You are here: / Judges
, ,

BECAUSE THE CRIMES INVOLVED ARE NOT “REGISTRABLE OFFENSES” AND NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY WERE SEX OFFENSES, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED SPECIALIZED SEXUAL OFFENDER CONDITIONS UPON DEFENDANT’S PROBATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying the judgment of conviction, determined the specialized sexual offender conditions should not have been imposed upon defendant’s probation because the underlying offenses had no connection to sex offenses:

Although neither burglary in the third degree (see Penal Law § 140.20), the crime for which defendant was indicted, nor criminal trespass in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.15 [1]), the crime for which defendant was convicted, qualify as registerable offenses under Correction Law § 168-a (2), we previously have held that it may be “proper to impose sex offender conditions in cases which do not technically qualify as sex offender cases, . . . so long as the conditions imposed are reasonably related to the defendant’s rehabilitation, are reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life, and are necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct which gave rise to the offense or to prevent the incarceration of the defendant” … . That said, upon reviewing defendant’s criminal history and considering the circumstances underlying the crime of conviction, we agree with defendant that the specialized sexual offender conditions imposed by County Court do not meet that standard.

Regardless of whether defendant completed sex offender treatment prior to being successfully discharged from probation in Florida in September 2000, the fact remains that — in the nearly 25 years that have elapsed since then — defendant has not been charged with any additional sex offenses; indeed, prior to the underlying trespass incident in March 2023, it appears that defendant — with the exception of an unspecified “criminal registration” offense in Florida in November 2000 — was not charged with any new crimes at all. Additionally, the criminal trespass conviction did not stem from defendant entering a school, no children were present at the time of the offense (or otherwise involved or implicated in its commission) and the underlying crime was not even tangentially related to either a sex or child welfare offense … . Under these circumstances, County Court abused its discretion in imposing the specialized sexual offender conditions upon defendant’s probation. People v Rhodehouse, 2025 NY Slip Op 03228, Third Dept 5-29-25

Practice Point: Although specialized sexual offender conditions can be imposed upon probation where the underlying crimes are not sex offenses, here it was an abuse of discretion to do so, based upon the absence of sex offenses from defendant’s criminal history.

 

,

IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE, PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE ACTION IN AN IMPROPER VENUE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS SIX DAYS LATE; SUPREME COURT IMPROVIDENTLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue in this traffic-accident case should have been granted. Plaintiff had brought the action in an improper venue. Although the defendants’ motion to change venue was six days late, Supreme Court had the discretion to grant it:

CPLR 510 sets forth grounds on which a motion to change venue may be made. When a defendant moves to change venue on the ground that the venue selected by the plaintiff is not proper … , the defendant must serve a timely demand on the plaintiff prior to making the motion … . When a motion to change venue on this ground is untimely, the motion is addressed to the court’s discretion rather than based on right … . Here, the defendants acknowledge that, after serving a demand to change venue with their answer, they moved to change the venue of the action six days late. Thus, their motion “became one addressed to the court’s discretion” … .

Under the circumstances present here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 510 to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County. Venue is proper “in the county in which one of the parties resided when [the action] was commenced; [or] the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ” … . Here, there is no dispute that none of the parties resided in Kings County and that the accident did not occur in Kings County. By selecting an improper venue in the first instance, the plaintiff forfeited the right to choose venue … . Further, the plaintiff failed to show that the county specified by the defendants was improper and did not cross-move to retain venue in Kings County or to transfer venue to a county other than that urged by the defendants … . Moreover, although the defendants’ motion was untimely, they promptly moved to change the venue of the action after confirming the true location of the accident … . Pujals v Haitidis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03213, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: Plaintiff brought the action in an improper venue. Defendants’ motion to change venue was six days late. Under the facts, Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied defendants’ motion.

 

, , ,

MOTHER BROUGHT A MANDAMUS-TO-COMPEL PROCEEDING TO REQUIRE THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE TO HOLD A SUPPORT-ORDER-VIOLATION HEARING WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT SET IN THE UNIFORM RULES FOR FAMILY COURT; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS LIKELY TO RECUR; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE HAD THE DISCRETION TO ADJOURN THE MATTER BEYOND THE DEADLINE SET IN THE UNIFORM RULES, DESPITE THE MANDATORY LANGUAGE IN THE RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined an exception to the mootness doctrine applied (to allow the appeal to be heard) and the mandamus-to-compel proceeding should have been denied on the merits. Petitioner mother sought to compel the support magistrate to hold a hearing on father’s alleged support-order violation within the time allowed by the Uniform Rules for Family Court. The Appellate Division held that, although the relevant rule setting a deadline for a hearing used mandatory language, a judge has the discretion the adjourn matters beyond a deadline set in the Uniform Rules:

… [W]e conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies. The petitioner has demonstrated that the issue is “capable of repetition” in other cases … . It also involves a phenomenon that will typically evade appellate review, since a Family Court can render any challenge to an alleged failure to adhere to the provisions of the rule academic by advancing a hearing date or completing a hearing in its entirety … , as occurred in this case … . Further, the argument raised by the petitioner presents “a substantial and novel issue of statewide importance regarding the rights of [custodial] parents” to resolve child support disputes in a timely manner … . * * *

… [W]e conclude that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel judicial officers to comply with the deadlines set forth in 22 NYCRR 205.43(b) and (e). As our colleagues in the First Department recognized, “[t]he timely completion of [child support] hearings depends on discretionary determinations made by individual Family Court judges and support magistrates as to whether good cause exists for adjournments” … . Indeed, the decision of a Family Court judge or support magistrate to grant an adjournment in a support proceeding is discretionary in nature (see Family Ct Act § 435 …). This Court, for example, has reversed orders in circumstances where a court’s denial of an adjournment request constituted an abuse or improvident exercise of discretion … . Further, the rule expressly states that judges and support magistrates may grant adjournments for various reasons, including to permit a party to secure counsel, in circumstances where a party’s counsel establishes actual engagement, due to the illness of a party, or for other good cause shown … . Therefore, “[a]lthough the 90-day limit” of 22 NYCRR 205.43(b) “is written in mandatory terms,” as is the 7-day limit of 22 NYCRR 205.43(e), these provisions do “not impose . . . nondiscretionary ministerial dut[ies]” upon judges or support magistrates that may be subject to mandamus … . In reaching this determination, we express no opinion as to whether a judicial officer’s alleged failure to adhere to the relevant provisions of 22 NYCRR 205.43 may be successfully challenged under provisions of CPLR article 78 that are not at issue here … . Matter of Santman v Satterthwaite, 2025 NY Slip Op 03196, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an explanation for when a moot issue can be heard on appeal.

Practice Point: Although the Uniform Rules for Family Court use mandatory language in setting a deadline for holding a hearing on an alleged violation of a support order, the support magistrate had the discretion to adjourn the hearing beyond the deadline set in the Rules.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY THE POLICE DEFENDANTS, COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S VEHICLE; THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE OMISSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial in this “reckless disregard” action against the Nassau County Police Department stemming from a fatal traffic accident during a police chase, determined several evidentiary errors deprived plaintiff’s decedent of a fair trial. The vehicle which the police were chasing, driven by defendant Daley, collided with plaintiff’s decedent’s vehicle:

Supreme Court erred in declining to admit the Nassau County Police Department Rules and Regulations (hereinafter the rules) into evidence. An officer’s alleged violation of internal guidelines, although not dispositive, may be some evidence of whether an officer acted with reckless disregard … . The court compounded this error when it charged the jury pursuant to PJI 2:79A, specifically charging the jury that it may consider the rules when determining whether the police officers acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. To the extent necessary, the rules could have been admitted with a limiting instruction that they may considered only as some evidence of recklessness, along with other factors … .

Further, the Supreme Court erred in admitting the full decision from a Dunaway/Huntley/Mapp hearing in the defendant driver’s criminal proceeding, as its subject matter was collateral and merely served to bolster the testimony of the police officers … and was therefore prejudicial. The court also erred in entirely precluding cross-examination of Detective Peter Ellison with respect to prior bad acts. Under the circumstances of this case, these errors were not harmless (see CPLR 2002), as the evidence related directly to issues to be determined by the jury … , i.e., the officers’ credibility, the nature of the police stop, and the question of when the officers activated their emergency lights. Yun v Daley, 2025 NY Slip Op 03224, Second Dept 5-28-25

Practice Point: In the “reckless disregard” action against the police stemming from a high-speed chase, the police department rules should have been admitted in evidence because a violation of the rules is some evidence of negligence.

Practice Point: Here the defendant driver who collided with plaintiff’s decedent during the police chase was charged criminally. It was prejudicial error to allow a decision in the criminal matter in evidence in this “reckless disregard” action against the police. It was also error to preclude the cross-examination of a detective about prior bad acts.

 

,

WHERE RELEVANT FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE IN A CUSTODY MATTER, A HEARING IS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this custody proceeding and remitting the matter for a hearing, noted that a custody ruling should only rarely be issued in the absence of a hearing:

“Custody and parental access determinations should ‘[g]enerally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “While the general right to a hearing in custody and visitation cases is not absolute, where ‘facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute,’ a hearing is required” … . “[A] court opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision” … . Matter of Horoshko v Pasieshvili, 2025 NY Slip Op 03064, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: Although there is no hard and fast rule that a custody matter requires a hearing before a ruling, whenever relevant facts are in dispute, a hearing is necessary.

 

, ,

HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the receiver’s (Hafner’s) apportionment of the proceeds of the sale of real property owned by several brothers was inconsistent with the open court stipulation which had attempted to resolve the dispute before the receiver was appointed. Absent fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, a stipulation (contract) should not be invalidated. Therefore, Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine whether there are grounds for avoiding the terms of the stipulation:

Supreme Court should have held an evidentiary hearing before approving Hafner’s amended final report and account based on the factual issues raised by the parties and the contentious nature of the proceedings … . “Stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside . . . Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” … . Here, Hafner’s amended final report and account was confirmed without the off-the-top credits owed to John and Thomas pursuant to the stipulation. Further, the amended final report and account allocated receivership costs for insurance that were inconsistent with the allocation of costs agreed to in the stipulation.

Additionally, a hearing is necessary to calculate Hafner’s commissions and to determine whether special circumstances exist warranting a recovery in excess of five percent of the sums received and disbursed … . CPLR 8004 allows a receiver to be paid commissions for his or her work “‘not exceeding five percent of sums received and disbursed by him or her'” … . Feeney v Giannetti, 2025 NY Slip Op 03043, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: An open court stipulation is a contract which cannot be invalidated absent fraud, collusion, mistake or accident. Here the apportionment of disputed property by the receiver was inconsistent with the stipulation. The court, therefore, should not have upheld the receiver’s apportionment without holding a hearing to determine whether there exist grounds for invalidating the stipulation.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO COULD NOT SAY HE WOULD NOT HOLD DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TESTIFY AGAINT HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A POLICE OFFICER WHO SPENT ONLY 10 OR 15 MINUTES WITH THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, DESPITE THE CHANGE IN DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s for cause challenge to a prospective juror who said he would hold defendant’s failure to testify against him should have been granted. Because there will be a new trial, the Second Department noted that a police officer who had limited contact with the defendant should not have been allowed to identify the defendant in a video:

The prospective juror maintained that he was unable to “promise” that his decision would not be affected if the defendant did not testify at trial. Since the prospective juror made statements that cast doubt on his ability to render an impartial verdict under the proper legal standards and did not, upon further inquiry, provide unequivocal assurances that he would be able to render a verdict based solely upon the evidence adduced at trial, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s for-cause challenge … .

… [W]e note that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing a police detective to identify the defendant as the individual depicted in a surveillance video. Generally, “‘lay witnesses must testify only to the facts,’ and not to their opinions and conclusions drawn from the facts,’ as it is the jury’s province ‘to draw the appropriate inferences arising from the facts'” … . In determining whether to permit this testimony, a court must consider “whether the witness has had sufficient contact with the defendant to achieve a level of familiarity that renders the lay opinion helpful” … . In making this assessment, courts may consider (1) the witness’s general level of familiarity with the defendant’s appearance, (2) whether the witness’s familiarity spanned an extended period of time and variety of circumstances, (3) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s appearance at the time the surveillance footage was taken, and (4) whether the witness was familiar with the defendant’s customary manner of dress or clothing (see id. at 648-649). Here, there was no basis for the court to conclude that the police detective was more likely than the jury to correctly determine whether the defendant was depicted in the surveillance video … . The police detective testified that he spent a total of 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant. While there was testimony that the defendant’s appearance had changed prior to the trial, through weight loss and cutting his hair, “the record is devoid of any other circumstances suggesting that the jury——which had ample opportunity to view [the] defendant——would be any less able than the detective to determine whether [the] defendant was, in fact, the individual depicted in the video” … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 03087, Second Dept 5-21-25

Practice Point: A challenge to a prospective juror who cannot state unequivocally he or she would not hold defendant’s failure to testify against the defendant must be granted.

Practice Point: A police officer who is allowed to identify the defendant in a video is offering an opinion, not facts. Here the officer had spent only 10 to 15 minutes with the defendant and therefore was not qualified to offer an opinion on the identity of the person depicted in the video.

 

, , ,

HERE DEFENDANT MADE A TIMELY REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY; DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SELF-REPRESENTATION (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissenting opinion (three judges), reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined that the judge’s failure to conduct an inquiry before denying defendant’s request to represent himself violated his constitutional right to self-representation:

A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed pro se (see US Const Amend VI; NY Const, art I, § 6; see also CPL 170.10 [6], 180.10 [5], 210.15 [5] [codifying a defendant’s constitutional right to self-representation]). Defendant invoked that right when he informed Supreme Court that he “would like to represent [him]self” at his upcoming trial. People v McIntyre (36 NY2d 10 [1974]) and its progeny required that the court make a searching inquiry into defendant’s unequivocal and timely request to proceed pro se, to determine whether that request was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Contrary to that rule, the court immediately denied defendant’s request without inquiry, and it expressly refused to consider any further request until the day of trial. The court’s failure to inquire into defendant’s request violated his constitutional right to self-representation. Therefore, we reverse and grant defendant a new trial.

On June 4, 2018, the parties appeared for trial. * * * This colloquy followed:

THE DEFENDANT: I’m going to go cocounsel.
THE COURT: I can’t hear you.
THE DEFENDANT: Cocounsel. I’m going to go cocounsel.
THE COURT: Cocounsel?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: What is that?
THE DEFENDANT: Meaning I’m going to represent myself in this case.
THE COURT: You mean pro se.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I will be going pro se at trial. I will be representing myself acting as my own.
THE COURT: You made no application before me.
THE DEFENDANT: I never said I wanted a trial by jurors. I never told this individual that I wanted a trial by jurors.
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Lewis, I’m assuming now you’re trying to play games with this court. . . . I’ll continue with this trial. If you want to speak to [defense counsel] about certain issues, I’ll hear [defense counsel] tomorrow morning.”

The following morning, the court invited defendant to raise any issues before proceeding with jury selection. Defendant asserted again that he did not want defense counsel to represent him, alleging that counsel was ineffective, had a conflict of interest, and was not working on his behalf. The court only responded, “[o]kay. Nicely done,” and continued the proceeding. People v Lewis, 2025 NY Slip Op 03011, CtApp 5-20-25

Practice Point: A defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation. A judge must conduct a “searching inquiry” upon a timely request.​

 

,

THE PRESENTENCE INTERVIEW WAS CANCELLED DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES; THEREFORE THE PRESENTENCE REPORT WAS DEVOID OF INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT’S EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, HEALTH STATUS, MENTAL HEALTH AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIVE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLEA AGREEMENT, THE DEFICIENT PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s negotiated sentence, determined the failure to interview the defendant before creating the presentence report  was tantamount to the failure to conduct the mandatory presentence investigation. The defendant did not take any action to avoid the presentence interview which was scheduled but cancelled due to technical difficulties:

At sentencing, defense counsel confirmed that the presentence report was prepared without any interview because of technical difficulties. The court remarked this was “not unusual,” but directed that defendant be arraigned for sentence. In response to the court’s invitation for the parties to address any issues relevant to sentence, defense counsel stated only that he relied on the promised sentence. The court proceeded to impose sentence with no further discussion of the presentence report.

Presentence investigations of persons convicted of felonies are statutorily mandated, and a court may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of such an investigation (see CPL 390.20[1] …). The presentence report may be “the single most important document at both the sentencing and correctional levels of the criminal process” … , as it contains multiple categories of information concerning the defendant’s background and the subject offense … .

Because there was no presentence interview, the presentence report in this case was seriously deficient. The report was devoid of information regarding defendant’s education, employment history, health status, and mental health, each a statutorily prescribed category … . The report also noted that it had no information as to defendant’s motive. People v Pizzaro, 2025 NY Slip Op 03025, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: A presentence report which is incomplete because the defendant was never interviewed requires vacation of the sentence, notwithstanding that the sentence was in accordance with the plea agreement.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new “state action” hearing, determined defense counsel’s request for an adjournment to subpoena information about the store security guards’ employment should have been granted. The issue is whether the store security guards who detained the defendant in this grand larceny case were licensed to exercise police powers or acted as agents of the police. Defense counsel learned the name of the store’s lead investigator at the time of defendant’s detention on the eve of the state action hearing. The First Department noted that defense counsel could not properly subpoena the employment information without knowing the identities of the people involved:

… [W]e find that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel a short adjournment. In denying the requested adjournment, the court found that defendant “could have done that [subpoena … records] a long time ago, maybe even when this appeal was being perfected.” On this appeal, the People make a similar argument that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the adjournment because defense counsel could have subpoenaed the materials during the pendency of this appeal. The problem with these arguments is that this Court had already recognized that, without information about the identity of the officers involved in defendant’s arrest, defense counsel was not in a position to meaningfully subpoena records … .

Contrary to the court’s suggestion, this is not the situation where defense counsel failed to exercise due diligence. In fact, as we held, without knowing the names of the store security guards involved in defendant’s detention, defendant was in no better position to subpoena the employer material than when he filed his initial motion. Thus, it was only upon learning the identity of one member of the security team that the defense could meaningfully begin to investigate whether the security guards were state actors. People v Sneed, 2025 NY Slip Op 03026, First Dept 5-20-25

Practice Point: If a defendant is detained by store security guards, the detention may implicate constitutional protections if the security guards are licensed to exercise police powers or are agents of the police. The defense, therefore, may be entitled to a so-called “state action” hearing. To subpoena the appropriate store employment records, defense counsel is entitled to the identities of the security guards involved in defendant’s detention.

 

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