You are here: / Judges
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LET A PARTY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISED CONTACT MOTHER IS TO BE ALLOWED, AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED FURTHER PETITIONS BY MOTHER ON PERMISSION FROM THE COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Family Court should not have delegated its authority to order the amount of supervised contact with the children mother is to be allowed and should not have conditioned further petitions by mother on permission from the court:

… [T]he court erred in granting her only so much supervised contact as was “deemed appropriate” by petitioners. The court is “required to determine the issue of visitation in accord with the best interests of the children and fashion a schedule that permits a noncustodial parent to have frequent and regular access” … . “In so doing, the court may not delegate its authority to make such decisions to a party” … , which the court did here by delegating to petitioners its authority to set a supervised visitation schedule. We therefore … remit the matter to Family Court to determine the supervised visitation schedule.

… [T]he court erred in ordering that any petition filed by the mother to modify or enforce the custody orders must have a judge’s permission to be scheduled. “Public policy mandates free access to the courts” … , and it is error to restrict such access without a finding that the restricted party “engaged in meritless, frivolous, or vexatious litigation, or . . . otherwise abused the judicial process” … . Here, it is undisputed that the mother had not commenced any frivolous proceedings. In the absence of such a finding, it was error for the court to restrict the mother’s access to the court … . Matter of Lakeya P. v Ajja M., 2019 NY Slip Op 00761, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

 

, ,

OFFICER DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VAN AFTER HE LEARNED THAT DEFENDANT, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, WAS SMOKING A CIGAR, NOT MARIJUANA, SUPREME COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH WAS ERROR, THERE WAS UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THE VAN WAS DEFENDANT’S WORK VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s possession of a weapon conviction and dismissing the indictment, determined that the police officer did not have probable cause to search the van where the weapon was found. The defendant was sitting in the passenger seat smoking a cigar when the officer approached and removed him from the van, apparently because the officer thought defendant was smoking marijuana. At the time the officer searched the van, he know defendant was smoking a cigar. Although defendant was sitting in the passenger seat, there was no evidence to contradict his claim that the van was his work vehicle. Contrary to Supreme Court’s contrary finding (made sua sponte), the defendant had standing to contest the search:

The officer testified that he removed the defendant from the minivan and frisked him out of a fear for the officer’s own safety; no weapon was recovered. The officer further testified that, at that time, he realized that the two men were smoking cigars, not marijuana. Nevertheless, the officer went around the minivan to the driver’s side and opened the sliding door on that side, whereupon he observed a firearm sticking out of a bag behind the driver’s seat.

We disagree with the hearing court’s determination, sua sponte, that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the minivan. The defendant, who had told the police at the police station that the minivan was his work van, had standing to challenge the search. Although the defendant had been sitting in the front passenger seat of the minivan, no evidence was presented to contradict his statements that it was his work van. The defendant’s statements were sufficient to establish that he exercised sufficient dominion and control over the minivan to demonstrate his own legitimate expectation of privacy therein… .

“[A]bsent probable cause, it is unlawful for a police officer to invade the interior of a stopped vehicle once the suspects have been removed and patted down without incident, as any immediate threat to the officers’ safety has consequently been eliminated” … . Contrary to the People’s contention, under the circumstances here, where the defendant already had been removed from the minivan and no one else was in the minivan, the police lacked probable cause to conduct a warrantless search by opening the sliding door of the minivan, and the weapon found as a result of the unlawful search should have been suppressed … . People v Dessasau, 2019 NY Slip Op 00456, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THIS DIVORCE ACTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint in this divorce action, sua sponte, on a ground not raised by the parties:

The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised in the defendant’s motion … . “[O]n a motion for summary judgment, the court is limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion before the court”… . The plaintiff had no opportunity to address the issue regarding the allegedly defective summons, and this “lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … .

Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion and cross motion, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a determination of the motion and cross motion on the merits … . Patel v Sharma, 2019 NY Slip Op 00452, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the zoning code provisions enacted by the village board of trustees, which concerned the maximum floor space and coverage on residential lots, were consistent with the village’s comprehensive plan and properly enacted. The Second Department further found that the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) were met. However, the portions of the petition which sought declaratory relief and related damages should not have been summarily dismissed along with the portions which sought Article 78 relief because no demand for dismissal of the declaratory relief portions had been made:

… [I]n the absence of a dispositive motion addressed to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action, which sought declaratory relief and damages not in the nature of CPLR article 78 relief, the Supreme Court should not have, in effect, dismissed those causes of action. “In a hybrid proceeding and action, separate procedural rules apply to those causes of action which are asserted pursuant to CPLR article 78, on the one hand, and those to recover damages and for declaratory relief, on the other hand. The Supreme Court may not employ the summary procedure applicable to a CPLR article 78 cause of action to dispose of causes of action to recover damages or seeking a declaratory judgment” … . “Thus, where no party makes a request for a summary determination of the causes of action which seek to recover damages or declaratory relief, it is error for the Supreme Court to summarily dispose of those causes of action” … . Matter of Bonacker Prop., LLC v Village of E. Hampton Bd. of Trustees, 2019 NY Slip Op 00432, Second Dept 1-23-19

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK AND EXAGGERATION PRECLUDED SUMMARY DISCHARGE OF THE NOTICE OF LIEN, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the contractor’s notice of lien was valid on its face and should not have been summarily discharged because unresolved questions of fact required trial:

“A court has no inherent power to vacate or discharge a notice of lien except as authorized by Lien Law § 19 (6)” … . Pursuant to that provision, a court may summarily discharge a notice of lien where, among other things, “it appears from the face of the notice of lien that the claimant has no valid lien by reason of the character of the labor or materials furnished” or the notice was not timely filed … . …

“Because the lien was timely on its face, the court was not permitted to summarily discharge it on the basis of untimeliness” … . …

Petitioners attack the character of the labor furnished, asserting that respondent’s work in July 2016 was for a water line that was not part of any contract between the parties. This assertion merely “raises a factual issue as to the relationship of the last item of work to the parties’ contract … . …

“[A]lthough Lien Law § 39 provides that a willfully exaggerated lien is void, the issue of willful or fraudulent exaggeration is one that also ordinarily must be determined at the trial of [a lien] foreclosure action”  … . Matter of Beebe v Liebel, 2019 NY Slip Op 00337, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, ,

PETITION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ON ITS FACE, BUT BECAUSE THE MERITS WERE NOT ADDRESSED THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Family Court properly dismissed a petition because there was no indication that New York had jurisdiction, the petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice because the merits were not reached:

Upon review of the petition, Family Court, sua sponte, found that the children resided in Georgia and dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner appeals.

In his petition, petitioner alleged that respondent is an aunt of the children who obtained temporary guardianship of them following the mother’s death and, further, that the children reside with respondent in Georgia; notably, however, he did not allege that a New York court had made a prior custody determination involving the children, nor did he allege any circumstances involving the children that would support a specific basis for jurisdiction. Thus, the petition fails to allege any facts that would provide New York with jurisdiction to make the determination in this case … and, therefore, Family Court did not err by dismissing this proceeding without a hearing … . However, inasmuch as Family Court dismissed the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based solely upon a review of petitioner’s sparse pro se petition and without reaching the merits, it erred in dismissing the proceeding with prejudice … . Matter of David EE. v Laquanna FF., 2019 NY Slip Op 00336, Third Dept 1-17-19

 

, ,

CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW FAR DEFENDANT’S PHONE WAS FROM THE TOWER, POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MARSHALED THE EVIDENCE TO FAVOR THE PROSECUTION, THESE ERRORS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL ERRORS, CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, described a number of errors which had the cumulative effect of depriving defendant of a fair trial. Those errors include: (1) the witness from the cell phone company was not an engineer and therefore could not provide competent expert opinion about where defendant’s cell phone was in relation to the cell phone tower which picked up the signal; (2) a police officer should not have been allowed to testify that the victim had twice identified the defendant by name; (3) the charge to the jury improperly marshaled the identification evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution; (4) the court should have given the missing witness jury instruction for two lead detectives who had interviewed the victim and a witness; and (5) the judge should not have referenced the defendant’s failure to testify (twice). With respect to the cell tower and identification evidence, the court wrote:

“[T]estimony on how cell phone towers operate must be offered by an expert witness” because an analysis of the possible ranges of cell phone towers and how they operate is beyond a juror’s day-to-day experience and knowledge … . [The witness] was not an engineer and was not qualified, without an engineering background, to reach further conclusions about why defendant’s cell phone hit the Starling Avenue tower, i.e. whether it was because it was closest or strongest … . …

The trial court also permitted a police officer to testify twice, over defense objection, that the victim had identified her attacker as “male Hispanic, bald, by the name of Jose Ortiz.” This too was error. “Testimony by one witness (e.g., a police officer) to a previous identification of the defendant by another witness (e.g., a victim) is inadmissible” … . People v Ortiz, 2019 NY Slip Op 00221, First Dept 1-15-19

 

,

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE MEANING OF ‘DEPRIVE’ WITH RESPECT TO THE LARCENY ELEMENT OF ROBBERY REQUIRED REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S FELONY MURDER AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s felony murder and criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined that the jury should have been instructed on the definition of “deprive” with respect to the larceny aspect of the underlying robbery:

In connection with the larceny element of attempted robbery, the offense underlying the felony murder charge, the court, upon defense counsel’s request, should have instructed the jury on the definition of “deprive” … . The failure to so charge the jury as requested constitutes reversible error, since such omission “could have misled the jury into thinking that any withholding, permanent or temporary, constituted larceny”… . Indeed, “the concepts of deprive’ and appropriate’ . . . are essential to a definition of larcenous intent’ and they connote a purpose . . . to exert permanent or virtually permanent use thereof'” … . It is the function of the jury to determine whether defendant intended to rob the victim and permanently keep the property taken from him. By failing to give the requested charge, the court usurped that function.

While there are some cases in which the court’s omission of the definition of a term or terms may constitute harmless error, under the facts of this case, the error was not harmless … . People v Ataroua, 2019 NY Slip Op 00197, First Dept 1-10-19

 

, ,

JUDGE WAS NOT PRESENTED WITH ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT)

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no basis for the judge’s, sua sponte, dismissal of the complaint in this foreclosure action:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … .

Administrative Order 548/10, issued by the Chief Administrative Judge on October 20, 2010, and amended by Administrative Order 431-11 [requiring confirmation of the accuracy of the execution and notarization of an affidavit of merit] … , was not in effect at the time the order of reference and the judgment of foreclosure and sale were issued …  . In this case, no substantial right of the defendant would have been affected by the substitution of a new affidavit of merit … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . LaSalle Bank N.A. v Lopez, 2019 NY Slip Op 00104, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

LAWSUIT SEEKING TO ENJOIN JUDICIAL SALARY INCREASES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined summary judgment dismissing the action brought by the Center for Judicial Accountability was properly granted:

… [P]laintiff Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (hereinafter CJA) and plaintiff Elena Ruth Sassower, CJA’s director, commenced this action seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the bill establishing the budgets for the Legislature and the Judiciary for the 2016-2017 fiscal year … was unconstitutional and also seeking an injunction permanently enjoining respondents from making certain disbursements under the bill, including judicial salary increases. * * *

… Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the sixth cause of action … which alleged that the enabling statute that created the Commission [Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation] is facially unconstitutional with respect to judicial compensation. Center for Jud. Accountability, Inc. v Cuomo, 2018 NY Slip Op 08996, Third Dept 12-27-18

 

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