You are here: / Judges
, ,

THE JUDGE MADE NO FINDINGS TO SUPPORT EMPANELING AN ANONYMOUS JURY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s convictions, determined the judge committed reversible error by empaneling an anonymous jury without any apparent justification (juror safety for example). In addition, the Third Department noted that the judge never ruled on an oral renewal of a motion to suppress:

… [P]rospective jurors were identified only by numbers and the record is devoid of proof that their names were ever provided to defendant, which materially heightens the risk of prejudice … . Additionally, County Court withheld prospective jurors’ names without making any findings on the record or articulating a case-specific justification for departing from the procedure mandated by CPL 270.15, explaining only that prospective juror identities were withheld “because of confidentiality.” The record does not reflect any concern regarding juror safety, intimidation or interference, nor any circumstances that would otherwise warrant the use of an anonymous jury … . Additionally, we are not persuaded by any of the reasons suggested by the People at oral argument. We thus exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction, reverse and remit for a new trial. People v Cassell, 2026 NY Slip Op 02173, Third Dept 4-9-26

Practice Point: Here the trial judge’s failure to place on the record the reasons for empaneling an anonymous jury required reversal and a new trial in the interest of justice.

 

, , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUISITE PROCEDURE FOR A BATSON INQUIRY; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE JUDGE TO RULE ON WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR EXCLUDING A JUROR WAS PRETEXTUAL; THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED DESPITE A FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter to allow the trial judge to make a “Batson” finding, determined that the judge did not follow the required “Batson” procedure. The issue was considered despite the failure to preserve the error:

It is uncontested that defendant triggered a Batson challenge when he objected to the People’s peremptory challenge of the only two jurors who were perceived by defendant to be of the same racial group — satisfying step one … . Although the prosecutor offered a race-neutral reason for each juror at step two, County Court merged the step two and three requirements by immediately denying the objection without first allowing defense counsel to make an argument that the reasons were pretextual, thereby “squeez[ing] the process into a functional bypass of the key, final protocol [the Court of Appeals has] put in place” … . Such “practice falls short of a meaningful inquiry into the question of discrimination” … , particularly because the court’s consideration of pretext cannot be discerned from the record … .

While we are mindful of defense counsel’s failure to preserve this issue, given the magnitude of the error, we take corrective action in the interest of justice because the process here was woefully inadequate to satisfy the safeguards enshrined by Batson to every defendant (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a] …). Therefore, since the issue of pretext is a question of fact for the trial court to assess the prosecutor’s credibility against the challenged juror’s demeanor and language capabilities, which is an inquiry appellate courts are unable to address at step three, “we withhold decision and remit this case to [County] Court to enable the trial judge who presided over this matter to determine whether the race-neutral reason proffered by the People was pretextual” … . People v Duplessis, 2026 NY Slip Op 02170, Second Dept 4-9-26

Practice Point: Here the trial judge did not follow the required steps for determining a Batson challenge to the elimination of a juror by the prosecutor.

 

, , ,

A MORE PROBING INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MENTALLY DISABLED DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ALFORD PLEA, PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by Alford plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined a more probing inquiry by the judge was required to determine whether the plea was knowing and intelligent. Defendant had been found incompetent to stand trial twice before being found mentally competent to stand trial:

While there is no mandatory catechism required of a pleading defendant, there must be an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant waived his or her constitutional rights” … . “People with intellectual disabilities possess diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. . . . These traits render people with intellectual disabilities uniquely vulnerable to injustice within criminal proceedings. . . . [Therefore], a court must account for [a defendant’s] diminished mental capacity in ensuring that any waiver of constitutional rights is knowing, intelligent and voluntary” … .

As defendant was twice determined to be incompetent to stand trial and had received four years of treatment before he was deemed competent to participate in his defense, County Court was aware of defendant’s intellectual disabilities. Notwithstanding the determination that defendant was competent to stand trial, the third psychiatric evaluation report cast serious doubts on defendant’s ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea. The report indicates that on defendant’s most recent cognitive assessment he “achieved a [f]ull-[s]cale IQ of 59, indicative of abilities consistent with a [m]ild [i]ntellectual [d]isability.” Additionally, he “achieved an [a]daptive [b]ehavior [c]omposite of 68, consistent with [the] upper end of the ‘low’ range of daily living skills.” The psychologist further noted that defendant was “rather immature in his understanding of the severity of his charges and the chances that he could have significant consequences — such as jail time.” More importantly, during the evaluation, defendant repeatedly alleged that his counsel had reassured him that he will not be going to jail and, in fact, “express[ed] strongly held beliefs that he will not be sent to jail due to his personal circumstances of having a disability and being young when the offenses were allegedly committed. These beliefs are likely related to his relative youth and mental health difficulties, several of which make it difficult for [defendant] to relate to others successfully, accept social norms and expectations, or respect interpersonal boundaries. These beliefs are unlikely to change with additional education or training.”

Under these circumstances, “[a] more probing inquiry was warranted here to ensure that defendant understood the constitutional rights he was waiving, given his significant intellectual disability” … . As there is no affirmative showing on the record that defendant understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when he entered his guilty plea, the judgment of County Court convicting defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing defendant thereon should be reversed, the plea vacated and the matter remitted for further proceedings … . People v Oldorff, 2026 NY Slip Op 02004, Third Dept 4-2-26

Practice Point: Where the defendant is mentally disabled and has previously been found incompetent to stand trial, before accepting a guilty plea, a probing inquiry by the judge is required to ensure the defendant understands the consequences.

 

, , , ,

A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AS OPPOSED TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; HERE THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the medical malpractice complaint should not have been granted, noting that a plaintiff need not present any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss, as opposed to a motion for summary judgment:

Supreme Court improperly granted the motion of [defendants] pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s earlier directive “to provide an affidavit from a physician attesting [to] the merits of her claims.” The burden does not shift to the nonmoving party on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). A plaintiff need not make an evidentiary showing in support of the complaint in order to defeat such a motion and will not be penalized for failure to do so … . Here, where the motion was not converted into one for summary judgment, the plaintiff had no obligation to provide an affidavit from an expert to support the allegations in the amended complaint in order to defeat the [defendants’] motion … . * * *

… [A]ccepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the amended complaint sufficiently stated causes of action alleging medical malpractice and lack of informed consent … . Wilber v Borgen, 2026 NY Slip Op 02001, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: A plaintiff need not submit any evidence in opposition to a motion to dismiss the complaint. Here the judge should not have granted the motion on the ground the plaintiff did not comply with the court’s directive to submit an affidavit from a physician.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DELAYED SIX YEARS BEFORE RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AND FOUR YEARS BEFORE MOVING FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE DEBT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED FOR THOSE PERIODS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that interest on the mortgage debt in this foreclosure action should have been tolled because plaintiff failed to explain a six-year delay in restoring the action to the active calendar and its four-year-delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment:

… Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s application to toll the accrual of interest on the note from November 1, 2011, to September 13, 2022. “‘A foreclosure action is equitable in nature and triggers the equitable powers of the court'” … .. “‘Once equity is invoked, the court’s power is as broad as equity and justice require'” … . “‘In an action of an equitable nature, the recovery of interest is within the court’s discretion. The exercise of that discretion will be governed by the particular facts in each case, including any wrongful conduct by either party'” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to explain its six-year delay in moving to restore the action to the active calendar, and further failed to explain its four-year delay in moving for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and for an order of reference after the action was restored to the active calendar. Under the circumstances of this case, since the defendant was prejudiced by these unexplained delays, during which time interest had been accruing, the interest on the note should have been tolled from November 1, 2011, to September 13, 2022 … . Greenpoint Mtge. Funding, Inc. v McFarlane, 2026 NY Slip Op 01945, Second Dept 4-1-26

Practice Point: Foreclosure actions are equitable in nature. Here undue delays by the plaintiff warranted tolling the accrual of interest for more than ten years.

 

, ,

AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS’S STATEMENT AGAINST PENAL INTEREST CONFESSING TO THE MURDER FOR WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the statement against penal interest made by a witness in a post-trial CPL article 440 hearing should have been admitted at trial. The witness essentially confessed to the shooting for which defendant was convicted. At the time of the trial, the witness was unavailable because he asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial judge excluded the statement against penal interest on the ground that circumstances independent of the statement itself did not support the statement’s truthfulness and reliability :

… [W]e conclude, based on the circumstances of the witness’s CPL article 440 testimony and the trial record, from which that testimony was absent, that “there is ‘a reasonable possibility that the [testimony] might be true’ ” … . Initially, the witness’s description of the third party shooting at the window from the backyard when the light went on is consistent with the female victim’s testimony that she was shot immediately after she turned on the light and the physical evidence that the shots were fired through the rear window. The witness testified that the third party picked up a .38 firearm, which is consistent with the projectiles recovered from the shooting, from a nearby location just prior to the shooting. The witness’s description of running down the driveway with the third party immediately following the shots, across the street, and then over a backyard fence coincides with a female neighbor’s description in her trial testimony of two men jumping over her back fence. The testimony of a law enforcement witness also corroborated the witness’s account of the two prior robberies described by the witness during his CPL article 440 testimony. Further, there is no evidence that the witness had a familial or close relationship with defendant or other “obvious motive for [the witness] to falsely implicate himself” … .

In light of the more lenient standard applied to exculpatory statements, we conclude that the initial threshold of reliability is met, i.e., that there is a “reasonable possibility that the statement might be true” … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 01881, Fourth Dept 3-27-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for admission of a statement against penal interest.

 

,

ALLOWING DEFENDANT AND CODEFENDANT TO EXERCISE THEIR SHARED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS UNILATERALLY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge should not have allowed the defendant and the codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges to jurors unilaterally:

… County Court erred in permitting the codefendant to unilaterally exercise peremptory challenges. … The court’s process of allowing defendant and codefendant to each unilaterally exercise their shared peremptory challenges was in violation of CPL 270.25 former (3) and resulted in defendant and codefendant exhausting their shared peremptory challenges before all jurors were selected … . A court’s mistaken denial of a defendant’s peremptory challenge “under New York law mandates automatic reversal” … . People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 01874, Fourth Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: The court should not have allowed defendant and codefendant to exercise their shared peremptory challenges unilaterally.​

 

, ,

ABSENT A MOTION BY A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION BASED UPON DEFECTIVE SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order dismissing the action should have been granted. The court, sua sponte, dismissed the case because of defective service. However, a dismissal on this ground requires a motion by a party. The dissenters argued the order at issue is not appealable and would have dismissed the appeal:

… CPLR 306-b specifies that “[i]f service is not made upon a defendant within the time provided in this section, the court, upon motion, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant, or upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice, extend the time for service” (emphasis added). In consideration of this express language, other Departments of the Appellate Division have recognized that a court cannot dismiss a complaint on its own initiative for lack of personal jurisdiction based upon the failure to effect proper service of process … . As the July 2023 order dismissed the underlying action for lack of personal jurisdiction sua sponte, the court erred in doing so absent a motion by one of the parties. On account of that error, the court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s instant request that it exercise its discretionary power to vacate that order in the interest of substantial justice … . Plaintiff’s motion seeking to vacate the July 2023 order dismissing the action should therefore be granted and the complaint reinstated. Briggs v Fresenius, 2026 NY Slip Op 01827, Third Dept 3-26-26

Practice Point: A judge cannot, sua sponte, dismiss an action because of defective service. A party must move to dismiss on that ground.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S WILL IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this guardianship proceeding pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law did not have the authority to invalidate the incapacitated person’s will:

… [T]he court ,,, adjudged Vincent V. L. to be an incapacitated person within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 and appointed an independent guardian for his person and property. At issue on this appeal … is whether the court properly directed, in the context of this Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding, that the last will and testament of Vincent V. L. … , was void ab initio.

Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d) expressly provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he court shall not . . . invalidate or revoke a will or a codicil of an incapacitated person during the lifetime of such person” in the context of a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding. The Supreme Court thus did not have the authority to invalidate Vincent V. L.’s last will and testament in the context of this Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding. Matter of Vincent V.L. (Matthew L.–Tomasine F.), 2026 NY Slip Op 01789, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: The Mental Hygiene Law prohibits the invalidation of an incapacitated person’s will in a guardianship proceeding.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED PROCEDURES FOR FINDING A PARTY IN CONTEMPT AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not comply with the rules for finding a party in contempt and imposing sanctions:

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756, a contempt application must be in writing, must be made upon at least 10 days’ notice, and must contain on its face the statutory warning that “FAILURE TO APPEAR IN COURT MAY RESULT IN YOUR IMMEDIATE ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT” … . Here, among other things, the defendants were never provided with the warning required by Judiciary Law § 756 … . Further, an order requiring the performance of an act may not include an additional clause stating that in default thereof, the party will be guilty of contempt of court … .

The Supreme Court also should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to vacate so much of the … order as conditionally imposed sanctions upon the defendants and their counsel. “A court does not have the authority to impose a penalty or sanction absent enabling legislation or court rule authorizing the penalty or sanction” … . Here, the court cited to no legislation or court rule to support the imposition of sanctions. To the extent that the court relied upon 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, it should not have done so. Among other reasons, the … order did not set forth the conduct on which the imposition of sanctions was based and the reason why the court found the conduct to be frivolous … . Yong Hong Xie v Lan Chen, 2026 NY Slip Op 01819, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the procedural rules a court must follow to find a party in contempt and impose sanctions.

 

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