You are here: / Judges
, ,

HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY THE COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE BUT NO NINETY-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED AND THERE HAD BEEN NO ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT; NO EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY IS NECESSARY, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC TIME FRAME FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE, AND RESTORATION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR IS AUTOMATIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. Even though plaintiff had failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, no CPLR 3216 ninety-day notice had been served and there had been no order directing dismissal of the complaint. Therefore plaintiff need not provide an excuse for the delay. Restoration to the calendar was automatic and there was no specific time frame for the motion to restore:

“When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27” … . “Under these circumstances, a motion to restore the action to the calendar should be granted without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for the delay or . . . engaged in dilatory conduct” … . Further, “CPLR 3404 d[oes] not apply . . . to . . . pre-note of issue” actions … . “[S]ince this action was pre-note of issue and could not properly be marked off the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404, the plaintiff was not required to move to restore the action to the calendar within any specified time frame” … . Tarasiuk v Levoritz, 2025 NY Slip Op 04592, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Although plaintiff did not file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, because there had been no ninety-day demand and no court order dismissing the complaint, restoration to the active calendar was automatic.

 

, , ,

HERE THE VICTIMLESS CRIME DID NOT CONSTITUTE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “RAISE THE AGE” LEGISLATION; THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF THE ADOLESCENT OFFENDER’S CASE FROM THE YOUTH PART OF SUPREME COURT TO FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the People’s motion to prevent the removal of this criminal action against a 16-year-old from the Youth Part of Supreme Court to Family Court should not have been granted. The opinion focuses on the meaning of “extraordinary circumstances” in the controlling “Raise the Age” legislation which would warrant overcoming the presumption supporting removal to Family Court for adolescent offenders. The opinion is far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

In effect, the Youth Part treated a single rearrest—absent a conviction—as dispositive of the defendant’s future potential. That reasoning, if broadly applied, would undermine the core purpose of the Raise the Age legislation. The mere fact that an adolescent engaged in rehabilitative services and was later arrested, without more, does not constitute “strong proof” … that he or she is beyond the reach of the Family Court system.

Although the Youth Part concluded that “no one factor on its own may have been enough,” it found that the defendant’s prior record and prior service engagement, “coupled” with the “nature of the pending charges,” amounted to extraordinary circumstances. But none of those factors, either individually or together, rise to the level of exceptionality contemplated by the Raise the Age legislation. A second arrest for a victimless act of adolescent bravado does not convert otherwise ordinary circumstances into extraordinary ones.

Therefore, the Youth Part should have denied the People’s motion pursuant to CPL 722.23(1) to prevent removal of this action to Family Court and transferred this action to the Family Court, Richmond County. People v Lloyd F., 2025 NY Slip Op 04583, Second Dept 8-6-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for an in-depth analysis of the criteria for keeping an adolescent offender’s prosecution in the Youth Part of Supreme Court as opposed to removing the case to Family Court for a juvenile-delinquency proceeding.

 

, ,

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.

 

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