You are here: / Judges
, ,

The Decision Whether to Raise the Defense of Justification Is for the Defendant, Not Defense Counsel, to Make—Counsel Was Not Ineffective for Failing to Raise the Defense Over Defendant’s Objection—The Court Did Not Err By Failing to Instruct the Jury, Sua Sponte, on the Justification Defense In Response to a Jury Note Which Indicated the Jury Was Considering It

The Second Department, in a detailed and extensive opinion by Justice Mastro (not fully summarized here), over an equally detailed and extensive two-justice dissent, determined that defense counsel was not ineffective, and the court did not err, in rejecting the justification defense.  The defendant, accused of murder, insisted on a misidentification defense in this one-eyewitness case.  The defendant made it clear he did not want to rely on the justification defense (which would contradict his claim of innocence). In response to a jury note which implied the jury was considering whether the defendant had acted in self-defense, the judge, in accordance with the wishes of defense counsel, did not explain the justification defense to the jury and directed the jury to consider only the issue of intent.  On appeal, the defendant argued defense counsel was ineffective in not raising the justification defense and the judge erred by not instructing the jury on the defense sua sponte in response to the jury’s note.  In rejecting those arguments, the Second Department held that the decision whether to rely on the justification defense was for the defendant, not defense counsel, to make, and no error was made by defense counsel or the judge in following defendant’s wishes:

…[W]hen a defendant accepts the assistance of counsel, he or she retains authority only over certain fundamental decisions, such as whether to plead guilty, whether to waive a jury trial, whether to testify at trial, and whether to take an appeal … . Matters of strategy and tactics, such as whether to request the submission of lesser-included offenses for the jury’s consideration …, whether to seek or consent to a mistrial … , or whether to introduce certain evidence at trial …, generally fall within the purview of counsel. However, and of particular significance in the present case, the Court of Appeals has made clear that “a defendant unquestionably has the right to chart his own defense” … . Contrary to the defendant’s current position, his decision to pursue a defense based solely on misidentification, and to affirmatively reject an alternate defense based on justification in steadfast furtherance of that misidentification defense, involved a matter that was “personal” and “fundamental” to him …, and “did not implicate a matter of trial strategy or tactics” … . Indeed, under our law there simply is no more personal and fundamental right than that of the accused to rise before the trial justice and proclaim—to the court and to the world—his or her complete factual innocence of the crimes with which he or she has been charged. To require defense counsel in this case, over his client’s objection, to undermine that assertion of innocence by the injection into the case of a factually and logically inconsistent defense would, under the circumstances presented, impermissibly compromise that personal right. People v Clark, 2015 NY Slip Op 03558, 2nd Dept 4-29-15

 

, , ,

Ex Parte Interview of Important Prosecution Witness Re: the Witness’ Health, Addictions and Ability to Testify Violated Defendants’ Right to Confrontation and Right to Counsel

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that the court’s conducting an ex parte interview of a main prosecution witness concerning the witness’ health, addictions and his related ability to testify violated the defendants’ right to confrontation and right to counsel:

Absent a substantial justification, courts must not examine witnesses about nonministerial matters in camera without counsel present or ex parte (see … People v Goggins, 34 NY2d 163, 173 [1974]). “[A]n in-camera examination of the witnesses, that is ex parte or without the parties represented would, in our view, arguably trifle with the constitutional right to confrontation and the right to counsel” (Goggins, 34 NY2d at 169). A “defendant’s right to the full benefit of the adversary system should not be denied, nor qualified by impairing his right by interposing the ‘neutral’ Judge to assess whether the disclosure is relevant or material” (id.). Goggins concerned a defendant’s right to disclosure of an informant’s identity, and this Court held that where the information “relates to a substantive issue in the case, the disclosure should not be ex parte or without either party present even if in camera” (id. at 173). * * *

The denial of the right to counsel at trial “is of constitutional dimension” and is not subject to harmless error analysis … . Courts should not delve into questions of prejudice when assistance of counsel is involved … . As this Court recognized, “[t]he right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial” … . And as this Court held in Hodge, a quantification of what impeachment material defense counsel might have obtained at the proceeding cannot be dispositive …, as harmless error does not apply in right-to-counsel cases … .

Here, the in camera proceeding clearly involved substantive issues as opposed to ministerial matters and there was no justification for excluding defense counsel. Because the discussion involved important issues for trial that might have affected a “substantial right” of a party, defense counsels’ presence was required… . People v Carr, 2015 NY Slip Op 02798, CtApp 4-2-15

 

,

Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Justified/Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect

In a foreclosure action, the Second Department noted that Supreme Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint, even if the plaintiff did not have standing, which is not a jurisdictional defect.  (The Second Department determined the plaintiff did in fact have standing.):

The Supreme Court also erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint. “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 sua sponte dismissal of the complaint. Even if the plaintiff had lacked standing it would not have constituted a jurisdictional defect and would not warrant a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Chow Ming Tung, 2015 NY Slip Op 02087, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

, ,

Court Should Have Taken Judicial Notice of Father’s False Allegations in Prior Proceedings in the Same Court/Court Should Not Have Drawn an Adverse Inference from Mother’s Failure to Call a Witness without Informing Mother of Its Intent to Do So

The Second Department, in reversing Family Court finding that mother committed the family offense of assault, determined Family Court should have taken judicial notice of father’s false allegations in custody proceedings in the same court and should not have drawn an adverse inference from the mother’s failure to call a witness without giving mother the opportunity to explain the witness’ absence:

The Family Court improperly rejected the mother’s request that it take judicial notice of the determination in the parties’ prior custody proceeding, in the same court, in which the father admittedly made false allegations. That proceeding, and the court’s findings therein regarding the father, were relevant to the court’s assessment of the father’s credibility in this matter. Accordingly, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in declining to take judicial notice of the prior custody proceeding … .

Additionally, the Family Court erred in drawing a negative inference based on the mother’s failure to call the child’s maternal grandmother as a witness. ” A party is entitled to a missing witness charge when the party establishes that an uncalled witness possessing information on a material issue would be expected to provide noncumulative testimony in favor of the opposing party and is under the control of and available to that party'” … . The court sua sponte drew a negative inference based on the mother’s failure to call the grandmother as a witness, and failed to advise the mother that it intended to do so … . Matter of Spooner-Boyke v Charles, 2015 NY Slip Op 02132, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

, ,

Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court

The Second Department noted that a sua sponte determination does not become the law-of-the-case  and does not bind the appellate court:

Supreme Court determined that, pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, it was bound by the prior Supreme Court order to hold that [a nonparty] was a bona fide purchaser of the subject property. On that ground, the Supreme Court concluded that, “[h]aving failed to obtain a stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 to prevent the property from being sold, [defendant] [was] relegated to an action for money damages, and would not be able to recover the real property” … . However, since the parties had not litigated the sua sponte determination as to [the nonparty’s] status, application of the doctrine of law of the case was improper … . In any event, this Court is not bound by the Supreme Court’s prior determination finding [the nonparty] to be a bona fide purchaser and may reach the merits of that issue … . Debcon Fin. Servs., Inc. v 83-17 Broadway Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 01920, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

, ,

Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint seeking foreclosure and sale on the ground plaintiff lacked standing.  The defendants did not answer the complaint or make a pre-answer motion to dismiss, so the lack of standing defense was waived:

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 and cancellation of the notice of pendency. 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 a sua sponte dismissal of the complaint by the court … . HSBC Bank USA NA v Simmons, 2015 NY Slip Op 01609, 2nd Dept 2-25-15

 

, ,

Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, over a dissent, discussed several fundamental issues in reversing Supreme Court's sua sponte award of attorney's fees which differed from the fee agreed to by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's law firm.  The First department held that the 33 1/3% contingency fee for the trial, and an additional 10% contingency for the appeal, amounting to a 43 !/3 % contingency fee, was proper. In addition, the First Department determined the defendant did not have standing to contest the fee, Supreme Court did not have the power to adjust the fee and Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction over the case at the time it did so:

Initially, we note that defendant has no standing to challenge the fees agreed upon as between plaintiff and his counsel. CPLR 5015(a)(3) provides that “[t]he court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person . . . upon the ground of . . . fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party (emphasis added).” Defendant is not an “interested person” within the meaning of the statute, as even the motion court appeared to recognize. Defendant will pay the same amounts pursuant to the judgment regardless of the division of fees as between plaintiff and his counsel. …

Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that the judgment was procured by fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by plaintiff or his attorneys. …

Defendant having no standing under CPLR 5015(a)(3) to challenge the separate fee for appellate work, the court relied on its “inherent authority” to reach the issue. A court, however, has no inherent authority to sua sponte reach the issue of attorneys' fees … .

Moreover, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to revisit the issue of the propriety of the fees, even upon the motion of a proper party. Since the Court of Appeals denied applications for review … the judgment was final, and Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to, in effect, reverse the Court by modifying the judgment … .

Plaintiff's expert, a leading expert on legal ethics, opined that it was legally and ethically permissible for the firm to collect a separate fee for appellate work, notwithstanding that the firm is entitled, under the original retainer, to a contingency fee of one third of the recovery. Plaintiff's expert opined that limiting counsel's contingent fee to that encompassed in the initial retainer “does not advance the purpose behind Section 603.7 [Rules of the Appellate Division] . . . i.e., protecting clients from gouging by attorneys.” The expert also observed that had plaintiff chosen to retain new counsel for the appeal, there would be absolutely no question that the new counsel would be entitled to a fee for his or her work, notwithstanding the fact that trial counsel was entitled to receive 33 1/3% of any recovery. Plaintiff's expert noted that it would be “anomalous” to assert that trial counsel should be compensated less favorably than new counsel for performing the work that had not been contemplated by the initial retainer. Stewart v New York City Tr Auth, 2014 NY Slip Op 09063, 1st Dept 12-30-14


, ,

No Appeal Lies from an Ex Parte, Sua Sponte, Judgment/Order

In affirming the dismissal of an inmate's action seeking to challenge the computation of his sentence (dismissal was based upon the inmate's failure to comply with the service requirements in an order to show cause), the Third Department noted that no appeal lies from an ex parte order, including an order entered sua sponte.  Apparently the remedy is a motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015:

…[T]here is “no right of appeal from an ex parte [judgment/order], including [one] entered sua sponte,” such as Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition here … . Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to treat the notice of appeal from that judgment as an application for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [c]…). Petitioner sought renewal pursuant to CPLR 2221 and, while perhaps more properly viewed as one to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015, the judgment denying that motion presents the salient issues for review. Matter of Martin v Annucci, 2014 NY Slip Op 08539, 3rd Dept 12-4-14

 

,

Absence of a Certificate of Conformity Not a Fatal Defect Re: a Motion for a Default Judgment/Court Should Not Have Raised, Sua Sponte, a Defense to the Motion on Behalf of Defendant Who Did Not Answer or Appear

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that the absence of a certificate of conformity was not fatal to the motion for a default judgment:

In 2012, the plaintiff, a resident of the State of Georgia, commenced this action against the defendant, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On June 22, 2012, the defendant was served with a copy of the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 308(1). He neither appeared in the action, interposed an answer, nor otherwise moved with respect thereto. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment. The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff’s affidavit of merit, notarized in Georgia, lacked a proper certificate of conformity as required by CPLR 2309(a), and denied the motion, with leave to renew upon the submission of a proper affidavit. The plaintiff appeals.

” A party’s right to recover upon a defendant’s failure to appear or answer is governed by CPLR 3215′” … . Thus, a plaintiff moving for a default judgment against a defendant must submit proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defaulting defendant’s failure to appear or answer (see CPLR 3215[f]…). Here, in support of his motion to enter a default judgment, the plaintiff met all of these requirements … . Although the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff’s affidavit lacked a proper certificate of conformity, it should have considered the affidavit since the absence of a certificate of conformity is not a fatal defect … . Further, even if the subject certificate of conformity was inadequate, the defendant failed to answer or appear in opposition to the motion, and it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to, sua sponte, raise the issue on the defendant’s behalf … . Todd v Green, 2014 NY Slip OP 08004, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

,

Failure to File Proof of Service Is a Procedural Irregularity Which Can Be Cured

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court, finding that plaintiff’s failure to file proof of service of a complaint was a procedural irregularity which had been promptly cured.  The defendant (Hernandez), who was in default, was given 30 days to appear and answer:

The failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004 … . Here, in light of the plaintiff’s prompt action in moving to correct the irregularity following the denial of his motion for leave to enter a default judgment and the lack of prejudice to Hernandez, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to deem the filing of proof of service on Hernandez timely nunc pro tunc … . However, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a court may not grant such relief retroactive to Hernandez’s prejudice by placing him in default as of a date prior to the order … . In other words, service will not be deemed complete …, as the plaintiff argues (see CPLR 308[4]). Rather, Hernandez must be afforded an additional 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order to appear and answer … . Khan v Hernandez, 2014 NY Slip Op 07985, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

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