You are here: / Judges
, ,

DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s right to counsel had not been adequately protected and returned the case to pre-suppression-hearing status. Defendant refused to speak with his attorney and the judge, despite defendant’s presence in the courtroom, never discussed the issue with the defendant before denying a request to assign new counsel:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. The defendant’s request for new counsel, made through assigned counsel, contained serious factual allegations concerning the defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel and the breakdown of communications between assigned counsel and the defendant … . Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court failed to meet its ongoing duty to make inquiries to determine whether there was good cause for the requested substitution by denying the request without speaking directly with the defendant … . Thus, reversal is warranted. Further, on the record presented, the matter should be restored to pre-suppression-hearing status. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s suppression determination and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v English, 2022 NY Slip Op 00189, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND INDICTED WHILE OUT ON BAIL; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE REVOKING THE ORDER RELEASING DEFENDANT ON BAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the courts was required to hold a hearing before revoking the order releasing defendant on bail. Defendant was out on bail when he was arrested three times and indicted on one set of charges:

… CPL 530.60(2)(a) states that “[w]henever in the course of a criminal action or proceeding a defendant charged with the commission of a felony is at liberty as a result of an order of recognizance, release under non-monetary conditions or bail issued pursuant to this article it shall be grounds for revoking such order that the court finds reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed one or more . . . violent felony offenses.” By its express terms, this statutory section applies to situations where a principal is accused of committing violent felony offenses while he or she was “at liberty as a result of . . . bail” on a pending felony charge (id.). A principal charged with a felony who was out on bail on that charge necessarily includes individuals charged with qualifying offenses since the setting of bail is not initially authorized for nonqualifying offenses (see CPL 510.10[1], [3], [4]). … CPL 530.60(2)(a) clearly applies to the circumstances here. Since the People applied for remand on the sole basis that the principal was accused of committing violent felony offenses while at liberty on the underlying felony charges, the court was required to apply the standard in CPL 530.60(2)(a) and to conduct the hearing mandated in CPL 530.60(2)(c). People ex rel. Rankin v Brann, 2022 NY Slip Op 00153, Second Dept 1-11-22

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGE’S DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this Article 78 proceeding, noted that no appeal lies from a judge’s declining to sign an order to show cause. The only remedy is a motion to vacate the final judgment:

No appeal lies from an order declining to sign an order to show cause, since it is an ex parte order that does not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701[a][2] … ).

No party requests that we consider relief under CPLR 5704(a). In any event, we note that Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to sign plaintiffs’ proposed order to show cause … . Plaintiffs sought to bring on a motion to renew an order that denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, thus terminating the special proceeding. Renewal is not available under such circumstances … . Instead, an application to vacate a final judgment must be brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 … . This principle applies specifically in the context of a challenge to “a judgment dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition” … . Matter of Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Dept., 2022 NY Slip Op 00041, First Dept 1-6-22

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE INTERVENTION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; STRONG TW0-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s murder conviction. The majority noted that some of the trial judge’s remarks would have been better left unsaid, but held the judge did not intervene excessively. The dissent disagreed:

… [W]hile many of the Supreme Court’s interventions were proper attempts to clarify testimony and facilitate the progress of the trial, we agree with our dissenting colleagues that other remarks would better have been left unsaid. Nevertheless, when the record is viewed as a whole, the court’s conduct, to the extent it was improper, did not prevent the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits … . * * *

From the dissent:

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court’s conduct, taken together with, inter alia, its disparate treatment of the two experts … , its efforts to point out inconsistencies in the testimony of the defendant’s wife … , and its assistance in eliciting testimony from the People’s witnesses … , “demonstrated apparent bias in favor of the People” … . This improper interference deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and thus, a new trial is warranted before a different Justice … . People v Martinez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00037, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 WAS DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, THE ORDER WAS SELF-PRESERVED AND APPEALABLE; THE PRESENTATION OF AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT THE ACTION WAS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, DESPITE THE MOTION COURT’S REJECTION OF THE ORDER AS INCOMPLETE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a concurrence and an extensive two-justice dissent, determined; (1) the dismissal of the foreclosure complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 was appealable, even though it was dismissed, sua sponte, on a ground not raised by the parties; and (2) the fact that the plaintiff submitted an order, albeit an order which was rejected for incompleteness, within one year of defendant’s default rendered  the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 unavailable as a remedy:

The [motion] court employed CPLR 3215(c) reasoning, never argued by the parties, to decide a CPLR 3215(c) motion, just as in Rosenblatt [119 AD3d 45],  the court employed reasoning under CPLR 3212, which was never argued by the parties, to decide a CPLR 3212 summary judgment motion. Under the authority of either Rosenblatt or Tirado [175 AD3d 153], the analysis and reasoning of the court, in the order appealed from, although sua sponte, self-preserved the issues for appellate review because it was pursuant to the same CPLR section within which the plaintiff’s motion was based and was dispositive to the action. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff presented a proposed ex parte order of reference within the one-year statutory period. The fact that the Supreme Court rejected the order of reference as defective is beside the point, as the mere presentment of it established the plaintiff’s intent to proceed toward the entry of judgment and not to abandon the action … . Citibank, N.A. v Kerszko, 2022 NY Slip Op 00032, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, ADD A PARTY TO THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING; APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, add a person with whom mother had had a relationship, Rory EE, as a party in the paternity proceeding. All involved agreed Rory EE had no involvement with the child and equitable estoppel was not an issue:

… [A] court cannot, on its own initiative, add or direct the addition of a party … . Rather, the court may only summon a person who should be joined, if the court has jurisdiction over the person; if jurisdiction over the person can be obtained only by his or her consent or appearance, the court must determine whether the proceeding should be permitted to proceed in that person’s absence (see CPLR 1001 [b] …).

Family Court plainly did not have the authority to make Rory EE. a named party to this proceeding. … Family Court has also failed to obtain jurisdiction over Rory EE. No petition or summons, or supplemental summons, was filed against or served upon him … , no party has moved to add him as a necessary party and there has been no stipulation to that end (see CPLR 1003 … ), and he has not appeared before Family Court or otherwise consented to the court’s jurisdiction (see CPLR 320 [b] …). … [W]e reverse and remit for further proceedings, at which time the parties remain free to move for or stipulate to Rory EE. being added as a necessary party, or not, and, absent such a motion or stipulation, and if his joinder is deemed to be necessary, the court is limited to directing that reasonable efforts be made to join him as a party or considering whether this matter should proceed in his absence (see CPLR 1001 …). Matter of Schenectady County Dept. of Social Servs. v Noah DD., 2021 NY Slip Op 07587, Third Dept 12-30-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED, WITHOUT A HEARING, THAT NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDITION OVER THIS CUSTODY MATTER OR THAT NEW YORK WAS AN INCONVENIENT FORUM; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO HAWAII WITH THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have summarily, without a hearing: (1) New York did not have jurisdiction over the custody proceeding; and (2) New York was in inconvenient forum. Mother had relocated to Hawaii with the children:

The court made the initial custody determination for the children in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (hereinafter UCCJEA) and, therefore, would ordinarily retain exclusive continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a … . In order to determine the issue of whether it lacked exclusive continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1)(a), the court should have afforded the parties an opportunity to present evidence as to whether the children had maintained a significant connection with New York, and whether substantial evidence was available in New York concerning the children’s “care, protection, training, and personal relationships” … . …

If, upon remittal, the court determines that it does retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a, it may exercise that jurisdiction or it may decline to do so if it determines, upon consideration of all of the relevant statutory factors and after allowing the parties to be heard, that New York is an inconvenient forum … . Matter of Sutton v Rivera, 2021 NY Slip Op 07548, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE GRANTING THE BANK’S MOTION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SERVICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT AVERRED THE ADDRESS LISTED ON THE MORTGAGE WAS CORRECT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing should have been held before allowing the bank to use an alternate method of court authorized service on defendant. Defendant’s correct address was on the mortgage:

… [T]he defendant’s submissions “raised a question of fact as to whether it was impracticable for the plaintiff to serve [him] with the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4), such that the plaintiff was entitled to an alternative method of court-authorized service pursuant to CPLR 308(5)” … . In particular, the mortgage listed an address for the defendant in Queens and the defendant averred that he lived at that Queens address at the time, and for several years after this action was commenced. Nothing in the plaintiff’s submissions established or even addressed whether or why it was impracticable to serve the defendant at the address listed on the mortgage. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should not have determined the defendant’s motion without holding a hearing … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Ming Kang Low, 2021 NY Slip Op 07572, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT RAISED DISPUTED FACTS; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined disputed factual issues required a hearing on defendant’s motion to modify the custody arrangement:

“In order to modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a subsequent change of circumstances so that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child” … . “Custody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing” … . “A party seeking a change in [parental access] or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing” … . However, “where ‘facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,’ a hearing is required” … . Silla v Silla, 2021 NY Slip Op 07571, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

/0 Comments/by
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A PARTIAL VERDICT WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THE JUROR WHO HAD INFORMED THE COURT SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE DELIBERATING BECAUSE SHE WAS SUFFERING ANXIETY ATTACKS; BECAUSE THE JUROR WAS NOT QUESTIONED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER THE PARTIAL VERDICT WAS REACHED BEFORE THE JUROR BECAME UNABLE TO CONTINUE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have interviewed a juror who said she was suffering anxiety attacks and could not continue deliberations. The judge did not question the juror and accepted a partial verdict, without knowing whether the partial verdict was reached before the juror became unable to continue:

“The Court of Appeals, in People v Buford (69 NY2d 290, 299), set forth the basic framework to be followed when conduct occurs during a trial that may be the basis for disqualifying a juror. The court should conduct an in camera inquiry of the juror, in which counsel should be permitted to participate if they desire, and evaluate the nature and importance of the information and its impact on the case. In addition, the trial court’s reasons for its ruling should be placed on the record . . . [and] the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror” … . “Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that an ‘in camera inquiry may not be necessary in the unusual case . . . where the court, the attorneys, and defendant all agree that there is no possibility that the juror’s impartiality could be affected and that there is no reason to question the juror,’ here, defense counsel wanted the juror to be questioned” … .

The Supreme Court erred in failing to conduct an in camera “probing and tactful inquiry” (People v Buford, 69 NY2d at 299) of juror number 11 before accepting the partial verdict … . As a result of the court’s failure to make any inquiry of the juror, it is unknown whether the juror became unable to serve before, or after, the jury had reportedly reached a verdict on one of the counts … . People v Moody, 2021 NY Slip Op 07559, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

/0 Comments/by

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy