You are here: / Judges
, , , ,

ISSUING A RULING BEFORE FATHER COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED THE PARTIES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge’s issuing a ruling awarding custody to father before father’s direct testimony had been completed violated due process:

The parties, as well as the attorney for the child, share the view that Family Court improperly ended the hearing before its completion, and we agree. At a hearing on an initial custody determination, due process requires that each party be provided a full and fair opportunity to be heard … . The parties must be permitted to present evidence on their own behalf and ” ‘cross-examine . . . key witness[es]’ ” … . Aside from due process considerations, a court’s “abrupt termination of the proceedings [may] preclude[ ] a meaningful best interests analysis, leaving the court . . . with insufficient information upon which to reach a reasoned conclusion” … .

Recognizing that this custody proceeding largely turned upon the credibility of the mother and the father, each of whom alleged that the other was an unfit parent, Family Court deprived both parties of a full and fair opportunity to be heard by inexplicably cutting off the father’s direct testimony and failing to allow any cross-examination of him. Further, given that the court granted the father sole legal and primary physical custody of the child in the face of the mother’s allegations that the father had committed numerous acts of domestic violence, including in front of the child, the court’s failure to allow cross-examination of the father deprived it of sufficient information to perform a meaningful best interests analysis … . Accordingly, we reverse and remit for a new fact-finding hearing … . Matter of Casey Q. v Jeffrey O., 2025 NY Slip Op 01981, Third Dept 4-3-25

Practice Point: Here in this child custody dispute, the judge issued a ruling awarding custody to father before father had completed his direct testimony. The premature ruling deprived the parties of due process of law.

 

, ,

THE POLICE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and dismissing the indictment, determined the police did not demonstrate the legality of the street stop which culminated in the pursuit of the defendant and the seizure of the firearm in defendant’s possession. The testimony of the arresting officer, Tofalli, at the suppression hearing was deemed unworthy of belief. Therefore the People did not meet their initial burden at the hearing, i.e., proving the legality of the police conduct:

“‘In order to justify police pursuit, the officers must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed'” … . Reasonable suspicion exists where there is a “quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man [or woman] under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand” … . “A suspect’s flight alone or in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might suggest a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit,” and “[p]ursuit is only authorized when flight is combined with circumstances indicating that the suspect might be engaged in criminal activity” … .

Here, the People failed to establish the legality of the police conduct in the first instance, as Tofalli’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and patently tailored to meet constitutional objections … . Tofalli’s testimony that when the defendant pulled up his pants he was able to see an “L-shape” outline in the defendant’s waistband while the initial target was standing two feet in front of the defendant directly between Tofalli and the defendant defies common sense and strains credulity. Moreover, Tofalli’s testimony was inconsistent with the notes he made in his memo book, arrest reports generated after the incident, and his testimony before the grand jury, none of which made any mention of the initial target … , and was further inconsistent with the recording obtained from Tofalli’s body-worn camera, which revealed that prior to his interaction with the initial target, the defendant was not touching his pants, and does not depict the defendant’s T-shirt tightening around an “L-shape” object. Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, we find Tofalli’s testimony unworthy of belief … . People v Black, 2025 NY Slip Op 01943, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The flight of the subject of a street stop, without some other indication of criminal activity, does not justify pursuit.

Practice Point: If the police testimony at the suppression hearing is not worthy of belief, the People have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate the legality of the police conduct. Suppression must be granted.

 

, ,

THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY WAS BASED ON A MISREPRESENTATION BY MOTHER AND WHETHER PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING PATERNITY BASED ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the petitioner was entitled to a hearing on the issues of whether petitioner’s (appellant’s) acknowledgment of paternity was procured by a misrepresentation by mother and, if so, whether the petitioner should be estopped from challenging the acknowledgment based on the best interests of the child. As is often the case in Family Court reversals, the failure to hold a hearing is the problem:

“Where . . . a party seeks to challenge an acknowledgment of paternity more than 60 days after its execution, Family Court Act § 516-a(b) requires the court to conduct a hearing to determine the issues of fraud, duress, or a material mistake of fact [in the execution of the acknowledgment of paternity] before ordering a [genetic marker test]” … . “In the event the court determines that a valid ground for vacatur of the acknowledgment exists, the issue of whether the petitioner should be estopped, in accordance with the child’s best interest, from vacating the acknowledgment of paternity, must [then also] be evaluated at a hearing” … . * * *

Here, the issue of the appellant’s paternity was not actually litigated in connection with the prior proceedings … . The Family Court’s findings … that the appellant, … would have been equitably estopped from seeking vacatur of the acknowledgment of paternity, were made without a hearing, during an appearance on the appellant’s petitions to modify custody and visitation, when, in response to the appellant raising the issue of his attempts to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, the attorney for the child indicated that the child viewed the appellant as her father. Thus, contrary to the court’s determination, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable … . Matter of Stephen B.J.B. v Marcia N.S.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 01921, Second Dept 4-2-25

Practice Point: The most frequent basis for Family Court reversals is the judge’s failure to hold a hearing before making a ruling.

 

, ,

THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE RESTITUTION WAS PUNISHMENT FOR WINNING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST TRIAL; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT VACATED THE RESTITUTION; ALSO, THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the restitution portion of the sentence, determined the presumption of vindictiveness had not been overcome. The defendant had won an appeal requiring a second trial. Defendant argued that the restitution in the amount of $139,231.87 ordered after the second trial was punishment for the successful appeal. The Third Department also dismissed the murder second degree counts a inclusory concurrent courts of murder first degree:

“[T]o insure that trial courts do not impose longer sentences to punish defendants for taking an appeal, a presumption of vindictiveness generally arises when defendants who have won appellate reversals are given greater sentences after their retrials than were imposed after their initial convictions” … . * * *

… [T]he imposition of restitution after retrial did result in an enhanced sentence following defendant’s successful appeal, and, as a result, the presumption of vindictiveness arose … . However, the court failed to engage in any on-the-record examination of the objective reasons why an enhanced sentence must be imposed, other than finding that it was not vindictive to order defendant “to make financially whole the representatives of his victims,” facts that indisputably existed at the time of the initial sentencing … . * * *

While we observe that County Court may have not actually been seeking to punish defendant for exercising his right to appeal when it imposed restitution, it was nevertheless the court’s obligation to overcome the presumption of vindictiveness by placing the reasons for the enhanced sentence on the record, and, based upon its failure to do so, we are constrained to vacate this portion of defendant’s sentence … . People v Powell, 2025 NY Slip Op 01839, Second Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here ordering restitution as part of the sentence after the second trial raised a presumption that the restitution constituted “punishment” for defendant’s winning the appeal of the first trial. The sentencing court put nothing on the record to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness, so the restitution was vacated.

Practice Point: Here the murder second degree counts were dismissed as concurrent inclusory counts of murder first.

 

, , , , ,

FAMILY COURT LOST SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AFTER THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS DISMISSED; THEREFORE THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED THE CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed. Therefore the child’s placement in foster should not have been continued by the court. The First Department also noted that mother’s mental-health records from the period after the filing and after the dismissal of the neglect petition were improperly admitted:

We … find that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue R.C.’s foster care placement for the reasons articulated in Matter of Jamie J. (Michelle E.C.) (30 NY3d 275 [2017]), in which the Court of Appeals held that “Family Court’s jurisdiction terminates upon dismissal of the original neglect or abuse petition” … .

The “court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable, but may be raised at any stage of the action, and the court may . . . on its own motion . . . at any time, when its attention is called to the facts, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the action” … .

Here, once the neglect petition against the mother was dismissed, Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to continue the child’s temporary removal from the mother’s care and placement in foster care … . Accordingly, it should have immediately returned the child to the mother’s care and terminated the child’s foster care placement. It erred when it determined that it could hold permanency hearings based on the pending neglect petition against the putative father, since the child was not removed from his care, but from the mother’s. … Indeed, there is no evidence in the record that the child ever resided with the putative father and no indication that he ever sought custody of the child.

Furthermore, we find that the failure of Family Court to immediately return the child to the care of the mother after the dismissal of the neglect petition against her—as well as the subsequent protracted proceedings, including the dispositional hearing, which lasted nearly a year and a half—violated her due process rights … . Matter of R.C. (D.C.–R.R.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01859, First Dept 3-27-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court lost subject matter jurisdiction after the neglect petition against mother was dismissed and did not have the authority to continue the child’s placement in foster care.

Practice Point: The protracted proceedings after the dismissal of the neglect petition, during which the child remained in foster care, violated mother’s right to due process.

 

, , , ,

MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother, who was representing herself, was deprived of her right to due process in this termination of parental rights proceeding by “a confluence of factors:”

“A parent has a due process right to be present during proceedings to terminate parental rights”. Nonetheless, “[a] parent’s right to be present for fact-finding and dispositional hearings in proceedings to terminate parental rights is not absolute” … . “The child whose guardianship and custody is at stake also has a fundamental right to a prompt and permanent adjudication” … . “Thus, when faced with the unavoidable absence of a parent, a court must balance the respective rights and interests of both the parent and the child in determining whether to proceed” … .

Here … the mother was deprived of her due process right to be present in the proceedings seeking to terminate her parental rights. First, the Family Court determined to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence, even though she was proceeding pro se and had made representations to the court through her legal advisor that she had been directed to quarantine by her medical provider and was requesting an adjournment … . Notably, the record does not indicate that the mother had a history of failing to appear, nor did the court apparently rely on that factor in deciding to commence the hearing in the mother’s absence … .

Furthermore, when the hearing continued one week later, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s requests, among other things, for a copy of her own court-ordered psychiatric evaluation, which, at that point, was in evidence, and for additional time to obtain a court transcript and to consult with her legal advisor. Perhaps most significantly, the court abused its discretion in excluding the mother from the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing, without the issuance of a warning and with knowledge of the mother’s diagnoses contained in the psychiatric evaluation … . Thus, on both dates of the hearing, the mother was left without an advocate … . Matter of Justina C. M. J. (Chantilly J.), 2025 NY Slip Op 01805, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here mother was denied the right to be present in the termination-of-parental-rights proceeding, was denied access to evidence and her request for an adjournment to consult with her legal advisor was denied. Cumulatively mother was denied her right to due process.

 

,

THE JUDGE, IN RENDERING THE VERDICT, STATED THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PROVEN HE WAS FRAMED AND THEREFORE WAS GUILTY; THAT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENDANT, REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the court, in rendering its verdict, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant:

… Supreme Court, in rendering its verdict, impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant asserted at trial that he had been framed by the police. In delivering its verdict, the court ruled that “the credible testimony before me does not persuade this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant was in fact framed. And that being so . . . I find [the] defendant guilty.” The court’s finding “reverses the constitutionally required principles that the defense bears no burden and that it is the prosecution that must introduce evidence sufficient to persuade the fact finder, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt” … . People v Steward, 2025 NY Slip Op 01825, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: Here the judge, in rendering the verdict, stated the defendant was found guilty because the defendant had not proven he was framed. Shifting the burden of proof to the defendant required reversal and a new trial.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HOLD A COMPETENCY HEARING IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATED PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 730; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, ordering a reconstruction hearing on the defendant’s competence to stand trial, determined that the judge had not followed the procedures mandated by Criminal Procedure Law article 730:

“Article 730 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the procedures courts of this State must follow in order to prevent the criminal trial of [an incompetent] defendant” … . The CPL expressly provides that “[w]hen the examination reports submitted to the court show that the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous in their opinion as to whether the defendant is or is not an incapacitated person . . . the court must conduct a hearing to determine the issue of capacity” (CPL 730.30[4] …).. “That section is mandatory and not discretionary” … .

Here, once the Supreme Court made a threshold determination that the defendant’s conduct warranted an examination, it should have followed the procedures mandated by CPL article 730. The failure to comply with the statute deprived the defendant of the right to a full and fair determination of his mental capacity to stand trial … . We find, however, that the requirements of CPL article 730 can be satisfied by a reconstruction hearing … .  People v Petty, 2025 NY Slip Op 01824, Second Dept 3-26-25

Practice Point: If the court orders a psychiatric examination to determine whether defendant is an incapacitated person and the psychiatric examiners are not unanimous, the court must conduct a hearing on the issue of capacity.​

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WAS NEGLIGENT IN PLACING HIM IN A ROOM WITH A PERSON WITH COVID; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THAT PERSON’S MEDICAL RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHEN THE HOSPITAL BECAME AWARE OF THE COVID DIAGNOSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to discovery of another’s medical records. Plaintiff alleged the hospital was negligent in placing plaintiff in a room with a person with COVID. The sought medical records may reveal when the hospital became aware of the COVID diagnosis:

Although “discovery determinations rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, the Appellate Division is vested with a corresponding power to substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court, even in the absence of abuse” … . CPLR 3101 (a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof.” “What is material and necessary is left to the sound discretion of the lower courts and includes any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … .

Pursuant to CPLR 4504 (a), “a person authorized to practice medicine . . . shall not be allowed to disclose any information which [they] acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable [them] to act in that capacity.” The physician-patient privilege may be overcome, however, where the plaintiff establishes that the information in the medical records is material and necessary to their claim … . Here, plaintiffs established that the nonparty patient’s hospital records would show when defendant, its agents, servants and employees became aware that the patient had tested positive for COVID-19 and that such information is material and necessary to establish whether defendant had notice that it was placing plaintiff in the same room as a person who had COVID-19 … . Martin v Kaleida Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01756, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery of another’s medical records because the records were “material and necessary to the prosecution of the action.”

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED CONDITIONS ON MOTHER’S VISITATION; MATTER REMITTED FOR A SPECIFIC VISITATION SCHEDULE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined the judge should not have placed conditions on mother’s visitation and remitted the matter for a visitation schedule:

We agree with the mother … that the court erred in conditioning her visitation upon either her participation in domestic violence counseling or that she no longer reside with her husband … . We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Family Court to fashion a specific and definitive schedule for visitation, if any, between the mother and the children. Matter of Seeley-Sick v Allison, 2025 NY Slip Op 01747, Fourth Dept 3-21-25

Practice Point: Conditioning mother’s visitation on domestic violence counseling or on no longer resided wither her husband was deemed improper. Mother was entitled to a specific visitation schedule.​

 

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