You are here: / Judges
, ,

A MINOR INJURY TO ONE CHILD BY ANOTHER WHILE MOTHER WAS NAPPING NEARBY, AND A SUBSEQUENT VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE POLICE, DID NOT AMOUNT TO NEGLECT BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the single incident in which one child injured another while mother was napping and a subsequent verbal argument with the police did not amount to neglect:

Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a minor accident involving two of the children while the mother was napping constituted neglect. The agency’s proof that the brother had a minor injury to his neck after an isolated incident did not establish that the child’s mental or emotional condition was impaired or in imminent danger of being impaired as a result of the incident, or that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care … . Indeed, the brother was without any visible injury shortly after the incident. Nor did the incident cause any impairment or imminent danger to the daughter or to the baby, who was asleep in the next room. Although an isolated accidental injury may constitute neglect if the parent was aware of an intrinsically dangerous situation … , there is no evidence that the mother’s napping while the children were in close proximity and within earshot was intrinsically dangerous.

Similarly, Family Court’s finding that the mother’s interaction with the police in any respect rose to the level of neglect is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. A verbal argument with a police officer did not pose any serious or potentially serious harm to the infant child, who was the only child with her at that time … . Matter of Rebecca F. (Danequea J.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00042, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: One child inflicted a minor injury on another while mother was napping nearby. Subsequently mother argued with the police when she was not allowed back in the apartment to get her cell phone charger. These incidents did not support Family Court’s neglect finding.

 

, , , ,

REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the removal of the children from mother’s care without notice violated mother’s due process rights. In addition, the evidence did not support the removal:

… [P]ursuant to a dispositional order, the children were released to their mother’s care with ACS [Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services] supervision. ACS moved pursuant to Family Court Act § 1061 to extend the period of supervision. Family Court violated the mother’s due process rights when, on the return date of the motion, it sua sponte removed the children without giving the mother notice or an opportunity to be heard and, at a later hearing, effectively imposed upon the mother the burden of showing that the removal was unwarranted … . There was nothing in the language of the agency’s motion to put the mother on notice that the children might be removed from her care on the return date, and the record demonstrates that the mother was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue … . Moreover, the agency maintained that it was in the children’s best interests to remain with the mother, and the children’s attorney supported the agency’s position.

Furthermore, Family Court’s decision to continue the children’s placement in the agency’s care until the next placement hearing was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record …  Contrary to the court’s conclusion, neither the initial neglect petition nor the order to show cause alleged that the mother used illicit substances or was impaired while taking care of the children. Moreover, during the 10-month period of supervision in 2023—2024, the mother submitted to at least three random drug screenings and tested negative for all illicit substances. When the mother underwent an evaluation by a credentialed alcohol and substance abuse counselor on February 1, 2024, she was not found to need any drug treatment services. Matter of E.I. (Eboniqua M.), 2025 NY Slip Op 00022, First Dept 1-2-25

Practice Point: Here removal of the children from mother’s care without prior notice to mother violated her due process rights. Removal was not supported by the evidence.

 

, ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the probation condition prohibiting defendant from using the subway, trains or buses for three years was not warranted because defendant did not commit the underlying crime on public transportation. The issue need not be preserved for appeal and survives a waiver of appeal:

The court improperly imposed, as a condition of probation, a requirement that defendant “[r]efrain from using or entering any Metropolitan Transportation Authority subway, train, bus, or other conveyance or facility for a period of up to three years.” Defendant did not commit the instant crime, or have a history of misconduct, on public transportation. Accordingly, the prohibition from using or entering any public transportation conveyance or facility was not reasonably related to defendant’s rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life … . Because this issue implicates the legality of the sentence imposed, it survives defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal and does not require preservation for appellate review … . People v Alvarez, 2024 NY Slip Op 06662, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: A probation condition which is not warranted by the underlying conviction or by defendant’s prior record may be reversed even if the issue has not been preserved and and/or appeal has been waived.

 

, ,

THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO AGREE TO SEARCHES OF HIS PERSON, VEHICLE AND RESIDENCE WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE CONVICTION (LEAVING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT); THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the probation condition requiring defendant to agree to searches of his person, residence and vehicle for drugs, weapons or contraband was not warranted by his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident. The issue need not be preserved for appeal:

… [T]he court improperly imposed, as a condition of probation, a requirement that defendant consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, or residence for illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, or contraband … . “Defendant was not under the influence of any substance or armed with a weapon when he committed the crime of which he was convicted” … , and he “had no history of violence or use of weapons” (People v Hall, 228 AD3d at 467). His single misdemeanor conviction for marijuana possession preceded the instant offense by nearly a decade … . Thus, the consent to search condition was not “‘reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so'” … . We note that defendant’s challenge to the conditions of his probation did not require preservation … and would not be foreclosed even if the appeal waiver were valid … . People v Fernandez, 2024 NY Slip Op 06671, First Dept 12-31-24

Practice Point: A probation condition requiring that defendant agree to searches of his person, vehicle and residence must be warranted by the nature of the underlying conviction. The condition was not warranted for “leaving the scene of an accident.”​

 

, , ,

BEFORE HEARSAY CAN BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT FOR A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT, THE PEOPLE MUST ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION SUPPORTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and remitting the SORA risk-assessment proceeding, determined County Court should not have relied on hearsay to prove that the adult in a photograph depicting sexual activity between an adult and a child was the defendant. The case was remitted to allow the People the opportunity to establish a foundation for the reliability of the hearsay:

In assessing defendant 25 points under risk factor 2 for sexual contact with the victim, County Court relied upon a contested statement in the case summary made by an assistant district attorney to the author of the case summary. The assistant district attorney stated that defendant had possessed an image depicting him and his female relative engaged in sexual activity. The People concede, and we agree, that County Court improperly relied upon this hearsay, without making an inquiry into its reliability, in assessing 25 points under risk factor 2 for sexual contact with the victim. While the court found that the photographs depicted sexual activity between the child and an adult, it made no finding that defendant was that adult. The People therefore failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was any sexual contact between defendant and the victim … .

Although defendant argues that the remedy for the error is to subtract 25 points from risk factor 2 and, upon doing so, designate him a risk level one sex offender, we agree with the People that the more appropriate course is to remit the matter to the SORA court “to provide the District Attorney an opportunity to establish a foundation” supporting the hearsay’s reliability … . People v Davis, 2024 NY Slip Op 06632, Third Dept 12-26-24

Practice Point: The People must establish a foundation supporting the reliability of any hearsay relied upon by the court in a SORA risk-level assessment proceeding.​

 

, ,

HERE A SINGLE INCIDENT OF ALLEGED EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (GRABBING THE CHILD’S ARM AND SQUEEZING TIGHTLY) WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING; A NEGLECT FINDING CANNOT BE BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PETITION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court’s neglect finding and dismissing the petition, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Voutsinas, determined the evidence of a single incident of alleged excessive corporal punishment (grabbing the child’s arm and squeezing it tightly) was not enough. The Second Department further noted that a neglect finding cannot be based on allegations not included in the petition:

This appeal concerns a finding of neglect against a parent in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, based upon an alleged incident of excessive corporal punishment. This appeal does not present us with an opportunity to resolve a novel legal question. It does, however, provide us with an opportunity to provide some guidance with regard to when a single incident of excessive corporal punishment may be sufficient to support a finding of neglect. This appeal also presents us with the opportunity to emphasize that a finding of neglect must be based on evidence establishing the allegations set forth in the petition before the court. Absent additional allegations set forth in an amended petition that conforms to the proof with notice to the respondent, the court must not base a finding of neglect on allegations not set forth in the petition. * * *

The petition alleged, more specifically, that on or about June 7, 2021, the father had grabbed the child’s arm and squeezed it “really, really hard,” leaving “three circular, dark green marks” on the child’s shoulder, which appeared to be the size of finger prints.” The petition did not contain any allegations that the father had engaged in any other acts of aggression toward the child or regarding any misuse of alcohol. Matter of Elina M. (Leonard M.), 2024 NY Slip Op 06574, Second Dept 12-24-24

Practice Point: Consult this comprehensive opinion for a discussion of when a neglect finding can be based upon a single incident of alleged excessive corporal punishment.

 

, ,

THE GRAND JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” IN THE CONTEXT OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192 (4-A) (FELONY AGGRAVATED DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED); THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE DEFINITION OF “IMPAIRED” ADOPTED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s dismissal of the felony aggravated driving while intoxicated count, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Curran, determined the grand jury was properly instructed on the definition of “impaired.” The Fourth Department noted its disagreement with the Third Department on this issue:

… [T]he People correctly instructed the grand jury that the term “impaired” in the context of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4-a) is defined as the defendant’s consumption of a combination of drugs and alcohol to the point that it “has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which [the defendant] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” … .

In reaching that conclusion, we also note our respectful disagreement with the Third Department’s decision in People v Caden N. (189 AD3d 84 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1050 [2021]), which defined the term “impaired” in the context of drug consumption in accordance with the heightened standard typically applicable in cases of “intoxication” by alcohol … . Ultimately, we conclude that the term “impaired” should be defined consistently across the Vehicle and Traffic Law—whether in the context of impairment by alcohol or in the context of impairment by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol. * * *

… [T]he Court of Appeals, in Cruz, clearly defined the term “impaired” to mean—in the context of alcohol consumption—that a defendant “has actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which [they are] expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (48 NY2d [419] at 427 …). In defining “impaired” that way, the Court sharply distinguished the term “impaired” from the separate term “intoxication,” as used in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3), noting that the latter term denoted “a greater degree of impairment which is reached when [a] driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that [they are] incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which [they are] expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (Cruz, 48 NY2d [419] at 428). The Court concluded that the terms impaired and intoxicated are not interchangeable … . People v Dondorfer, 2024 NY Slip Op 06432, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: In the Fourth Department “impaired” in the context of felony aggravated driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104 (4-a)” means impairment “to any extent [of] the physical and mental abilities which [the defendant] is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” … .

 

, ,

A HANDGUN USED AS BLUDGEON IS A “DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A BURGLARY FIRST DEGREE COUNT; COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE CHARGE TO BURGLARY SECOND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court and reinstating the reduced count, determined the handgun with which the victim was allegedly struck was a “dangerous instrument” despite the fact it had not been fired. County Court had reduced the charge from Burglary first to Burglary second on the ground the handgun had not been shown to be a “dangerous instrument:”

The People were required to present competent evidence to the grand jury demonstrating that defendant or another participant in the crime used, or threatened the immediate use of, a dangerous instrument (see Penal Law § 140.30 [3]). A dangerous instrument is defined as “any instrument, article or substance . . . which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (§ 10.00 [13]).

At the grand jury hearing, the victim testified that three men entered her apartment and the first man who walked in had a gun. She further testified that, at one point, “the guy with the gun” became “more upset” and hit her “upside the head” with the gun.

It is well established that “a ‘gun [that is] used as a bludgeon’ is a dangerous instrument” … because it ” ‘is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury’ ” … . Here, County Court ruled that the evidence before the grand jury was legally insufficient to establish that the item used by defendant or another participant in the crime was a dangerous instrument because it was not discharged during the incident and there was no evidence that the item was recovered or tested. That was error. We agree with the People that they were not required to submit evidence that the item described by the victim as a gun was an operable or loaded firearm in order to meet the dangerous instrument element of the crime … . We further agree with the People that they were not required to prove that the victim suffered an injury but, rather, needed only to establish that “under the circumstances in which [the instrument, article, or substance was] used . . . or threatened to be used, [it was] readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury” (Penal Law § 10.00 [13] …). It is reasonable for a grand jury to infer that hitting the victim on the side of the victim’s head with a gun could cause serious physical injury. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to permit the inference that defendant or another participant in the crime used a dangerous instrument … . People v Delee, 2024 NY Slip Op 06491, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A handgun used as a bludgeon is a “dangerous instrument” within the meaning of the Penal Law and the Burglary First Degree statute. The People need not show the handgun was operable or that the victim suffered a serious injury.

 

, ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE CHARGES RELATING TO TWO SEPARATE MURDERS, COMMITTED NEARLY TWO YEARS APART, WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JURY WOULD HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY CONSIDERING SEPARATELY THE PROOF FOR EACH OFFENSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s murder convictions, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over two comprehensive dissenting opinions, determined the denial of defendant’s motion to sever the charges relating to two separate murders, committed nearly two years apart, was not error:

The first victim was the defendant’s roommate, who was found dead in their shared apartment in 2013 after a fire that occurred under circumstances that later raised questions about her cause of death. The second victim was a woman whom defendant had hired to go on a date with him in December 2014; her body was found in a shallow grave in May 2015. The defendant was arrested in 2017 … . * * *

Where counts have been joined under CPL 200.20 (2) (c), the CPL provides that the trial court has discretion to sever them if doing so would be “in the interest of justice and for good cause shown” (id. 200.20 [3]). This provision has its origins in a 1936 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure that allowed joinder of “two or more acts or transactions constituting crimes of the same or a similar character which are neither connected together nor parts of a common scheme or plan” … .

The statute specifies two situations that establish good cause: first, where there is “[s]ubstantially more proof on one or more such joinable offenses than on others and there is a substantial likelihood that the jury would be unable to consider separately the proof as it relates to each offense”; and second, where there is “[a] convincing showing that a defendant has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a genuine need to refrain from testifying on the other, which satisfies the court that the risk of prejudice is substantial” … . The statute expressly notes that good cause is not limited to these grounds … , and we have explained that “a defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial free of undue prejudice” must be protected when offenses are joined for trial … . …

… The defendant asserts that “the jury was incapable of considering the proof separately with respect to each offense” because the proof of each crime was “markedly different” and “dissimilar.” … [But] the key question is whether it would be difficult for the jury to consider separately the proof for each offense … . People v Mero, 2024 NY Slip Op 06385, CtApp 12-19-24

Practice Point: Consult this opinion, especially the extensive dissents, for a comprehensive discussion of the issues raised by trying a defendant for two unrelated murders, separated by years, in a single trial.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE PREJUDICED BY THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS WHICH DID NOT ALTERNATE THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES; THE FIRST QUESTION POSED TO THE JURY EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED THE JURORS FROM CONSIDERING THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the jury verdict and ordering a new trial in this Insurance Law 5102(d) “serious injury” case, determined the plaintiffs were prejudiced by the jury selection method used the trial judge, and the first question on the verdict sheet was improper because it effectively precluded the jury from considering the relevant question, whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury:”

The court’s failure to alternate the peremptory challenge process … placed plaintiffs in the untenable position of having to utilize a peremptory challenge for a prospective juror that may not have been necessary had defendants been required to go first. This error compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Plaintiffs further contend that Supreme Court erred by including the first question on the verdict sheet — i.e., “[h]ave the plaintiffs . . . established that the incident . . . was a substantial factor in causing [Mormile’s] injuries?” We agree.  The specific issue for the jury to resolve was whether, as a result of the subject accident, Mormile sustained a “serious injury” as set forth in question 2 on the verdict sheet (did Mormile “sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system”); question 3 (did Mormile “sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member”); question 4 (did Mormile “sustain a injury that resulted in a significant disfigurement”); and question 5 (did Mormile “suffer a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature . . . that prevented him from performing all of the material acts that constituted his usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the accident?”).

The first question effectively only asks whether there was probable cause to establish that Mormile’s injuries resulted from the accident (see PJI 2:70). Having answered “No” to that global question, the jury did not answer questions 2 through 5. In effect, the jury did not resolve the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether Mormile sustained a “serious injury” in the accident, as defined under each of the four distinct categories at issue … . Mormile v Marshall, 2024 NY Slip Op 06390, Third Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: Failure to alternate the peremptory challenges compromised the fairness of the jury selection process.

Practice Point: The first question on the verdict sheet effectively precluded the jury from considering the appropriate legal issue, i.e., whether plaintiff suffered a “serious injury” within the meaning of the Insurance Law.

 

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