You are here: / Judges
, , , ,

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.

 

, ,

GIVING THE CORRECT “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE” JURY INSTRUCTION THREE TIMES WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER WHO ALLEGEDLY SHOT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF A POLICE OFFICER’S DISCIPLINARY RECORD (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined: (1) although the judge accurately instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence three times, the judge failed to acknowledge the erroneous instruction, requiring reversal; (2) the judge should have allowed cross-examination of a police officer about a civil case in which the officer was alleged to have shot the plaintiff after plaintiff was subdued; and (3) the judge should have granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record:

Notwithstanding that the court instructed the trial jury accurately and at length with regard to the presumption in its preliminary instructions, in another instruction at a break in the testimony of the first witness, and in its closing instructions, the court did not satisfy the requirement, clearly enunciated in People v Harrison (85 NY2d 891 [1995]), that “to obviate an erroneous instruction upon a material point, it must be withdrawn in such explicit terms as to preclude the inference that the jury might have been influenced by it” … . A withdrawal in explicit terms cannot be accomplished without acknowledging the erroneous instruction, identifying the error, and providing a correct instruction … .

… [T]he court improvidently exercised its discretion, under the standard set forth in People v Smith (27 NY3d 652 [2016]), in not permitting cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a civil suit, in which a testifying police officer in the present case was a defendant alleged to have shot the plaintiff in the leg in that case after he was subdued by police officers. The existence of the suit provided a “good faith basis for inquiring,” and the allegations of excessive force were “relevant to the credibility of the law enforcement witness” … . In light of the principle “that the right of cross-examination is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process” … , the seriousness of the allegation that the officer accidentally shot a [*2]suspect in the leg was sufficient to allow inquiry into the facts underlying the lawsuit.

… [T]he court should have granted defendant’s motion pursuant to People v Gissendanner (48 NY2d 543 [1979]) to the extent of conducting an in camera review of the officer’s disciplinary record, rather than forbidding all cross-examination regarding the allegations in an underlying civil suit. … The defendant’s motion should be granted when the defendant “put[s] forth in good faith . . . some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping for straws” … . Here, defendant alleged that the officer inflicted pain on him by twisting his wrist when he was already subdued, and the defense learned of two lawsuits in which the officer was alleged to have engaged in similar conduct. People v Fishbein, 2025 NY Slip Op 02996, First Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for (1) the procedure for correcting an erroneous jury instruction, (2) the criteria for allowing the cross-examination of a police officer about a civil suit in which it is alleged the officer shot the plaintiff, and (3) the criteria for granting a motion to conduct an in camera review of a police officer’s disciplinary record.

 

, ,

BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO HOLD A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED; ON REMITTAL THE PEOPLE SHOULD PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE REQUEST TO DEFENSE COUNSEL AND, TO FACILITATE ANY REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED REVIEW, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, vacating the protective order and remitting the matter, determined the County Court failed to hold the hearing which is required where defense counsel did not consent to the issuance of a protective order. The Third Department offered guidance on how the further proceedings should be conducted, i.e., defense counsel should be given advanced written notice of the request for a protective order (a motion by order to show cause), and, to facilitate an expedited review, defense counsel should be provided with a copy of the protective order:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70 (3), “[u]pon request for a protective order, unless the defendant voluntarily consents to the people’s request for a protective order, the court shall conduct an appropriate hearing within three business days to determine whether good cause has been shown.” Here, it is undisputed that defense counsel did not consent to the People’s proposed protective order for the disputed materials…. . …

… [I]t is true that, under certain circumstances and in an appropriate case, CPL 245.70 (1) permits a court to conduct ex parte proceedings and accept in camera submissions. … “[T]he better practice, in most cases, would be for the People to provide the defendant with advanced written notice, by way of motion brought on by order to show cause, that certain information had not been disclosed and a protective order was being sought under CPL 245.70” … . Proceeding in this manner would “allow defense counsel to see the portions of the People’s written application that contained legal argument or other matter that would not reveal the information sought to be covered by the protective order” … , and ensure that defense counsel has a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing to the fullest extent practicable. …

… [R]ecognizing that CPL 245.70 (6) provides an opportunity for expedited review of a protective order by a Justice of the Appellate Division, “within two business days of the adverse or partially adverse ruling,” the party seeking such expedited review should be provided a copy of the subject order. While the papers submitted in support of the People’s application for a protective order and the hearing transcript may be appropriately sealed to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information … , the same does not hold true for the protective order itself. That said, in drafting a protective order, the court should be mindful not to discuss the protected materials or include confidential information that would obviate the basis for granting the protective order or sealing the documents and materials considered. People v Murphy, 2025 NY Slip Op 02975, Third Dept 5-15-25

Practice Point: Where defense counsel does not consent to a protective order, the statute requires the judge to conduct a hearing. Failure to hold the hearing requires vacation of the protective order.

Practice Point: The better practice is to notify defense counsel of the request for a protective order by a motion brought by an order to show cause.

Practice Point: Defense counsel who seeks an expedited review should be provided with a copy of the protective order.

 

,

FATHER’S PETITIONS FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY RAISED FACTUAL QUESTIONS REQUIRING A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court and remitting the case for a hearing, determined father’s petitions for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed without a hearing:

… Family Court improperly dismissed, without a hearing, the father’s amended modification petition and violation petition. Contrary to the court’s determination, the father’s assertions, which were supported by the requisite threshold evidentiary showing, demonstrated factual issues so as to require a hearing on the issue of whether the existing parental access arrangement continued to serve the child’s best interests … . Among other things, the father sufficiently alleged that since the custody order was issued, he has achieved seven years of sobriety. Moreover, the father sufficiently alleged that the mother made a statement, which she does not deny making, with the intent or effect of estranging the child from, or creating resentment towards, the father in violation of the custody order. The issue of whether the intent or subsequent effect of the statement constituted a violation of the custody order should have been resolved at a hearing … . Matter of Sanna v Delong, 2025 NY Slip Op 02922, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Once again a Family Court ruling is reversed because a hearing was not held. Here, in petitions for a modification of custody, father cited his years of sobriety and a statement attributed to mother that she intended to estrange the child from father. That was enough to warrant a hearing on the petitions.

 

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