You are here: / Judges
, , ,

THE BELATED TURNING OVER OF ROSARIO MATERIAL PREJUDICED THE DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the People’s belated turning over of Rosario material to the defense deprived defendant of a fair trial. The Rosario material consisted of notes taken by social workers describing the complainant’s therapy sessions. Defendant was prejudiced by the inability to adequately review the notes or to have an expert review them before the cross-examination of the complainant. The fact that the judge precluded the notes as a remedial measure was not helpful to the defendant:

… [D]efendant correctly contends that he is entitled to a new trial based on the People’s belated disclosure of certain notes between the complainant and social workers describing therapy sessions. The social workers were employed by the People, and their notes at all times had been in the People’s possession. The People must turn over to the defense any prior statements by a witness which relate to the subject matter of that witness’s testimony for use on cross-examination … . The material must be provided at a time when it can be useful to the defense … . When the late disclosure of Rosario material results in substantial prejudice to the defendant, a new trial is required … . Here, the defendant was substantially prejudiced by the late disclosure of these notes, as he was unable to sufficiently review the material or to retain an expert to do so. Moreover, the prejudice was not obviated by the remedial action taken by the Supreme Court, since the preclusion of the notes was not helpful to the defendant … . In light of the substantial prejudice to the defendant that resulted from the late disclosure of the Rosario material, a new trial is required … . People v Ibrahim, 2026 NY Slip Op 03687, Second Dept 6-10-26

Practice Point: The belated turning over of Rosario material deprived defendant of an adequate opportunity to review it before the cross-examination of the complainant warranting a new trial.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT CALL HER TREATING PHYSICIAN AS A WITNESS AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PHYSICIAN WAS UNAVAILABLE OR THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE CUMULATIVE; PLAINTIFF RELIED SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF A PSYCHIATRIST WHO FIRST SAW PLAINTIFF SIX YEARS AFTER THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A “MISSING WITNESS” JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; VERDICT SET ASIDE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, granting defendant’s motion to set aside the jury verdict and direct a new trial in this sidewalk slip and fall case, determined plaintiff’s failure to call her treating physician as a witness warranted the “missing witness” jury instruction. Plaintiff called only, Dr. Guy, a psychiatrist who saw plaintiff only a few times six years after the injury:

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she was walking on the sidewalk adjacent to defendant’s property when her foot became trapped in a hole, causing her to fall. At trial, plaintiff alleged that because of the accident, she suffered a cervical herniation that caused radiculopathy and required surgery. She further alleged that injuries to her knee and her lumbar spine would require future surgery.

The trial court should have given the jury a missing witness charge with regard to Dr. Jason Gallina, plaintiff’s treating physician and surgeon from the period beginning months after the accident until at least a year afterward. Dr. Gallina was the orthopedic surgeon who performed plaintiff’s cervical fusion surgery, and he was the doctor who allegedly recommended the lumbar surgery that plaintiff contended she would need in the future.

The law is well settled that a missing witness charge is warranted for the failure to call a treating physician as a witness at trial, unless the party opposing the inference shows that the witness is either unavailable or not under the party’s control, or that the witness’s testimony would be cumulative … . * * *

Although the burden was on plaintiff to show that Dr. Gallina was unavailable or not under her control, she made no such showing  … . … [T]he testimony from Dr. Gallina would not have been cumulative. Dr. Guy is a physiatrist, while Dr. Gallina is the orthopedic surgeon who performed plaintiff’s surgery. Encarnacion v St. Barnabas Hosp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03630, First Dept 6-9-26

Practice Point: The plaintiff in a personal injury action must call the treating physician as a witness or adequately explain the failure to do so. In the absence of an adequate explanation, the defendant is entitled to a “missing witness” jury instruction.​

 

, ,

THE ORAL COLLOQUY FOR THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS DEFECTIVE; THE DEFECT WAS NOT CURED BY THE WRITTEN WAIVER BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ASKED WHETHER HE READ OR UNDERSTOOD IT BEFORE SIGNING; DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT TO HAVING AN INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME WHEN HE ENTERED THE HOUSE, HE ADMITTED ONLY THE INTENT TO RETRIEVE HIS OWN PROPERTY; THE PLEA TO BURGLARY WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and he did not admit to an essential element of burglary, the intent to commit a crime upon entering:

… [W]e agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Supreme Court’s oral colloquy was overbroad inasmuch as the court told defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal marks the “end of the case.” Although the record establishes that defendant executed a written waiver of the right to appeal, the written waiver “does not cure the deficient oral colloquy because the court did not inquire of defendant whether he understood the written waiver or whether he had read the waiver before signing it” … .

Defendant contends that his plea is invalid because the plea allocution negated an element of the crime to which he pleaded guilty. As defendant acknowledges, he never moved to withdraw his plea, nor did he ever seek to vacate the judgment of conviction. This case, however, falls within the rare exception to the preservation requirement … . Burglary in the first degree requires that a person knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in a dwelling with the “intent to commit a crime therein” (Penal Law § 140.30). Here, defendant twice indicated during his factual allocution that he did not intend to commit any crimes when he entered the house in question and, while he admitted that he intended to retrieve his own property, retrieving one’s own property does not establish larcenous intent … . Although the court attempted to conduct an inquiry following defendant’s insistence that he did not intend to commit any crimes when he entered the house, such inquiry was insufficient … . The court therefore erred in accepting defendant’s guilty plea … . People v Small, 2026 NY Slip Op 03560, Fourth Dept 6-5-26

Practice Point: Re: a waiver of appeal, a defect in the oral appeal-waiver colloquy with the judge is not cured by a written waiver unless the defendant is asked whether he read and understood the written waiver before signing it.

Practice Point: Entering a home with the intent to retrieve one’s own property is not “burglary” because the entry was not accompanied by an intent to commit a crime.

 

, ,

A HEARING ON A DEFENDANT’S ELIGIBILITY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) CANNOT BE WAIVED AS A CONDITION OF A PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined defendant’s waiver of a hearing on whether he was eligible for an alternative sentence pursuant to the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) was invalid:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). As a condition of his plea, defendant waived his right to a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing to determine his eligibility for an alternative sentence under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act. Inasmuch as “section 60.12 hearings are not waivable as a condition of a plea agreement” … , we agree with defendant that this matter must be remitted for further proceedings, including a Penal Law § 60.12 hearing should defendant request one … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings…. . People v Jones, 2026 NY Slip Op 03527, Fourth Dept 6-5-26

Practice Point: A defendant cannot waive a hearing on eligibility for an alternative sentence pursuant to the DVSJA as a condition of a plea agreement. Here defendant’s sentence was vacated and the matter was remitted for a hearing if defendant requests it.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER, THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SINCE 2012, WAS ASKED TO RECERTIFY THE GUARDIANSHIP BY A NEW BANK WHICH TOOK OVER THE ACCOUNTS; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO CONTINUE THE TERMS OF THE 2012 ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, MODIFIED THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER ABSENT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY TO DO SO (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the justice presiding over this guardianship proceeding should not have “sua sponte” changed the terms of the existing guardianship absent a request from a party to do so. The appellate courts do not like “sua sponte” rulings. The petitioner was appointed guardian of the person and property of an incapacitated person in 2012. This proceeding was prompted by a new bank which took over the incapacitated person’s accounts and requested that petitioner “recertify” his guardianship status. Petitioner brought this proceeding to continue the terms of the original 2012 order:

… [P]etitioner [the contends that Supreme Court erred in modifying the terms of the guardianship. We find this contention to have merit. As petitioner was appointed guardian in 2012, there was no basis to appoint a temporary guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.23 [a]). Nor was there a basis to remove the guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35). Although a court may terminate or modify a guardian’s powers upon a showing that, “for some other reason, . . . the guardian is no longer necessary . . . or the powers of the guardian should be modified based upon changes in the circumstances of the incapacitated person” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36 [a] [4]), such application cannot be made sua sponte, but must “be made by the guardian, the incapacitated person, or any person entitled to commence a proceeding under this article” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36 [b] …). Nevertheless, when authorizing the powers that may be exercised by a guardian of the property, courts are to employ “the least restrictive form of intervention,” taking into consideration, among other things, the incapacitated “person’s wishes, preferences, and desires with regard to managing the activities of daily living” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21 [a]).

Here, there was no request before Supreme Court to modify the terms of the guardianship, as petitioner moved to continue the same terms of the original order to satisfy the requests of the new banking institution — specifically, petitioner’s access to “all bank accounts, annuity payments, entitlements and other financial resources in [respondent’s] possession or payable to her.” However, the order issued by Supreme Court failed to contain this language and otherwise did not conform to the requirements of the statute (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.15 [c]; 81.16). To the extent that this order is further interpreted as increasing the powers of the guardian by requiring petitioner to now pay certain monthly expenses that respondent already successfully handles on her own, we agree with petitioner that the record does not support this change as being the least restrictive form of intervention (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21 [a]). Accordingly, this portion of Supreme Court’s order must be reversed and vacated. Matter of Karissa W., 2026 NY Slip Op 03490, Third Dept 6-4-26

Practice Point: The decision illustrates the appellate courts’ disapproval of sua sponte rulings, i.e,, rulings which are not precipitated by a party’s motion.

 

, ,

DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DECEDENT’S WIFE’S FITNESS TO ADMINISTER THE ESTATE; SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE FACTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined the decedent’s daughter had raised questions of fact about whether decedent’s wife was fit to administer the estate. Surrogate’s Court should have held a hearing to determne the facts:

… [T]he wife, as the surviving spouse of the decedent, established prima facie entitlement to letters of administration pursuant to SCPA 1001. However, the daughter’s opposition papers raised triable issues of fact about the wife’s eligibility to serve as administrator. Her averments that the wife stole or destroyed a purported will of the decedent, neglected to pay the decedent’s bills, discarded estate property and engaged in misconduct in the administration of another estate, if credited, may constitute dishonesty or improvidence within the meaning of SCPA 707 (1). Finally, the considerable hostility between the parties, which led to an order of protection and other court proceedings, is undisputed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the daughter, and mindful that Surrogate’s Court is limited at this stage to identifying triable issues of fact, not resolving credibility or weighing the evidence, the daughter’s submissions were sufficient to create a factual dispute that required a hearing before determining the wife’s motion … . Accordingly, Surrogate’s Court erred in granting the wife’s motion for summary judgment granting her letters of administration and dismissing the daughter’s competing petition without first conducting a hearing to determine whether the wife is disqualified pursuant to SCPA 707. Matter of Kosier, 2026 NY Slip Op 03491, Third Dept 6-4-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a detailed explanation of the proper procedure when questions of fact about the honesty of a person seeking to be appointed administrator of an estate are raised.

 

,

DISMISSAL OF A MOTION BECAUSE THE PAPERS DID NOT INCLUDE A WORD-COUNT CERTIFICATION WARRANTED REVERSAL AND REMITTAL TO CONSIDER THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court’s denial of a motion because the papers failed to include a word-count certification warranted reversal a remittal to consider the merits of the motion:

The Supreme Court should have overlooked the appellants’ failure to submit a word count certification with their motion for summary judgment, as no substantial right of any party was prejudiced … . Accordingly, we reverse. Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion, we remit the matter … for a new determination on the merits of the motion. Hodges v 37-11 30th St., LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 03428, Second Dept 6-3-26

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, TERMINATED THE LEASE BASED ON ALLEGED NONPAYMENT; AND THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHICH GRANTED PLAINTIFF THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, terminated the lease and should not have issued a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff alleged defendant breached the lease and sought to enjoin defendant from using the land pending the outcome of the litigation:

The Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, declaring that the Lease Agreement terminated due to the defendant’s nonpayment of rent … . There was no motion for summary judgment before the court, and the court did not afford the parties notice of any intention to deem the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for leave to amend the complaint, as one, among other things, for summary judgment … .

… [A] preliminary injunction may not issue unless the moving party demonstrates a probability of success on the merits, a danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of equities in that party’s favor … . The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo pending a final determination in the action or proceeding … and “not to determine the ultimate rights of the parties” … . “[A]bsent extraordinary circumstances, a preliminary injunction will not issue where to do so would grant the movant the ultimate relief to which he or she would be entitled in a final judgment” … .

Here, the plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that the circumstances were of such an extraordinary nature to justify th[e] relief that was granted pending the resolution of the action” … . County of Nassau v NY Youth Sports Network, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03289, Second Dept 5-27-26

Practice Point: The appellate courts do not like “sua sponte” actions by a judge. Here the judge terminated the lease based on nonpayment in the absence of any motion requesting that relief.

Practice Point: A preliminary injunction which grants the ultimate relief sought by the plaintiff should only rarely be issued. Here the circumstances did not justify such extraordinary relief.

 

, ,

THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROMPTED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED TO BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT PROMISED PROBATION FOR A D FELONY; ONCE IT WAS CLEAR DEFENDANT MUST BE SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION, THE JUDGE GAVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, WHICH HE DECLINED TO DO; SENTENCE AFFIRMED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a two-judge dissent, affirming the Appellate Division, determined defendant’s guilty plea should not be vacated. Defendant unsuccessfully argued that the plea agreement had not been honored by the prosecutor. The plea agreement was unenforceable because it called for an illegal sentence—probation for a D felony. Once it was clear defendant must be sentenced to incarceration, the judge gave defendant the option of withdrawing his guilty plea, which he declined to do. The opinion is fact-intensive and cannot be fairly summarized here. People v Flesch, 2026 NY Slip Op 03258, CtApp 5-26-26

 

, ,

IF A JUDGE DIRECTS THAT A PROPOSED JUDGMENT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED ON NOTICE, THE JUDGMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE WITHIN 60 DAYS OR THE MATTER WILL BE DEEMED ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; HERE, HOWEVER, THE JUDGE DID NOT DIRECT THAT THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT BE SUBMITTED ON NOTICE, SO 22 NYCRR 202.48 AND THE 60-DAY DEADLINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs did not abandon the action by failing to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days of the inquest awarding damages to plaintiffs after defendants’ default. The 60-day deadline is only triggered when a judge directs the order to be settled or submitted on notice, not the case here:

On January 26, 2022, after an inquest, the court awarded the plaintiffs $188,560 in damages as against both defendants. The plaintiffs did not submit a proposed judgment until November 2022.

Thereafter, the defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48 to dismiss the complaint as abandoned. In an order dated April 29, 2024, the Supreme Court … granted that branch of the motion. …

“Proposed orders or judgments, with proof of service on all parties where the order is directed to be settled or submitted on notice, must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]; see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367 …). “Failure to submit the order or judgment timely shall be deemed an abandonment of the motion or action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48[b]). “However, 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice” … . Here, since the Supreme Court did not direct that a judgment based on its decision after the inquest be settled or submitted on notice, the plaintiffs were not required to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.48 … . Rosenberg v Tool Time Constr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 03192, Second Dept 5-20-26

Practice Point: If the judge does not direct that a proposed judgment be submitted on notice, 22 NYCRR 202.48, which requires that the judgment be submitted for signature within 60 days, does not apply.

 

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