DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT REVERSED SUA SPONTE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE)

,

TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY RESETTLED THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL BY CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, with two concurring opinions, determined the trial judge properly resettled the record of the trial without holding a hearing. The original transcript indicated the jury was instructed the defendant was charged with “unintentional” murder. The prosecutor submitted an affirmation based upon a conversation with the court stenographer stating that the word “unintentional” was a typographical error and the stenographic notes reflected the word “intentional” was actually used. The stenographer submitted a certified corrected transcript:

​

Several factors support the Appellate Division’s conclusion that Supreme Court acted within its discretion to resettle the transcript on the basis of the information before it. The trial judge could rely not only on the reporter’s certification of the corrected transcript, but also on undisputed portions of that transcript, including: the accurate balance of the charge; the fact that two of the five alleged misstatements were attributed to defense counsel, not the court; and, most significantly, the repeated failure of any party to object to what would have been prominent misstatements of the law. Furthermore, as there was no suggestion during oral argument on the motion that any person present at the trial five years earlier could recollect what words were spoken, it is not clear what evidence beyond the reporter’s original stenographic notes might have been obtained through a hearing.

Although it would have been preferable for the court to have received an affidavit from the court reporter, rather than an affidavit of counsel recounting a conversation with that reporter, we cannot say that Supreme Court acted outside its discretion to resettle the transcript without a hearing. People v Bethune, 2017 NY Slip Op 04493, CtApp 6-8-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (RESETTLING THE RECORD, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY RESETTLED THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL BY CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT A HEARING)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, RESETTLING THE RECORD, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY RESETTLED THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL BY CORRECTING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT A HEARING)

,

WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissent by Judge Rivera, determined whether entry into defendant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances is a mixed question of facts and law that cannot be addressed by the Court of Appeals:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. The conclusion that the warrantless entry by police into defendant’s home was justified by exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there is support in the record for the Appellate Division’s conclusion, the issue is beyond our further review … . “The rule applies ‘where the facts are disputed . . . or where reasonable minds may differ as to the inference to be drawn [from the established facts]'”… . The dissent’s conclusion to the contrary is based on a narrative derived from the suppression hearing record that unduly emphasizes the testimony and resulting inferences that are favorable to defendant. …

RIVERA, J. (dissenting):

As a matter of law, there is no record evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into defendant’s home … . Therefore, the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered. I dissent. People v Sivertson, 2017 NY Slip Op 04320, CtApp 6-1-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S home WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO (CRIMINAL LAW, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)/EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (CRIMINAL LAW, SUPPRESSION, APPEALS, COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER THE POLICE ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S HOME WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT AND IS THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE THE COURT OF APPEALS)

,

THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.

The First Department reversed defendant’s attempted robbery conviction, despite the lack of preservation of the error, because the jury charge did not make it clear that defendant must possess a dangerous instrument. The store clerk testified defendant had a knife and threatened him with it. However the exchange where the knife was allegedly brandished was not captured on the imperfect video and no knife was subsequently found by the police:

Defendant does not dispute that he failed to preserve his objection to the jury charge on attempted robbery. Accordingly, he asks us to exercise our interests-of-justice jurisdiction to reach the issue. There is precedent for exercising such jurisdiction in cases where a jury instruction was “manifestly incorrect” … . Defendant urges us to follow that precedent, arguing that the jury charge misstated the elements of the crime of first degree robbery. Defendant is correct in this regard. On its face, Penal Law § 160.15(3), under which defendant was charged, would appear to require conviction even if a person threatened to use a dangerous instrument that he did not in fact possess. However, the requirement for actual possession is an essential element that has been judicially engrafted onto the statute … . The People argue that the court technically issued a correct charge, because the CJI pattern jury instruction for “Attempt to Commit a Crime” provides for the court to merely “read [the] statutory definition of [the completed] crime and any defined terms as set forth in CJI for that crime” (CJI 2d [NY] Penal Law § 110.00). Because the statutory definition of robbery in the first degree does not, as stated above, require actual possession, they argue, the court’s instruction cannot be criticized. We reject this reasoning, because it reads out of the CJI instruction the words “as set forth in CJI for that crime” (id.). The current version of the CJI charge for Penal Law § 160.15(3) expressly refers to the possession requirement by stating, in pertinent part:

“In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the following two elements: 1. That on or about (date), in the county of (county), the defendant, (defendant’s name), forcibly stole property from (specify); and 2. That in the course of the commission of the crime [or of immediate flight therefrom], the defendant [or another participant in the crime] possessed a dangerous instrument and used or threatened the immediate use of that dangerous instrument” (CJI 2d [NY] Penal Law § 160.15 [3]) (emphasis added). People v Saigo, 2017 NY Slip Op 04237, 1st Dept 5-30-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, ERRONEOUS JURY CHARGE, INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REVERSAL, THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)/ROBBERY (THE ABSENCE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE, ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, FROM THE JURY CHARGE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE)

,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant law firm was entitled to sanctions for the frivolous conduct of plaintiff’s counsel.  Plaintiff’s counsel had repeatedly, including on appeal, made the false allegation that defendant law firm had withdrawn two causes of action which would have been successful. The two causes of action had, in fact, been timely brought by defendant law firm, but were subsequently withdrawn by successor counsel:

… [D]espite it having been apparent from the record that successor counsel was the one who withdrew the conversion and breach of contract claims in the federal action and not defendants, and despite being alerted to this fact by the record of this case and Supreme Court on multiple occasions, counsel persists in repeating a materially false claim to this Court.

There can be no good faith basis for the repetition of this materially false claim on appeal, and we find that counsel’s behavior would satisfy any of the criteria necessary to deem conduct frivolous. In fact, the only fair conclusion is that the prosecution of this appeal and knowing pursuit of a materially false and meritless claim was meant to delay or prolong the litigation or to harass respondents.

“Among the factors we are directed to consider is whether the conduct was continued when it became apparent, or should have been apparent, that the conduct was frivolous, or when such was brought to the attention of the parties or to counsel (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]), circumstances that are replete in this record as noted above”… .

We also consider that sanctions serve to deter future frivolous conduct “not only by the particular parties, but also by the Bar at large” … . The goals include preventing the waste of judicial resources, and deterring vexatious litigation and dilatory or malicious litigation tactics.

Here, counsel was ethically obligated to withdraw any baseless and false claims, if not upon his own review of the record, certainly by the time Supreme Court advised him of this fact. Instead, counsel continued to repeat a knowingly false claim in what could only be described as a purposeful attempt to mislead this Court, and pursued claims which were completely without merit in law or fact.

The appropriate remedy for maintaining a frivolous appeal is the award of sanctions in the amount of the reasonable expenses and costs including attorneys’ fees incurred in defending the appeal … . Boye v Rubin & Bailin, LLP, 2017 NY Slip Op 04239, 1st Dept 5-30-17

 

ATTORNEYS (ETHICS, SANCTIONS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/SANCTIONS (ATTORNEYS,  FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/ETHICAL VIOLATIONS (ATTORNEYS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT (ATTORNEYS,  FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)/APPEALS (FRIVOLOUS, FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY MADE A DEMONSTRABLY FALSE ALLEGATION AGAINST DEFENDANT LAW FIRM THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, INCLUDING ON APPEAL, WARRANTING SANCTIONS)

,

AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, PREFERENCE OF CHILDREN NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED.

The Second Department determined Family Court’s award of sole legal and physical custody to mother was not supported by the record. The court noted that the preference of the children was not adequately considered:

​

“Since the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record”… . “However, an appellate court would be seriously remiss if, simply in deference to the finding of a trial judge, it allowed a custody determination to stand where it lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record”… .

In this case, the Family Court’s determination awarding the mother sole legal and physical custody of the children does not have a sound and substantial basis in the record. Specifically, the court’s finding that the mother was “better equipped to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of the children” was not supported by the record. The record also fails to support the court’s determination that the father did not indicate a willingness to co-parent with the mother. In addition, while a child’s expressed preference in a custody proceeding is not determinative, it is some indication of what is in the child’s best interests, particularly where, as here, the court’s interview with the sons demonstrated their level of maturity and ability to articulate their preferences … . Here, although the children indicated a preference for living with the father, the court merely indicated that it understood their positions without explaining its reasons for rejecting them … . Matter of Tofalli v Sarrett, 2017 NY Slip Op 04125, 2nd Dept 5-25-17

 

FAMILY LAW (AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, PREFERENCE OF CHILDREN NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED)/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, PREFERENCE OF CHILDREN NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED)/APPEALS (FAMILY LAW, AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, PREFERENCE OF CHILDREN NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED)

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