You are here: / Judges
, ,

PLAINTIFF PREVAILED IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; HOWEVER, ABSENT A CONTRACT PROVISION, OR A STATUTE OR COURT RULE ALLOWING THE AWARD, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should not have been awarded attorney’s fees in this breach of contract action because the contract did not so provide:

“New York follows the general rule that attorney’s fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute, or court rule” … . “It is not uncommon, however, for parties to a contract to include a promise by one party to hold the other harmless for a particular loss or damage and counsel fees are but another form of damage which may be indemnified in this way” … . “When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … .

Here, the contract did not provide for the recovery of attorneys’ fees that resulted from the instant litigation, and the plaintiff failed to establish that a statute or court rule would entitle her to an award of attorneys’ fees. Wolf v Vestra SPV3, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06232, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: The general rule in New York is, absent a contract provision or a statute or court rule allowing the award of attorney’s fees, the winner of a lawsuit cannot collect attorney’s fees from the loser.

 

,

A CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHICH DOES NOT STATE THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WOULD BE THE BASIS OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IS INEFFECTIVE AND CAN BE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the conditional order of dismissal should have be vacated because it did not indicate that plaintiff’s failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would be the basis for a motion to dismiss:

“‘CPLR 3216 permits a court, on its own initiative, to dismiss an action for want of prosecution where certain conditions precedent have been complied with'” … . Pursuant to CPLR 3216(b), an action cannot be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216(a) “‘unless a written demand is served upon the party against whom such relief is sought in accordance with the statutory requirements, along with a statement that the default by the party upon whom such notice is served in complying with such demand within said ninety day period will serve as a basis for a motion by the party serving said demand for dismissal as against him for unreasonably neglecting to proceed'” … .

Here, the conditional dismissal order did not contain the requisite language advising that the failure to file a note of issue would be the basis for a motion to dismiss … . Under these circumstances, the action should have been restored to the active calendar without considering whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for its delay in moving to vacate the conditional dismissal order … . Wells Fargo Bank v Wasersztrom, 2024 NY Slip Op 06231, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A conditional order of dismissal for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR must include a statement that the failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would be the basis for a motion to dismiss the complaint. If that language is not in the conditional order, the order may be vacated.​

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD ALLEGATIONS WHICH MERELY AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend the notice of claim in this traffic accident case should have been granted to the extent the amendment merely amplified the allegations in the original notice. By contrast, the attempts to amend the notice by adding new theories of liability were properly denied. Plaintiff, a police officer, was a passenger in a police car driven by another officer, Lassen. Plaintiff sued Lassen for negligent operation of the police car and the city for negligent supervision and training:

… Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add allegations relating to purported acts or omissions regarding Lassen’s operation of the police vehicle, including causes of action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e asserted against the City defendants and predicated upon Lassen’s alleged violation of various provisions of the Vehicle and Traffic Law regulating the operation of motor vehicles … . These causes of action were based upon the same purported acts and omissions already set forth in the notice of claim … . Since Lassen’s alleged negligent and/or reckless operation of the police vehicle and the City’s concomitant negligence in failing to properly supervise and/or train Lassen were set forth in the notice of claim and the complaint, the new allegations effectively “amplif[ied]” the previously asserted allegations and did not constitute “new, distinct, and independent theories of liability” … . The fact that the proposed amended complaint alleged violations of statutory provisions not set forth in the notice of claim or original complaint, was not, standing alone, a basis to deny leave to amend … . Since the notice of claim “provided information . . . sufficient to alert the [defendants] to the potential [General Municipal Law § 205-e] cause[s] of action” predicated upon Lassen’s alleged failure to properly operate the police vehicle … , the court should not have denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add those allegations on the ground that they were outside the existing notice of claim. Mitchell v Jimenez, 2024 NY Slip Op 06192, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: A motion to amend a notice of claim which seeks to amplify allegations in the original notice should be granted. A motion to amend a notice of claim which seeks to add new theories of liability is properly denied.

 

, , , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE, ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S DISPARAGING REMARKS, AND ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, AMOUNTED TO A DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA WITHDRAWN AND VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to withdraw and vacate his guilty plea should have been granted. Defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

The People concede that defendant’s right to counsel was violated by the court’s ruling improperly prohibiting defendant from retaining an unpaid attorney who worked at a public defender organization which represented him on a related matter … , and by the conflict of interest between assigned counsel and defendant that arose from counsel’s disparaging statements, in court and in written submissions, about defendant and his possible defense of accidental stabbing.

Defendant was also deprived of effective assistance when his counsel advised him that because of his plea, he will most likely be deported, since it is clear that defendant’s conviction would trigger mandatory deportation … . People v Pan, 2024 NY Slip Op 06166, First Dept 12-10-24

Practice Point: The judge improperly prohibited defendant from obtaining counsel of his choice.

Practice Point: Assigned counsel’s disparaging remarks about defendant created a conflict of interest.

Practice Point: Assigned counsel’s failure to inform defendant deportation was mandatory constituted ineffective assistance.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S 140-YEARS-TO-LIFE SENTENCE IN THIS PREDATORY-SEXUAL-ASSAULT-OF-A-CHILD PROSECUTION DEEMED UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE; THE PEOPLE HAD TWICE OFFERED A 15-20-YEAR SENTENCE; SENTENCE REDUCED TO 20-TO-LIFE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that defendant’s 140 years-to-life sentence in this predatory-sexual-assault-of-a-child prosecution was unduly harsh and severe. The sentence was reduced to 20 years-to-life:​

We turn to defendant’s aggregate sentence of 140 years to life in prison. As a threshold matter, our determination that the sentences imposed on counts 2 and 15 must run concurrently reduces defendant’s aggregate prison term to 118 years to life. The bulk of that remaining aggregate sentence is still consumed by the consecutive 22-years-to-life prison terms imposed for defendant’s convictions of predatory sexual assault against a child under counts 2 and 15, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Although defendant’s crimes are heinous, the sentences on each of those counts are near the top end of the permissible range notwithstanding defendant’s lack of any prior criminal history (see Penal Law § 70.80 [2] …). We also note that the People advocated for the 140-years-to-life aggregate sentence even though that sentence exceeded by over a century their plea offer of 12 to 15 years in satisfaction of all 15 counts of the indictment — an offer they extended twice.

Accordingly, we find that defendant’s aggregate prison sentence is unduly harsh and severe (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b] …). We modify the sentences, in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on defendant’s convictions on the counts of predatory sexual assault against a child (counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 15) to 20 years to life, and we direct those sentences to run concurrently with each other. We further modify the sentences imposed on counts 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 to run concurrently with each other and with the sentences imposed on counts 2 and 15, 4, 5, 6 and 7, resulting in an aggregate prison term of 20 years to life, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision … . People v Mayette, 2024 NY Slip Op 06083, Third Dept 12-5-24

Practice Point: Here the court noted that the People had offered a 15-20-year sentence as part of a plea deal and then advocated for the 140-years-to-life sentence upon conviction, which was imposed. The Third Department reduced the sentence to 20-to-life.​

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION/COMPLAINT AND THEN CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE PETITION/COMPLAINT WITHOUT ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO INTERPOSE AN ANSWER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION/COMPLAINT ON GROUNDS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE UNDERLYING ADMINSTRATIVE RULING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge could not deny the motion to dismiss the Article 78 petition/complaint and then consider the merits and dismiss the petition/complaint before allowing the respondent to interpose an answer. In addition, the court did not have the authority to consider issues not addressed by the underlying administrative ruling. The action was brought by an owner of shares in a cooperative (petitioner) against the co-op board (respondent) which denied petitioner’s application to convert an office to a residential unit:

… Supreme Court erred by considering the merits of the petition/complaint and, in effect, denying the petition/complaint and dismissing the proceeding/action, after it denied the co-op’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, if a motion to dismiss the petition is denied, “the court shall permit the respondent to answer” … . Here, the court should not have decided the merits of the petition seeking relief under CPLR article 78, as the co-op had not yet filed an answer … , and it cannot be said, on this record, “that the facts are so fully presented in the parties’ papers that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer” … .

Moreover, under all the circumstances, including that issue had not been joined and that branch of the co-op’s motion which pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint was not converted into a motion for summary judgment, there was no basis for the Supreme Court, in effect, to dismiss the proceeding/action after concluding that the co-op was not entitled to dismissal of the petition/complaint pursuant CPLR 3211(a) … .

Further, it has “long been the rule that judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds presented by the agency at the time of its determination” … . A reviewing court is “powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis” … . Here, when the Supreme Court, in effect, affirmed the board’s denial of the application, the court improperly “surmise[d] or [*3]speculate[d] as to how or why” the board reached its determination and improperly relied on grounds not mentioned in the denial letter … . Matter of 195 N. Vil. Ave., LLC v 195 Apts., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06037, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: Once a judge denies a motion to dismiss a petition/complaint, the merits of the petition/complaint should not be considered before the respondent interposes an answer.

Practice Point: A judge reviewing an administrative ruling cannot decide the merits on grounds not addressed by the administrative ruling.

 

,

CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed on “neglect to proceed” grounds after plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the 90-day notice:

“CPLR 3216 is an extremely forgiving statute which never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action based on the plaintiff’s unreasonable neglect to proceed” … . In opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff may still avoid dismissal if he or she demonstrates “a justifiable excuse for the failure to timely abide by the 90-day demand, as well as the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action” … . “Thus, even when all of the statutory preconditions are met, including plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 90-day requirement, plaintiff has yet another opportunity to salvage the action simply by opposing the motion to dismiss with a justifiable excuse” and proof of a potentially meritorious cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiffs’ belief that the action remained stayed in the absence of some affirmative act by the Supreme Court, although erroneous, constituted a justifiable excuse under the circumstances for their failure to respond to the defendant’s 90-day notice. Notably, the 90-day notice was sent only three months after the stay had been lifted, and the record does not otherwise contain evidence of a pattern of persistent neglect or delay in prosecuting the action or an intent to abandon the action … . Furthermore, the plaintiffs established the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action sounding in strict products liability … . Holness v Gigglesworld Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06031, Second Dept 12-4-24

Practice Point: CPLR 3216 is a forgiving statute which allows but does not require the dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a 90-day notice. Here plaintiffs presented an adequate excuse and demonstrated a meritorious cause of action. The complaint should not have been dismissed.

 

,

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A VISITATION SCHEDULE FOR FATHER; FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND COUNSELING MAY BE APPROPRIATE WHERE, AS HERE, A CHILD REFUSES VISITATION WITH A PARENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court improperly delegated to mother the authority to control father’s visitation with the child. The First Department noted that forensic mental health examinations may be appropriate where, as here,  a child refuses to visit with a parent:

Here, Family Court’s order that the father have visitation as agreed between the parties in consultation with the child is an impermissible delegation of its authority to the mother and child, and essentially causes the father to have no visitation at all. Furthermore, despite the father’s lack of sensitivity to the child … we cannot find on this record that there was a showing adequate to justify terminating the father’s contact with the child; that is, that any form of contact under all circumstances would be harmful to the child’s welfare.

We note that Family Court may order forensic mental health evaluations where a visitation petition is pending and where doing so will facilitate the court’s determination (Family Court Act § 251[A]; 22 NYCRR 202.18). “[T]he value of forensic evaluations of the parents and children has long been recognized,” including when a child refuses to visit with a parent … . We further note that a court may place restrictions on visitation that promote the child’s best interests and are not unduly restrictive, including ordering therapeutic or other kinds of supervised visitation … . The court may also make directives as to the amount and type of contact a parent has with the child between visits. Finally, a court may direct a parent to attend counseling as a component of a visitation plan, where doing so promotes the child’s best interests … . Matter of Michael B. v Patricia S., 2024 NY Slip Op 06005, First Dept 12-3-24

Practice Point: Family Court cannot not delegate to a parent its authority to set the other parent’s visitation schedule.

Practice Point: Where a child refuses to visit with a parent, the court may order forensic mental health evaluations and counseling.

 

,

A COURT’S POWER TO SEARCH THE RECORD AND AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO A NONMOVING PARTY IS LIMITED TO THE CAUSES OF ACTION OR ISSUES IN THE MOTIONS BEFORE IT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a court’s power to search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party is constrained by the causes of action or issues raised in the motions before it:

Although the court has the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party (see CPLR 3212[b] …), the “power to search the record and afford a nonmoving party summary relief is not . . . boundless” … . Thus, “a court may search the record and grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party only with respect to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Here, the court improperly considered an issue that was not the subject of the motion before it … . Mejia v 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05974, Second Dept 11-27-24

Practice Point: A court cannot search the record and award summary judgment to a nonmoving party on a cause of action or an issue not raised in the motions before it.​

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING EXPERT TESTIMONY ON WITNESS-IDENTIFICATION OF A DEFENDANT CLARIFIED; WHETHER TO ALLOW SUCH EVIDENCE DOES NOT TURN ON THE EXISTENCE OR THE STRENGTH OF CORROBORATING EVIDENCE; HERE EXPERT TESTIMONY ON CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over an extensive dissent, affirming defendant’s conviction, clarified the criteria for admitting expert testimony on witness identification of a defendant. Here limited expert testimony was allowed on cross-racial identification:

Questions of the admissibility and scope of expert testimony concerning the factors that affect the reliability of eyewitness identifications in a particular case are addressed to the trial court’s sound discretion … . Courts deciding those questions apply traditional evidentiary principles … , which require the courts to weigh the testimony’s probative value against its prospect of causing undue prejudice to the opposing party, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, or unduly delaying trial … .

On an application to admit expert testimony of this sort, the trial court may need to determine whether the expert testimony is beyond the ken of the average juror or generally accepted in the scientific community … . Indeed, in Abney, we reversed and ordered a new trial where the trial court abused its discretion in denying an application to present expert testimony on several factors, concluding that the court should have held a Frye hearing to resolve the issue of general acceptance … . While general acceptance may be established at a Frye hearing, a hearing is not necessary in all cases … . General acceptance may be established through legal precedent … . Where the defendant fails to demonstrate that a topic of the proffered expert testimony is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, the trial court should exclude or limit the testimony as appropriate … .

Courts must not decide whether evidence is admissible based solely on the existence or strength of corroborating evidence … . Nor should courts require adequate corroborating evidence as a prerequisite to weighing other considerations pertinent to admissibility … . Rather, courts should be guided by “whether the proffered expert testimony ‘would aid a lay jury in reaching a verdict’ ” … . People v Vaughn, 2024 NY Slip Op 05874, CtApp 111-26-24

Practice Point: Whether to allow expert testimony on witness-identification of a defendant does not turn on the existence or strength of corroborating evidence.

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