You are here: / Judges
, ,

DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IMPROPERLY CUT OFF, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, remitted the matter for a new SORA hearing because the court cut off the defendant’s testimony and arguments in support of a downward departure:

“A court determining a defendant’s risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) may not downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level unless the defendant first identifies and proves by a preponderance of the evidence the facts in support of a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines'” … .

In this case, during the SORA hearing, the Supreme Court improperly, sua sponte, curtailed the defendant’s testimony and arguments in support of, inter alia, his request for a downward departure. People v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 01629, Second Dept 3-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IMPROPERLY CUT OFF, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IMPROPERLY CUT OFF, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA, DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IMPROPERLY CUT OFF, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff bank’s (OneWest’s) motion for summary judgment should have been denied because standing was not demonstrated with evidence meeting the business records hearsay exception requirements. The Second Department criticized Supreme Court for doing its own Internet research and making a sua sponte finding that OneWest had standing:

In support of its motion, OneWest submitted the affidavit of Jillian Thrasher, an employee of its loan servicer, who averred that OneWest was the holder of the note, which is endorsed in blank, and assignee of the mortgage at the time the action was commenced. However, OneWest failed to demonstrate the admissibility of the records that Thrasher relied upon under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518[a]), since she did not attest that she was personally familiar with OneWest’s record-keeping practices and procedures … . Insofar as the Supreme Court reached its determination that OneWest had standing by, sua sponte, “independently tak[ing] judicial notice of the FDIC website,” this Court has repeatedly cautioned against such independent Internet investigations, especially when conducted without providing notice or an opportunity for the parties to be heard … . OneWest Bank, FSB v Berino, 2018 NY Slip Op 01318, Second Dept 2-28-18

FORECLOSURE (EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4518 (EVIDENCE OF STANDING DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (INTERNET RESEARCH, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))/INTERNET RESEARCH BY COURT (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE INTERNET RESEARCH TO MAKE A SUA SPONTE FINDING THAT THE BANK HAD STANDING (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the in-court stipulation of settlement in a divorce action should not have been set aside. Neither party requested that the stipulation be set aside:

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, setting aside the stipulation. We agree. Neither the decedent nor the defendant requested that the court set aside the stipulation … . Moreover, stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside. “Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” … . Here, the court did not conclude that any of these grounds were present. Estate of Michael Reid v Reid, 2018 NY Slip Op 01044, Second Dept 2-14-18

FAMILY LAW (STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATIONS (FAMILY LAW, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE, FAMILY LAW, STIPULATIONS, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (STIPULATIONS, FAMILIY LAW, SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s motion to discontinue the action which challenged the tax assessments of several lots. Supreme Court abused its discretion, however, when it, sua sponte, directed merger of several parcels into a single tax lot:

A motion for leave to discontinue an action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court … , and generally should be granted unless the discontinuance would prejudice a substantial right of another party, circumvent an order of the court, avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination, or produce other improper results … .

In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion, since the record supports the conclusion that the requested discontinuance would prejudice the respondents’ ability to defend against the proceeding … , and was improperly sought to avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination and to obtain an improper result.

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, sua sponte, directing that the six parcels be merged into a single tax lot. “Generally, a court may, in its discretion, grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” .. . Here, the court failed to abide by this principle. None of the parties sought merger of the parcels or similar relief, merger of all the parcels at issue into one tax lot is not supported by the record, and merger of all the parcels could be potentially prejudicial to the petitioner. Matter of Blauvelt Mini-Mall, Inc. v Town of Orangetown, 2018 NY Slip Op 01051, Second Dept 2-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE  (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROPERLY DENIED, BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for a preliminary injunction was properly denied, but Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint sua sponte. The underlying action sought a declaratory judgment that plaintiff was the owner of shares of stock allocated to a cooperative apartment. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction in the pending holdover proceeding:

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a preliminary injunction, and (3) that the equities balance in his or her favor (see CPLR 6301…). “The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . Here, the plaintiff did not sustain his burden of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits.

However, inasmuch as there was neither notice to the parties by the Supreme Court nor an application by the defendant seeking dismissal, it was error for the court to, sua sponte, direct the dismissal of the complaint in this action … . Gonzalez v 231 Maujer St., HDFC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00412, Second Dept 1-24-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROPERLY DENIED, BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROPERLY DENIED, BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bank’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment in this foreclosure proceeding was properly denied because the motion relied on documents verified and affirmed by counsel and an affidavit by a person with no first-hand knowledge of the facts asserted. The Second Department noted that the bank’s motion to amend the caption, by substituting named parties for “John Does” should have been granted and the complaint should not have been dismissed sua sponte:

​

… [T]he plaintiff failed to submit the requisite proof of the facts constituting the claim …  “While a verified complaint may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim, it must contain evidentiary facts from one with personal knowledge”… . ” [A] pleading verified by an attorney pursuant to CPLR 3020 (d) (3)[, and not by someone with personal knowledge of the facts,] is insufficient to establish its merits'”… . On its motion, the plaintiff submitted the complaint, verified only by counsel, and an affirmation of counsel, with counsel having no personal knowledge of the facts. The plaintiff also submitted an affidavit of a representative of the loan servicer attesting to a default, but failing to address the relevant questions relating to the fact that the mortgagor did not own the subject property, whether the relevant documents should be reformed, or whether an equitable lien or mortgage should be imposed. First Franklin Fin. Corp. v Alfau, 2018 NY Slip Op 00409, Second Dept 1-24-18

FORECLOSURE (BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (FORECLOSURE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FORECLOSURE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE (FORECLOSURE, DISMISSA OF COMPLAINT, BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))/DEFAULT JUDGMENT (FORECLOSURE, EVIDENCE, BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS VERIFIED OR AFFIRMED BY PERSONS WITHOUT FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE, MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion court properly merged three lots into one after the foreclosure sale because the building on the property spanned all three lots. The appellants sought to vacate the referee’s deed because the foreclosure judgment directed the sale “in multiple parcels or in bulk” which was impossible:

​

CPLR 2001 permits a court, at any stage of an action, to disregard a party’s mistake, omission, defect, or irregularity if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced… . In addition, CPLR 5019(a) gives trial courts the discretion to cure mistakes, defects, and irregularities that do not affect substantial rights of parties… . Here, the appellants failed to establish that a substantial right of theirs was prejudiced by the court’s sua sponte, inter alia, deeming the property to have been sold as one lot … . Northern Blvd Corona, LLC v Northern Blvd Prop., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00427, Second Dept 1-24-18

FORECLOSURE (ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE  (ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2001(POWER TO CORRECT, ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 5019 (POWER TO CORRECT, ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion for leave to discontinue its tax certiorari proceeding (seeking lower property tax assessments) with respect to one of its properties was properly denied because respondent town’s ability to defend would be prejudiced. However, Supreme Court should not have order the merger of two of the tax lots because neither party had requested that relief:

​

A motion for leave to discontinue an action is addressed to the sound discretion of the court … , and generally should be granted unless the discontinuance would prejudice a substantial right of another party, circumvent an order of the court, avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination, or produce other improper results … .

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion, since the record supports the conclusion that the requested discontinuance would prejudice the respondents’ ability to defend the assessment on the remaining parcel.

However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by, sua sponte, directing the parties to merge two of the subject tax lots. “Generally, a court may, in its discretion, grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party'” … . Here, neither party sought merger of the subject lots or similar relief, and merger of those lots could potentially be prejudicial to the petitioner. Matter of Catherine Commons, LLC v Town of Orangetown, 2018 NY Slip Op 00287, Second Dept 1-17-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (DISCONTINUANCE, SUA SPONTE RULING, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/DISCONTINUANCE (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/SUA SPONTE RULING (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY TAX (TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))/TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS (SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROPERTY TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE TAX PARCELS BECAUSE THE TOWN’S DEFENSE COULD BE PREJUDICED, HOWEVER SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE MERGER OF TWO TAX PARCELS BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT))

,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO PLEAD TO A LESSER OFFENSE WITHOUT THE PROSECUTOR’S PERMISSION, HOWEVER NEITHER A WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the writ of prohibition against a judge for accepting a plea to a lesser offense without the prosecutor’s permission was not warranted because the judge (the respondent) acknowledged the mistake. The court further determined it did not have the authority to grant the writ of mandamus, seeking vacation of the plea and reinstatement of the more serious charge, because the plea had already been entered and the conditional discharge sentence had been commenced:

​

Under CPL 220.10 (3), “the defendant may, with both the permission of the court and the consent of the people, enter a plea of guilty of a lesser included offense.” “Where the record shows that the prosecutor’s consent to a plea is premised on a negotiated sentence and a lesser sentence is later deemed more appropriate, the People should be given the opportunity to withdraw their consent” … . Respondent concedes in his brief that he committed a legal error in accepting Hernandez’s plea to a reduced charge without petitioner’s consent. The question therefore distills to whether a writ of prohibition or writ of mandamus is warranted given that Hernandez’s guilty plea has already been accepted, she was already sentenced by respondent to, among other things, a one-year conditional discharge period and such period expired in November 2017.

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition is only available where a body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction and there is a clear legal right to such relief” … . Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent from accepting guilty pleas to reduced charges in the future without his consent. Respondent, however, noted at the sentencing hearing that this was the first time that he had ever reduced a charge without petitioner’s consent and that he did so “under the circumstances of [the] case.” Given that the record does not indicate that respondent has undertaken such similar action in the past or has expressed an intention to do so in the future, and taking into account respondent’s concession that his actions were erroneous, petitioner is not entitled to a writ of prohibition … . Matter of Carnright v Williams, 2018 NY Slip Op 00206, Third Dept 1-11-18

, ,

STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, with two concurring opinions, determined that the reduction in health benefits provided under the Civil Service Law did not violate the Judicial Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution:

​

The issue presented on this appeal is whether Civil Service Law § 167 (8), as amended, authorizing a reduction of the State’s contribution to health insurance benefits for State employees, including members of the State judiciary, violates the Judicial Compensation Clause of the State Constitution  … . We conclude the State’s contribution is not judicial compensation protected from direct diminution by the Compensation Clause, and the reductions in contributions do not have the effect of singling out the judiciary for disadvantageous treatment. Therefore, plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge fails. Bransten v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08168, CtApp 11-21-17

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (NYS) (STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP))/JUDGES (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP))/JUDGES (STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (JUDGES, STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP))/JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE (NYS CONSTITUTION, STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP))

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