You are here: / Judges
, ,

Excessive Intervention and Improper Conduct by Trial Judge Required New Trial

In a medical malpractice case, the Second Department determined plaintiff was deprived of a fair trial by the trial judge’s excessive intervention and improper conduct:

“[A]ll litigants, regardless of the merits of their case, are entitled to a fair trial” . A trial justice plays a “vital role in clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial,” but that “power is one that should be exercised sparingly” … . Accordingly, a trial justice may not ” so far inject himself [or herself] into the proceedings that the jury could not review the case in the calm and untrammelled spirit necessary to effect justice'” … .

A trial justice must maintain an atmosphere of impartiality. Here, while the plaintiff’s counsel may have been overly aggressive, and at times even antagonized the trial justice, nonetheless, a trial justice should ” at all times maintain an impartial attitude and exercise a high degree of patience and forebearance'” … . Indeed, our review of the record convinces us that the repeated conflict between the court and the plaintiff’s counsel, at all phases of the trial===and often times in the presence of the jury—unnecessarily injected personality issues into the case, which militated against a fair trial. The trial justice demonstrated a propensity to interrupt, patronize, and admonish the plaintiff’s counsel, and gave the plaintiff’s counsel significantly less leeway with regard to examination and cross-examination of witnesses than that which was afforded the defendants’ counsel. Porcelli v Northern Westchester Hosp Ctr, 2013 NY Slip Op 06354, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

, ,

Excessive Intervention by Trial Judge Required New Trial

Over a partial dissent, the Second Department granted defendant a new trial before a different justice in a medical malpractice case based upon the trial judge’s erroneous exclusion of evidence, excessive intervention in the trial, and an erroneous (“Noseworthy”) jury instruction. With respect to the judicial intervention, the Second Department wrote:

The defendant was … deprived of a fair trial by the court’s excessive intrusion into the examination of witnesses, and by the nature and extent of its questioning and comments … . It is axiomatic that the trial court “has broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings and to admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary” … . Nonetheless, a trial court must be “mindful that its participation in the questioning of witnesses has the potential to influence the jury and, thus, when it intervenes to clarify testimony or elicit a responsive answer, it must be careful to do so in an evenhanded and temperate manner” … . Here, while the trial court had the authority to elicit and clarify the defense witnesses’ testimony, the record shows that on repeated occasions, including those specifically discussed by our dissenting colleague, it did not do so in an evenhanded and temperate manner. The court conveyed an impression of incredulity with respect to the defense witnesses’ opinions, as reflected by the record … . Moreover, the court’s incredulity had an improper cumulative effect … . Nunez v New York City Health & Hosps Corp…, 2013 NY Slip Op 06350, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

, ,

Writ of Prohibition Barring Retrial Granted—Mistrial Granted Without Consent of Defendant Was Not Justified

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition barring a retrial of the defendant because the judge ordered a mistrial without the consent of the defendant based upon a comment made by defense counsel in summation. The First Department determined the comment was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify the mistrial:

Jeopardy attaches once a jury has been selected and sworn … . When a mistrial is declared without the consent or over the objection of a criminal defendant, the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and in section 6 of article I of the New York State Constitution bars retrial for the same offense or offenses unless there is a manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated … . Here, as the People concede, counsel’s summation comment was not overly prejudicial and provided no basis for a mistrial on “manifest necessity” or “ends of public justice” grounds. Matter of Smith v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 06329, 1st Dept 10-1-13

 

,

Imposition of Harsher Sentence After Appeal Was Vindictive

The Fourth Department determined the resentencing of defendant after appeal to a more severe sentence than was first imposed was vindictive and imposed the original sentence. The court wrote:

“In order to ensure that defendants are not being penalized for exercising their right to appeal, ‘a presumption of [institutional] vindictiveness generally arises when defendants who have won appellate reversals are given greater sentences . . . than were imposed after their initial convictions’ ” … .  “The threshold issue in evaluating whether a resentence is vindictive is whether the resentence is more severe than that originally imposed” … .  In order to justify an increased sentence, a court must set forth its reasons, and “ ‘[t]hose reasons must be based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding’ ” … . * * * In our view, “[t]he record is devoid of any objective information sufficient to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness that arose from the court’s imposition of a sentence greater than that imposed after the initial conviction”… . People v Rhodes, 847, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

, , ,

Writ of Prohibition Granted to Prevent Trial Judge from Precluding Testimony of Complainant—Complainant Would Not Release His Psychiatric Records

The First Department granted a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial judge from precluding the testimony of the complainant in a robbery case. The judge had precluded the testimony after the complainant refused to sign a HIPAA form to release his psychiatric records.  The complainant had acknowledged that he received psychiatric treatment and that he had auditory and visual hallucinations which were controlled by medication.  The First Department wrote:

An article 78 proceeding seeking relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and is available to prevent a court from exceeding its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction … . “The writ does not lie as a means of seeking a collateral review of an error of law, no matter how egregious that error might be . . . but only where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue” … . Here, the court had no authority to issue this preclusion order since the records were neither discoverable nor Brady material … . It is undisputed that the People did not have the complainant’s records and did not know where he had been treated … . The People had no affirmative duty to ascertain the extent of the complainant’s psychiatric history or obtain his records … . The People advised the defense of the information they had regarding the complainant’s diagnosis and also apprised the defense of the complainant’s statements regarding his hallucinations. Therefore, no claim can be made that the People concealed any information from the court or the defense.  Matter of Johnson v Sackett, 2013 NY Slip Op 05663, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

, ,

Judges Not Obligated to Adhere to Pay-Voucher Recommendations Made by Assigned Counsel Program

The Fourth Department dismissed an Article 78 petition brought by the Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program (ACP) which sought to vacate the respondents-judges’ approval of pay vouchers submitted by respondent-attorney.  The Fourth Department wrote:

…[T]his proceeding challenges the authority of respondents to approve vouchers that do not comply with the ACP Plan; it does not challenge the amount of the compensation awarded, a matter reviewable only before an administrative judge ….  We reject petitioners’ contention that respondents have a mandatory duty to follow the ACP Plan and that their failure to refuse to pay vouchers not in compliance with the Plan is arbitrary and capricious.  Although ACP personnel may make recommendations to the trial court with respect to the payment of vouchers, the trial courts are not obligated to adhere to those recommendations.  “The ACP Plan does not take away from the courts the ultimate authority to determine assigned counsel’s compensation; it merely provides for a preliminary review and recommendation, which individual trial judges are free to accept or reject”… .  Matter of County of Onondaga and Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program, Inc., 57, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

, , ,

Article 78 Petition in Nature of Prohibition Against Judge and District Attorney Granted

The Second Department explained the criteria for an Article 78 action (against a judge and district attorney) in the nature of prohibition.  In this case Supreme Court had ordered defendant to appear for resentencing after the Appellate Division had ruled without remitting the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings.  The Second Department granted the petition and prohibited the resentencing:

The remedy of prohibition generally lies when a court or an officer acts or threatens to act without jurisdiction or exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction (see CPLR 7803[2];…). To warrant the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, it is not enough that the court made a mere legal error. Rather, the court’s error must implicate its very powers and thereby be subject to correction by prohibition….  Matter of Dow v Tomei, 2013 NY Slip Op 04799, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

,

Substitute Judge Can Rule on Motion Argued Before Another Judge

The full-fledged opinion by Judge Read was succinctly summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:

We hold that Judiciary Law § 21 does not bar a substitute judge from deciding a question of law presented in a motion argued orally before another judge so long as a transcript or recording of the prior argument is available for review, and “the substitute indicates on the record the requisite familiarity with the proceedings and no undue prejudice occurs to the defendant or the People” …. Put another way, section 21 does not mandate a mistrial or that the pending motion be re-argued orally in front of the substitute judge. People v Hampton, No 92, CtApp, 6-6-13

 

, ,

District Attorney’s Prosecution of a Case in Which the Complainant Was a Sitting Judge Created the Appearance of Impropriety—A Special Prosecutor Should Have Handled the Case

A sitting City Court judge was the complainant in a harassment case.  A judge and a defense attorney from another county were appointed to handle the case.  The defense attorney made a motion to have a special prosecutor appointed as well because of the relationship between the District Attorney’s Office and the complainant.  That request was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal to County Court.  The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversed, finding the District Attorney’s Office’s involvement in the case created the appearance of impropriety:

Here, while we do not find that any actual impropriety occurred, there is an unacceptably great appearance of impropriety – the appearance that the District Attorney’s Office refused to accept a reduced charge because the complainant was a sitting judge who demanded that the matter go to trial, rather than because a trial was, in its own disinterested judgment, appropriate. The complainant was a City Court Judge who had the authority to preside over cases involving this District Attorney’s office, and the criminal charges were unrelated to her official position, so that her status as a judge should not have been a factor in the resolution of the case. Nor was there anything unique or unusual about the charges, since they involved communications between two people who had formerly been in an intimate relationship – a scenario frequently seen in harassment cases. However, despite protracted and repeated plea negotiations, the District Attorney’s office did not offer defendant a reduced charge or agree to a plea that included a favorable sentence, such as an ACD, community service, or the like. While this alone would not be enough to raise an appearance of impropriety, there are other aspects of the record that do. Defendant’s original counsel from the Public Defender’s office, who had represented defendants in cases involving this District Attorney’s office for more than a decade, averred that he had never before seen the office take such a hard-line position in a case involving comparable charges and a similar defendant. Although provided ample opportunity to respond, the District Attorney’s office replied with nothing more than conclusory denials, failing to rebut the allegations with even a single example of a comparable case it had similarly refused to resolve with an ACD or a plea to a violation. Because the District Attorney’s office failed to take steps to dispel the appearance of inappropriate disparate treatment, we conclude that this is one of those rare cases in which a significant appearance of impropriety was created, requiring disqualification.  People v Adams, 47, CtApp 3-28-13

 

 

, , ,

Court’s Sua Sponte Transfer of a Zoning-Related Case to Another County Was Improper; The Denial of a Request for a Variance Does Not Affect Real Property within the Meaning of CPLR 507

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court erred in transferring a case to another venue sua sponte and in determining that an action seeking to annul the denial of a variance affected real property within the meaning of CPLR 507:

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul two determinations of respondent made in connection with petitioner’s application for an area variance from a provision of the Town of Whitestone’s Zoning Ordinance. The proceeding was commenced in Supreme Court, Onondaga County, and by …order …that court, sua sponte, transferred the proceeding to Supreme Court, Oneida County, pursuant to CPLR 507. We agree with petitioner that the court erred in transferring the proceeding sua sponte. CPLR 509 provides that the place of trial may be changed to another county “by order upon motion, or by consent.” CPLR 510 provides the grounds for the change of the place of trial, upon a motion. A court “is authorized to change venue only upon motion and may not do so upon its own initiative” …. Additionally, a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination denying a request for an area variance does not affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property, and thus the court erred in relying on CPLR 507 in transferring the proceeding.  Matter of Mimassi v Town of Whitestone Zoning Board of Appeals, 189, CA 12-01652, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy