You are here: / Attorneys
, , ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WAS BASED SOLELY UPON READING THE COMPLAINT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the affidavit by plaintiff’s counsel in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate defendant’s default:

Generally, in moving for summary judgment in an action to foreclose a mortgage, a plaintiff establishes its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through the production of the mortgage, the unpaid note, and evidence of default … . “A plaintiff may establish a payment default by an admission made in response to a notice to admit (see CPLR 3212[b]; 3123), by an affidavit from ‘a person having [personal] knowledge of the facts’ (CPLR 3212[b]), or by other evidence ‘in admissible form'” … .

Here, in support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted the affirmation of its counsel, Jennie Shnayder, who attested to the borrower’s default in payment. However, Shnayder stated that the basis of her knowledge was her review of the complaint, and she did not attest that she had personal knowledge of the defendants’ alleged default in payment or annex to her affirmation any other evidence thereof in admissible form. Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v E39 St., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 04417, Second Dept 9-11-24

Practice Point: A recurring evidentiary issue in foreclosure proceedings where the bank is seeking summary judgment is the sufficiency of evidence presented in the supporting affidavits. Unless the plaintiff’s affiant’s assertions are based on first-hand knowledge, or on business records that are attached, summary judgment is not supported.

 

, , , , ,

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THE MANDATE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE CONTRARY; THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IMPROPER; THE PETITION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner, at teacher, was not entitled to an extension of an exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate (denied by the NYC Department of Education) and the award of over $24,000 in attorney’s fees. The vaccine mandate is no longer in force, and the matter did not meet the criteria for an exception to the mootness doctrine:

Courts are prohibited from rendering advisory opinions, and a matter will be considered academic unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the matter and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment … . Here, the vaccine mandate, which was never enforced against the petitioner, was repealed on February 9, 2023. Accordingly, the petition is academic … .

Furthermore, the exception to the mootness doctrine, which permits judicial review where the case presents a significant issue that is likely to recur and evade review, is inapplicable here … . The issue is not likely to repeat, as the vaccine mandate has been repealed and the possibility that some form of vaccine mandate might be enforced against the petitioner at some unknown time in the future is entirely speculative, and the petitioner does not raise novel questions … .

Since an award of attorneys’ fees is not authorized by agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule, the Supreme Court improperly awarded attorneys’ fees to the petitioner … ..  Matter of Ferrera v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2024 NY Slip Op 04317, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Because the vaccine mandate for NYC teachers is no longer in force, the petitioner-teacher’s request for an extension of an exemption from the mandate was properly denied by the NYC Department of Education. Supreme Court’s grant of the extension and award of attorney’s fees was improper because courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions. In addition, the criteria for an exception to the mootness doctrine were not met.

 

, ,

HERE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT THE PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES WERE NON-PRETEXTUAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly denied Batson challenges to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges:

From the dissent:

Although trial courts are permitted to implicitly determine that the race-neutral explanations offered by the prosecutor are not pretextual … , we find that the language utilized by County Court cannot be construed as making an implicit determination. County Court did not state that it believed the race-neutral reasons offered by the prosecutor; instead, the court indicated that it “believe[d] there’s a race-neutral reason . . . which would permit a . . . peremptory challenge by the People, not subject to Batson.” This language demonstrates that the court only considered whether the People had proffered a race-neutral reason and not whether the race-neutral reason was pretextual as required under the third step of the Batson inquiry, despite defendant’s arguments to this effect … . People v Morgan, 2024 NY Slip Op 04165, Third Dept 8-8-24

Practice Point: As part of a Batson juror challenge, the judge must determine whether the race-neutral reasons for a peremptory challenge are genuine (non-pretextual). Here two dissenters argued the judge did not make that determination.​

 

, ,

THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE DEFENDANT’S CASE DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE COUNTY LAW; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the convictions and dismissed the indictment because the special prosecutor appointed to handle the case did not meet the statutory qualifications:

“County Law § 701 (1) allows a court to appoint a special district attorney in situations where the district attorney is ‘disqualified from acting in a particular case to discharge his or her duties at a term of any court’ ” … . The Court of Appeals, “[a]cknowledging that a court’s authority under County Law § 701 ‘to displace a duly elected [d]istrict [a]ttorney’ raises separation of power concerns, [has] cautioned that ‘[t]his exceptional superseder authority should not be expansively interpreted’ ” … . As relevant here, section 701 (1) (a) explicitly limits the superseding authority of a court to “appoint[ing] some attorney at law having an office in or residing in the county, or any adjoining county, to act as special district attorney.” Where, as here, a court exceeds its authority by appointing a special district attorney who does not meet those statutory requirements, “[t]he indictment must be dismissed to preserve the integrity of a statute designed narrowly by its terms and by its purpose to fill emergency gaps in an elected prosecutorial official’s responsibility” … . People v Callara, 2024 NY Slip Op 03969, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: If the special prosecutor appointed to handle defendant’s case does not meet the qualifications in the County Law, the convictions will be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

 

, ,

RECORDS OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined records of police disciplinary proceedings which did not result in disciplinary action were a proper subject of petitioner’s FOIL request. The records had been denied on the ground disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal property pursuant Public Officers Law 87(2)(b). Petitioner, who prevailed, was entitled to attorney’s fees:

… [C]ontrary to the respondents’ contention, the withheld records were not categorically exempt from disclosure. “[T]here is no categorical exemption from disclosure for unsubstantiated allegations or complaints of police misconduct” … . “Upon repealing Civil Rights Law § 50-a, the Legislature amended . . . Public Officers Law to specifically contemplate the disclosure of ‘law enforcement disciplinary records,’ which it defines to include ‘complaints, allegations, and charges against an employee'” … . “If the Legislature had intended to exclude from disclosure complaints and allegations that were not substantiated, it would simply have stated as much” … . “It did not, and instead included ‘complaints, allegations, and charges’ in its definition of disciplinary records, along with ‘the disposition of any disciplinary proceeding,’ without qualification as to the outcome of the proceeding” … .

Accordingly, disclosure of the withheld records was required unless those records “‘[fell] squarely within the ambit of one of [the] statutory exemptions … . Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v Village of Freeport, 2024 NY Slip Op 03824, Second Dept 7-17-24

Practice Point: Records of police disciplinary proceedings which did not result in disciplinary action are not exempt from a FOIL request.​

 

, , ,

THE PROSECUTOR WHO ARGUED DEFENDANT’S APPEAL WAS A CLERK FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE; PRIOR DECISION AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (THIRD DEPT) ​

The Third Department, vacating its prior affirmance of defendant’s conviction, determined a special prosecutor should be appointed for the appeal because the appeal was handled by a prosecutor who had been the trial judge’s law clerk:

… [T]he Chief Assistant District Attorney (hereinafter ADA) who argued the appeal on behalf of the People was the confidential law clerk to the trial judge who presided over this matter and served in this capacity at the time of the underlying trial. … [D]efendant moved to vacate our prior determination and sought the appointment of a special prosecutor, arguing that the ADA had a conflict of interest under Rule 1.12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) disqualifying her from representing the People on appeal … . The ADA maintained that she did not have a conflict of interest because she was not “personally and substantially” involved in this matter as the trial judge’s law clerk, revealing that her involvement consisted of drafting County Court’s decision and order on defendant’s omnibus motion as well as the decision and order on the prosecutor’s motion for consolidation of the separate indictments filed against defendant and the codefendant … . We have determined that the ADA’s involvement in this matter as the trial judge’s law clerk was personal and substantial … . Moreover, defendant did not provide written informed consent waiving the conflict and the required screening procedures were clearly not undertaken “to prevent the flow of information about the matter between the personally disqualified lawyer and the others in the [District Attorney’s office]” … . … [T]he decision on appeal is being withheld and the matter remitted to County Court for the expeditious appointment of a special prosecutor … . People v Butts, 2024 NY Slip Op 03567, Third Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: If the prosecutor handling the appeal was a clerk for the trial judge at the time of defendant’s trial, there is a conflict requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor for the appeal. Here the decision affirming the conviction was vacated and the matter was remitted for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

 

, ,

A DECEASED PARTY’S ADMISSIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY AS AGAINST THAT PARTY’S ESTATE AND SUPPORT THE PETITIONER-ESTATE’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT ESTATE WAS PRESENT DURING DISCUSSIONS AT THE HEART OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CLAIM AND MUST BE DISQUALIFIED UNDER THE ADVOCATE-WITNESS RULE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined summary judgment dismissing the constructive trust cause of action and denying the motion to disqualify counsel because he would necessarily be a witness should not have been granted. Mother, Isabel, alleged, as Medicaid planning, she transferred $1.6 million to her daughter, Jody, to be held by Jody during Isabel’s lifetime and then distributed equally among Jody and her two siblings. Jody, however, predeceased Isabel. Upon learning the accounts set up by Jody had only $255,000 in them, Isabel asserted a claim against Jody’s estate for $2 million. Subsequently Isabel died. The lawyer who represents Jody’s executor in the instant proceedings, Leibowitz, took notes during a telephone conference among himself, Isabel and Jody when the Medicaid planning transfer was discussed. The facts are too complex to fairly summarize here. Suffice to say that there was sufficient evidence that Jody had made admissions concerning the Medicaid planning agreement which is the basis for the constructive trust cause of action. Jody’s admissions are not excludable as hearsay against her estate. The First Department also concluded Leibowitz’s status as witness required his disqualification:

… [A]n admission by a party is admissible against that party, as an exception to the hearsay rule, as evidence of the matter asserted in the admission, whether or not the party’s statement was against his or her interest at the time the statement was made … . Moreover, “[a]dmissions of a testator or intestate are competent against the estate” … . Accordingly, admissions by Jody are competent evidence against Jody’s executor, the representative of her estate. * * *

… [T]he 2009 notes reflect that Leibowitz discussed with Jody and Isabel the transfers at issue in this case, and Robert [Isabel’s son and executor of her estate] may examine Leibowitz at trial about Jody’s statements to him concerning any agreements, understanding or promises between herself and Isabel relating to those transfers. While it cannot be determined at this juncture whether Leibowitz’s testimony will be of material assistance to Robert in proving his claim, it remains the case that Leibowitz discussed matters related to that claim with Jody, and his recollections of Jody’s statements will be admissible against Jody’s executor as admissions. Because Leibowitz should be a witness in this case, his continued representation of Jody’s executor in this proceeding violates the advocate-witness rule and disqualification pursuant to rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is appropriate. Matter of Newman, 2024 NY Slip Op 03544, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point:  A deceased party’s admissions are not hearsay as against that party’s estate.

Practice Point: An attorney who will be called as a witness for the opposing party must be disqualified under the advocate-witness rule.

 

, ,

HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING FATHER’S “CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES” PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING AND REQUIRING FATHER TO PAY MOTHER’S COUNSEL’S FEES EXCEEDING $12,000 BASED UPON A FINDING THAT FATHER HAD CONSUMED ALCOHOL IN VIOLATION OF A COURT DIRECTIVE; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, NOT “THE NEED TO REGAIN MOTHER’S TRUST” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court should not have focused on evidence father may have consumed alcohol in violation of the court’s directive and should have focused on the best interests of the child. Based solely on finding father had consumed alcohol and in the absence of a violation petition, father’s petition for a modification of custody based upon a change in circumstances was denied without a hearing and father was required to pay mother’s counsel’s fees exceeding $12,000. The counsel’s-fee ruling was reversed and the matter was remitted for a “change in circumstances” hearing:

As we must remit the matter to Family Court, we caution the court away from directing that the father completely abstain from the consumption of alcohol or dictating the specific type of treatment method the father must utilize beyond what is necessary to protect the child during his parenting time … . However, that is not to say that if the father’s treatment plan requires abstinence from alcohol that he is not required to comply with such plan. Similarly, we must stress that “the first and paramount concern of the court” must be the best interests of the child … , and that the court should not rely upon the father’s apparent need to “regain the trust of the mother” as it had so heavily throughout the orders on appeal.

We also agree with the father’s contention that Family Court abused its discretion in awarding $12,385.55 in counsel fees to the mother based upon the foregoing conclusion. “When exercising its discretionary powers [to award counsel fees], a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties’ positions as well as the complexity of the case and the extent of legal services rendered” … . Here, despite no violation petition being filed against the father, the court found that “the father’s willful violation” of the prior custody order and his “deceptions concerning his alcohol consumption” warranted the imposition of counsel fees. Essentially this resulted in sanctioning the father for filing the modification petition based upon his subsequent consumption of alcohol … . Considering our determination as to the court’s mistaken determination that the father was unable to demonstrate a change in circumstances, we … reverse the court’s award of counsel fees to the mother as an abuse of discretion. Matter of Jacob L. v Heather L., 2024 NY Slip Op 03520, Third Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: If a Family Court judge focuses on something other than the best interests of the child, here father’s apparent consumption of alcohol in violation of a court directive and mother’s need to trust father, an appellate court may reverse the judge’s rulings as an abuse of discretion, as it did here.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT BY DECEDENT’S FORMER ATTORNEYS WHO HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECEDENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HAVE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER SUBSITITUTED AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DECEDENT REQUIRED NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN DECEDENT’S ESTATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the death of the defendant in this traffic accident case divested the court of jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss by the decedent’s former attorneys, who had not been substituted for the decedent, should not have been considered by the court. The Appellate Division also noted that plaintiff’s motion to substitute decedent’s daughter as a representative for the decedent required notice to all persons interested in decedent’s estate:

“The death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction and stays the proceedings until a proper substitution has been made pursuant to CPLR 1015(a). Moreover, any determination rendered without such substitution will generally be deemed a nullity” .. . “The death of a party terminates his or her attorney’s authority to act on behalf of the deceased party” … . Although the determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party is an exception to a court’s lack of jurisdiction, here, the motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 1021 to dismiss the complaint was made by the former attorneys for the decedent purportedly on behalf of the decedent. Since the former attorneys lacked the authority to act, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion … . Accordingly, so much of the order as granted the motion purportedly made on behalf of the decedent is a nullity.

Further, any motion pursuant to CPLR 1021 requires that notice be provided to persons interested in the decedent’s estate … . Here, the plaintiff failed to provide notice to persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion with leave to renew upon service on persons interested in the decedent’s estate. Fazilov v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 03470, Second Deppt 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the defendant in a traffic accident case died. The decedent’s former attorneys did not have the authority to make a motion to dismiss and the court should not have considered it.​

Practice Point: Here plaintiff’s motion to have decedent’s daughter substituted for decedent required notice all persons interested in decedent’s estate.

 

,

THE STATUTE REQUIRING THE PEOPLE TO FILE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS IN ORDER TO BE READY FOR TRIAL WENT INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2020; REVERSING THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD A VALID READY-FOR-TRIAL ANNOUNCEMENT MADE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2020, WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE NEW STATUTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, determined the new statutory discovery obligations imposed upon the People, effective January 1, 2020, did not affect a valid ready-for-trial announcement made prior to January 1, 2020. The Appellate Division held the new statute required the People to file a Certificate of Compliance to be ready for trial and the failure to do so mandated dismissal on speedy-trial grounds:

On January 1, 2020, amendments to New York’s discovery (CPL art 245) and statutory speedy trial (CPL 30.30) rules went into effect, and the old discovery rules (CPL former art 240) were repealed … . On January 27, the first day of trial, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds, arguing that the People had become unready for trial when the amendments came into effect and had failed to file a certificate of compliance with the new discovery rules (COC) as required by the amendments and announce their readiness before their statutory speedy trial time expired. * * *

There is no evidence, in the plain language of the amendments or the legislative history, that the legislature intended to—or did—revert the People to a state of unreadiness on January 1, 2020. Rather, the amendments specifically tie the COC requirement to the People’s ability to state ready and be deemed ready. Because the legislature established the COC requirement as a condition precedent to declaring ready for trial and did not indicate an intent to undo the People’s prior readiness statements, there is no basis to apply that requirement prospectively to a case such as the present one where the People were in a trial-ready posture when it went into effect. In other words, the People are not required to fulfill a prerequisite to declaring trial readiness when they have already validly declared ready for trial. Accordingly, the only way to apply the COC requirement to this case would be to wholesale invalidate the People’s pre-2020 readiness statement—not to render the People unready as of January 1, 2020. Because the language of the amendments does not “expressly or by necessary implication require” this plainly retroactive application, we cannot conclude that the legislature intended for the COC requirement to apply in this manner … . Consequently, the People are not chargeable for any delay after January 1, 2020, and thus remained within the applicable 181-day statutory speedy trial limit … . People v King, 2024 NY Slip Op 03322, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: Here the People made a valid ready-for-trial announcement before the new discovery statute went into effect on January 1, 2020. The trial started on January 27, 2021, and the defense moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds because the People never filed a certificate of compliance, a new statutory requirement for readiness for trial. The Appellate Division dismissed the case on that ground. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the pre-January 1, 2020, ready-for-trial announcement was unaffected by the new statutory requirements.

 

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