You are here: / Judges
,

WHERE A MOTION TO RENEW IS NOT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that there was no time limit for bringing a motion to renew:

Contrary to the court’s determination, “[e]xcept where a motion to renew is based upon a change in the law, which is not the case here, CPLR 2221 does not impose a time limit for making a motion for leave to renew” … . Since the plaintiff’s prior motion had been denied with leave to renew, the plaintiff was not required to demonstrate a reasonable justification for his failure to submit the new facts on the prior motion … . Smith v Realty on Fox Croft Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 06371, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: If a motion to renew is not based upon a change in the law, there is no time limit for bringing the motion.

 

,

A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE ANY NONECONOMIC DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the issuance of a permanent injunction was error because the injury can be adequately compensated by money damages:

“‘A permanent injunction is a drastic remedy which may be granted only where the plaintiff demonstrates that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction'” …  To establish prima facie entitlement to a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (a) that there was a violation of a right presently occurring, or threatened and imminent; (b) that he or she has no adequate remedy at law; (c) that serious and irreparable harm will result absent the injunction; and (d) that the equities are balanced in his or her favor … . Further, irreparable injury, for the purposes of equity, means any injury for which money damages are insufficient … . In contrast, where an injury can be adequately compensated by money damages, injunctive relief is inappropriate … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to allege any noneconomic damages. Rockefeller v Leon, 2024 NY Slip Op 06370, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: If plaintiffs do not allege any noneconomic damages, a permanent injunction is not an appropriate remedy.

 

,

THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) must be given the opportunity to be present during guardianship proceedings:

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian of the person and property of her adult daughter Nima B. R., an alleged incapacitated person (hereinafter the AIP). At a hearing on the petition, which was conducted virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the AIP was not present. Although the AIP had indicated to her counsel that she intended to appear, she advised her counsel that she was not feeling well and needed an extra hour to get to the courthouse, and subsequently advised her counsel that she did not feel well and would not be attending. The Supreme Court conducted the hearing in the AIP’s absence, finding that she had “voluntarily absented herself” and noting that she was represented by counsel, had no burden of proof, and was not required to testify. …

Guardianship proceedings, as a drastic intervention in a person’s liberty, must adhere to proper procedural standards … . Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(c) provides that a hearing to determine whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary for an alleged incapacitated person “must be conducted in the presence of the person alleged to be incapacitated,” including at the alleged incapacitated person’s place of residence if necessary … . “There is an ‘overarching value in a court having the opportunity to observe, firsthand, the allegedly incapacitated person'” … . Accordingly, we remit the matter … for a new hearing at which the AIP shall be afforded an opportunity to be present and a new determination thereafter. Matter of Nima B.R. (Rae-Garwood), 2024 NY Slip Op 06347, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: An alleged incapacitated person (AIP) has the right to be present at a guardianship proceeding pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. Here the AIP said she was not feeling well and would not attend. The matter was remitted for a new hearing after affording the AIP the opportunity to attend.

 

, ,

ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OR OTHER IMPROPER RESULTS, A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE SHOULD BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice should have been granted:

The plaintiff and the defendants own abutting real properties located in Brooklyn. In 2019, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, for injunctive relief, alleging that the defendants, among other things, erected a concrete wall and planted grass and trees on portions of the plaintiff’s property without the plaintiff’s permission. The defendants, inter alia, asserted a counterclaim for adverse possession of the disputed portions of the plaintiff’s property. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice. In an order dated November 17, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion. …

The Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue the action without prejudice. The determination of a motion pursuant to CPLR 3217(b) for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice is within the sound discretion of the court … . “Generally such motions should be granted unless the discontinuance would prejudice a substantial right of another party, circumvent an order of the court, avoid the consequences of a potentially adverse determination, or produce other improper results” … . Here, the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion, as there was no showing of substantial prejudice or other improper results … . KNG Realty NY Co., LLC v Halpern, 2024 NY Slip Op 06329, Second Dept 12-18-24

Practice Point: If there is no showing of substantial prejudice, a motion for leave to discontinue an action without prejudice should be granted.​

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WITHOUT CONDUCTING A COLLOQUY; THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined (1) defendant’s request to represent himself should not have been summarily denied, and (2) the search warrant did not provide probable cause for the search of defendant’s cell phones:

A court may not summarily deny a defendant’s request to represent himself or herself, even if the court believes it to be in the defendant’s best interest to be represented by counsel … . Once defendant made his request, which was unequivocal and timely, County Court was required to conduct a colloquy to determine whether he was making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel … . * * *

While we defer to all reasonable inferences that the magistrate could have made in issuing the initial search warrant, we find the original affidavit did not establish the probable cause required to issue a search warrant for defendant’s cell phones. … [T]he warrant was supported by [investigator] Bruno’s affidavit, which stated that he believed the phones “may” contain digital data, including call histories, that would evidence the commission of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. However, the statute requires that a statement of reasonable cause based upon information and belief must also state “the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief” (CPL 690.35 [3] [c]), which was lacking here. Stated differently, even where there is probable cause to suspect the defendant of a crime, law enforcement may not search his or her cell phone unless they have information demonstrating that evidence is likely to be found there; some link sufficient to connect the two must be provided. Our review of the affidavit of probable cause in this case reveals no such link. People v Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 06239, Third Dept 12-12-24

Practice Point: A defendant’s request to represent himself should not be summarily denied. The judge should conduct a colloquy to determine whether defendant is making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel.​

Practice Point: The assertion in an affidavit that defendant’s cell phones “may” contain evidence of a drug offense does not provide probable cause for the search of the cell phones.

 

, , ,

AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, WHICH WAS BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S MAKING U-TURNS, AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REARGUE THE MOTION AND PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U-TURNS WERE, IN FACT, ILLEGAL (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Term, determined the judge in this DWI prosecution should not have granted the People’s motion to reargue the suppression motion. The court had initially granted defendant’s motion to suppress because the People failed to prove U-turns made by the defendant were illegal. When the suppression motion was reargued, the People presented evidence the U-turns were, in fact, illegal and the court denied suppression:

… [I]f the People have had a full and fair opportunity to oppose suppression, and the suppression court has issued a ruling on the merits, the People may not have an additional “opportunity to shore up their evidentiary or legal position” … . Under the circumstances of this case, where the People were unprepared for the suppression hearing and sought to reargue the legal issue to remedy their lack of preparedness, the same principle should apply.

At a suppression hearing, the People bear the burden of showing the legality of the police conduct in the first instance … . Here, the court granted defendant’s motion for suppression because the People failed to demonstrate that defendant’s U-turns were illegal and therefore that the stop was lawful. Neither the Assistant District Attorney nor the arresting officer could identify any traffic law provision violated by defendant. Moreover, the People did not request a recess or adjournment to determine the statutory basis for the stop, nor did they request permission to furnish a post-hearing submission to identify any relevant provision of law. Instead, the People returned a month after the court granted suppression, offering a different legal theory that they had not raised at the original suppression hearing. On that new legal theory, the court changed course and denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

Of course, “[b]efore sentence is imposed, trial courts in criminal cases have the general inherent authority to correct their own mistakes” … , which may include granting leave to reargue. Although the People may be permitted to reargue the legal or factual issues of the suppression proceedings, allowing the suppression court to grant the People’s motion to reargue in these circumstances would run afoul of our “full and fair opportunity” principle and the policies of finality and judicial efficiency underlying it. People v Lawson, 2024 NY Slip Op 06238, CtApp 12-12-24

Practice Pont: As a general rule, the People should have only one chance to demonstrate the legality of a traffic stop in the context of a suppression hearing. Once a suppression motion is granted, the People should not be allowed to reopen the hearing to present evidence which could have been presented the first time around.

 

, ,

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.

 

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