You are here: / Judges
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the judge did not have the power to sua sponte cancel and discharge the mortgage. After trial, the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed because the bank failed to demonstrate standing to foreclose and failed to demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1304:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing the cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. The court may grant relief warranted pursuant to a general prayer for relief “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, in his answer, the defendant sought, among other things, dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against him but did not seek cancellation and discharge of record the mortgage. Thus, the court’s sua sponte directive to cancel and discharge of record the mortgage was dramatically unlike the relief requested … . Moreover, the proof adduced at trial did not support the relief granted … , and the plaintiff was prejudiced, since it was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the propriety of the relief granted, which deprived it of its security interest in the premises … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Amigon, 2025 NY Slip Op 04536, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Here, although the foreclosure cause of action was dismissed on defendant’s motion after trial, the judge did not have the authority to cancel and discharge the mortgage, relief that was not requested by the defendant.

 

, ,

CPLR 7003(1), WHICH REQUIRES A JUDGE TO FORFEIT $1000 FOR AN IMPROPER DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION AND AS A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Golia, in a matter of first impression, determined CPLR 7003(1), which requires a judge to forfeit $1000 when a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief is improperly denied, is unconstitutional. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine:

… [W]hile CPLR 7003(c) is not a direct diminution of judicial compensation, the language of that provision explicitly “targets judges for disadvantageous treatment,” as it provides that a $1,000 forfeiture be paid personally by a judge who does not issue a writ of habeas corpus where one should have been issued … . CPLR 7003(c) is, thus, an indirect diminution of the salary of judges within the meaning of the Compensation Clause of the New York State Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that “[b]y its nature, CPLR 7003(c) singles out judges for financially adverse treatment because of their exercise of their judicial functions and does so in a manner that discriminates based on how they decide an application for a writ. To impose a forfeiture on a judge based on which way they decide an application undermines the core objective of the [C]ompensation [C]lause of protecting judicial independence.” * * *

By imposing a penalty on a judge who refuses a petitioner’s request for habeas corpus [*14]relief where such relief should have been issued, the Legislature, through CPLR 7003(c), is interfering with judicial functions by incentivizing one specific outcome, namely, issuance of the writ, because a judge only faces a penalty if he or she refuses to issue a writ. Such influence is impermissible, as “‘the mere existence of the power to interfere with or to influence the exercise of judicial functions contravenes the fundamental principles of separation of powers embodied in our State constitution and cannot be sustained'” … . Poltorak v Clarke, 2025 NY Slip Op 04496, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: CPLR 7003(1) requires a judge to forfeit $1000 for an improper denial of habeas corpus relief. The statute violates the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution and the separation of powers doctrine.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO INFORM DEFENDANTS’ FORMER EMPLOYEES THAT COUNSEL’S INTERESTS ARE ADVERSE TO THEIRS AND TO RECOMMEND THE FORMER EMPLOYEES RETAIN COUNSEL BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this action alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiffs in the steam rooms of defendants’ fitness clubs should not have issued a protective order concerning interviews of defendants’ former employees by plaintiffs’ counsel. The order precluded plaintiffs’ counsel from communicating with any former employees without advising them that their interests are, or are reasonably likely to become, adverse to counsel’s interests and recommending that the former employees retain counsel before continuing the discussion:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3103 for an order precluding the plaintiffs’ counsel from communicating with any former employees of Equinox without advising them that their interests are, or are reasonably likely to become, adverse to counsel’s clients’ interests and recommending that the former employees retain counsel before continuing the discussion. The defendants failed to make the requisite showing pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to warrant the issuance of a protective order … . The defendants’ allegations of prejudice in the absence of a protective order were both conclusory and speculative … . G.B. v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04452, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: Here a protective order restricting communications between plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants’ former employees was reversed because the need for the order was not adequately demonstrated by conclusory and speculative allegations.

 

, ,

EVEN WHERE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY AND WAIVED APPEAL WITH THE UNDERSTANDING HE WILL NOT BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS A MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE BASED ON THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS IS AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and vacating defendant’s sentence, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wan, determined the sentencing judge’s failure to consider defendant’s youthful offender status can be raised in a motion to vacate the sentence, despite the failure to appeal the conviction on that ground. Here defendant pled guilty and waived appeal with the understanding that he would not be afforded youthful offender status:

In this appeal, we must consider whether a defendant who has failed to take a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence may, in the first instance, seek to set aside his or her sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to make a determination as to whether the defendant was eligible for youthful offender treatment. We hold that, under such circumstances, a defendant may seek to set aside his or her sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20. * * *

Here, as the People conceded in opposition to the defendant’s motion, the defendant was an “eligible youth” (see CPL 720.10). However, despite the defendant’s status as an “eligible youth,” the Supreme Court failed to make the required youthful offender determination at the sentencing proceeding. Since the court was required to make this determination on the record at sentencing, the court’s failure to follow this statutorily-mandated procedure rendered the defendant’s sentence invalid as a matter of law (see id. § 440.20[1] …). People v Steele, 2025 NY Slip Op 04494, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: Even where a defendant pleads guilty with the understanding he will not be afforded youthful offender status and waives appeal, the sentencing judge must consider affording defendant youthful offender status. The failure to appeal the conviction is not a bar to a motion to vacate the sentence on this ground.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THEREFORE THE JUDGE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT’S REQUEST WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming defendant’s conviction, determined he did not make an unequivocal request to represent himself. The two-justice dissent disagreed:

… [D]efendant did not unequivocally request to proceed pro se inasmuch as he only “ask[ed] to proceed pro se as an alternative to receiving new counsel,” thereby seeking to “leverage his right of self-representation in an attempt to compel the court to appoint another lawyer” … . Indeed, defendant repeatedly “made clear that he did not wish to proceed pro se,” and “couched [his requests] as a means to secure new counsel” … , including by stating that he had “no choice” but to represent himself if the court did not assign new counsel, and that he “d[id]n’t want to represent [him]self” but would do so if the court refused to appoint another attorney … . Defendant made no “standalone request to proceed pro se” … ; rather, all of his “requests to proceed pro se were made in the alternative; he sought to represent himself only because [the court] refused to replace . . . assigned counsel who had displeased him” … . A request to proceed pro se is equivocal where, as here, “it ‘does not reflect an affirmative desire for self-representation’ and instead shows that ‘self-representation was reserved as a final, conditional resort’ ” … . Inasmuch as defendant’s requests consisted of “equivocal and hesitant statements about proceeding pro se” … , the court’s duty to “make a searching inquiry . . . to determine whether [the] request[s] w[ere] knowing, voluntary, and intelligent” was not triggered … . People v Davis, 2025 NY Slip Op 04300, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a thorough discussion of what makes a defendant’s request to represent himself “unequivocal” (thereby by triggering the need for a searching inquiry by the judge into whether the request is knowing, voluntary and intelligent).

 

, , , ,

COUNTY COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY FAILING TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT IT INTENDED TO ASSESS POINTS IN THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING THAT WERE NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD OR PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE; NEW HEARING ORDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk assessment hearing, determined County Court violated defendant’s right to due process of law by failing to notify defendant it intended to assess points that were not recommended by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders or proposed by the People. Although the defendant did not object to the assessment, the Fourth Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction and considered the appeal. People v Buckmaster, 2025 NY Slip Op 04378, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Defendants are entitled to notice that the court intends to assess points in a SORA risk-level proceeding that were not recommended by the Board or proposed by the People. Failure to provide notice is a violation of due process.​

 

, ,

THE PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDED A LEVEL ONE RISK ASSESSMENT BUT THE JUDGE ASSESSED ADDITIONAL POINTS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING RAISING THE RISK LEVEL TO TWO; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and remitting the matter, determined defendant was not given an adequate opportunity to argue for a downward departure. The prosecutor had requested a level one risk assessment, but the judge assessed additional points and raised the risk level to two at the conclusion of the hearing:

Defendant further … the court abused its discretion in not granting a downward departure based on certain mitigating factors. At the SORA hearing, the People requested that defendant be designated a level one sex offender, but at the conclusion of the hearing, the court assessed additional points, rendering defendant a level two sex offender. Although defendant does not contend on appeal that the court violated his right to due process by sua sponte assessing additional points … , the court’s ruling did not afford defendant a meaningful opportunity to request a downward departure … . We therefore reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to County Court for a new hearing and risk level determination … . People v Kuhn, 2025 NY Slip Op 04434, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor recommended risk- level one but the judge, at the conclusion of the hearing, assessed additional points and raised the risk-level to two. The defendant should have been given the opportunity to argue for a downward departure in that circumstance. New hearing ordered.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER FATHER’S ARGUMENTS OPPOSING THE CHILD’S RELOCATION WITH MOTHER AND FAILED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court in this modification of custody proceeding and remitting the matter, determined the judge failed to consider father’s arguments opposing relocation with the mother, and failed to make findings of fact to support awarding sole custody to mother:

… [T]he court failed “to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination” … . Although the court properly considered facts supporting the conclusion that the child would be better off economically and emotionally in Massachusetts given, among other things, the mother’s family support system there, it failed to consider or evaluate the father’s reasons for opposing the relocation. Specifically, the court did not consider the mother’s immigration status and the father’s concerns that the mother might try to remove the child from the country … . Indeed, the father testified that the mother still had connections to Morocco and had previously expressed a desire to move back there with the child. He also testified about an incident where the mother took the child’s passport from the father without his consent and in violation of the stipulated order. In short, the court failed to consider whether the father had “a good faith basis for opposing a requested move,” which “is a factor bearing on a relocation determination” … .

… [T]he court failed to make any factual findings to support the award of sole custody—both legal and physical—to the mother … . Effectively, the court awarded the mother sole custody of the child on the basis of its determination on the petition insofar as it sought permission to relocate the child. However, it is “well established that the court is obligated ‘to set forth those facts essential to its decision’ ” … . Here, the court did not make any findings with respect to the relevant factors that it considered in making a determination regarding the best interests of the child … . Crucially, as with its analysis on the issue of relocation, the court, in awarding the mother sole custody, did not consider the father’s stated concerns about the mother’s immigration status and whether she intended to remove the child from the country. “Effective appellate review, whatever the case but especially in child visitation, custody or neglect proceedings, requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the trial court—the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses” … . Matter of Eddaoudi v Obtenu, 2025 NY Slip Op 04430, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for some insight into the findings an appellate court needs to consider an appeal in a modification of custody proceeding. A judge’s failure to consider a party’s argument and failure to make findings of fact in support of the award of custody renders an appellate review impossible.

 

, ,

SHANE, A CO-DEFENDANT WITH HIS PARENTS WITH WHOM HE LIVED, WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM ACCEPTING SERVICE ON BEHALF OF HIS PARENTS DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST; THE ACTION AGAINST THE PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED BASED ON A LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support the finding that Shane, who was living with his parents when he was served with process on behalf of his parents, was not a person of suitable age and discretion due to a conflict of interest with his parents. Shane was a co-defendant along with his parents. The parents were granted vacatur under CPLR 5015(a)(4) on the ground the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them:

“A person would not be considered a person of suitable age and discretion where their interests in the proceeding were sufficiently adverse to the party for whom they were accepting service” … . Furthermore, “[g]ood faith is implicit in the spirit of the statutory scheme. If a plaintiff knows, or should know, that service according to [CPLR 308 (2)] will not afford notice, then, by definition, it is not reasonably calculated to afford notice, and is constitutionally infirm” … .

… [T]here is no evidence in the record to support a determination that plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of any alleged conflict between Shane and the parent defendants. We cannot conclude that Shane had a conflict of interest with the parent defendants and, therefore, was not a person of suitable age and discretion, merely because he is a codefendant … . Moreover, on the record before us, we note that this is not a case where plaintiff can be charged with any knowledge that service upon Shane with respect to his parents might be deficient … . Thus, based on the evidence adduced at the traverse hearing, we conclude that plaintiff established that Shane was a person of suitable age and discretion for purposes of serving his parents … . Seebald v Spoonley, 2025 NY Slip Op 04324, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: The fact that a person is a co-defendant does not render that person unqualified to accept service on behalf of other defendants. Here the person served, Shane, a co-defendant in the action, accepted service on behalf of his parents with whom he lived. It was not demonstrated at the traverse hearing that Shane had interests sufficiently adverse to those of his parents to render the service on the parents constitutionally infirm. There was no evidence the plaintiff was aware service upon Shane would be deficient with respect to service on the parents.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS MED MAL ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE DECEDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A BLOOD TRANSFUSION ON THE GROUND THE ISSUE WAS NOT PLED AND PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION WHEN THE DEFENSE INDICATED IT WAS NOT GOING TO CALL THREE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENSE VERDICT REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, ordering a new trial in this medical malpractice action after a defense verdict, determined plaintiff’s should not have been precluded from presenting evidence that decedent should have received a blood transfusion in the emergency room on the ground the issue had not been pled and the judge should have given the missing witness jury instruction after the defense indicated it was not going call three defendants:

… [P]laintiff from the outset alleged that the ED [emergency department] defendants failed to act upon complaints, signs, symptoms, and diagnostic testing, and such allegations were neither new nor would have been a surprise to the ED defendants because they had responded during summary judgment motion practice to the allegation that they should have acted upon the drop in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. …

… [T]he court abused its discretion in failing to give a missing witness charge for defendants Patel, Chan, and Alexander. A trier of fact in a civil proceeding may draw the strongest inference that the opposing evidence permits against a party who fails to testify … . This type of instruction, which is commonly referred to as a missing witness charge, “derives from the commonsense notion that the nonproduction of evidence that would naturally have been produced by an honest and therefore fearless claimant permits the inference that its tenor is unfavorable to the party’s cause” … . In seeking use of this charge, “[t]he burden, in the first instance, is upon the party seeking the charge to promptly notify the court that there is an uncalled witness believed to be knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case, that such witness can be expected to testify favorably to the opposing party and that such party has failed to call [the witness] to testify” … . Once the foregoing is established, the burden shifts to the party opposing the charge “to account for the witness'[s] absence or otherwise demonstrate that the charge would not be appropriate” … . The opposing party’s burden can be met by demonstrating, inter alia, that “the testimony would be cumulative to other evidence” … . Heinrich v Serens, 2025 NY Slip Op 04318, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into when the court should give the missing witness jury instruction. Here in the med mal case the defense notification that it was not going to call three defendants as witnesses justified plaintiff’s request for the instruction. Under the facts, the request should have been granted.​

 

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