You are here: / Attorneys
, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS POST-DIVORCE PROCEEDING ENCOMPASSING FIVE APPEALS, WAS DEEMED TO HAVE MADE MANY RULINGS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, IN PART BECAUSE NECESSARY HEARINGS WERE NOT HELD; THE IMPROPER RULINGS INCLUDED A RESTRICTION OF THE ATTORNEY-FOR-THE-CHILD’S (AFC’S) INTERACTIONS WITH THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (and modifying) Supreme Court in this post-divorce proceeding encompassing several appeals, determined many of the court’s rulings were not supported by the record, due in part to the court’s failure to hold hearings. The court had imposed “house rules” for the children, refused to hold a Lincoln hearing, made contempt findings, modified father’s visitation, suspended father’s child support obligations, ordered family unification therapy, limited the attorney-for-the-child’s interactions with the children, and made several other rulings with which the appellate division found fault. The decision is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

The mother and the AFC contend in appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 5 that the court erred in altering the terms of the parties’ custody and visitation arrangement and in imposing its house rules without conducting a hearing to determine the children’s best interests. We agree. We therefore modify the orders in appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 5 accordingly, and we reinstate the provisions of the agreement and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing, including a Lincoln hearing, to determine whether modification of the parties’ custody and visitation arrangement is the children’s best interests.

Where there is “a dispute between divorced parents, the first concern of the court is and must be the welfare and the interests of the children” … , and “[a]ny court in considering questions of child custody must make every effort to determine what is for the best interest of the child[ren], and what will best promote [their] welfare and happiness” … . Consequently, visitation and “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry’ “… , “[u]nless there is sufficient evidence before the court to enable it to undertake a comprehensive independent review of” the children’s best interests … . Burns v Grandjean, 2022 NY Slip Op 06577, Fourth Dept 11-18-22

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department took issue with many, many rulings made by Supreme Court in this post-divorce proceeding. The decision encompassed five appeals and too many issues to fairly summarize. Many of Supreme Court’s rulings were deemed to have been unsupported by record, in large part because necessary hearings were not held.

 

, ,

HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order entered upon plaintiff’s default should not have been granted:

Pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1), “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . excusable default.” “A party seeking to vacate an order entered upon his or her default in opposing a motion must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious opposition to the motion” . “Law office failure may qualify as a reasonable excuse for a party’s default if the claim of such failure is supported by a credible” and detailed explanation of the default … . The determination as to what constitutes a reasonable excuse is a matter of the court’s discretion, but mere neglect will not suffice … .

… [A] managing attorney at the law firm representing the plaintiff was notified of the February 28, 2018 adjourned deadline to submit opposition papers to the defendants’ motion, and a member of the firm entered a “follow up docket date” for February 7, 2018, “to ensure that the opposition was being handled” … . However, instead of “follow[ing] up with the managing attorney to make sure the opposition was assigned,” the member of the law firm returned the file to the file room. As the member of the law firm affirmed, “[i]t simply was not addressed properly.” … [T]he plaintiff did not move to vacate the order dated August 29, 2018, for approximately eight months, or 253 days, after being served with the order and notice of entry … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s failure to oppose the defendants’ motion was the equivalent of mere neglect and was therefore insufficient to warrant vacatur … . Sauteanu v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06509, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: A motion to vacate an order entered upon a party’s default may be granted on law-office-failure grounds but not if the matter was simply neglected. Here the plaintiff did not move to vacate the order for 253 days after service of the order and notice of entry. The court found the plaintiff’s failure to oppose the summary judgment was due to neglect and the motion to vacate the order should not have been granted.

 

, , ,

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS MAINTENANCE-ARREARS ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the award of attorney’s fees and expert witness fees to defendant-wife who sued for and was awarded maintenance arrears:

… Supreme Court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees requested by the defendant without evaluating the defendant’s claims concerning the extent and value of those services at an evidentiary hearing … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing on those issues and a new determination thereafter of those branches of the defendant’s motions which were for an award of attorneys’ fees and expert fees. Leung v Gose, 2022 NY Slip Op 06476, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: Here the wife was awarded maintenance arrears but the judge should have held an evidentiary hearing before awarding attorney’s fees and expert witness fees to the wife.

 

, ,

ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION OR A MALICIOUS OR TORTIOUS ACT, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS AGENTS OF THE CLIENTS AND ALLEGEDLY ADVISING THEIR CLIENTS TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFFS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant attorneys (Jin Hu defendants) could not be liable to third parties (plaintiffs) for allegedly advising their clients (DeVito defendants) to breach a real estate purchase contract:

… “[I]nasmuch as the relationship created between an attorney and his client is that of principal and agent, an attorney is not liable for inducing his [or her] principal to breach a contract with a third person, at least where he [or she] is acting on behalf of his principal within the scope of his [or her] authority” … . “Absent a showing of fraud or collusion, or of a malicious or tortious act, an attorney is not liable to third parties for purported injuries caused by services performed on behalf of a client or advice offered to that client” … .

Here, the allegations in the complaint regarding the conduct of the Jin Hu defendants were impermissibly vague and conclusory … . Additionally, the complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the Jin Hu defendants acted outside the scope of their authority as counsel for the DeVito defendants or engaged in any conduct that could make them liable to the plaintiffs … . Asamblea De Iglesias Christianas, Inc. v DeVito, 2022 NY Slip Op 06456, Second Dept 11-16-22

Practice Point: Absent fraud, collusion of a malicious of tortios act, an attorney, as the agent for the principal (the client) acting within the scope of the attorney’s authority, cannot be liable to the plaintiff for advising the client to breach a contract with the plaintiff.

 

,

​ THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) AND THE ATTORNEY APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE IP WERE PROPERLY REMOVED AND DISCHARGED WITHOUT A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE GUARDIAN AND THE ATTORNEY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE THE BONA FIDES OF THE IP’S MARRIAGE AND THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined the temporary guardian of the person and property (Mock) and the attorney appointed represent the incapacitated person (IP), Edgar, were properly removed and discharged without a testimonial hearing. The opinion is rich with allegations Edgar was being victimized financially which cannot be fairly summarized here:

On October 2, 2018, Alison Loew, the sister and only sibling of Edgar Valentine Loew, brought a petition for the appointment of an article 81 guardian for her then 74-year-old brother. The petition alleged that Edgar, who is wealthy, but suffers from mental health issues and has some physical limitations, was the victim of systematic financial exploitation by Rachida Naciri. …

A court evaluator (Britt Burner) was appointed on October 2, 2018, appellant Gary Elias was appointed as Edgar’s attorney, and appellant Judy S. Mock was appointed as Edgar’s temporary guardian of the person and property. * * *

The Mental Hygiene Law does not support appellants’ contention that they were entitled to a testimonial hearing in this case before being removed. Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 provides that a guardian may be removed when she or he “fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just” … . A motion on notice, served on the persons specified in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.16 (c), is required but there is no statutory right to a hearing (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.16[c]; 81.35). This relaxed requirement stands in distinction to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (a), which provides that the petition for the appointment of a guardian for an alleged IP, whose liberty interests are at stake, “shall be made only after a hearing” … . The reason a guardian has “no due process right to a full hearing,” nor is a “full blown” hearing necessary for their removal, is that a guardian has no “property interest” to protect … .

Although a guardian cannot be summarily removed in the absence of a fully developed record or without any findings, and a hearing may be required where material facts are disputed … , here the parties had not only fully briefed [the] motion, but the salient facts were also known to the court and largely undisputed. A decision to remove a guardian of the person and property of an IP is within the sound discretion of the trial court … . Matter of Loew, 2022 NY Slip Op 06436, First Dept First Dept 11-15-22

Practice Point: The guardian and the attorney appointed to represent the incapacitated person (IP) were properly removed and discharged without a testimonial hearing, which is not required by the Mental Hygiene Law. The guardian and the attorney failed to investigate the bona fides of the IP’s marriage and prenuptial agreement.

PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REPRESENT ITSELF IN ITS SUIT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST A FORMER CLIENT; ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE FORMER CLIENT WERE DISQUALIFIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE DISQUALIFIED ATTORNEYS WOULD PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SUCH THAT DISQUALICATION OF THE ENTIRE FIRM WAS WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff law firm, HoganWillig, could represent itself in a suit seeking payment from defendant volunteer fire company (SFC), a former client. The attorneys who were directly involved in representing the fire company were disqualified from this suit. The defendant argued the testimony of the disqualified attorneys would be prejudicial to HoganWillig, a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct rule 3.7[b][1]:

… [W]e agree with HoganWillig that SFC failed to establish that “it is apparent that the testimony [of the disqualified attorneys] may be prejudicial to [HoganWillig]” (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.7 [b] [1] … ). “The word ‘apparent’ means that prejudice to the client must be visible, as opposed to merely speculative, conceivable, or imaginable,” i.e., the prejudice “has to be a real possibility, not just a theoretical possibility” … . Consistent therewith, a movant’s “vague and conclusory” assertions are insufficient to establish that an attorney’s testimony may be prejudicial to the client … . * * *

Here, the court erred in failing to “consider such factors as [HoganWillig’s] valued right to choose its own counsel, and the fairness and effect in the particular factual setting of granting disqualification” … . “Disqualification denies a party’s right to representation by the attorney of its choice,” and we conclude under the circumstances of this case that depriving HoganWillig of its right to represent itself in the present action is particularly unwarranted given that counsel and client are one and the same … . As the court properly determined when it first considered the original motion, whether HoganWillig thinks it is desirable, despite the disqualification of three of its attorneys, to continue representing itself is a strategic decision that should be left to HoganWillig. Hoganwillig, PLLC v Swormville Fire Co., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06331, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: Here the plaintiff law firm should have been allowed to represent itself in a suit to recover attorney’s fees from a former client. The fact that the attorneys directly involved in the former client’s case were disqualified did not require disqualification of the law firm itself. It was the defendant’s burden to demonstrate the testimony of the disqualified attorneys would prejudice the law firm (that was the basis for Supreme Court’s disqualification of the entire firm). The defendant was not able show such prejudice.

 

,

THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT BY THE INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AS MATERIAL PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the information sought by defendant (Charleus) in this insurance coverage dispute was privileged as material prepared in anticipation of litigation. Plaintiff insurance company brought this suit against the defendant, who was injured in a car accident involving its insured, to disclaim coverage because of the insured’s lack of cooperation:

“[A]n insurance company’s claim file is conditionally exempt from disclosure as material prepared in anticipation of litigation” ( … see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). Nevertheless, material prepared in anticipation of litigation may be subject to disclosure upon “a party’s showing that he or she is in substantial need of the material and is unable to obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means without undue hardship” … . Here, we conclude that the materials sought by Charleus and ordered by the court to be disclosed following its in camera review constitute material prepared in anticipation of litigation … and were prepared at a time after plaintiff had already determined to reject and defend against the claim made by Charleus … .

Because the materials sought by Charleus and ordered to be disclosed by the court’s order were prepared in anticipation of litigation and because Charleus has not made a showing justifying disclosure … , we modify the order by denying the motion in its entirety and granting the cross motion. Merchants Preferred Ins. Co. v Campbell, 2022 NY Slip Op 06370, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: In this suit by an insurer to disclaim coverage of defendant’s injuries stemming from an accident with the insured, the information sought by defendant was prepared in anticipation of litigation and was therefore protected by attorney-client privilege.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL STATED DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA WAS WITHOUT MERIT; DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE COURT INCORRECTLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HAD BEEN DECIDED IN A PRIOR APPEAL: DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter to determined defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw his plea, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Counsel stated the pro se motion did not have merit, taking a position adverse to the client’s position. In addition, defense counsel and the court incorrectly told defendant that the issues raised in defendant’s motion to withdraw the plea had been determined in a prior appeal:

When defense counsel takes a position adverse to his or her client, “a conflict of interest arises, and the court must assign a new attorney to represent the defendant on the motion” … .

Here, by stating that there were no grounds for defendant’s pro se motion, defense counsel essentially said that it lacked merit, which constitutes taking a position adverse to defendant … .

It appears from the record that defense counsel advised defendant that the issues raised by defendant in his pro se motion to withdraw his plea had already been decided against him in the prior appeal. The court agreed with defense counsel’s interpretation of our ruling. Both defense counsel and the court were incorrect. People v Hemingway, 2022 NY Slip Op 06356, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: If defense counsel takes a position adverse to defendant’s position, the defendant has not received effective assistance and is entitled to new counsel. Here defense counsel stated defendant’s pro se motion to withdraw the plea was without merit. The matter was remitted for assignment of new counsel and consideration of defendant’s motion.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BUT DID NOT WARRANT SUPREME COURT’S STRIKING THE COMPLAINT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION IMPOSED EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ORDERED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANT $3000 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, agreed plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders was willful and contumacious, but determined striking the complaint was too severe a sanction. The appellate division’s sanctions included ordering plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000:

… [T]he record demonstrates that the plaintiff violated court orders directing her to appear for a continued deposition by a certain date, to provide a full set of copies of photographs that she referenced during her first deposition or provide an affidavit as to the nonexistence of those photographs, and to execute authorizations for certain medical providers, a pattern that supports an inference of willful and contumacious behavior … . Furthermore, the plaintiff’s procedural objection to the defendant’s motion was without merit. However, under the circumstances, we find that the striking of the complaint was too drastic a remedy … . Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of (1) precluding the plaintiff from using at trial any photograph that was not produced in response to the defendant’s discovery demands, (2) directing the plaintiff to provide the defendant with medical authorizations for Jamaica Hospital, and (3) directing the plaintiff’s counsel to personally pay the sum of $3,000 as a sanction to the defendant … . Castillo v Charles, 2022 NY Slip Op 06103, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here the appellate division found plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery orders willful and contumacious but did not agree with Supreme Court’s striking of the complaint. The appellate court imposed evidentiary sanctions and ordered plaintiff’s counsel to pay defendant $3000.

 

,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY INTERIM ATTORNEY’S FEES TO THE NONMONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined interim attorney’s fees should have been awarded to the nonmonied spouse:

Supreme Court improperly referred to the trial court that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees (see Domestic Relations Law § 237[a] …). “Because of the importance of such awards to the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, . . . an application for interim counsel fees by the nonmonied spouse in a divorce action should not be denied—or deferred until after the trial, which functions as a denial—without good cause, articulated by the court in a written decision” … . Here, the court erred in summarily referring that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for an award of interim counsel fees to the trial court, which functioned as a denial of that relief, and failed to articulate any reasons, much less good cause, for that determination. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff demonstrates that she is the nonmonied spouse, as the defendant earned five to seven times more income than the plaintiff in recent years … . While the defendant argues that the plaintiff has funds available to her, the plaintiff “cannot be expected to exhaust all, or a large portion, of the finite resources available to her in order to pay her attorneys, particularly when the [defendant] is able to pay his own legal fees without any substantial impact upon his lifestyle” … . Fugazy v Fugazy, 2022 NY Slip Op 06115, Second Dept 11-2-22

Practice Point: Here in this divorce action it was deemed an abuse of discretion to, without explanation, deny interim attorney’s fees to the nonmonied spouse.

 

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