You are here: / Attorneys
,

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSELS “AFFIRMATION OF GOOD FAITH” WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to strike an affirmative defense was not supported by a sufficient “affirmation of good faith” from plaintiff’s counsel:

The court should have denied plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer because the affirmation of good faith from plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.20-f(b). Counsel states only perfunctorily that defendants failed to comply with four court orders for a deposition and that he contacted defendants on a certain date to confirm the deposition. Counsel failed to attest that he conducted an in-person or telephonic conference as required by 22 NYCRR 202.20-f(b) … . While counsel’s affirmation in support of the motion provides additional explanations, such as that “[they] made an effort” to contact defendants’ counsel and that “[their] office made [an] effort to confirm the deposition,” the affirmation fails to specify the mode of communications, by whom or to whom the communications were made, whether any messages were left, and whether counsel followed up with the attempt to confirm the deposition (see 22 NYCRR 202.7[a], [c] … . Servan v ES Bldrs. Group LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05184, First Dept 9-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the required contents of plaintiff’s counsel’s “affirmation of good faith” detailing efforts to resolve the issues with defendant’s counsel before moving to strike an affirmative defense. Here the affirmation was deemed deficient, requiring denial of the motion.

 

, , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RENEW THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT WHEN ADDITIONAL GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELEASED TO THE DEFENSE BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD REVIEWED THE ENTIRE GRAND JURY MINUTES BEFORE DENYING THE MOTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MOTION COURT WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM ANOTHER ARGUMENT BASED ON THE NEWLY RELEASED EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, affirming defendant’s conviction over a two-justice dissent, determined defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to renew the defense motion to dismiss the indictment after additional grand jury testimony was released. The majority concluded there was no new evidence to support a motion to renew because the judge reviewed all the grand jury testimony before denying the motion to dismiss. The dissenters argued there was insufficient evidence defendant shared the intent of the shooter and the motion court would have benefitted from another argument where defense counsel raised the newly released grand jury evidence:

“There can be no denial of effective assistance of counsel arising from counsel’s failure to make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success” … . Defendant cannot demonstrate that a motion to renew would have had any likelihood of success because defendant had previously moved to dismiss the indictment and the court had denied the motion after conducting an in camera review of the grand jury minutes, which included the witness’s grand jury testimony that was subsequently provided to defendant’s counsel. Thus, the court had already determined that the evidence presented before the grand jury, including the witness’s testimony, established a legally sufficient prima facie case.

Moreover, a motion for renewal “must be based upon additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but were not then known to the party seeking leave to renew, and, therefore, not made available to the court” … . Although the grand jury minutes were not available to defendant’s counsel at the time the motion to dismiss was filed, the court conducted a review of the complete grand jury minutes and then denied dismissal of the indictment. Consequently, there were no additional material facts upon which defendant’s counsel could have based a motion to renew, as the witness’s grand jury testimony was already known to the court in its entirety. Therefore, defendant’s counsel’s failure to file such a motion was insufficient to render his performance ineffective under both the state and federal standards … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 05016, First Dept 9-18-25

Practice Point: Here the majority determined a motion to renew the motion to dismiss the indictment based on grand jury testimony released after the motion argument had little chance of success because the judge had reviewed all the grand jury evidence before denying the motion. The dissenters argued the judge would have benefitted from a second argument based on the newly released testimony, and therefore defense counsel was ineffective for failing move to renew.

 

, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARKS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEY FABRICATED EVIDENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE DENIED PLAINTIFF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s verdict in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined defense counsel’s remarks in the opening and summation, alleging that the plaintiff and her lawyer, fabricated the account of where she fell, deprived plaintiff of a fair trial:

… [D]uring his opening statement, the defendant’s attorney made improper remarks accusing the plaintiff’s attorney of assisting the plaintiff with fabricating her account of where she fell, stating, among other things, that after the plaintiff told her attorney what street she fell on, “they went out to look for the worst spot on the street and they found it.” The defendant’s attorney further stated that the location of the fall claimed by the plaintiff was “lawyer-created fantasy” … . Similarly, on summation, the defendant’s attorney improperly stated that the plaintiff “changed her testimony based upon something her lawyer said to her,” and “although ‘perjury’ might be a little of a harsh word . . . she certainly testified willfully falsely” … . In addition, the defendant’s attorney improperly injected his own beliefs on summation, stating, “I truly don’t believe [the accident] happened here” and, after accusing the plaintiff of testifying falsely, stating, “I felt bad for [the defendant]. I felt bad for the whole system” … . Moreover, the defendant’s attorney inappropriately encouraged the jurors to speculate that the plaintiff declined to call an investigator as a witness at trial because the investigator would have testified unfavorably to the plaintiff … . Further, the defendant’s attorney improperly appealed to the passions of the jurors by stating that “[e]verything [the defendant has] worked for for his entire life is at risk on this trial” and that “[the plaintiff] wants to take my client’s property or money” … . Under the circumstances of this case, “‘the comments of the [defendant’s] counsel . . . were not isolated, were inflammatory, and were unduly prejudicial'” and “‘so tainted the proceedings as to have deprived [the plaintiff] . . . of a fair trial'” … . Windham v Campoverde, 2025 NY Slip Op 04939, Second Dept 9-10-25

Practice Point: Here counsel’s remarks in the opening and summation irreparably tainted the proceedings requiring a new trial.

 

, ,

OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE THIRD DEPARTMENT NOW ACCEPTS THE “CATALYST THEORY” WHICH, UNDER THE NYS EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA), ALLOWS THE RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES BY A PARTY WHO INSTIGATES LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE AND THE STATE VOLUNTARILY GRANTS THE SOUGHT RELIEF WITHOUT FUTHER LITIGATION; THE “CATALYST THEORY” APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PARTY “PREVAILS IN WHOLE,” NOT WHERE THE PARTY HAS ONLY “SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED” (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court and overruling precedent, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, determined petitioner was not precluded from an award of counsel fees because the agency petitioner sued, the Office of Temporary and Disability Housing (OTDA), voluntarily granted the relief petitioner sought without the need for further litigation. In so doing, the Third Department overruled Matter of Clarke v Annucci, 190 AD3d 1245, Third Dept 2021, which rejected the so-called catalyst theory and precluded recovery under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) when the sued agency voluntarily grants the sought relief after litigation has been started: The “catalyst theory” is now accepted as valid in the Third Department where, as in this case, the party “prevails in whole,” but not where a party has only “substantially prevailed:”

The text of the state EAJA, the legislative record, our collective judicial experience and common sense all lead us to conclude that the Legislature could have rationally determined that parties who receive complete relief from the State after the commencement of litigation have prevailed “in whole” even if the State folds and gives it to them. * * *

… [W]e hold that a party prevails in whole when the party obtains all of the relief sought in a lawsuit against the State — including when that relief is granted voluntarily by the State after the action is commenced — and is thus a prevailing party under the state EAJA as a matter of law (see CPLR 8602 [f]). To the extent Clarke is to the contrary, it should no longer be followed. * * *

… [A]lthough we no longer read the state EAJA to require every prevailing party to obtain judicially sanctioned relief, we do not otherwise address a party “who prevails . . . in substantial part” (CPLR 8602 [f]). Petitioner’s case does not require us to resolve whether the catalyst theory applies where a party has substantially, but not wholly, prevailed. We continue to impose an additional requirement on a substantially prevailing party to show a win against the State on the merits of one or more “issues” in litigation, and a corresponding win by the State on the merits of one or more “separate issues” (CPLR 8602 [f] …). Therefore, a party claiming to have prevailed in substantial part must still demonstrate that relief was obtained on the merits in an outcome that changes the legal relationship between the party and the State — for example, a judgment on the merits or a settlement agreement. Matter of Markey v Tietz, 2025 NY Slip Op 04689, Third Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If a party starts litigation against the state and the state voluntarily grants the sought relief, the party is entitled to attorney’s fees under the NYS Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

 

, ,

COUNTY COURT DECIDED TO ANONYMIZE POTENTIAL AND EMPANELED JURORS IN THIS MURDER TRIAL; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ANONYMIZED JURY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND DID NOT WARRANT INTERVENTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE EFFECT OF THE ANONYMIZED JURY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WARRANTED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court’s “unsupported decision to anonymize potential and empaneled jurors” was not a mode of proceedings error and did not require reversal in the interest of justice:

From the dissent:

Considering the significance of the jury’s determination that defendant acted with the intent to kill rather than some lesser objective, the potential effect of empaneling an anonymous jury on defendant’s presumption of innocence warrants corrective action. We need look no further than the Court of Appeals’ characterization of the use of an anonymous jury, even with the proper factual predicate, as an “extraordinary procedure” (People v Flores, 32 NY3d at 1088). The logical import from the Court’s statement is that an error in the process is equally extraordinary and warrants corrective action. Moreover, although defendant was aware of the names of the jurors, that does not resolve the effect that employing an anonymous jury has on the presumption of innocence. Although not expressly stated, the majority’s decision to forgo corrective action in this case appears to be founded on the conclusion that the error itself is not significant; in other words, a harmless error analysis without explicit reference, which, as previously noted, this Court has already rejected when addressing the improper use of an anonymous jury … . All told, regardless of preservation, the principle remains that an appellate court is not in a position to “adjudge the causal effect that the error in empaneling an anonymous jury might have had on the jury’s verdict” … . For these reasons, we believe corrective action is warranted in this case and would reverse and remit for a new trial. People v Goberdhan, 2025 NY Slip Op 04601, Third Dept 8-7-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the propriety of anonymizing the jury and the effect an anonymized jury may have on the presumption of innocence.

Same “anonymized jurors” issue and result (over a two-justice dissent) in People v Reinfurt, 2025 NY Slip Op 04603, Third Dept 8-7-25

 

, ,

HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY THE COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE BUT NO NINETY-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED AND THERE HAD BEEN NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT; NO EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IS NECESSARY, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE, AND RESTORATION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. Even though plaintiff had failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, no CPLR 3216 ninety-day notice had been served and there had been no order directing dismissal of the complaint. Therefore plaintiff need not provide an excuse for the delay. Restoration to the calendar was automatic and there was no specific time frame for the motion to restore:

“When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27” … . “Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or . . . engaged in dilatory conduct” … . Further, “CPLR 3404 d[oes] not apply . . . to . . . pre-note of issue” actions … . “[S]ince this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame” … . Tarasiuk v Levoritz, 2025 NY Slip Op 04592, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Although plaintiff did not file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, because there had been no ninety-day demand and no court order dismissing the complaint, restoration to the active calendar was automatic.

 

, , ,

HERE THE VICTIMLESS CRIME DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “RAISE THE AGE” LEGISLATION; THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER’S CASE FROM THE YOUTH PART OF SUPREME COURT TO FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the People’s motion to prevent the removal of this criminal action against a 16-year-old from the Youth Part of Supreme Court to Family Court should not have been granted. The opinion focuses on the meaning of “extraordinary circumstances” in the controlling “Raise the Age” legislation which would warrant overcoming the presumption supporting removal to Family Court for adolescent offenders. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

In effect, the Youth Part treated a single rearrest—absent a conviction—as dispositive of the defendant’s future potential. That reasoning, if broadly applied, would undermine the core purpose of the Raise the Age legislation. The mere fact that an adolescent engaged in rehabilitative services and was later arrested, without more, does not constitute “strong proof” … that he or she is beyond the reach of the Family Court system.

Although the Youth Part concluded that “no one factor on its own may have been enough,” it found that the defendant’s prior record and prior service engagement, “coupled” with the “nature of the pending charges,” amounted to extraordinary circumstances. But none of those factors, either individually or together, rise to the level of exceptionality contemplated by the Raise the Age legislation. A second arrest for a victimless act of adolescent bravado does not convert otherwise ordinary circumstances into extraordinary ones.

Therefore, the Youth Part should have denied the People’s motion pursuant to CPL 722.23(1) to prevent removal of this action to Family Court and transferred this action to the Family Court, Richmond County. People v Lloyd F., 2025 NY Slip Op 04583, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the criteria for keeping an adolescent offender’s prosecution in the Youth Part of Supreme Court as opposed to removing the case to Family Court for a juvenile-delinquency proceeding.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO INFORM DEFENDANTS’ FORMER EMPLOYEES THAT COUNSEL’S INTERESTS ARE ADVERSE TO THEIRS AND TO RECOMMEND THE FORMER EMPLOYEES RETAIN COUNSEL BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this action alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiffs in the steam rooms of defendants’ fitness clubs should not have issued a protective order concerning interviews of defendants’ former employees by plaintiffs’ counsel. The order precluded plaintiffs’ counsel from communicating with any former employees without advising them that their interests are, or are reasonably likely to become, adverse to counsel’s interests and recommending that the former employees retain counsel before continuing the discussion:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103 for an order precluding the plaintiffs’ counsel from communicating with any former employees of Equinox without advising them that their interests are, or are reasonably likely to become, adverse to counsel’s clients’ interests and recommending that the former employees retain counsel before continuing the discussion. The defendants failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order … . The defendants’ allegations of prejudice in the absence of a protective order were both conclusory and speculative … . G.B. v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04452, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: Here a protective order restricting communications between plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants’ former employees was reversed because the need for the order was not adequately demonstrated by conclusory and speculative allegations.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THEREFORE THE JUDGE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT’S REQUEST WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined he did not make an unequivocal request to represent himself. The two-justice dissent disagreed:

… [D]efendant did not unequivocally request to proceed pro se inasmuch as he only “ask[ed] to proceed pro se as an alternative to receiving new counsel,” thereby seeking to “leverage his right of self-representation in an attempt to compel the court to appoint another lawyer” … . Indeed, defendant repeatedly “made clear that he did not wish to proceed pro se,” and “couched [his requests] as a means to secure new counsel” … , including by stating that he had “no choice” but to represent himself if the court did not assign new counsel, and that he “d[id]n’t want to represent [him]self” but would do so if the court refused to appoint another attorney … . Defendant made no “standalone request to proceed pro se” … ; rather, all of his “requests to proceed pro se were made in the alternative; he sought to represent himself only because [the court] refused to replace . . . assigned counsel who had displeased him” … . A request to proceed pro se is equivocal where, as here, “it ‘does not reflect an affirmative desire for self-representation’ and instead shows that ‘self-representation was reserved as a final, conditional resort’ ” … . Inasmuch as defendant’s requests consisted of “equivocal and hesitant statements about proceeding pro se” … , the court’s duty to “make a searching inquiry . . . to determine whether [the] request[s] w[ere] knowing, voluntary, and intelligent” was not triggered … . People v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 04300, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a thorough discussion of what makes a defendant’s request to represent himself “unequivocal” (thereby by triggering the need for a searching inquiry by the judge into whether the request is knowing, voluntary and intelligent).

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING REQUESTED DISCOVERY MATERIALS; THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE TIME WHEN THE OMNIBUS MOTIONS WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed the dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds. The dissenting justices agreed that the certificate of compliance was invalid, but argued the time that the defense omnibus motions were under consideration should not have been charged to the People:

… [T]he People contend that the court erred in determining that they violated their initial discovery obligations by failing to disclose the police report and body-worn camera footage relating to a welfare check of two of defendant’s children conducted by police officers two days after the alleged assault, inasmuch as they acted in good faith and with due diligence in an attempt to recover the report and footage. We reject that contention. * * *

… [D]espite being aware of the welfare check, which directly related to an issue upon which they presented testimony at the grand jury proceeding, the People failed to undertake the requisite efforts to ascertain the existence of, and obtain, the police report and body-worn camera footage, sending only a single letter to the police department that had conducted the welfare check and failing to follow up. We conclude under the circumstances presented here that the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that they exercised due diligence and made reasonable inquiries prior to filing the initial COC [certificate of compliance] and, thus, the court properly determined that the initial COC was improper and struck the statement of readiness as illusory … .

From the dissent:

… [W]e agree with the majority’s conclusion that the certificate of compliance in this case was invalid … , we cannot agree with the majority’s further conclusion that the People could be charged with more than six months of speedy trial time while defendant’s omnibus motion remained pending. In our view, it cannot be disputed that the omnibus motion remained pending before Supreme Court, i.e., “under consideration” (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]), at least in part, during the relevant time frame inasmuch as the portion of the motion seeking to compel production of certain materials pertaining to a welfare check … was neither decided by the court nor withdrawn by defendant before defendant moved to dismiss the indictment. Because we conclude that defendant’s omnibus motion remained pending before the court until defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, we further conclude that all of the time that elapsed during that period was excludable, and that the People could not be charged with more than six months of statutory speedy trial time as a result … . People v Ernst, 2025 NY Slip Op 04329, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the meaning of “due diligence” in the context of the People’s response to discovery demands.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy