You are here: / Judges
, ,

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED, LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED AND IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT.

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court's sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure complaint for lack of standing. Because the defendants did not answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, the defense of lack of standing was waived. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint and discharge of the notice of pendency against the subject property for lack of standing. “A court's power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with any extraordinary circumstances warranting sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the notice of pendency. Since the defendants did not answer the complaint and did not make pre-answer motions to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party's lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint by the court … . Consumer Solutions, LLC v Charles, 2016 NY Slip Op 01794, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED)/STANDING (FORECLOSURE, SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF STANDING REVERSED, DEFENSE WAS WAIVED AND IS NOT A JURISDICTION DEFECT)

,

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT TO, SUA SPONTE, DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT.

The First Department determined defendant, in a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) proceeding, was entitled to notice the judge (not the prosecutor, as is the usual case) intended to seek a risk assessment different from that recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. Because the defendant was not so notified, and new SORA hearing was ordered:

 

SORA protects a defendant’s due process rights by requiring written notice, at least 10 days prior to the hearing, to determine his risk level, if a determination differing from the Board’s recommendation is to be sought (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). The purpose of the notice is to afford the defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond at the hearing … . No less than when the People fail to give the required notice that they will seek a departure from the Board’s recommendation, a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond … . Defendant is therefore entitled to a new hearing at which he is afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to the contention that he should be assessed points for forcible compulsion. People v Segura, 2016 NY Slip Op 01041, 1st Dept 2-11-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICCE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT, SUA SPONTE, TO DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT)/SORA (DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO TEN DAYS NOTICCE OF SORA JUDGE’S INTENT, SUA SPONTE, TO DEPART FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINER’S RISK ASSESSMENT)

, ,

COURT SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF AN AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001; SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED.

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to substitute nunc pro tunc an affidavit of merit and amount due in a foreclosure proceeding. Plaintiff could not confirm the proper execution of the original affidavit (a requirement of an administrative order of the chief administrative judge) and sought to substitute the original with an identical affidavit, the proper execution of which could be confirmed. Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint sua sponte. The Fourth Department held that the dismissal was not warranted and CPLR 2001 permitted the substitution:

 

” A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ ” … . Here, we conclude that “[t]he fact that . . . plaintiff’s [new] attorney[s] attempted to comply, in good faith, with an Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge that did not exist at the time that the action was commenced, or at the time [the judgment of foreclosure and sale was granted], does not qualify as such an extraordinary circumstance’ ” that would support a sua sponte dismissal … . Indeed, “[n]othing in the Administrative Order[] requires the dismissal of an action merely because the plaintiff’s attorney[s] discover[] that there was some irregularity or defect in a prior submission” … . Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, we conclude that plaintiff is not “effectively required to commence an entirely new action” … .

We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking to substitute the affidavit of merit and amount due. “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, “[p]ursuant to CPLR 5019 (a), a trial court has the discretion to correct an order or judgment which contains a mistake, defect, or irregularity not affecting a substantial right of a party” … . Here, we conclude that the substitution of the original affidavit of merit and amount due with a new, substantively identical affidavit of merit and amount due was a ministerial amendment permitted by CPLR 2001 and CPLR 5019 (a) inasmuch as the change affected only plaintiff’s ability to comply with the Administrative Order, and “[t]he attorney affirmation is not itself substantive evidence” … . We further conclude that “[n]o substantial right of [defendant .. .would] be affected by the court’s substitution” … . Indeed, that defendant did not reside in the subject property when plaintiff commenced the mortgage foreclosure action and the property was vacant at that time, and he never joined this action nor made any effort to contest the foreclosure. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Watanabe, 2016 NY Slip Op 01096, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/FORECLOSURE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)/AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT AND AMOUNT DUE (SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT NOT WARRANTED, SUBSTITUTE AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT ALLOWED BY CPLR 2001)

, ,

FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA REQUIRED THAT HE BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CASE MANDATING AN EXPLANATION OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT’S PLEA.

The Second Department determined defendant should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea because he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the plea. Although the Court of Appeals case requiring that the deportation consequences be explained came down after defendant’s plea, the issue was properly raised on defendant’s direct appeal:

Relying upon People v Peque (22 NY3d 168) the defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the plea record demonstrates that the court never advised him of the possibility that he would be deported as a consequence of his plea. In Peque, the Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of “fundamental fairness,” due process requires that a court apprise a noncitizen pleading guilty to a felony of the possibility of deportation as a consequence of the plea of guilty (id. at 193). A defendant seeking to vacate a plea based on this defect must establish that there is a “reasonable probability” that he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned of the possibility of deportation (id. at 176, 198).

As a threshold matter, we disagree with the People’s contention that Peque should only apply prospectively. Inasmuch as Peque, decided after the defendant’s plea, involved federal constitutional principles, it must be applied to this direct appeal … . Contrary to the People’s contention, the record does not demonstrate either that the Supreme Court mentioned, or that the defendant was otherwise aware of, the possibility of deportation. Therefore, the defendant’s claim is not subject to the requirement of preservation … . People v Odle, 2015 NY Slip Op 09699, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)/DEPORTATION (DEFENDANT NOT INFORMED OF DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF GUILTY PLEA, ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PLEA)

,

JUDGE’S IMPROPER COMMENTS CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WARRANTED A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES.

In finding a motion to set aside the verdict in a personal injury case should have been granted, the Second Department determined the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on damages (in part) because of the improper comments made by the judge. The judge cast doubt on the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony:

A motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside a verdict and for a new trial in the interest of justice may be granted where improper comments by the trial court deprive a party of a fair trial … . “[L]itigants are entitled, as a matter of law, to a fair trial free from improper comments by counsel or the trial court” … . A 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” … . Nevertheless, “[a] trial judge should at all times maintain an impartial attitude and exercise a high degree of patience and forebearance. A trial judge may not so far inject himself [or herself] into the proceedings that the jury could not review the case in the calm and untrammeled spirit necessary to effect justice” … .

Here, at the trial on the issue of damages, the plaintiff presented the expert testimony of an orthopedic surgeon who examined the injured plaintiff. Before that examining physician testified, the trial court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to ask questions in hypothetical form as to the physician’s opinion regarding prognosis and the need for future medical care, and during the physician’s direct testimony, defense counsel made a number of objections to those questions. In responding to those objections, the trial court gratuitously and repeatedly emphasized that the physician was an examining rather than treating physician and that he was only “assuming” that the injured plaintiff would need future medical care that was causally related to the accident. The record reflects that, with these repeated comments, “[t]he court conveyed an impression of incredulity” toward the physician’s opinions … . The cumulative effect of the court’s comments deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial on the issue of damages … . Ioffe v Seruya, 2015 NY Slip Op 09407, 2nd Dept 12-23-15

CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED ON JUDGE’S IMPROPER COMMENTS)/MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT (JUDGE’S IMPROPER COMMENTS)/JUDGES (IMPROPER COMMENTS WARRANTED SETTING ASIDE DAMAGES VERDICT)

, ,

People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration Consequences of a Guilty Plea, Is Not Applied Retroactively

The Second Department determined that People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), which requires that defendant’s be informed of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, would not be applied retroactively:

The defendant’s conviction became final prior to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), in which the Court of Appeals held that courts were required to advise defendants of the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant contends that Peque should be applied retroactively. This contention is without merit.

Previously, in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel were under a duty to advise noncitizen defendants of the deportation risks of their pleas of guilty. It is now settled that the Padilla decision does not apply retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings … . For the same reasons, we decline to give retroactive application to Peque, which, like Padilla, concerns the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty, and “rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution” … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 07685, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

Mandamus to Compel Judge to Decide Motions Proper

The Second Department determined mandamus was the proper vehicle to compel a judge to decide pending motions:

“Mandamus will lie to compel the determination of a motion” … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, the petitioner demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief sought … . Accordingly, the petition must be granted insofar as asserted against the respondent …, and that respondent is directed to issue written orders within 30 days of this decision and judgment determining the four fully submitted motions pending in the underlying action … . Matter of Liang v Hart, 2015 NY Slip Op 07502, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

, ,

Upward Departure from Level One to Three Not Warranted by the Evidence

The Second Department reversed the SORA court, finding that the People did not prove by clear and convincing evidence an upward departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted. The upward departure was erroneously based upon defendant’s psychiatric history, the place of the offense (a group home), a parole violation ten years before the sex offense and two older bench warrants. The court explained the “upward departure” analytical criteria and reduced the defendant’s risk level from three (the highest) to one (the lowest):

Once the presumptive risk level has been established at a risk level hearing, the court is permitted to depart from it if “special circumstances” warrant a departure … . An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, “that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] [G]uidelines” … . In determining whether an upward departure is permissible and, if permissible, appropriate, the court must engage in a three-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. Next, the court must determine whether the People have established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the presence of that factor in the case before it. Upon the People’s satisfaction of these two requirements, an upward departure becomes discretionary. If, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the court concludes that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk or danger of reoffense, it may upwardly depart from that risk level … . If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … .

Here, the People did not meet their burden at the hearing. The People contended that the defendant’s psychiatric history and the fact that the defendant’s sex offense was committed in a group home constituted aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines. The People failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s psychiatric history was related to his risk of reoffense … . Additionally, they failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the particular setting of the defendant’s crime was an aggravating factor not taken into account under the Guidelines … . Finally, as the defendant contends, the court erred in sua sponte basing its decision to depart from the presumptive risk level on his parole violation occurring 10 years before he committed the sex offense and on two bench warrants, issued 14 and 18 years before he committed the sex offense. Those grounds for departure had never been raised, and the defendant was never afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether they were proper grounds for departure … . In any event, it was not established by clear and convincing evidence that those circumstances were relevant to the defendant’s risk of reoffense … . People v Manougian, 2015 NY Slip Op 07484, 2nd Dept 10-14-15

 

, ,

Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal

The Fourth Department noted that the court’s failure to advise the non-citizen defendant of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea required that the case be remitted to afford the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea:

We agree with defendant, a noncitizen, that County Court failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his felony plea, as required by People v Peque (22 NY3d 168). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea based upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known that he faced the risk of being deported as a result of the plea (id. at 176…). People v Traverso, 2015 NY Slip Op 07376, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Warranted

The Second Department, in reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a foreclosure action on “lack of standing” grounds, noted that the “lack of standing” defense was waived by the defendants (not raised in answer), sua sponte dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and “lack of standing” is not a jurisdictional defect. The court explained:

“The Supreme Court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint for lack of standing. ‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal’ … . Here, the Supreme Court was not presented with extraordinary circumstances warranting the sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Since the defendants … did not answer the complaint, and did not make a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, they waived the defense of lack of standing … . Furthermore, a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect and does not warrant sua sponte dismissal of a complaint …”. FCDB FF1 2008-1 Trust v Videjus, 2015 NY Slip Op 06777, 2nd Dept 9-16-15

 

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