You are here: / Judges
, ,

THE JUDGE’S ERROR IN REFUSING TO GRANT A BRIEF ADJOURNMENT WHEN THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY OFFERED A REBUTTAL WITNESS HAD A “SPILL-OVER-EFFECT” TAINTING THE OTHER COUNTS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined (1) the court erred in not granting the defense an adjournment when the People belatedly offered rebuttal testimony, and (2) the “spill-over-effect” of that error tainted the convictions:

The trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, receive belatedly disclosed rebuttal testimony, ” ‘but before doing so, it must, upon application of the … . We therefore conclude that County Court erred when, after granting the prosecution’s request to offer rebuttal proof on Monday, it then denied defendant’s application for any adjournment before the prosecution called its rebuttal witness … . Given that proof of defendant’s guilt without the rebuttal witness’ testimony was “not overwhelming,” the error cannot be deemed harmless … .

In determining whether an error in the proceedings relating to one count requires reversal of the conviction of other jointly tried counts, we apply “[s]pillover analysis” and evaluate “the individual facts of the case, the nature of the error and its potential for prejudicial impact on the over-all outcome” … . “[I]f there is a reasonable possibility that the jury’s decision to convict on the tainted counts influenced its guilty verdict on the remaining counts in a meaningful way,” reversal is required (id. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Because resolution of all three counts here hinged on the jury’s assessment of the victims’ credibility and the veracity of the defense claims, there is a reasonable possibility that the decimation of defendant’s alibi by the rebuttal evidence meaningfully influenced the jury’s guilty verdict on the 2018 count … . The rebuttal proof, received without affording defendant a brief adjournment to investigate, cast defendant’s alibi witness as unscrupulous and incredible. Under these unusual circumstances, we reverse defendant’s convictions and order a new trial on all counts … . People v Shaver, 2026 NY Slip Op 02895, Second Dept 5-7-26

Practice Point: An error affecting the proof of one count may have a “spill-over-effect” and taint the remaining counts, requiring a new trial.

 

,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER’S ADDRESS SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO THE THERPIST TO DETERMINED FATHER’S LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CHILD’S THERAPY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the court should have held a hearing on whether mother’s address could be kept confidential; and the court should not have delegated its authority to all the therapist to decide the extent father’s participation in the child’s therapy:

Section 154-b(2)(a) of the Family Court Act authorizes the court, on its own motion or upon the motion of any party or the child’s attorney, to permit the party or the child to keep his or her address confidential from an adverse party if the court finds that disclosure of the address or other identifying information would pose an unreasonable risk to the health or safety of a party or the child. Thus, the statute requires a fact-specific determination as to the possible effects of such disclosure. Although the mother sought an address confidentiality order and Family Court acknowledged the need for a separate hearing, ultimately holding the issue in abeyance, the record is devoid of any determination as to whether disclosure of the address would pose an unreasonable risk to the child. In the absence of such a finding, the directive requiring disclosure cannot be said to reflect a proper exercise of discretion.

Family Court further erred in authorizing the father to communicate with the child’s therapist and to participate in therapy at the therapist’s discretion. This provision effectively delegates to the treating therapist the authority to determine whether, when, and under what circumstances the father may have contact with the child, which is an issue reserved to the court … . The directive also contradicts the court’s finding that contact with the father would harm the child’s mental health, and risks inhibiting the child’s openness with the child’s therapist if the child knows disclosures could be shared with or occur in the father’s presence. Thus, the order undermines the therapeutic process and risks exacerbating, rather than alleviating, the child’s emotional distress. Matter of Monet O. v Leroy L.B., 2026 NY Slip Op 02788, First Dept 5-5-26

Practice Point: Before determining whether a party’s address should be kept confidential, Family Court should hold a hearing.

Practice Point: The Family Court should not delegate its authority to determine the level of father’s participation in the child’s therapy to the therapist.

 

, ,

ALL PARTIES AGREE THE TWO SURROGACY AGREEMENTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE PARENTAGE BASED ON THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined that both surrogacy agreements were unenforceable and the parentage determination should not have been made without a hearing on the intent of the parties and the best interests of the children:

… [T]here is no real dispute that neither surrogacy agreement meets the material requirements of Family Court Act article 5-C. The original surrogacy agreement is unenforceable because it was not signed by Robert (see Family Ct Act § 581-403 [a] [1]; [d]; see also § 581-402 [b] [3]). The second agreement is unenforceable because it was not executed prior to “the commencement of medical procedures in furtherance of embryo transfer” (§ 581-403 [b]). Thus, the court was required to determine parentage “based on the intent of the parties, taking into account the best interests of the child[ren]” (§ 581-407).

… [A]ll three parties to the second surrogacy agreement—Mary, Robert and the Surrogate—agree that their intent was for Mary and Robert to be the children’s parents, and none of them contemplated anyone else becoming a parent. … [O]n this record the court failed to give due consideration to the best interests of the children as required by the statute (see Family Ct Act § 581-407; see also § 581-701 …). We therefore reverse the … judgment of parentage, and we remit the matter to Family Court to hold an immediate hearing at which the court, in making its parentage determination, must consider evidence of the intent of the parties, taking into account evidence pertaining to the best interests of the children. Matter of Baby A. (Mary B.L.–Robert A.L.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02759, Fourth Dept 5-1-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into how a court should handle determining parentage where the surrogacy agreements are unenforceable.

 

, , , ,

UPON RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR, FAMILY COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL AND HELD THE ORDER-OF-PROTECTION HEARING IN RESPONDENT’S ABSENCE; RESPONDENT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ORDER VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, vacated the order of protection issued upon respondent’s “default” based on the denial of respondent’s due process rights:

Petitioner commenced this proceeding in November 2023 seeking an order of protection against respondent. After an initial appearance and subsequent conferences at which the parties variously appeared virtually, in person or through counsel, respondent failed to appear for the April 2024 in-person hearing. Family Court directed respondent’s counsel to leave the courtroom, at which point respondent’s counsel offered to have respondent appear virtually, asserting that respondent was in “hiding” in light of criminal charges filed against petitioner in connection with her alleged stalking of, and firing a rifle at, respondent in August 2023. The court implicitly denied respondent’s request by again directing respondent’s counsel out of the courtroom. The hearing proceeded, during which petitioner testified and was subject to cross-examination by the attorney for petitioner’s children. …

Typically, “[a] party seeking to vacate a default judgment must establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and a meritorious defense to the underlying claim” … . “No such showing is required, however, where a party’s fundamental due process rights have been denied” … . In this case, respondent’s counsel attended in person evidently ready to proceed, offered an excuse for respondent’s nonappearance and provided an alternate means to move forward in his absence … . Respondent’s counsel made no application to withdraw, and Family Court did not relieve respondent’s counsel, and thus respondent’s attorneys remained counsel of record when they were dismissed from the courtroom without explanation (see CPLR 321 [b] …). The court’s atypical conduct in that regard, coupled with the court’s choice to decline available options to proceed in respondent’s absence, deprived respondent of his opportunity to be heard (see CPLR 321 [a] …). Matter of April V. v Jonathan U., 2026 NY Slip Op 02702, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: An order issued upon a party’s default may be vacated when the party’s due process rights were violated by the judge. Here the judge ordered the party’s counsel to leave and held the hearing in the party’s absence after the counsel explained the party’s absence and offered to proceed virtually.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER-INMATE PREVAILED IN THE PROCEEDING TO ANNUL THE PENALTY OF CONFINEMENT FOR 120 DAYS IN A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU); PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-inmate had prevailed in the proceeding to annul the 120-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) (imposed on him for threats of violence) and therefore was entitled to counsel fees. The 120-day confinement was annulled because the correctional facility did not comply with the requirements of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (hereinafter the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (hereinafter the SHU Exclusion Law):

… [T]he plain language of these statutes clearly required specific conduct and findings to impose a 120-day confinement sanction against an incarcerated individual housed in an RMHU [residential mental health unit]. Even putting aside the lack of the required written findings, respondent did not have a reasonable basis to conclude that petitioner’s statements — made during a crisis call while he was confined in an RMHU without any indication that he had access to the individuals who were the subject of his threats or a history of causing serious physical injury or death to another person — constituted a qualifying threat under Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) (A). Although Supreme Court recognized as much in annulling the 120-day confinement sanction, expressly stating that “the administrative record . . . does not contain facts from which the court can discern a rational basis for respondent’s determination,” it nevertheless denied petitioner’s application for counsel fees on the ground that respondent’s position was substantially justified. Given the inherent conflict in Supreme Court’s determinations and our finding that respondent’s position was not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for counsel fees on this basis … . Matter of Walker v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 02701, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (the SHU Exclusion Law) with respect to the imposition of long-term solitary confinement on an inmate.

 

, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE EMPANELING OF AN ANONYMOUS JURY CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury:

… [D]efendant contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when County Court empaneled an anonymous jury. In support of his motion, defendant submitted the affidavit of his trial counsel, who acknowledged that the decision to empanel an anonymous jury “did not sound right” at the time, but that he did not become aware that this was possibly a reversible error until April 2024, when this Court handed down Heidrich [.226 AD3d 1096]. Defendant’s trial counsel further stated that he “had not researched the issue before . . . trial” and that the “failure to object was not a result of any strategy on [his] part.” Although the People contend that the leading case on the anonymous jury issue existed prior to defendant’s trial and had not been expanded upon by Heidrich, the People acknowledge on appeal that “the empaneling of an anonymous jury in violation of CPL 270.15 constitutes a per se denial of a defendant’s right to a fair trial that cannot be subjected to harmless error analysis.” Indeed, a single error may qualify as ineffective assistance where it “compromise[s] a defendant’s right to a fair trial” … , particularly where, like here, the jurors were only identified by numbers and the record fails to reveal whether their names were ever provided to defense counsel — “which materially heightens the risk of prejudice” … . Accordingly, under the unique circumstances of this particular case and where the legal basis for the motion is undisputed through sworn allegations (see CPL 440.30 [3]), we substitute our discretion for that of the motion court and grant defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction … . As such, remittal for a new trial is required. People v Rahaman, 2026 NY Slip Op 02696, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Defense counsel’s failure to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury can amount to ineffective assistance and warrant a new trial in the absence of preservation.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT RESENTENCING WAS VIOLATED, DESPITE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, determined defendant was denied his fundamental right to be present at resentencing. Defense counsel told the court defendant’s presence was not necessary:

… [A]s to defendant’s assertion that his fundamental right to be present at resentencing was violated, we agree. Here, County Court … received a letter from DOCCS informing the court that defendant’s two sentences of 2 to 4 years for the underlying grand larceny convictions were not in compliance with state law, and, therefore, an amendment was required. The record reflects that defendant was not produced at either the preceding conference or the resentencing proceeding. The record merely indicates that defense counsel stated, orally and in writing, that defendant’s presence was not necessary, yet there is no acknowledgment that defendant was even aware of the resentencing proceeding. As such, defendant’s fundamental right to be present at his resentencing was violated, and the matter must be remitted to County Court for resentencing on the grand larceny convictions (see CPL 380.40…). People v Cobbins, 2026 NY Slip Op 02695, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: A defendant has a fundamental right to be present at resentencing. The error need be preserved and survives defense counsel’s statement that defendant’s presence is not necessary.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, WHO REVIEWED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION, MAY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN DEFENDANT’S PROSECUTION; TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the denial of defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction (CPL 440.10), determined the judge’s law clerk who reviewed the motion may have been involved in the defendant’s prosecution:

“A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality” … . As an extension of the judge that they serve, “a law clerk is probably the one participant in the judicial process whose duties and responsibilities are most intimately connected with the judge’s own exercise of the judicial function” … . Indeed, law clerks serve as “[n]on-judges who perform judicial functions within the judicial system” … , and therefore a law clerk’s conflict may require the judge they serve to “disqualify in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality ‘might reasonably be questioned’ ” … . Although such disqualification is not automatic, a judge must insulate their law clerk from all matters in which the law clerk had any personal involvement as an attorney during the law clerk’s prior employment and disclose the law clerk’s involvement and insulation to the parties — “even where the law clerk’s involvement in the matter consisted of only a single court appearance” … . In doing so, a judge must prohibit their law clerk from participating in any way with the proceeding, including conferencing, performing legal research or drafting decisions … . The failure to do so constitutes reversible error … . People v Dickinson, 2026 NY Slip Op 02694, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Here the “appearance of impropriety” created by the possibility the judge’s law clerk participated in defendant’s prosecution, required reversal of the denial of defendant’s post-trial motion.

 

, , ,

FATHER IN THIS CHILD SUPPORT MATTER WAS ESSENTIALLY FORCED TO PROCEED PRO SE BY THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE IN VIOLATION OF FATHER’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this child-support matter, determined father was essentially forced to proceed pro se by the support magistrate, in violation of his right to counsel:

… [T]he Support Magistrate relieved the father’s assigned counsel upon the father’s request.

At the next proceeding … , the father appeared without counsel and indicated that he had not been assigned a new attorney. The Support Magistrate advised the father that a hearing on the mother’s violation petition was scheduled for that date and asked the father if he intended to “present a defense on [his] own, . . . not participat[e], or hir[e] an attorney.” After the father gave a nonresponsive answer, the Support Magistrate stated that “the Court will proceed on the [father’s] default.” The father again protested that he did not have an attorney. The Support Magistrate then found that the father “is choosing not to participate in the proceedings.” In an order of disposition … , the Support Magistrate found that the father willfully violated the prior order of child support. * * *

… [T]he record demonstrates that the father “did not wish to proceed pro se, but was forced to do so” … . At the proceeding on August 28, 2024, the father repeatedly protested that he did not have an attorney, and the Support Magistrate did not conduct an inquiry to determine whether the father was waiving his right to counsel or address the possibility of assigning new counsel to the father … . Moreover, although the Support Magistrate had previously cautioned the father against self-representation when the father’s former assigned counsel was relieved, the Support Magistrate at no point conducted a sufficiently searching inquiry to ensure that the father was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his right to counsel … . Matter of Baldwin v Peterkin, 2026 NY Slip Op 02647, Second Dept 4-29-26

Practice Point: Before allowing a party to proceed pro se, the judge or magistrate must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure the party is aware of the dangers. It is a constitutional violation to “force” a party to proceed without an attorney.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE A DISTINCT AND PROPER REASON TO DEMAND THE WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO APPEAL; IT APPEARS THE JUDGE WAS TRYING TO SHIELD THE DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION FROM APPELLATE REVIEW; THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT BASED UPON AN ANONYMOUS TIP HAD ONLY THE COMMON LAW RIGHT OF INQUIRY; THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT CONSENTED TO THE PAT DOWN SEARCH WAS INSUFFICIENT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his person should have been granted:

Here, the consent of the People to the plea agreement was not required because the charges remained as presented (see CPL 220.10 [2]) and, thus, the People were not in a position to demand a waiver of defendant’s right to appeal nor was such a waiver—or any other plea condition—necessary to secure the People’s consent … . It follows, then, that the court’s demand of an appeal waiver, particularly as viewed in light of defendant’s expressed desire to seek appellate review of the court’s suppression ruling, “gives rise to the appearance that the court [was] seeking to shield its decisions from appellate review or otherwise act[ing] as an advocate for the People” and, therefore, “we must look to the record as a whole to determine whether there is a distinct and proper reason for the court’s demand” … . * * *

Upon our review of the record …, including defense counsel’s unrefuted assertion that the court unilaterally demanded an appeal waiver that would foreclose appellate review of its determination of defendant’s suppression motion as a condition of the court-initiated plea agreement, we conclude that it is not apparent that the court had a distinct and proper reason to demand that waiver of defendant’s right to appeal. Therefore, the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and does not preclude our review of defendant’s contentions. * * *

… [T]he anonymous 911 phone tip generated only a belief that criminal activity was afoot and, as such, limited the officers’ permissible action to a level two common-law right of inquiry … . * * *

Inasmuch as the People failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing establishing defendant’s voluntary consent to the search of his person, all physical evidence seized as a result of that consent “should have been suppressed” … . People v Turner, 2026 NY Slip Op 02557, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: Where the defendant pleads to the charges and there is no need for the People’s consent, the sentencing judge must have a distinct and proper reason to demand that defendant waive his right to appeal, absent here.

 

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