You are here: / Judges
,

DEFENDANT BASED HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, IN PART, ON INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE; GUILTY PLEAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty pleas, determined the misinformation provided to the defendant about his sentencing exposure rendered the pleas invalid:

Defendant was told that he faced the possibility of serving two consecutive 15-year sentences if he elected to go to trial. At most, however, he was facing 20 years because of the statutory cap (see Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e] [i]). Unbeknown to him, he was weighing the benefit of a plea offer of 20 years when in reality, it was the maximum he would serve even if convicted after trial. Defendant was not told about the capping statute and therefore lacked a “full understanding of what his plea connotes and of its consequence” … . This is particularly true because defendant’s guilty plea afforded him the exact sentence he would have served. The record is also clear that defendant remained conflicted about pleading guilty and sought to withdraw his plea.

The totality of the circumstances reflect that defendant’s sentencing exposure played a decisive role in his decision to plead guilty, and his erroneous understanding that he faced 30 years in prison if he was convicted after trial had an “impact on [his] judgment” significant enough to render his guilty plea not knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Ramos, 2026 NY Slip Op 00430, First Dept 1-29-26

Practice Point: Here defendant agreed to a 20 sentence with the understanding he could be sentenced to 30 years after trial. In fact, his sentence after trial would be capped at 20 years. His guilty pleas were not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

 

,

ONCE THE JUDGE DETERMINED THERE WERE NECESSARY PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT JOINED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SUMMONED IF POSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ruled on the motion for a default judgment without first identifying the necessary parties to the action (after concluding there in fact were necessary parties who were not joined):

“[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” … . “CPLR 1001(b) requires the court to order the necessary party or parties summoned, where they are subject to the court’s jurisdiction, and ‘[i]f jurisdiction over such necessary parties can be obtained only by their consent or appearance, the court is to determine, in accordance with CPLR 1001(b), whether justice requires that the action proceed in their absence'” … . “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” … .

Here, it was premature for the Supreme Court to make a determination on the plaintiff’s motion, among other things, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants without first identifying the necessary parties to the action … . After the court concluded that there existed necessary parties to the action, the court … should have ascertained the identity of those parties, whether they can be joined, and, if not, whether the action should proceed in the absence of any necessary parties pursuant to CPLR 1001(b) … . Under the circumstances of this case, “‘the questions of whether there are any . . . necessary parties who should be joined in this action and, if so, the appropriate procedural disposition for effecting joinder should not be determined by this court in the first instance'” … . Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hold a hearing to determine whether there are any necessary parties who should be joined in this action and, if so, to compel their joinder, subject to any affirmative defenses, and if joinder cannot be effectuated, to determine, pursuant to CPLR 1001(b), whether the action should proceed in the absence of any necessary parties. Hossain v Rahman, 2026 NY Slip Op 00352, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into to proper procedure which should be followed by a judge when there are necessary parties which have not been joined.

 

, , , ,

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES PROPERLY HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO PLACE THE CHILD IN TRADITIONAL FOSTER CARE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined the petitioner (Administration for Children’s Services) was properly held in civil contempt upon the motion of the attorney for the child for failure to comply with the court order to place the child in a traditional foster home. However, the Second Department deemed the imposition of a fine of $250 per day inappropriate:

“‘A motion to punish a party for civil contempt is addressed to the sound discretion of the motion court'” … . Upon a finding of civil contempt, “‘Judiciary Law § 773 . . . provides for two types of awards: one where actual damage has resulted from the contemptuous act in which case an award sufficient to indemnify the aggrieved party is imposed, and one where the complainant’s rights have been prejudiced but an actual loss or injury is incapable of being established'” … . “In the second situation, the fine is limited to $250, plus the complainant’s costs and expenses” … . By contrast, “where there is actual loss or injury the statute does not provide for a general $250 fine, single or multiple. It calls instead for an assessment that will indemnify aggrieved parties” … .

Here, the Family Court correctly determined that the child had suffered actual injury as a result of the contemptuous act. * * *

* * * [T]he court should have imposed a “reasonably certain compensatory fine” that is “properly related to the scope of the injury” … .

… “‘Accordingly, ‘[a]ny penalty imposed is designed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court’s mandate or both'” … . Under these circumstances, where the Family Court specifically invoked the petitioner’s “inconsisten[cy] and carelessness,” the fine of $250 per day of noncompliance appears to represent an improper attempt to punish the contemnor rather than compensate the injured party … . Matter of Emily M. (Joyce G.), 2026 NY Slip Op 00377, Second Dept 1-28-26

Practice Point: Here the Administration for Children’s Services, upon the motion of the attorney for the child, was held in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order to place the child in traditional foster care.

 

,

THE SIX-MONTH GRACE PERIOD FOR FILING A NEW ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205 (A)) DOES NOT APPLY IF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ACTION HAS NOT RUN; PLAINTIFF WAS FREE TO COMMENCE ANOTHER ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL ANYTIME WITHIN THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have dismissed because the action wasn’t recommenced within six months of dismissal (CLPR 205 (a)) because the statute of limitations on the underlying cause of action had not run. The six months grace period in CPLR 205 (a) only applies when the statute has run:

… CPLR 205(a) does not apply because “[w]here, as here, the statutory time limit has not expired . . . [CPLR 205(a)] cannot be applied in such a way as to shorten the period otherwise available to the plaintiff” … . The alleged slip and fall took place on August 24, 2021, and plaintiff filed the prior action on April 5, 2022, which was then dismissed by order entered on or about December 7, 2023. Plaintiff then refiled the instant complaint on August 21, 2024, within the three-year statute of limitations for his personal injury claim.

Nor is the refiled complaint barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the order dismissing plaintiff’s prior action was not on the merits … . Defendants moved to dismiss the prior action for failure to respond to discovery demands. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, which was granted “without opposition,” and with no indication that the dismissal was on the merits or with prejudice. Supreme Court was without authority to revise the prior order by adding the words “with prejudice” because that revision substantively changes the prior order … . … [P]laintiff was not required to contest the dismissal of the prior action before commencing this action … . Hermina v 2050 Valentine Ave., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 00316, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: The six-month grace period for filing a new action after dismissal (CPLR 205 (a)) only applies if the statute of limitations has run.

 

, , ,

THE PROBATION-CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PAY THE MANDATORY SURCHARGE AND COURT FEES WAS STRUCK BECAUSE DEFENDANT IS INDIGENT; THE FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE NOT PRESERVED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) the challenge to the probation condition that defendant pay the mandatory surcharge and court fees survives the waiver of appeal; (2) the condition should be struck because defendant is indigent; (3) the facial constitutional challenges to probation conditions were not preserved:

In determining whether a condition is reasonably necessary and related to a defendant’s rehabilitation, the Court must consider the particular circumstances of a defendant’s case … .

Defendant, who is indigent and a first-time offender, has only sporadic income and otherwise has been supported by his mother. Under these circumstances, the requirement that he pay a total of $375 in surcharges and fees as a condition of probation “will not assist in ensuring [that] he leads a law-abiding life and is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation” … . Accordingly, that condition is stricken. People v Acosta, 2026 NY Slip Op 00324, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: The probation-condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and court fees should not have been imposed on this indigent defendant.​

 

, , ,

TWO IRRELEVANT PROBATION CONDITIONS STRUCK, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES SURVIVE A WAIVER OF APPEAL BUT MUST BE PRESERVED; AS-APPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES ARE PRECLUDED BY THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) non-constitutional challenges to probation conditions need not be preserved for appeal; (2) although the facial constitutional challenges to probation conditions survive a waiver of appeal, they were not preserved for appeal; (3), the as-applied constitutional challenges are precluded by the waiver of appeal; and (4) two probation conditions must be struck as not relevant to defendant’s criminal history or personal life. In addition, the decision identifies several probation conditions which were deemed properly imposed in this drug-possession case:

At the time of his arrest, defendant possessed 100 glassines of heroin and 50 vials of crack cocaine. Accordingly, the sentencing court providently deemed it “reasonably necessary” to order defendant to “[a]void injurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; and . . . not consort with disreputable people” “to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so” … . Based on defendant’s selling of heroin, the court also properly ordered him to “[w]ork faithfully at a suitable employment or pursue a course of study or vocational training … that can lead to suitable employment” and to “[s]ubmit proof of such employment, study or training … . For the same reason, the court providently required defendant to submit to testing for alcohol and illegal substances and to participate in substance abuse programming … . …

There is … no evidence to support requiring defendant, who has no children, to “[s]upport dependents and meet other family responsibilities” … . … [T]here is no evidence to support requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang … “. People v Tompson, 2026 NY Slip Op 00325, First Dept 1-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what probation conditions are appropriate for a drug-possession conviction.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the appealability of challenges to probation conditions.

 

,

NINE OF ELEVEN PROBATION CONDITIONS STRICKEN AS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION, INCLUDING THE CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT PAY THE MANDATORY SURCHARGE AND OTHER FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined nine probation conditions must be stricken as not reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation:

… [N]ine conditions were “not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life” (… Penal Law § 65.10[1]). There is no evidence that defendant had a history of gang affiliation or that his offense was connected to gang activity, and as such the condition related to a prohibition on gang affiliation … .

Considering defendant’s denial of drug and alcohol use, the Department of Probation’s assessment of defendant for substance abuse with no recommendation for further treatment, and the lack of any evidence defendant’s offense involved drug or alcohol use, conditions related to drug and alcohol testing and treatment … .

The condition of defendant’s probation requiring that he pay the mandatory surcharge and other fees … is not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life, and must be stricken … .

The remaining conditions that must be stricken … are not applicable to defendant or reasonably related to his rehabilitation … . People v Balogh, 2026 NY Slip Op 00323, First Dept 1-22-26

Practice Point: Here the probation condition that defendant pay the mandatory surcharge and other fees was stricken as not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation.

 

, ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the waiver of indictment was invalid because it was not signed in open court:

Defendant’s waiver of indictment … was invalid because the record does not demonstrate that defendant satisfied the requirement of NY Constitution, art 1, § 6 and CPL 195.20 that the written waiver of indictment must be signed by the defendant in open court in the presence of his or her counsel … . The indictment waiver was dated February 3, 2021, the same date on which the SCI was issued, but a date on which there appears to have been no appearance in this case. Further, the court’s description of the indictment waiver suggested that the court understood it to have been signed before the day of the plea. The record as a whole does not clearly support an inference that the “open court” requirement was satisfied. A less than compelling inference does not fulfill the “unequivocal dictate” that the record demonstrate that the defendant signed the waiver in open court … . “Compliance with this unequivocal dictate is indispensable to a knowing and intelligent waiver and the failure to adhere to this strict procedure is a jurisdictional defect which survives a guilty plea and appeal waiver and need not be preserved” … . People v Perez, 2026 NY Slip Op 00210, First Dept 1-15-26

Practice Point; If the record does not unequivocally demonstrate a waiver of indictment was signed in open court, the guilty plea is invalid. The issue need not be preserved for appeal.

 

, ,

BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA AND SENTENCING, THE COURT HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); AT THE HEARING DEFENDANT TESTIFIED SHE ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE WHEN SHE STABBED THE VICTIM; THAT TESTIMONY TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION BY THE JUDGE; THE MAJORITY APPLIED AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL AND REVERSE; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EXCEPTION TO THE PRESEVATION REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant raised a question whether defendant stabbed the victim in self-defense in open court between the plea and sentencing which the judge was required to, but failed to explore. The majority applied an exception to the preservation requirement triggered when an element of the crime is negated by the defendant in open court between the plea and the sentencing. Although nothing in the in the plea colloquy negated an element of the crime, during the post-plea hearing on defendant’s application for alternative sentencing pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) defendant testified she acted in self defense. The two dissenters argued the exception to the preservation requirement did not apply and the appeal should not have been considered:

Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy or at sentencing that negated an element of the crimes to which she pleaded guilty, raised the possibility of a particular defense or suggested an involuntary plea so as to implicate the narrow exception to the preservation rule … . That said, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is implicated whenever a defendant “negate[s] an element of the crime to which a plea has been entered or make[s] [a] statement[ ] suggestive of an involuntary plea” in open court between the plea and sentencing, obliging the trial court to “conduct a further inquiry or give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea” … .

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant’s statements during the DVSJA hearing did not signify a lack of understanding about the nature of the charges to which she pleaded guilty or that her plea was involuntary. We are mindful that defendant’s statements during the hearing suggest that she had a potential justification defense, but the hearing was contemplated by the plea agreement itself, the statements were made for the purpose of establishing defendant’s entitlement to a reduced sentence under Penal Law § 60.12 and defendant twice reaffirmed her plea during the hearing. Notably, at the end of the hearing, defense counsel expressly stated that defendant had “knowingly plea[ded guilty to the indictment.” Under these particular circumstances and when considered in context, defendant’s postplea statements “did not raise a legitimate question about the voluntariness of [defendant’s] plea” … so as to impose upon the court a duty of further inquiry to ensure that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent … . People v Brown-Shook, 2026 NY Slip Op 00172, Third Dept 1-16-26

Practice Point: Here the defendant pled guilty and moved for an alternative sentence under the DVSJA. At the DVSJA hearing she testified she stabbed the victim in self defense. There is a narrow exception to the preservation requirement when a defendant negates an element of the crime in open court between pleading guilty and sentencing. Over a two-justice dissent, the majority applied the preservation exception and reversed on the ground the judge did not explore the possibility defendant had acted in self defense.

 

, ,

EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING BY THE TRIAL JUDGE WHICH TOOK ON THE FUNCTION AND APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge deprived defendant of a fair trial by excessive questioning ot eh defendant which “took on the function and appearance of an advocate.” The error was not preserved but the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

Supreme Court engaged extensively in its own areas of inquiry, which detailed the nature of the complainant’s injury and clarified whether the injury was likely to have been intentionally caused by a sharp instrument. The court asked numerous leading questions of the People’s witness, a paramedic, as to what the paramedic observed, and guided the prosecution at length in its questioning of the paramedic. The court also assisted the prosecution in laying a foundation for the admission of evidence and repeatedly engaged in lengthy colloquies with various prosecution witnesses in order to effectively instruct these witnesses how to refresh their recollections in order to provide evidence favorable to the prosecution.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court improperly took on the function and appearance of an advocate, at times even engaging in commentary on the testimony against the defendant, as well as on questions posed by defense counsel. 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 Coleman, 2026 NY Slip Op 00145, Second Dept 1-14-26

Practice Point: Here the trial judge engaged in questioning of witnesses which took on the function and appearance of an advocate, depriving defendant of a fair trial. Although the issue was not preserved, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice.

 

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