You are here: / Judges
, ,

PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined petitioner, who is not related to the child, did not have standing by equitable estoppel to seek custody of or visitation with the child. The evidence did not demonstrate the relationship between petitioner and the child rose to the level of parenthood:

While the record contains evidence suggesting that petitioner and the child had an ongoing relationship throughout the child’s formative years, the record does not support the idea that disrupting such a relationship would be harmful to the child’s best interests. Petitioner never lived with the child or assumed any financial responsibilities for her. Although petitioner credibly testified that the child visited her frequently during the first three years of the child’s life, there was no evidence that petitioner consistently cared for the child or that the child looked upon petitioner as a parental figure.

… [T]here was evidence that the child did not recognize or view petitioner as parental figure … . From the child’s perspective, the only other parent she knew, aside from respondent, the child’s biological mother, was the mother’s companion, whom she regarded as her father and with whom she reported having a close, bonded relationship with, undercutting petitioner’s equitable estoppel claim … . Matter of April B. v Relisha H., 2025 NY Slip Op 00782, First Dept 2-11-25

Practice Point: To demonstrate standing to bring a custody petition by equitable estoppel, the petitioner must demonstrate a relationship with the child which rises to the level of parenthood, not the case here.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW ARGUMENT RAISED FIRST IN REPLY; THE HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT OVER THE PARKING LOT, NOT THE OWNER OF THE PARKING LOT, IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE LOT FREE OF ICE AND SNOW, NOTWITHSTANDING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EASEMENT HOLDER AND THE OWNER IN WHICH THE OWNER AGREED TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined (1) Supreme Court should not have considered a new argument raised for the first time in reply, and (2) defendant, as the holder of an easement over the parking lot, was primarily responsible for keeping the lot free of ice and snow, notwithstanding the terms of a “parking agreement” between defendant and the owner of the lot in which the owner agreed to remove ice and snow from the lot:

… [T]he court improperly granted the motion based on an argument advanced for the first time in reply [i.e., the existence of the “parking agreement”]. The function of reply papers is “to address arguments made in opposition to the position taken by the movant and not to permit the movant to introduce new arguments in support of, or new grounds [or evidence] for the motion” … . * * *

We agree with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that the duty of an easement holder “is the same as that owed by a landowner” and is nondelegable (Sutera v Go Jokir, Inc., 86 F3d 298, 308 [2d Cir 1996] …). We therefore conclude that defendant’s “duty to exercise reasonable care toward third parties making use of the parking lot subject to the easement, once established, is not abrogated by a covenant on the part of the servient owner[, i.e., the nonparty owner of 875 East Main Street,] to clear ice and snow from the lot. The general rule that a servient owner may assume duties of maintenance, while undoubtedly relevant as between dominant and servient owners, does not apply when the rights of injured third parties are implicated,” as in the case here … . The fact that the nonparty owner of 875 East Main Street may also have had a duty to maintain the parking lot does not serve to insulate defendant from liability to plaintiff. Otero v Rochester Broadway Theatre League, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-7-25

Practice Point: An argument based on new evidence first presented in reply should not have been considered by the court.​

Practice Point: Here the holder of the easement over the parking lot, as opposed to the owner of the parking lot, was primarily responsible for the removal of ice and snow.

 

 

,

HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, determined Family Court did not have statutory authority to place mother, who was not a respondent in the neglect proceeding, under the supervision of the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) and direct that she cooperate with ACS. The neglect proceedings were brought against father (respondent), who did not live with the mother and child. Mother, a “nonrespondent,” was not a party in the neglect proceedings and the child had not been removed from her home:

This appeal presents this Court with the opportunity to decide an issue of first impression in New York involving the rights of nonrespondent parents in child neglect proceedings, to wit: whether the Family Court may place a nonrespondent custodial parent under the supervision of … [ACS] and the court, and direct the parent to cooperate with ACS in various ways, in circumstances where the respondent parent resides elsewhere and the child has not been removed from the nonrespondent parent’s home. Considering, inter alia, the well-established “interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” … and the lack of any statutory authority permitting the challenged directives, we answer this question in the negative. Therefore, we conclude that, in this case, the Family Court improperly placed the mother under the supervision of ACS and the court, and directed her to cooperate with ACS in certain respects. * * *

… [T]he relevant provisions of Family Court Act § 1017 apply only when a court orders the removal of a child from his or her home and releases the child to the home of a nonrespondent and “noncustodial parent” … . By the plain language of the statutory text, the provisions requiring the nonrespondent parent … to “submit[ ] to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the child” and “to cooperate” with “the child protective agency” in various ways … are only triggered “[a]fter [the] child is removed from the home” … . Here, since the court never “determin[ed] that [the] child must be removed from . . . her home” … , it did not have authority pursuant to Family Court Act § 1017 to impose the challenged directives upon the mother, no matter how “well-intended” the court’s “goals” may have been … . Matter of Sapphire W. (Kenneth L.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00662, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court did did not have the authority to place mother, who was not a party to the neglect proceedings against father, under the supervision of ACS.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO APPEAR IN THE CUSTODY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING AND MADE FINDINGS OF FACT; CUSTODY ORDER VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined father’s motion to vacate the custody order should have been granted. Despite father’s failure to appear in this custody proceeding, Family Court should have held a hearing and made findings of fact in support of awarding custody to mother:

“Although the determination of whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court, the law favors resolution on the merits in child custody proceedings” … . In addition, the court’s authority to proceed by default “in no way diminishes the court’s primary responsibility to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child’s best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors” … . “A custody determination, whether made upon the default of a party or not, must always have a sound and substantial basis in the record” … .

Here, the Family Court made a custody determination without a hearing and without making any specific findings of fact regarding the best interests of the child. Matter of Riera v Ayabaca, 2025 NY Slip Op 00661, Second Dept 2-5-25

Practice Point: Although Family Court can proceed by default in a custody matter, a hearing and findings of fact are necessary.

 

, ,

“MOLINEUX” EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY THREATENED HIS WIFE WITH A HANDGUN FOR PERCEIVED INFIDELITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT POSSESSED A HANDGUN WITH THE INTENT TO USE IT AGAINST HIS STEPCHILDREN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED; THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO FILE A REDUCED ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT AFTER THE JUDGE REDUCED THE CHARGE IN COUNT 3 REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THAT COUNT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined that the judge’s Molineux ruling was an error requiring reversal and the People’s failure to file an amended accusatory instrument after the judge reduced the charge required dismissal of the related count:

… [T]he charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is based on allegations that defendant possessed a handgun with the intent to use it unlawfully against his stepchildren, and the People sought to admit the evidence of defendant’s “systematic abuse” of his wife to show defendant’s motive, intent, absence of mistake, and identity in this case. The evidence, however, is not directly relevant to motive. The evidence of defendant’s past conduct demonstrated a pattern of threatening his wife with the gun for perceived infidelity, but it did not complete a narrative that would explain or support defendant’s sudden aggression against his stepchildren … . The evidence also is entirely unnecessary to establish defendant’s intent. Mere possession of a firearm is “presumptive evidence of intent to use [it] unlawfully against another” (Penal Law § 265.15 [4]). Further, there is no question whether defendant’s alleged actions were the result of accident or mistake … , and defendant’s identity is not at issue.

Moreover, even if the evidence is relevant to an exception under Molineux, the court abused its discretion in determining that its probative value outweighed its potential for prejudice … . Evidence that defendant previously threatened his wife with a gun showed that defendant ” ‘had allegedly engaged in similar behavior on a prior occasion . . . —classic propensity evidence’ ” … . It is ” ‘of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to [defendant]’ and therefore should not have been admitted” … .

… [B]efore jury selection and at the People’s request, the court reduced the charge in count 3 of the indictment from criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree … to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree … . The People thereafter failed to file a reduced or amended accusatory instrument. Inasmuch as ” ‘[a] valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution’ ” … , count 3 of the indictment must be dismissed … . People v Alexander, 2025 NY Slip Op 00539, Fourth Dept 1-31-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear demonstration of when evidence of a prior bad act which is similar to the charged offense should be excluded because the prejudice outweighs the probative value.

Practice Point: If the judge grants the People’s request to reduce a charge prior to jury selection, the People must file a reduced accusatory instrument. Failure to do so requires dismissal of the related count in the indictment.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IN THIS ARSON/MURDER CASE REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s arson, murder and reckless endangerment convictions, determined the trial judge should have given the circumstantial evidence instruction to the jury:

“It is well settled that a trial court must grant a defendant’s request for a circumstantial evidence charge when the proof of the defendant’s guilt rests solely on circumstantial evidence . . . By contrast, where there is both direct and circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, such a charge need not be given” … . …[T]his was not a case with ” ‘both direct and circumstantial evidence of . . . defendant’s guilt,’ ” which would negate the need for a circumstantial evidence charge … . Indeed, none of the evidence presented at trial “prove[d] directly a disputed fact without requiring an inference to be made” … .

Further, this is not “the exceptional case where the failure to give the circumstantial evidence charge was harmless error” … . Although ” ‘overwhelming proof of guilt’ cannot be defined with mathematical precision” … , it necessarily requires more evidence of guilt than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If that were not so, all errors would be harmless in cases where the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence … .

Here, the strongest evidence linking defendant to the crime is the video surveillance recording. As noted, that video, which is grainy and shot from a distance, depicts a flickering or glow as defendant exits the premises, which promptly grows into a blaze as defendant walks away. There is no way to discern from the video the exact moment that the fire is set or precisely how the fire began. “In order for the jury to find defendant guilty it had to make a number of logical leaps connecting defendant to the crimes charged. Had the trial court given the circumstantial evidence charge, alerting the jury of the need to exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” we conclude that the verdict may have been different … . People v Exford, 2025 NY Slip Op 00536, Fourth Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: In this arson and murder case, the failure to give the circumstantial-evidence jury instruction warranted a new trial. The jury was required to make several “logical leaps,” based upon grainy video evidence showing defendant walking away from a building which caught fire, to convict.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, remitting the matter, determined the judge did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law when designating the defendant’s risk level under SORA:

In designating a sex offender’s risk level under SORA, “[t]he court shall render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Here, the court’s statement at the conclusion of the hearing “did not adequately set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it based its decision” to assess the points at issue on appeal and deny defendant’s motion for a downward departure … . Instead, the court simply stated: “The People have met their burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, that 135 points were properly assessed, which corresponds to a Level 3 sex offender designation. The motion for downward departure is denied.” The court’s written order repeated those statements. Therefore, we remand the matter to Supreme Court “to specify the required findings and conclusions, based on the evidence already introduced” … . People v Tolliver, 2025 NY Slip Op 00489, First Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: A judge’s designation of a defendant’s SORA risk level must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 

,

A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE MADE ANYTIME AFTER ISSUE IS JOINED; A JUDGE CANNOT REQUIRE THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE BEFORE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION CAN BE MADE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should have have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this rear-end collision case on the ground a note of issue had not been filed:

“CPLR 3212(a) provides that any party may move for summary judgment once issue has been joined. The court may ‘set a date after which no such motion may be made’ which must be at least 30 days after the filing of a note of issue (CPLR 3212[a]). The court has no authority to require the filing of a note of issue as a prerequisite to a motion for summary judgment, since CPLR 3212(a) clearly states that a motion for summary judgment may be made once issue has been joined” … . . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have denied Karen Jackson’s motion on that ground. Jackson v Islam, 2025 NY Slip Op 00438, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: A motion fore summary judgment can be made anytime after issue is joined. A judge cannot require that a note of issue be filed first.

 

, , ,

IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT, WHO HAD SERVED HIS SENTENCE FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES, REQUIRED CIVIL MANAGEMENT, HEARSAY BASED EXPERT EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE STATE AND EVIDENCE FROM ONE OF RESPONDENT’S VICTIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the jury’s finding that respondent did not suffer from a mental abnormality requiring civil management, determined that hearsay based expert evidence offered by the state, and evidence of violence and sexual offenses offered by one of respondent’s victims should not have been excluded:

… [T]he State’s expert should have been permitted to give hearsay basis testimony regarding a statement made to her by the respondent’s sexual abuse victim. “In article 10 trials, hearsay basis evidence is admissible if it satisfies two criteria. First, the proponent must demonstrate through evidence that the hearsay is reliable. Second, the court must determine that the probative value in helping the jury evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect” … . Here, the State established the reliability of this hearsay basis testimony since the respondent was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree with respect to this victim … .. Moreover, the probative value of this hearsay basis testimony in helping the jury evaluate the expert’s opinion testimony substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect … .

The Supreme Court also erred in precluding a certain witness from testifying at trial regarding violence and sexual offenses that the respondent allegedly committed against her. The witness’s proposed testimony, which was not hearsay … , was relevant to the issue of whether the respondent suffered from a mental abnormality … , and the probative value of such testimony outweighed its prejudicial impact, particularly since the State’s expert expressly considered this proposed testimony in forming her opinion that the respondent suffered from sexual sadism … . Matter of State of New York v Kevin W., 2025 NY Slip Op 00455, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: Hearsay based expert evidence is admissible in a Mental Hygiene Law Article civil-management 10 trial if it is reliable and if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.

 

, ,

THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO THE UNDERLYING OFFENSES; THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID; EVEN IF THE WAIVER WERE VALID THE IMPROPER PROBATION CONDITION COULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid and the probation condition allowing warrantless searches of defendant’s home, person and vehicle was not reasonable related to the underlying offenses. The court noted that defendant could appeal the probation condition even if the appeal waiver were valid:

We find defendant’s appeal waiver invalid and unenforceable because the court did not adequately explain the nature of the appellate rights defendant was waiving, that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea or the limited claims that survive an appeal waiver … . The written waiver of appeal defendant signed “[was] not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, and some acknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right” … .

Although defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was invalid, defendant’s sentence was not excessive. However, the special probation condition permitting warrantless searches of defendant’s home, person and vehicle was not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation since the crime of which defendant was convicted did not involve weapons or drugs … . Contrary to the People’s contention, a defendant’s challenge to the condition of probation requiring consent to searches of their person, vehicle and place of abode by a probation officer for drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons and contraband would have survived the appeal waiver had it not been invalid … . People v Amparo, 2025 NY Slip Op 00389, First Dept 1-23-25

Practice Point: A written appeal waiver does not cure deficiencies in the judge’s explanation of the forfeited rights.

Practice Point: A condition of probation which does not reasonably relate to the underlying offenses will be struck on appeal.

Practice Point: An improper probation condition can be appealed even if the error has not been preserved by objection.

 

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