You are here: / Judges
,

THE CONSENT-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS DWI CASE; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, determined the probation condition requiring defendant to consent to a search of his person or home was not warranted in this DWI case. Defendant was found asleep in his car, engine running, with a bottle of alcohol on the seat. He had twice before been convicted of DWI:

… [W]e hold that the consent-search condition imposed by the sentencing court is not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life. Initially, it is undisputed that defendant was not armed with a weapon when he committed the crime of which he was convicted. Defendant also has no history of violence or use of weapons and has never been convicted of an offense involving weapons … . * * *

… [T]he circumstances of defendant’s past use of illegal substances do not support a finding that the imposition of the consent-search condition was reasonably necessary to ensure that defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so, particularly where the frequency and magnitude of his use of illegal substances are unknown … . * * *

There are certain limited circumstances where alcohol becomes contraband for the purposes of the consent-search condition, such as when it is open and located in a running vehicle … . However, the consent-search condition is not limited to conform to these specific circumstances. Rather, the condition broadly authorizes warrantless searches of defendant’s person, vehicle and place of abode. This extensive reach into areas of defendant’s life where he may legally possess and consume alcohol is not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation or individually tailored in relation to the offense committed, especially considering that defendant will still be “checked up on” pursuant to the condition permitting unannounced visits from a probation officer at his residence or elsewhere, which he does not challenge … . People v Andrus, 2025 NY Slip Op 04817, First Dept 8-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision and dissent for insight into when a consent-search probation condition is warranted and when, as here, it is inappropriate.

 

, ,

HERE THE ARGUMENT THAT NECESSARY PARTIES HAD NOT BEEN JOINED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED; THE PROPER REMEDY IS TO SUMMON THE NECESSARY PARTIES, NOT DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that the proper remedy for the failure to include a necessary party is to summon the missing party, not dismiss the action:​

The nonjoinder of necessary parties may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, by any party or by the court on its own motion, including for the first time on appeal” … . “Necessary parties are defined as ‘[p]ersons who ought to be parties if complete relief is to be accorded between the persons who are parties to the action or who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action'” … . “The rule serves judicial economy by preventing a multiplicity of suits. It also insures fairness to third parties who ought not to be prejudiced or embarrassed by judgments purporting to bind their rights or interest where they have had no opportunity to be heard” …. “Dismissal of an action or proceeding for nonjoinder of a necessary party is only a last resort” …. Therefore, “[w]hen a necessary party has not been made a party and is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint or the petition, but rather for the court to direct that the necessary party be summoned” … .

Supreme Court improperly rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioners failed to join necessary parties. The petitioners sought to annul so much of the Village Board’s resolution …  as appointed Tucci to his position [with the Village Fire Department], and the court granted that request. Since Tucci was a person “who might be”—and in fact was—”inequitably affected by a judgment” in this proceeding (CPLR 1001[a]), he was a necessary party … . Similarly, as the petitioners sought relief that could result in a change to the leadership of the Fire Department, the Board of Fire Wardens was also a necessary party … .

… [D]ismissal of this proceeding is not the appropriate remedy for nonjoinder of Tucci and the Board of Fire Wardens … . Instead, “[u]nder these circumstances, the appropriate procedure is for the Supreme Court to determine whether [those parties] can be summoned and, if joinder cannot be effectuated, to determine whether the proceeding[ ] may nevertheless proceed in [their] absence, upon consideration of the factors set forth in CPLR 1001(b)” … . Matter of Riverside Hose Co., Inc. v Village of Tarrytown Vil. Bd., 2025 NY Slip Op 04793, Second Dept 8-27-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a definition of “necessary parties” within the meaning of CPLR 1001(b) and an explanation of the proper procedure for dealing with the failure to join a necessary party.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY, LAYING OUT ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS IN GREAT DETAIL, AFFIRMED FAMILY COURT’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY RULING ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY IGNORED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH CONFLICTED WITH AND CONTRADICTIED ITS RULINGS, LAYING OUT THAT EVIDENCE IN GREAT DETAIL; ESSENTIALLY THE DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY DEMONSTRATES MOTHER DID NOT MEET HER BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE RELOCATION WAS IN THE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a comprehensive two-justice dissent, affirmed Family Court’s modification of custody ruling allowing mother to relocate to Florida with the child. The dissenters argued the majority ignored evidence which conflicted with its findings, effectively finding relocation was in mother’s best interest, not the child’s. The dissent laid out, in detail, the evidence purportedly ignored by the majority and would have held mother did not meet her burden to prove relocation was in the best interest of the child:

From the dissent:

A parent’s request to relocate with the parties’ child has been described as one of “the knottiest and most disturbing problems that our courts are called upon to resolve” … . Foremost, a court’s role in resolving immensely personal family matters of this nature is to ensure that the final decision is in the best interest of the child and that its findings have a sound and substantial basis in the record, as that is the sine qua non of any credibility determination … . Therefore, the threshold issue here is not whether the Family Court’s credibility determinations should be disturbed as the majority posits. Rather, it is whether there is a substantial basis in the record to support the finding that granting the mother primary physical custody of the subject child and permission to relocate to Florida, served the child’s best interest … . In my opinion, the Family Court’s determination fails on both accounts, as the evidence clearly establishes that a predominant emphasis was placed on those facts and circumstances most likely to serve the mother’s best interest, rather than that of the child, thereby undermining the exact premise set forth in Matter of Tropea ([87 NY2d 727] at 740-741). As the mother has failed to establish that it would be in the child’s best interest to relocate to Florida under the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea …, I respectfully dissent. Matter of Jasmine M. v Albert M., 2025 NY Slip Op 04695, First Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: In this decision and in Matter of Kaius A. v Abigail H., 2025 NY Slip Op 04692, First Dept 8-14-25, the First Department is addressing concerns with the credibility determinations made by Family Court judges, raising the question whether starkly contradictory but credible proof should be analyzed in the context of whether the party seeking the relief has met the burden of proof.

 

, , , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE MOTHER WAS SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING THE FATHER’S CONTACT WITH HER AND THE CHILDREN; THE PROOF IN THIS CHILD NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST MOTHER DID NOT MATCH THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION; THE JUDGE EFFECTIVELY AMENDED THE PETITION BY IMPROPERLY CONFORMING THE PETITION TO SERIOUSLY CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY PROOF; MOTHER WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS THE “AMENDED” PETITION; NEGLECT FINDING VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating the neglect finding against mother, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rosada, determined there was insufficient support in the record for the judge’s resolution of conflicting evidence, which amounted to an amendment of the petition to conform to the proof. Mother was never given the opportunity to address the judge’s sua sponte amendment of the petition, a violation of due process. In addition, there was no proof mother was served with an order of protection prohibiting father’s contact with the children (it was alleged mother left the children in father’s care when she was hospitalized). The facts of the case are too complex to fairly summarize here:

… ACS [Administration for Children’s Services] failed to adduce any proof of actual or imminent danger of physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the children in remaining in a home with the father and M.H. [paternal grandmother] during the mother’s brief hospitalization … . * * *

… Family Court unduly relied upon the contradictory testimony of Trazile [CPS worker] and M.H. in rendering its determination that respondent neglected the children. While credibility determinations of Family Court are normally accorded due deference … , the determination here “lacks a sound and substantial evidentiary basis,” and the court should have dismissed the petition (… see also Family Ct Act § 1051[c]). The court credited the testimonies of both Trazile and M.H., which together presented three markedly different and contradictory accounts of how the children came to be in M.H.’s care. Significantly, all three accounts are departures from the allegations set forth in the amended petition.

While the court is empowered sua sponte to conform the pleadings to the proof, as it arguably did here via its restatement of the allegations in its written decision, Family Ct Act § 1051(b) requires that in such cases, the respondent be given reasonable time to prepare to answer the amended allegations, which was not done here … . “Absent additional allegations set forth in an amended petition that conforms to the proof with notice to the respondent, the court must not base a finding of neglect on allegations not set forth in the petition” … . Matter of Kaius A. v Abigail H., 2025 NY Slip Op 04692, First Dept 8-14-25

Practice Point: If Family Court is confronted with internally inconsistent and contradictory proof which does not match the allegations in the neglect petition, the petition should be dismissed.

Practice Point: If mother is accused of violating an order of protection, there must be proof she was served with the order.

Practice Point: Although Family Court has the power to sua sponte conform a neglect petition to the proof by issuing findings of fact, due process requites that mother be given the opportunity to address the “new” allegations in the “amended” petition.

 

, ,

FATHER, WHO LIVED IN FLORIDA, BROUGHT THIS PARENTAL ACCESS PETITION; FATHER INDICATED HE COULD NOT AFFORD TO TRAVEL TO NEW YORK; HE APPEARED SEVERAL TIMES VIRTUALLY; HE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE LAST COURT DATE, BUT HIS ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined that the dismissal of father’s parental access petition for failure to prosecute was not warranted. Father lived in Florida, had made appearances virtually, and, although he did not appear at the last court date, his attorney was present:

… [F]ather commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for parental access with the child. The Family Court directed the parties to cooperate with a clinical assessment program in New York so as to aid the court in making a parental access determination. However, the father, who lived in Florida, alleged that he was financially unable to participate in the program and to travel to New York. He also informed the court that he was initially seeking to have only telephone contact with the child. Following several virtual appearances by the father, the court advised the father that he would no longer be permitted to appear virtually, citing the father’s disruptions during his prior virtual appearances. Thereafter, prior to the next scheduled court appearance, the father made “multiple” requests to be able to appear virtually but the court denied his requests. While the father was not present at the next scheduled court appearance, his attorney was present. … [T]he court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute. …

“[D]ismissal is a harsh remedy which ought not to be imposed without the utmost caution” … . A petition should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute where there is no indication of intentional default or willful abandonment … . Here, inasmuch as the father made several appearances in the proceeding virtually and appeared through counsel during the latest scheduled court appearance, the record does not reflect that the father willfully abandoned his parental access petition … . Matter of Lopez v Estrella, 2025 NY Slip Op 04649, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: Dismissal of a parental access petition for failure to prosecute is a harsh remedy which was not justified in this case. Father lived in Florida and appeared virtually. His requests to continue to appear virtually were denied. He was seeking only telephonic contact with the child. There was no indication of intentional default or willful abandonment of the petition.

 

,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308 AND 311 ARE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, NOT “TECHNICAL” DEFECTS WHICH CAN BE OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the incarcerated plaintiff’s failure to comply with the service of process requirements in CPLR 308(2) and 311 were jurisdictional defects which could not be overlooked by the judge pursuant to CPLR 2001. CPLR 2001, which allows a court to cure a “technical” defect in effecting service, presupposes the court has acquired jurisdiction:

“‘The court’s ability to apply CPLR 2001 . . . presupposes that the court has acquired jurisdiction'” … . Thus, “CPLR 2001 may be used to cure only a ‘technical infirmity'” in effecting service … . “‘In deciding whether a defect in service is merely technical, courts must be guided by the principle of notice to the defendant—notice that must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections'” … . “Defendant’s actual receipt of the summons and complaint is not dispositive of the efficacy of service” … .

Here, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s status as an incarcerated pro se litigant, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the personal delivery requirements of CPLR 308(2) and CPLR 311, or to effect the requisite mailings within the required time period under CPLR 308(2) are jurisdictional defects that the Supreme Court may not overlook pursuant to CPLR 2001 … . Baptiste v County of Suffolk, 2025 NY Slip Op 04618, Second Dept 8-13-25

Practice Point: CPLR 2001, which allows the cure of “technical” defects in the service of process, does not apply to “jurisdictional” defects such as failing to comply with the requirements in CPLR 308 and 311.

 

, ,

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.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the judge did not have the power to sua sponte cancel and discharge the mortgage. After trial, the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed because the bank failed to demonstrate standing to foreclose and failed to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. The court may grant relief warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief “if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, in his answer, the defendant sought, among other things, dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him but did not seek cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. Thus, the court’s sua sponte directive to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage was dramatically unlike the relief requested … . Moreover, the proof adduced at trial did not support the relief granted … , and the plaintiff was prejudiced, since it was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the propriety of the relief granted, which deprived it of its security interest in the premises … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Amigon, 2025 NY Slip Op 04536, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Here, although the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed on defendant’s motion after trial, the judge did not have the authority to cancel and discharge the mortgage, relief that was not requested by the defendant.

 

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