You are here: / Attorneys
, , ,

THE EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ATTORNEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EMAIL EXCHANGES EVINCED AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).

​The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined: (1) the email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys did not constitute a settlement agreement; and (2) to be valid any stipulation of settlement must be placed on the record in open court, reduced to a court order and contained in a writing subscribed by the parties or counsel (not done here). The case concerns a dispute over the distribution of the estate of the deceased between the deceased’s daughter and wife. There was a two-justice dissent which argued a valid settlement agreement had been reached. The dissent made no mention of the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement:

Surrogate’s Court erred in finding that a binding agreement was formed, as the parties did not mutually assent to all material terms. To the extent that the daughter’s counsel asserts that the initial email set out an overview of the material terms to which the parties agreed during the ADR session, we note that such verbal out-of-court agreements are insufficient to form the basis for a stipulation of settlement (see CPLR 2104 …). The initial email and the subsequent correspondence also fail to establish that the parties reached an agreement. * * *

We also remind the parties that, to be enforceable, stipulations of settlement require more than just an agreement among the parties. Once the parties to an active litigation reach an agreement, they must (1) place the material terms of such agreement on the record in open court, (2) reduce them to a court order which is then signed and entered or (3) contain them in a writing subscribed by the parties or their counsel (see CPLR 2104 …). Matter of Eckert, 2023 NY Slip Op 03270, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here there was a question whether email exchanges between the parties’ attorneys after a settlement conference formed an enforceable settlement agreement. The majority said “no” and the two dissenters said “yes.” Although the issue does not seem to be determinative in this decision, the majority noted that the statutory requirements for a stipulation of settlement were not met (open court, reduced to an order, writing signed by the parties or counsel).

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A STUN BELT DURING THE TRIAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE’S OR PROSECUTOR’S KNOWLEDGE; THE MAJORITY HELD THIS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; A TWO-JUDGE DISSENT DISAGREED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, determined the fact that defendant was wearing a stun belt without the knowledge of the judge or the prosecutor was not a mode of proceedings error. However questions remain about whether defendant received effective assistance of counsel (failure to object) remain and a hearing on the motion to vacate the conviction on that ground is required. The dissent argued the stun-belt-error constituted a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal:

It is undisputed that sheriff officials required defendant to wear a stun belt at trial, that neither the People nor the trial court were aware of that fact, and that defendant failed to preserve any argument concerning the stun belt. Because the trial court did not articulate a particularized need for defendant to wear a stun belt, the use of that restraint was error … . The courts below thus did not abuse their discretion by summarily denying the portion of defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion based on his unpreserved assertion of a Buchanan [13 NY3d 1] error, which could have been raised before the trial court.

The courts below erred by summarily denying the portion of defendant’s motion concerning his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Given the conceded Buchanan violation, factual issues exist concerning trial counsel’s effectiveness. For instance, County Court should determine if counsel had a legitimate explanation for declining to object. There has been no hearing concerning whether defendant voiced his concerns about wearing the stun belt to his trial attorney as he contends … . Further, defendant submitted evidence in support of his motion which raises factual questions as to whether he consented to wearing the stun belt at trial … . Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim should be decided under the applicable standard … on a full record following a hearing … . People v Bradford, 2023 NY Slip Op 03187, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: Before a defendant is required to wear a stun belt during trial, the judge must explain the reasons on the record. Here neither the judge nor the prosecutor was aware defendant was wearing a stun belt. The majority determined the belt did not constitute a mode of proceedings error. The two-judge dissent disagreed.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED PRO SE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a memorandum decision which did not describe the facts, determined the judge did not conduct a “searching inquiry” before allowing defendant to proceed pro se:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered. In contrast to People v Duarte (37 NY3d 1218 [2022]), the trial court here recognized defendant as having unequivocally requested to proceed pro se. However, the court failed to conduct the required “‘searching inquiry’ to ensure that the defendant’s waiver [of the right to counsel] is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” (People v Silburn, 31 NY3d 144, 150 [2018] … ). People v Holmes, 2023 NY Slip Op 03186, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: When a defendant requests to go ahead with a trial without an attorney, the judge must conduct a “searching inquiry” to determine if the waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The failure to do so requires and new trial.

 

, , ,

IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION (1) PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED A LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE REQUIRING PROOF OF MALICE; (2) SOME STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OTHER STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY PRE-LITIGATION AND FAIR REPORT PRIVILEGES; (3) AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE APPLY ONLY TO CONDUCT AFTER THE AMENDMENTS WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over a dissent, reversing the appellate division in this defamation action, determined: (1) plaintiff music producer (Gottwald) is a limited public figure who must prove defendant singer-songwriter (Sebert) was motivated by malice when claiming Gottwald raped her; (2) whether 20 alleged statements are subject to the pre-litigation privilege must be determined by the jury; and (3) the amendments to the anti-SLAPP statute which went into effect during the course of the lawsuit apply only to conduct after the amendments went into effect (the amendments allow certain damages and attorney’s fees). The opinion is far to comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

[Re: plaintiff’s public-figure status:] By 2014, when Gottwald initiated this defamation action, he was, by his own account, a celebrity—an acclaimed music producer who had achieved enormous success in a high-profile career. As self-described in the complaint, he “has written the most Number One songs of any songwriter ever” and “was named by Billboard as one of the top ten producers of the decade in 2009.” … . * * *

[Re: privilege:] Sebert identifies 25 allegedly defamatory statements that she contends cannot serve as the basis for liability because they are protected by one or more of three privileges: the litigation privilege, the pre-litigation privilege, and the statutory fair report privilege under Civil Rights Law § 74.  * * * We agree that questions of fact exist as to the application of the pre-litigation and fair report privileges—those issues must go to a jury—but disagree as to application of the absolute litigation privilege. * * * Because … five statements fall squarely within the purview of the absolute litigation privilege, they ” ‘cannot serve as the basis for the imposition of liability in a defamation action’ ” … . * * *

[Re: anti-SLAPP statute:] Because Gottwald’s liability attached, if at all, when he chose to continue the defamation suit after the effective date of the statute, any potential calculation of attorney’s fees or other damages begins at the statute’s effective date …”. Gottwald v Sebert, 2023 NY Slip Op 03183, CtApp 6-13-23

​Practice Point: In this defamation opinion, the concepts of “limited public figure,” “litigation, pre-litigation and fair report privilege.” and the application of the amendments to the anti-SLAPP statute are discussed in great detail.

 

, , ,

AN ORAL STIPULATION IS INVALID PURSUANT TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW SECION 236(B)(3) AND CANNOT BE RATIFIED; THERE IS NOW AN EVEN SPLIT AMONG THE APPELLATE DIVISION DEPARTMENTS ON THIS ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, noting a split among the appellate-division departments, determined an oral stipulation was invalid pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3):

… [T]he parties’ oral stipulation is not enforceable because, although it was entered in open court, it was not reduced to writing, subscribed, or acknowledged by the parties, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3). Although plaintiff’s attorney stated at the time of the oral stipulation that she “would prefer just to do the oral stipulation,” the statute unambiguously provides that, in order for an agreement regarding maintenance or a distributive award “made before or during the marriage” to be valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action, the agreement must be “in writing, subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required to entitle a deed to be recorded” … . We have repeatedly held that oral stipulations do not comply with the statute … . …

… Supreme Court erred in denying the motion on the ground that plaintiff ratified the oral stipulation. The proposition that an agreement that fails to comply with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (3) could be upheld if ratified by the parties was implicitly rejected by the Court of Appeals in Matisoff.[90 NY2d 135-136] … . Cole v Hoover, 2023 NY Slip Op 03103, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: An oral stipulation is invalid pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 236(B)(3) and cannot be ratified. There is now an even split among the appellate division departments on this issue.

 

, , ,

IN THIS MURDER TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP UNCHARGED CRIMES WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE PRETRIAL SANDOVAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE DID NOT INTERVENE; THE DEFENSE DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s murder and weapons convictions, determined prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene (there were no defense objections) required a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly mentioned uncharged crimes which were not brought up in the Sandoval proceedings:

During their direct case, however, the People elicited testimony from three different witnesses about a prior bad act that had not been included in their Sandoval/Molineux proffer.  * * *

The prosecutor asked defendant whether the incident, which had occurred approximately a decade earlier, involved him shooting a rifle toward another person. Defendant denied this, and he was then questioned as to whether he tried to reload the rifle but was stopped by bystanders, which he also denied. The prosecutor then asked, “is that how you handle your confrontations, you grab a gun and just fire away?” The prosecutor continued the questioning in this vein by asking defendant whether it was “[k]ind of like . . . … [when] you just fired a warning shot out the window, correct?” The prosecutor subsequently cross-examined defendant relative to the incident involving him shooting someone off a motorcycle — which … was not included in the People’s Sandoval/Molineux motion. … [T]he prosecutor inquired as to whether defendant had stated in a recorded jail call that another inmate had urinated in his bed and that, if he caught who did it, he would stab that person in the neck with a pencil. * * *

… [T]he magnitude of the prosecutor’s misconduct was the fact that County Court made no effort to intervene or otherwise attempt to minimize or alleviate the prejudice being caused to defendant…. . People v Nellis, 2023 NY Slip Op 03046, Third Dept 5-8-23

Practice Point: Although the convictions were not against the weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene warranted a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly brought up uncharged crimes which were not ruled upon in the Sandoval proceedings.

 

, , ,

AFTER A DIVORCE PLAINTIFF SUED THE EX-WIFE AND HER ATTORNEYS ALLEGING FALSE ARREST, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW 487; THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress and Judiciary Law 487 causes of action against defendant attorneys should have dismissed for failure to state causes of action:

The plaintiff and the defendant Janet P. Lezama were married … . … Lezama commenced an action for a divorce … in which she was represented by the defendants Dana Navins and Kass & Navins, PLLC … . After the divorce … , the plaintiff commenced this action against Lezama and the attorney defendants to recover damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of Judiciary Law § 487 based on allegations that the defendants concocted a “plan” to obtain a divorce against the plaintiff and obtain an excessive “financial settlement.” … [P]laintiff alleged that, as part of this plan, Lezama made false allegations of child abuse and criminal conduct against the plaintiff. * * *

“To be held liable for false arrest, [a civilian] defendant must have affirmatively induced the officer to act, such as taking an active part in the arrest and procuring it to be made or showing active, officious and undue zeal, to the point where the officer is not acting of his or her own volition” … . Similarly, to be held liable for malicious prosecution, it must be shown that the defendant played an active role in the prosecution, such as giving advice and encouragement or importuning the authorities to act … . “Merely giving false information to the authorities does not constitute initiation of the proceeding without an additional allegation or showing that, at the time the information was provided, the defendant knew it to be false, yet still gave it to the police or District Attorney” … . * * *

With respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action, the improper conduct alleged was not “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” … . With respect to the Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action, the plaintiff failed to allege with specificity any material misstatements of fact made by the attorney defendants in the divorce action with the intent to deceive that court … . Tueme v Lezama, 2023 NY Slip Op 03036, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: The complaint did not state causes of action for false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress or violation of Judiciary Law 487, criteria explained.

 

, ,

THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES TO MOTHER IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; FATHER WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE OF ANY FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT; THE FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTIES WERE NOT CONSIDERED; THE RELEVANT REGULATORY AND STATUTORY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have awarded counsel fees to mother. Mother brought an action for modification of a custody order on the ground father had lied about the method of transportation he used to go to Alabama with the child. Apparently father told mother they were going to drive, when in fact they flew. Mother was awarded $25,000 in counsel fees:

… Supreme Court permitted the mother to make a written application for counsel fees, [but] the court did not state whether the application should be made under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1….[T]he court did not … make a finding that the father’s conduct was “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. … [T]o the extent the court granted the mother’s application for an award of counsel fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the father did not receive sufficient notice of the alleged frivolous conduct, and, therefore, was not given “a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … .

… [T]o the extent that the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application for an award of counsel fees under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the court improperly based its determination to grant the application, in part, on the father’s act of lying to the mother about flying to Alabama with the parties’ child, since this conduct occurred outside of the proceeding before the court … . * * *

… [T]o the extent that the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application for an award of counsel fees pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237(b), the court did not adequately consider the disparate financial circumstances of the parties … . LeBoeuf v Greene, 2023 NY Slip Op 02870, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here the award of counsel fees was not appropriate under “frivolous conduct” or “financial circumstances” criteria. The relevant regulatory and statutory requirements for a counsel-fees award are explained in some depth.

 

, , ,

AN ANSWER OR A COMPLAINT VERIFIED BY AN ATTORNEY DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that an answer verified by an attorney (as opposed to the defendant) and a complaint verified by an attorney (as opposed to the plaintiff) do not prove the contents:

… [A]n answer verified by an attorney is insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant has a potentially meritorious defense … . …

… [A]lthough a verified complaint “may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim,” the complaint “must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge since a pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020(d)(3) is insufficient to establish its merits” … . Since the complaint in this case was verified only by the plaintiff’s attorney, and not by the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not rely on its contents to supply proof of the facts constituting the claim. Pemberton v Montoya, 2023 NY Slip Op 02674, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: Answers and complaints verified by the attorney and not by the party do not prove the contents.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that video surveillance of the plaintiff taken prior to the deposition in this traffic accident case, and after a discovery order requiring disclosure of video surveillance had been issued, could not be used in support of a summary judgment motion re: “serious injury” or at trial. However, video surveillance taken after the deposition need not be provided to the plaintiff by any specific deadline and was not precluded:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s noncompliance with the plaintiff’s discovery notice and two court orders, over an extended period of time, was willful and strategic with regard to the [pre-deposition] surveillance video. … [T]he defendant should have been precluded from using the … surveillance video of the plaintiff …, as it was not disclosed prior to the plaintiff’s deposition … . * * *

CPLR 3101(i) contains no language prohibiting the acquisition of surveillance video of a party after that party has testified at a deposition. Nor does any decisional authority. Indeed, CPLR 3101(h) recognizes that disclosure is a continuing obligation, requiring parties to amend or supplement discovery responses when later information is obtained that renders an earlier response inaccurate or incomplete when made or when the prior response, though correct and complete when made, is materially no longer so. And parties are not required to be more forthcoming with surveillance videos than they would with any ordinary discovery material under CPLR 3101(a) … .

That said, CPLR 3101(i) provides no fixed deadline for the disclosure of post-deposition surveillance video footage … . Rather, trial courts may regulate issues of timing through their preliminary and compliance conference orders … , subject to their authority and discretion to manage their calendars and determine whether to preclude evidence under CPLR 3126(2) for any noncompliance with court-imposed deadlines … . Pizzo v Lustig, 2023 NY Slip Op 02541, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here surveillance video of the plaintiff which was gathered before the deposition and after a disclosure order was precluded from both the summary judgment stage and the trial. There is no specific deadline for turning over video surveillance of the plaintiff gathered after deposition and that video evidence was not precluded.

 

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