You are here: / Judges
, ,

A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF DAYS DEVOTED TO MOTION PRACTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE; DEFENDANT’S 30.30 SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s speedy trial (CPL 30.30) motion should have been denied because considerable time-periods should not have been charged to the People:

The court should have denied defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment. The court should not have charged the People for the 98-day period during which codefendant delayed serving a copy of his omnibus motion on the People. This time is excludable as time attributed to “pretrial motions,” including “the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court” (CPL 30.30[4][a] …).

The court likewise should have excluded the 42-day period between the date of its decision on codefendant’s omnibus motion and the date on which the matter was adjourned for the People to file their certificate of compliance (COC) … . The People were entitled to “reasonable time to prepare for hearings and trial after the court’s rulings on [the co]defendant’s omnibus motion” … . People v Page, 2026 NY Slip Op 04823, First Dept 7-30-26

Practice Point: Here days related to defense motion practice and preparation for hearings precipitated by rulings on defense motions should not have been charged to the People in a “speedy trial” analysis.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE FOR A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint when plaintiff failed to meet a deadline for a deposition:

“Pursuant to CPLR 3126, a court may impose discovery sanctions, including the striking of a pleading . . . , where a party refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” … . “[T]he drastic remedy of striking a pleading . . . pursuant to CPLR 3126 should not be imposed absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or orders was willful and contumacious” … . Further, due process generally requires “notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court may impose such drastic remedies for discovery noncompliance” … .

Here, the plaintiff was not given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard prior to imposition of the drastic sanction of dismissal of the complaint, “including on facts relevant to whether the plaintiff’s noncompliance was willful and contumacious” … . The defendants did not move for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to the plaintiff’s failure to appear for his deposition, nor did the Supreme Court make its own motion or include language in any prior order warning that noncompliance would result in sanctions … . Winchcombe v Ridgeline Constr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 04794, Second Dept 7-29-26

Practice Point: The appellate courts do not like sua sponte dismissals of complaints without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; DECISION RESERVED AND MATTER SENT BACK (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision on this appeal of the denial of a suppression motion, determined the trial judge did not conduct the requisite “searching inquiry” before allowing the defendant to represent himself:

As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into his request to represent himself. “[A]n application to proceed pro se must be denied unless defendant effectuates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel . . . To this end, trial courts must conduct a ‘searching inquiry’ to clarify that defendant understands the ramifications of such a decision” … . In other words, a “searching inquiry” is required to “warn defendant of the risks inherent in representing [themself]” and to “apprise [them] of the value of counsel” … , including that “going pro se would be ‘extraordinarily dangerous’ and ‘that most defendants who represent themselves are not successful’ ” … . “When a record lacks the requisite ‘searching inquiry’ or fails to measure up to the prescribed standards, a waiver of the right to counsel will be deemed ineffective” … .

Here, the court erred in allowing defendant to proceed pro se inasmuch as it did not “undertake a searching inquiry . . . to insur[e] that . . . defendant [was] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel” … . We conclude that “the tainted proceeding had an adverse impact on defendant” … and, therefore, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with our prior determination … . People v Ocasio, 2026 NY Slip Op 04595, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a discussion of the “searching inquiry” a judge must engage in before allowing a defendant to represent himself.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED RESPONDENT CO-TRUSTEE WITHOUT A HEARING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Surrogate’s Court, determined the respondent co-trustee should not have been removed without a hearing. Where the facts are disputed, a hearing is required:

… “[The] removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 [or] 719 is equivalent to ‘a judicial nullification of the [settlor’s] choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established’ ” … . Under either SCPA 711 or 719, ” ‘[t]he Surrogate may remove without a hearing only where the misconduct is established by undisputed facts or concessions [or] where the fiduciary’s in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court’s knowledge’ ” … , and the removal of a trustee without a hearing “will constitute an abuse of discretion ‘where the facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom . . . or where there are claimed mitigating facts that, if established, would render summary removal an inappropriate remedy’ ” … . Here, in response to the factual averments by petitioners as to his misconduct, respondent submitted, inter alia, an affidavit in which he denied having ever improperly removed Trust assets or interfering with the leasing of Trust property, explained how his actions accorded—in his view—with his powers and obligations under the Trust documents, and disputed petitioners’ underlying factual averments. Presented with the competing claims, a hearing was required inasmuch as “the Surrogate must make a credibility determination concerning those issues, and then exercise [their] discretion concerning whether respondent should be removed from [his] appointment[ ]” … . Matter of Simmons (Simmons), 2026 NY Slip Op 04675, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when a hearing is required before a co-trustee can be removed under the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (SPCA).

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR HERE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THE CODEFENDANT’S APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defense request for a circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder, robbery and criminal possession of a weapon. The uncle was convicted and the Fourth Department ruled that the failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error. However the evidence against defendant was weaker and the jury charge may well have led to an acquittal:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the request for a circumstantial evidence charge … . As we noted in the codefendant’s appeal, “[a]lthough surveillance video footage of a crime can constitute direct evidence . . . , it did not constitute direct evidence here. Defendant’s identity cannot be discerned clearly from the surveillance video footage offered at trial inasmuch as the perpetrators in the videos are masked” … .

We concluded in the codefendant’s appeal that the court’s failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless given that the codefendant and his vehicle could be tracked to the scenes of the offenses based upon cell phone data, license plate readers, and surveillance video (McEnnis, 247 AD3d at 1475-1476). Here, however, the evidence of defendant’s involvement was substantially less. While one perpetrator on the surveillance video generally matched defendant’s height and build, no witness identified him at the scene of any of the robberies. Moreover, as the People’s expert acknowledged, the expert had “no location information” for defendant’s phone at the times that the alleged incidents occurred. Although the evidence at trial established that defendant exchanged text messages and calls with the codefendant on the dates of the offenses and that the codefendant drove to defendant’s apartment building in Niagara Falls prior to and after the offenses, the People’s expert conceded that he could do little more than “speculate [as to] where [defendant] was during [those] periods of time” when the robberies were being committed. Thus, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . People v Coleman, 2026 NY Slip Op 04629. Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder and robbery and tried separately. The failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error in the uncle’s trial. But it was reversible error in defendant’s trial because the evidence tying defendant to the crimes was weaker.

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR HERE, BUT WAS HARMLESS ERROR IN THE CODEFENDANT’S APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the defense request for a circumstantial evidence jury instruction should have been granted. Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder, robbery and criminal possession of a weapon. The uncle was convicted and the Fourth Department ruled that the failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error. However the evidence against defendant was weaker and the jury charge may well have led to an acquittal:

… [W]e agree with defendant that the court erred in denying the request for a circumstantial evidence charge … . As we noted in the codefendant’s appeal, “[a]lthough surveillance video footage of a crime can constitute direct evidence . . . , it did not constitute direct evidence here. Defendant’s identity cannot be discerned clearly from the surveillance video footage offered at trial inasmuch as the perpetrators in the videos are masked” … .

We concluded in the codefendant’s appeal that the court’s failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless given that the codefendant and his vehicle could be tracked to the scenes of the offenses based upon cell phone data, license plate readers, and surveillance video (McEnnis, 247 AD3d at 1475-1476). Here, however, the evidence of defendant’s involvement was substantially less. While one perpetrator on the surveillance video generally matched defendant’s height and build, no witness identified him at the scene of any of the robberies. Moreover, as the People’s expert acknowledged, the expert had “no location information” for defendant’s phone at the times that the alleged incidents occurred. Although the evidence at trial established that defendant exchanged text messages and calls with the codefendant on the dates of the offenses and that the codefendant drove to defendant’s apartment building in Niagara Falls prior to and after the offenses, the People’s expert conceded that he could do little more than “speculate [as to] where [defendant] was during [those] periods of time” when the robberies were being committed. Thus, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . People v Coleman, 2026 NY Slip Op 04629. Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Defendant and his uncle were charged with murder and robbery and tried separately. The failure to give the circumstantial evidence jury instruction was harmless error in the uncle’s trial. But it was reversible error in defendant’s trial because the evidence tying defendant to the crimes was weaker.

 

, , ,

PRESENTING THE GRAND JURY WITH EVIDENCE SUBSEQUENTLY RULED IRRELEVANT DID NOT AMOUNT TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WARRANTING DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, reversing County Court, determined the prosecutor’s presentation of evidence to the grand jury which was subsequently ruled irrelevant did not amount to misconduct warranting dismissal of the indictment. Defendant drove his car at high speed in poor road conditions. The car left the road, crashed and burned. The two passengers were killed. Defendant was charged with criminally negligent homicide. Driving at a high speed in poor road conditions, without more, will not support criminally negligent homicide. The prosecutor presented evidence of a blood test which indicated defendant had used marijuana to meet the criteria for criminally negligent homicide. When County Court determined the marijuana evidence was irrelevant because there was no proof the marijuana-use affected defendant’s ability to operate the car, County Court dismissed the indictment. The Fourth Department found that the presentation of the irrelevant evidence was not “prosecutorial misconduct” which justified dismissal of the indictment:

… [W]e conclude that the court erred in granting defendant’s renewed motion on the ground that the grand jury proceedings were rendered defective due to prosecutorial misconduct. At the outset, it is worth noting what is not at issue here. Specifically, we note that there is no evidence in this case that the People, in introducing the cannabinoid evidence to the grand jury, intentionally engaged “in an over-all pattern of bias and misconduct” that was “pervasive” and “willful” (Thompson, 22 NY3d at 699 [internal quotation marks omitted]). There also is no evidence that, in introducing the challenged evidence, the prosecutor was “motivated by bias or a desire to deceive the grand jury” (id. at 706) or that there was any “nefarious design to deliberately cause unfairness to defendant” (People v Wisdom, 23 NY3d 970, 973 [2014]).

Rather, the court’s conclusion that the People had impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceedings through misconduct was predicated on its determination that the People had improperly introduced the cannabinoid evidence—evidence that was later found to be irrelevant. In so concluding, the court failed to explain how the People’s reliance on the allegedly flawed cannabinoid evidence met the dismissal standard set forth by the Court of Appeals in the aforementioned cases. Indeed, it is quite clear from those decisions that a mere error or flaw by a prosecutor in presenting evidence does not, in fact, meet the demanding test for establishing entitlement to dismissal due to the impairment of the integrity of the grand jury proceedings … . People v Stencel, 2026 NY Slip Op 04574, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the nature of prosecutorial misconduct at the grand jury stage which mandates dismissal of the indictment, not the case here.

 

, ,

WHEN DEFENDANT TOLD THE JUDGE “MY LAWYER IS INEFFECTIVELY COUNSELING ME” THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE BASIS FOR THE STATEMENT AND SHUT DOWN ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS BY THE DEFENDANT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, over a dissent, determined the judge’s failure to conduct any inquiry when defendant requested new counsel was reversible error:

A defendant may be entitled to new counsel “upon showing good cause for a substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel … . The defendant’s request “may not be used merely to delay the orderly administration of justice” … . It must be supported by “specific factual allegations of serious complaints about counsel” … . Once the court determines that defendant’s request is not “merely to delay” but is “seemingly serious,” the court is required to make a minimal inquiry before exercising its discretion to grant or deny substitution of counsel … .

However, before the court can determine whether the defendant’s allegations are sufficiently serious to warrant minimal inquiry, it must at the very least allow the defendant the opportunity to make the allegations … . Thus, this Court has repeatedly held that a defendant is entitled to a new trial where the trial court “denied [a] request for new counsel without making any inquiry into the substance of his request, and without giving defendant any opportunity to explain the basis for his request” … . * * *

In this case, after jury selection was complete and as the jurors were about to enter the courtroom, defendant told the court, “I feel I’m not getting a fair trial. I’m not even prepared for a trial. My lawyer, my lawyer is ineffectively counseling me . . . . [a]nd also representing me.” The court responded that “You made your record” and “I’m not relieving your counsel. Don’t interrupt me.” Defendant tried to continue his request and stated, “I asked for a lab report. He gave me a field test.” The courtinterjected and instructed defendant to “not interrupt me” and warned that “[i]f you do this kind of behavior, particularly if the jury is here, it’s going to be a problem, okay. So just get yourself under control.” The court’s admonition effectively foreclosed any further discussion. People v Cooper, 2026 NY Slip Op 04561, First Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: When a defendant tells the judge he is not being effectively represented by counsel, the judge should make at least a minimal inquiry. Here the failure to make any inquiry into the basis of defendant’s statement was deemed reversible error.

 

, , , ,

WHERE THE SENTENCING JUDGE ORDERS DOCCS TO ENROLL DEFENDANT IN A SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM, DOCCS CANNOT CONSIDER THE ORDER TO BE MERELY A RECOMMENDATION WHICH CAN BE IGNORED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not have the discretion to treat Supreme Court’s order to enroll petitioner in the shock probation program as a recommendation which need not be implemented. Although the petitioner had been released from incarceration, the Third Department considered the case as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

… [W]hen applying the literal language of Penal Law § 60.04 (7) (a) and Correction Law § 865 (1), the most rational interpretation of the statutes is that, when the same sentencing judge imposes concurrent sentences on convictions for an eligible drug offense and another non-enumerated offense, the sentencing judge’s directive to enroll an eligible incarcerated individual into the shock incarceration program upon the conviction for the qualifying drug offense is binding on DOCCS, so long as the conviction on the additional non-drug offense is not one of the disqualifying offenses listed in Correction Law § 865 (1). Matter of Adams v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 04542, Third Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: Absent a statutory exception, DOCCS must implement a sentencing judge’s order to enroll defendant in the shock probation program.

 

,

THE JUDGE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE THREE-STEP PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING A BATSON CHALLENGE; THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THAT THE PEOPLE’S PURPORTED RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR ELIMINATING A PROSPECTIVE HISPANIC JUROR WERE PRETEXTUAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge did not follow the established three-step procedure for assessing defendant’s Batson challenge to the People’s peremptory challenge to an Hispanic prospective juror:

The defendant challenged the People’s use of a peremptory challenge pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) with respect to the challenge to strike the third Hispanic prospective juror. The defendant contended that the People’s prior use of a peremptory challenge to a Hispanic prospective juror in the first round of jury selection and the People’s challenges to the two prospective Hispanic jurors in the second round were racially motivated. The defendant pointed out that the People moved to strike the only three Hispanic prospective jurors. In response to the defendant’s challenge, the County Court required the defendant to articulate an additional reason as to why the defendant contended that the People’s exercise of its peremptory challenge was racially motivated. Defense counsel essentially reiterated his contentions. Thereafter, following the People’s articulation of a race-neutral reason for their exercise of each of the three challenges, the court denied the defendant’s Batson challenge on the ground that the defendant did not carry his prima facie burden. The court failed to reach step three of Batson wherein the burden shifts to the defendant to argue a basis as to why the reasons proffered by the People were pretextual. * * *

… [T]he defendant satisfied step one of Batson … . Accordingly, at that point, the burden shifted to the People to proffer race-neutral explanations for exercising their peremptory challenges to eliminate those prospective jurors … . Thereafter, the court failed to allow the defendant to challenge whether the reasons proffered, although facially neutral, were pretextual and not genuine reasons for the challenges … . People v Williams, 2026 NY Slip Op 04440, Second Dept 7-15-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the three-step procedure for assessing a Batson challenge to the People’s exercise of a peremptory challenge.​

 

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