You are here: / Judges
,

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.

,

A COMBINED MOTION TO REARGUE AND MOTION TO RENEW IS PROPER; HERE SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTION TO REARGUE BUT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTION TO RENEW; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, remanding the matter to Supreme Court, determined the combined motion to reargue and motion to renew was properly brought. The motion to reargue was properly denied, but the motion could should have considered the motion to renew:

A combined motion for leave to reargue and renew is permitted so long as each branch of the motion is separately identified and supported (CPLR 2221 [f]). Here, the motion court considered plaintiff’s combined motion to be “couched” as one for reargument and improvidently failed to address or analyze plaintiff’s application for renewal.

Plaintiff in this case submitted a medical expert’s affidavit as new or additional facts not included on the motion to vacate, which this Court in the past has deemed to be sufficient to support a motion to renew … . As plaintiff properly submitted a combined motion for reargument and renewal, CPLR 2221 (f) required the court to “decide each part of the motion as if it were separately made.” Pellerano v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05899, First Department 11-26-24

Practice Point: It is proper to combine a motion to reargue and a motion to renew. The motions should be considered separately. Here the denial of the motion to reargue was proper but the motion to renew should also have been considered. The matter was remanded.

 

, ,

THE CASEWORKER WAS PART OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THIS “COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A CHILD” PROSECUTION; THE PEOPLE WERE THEREFORE DEEMED TO HAVE HAD CONTROL OVER OR TO HAVE BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE CASWORKER’S NOTES; THE NOTES INCLUDED BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE BEFORE TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s “course of sexual conduct with a child” conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that the caseworker’s notes taken during an interview of the child constituted Brady material which should have been turned over to the defendant before trial. The caseworker was part of the criminal investigation. Therefore the notes were deemed to have been under the People’s control or in the People’s possession. There was a notation by the caseworker to the effect the victim “was acting normal and as if nothing happened…”.:

“[W]hether knowledge of a government official or employee may be imputed to the People . . . turn[s] on whether participation in the criminal probe was an ancillary law enforcement task” and, thus, “while social workers are generally not agents of the police, in situations where they engage in a joint venture with police agencies to collaborate on child abuse or sexual abuse investigations, share information and a common purpose, and have a cooperative working arrangement with police, an agency relationship may exist such that the social workers’ knowledge is imputed to the People” … . * * *

The People’s provision of this material after the close of all proof deprived defendant of “a meaningful opportunity to use the allegedly exculpatory material to cross-examine the People’s witnesses or as evidence during his case” … . People v Baez, 2024 NY Slip Op 05844, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: When a caseworker is part of a criminal investigation, the caseworker’s notes taken when interviewing a child victim are deemed to be under the control of or possessed by the People, such that any Brady material in the notes must be turned over to the defense prior to trial.

 

, , ,

THERE WAS NO PROOF THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA VACATED AND SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the guilty plea and dismissing the superior court information, determined the record did not demonstrate the defendant signed the waiver of appeal in open court in the presence of counsel:

… [T]he plea minutes are silent as to when the undated waiver was executed by defendant, and during the colloquy County Court referred to defendant as having “signed” the waiver in the past tense … . Neither the waiver nor the plea colloquy confirms that defendant signed the written waiver in the presence of counsel. Further, although County Court indicated in the undated order approving the waiver that it was generally satisfied that the requirements of CPL 195.10 and 195.20 had been met, nothing in the order explicitly confirms “that the waiver was signed in open court” in the presence of counsel . Thus, … the record does not reflect that defendant’s waiver of indictment passes constitutional and statutory muster, and it follows that defendant’s guilty plea must be vacated and the underlying SCI dismissed … . People v Trapani, 2024 NY Slip Op 05846, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: When a defendant waives his right to an indictment and agrees to plead to a superior court information, the record must reflect the waiver was made in open court and in the presence of counsel. Absent proof of those statutory and constitutional requirements the waiver is invalid.

Similar issue and result in People v Rupp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05845, Third Dept 11-21-24.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE RESTITUTION TO THE PROSECUTOR, MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for a restitution hearing despite defendant’s failure to preserve the error, determined the record was insufficient to support the ordered restitution. The judge merely accepted the People’s restitution order, thereby improperly delegating the court’s role to the prosecutor:

… [I]t appears County Court impermissibly delegated its authority to the People to determine the amount of restitution owed and that said amount has no factual predicate in the record before us. “Whenever the court requires restitution . . . to be made, the court must make a finding as to the dollar amount of the fruits of the offense and the actual out-of-pocket loss to the victim[s] caused by the offense. In making this finding, the court must consider any victim impact statement provided to the court. If the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing upon the issue” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2] …). At the time of sentencing, the People noted that they had submitted a restitution order for the court to sign[*2]. Seemingly reading from that order, the court ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $773, plus a five percent surcharge in the amount of $38.65, for a total sum of $811.65. The restitution order provided to this Court is not accompanied by any documentation, and neither the presentence report nor the victims’ impact statements at sentencing addressed pecuniary losses. Although defendant’s failure to object at the time of sentencing renders his restitution arguments unpreserved … , as the record before us does not include any proof to substantiate the amount of restitution ordered, we find it appropriate to exercise our discretion in the interest of justice and remit for the sole purpose of a restitution hearing … . People v Lester, 2024 NY Slip Op 05848, Third Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: It is the judge, not the prosecutor, who makes a restitution determination, which must be supported by the record.

 

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