You are here: / Judges
,

MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Third Department determined Family Court should not have, sua sponte, dismissed mother’s pro se petition for custody modification without a hearing:

“‘In any modification proceeding, the threshold issue is whether there has been a change in circumstances since the prior custody order significant enough to warrant a review of the issue of custody to ensure the continued best interests of the child[]'” … . While an evidentiary hearing is not required in every case, a hearing is generally “necessary and should be conducted unless the party seeking the modification fails to make a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing or no hearing is requested and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the child[]’s best interests” … . In determining whether a pro se petitioner made a sufficient evidentiary showing to warrant a hearing, we construe the pleadings liberally and afford the petitioner the benefit of every favorable inference … .

In her pro se petition, the mother alleged that she had moved into an apartment with the child’s maternal grandmother, had enrolled as a full-time student and was attending “[a]lcohol counseling.” Inasmuch as the mother’s alcohol abuse was a primary factor in Family Court’s January 2015 custody determination, the mother’s factual allegations of improvement, construed liberally and if established after a hearing, could afford a basis for awarding the mother increased parenting time, unsupervised parenting time and/or access to the child’s medical and educational records. Accordingly, we find that Family Court erred in dismissing the mother’s petition without a hearing … . Matter of Miller v Bush, 2016 NY Slip Op 05413, 3rd Dept 7-7-16

 

FAMILY LAW (MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)/CUSTODY (MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)/MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY (MOTHER’S PRO SE PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED SUA SPONTE BY FAMILY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)

, ,

JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS.

The Second Department determined the Family Court judge was biased against mother who sought to prevent her children from being immunized for religious reasons:

Public Health Law § 2164, which requires that an adequate dose or doses of an immunizing agent against certain diseases be administered to children at various intervals, does not apply to children whose parent or parents hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs which are contrary to the practices required therein (see Public Health Law § 2164[9]). When a parent seeks to assert a religious objection to immunization under Public Health Law § 2164(9), he or she must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his or her opposition to immunization ” stems from genuinely-held religious beliefs'” … . * * *

Here, the record demonstrates that the Family Court had a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing. In addition to certain comments made by the court regarding the sincerity of the mother’s religious beliefs, the court took an adversarial stance, aggressively cross-examined the mother, continually interrupted her testimony, mocked her beliefs, and generally demonstrated bias. The Family Court’s bias unjustly affected the result of the hearing to the detriment of the mother. Matter of Baby Girl Z. (Yaroslava Z.), 2016 NY Slip Op 04425, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

FAMILY LAW (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/JUDGES (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/IMMUNIZATION (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)/RELIGION (JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS)

JUDGES NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES BASED UPON INADEQUATE COMPENSATION.

The Court of Appeals determined present and retired judges were not entitled to damages based on inadequate compensation during the years legislation considering judicial compensation was improperly linked to unrelated policy initiatives. Although the Court of Appeals struck down the practice, called linkage, as a violation of the separation of powers, the court did not make the finding that judicial compensation was in fact too low during those years. To do so and award damages would intrude on the legislature's budgetary powers:

…[W]e suggested that money damages would be an inappropriate form of relief from the State's unconstitutional linkage practice because any mandate that the State pay money damages would, as a practical matter, be tantamount to a directive to increase judicial compensation in a manner that would arrogate the legislative branch's budgetary powers to the judiciary. Thus, we observed that, in fashioning a remedy, “deference to the Legislature — which possesses the constitutional authority to budget and appropriate — is necessary” … and that “whether judicial compensation should be adjusted, and by how much, is within the province of the Legislature” … . Larabee v Governor of the State of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 03646, CtApp 5-10-16

JUDGES (JUDGES NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES BASED UPON INADEQUATE COMPENSATION)

,

TRIAL JUDGE GAVE TOO MUCH ADVICE TO THE PROSECUTOR ON THE ADMISSION AND USE OF EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Third Department reversed defendant's conviction because the trial judge gave excessive procedural advice to the prosecutor (ADA). During several sidebars, the judge explained to the ADA how to lay a proper foundation for the admission of evidence and how to use evidence to refresh a witness's recollection. The judge's well-intentioned assistance was deemed to have created the perception the prosecution received a tactical advantage:

During the course of the trial, the ADA in question demonstrated difficulty in laying the proper foundation for the admission into evidence of certain photographs and bank records and in utilizing a particular document to refresh a witness's recollection. In response, County Court conducted various sidebars, during the course of which the court, among other things, explained the nature of defense counsel's objections, outlined the questions that the ADA needed to ask of the testifying witnesses, referred the ADA to a certain evidentiary treatise and afforded him a recess in order to consult and review the appropriate section thereof. Without further belaboring the point, suffice it to say that our review of the record confirms what County Court itself acknowledged — namely, that in attempting to “explain[] some of the law” and in an effort to avoid portraying defense counsel as “obstructionist,” it “explained one thing too many, in all fairness.” As County Court's assistance in this regard — although well-intentioned — arguably created the perception that the People were receiving an unfair tactical advantage, we are persuaded that this matter should be remitted for a new trial … . People v Kocsis, 2016 NY Slip Op 02480, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

CRIMINAL LAW (TRIAL JUDGE GAVE TOO MUCH ADVICE TO THE PROSECUTOR ON THE ADMISSION AND USE OF EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JUDGES (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL JUDGE GAVE TOO MUCH ADVICE TO THE PROSECUTOR ON THE ADMISSION AND USE OF EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

, ,

MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT’S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER.

The Fourth Department determined the denial of defendant's midtrial motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant should not have been denied without a hearing. The search warrant application was not provided to the defense until after the trial had begun. The application indicated probable cause for the warrant was gained through a prior “security sweep” of the building:

In determining whether a hearing is required pursuant to CPL 710.60, “the sufficiency of defendant's factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant's access to information” … . We note that the motion was not required to be made in writing, as would be required for a pretrial motion to suppress (see CPL 710.60 [1]) and, because it was properly “made orally in open court” during trial, the court was required, “where necessary, [to] conduct a hearing as provided in [CPL 710.60 (4)], out of the presence of the jury if any, and make findings of fact essential to the determination of the motion” (CPL 710.60 [5]).

We conclude that a hearing was necessary herein. Defendant's allegation that the search was of his home was sufficient “to demonstrate a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises” … . * * * … [T]he People's current contention [that the sweep was justified by exigent circumstances] … ” raise[s] a factual dispute on a material point which must be resolved before the court can decide the legal issue' of whether evidence was obtained in a constitutionally permissible manner” … . Thus, before ruling on the motion, “it was incumbent upon [Supreme C]ourt to conduct a hearing to determine whether there were sufficient exigent circumstances [or other factors such as an ongoing emergency situation that would] justify the . . . warrantless entry” into the building … . Therefore, we hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on defendant's midtrial suppression motion … . People v Samuel, 2016 NY Slip Op 02222, 4th Dept 3-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)/SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT'S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER)

, ,

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)

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