You are here: / Judges
, ,

RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE NECESSARY PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE NECESSARY PARTIES BE SUMMONED; THE COURT’S POWER TO SUMMON NECESSARY PARTIES IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ONLY THE SUMMONED NECESSARY PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE STANDING TO RAISE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined dismissing the complaint was not the appropriate remedy for petitioners’ failure to include necessary parties, the property owners,, in this Article 78 proceeding challenging zoning variances. Supreme Court should have directed the necessary parties be summoned. The courts power to summon necessary parties is not affected by the running of the statute of limitations. Only the necessary parties themselves have standing to raise the statute of limitations defense:

When a necessary party has not been made a party and is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the court, the proper remedy is not dismissal of the complaint or the petition, but rather for the court to direct that the necessary party be summoned ([CPLR]. § 1001[b] …). Contrary to the respondents’ contention, the Supreme Court’s ability to direct joinder of the property owners at this juncture is not affected by the purported running of the statute of limitations … . Moreover, the respondents lack standing to assert a statute of limitations defense on behalf of the property owners, who have not yet appeared in this proceeding … . Thus, the respondents failed to demonstrate that the petitioners’ failure to join the property owners as respondents warranted dismissal of the petition. Matter of Supinsky v Town of Huntington, 2025 NY Slip Op 00323, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the dismissal of the petition for failure to include necessary parties was not appropriate. The court should have directed that the necessary parties be summoned.

Practice Point: A court’s power to direct that necessary parties be summoned is not affected by the running of the statute of limitations.

Practice Point: Here only the necessary parties themselves have standing to raise the stature of limitations defense.

 

, , , ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE COMPLETELY BYPASSED THE BATSON PROCEDURE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE PEOPLE’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO FOUR JURORS; ALTHOUGH THE JURORS HAD BEEN EXCUSED, THE BATSON OBJECTION WAS TIMELY; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; CONVICTION HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER REMITTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, holding the judgment of conviction in abeyance and remitting the matter, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, over a two-justice dissent, determined (1) the appeal raising an unpreserved objection to the trial judge’s handling of a Batson challenge could be considered “in the interest of justice,” and (2) the trial judge erroneously bypassed the Batson procedure for addressing whether racial discrimination was the basis for four of the prosecution’s peremptory challenges. Defense raised the Batson challenge after the four jurors had been excused. The trial judge argued the challenge was untimely and the only remedy was a mistrial. Defense counsel argued, and the prosecution conceded, the challenge was timely, but defense counsel declined to request a mistrial. The First Department noted that remedies other than a mistrial were available—recalling the excused jurors, limiting the prosecution’s peremptory challenges, or granting the defense additional peremptory challenges, for example:

Even if we were to agree that defendant’s claim is unpreserved, we find that the trial court’s errors here were critical, and not merely a case of putting the proverbial cart before the horse … . The trial court’s actions, whether intentional or not, sidestepped the entire Batson protocol.

This Court’s recent precedent has been to exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to correct unpreserved Batson errors where a trial court has substantially deviated from the Batson protocol. * * *

Crucially, here we are not faced with a circumstance in which the trial court erroneously concluded that defendant did not meet his prima facie burden at step one … . In fact, as noted above, the trial court took notice of the preemptory challenges implemented by the prosecution.

This is also not a circumstance in which the court deviated from the Batson protocol by improperly combining steps two and three … . Rather, we are faced with a circumstance where the trial court failed to provide any inquiry into the question of discrimination by circumventing all three steps of the Batson protocol. People v Luke, 2025 NY Slip Op 00297, First Dept 1-21-25

Practice Point: The failure to adhere to the Batson three-step procedure for addressing discrimination in jury selection can be considered by an appellate court “in the interest of justice” despite the failure to preserve the error.

Practice Point: A Batson challenge raised after the jurors had been excused, but before jury selection is complete, is timely.

Practice Point: Remedies for a Batson challenge first raised after the jurors have been excused include recalling the excused jurors, limiting the prosecution’s peremptory challenges, and granting the defense additional peremptory challenges.

 

,

ALTHOUGH A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM BRINGING ANY FURTHER PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION, HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; FATHER HAD NEVER FILED FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS OR FILED PETITIONS OUT OF ILL WILL OR SPITE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined Family Court should not have prohibited father from filing any further custody modification petitions because father had not filed frivolous petitions or filed petitions out of ill will or spite:

Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in prohibiting the father from filing any further modification petitions without the permission of the court. “While public policy generally mandates free access to the courts, a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will” … . Here, there is no basis in the record to demonstrate that the father filed frivolous petitions or filed petitions out of ill will or spite … . Matter of Freyer v Macruari, 2025 NY Slip Op 00217, Second Dept 1-15-25

Practice Point: Family Court has the discretion to prohibit a party from bringing any future custody modification petitions, it can only do so where the party has filed frivolous motions or has filed motions out of ill will or spite.

 

,

HERE THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED “WITH PREJUDICE” BECAUSE A FUTURE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY WARRANT MODIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined mother’s petition for a modification of custody should not have been dismissed “with prejudice” because a future change in circumstances could warrant modification:

Family Court should not have provided that its dismissal of the mother’s petitions was with prejudice. This language could create confusion as to whether the mother could seek relief based upon a change in circumstances. Therefore, we delete that provision of the order appealed from and substitute therefor a provision dismissing the petitions without prejudice … . We note that child custody and parental access orders are not entitled to res judicata effect and are subject to modification based upon a showing of a change in circumstances. Thus, a new petition may be filed where there has been a sufficient change in circumstances since the order or judgment sought to be modified was made … . Matter of Blackman v Barge, 2025 NY Slip Op 00214, Second Dept 1-15-25

Practice Point: Here the petition for modification of custody should not have been dismissed “with prejudice” because a future change in circumstances may warrant modification.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge failed to provide an adequate statement of the reasons for conduction the trial in defendant’s absence:

… [T]he defendant is entitled to a new trial because the County Court improperly conducted the trial in the defendant’s absence. “Before proceeding in [a] defendant’s absence, the court [must make an] inquiry and recite[ ] on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that [the] defendant’s absence was deliberate” … . Here, the court failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination that the defendant’s absence from the trial was deliberate. Although the court stated that it was basing its determination on the defendant’s “history” and “conduct within the last few days,” it failed to detail the history and conduct upon which its determination was based … . People v Kerr, 2025 NY Slip Op 00236, Second Dept 1-15-25

Practice Point: Before a judge can conduct a trial in a defendant’s absence, an adequate statement of the reasons must be in the record. If the statement is inadequate a new trial will be necessary.

 

,

COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION OF PARENTAL ACCESS; HOWEVER COUNSELING AND TREATMENT MAY BE MADE A COMPONENT OF CURRENT PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Family Court, determined the court should not have made counseling or treatment a condition for any future modification of parental access, but Family Court appropriately directed mother to submit to treatment as a component of her current parental access:

… [A] “court deciding a custody proceeding may properly direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a visitation or custody order” … . “However, a court may not direct that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights” … . Here, the Family Court should not have conditioned any future modification of the mother’s parental access with the child, in effect, upon her enrollment in mental health treatment and her resulting improvement in mental status, emotional regulation, psychological functioning, and empathy for the child … . Nonetheless, to the extent the court directed the mother to submit to such treatment as a component of her parental access, this was proper … . Matter of Nathaniel v Mauvais, 2025 NY Slip Op 00223, Second Dept 1-15-257

Practice Point: Counseling or treatment can be made a component of current parental access but cannot be made a condition for any future modification of parental access.

 

, , ,

AT SENTENCING THE PROSECUTOR REFERENCED EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENTENCE REPORT BUT, WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, NEITHER DEFENDANT NOR DEFENSE COUNSEL ADDRESSED THE ISSUE; NOTWITHSTANDING THE SILENCE OF THE DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO WHETHER THE GUILTY PLEA WAS KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY; THERE WAS NO NEED TO PRESERVE THE ERROR FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singh, determined the prosecutor’s mention of defendant’s (Dupree’s) exculpatory statements in the presentence report (PSR) required the judge to conduct an inquiry to ensure the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, despite the defendant’s and defense counsel’s failure to address the statements at sentencing. Defendant and defense counsel were asked by the judge whether they wished to address the court and both said “no.” The issue need not be preserved and was properly raised on appeal:

Before sentencing, Dupree was interviewed by the Department of Probation. He made the following statement: “I admitted to shooting someone in the leg and back and the bullet went through his chest. I was fighting with him (stranger) and was defending myself. I was drinking at the club and someone slipped something in my drink and I was leaving the club to get home. He saw me staggering and wanted to rob me.” This statement was included in the presentence report (PSR).

At sentencing, Supreme Court asked whether the parties had any factual difficulties with the PSR. The prosecution replied, “I do have some factual difficulty relating to the defendant’s statement which I do not believe there was a valid self-defense claim. In fact, it is not a valid self-defense claim. . . . So I do take issue with that part of his statement as well as his claimed intoxication.” The court then asked, “and anything for the defense?” to which defense counsel replied, “no.” The court later asked whether the defense would like to be heard as to the promised sentence and, finally, asked Dupree himself if there was anything he would like to add. Neither Dupree nor his attorney addressed the statement in the PSR or the prosecution’s comment made in open court. * * *

The prosecution … argues that if Supreme Court had to inquire further, it did so by asking if defense counsel had anything to say. Yet the Court of Appeals has never held that a court may satisfy its obligation merely by allowing the defense to speak. Neither have we. Rather, the law is clear that “the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea is knowing and voluntary” … . People v Dupree, 2025 NY Slip Op 00199, First Dept 1-14-25

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor, at sentencing, expressed disagreement with exculpatory statements attributed to defendant in the presentence report but neither defendant nor defense counsel chose to address the issue when given the opportunity by the judge. The prosecutor’s reference to the statements triggered the need for an inquiry by the judge into whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, notwithstanding the silence of the defense. There was no need to preserve the issue for appeal.

 

, ,

THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT, IN A WRITING SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR AFTER DELIBERATIONS HAD BEGUN REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTS RELATED TO ONE OF THE TWO ROBBERIES (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing one of defendant’s robbery convictions and ordering a new trial, determined (1) a new trial is required because the judge did not obtain defendant’s written and signed consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations had begun, and (2) the showup identification of the defendant was unreasonable and unduly suggestive, requiring dismissal of the counts relating to one of the two robberies (there was no identification testimony at the trial):

“Under CPL 270.35, once the jury has commenced deliberations an alternate juror may not be substituted for a regular juror unless the defendant consents to the replacement . . . in writing . . . signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court” … . * * *

… [T]the People failed to establish that the showup identification was conducted in close temporal proximity to the crime … . Further, there was no unbroken chain of events or exigent circumstances that justified the showup identification, as the defendant was already under arrest for the second robbery … .

… [T]he People failed to establish that the showup identification was not unduly suggestive. Here, prior to the showup identification, the complainant was informed by the police officers that they had someone in custody who matched the description provided by the complainant. During the showup identification, the defendant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and there were one to two police officers near the defendant as he was treated by emergency medical service providers. While these factors alone do not necessarily render a showup identification unduly suggestive, when viewed cumulatively with other factors, including that the officers informed the complainant that the defendant committed another crime around the corner, that the defendant’s face was severely bruised and bleeding, and that it was “an active crime scene” with several surrounding officers dealing with witnesses “[y]elling and screaming,” the showup identification was unduly suggestive … . People v Simon, 2025 NY Slip Op 00117, Second Dept 1-8-25

Practice Point: A defendant’s consent to the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations have begun must be in writing signed in open court.

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of a showup identification deemed unreasonable and unduly suggestive.

 

, ,

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.

 

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