You are here: / Judges
, ,

EVEN WHERE EVIDENCE OF AN UNCHARGED CRIME IS “INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED” WITH THE NARRATIVE OF CHARGED CRIME, IT MAY BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS ITS PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT A PRIOR UNCHARGED SEX ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The Frist Department, reversing the conviction in this sexual abuse prosecution, determined the evidence of a prior sex act with the complainant was much more prejudicial than probative. The evidence was therefore inadmissible:

Prior to the commencement of jury selection for the second trial, the People made a Molineux application to allow the complainant to testify about an alleged prior oral sexual encounter with defendant. The People argued, inter alia, that this evidence was “inextricably intertwined” with the complainant’s testimony as to the charges of sexual abuse, provided relevant background, and put the complainant’s testimony “into a believable context.” Supreme Court granted the People’s motion. The court concluded that the proposed testimony was “inextricably woven [in]to the narrative.” …

Supreme Court erred in granting the People’s Molineux application. Even if the People established some non-propensity basis for introducing this evidence, “the prejudicial nature of that evidence far outweighed any probative value” … . People v Nieves, 2026 NY Slip Op 00979, First Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here in this sexual abuse prosecution, the complainant’s testimony about a prior, uncharged sex act was deemed much more prejudicial than probative. Therefore the testimony was inadmissible, despite the argument that it was “inextricably intertwined” with the narrative of the crime or provided relevant background.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE OHIO COURT AFTER LEARNING OF ANOTHER CUSTODY-RELATED PROCEEDING THERE AND FAILED TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT SHOULD EXERCISE TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN MOTHER’S PETITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge committed reversible error by failing to communicate with the Ohio court after learning of another custody-related proceeding there. In addition, the judge failed to consider whether to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect mother and child. Mother’s custody petition alleged serious domestic violence:

Family Court failed to satisfy the procedural mechanism required by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law, art 5-A) when a custody-related proceeding is pending in another state. Specifically, after the court became aware of the Ohio proceeding, the record does not reflect that the court attempted to communicate with the Ohio court, which is a reversable error … . * * *

… Family Court failed to comply with the statutory requirement to consider, under the circumstances presented and in light of the serious allegations of domestic violence in the mother’s petition, whether it was necessary to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect the mother and the child … . Matter of Shelby C.V. v Joshua W.K, 2026 NY Slip Op 01002, First Dept 2-17-26

Practice Point: It is reversible error for a judge to fail to communicate with a court in another jurisdiction after learning of another custody-related proceeding there.

Practice Point: Allegations of domestic violence may trigger the statutory requirement that a judge consider exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect family members.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE COMMITTED A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR BY FAILING TO ACCURATELY AND FULLY INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by not fully explaining the contents of a jury note. The defendant testified that he was sitting in his parked car, with the engine running for heat, listening to music because he didn’t want to disturb his family in a nearby house. The police noticed the car running and found the defendant asleep with an open beer in his hand. Defendant was charged with DWI and other offenses. The jury sent out notes seeking clarification of the term “operate” asking whether “operation” requires an intent to drive the vehicle or whether merely having the engine running constitutes “”operation:”

The court … read the note into the record as follows:

“We the jury would like clarification on the law regarding the first three charges. There is a portion that states the operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was, however, another segment. That segment, stated that operation is if the engine is running.”

When it read the note to the parties it omitted a question from the jury … . The full note stated:

“We would like clarification on the law regarding the first 3 charges. There is a portion that states that operation is intent to move the vehicle. There was however another segment that segment that stated that operation is if the engine is running. Are both correct?” … .

When the court read [another] portion of the note aloud, the court again altered the jury language. The court stated:

“And, then they also said the law for consumption of alcohol beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain a section that includes solely the engine running, which is also correct, and I will just read them that charge. Is that acceptable?”

But the note read:

“Also, the law for [Consumption] of Alcoholic Beverages in certain motor vehicles does not seem to contain the section that includes solely the engine is running. Is this also correct?. * * *

The court’s failure to read the jury note verbatim, or otherwise create a record demonstrating that the parties had received a copy of the note, deprived Mr. Galindo [defendant] of meaningful notice of the precise contents of the substantive jury note. By omitting the question “Are both correct?”, the court obscured the nature of the jury’s inquiry with respect to the “operates” element shared by the three counts of intoxication and the unlicensed operation charge. The jury’s question strongly suggests it wanted to know whether the “operates” instruction contained two distinct conditions either one of which could satisfy the “operates” element. Put differently, the jury’s question crystallizes its inquiry: whether intent to move the vehicle was necessary or a running engine was sufficient to meet the definition of operation. Had Mr. Galindo been accurately apprised of the contents of the jury note, he would have had the opportunity to provide input into how the court resolved the jury’s inquiry. Instead, Mr. Galindo was deprived of meaningful notice, and rereading the original CJI instruction responsible for the jury’s initial confusion did not adequately address the jury’s question. People v Galindo, 2026 NY Slip Op 00965, CtApp 2-19-26

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to read out the jury note verbatim constituted a  mode of proceedings error.

 

, ,

THE MISTRIAL, GRANTED AFTER THE JURY WAS SWORN, DID NOT TRIGGER THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY BAR TO FURTHER PROSECUTION BECAUSE THE JUDGE’S INQUIRY REVEALED THAT A JUROR’S COMMENTS, AND THE OTHER JURORS’ REACTIONS TO THOSE COMMENTS, IRREPARABLY TAINTED THE JURY (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, dismissing the defendant’s (respondent’s) prohibition petition, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined that the mistrial granted after the jury had been sworn did trigger the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution because the trial judge (the respondent) properly found “there was manifest necessity for the mistrial.” Comments made by juror No. 5, and other jurors reactions to the comments, irreparably tainted the jury:

… CPL 280.10 authorizes the court to declare a mistrial “[u]pon motion of the people, when there occurs during the trial, either inside or outside the courtroom, gross misconduct by . . . a juror, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the people’s case” … . * * *

… [J]uror No. 5’s comments and flagrant disregard for respondent’s admonitions resulted in “substantial and irreparable prejudice” to the People’s case (CPL 280.10 [2]). Although each juror averred that they could nevertheless remain fair and impartial, the record supports respondent’s contrary conclusion in light of the hesitation of many jurors to disclose juror No. 5’s conduct, the denial of others as to having heard any of the subject comments at all and another juror who gave contradictory answers about what he had heard, notwithstanding respondent’s instructions to report improper attempts to influence the jury. Matter of Guiden v Jose-Decker, 2026 NY Slip Op 00942, Third Dept 2-19-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into the procedure to be followed by the judge before granting a mistrial after the jury has been sworn. To avoid the double-jeopardy bar to further prosecution, the record must demonstrate “a manifest necessity for a mistrial.”

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the court should not have delegated its authority to determine parental access by conditional parental access on the consent of the children:

… “[A] court may not delegate its authority to determine parental access to either a parent or a child” … . Here, the Family Court improperly delegated its authority to determine the father’s and the mother’s parental access with Destinee A. and Kaylee A. to those children. … [W]e remit the matter to the Family Court … for a new determination as to the father’s and the mother’s parental access with Destinee A. and Kaylee A. in accordance with the best interests of those children … . Matter of Destinee A. (Jacquelyn M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 00890, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: A Family Court judge cannot delegate his/her/their authority to determine parental access to the parties or the children.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, GUIDANCE OF THE PROSECUTION, AND OBVIOUS BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the evidence supported the convictions but the judge’s questioning of witnesses and obvious bias in favor of the prosecution deprived defendant of a fair trial. The issue was not preserved for appeal but the Second Department considered it in the interest of justice:

“‘[A] trial judge is permitted to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of trial, and, if necessary, to develop factual information,’ so long as the judge does not take on the function or appearance of an advocate” … . Here, the Supreme Court engaged extensively in its own areas of inquiry, asked numerous leading questions of the People’s witnesses, including the complainant and a police officer, as to their observations of the defendant, elicited identification testimony, and guided the prosecution at length in its questioning.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court improperly took on the function and appearance of an advocate. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … , thus depriving the defendant of a fair trial … . People v Morales, 2026 NY Slip Op 00913, Second Dept 2-18-26

Practice Point: A judge’s involvement in a prosecution which rises to the level of an advocate for the prosecution’s case deprives a defendant of a fair trial.

 

, , ,

THE YOUTH PART OF COUNTY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WARRANTED GRANTING THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF THE 17-YEAR-OLD’S PROSECUTION TO FAMILY COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, affirming the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the youth part of County Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the People’s motion to prevent removal of the 17-year-old defendant’s prosecution to Family Court. Under the State’s Raise the Age legislation, the People’s motion to prevent removal to Family Court can be granted in “extraordinary circumstances:”

Although [county court] found that defendant and his accomplices entered the victim’s home with the intent to commit a robbery and, during the course of the robbery, struck the victim several times in the face with a shotgun, the court noted further that the violent nature of the alleged crimes was not by itself a basis for preventing removal on the ground of extraordinary circumstances. Rather, the court opined that it was also required to consider whether defendant was amenable to Family Court services. In that regard, the court found that defendant had several mental health diagnoses but, at the same time, had been receiving services for five years. Based on those considerations, the court concluded that the People had demonstrated extraordinary circumstances sufficient for the case to remain in the youth part.

The Appellate Division affirmed on the basis that defendant participated in a violent home invasion involving weapons and injuries to the victim, and that, despite the Family Court services provided to him over the five years of his involvement with the criminal justice system, he “made no appreciable positive response and continues to engage in escalating criminal behavior” … . Thus, the Appellate Division concluded that, “under the totality of the circumstances, and taking into account the mitigating factors and the substantial aggravating factors, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting that this case remain in the youth part” … . People v Guerrero, 2026 NY Slip Op 00826, CtApp 2-17-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when “extraordinary circumstances” will justify granting the People’s motion to prevent removal of a 17-year-old’s prosecution from the youth part of County Court to Family Court.

 

, , ,

SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BASED UPON A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT AN AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE FOR AN “ABNORMALITY THAT DECREASES THE ABILITY TO CONTROL IMPULSIVE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR” (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reducing defendant’s risk level assessment from three to two determined (1) the court should not have based a 10-point assessment on a juvenile delinquency adjudication and (2) the evidence did not demonstrate defendant suffered from an abnormality that decreased his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior:

Defendant was assessed 10 points under risk factor 8 for his age at the time of his first sex crime based on a juvenile delinquency adjudication when he was 15 years old, and the court rejected defendant’s challenge to the assessment of points under that risk factor. We have repeatedly held, however, that a juvenile delinquency adjudication may not be considered a crime for purposes of assessing points in a SORA determination … . * * *

Defendant also contends that the court erred when it,… adjudicated him a level three risk through application of an automatic override based on “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” … . We agree. It is well settled that “[t]he People bear the burden of proving the applicability of a particular override by clear and convincing evidence” … . … While the record supports the conclusion that defendant suffered from mental illness and that he exhibited impulsive behavior, there was no clinical assessment in the record establishing that his mental illness decreased his ability to control his behavior. Of note, neither the People nor the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders requested that the court apply the automatic override here and, further, defendant never had the opportunity to oppose use of the override before the court decided to apply it. People v Singleton, 2026 NY Slip Op 00756, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: A court cannot assess SORA risk-level points based on a juvenile delinquency adjudication.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the evidence required to apply an automatic override in a SORA risk-assessment proceeding based on “a clinical assessment that the offender has a psychological, physical, or organic abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior” … .

 

, ,

GRANDMOTHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” SUCH THAT SHE HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT.).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the matter, determined that grandmother had demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances” and she therefore had standing to bring a custody petition:

The evidence here established that, in 2018, the father was arrested and incarcerated until 2022. During that time, the children resided with the mother in the grandmother’s home until October 2021, when the grandmother moved out. The father never saw the children while he was incarcerated, rarely spoke with them, and never sent them cards, letters, or gifts. When the father was released from incarceration, the mother asked him to take custody of the children, which he did starting in July or August 2022; the grandmother visited with the children on the weekends. The mother died less than a year later, and the children lived with the grandmother during the summer of 2023. In September 2023, the parties filed petitions seeking custody of the children, and the court granted the grandmother temporary custody of the children, with the father having visitation. From that time until the conclusion of the hearing in July 2024, the father did not visit with the children and rarely communicated with them.

We conclude that the cumulative effect of the father’s extended incarceration, his failure to maintain contact with the children during that time, the children’s resulting bond with the grandmother, and the father’s failure to maintain contact with the children during the pendency of the hearing, is sufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances … . Matter of Craig v Thomas, 2026 NY Slip Op 00751, Fourth Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the nature of “extraordinary circumstances” which will confer standing upon a grandparent to seek custody of the grandchildren.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE IN THIS AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT ABSENT A WRITTEN MOTION OR A WAIVER BY THE PEOPLE; THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE INTENT DUE TO MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT; ONLY A JURY CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court in this aggravated cruelty to animals case, determined (1) the judge should not have reduced the counts in the indictment absent a written motion and (2) the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to support the indictment. Defendant put three kittens in a knotted pillowcase left them on a balcony during a snow storm. They were discovered under several feet of snow. Two of the kittens died. The judge apparently concluded the defendant, due to mental disease of defect, was not capable of forming the intent to commit the offense. The Fourth Department noted that only a jury can make that determination:

… County Court erred in reducing the counts without a written motion requesting such relief. “A motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to [CPL] 210.20 must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the people” (CPL 210.45 [1] …). “The procedural requirements of CPL 210.45 must be adhered to even when consideration of the dismissal is upon the court’s own motion” … . Unless those requirements have been waived by the People, “[t]he failure . . . to comply with the statutory mandates requires a reversal” … . * * *

We conclude that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish that defendant, with no justifiable purpose, intentionally killed the kittens and that defendant did so with aggravated cruelty inasmuch as defendant killed the kittens in a manner that inflicted extreme pain on the dying animals … or did so in a manner likely to prolong the animals’ suffering … .

To the extent that the court reduced the counts on its own finding that defendant could not form the requisite intent, that was improper weighing of the evidence inasmuch as “consideration of a potential defense of mental disease or defect should rest exclusively with the petit jury” … . People v Taylor, 2026 NY Slip Op 00738, Fourth Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: A judge cannot on the court’s own motion reduce counts of an indictment. There must be a written motion absent a waiver by the People.

Practice Point: A judge cannot, sua sponte, find that defendant could not form the required intent to commit the charged offense due to mental disease or defect. Only a jury can make that determination.

 

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