You are here: / Judges
, , ,

THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE DEFENDANT WAS FACING NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the judge’s providing erroneous information about the maximum sentence defendant was facing did not need to be preserved for appeal and rendered the guilty plea involuntary:

… County Court advised [defendant] that, if he elected to proceed to trial and was convicted of all offenses as a second felony drug offender, he faced a sentencing exposure of 36 years in prison rather than the correct, capped term of 30 years … . … [A]s the Court of Appeals recently made clear, where “the court provides the defendant with erroneous information concerning their maximum sentencing exposure that is contrary to the undisputed text of the Penal Law, fails to correct its error on the record, and the defendant has no apparent reason to question the accuracy of that information, the defendant need not preserve a challenge to the voluntariness of the guilty plea on that ground” … . * * *

Although defendant here was no stranger to the criminal justice system and received a reasonable sentencing commitment from County Court, the plea colloquy itself reflects that defendant believed that he had been overcharged and questioned whether he would be convicted if he went to trial. Defendant made clear during the plea colloquy, in fact, that he was only pleading guilty to the indictment because he would rather[*3]”get the high/low of 16/14″ than go to trial and risk “more time in state prison.” Even then, defendant remained conflicted about pleading guilty until the moment he entered his formal plea, asking County Court immediately before he did so to repeat the potential sentencing exposure he faced if he did not “want to go through all of this and [went] to trial.” … .People v Shaw, 2025 NY Slip Op 03358, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point” Here the judge told defendant he was facing 36 years in prison when the actual maximum was 30. That error need not be preserved for appeal and, based on defendant’s remarks and questions at sentencing, was deemed to have rendered defendant’s guilty plea involuntary.

 

, , ,

HERE FATHER MOVED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CHILD SUPPORT AT THE CLOSE OF MOTHER’S PROOF; AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE COURT MUST ACCEPT PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE AS TRUE AND RESOLVE ALL CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS IN PETITIONER’S FAVOR; THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department, reversing Family Court’s dismissal of mother’s petition to modify child support, determined that the judge applied the wrong standard when deciding father’s motion to dismiss at the close of mother’s proof. At that stage the judge must accept petitioner’s evidence as true, and must resolve all credibility issues in petitioner’s favor. The judge’s comments on witness credibility indicated the correct standard was not applied:

A noncustodial parent’s statutory duty to support his or her child until they reach 21 years of age may be suspended where the noncustodial parent establishes that the custodial parent has wrongfully interfered with or withheld visitation rights … . Although the parent seeking such suspension must ultimately demonstrate “deliberate frustration” or “active interference” with their visitation rights by a “preponderance of the evidence” … , where, as here, “Family Court is tasked with deciding a motion to dismiss at the close of the petitioner’s proof, the court must accept the petitioner’s evidence as true and afford the petitioner every favorable inference that could reasonably be drawn from that evidence, including resolving all credibility questions in the petitioner’s favor” … . * * *

Family Court’s commentary on witness credibility in resolving the subject motion to dismiss suggests to this Court that an incorrect legal standard was applied … . When viewed in the proper light, we find that the … proof was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss …  Thus, without passing judgment upon the ultimate success of the mother’s claim, we reverse. Matter of Crystal NN. v Joshua OO, 2025 NY Slip Op 03368, Third Dept 6-5-25

Practice Point: In this modification of child support proceeding, father moved to dismiss mother’s petition at the close of mother’s proof. In evaluating the motion at that stage of the proceedings, the court must accept all of petitioner’s evidence as true, afford the petitioner all favorable inferences from the evidence, and resolve all credibility issues in petitioner’s favor. The failure to apply those standards to consideration of the motion to dismiss requires reversal.

 

, ,

IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT DAMAGES TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT OFFERED PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGED VEHICLE AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT RECORDS WHICH WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATIONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the judgment and ordering a new damages trial in this traffic accident case, determined the photographs of plaintiff’s damaged vehicle and the plaintiff’s employment records, offered in evidence by the defendant, should not have been admitted because defendant did not lay a sufficient foundation:

The proponent must lay a proper foundation for the admission of photographs into evidence, “which generally requires proof that the photographs were taken close in time to the accident and fairly and accurately represent the conditions as they existed on the date of the accident” … . Here, the plaintiff, who was the sole witness who testified about the photographs, stated that they did not fairly and accurately depict the condition of her vehicle after the accident and that she did not know when the photographs were taken. Thus, the defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the photographs, and the Supreme Court erred in admitting them into evidence.

“[D]ocuments obtained by subpoena cannot be admitted into evidence without a proper evidentiary foundation” … . Furthermore, “[a] proper foundation for the admission of a business record must be provided by someone with personal knowledge of the maker’s business practices and procedures” … . Here, the defendant failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the plaintiff’s employment documents, which had been obtained via subpoena, since no witness testified to having personal knowledge of the business practices and procedures of the plaintiff’s former employer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in admitting the employment documents into evidence.

Postaccident photographs of a vehicle are “relevant to show the force of an impact, and [would] therefore ‘help[ ] in determining the nature or extent of injuries and thus relate[ ] to the question of damages'” … . Additionally, the employment documents were relevant to both the plaintiff’s credibility and her prior injury history. Since the improperly admitted photographs and employment documents related to the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and her credibility, these errors were not harmless … . Powell v Burg, 2025 NY Slip Op 03348, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: If a party offers photographs and documents which are admitted in evidence without proper foundations, and the evidence is detrimental to the other party, a new trial may be ordered on appeal.

 

, ,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE HIS PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS BROUGHT; THE PETITION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED PATERNITY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY A DNA TEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s custody petition should not have dismissed on the ground he had not been adjudicated the biological father at the time the custody petition was brought. The petition sufficiently alleged paternity, which was subsequently confirmed by a DNA test:

The Family Court, in effect, granted that branch of the petitioner’s cross-motion which was for a genetic marker test. The DNA test results of the court-ordered genetic marker test revealed that the probability of the petitioner’s paternity was 99.99%. Thereafter, the court issued an order of filiation, on consent, adjudging the petitioner to be the child’s biological father. However, in a separate order, the court, inter alia, granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was to dismiss the custody petition, determining that the petitioner lacked standing to file the custody petition because at the time he filed the custody petition, “his parentage of the child had not yet been legally established.” The petitioner appeals.

“Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 70, parents have standing to seek custody of or parental access with their children” .. . Here, the custody petition sufficiently alleged that the petitioner was the biological father of the child. The mother’s affidavits did not expressly deny the petitioner’s paternity, nor offer any facts to refute his allegations of paternity. Moreover, the Family Court entered the order of filiation on consent, and it is undisputed that the petitioner was adjudicated to be the child’s biological father before, or at the same time that, the court granted that branch of the mother’s motion which was to dismiss the custody petition. Accordingly, the court erred in determining that the petitioner did not have standing to file the custody petition because he had not been adjudicated the biological father of the child before the custody petition was filed … . Matter of Kevin C. v Trisha J., 2025 NY Slip Op 03324, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: Father’s standing to bring a custody petition is not dependent upon an adjudication of paternity.. Here the custody petition adequately alleged paternity, which was subsequently confirmed by a DNA test.

 

, , ,

HERE IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF STATED THE WRONG ACCIDENT-DATE IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; BECAUSE THE WRONG DATE WAS NOT USED IN BAD FAITH AND THE CITY WAS NOT PREJUDICED, PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the wrong accident-date in the notice of claim did not warrant dismissal of the action. The wrong date was not willful and the municipality was not prejudiced. The plaintiff alleged she was injured when the driver of the defendant NYC Transit Authority’s bus stopped short:

“‘To enable authorities to investigate, collect evidence and evaluate the merit of a claim, persons seeking to recover in tort against a municipality are required, as a precondition to suit, to serve a Notice of Claim'” … . General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) requires that the notice of claim set forth, among other things, “the time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose” … . “‘[I]n determining compliance with the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e, courts should focus on the purpose served by a Notice of Claim: whether based on the claimant’s description municipal authorities can locate the place, fix the time and understand the nature of the accident'” … . “Pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(6), a court has discretion to grant leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the error in the original notice was made in good faith and where the other party has not been prejudiced thereby” … .

Here, there is no indication in the record that the accident date listed in the notice of claim and the complaint was set forth in bad faith … . Rather, the plaintiff’s mistake was based upon her reliance on a police report that incorrectly listed the accident date … . Moreover, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the proposed amendment to the accident date was purely technical in nature and did not substantively change the nature of the claim … .

Furthermore, the record does not reflect that the defendants will be prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay in moving for leave to amend the notice of claim. Under the circumstances of this case, including that the plaintiff received medical assistance at the accident site, that specific details regarding the circumstances of the accident, including the accident location and bus route, were set forth in a police report and the notice of claim, and that the plaintiff’s error in listing an accident date several days prior to the actual date of the accident was minimal, the defendants could have ascertained the date of the accident “with a modicum of effort” … . Hernandez v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 03312, Second Dept 5-4-25

Practice Point: Here the wrong accident-date was included in the notice of claim and the plaintiff moved to amend the notice. Because the wrong date was not used in bad faith (the date was taken from the police report) and because the city was not prejudiced by the error, plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE BANK’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT RULE REQUIRING THAT A MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank’s failure to comply with Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rule 8, which requires the bank to file a motion for judgment of foreclosure withing one year of entry of the order of reference, warranted dismissal of the action:

“Rule 8 requires a plaintiff in a foreclosure action to file a motion for a judgment of foreclosure within one year of entry of the order of reference” … . “Where the plaintiff offers an excuse for its failure to comply with Rule 8, ‘[t]he determination of whether [the] excuse is reasonable is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court'” … . “Reversal is warranted ‘if that discretion is improvidently exercised'” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for failure to comply with Rule 8. The order of reference was entered on August 28, 2012, * * * [and] the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse as to why [the bank] did not move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale prior to August 28, 2013. Contrary to the court’s determination, the failure to comply with Rule 8 is a sufficient ground upon which to dismiss a foreclosure action … . Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v Kahan, 2025 NY Slip Op 03354, Second Dept 6-4-25

Practice Point: Here the bank’s failure to comply with a Kings County Supreme Court Uniform Civil Term Rule warranted dismissal of the foreclosure action.

 

, ,

NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY INVOLVED SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR WEAPONS; THEREFORE THE PROBATION CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT SUBMIT TO SEARCHES OF HIS PERSON, VEHICLE AND HOME WAS STRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, striking a probation condition, determined (1) the requirement that defendant submit to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle and home was not appropriate, and (2) the challenge to the probation condition survived defendant’s waiver of appeal:

Defendant’s challenge to the condition of probation requiring that he consent to warrantless searches of his person, vehicle, and home survives the appeal waiver … . “Defendant was not under the influence of any substance or armed with a weapon when he committed the crime of which he was convicted, and he had no history of offenses involving substance abuse or weapons” … . Accordingly, the consent-search condition was not necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life ( … see Penal Law § 65.10[1]), or reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation (see Penal Law § 65.10[2][l]), rendering the condition improperly imposed … . People v Avila, 2025 NY Slip Op 03286, First Dept 6-3-25

Practice Point: Where a defendant’s criminal history does not involve drugs or weapons, requiring defendant to submit to warrantless searches as a condition of probation is not supported.

 

, ,

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.

 

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