You are here: / Judges
, , , ,

FAMILY COURT’S RULING THAT A MASSACHUSETTS COURT WAS THE MORE CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY MATTER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS OR ANY TESTIMONY OR SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES; THE RECORD WAS THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court’s ruling that a Massachusetts court was the most convenient forum for this custody matter, determined Family Court’s failure to place on the record the factors it considered in making its ruling, combined with absence of any testimony, rendered the record inadequate for review, requiring remittal:

“Where, as here, a New York court has continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter, it may decline to exercise such jurisdiction if it determines that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another state is a more appropriate forum” … . A court is obliged to consider eight statutory factors in rendering that determination, and “[t]hose statutory factors include (1) ‘whether domestic violence or mistreatment or abuse of a child or sibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child,’ (2) the length of time the children have resided in another state, (3) the distance between the two states in question, (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties, (5) any agreement among the parties regarding jurisdiction, (6) the nature and location of relevant evidence, including testimony from the children, (7) the ability of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the relevant evidence, and (8) the familiarity of each court with the relevant facts and issues” (… Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [2] [a]). Notably, the “determination depends on the specific issues to be decided in the pending litigation, and must involve consideration of all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute” … .

… Family Court did not explicitly refer to the statutory factors during its conference with the Massachusetts court, which was essentially a back-and-forth between the judges on issues that included the language of the prior custody orders, the nature of the cases presently before them and the differences between New York and Massachusetts laws governing custody proceedings. The parties were not invited to, and did not, offer any testimony regarding the relative convenience of the two forums. Matter of Mark AA. v Susan BB., 2024 NY Slip Op 05173, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: Here Family Court did not make an adequate record to support its ruling that a Massachusetts court was the more convenient forum for this custody matter. There were no submissions by the parties and there was no testimony. The statutory factors were not explicitly referenced. The matter was remitted.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined defendant had a right to be present during the Sandoval/Molineux discussions concerning the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions. The fact that the judge announced his rulings in defendant’s presence was not enough:

We reverse defendant’s conviction and grant him a new trial. The trial court held a conference in defendant’s absence on the prosecution’s motion to cross examine him on his prior criminal conduct, in violation of his right to be present (see CPL 260.20 …). The court held a subsequent hearing on the motion in defendant’s presence. However, the court did not hear arguments on the merits, did not confirm defendant’s understanding of the underlying facts or the merits of the application, and merely announced its decision. Thus, the subsequent proceeding did not provide for defendant’s meaningful participation in the determination of the merits of the motion and did not cure the earlier violation. People v Sharp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05132, CtApp 10-17-24

Practice Point: Defendant’s right to be present at trial includes the right to be present during the arguments about the admissibility of defendant’s prior convictions under Sandoval/Molineux. Defendant’s presence when the judge announced the Sandoval/Molineux rulings is not sufficient.

 

, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk-level assessment, determined defendant’s attorney’s request for an adjournment to allow review of documents relevant to a downward departure should have been granted:

… County Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s request for an adjournment. The defendant’s open release date two days after the hearing was not a sufficient reason to deny the defendant’s request for an adjournment (see Correction Law § 168-l[8]). Further, the documents discussed by the defendant, including documents relating to his participation in treatment programs, may be relevant to support an application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. “A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of ‘(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the . . . Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence'” … . “In making the determinations the court shall review . . . any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender” … . “An offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” … . As the documents cited by the defendant were potentially material, the adjournment request was not made for the purposes of delay, and the necessity of the request was not due to a failure of due diligence, the court should have granted the request to adjourn the SORA hearing so that the defendant’s counsel could review the documents and determine whether they should be offered to the court as evidence at the hearing. People v Eldridge, 2024 NY Slip Op 05117, Second Dept 10-16-24

Practice Point: Here defense counsel’s request for an adjournment of the SORA risk-level proceeding to allow review of documents which may be relevant to a downward departure should have been granted. Defense counsel was not able to meet with the defendant until 15 minutes before the hearing, the request was not made to delay, and the fact that defendant had an upcoming open release date was not a sufficient reason to deny an adjournment.

 

, , ,

THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID SHOWING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO THE JURY, EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THE MENS REA ELEMENT OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CHARGES FROM THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION; CONVICTION REVERSED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s child-pornography conviction, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the stipulation signed by defense counsel and presented to the jury (in an effort to avoid showing the pornography to the jury) effectively removed from the jury consideration of the mens rea element. Therefore, defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel:

A few days before the trial commenced, defense counsel and the prosecutor executed a stipulation entitled “Stipulation Elements of Crime.” Among other things, they stipulated to the fact that certain videos underlying the counts of promoting a sexual performance by a child “depicted . . . a performance, which included sexual conduct by a child less than 17 years of age,” and similarly stipulated as to the content of certain images underlying the counts of possessing a sexual performance by a child. …

… [T]he stipulation went on to state, in pertinent part, that “whoever possessed each of the . . . videos, promoted a performance, which included sexual conduct by a child . . . with knowledge of the character and content of the videos,” and “whoever possessed these videos and images, knowingly had in his or her possession or control, or knowingly accessed with intent to view, a performance which included sexual conduct by a child” … . A reasonable reading of this additional language in the stipulation is that possession alone is tantamount to promoting a performance with knowledge “of the character and content of” the videos, which is required to support a conviction of promoting a sexual performance by a child under Penal Law § 263.15, and that possession alone is tantamount to knowing “possession or control” or “access[ ] with intent to view,” which is required to support a conviction of possessing a sexual performance by a child under Penal Law § 263.16. Thus, this additional language in the stipulation set forth definitions of the crimes that had no mens rea element … , under which possession alone could support a guilty verdict for each crime. People v Guerra, 2024 NY Slip Op 04978, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: Defense counsel signed a stipulation in an effort to avoid showing child pornography to the jury. The majority concluded the stipulation effectively eliminated the mens rea element from the jury’s consideration. The conviction was reversed on ineffective assistance grounds.

 

, ,

DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the prerequisites for the dismissal of the complaint in this foreclosure action were not met:

… [T]he Supreme Court failed to serve a written demand upon the plaintiff to resume prosecution of the action and to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days of receipt of the demand (see CPLR 3216[b][3]). Since at least one precondition set forth in CPLR 3216 was not met here, the court was without power to direct dismissal of the complaint pursuant to that statute … .

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, a court has discretion to dismiss an action where a plaintiff fails to appear “[a]t any scheduled call of a calendar or at any conference” … . In this case, however, the court attorney referee did not recommend dismissal of the complaint based upon a failure to appear at a conference, but rather for failure to move for an order of reference by a date certain without good cause shown. Thus, the dismissal order, which confirmed the report of the court attorney referee, did not direct dismissal of the complaint based upon a default in appearing at a scheduled conference or calendar call, and 22 NYCRR 202.27 could not have provided the basis for dismissal of the complaint … .

Moreover, “‘[a] court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court conference order directing the plaintiff to move for an order of reference was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Banu, 2024 NY Slip Op 04940, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: The appellate courts will not affirm dismissals of complaints when the statutory and regulatory requirements for dismissal have not been met.

 

, , ,

STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS; $2500 PENALTY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined sanctions were in order for plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery demands, but striking the complaint was too severe. A monetary penalty was imposed:

… [T]he plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery demands and orders directing discovery or respond to the letters from the defendants’ counsel concerning discovery, without providing a reasonable excuse, supports an inference of willful or contumacious conduct … . However, under the circumstances, the sanction imposed was too drastic a remedy and the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint should have been granted only to the extent of directing the plaintiff’s counsel to personally pay the sum of $2,500 as a sanction to the defendants … . Mirabile v Kuwayama, 2024 NY Slip Op 04958, Second Dept 10-9-24

Practice Point: This case presents another instance of an appellate court’s determination the striking of a pleading as a sanction is too severe a penalty. Here plaintiff failed to respond to discovery demands and a $2500 penalty was deemed an appropriate sanction by the Second Department.

 

, ,

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLAINTIFF IN DEFENDANT GYM’S STEAM ROOM WAS FORESEEABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AS A MATTER OF LAW; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF PRIOR SIMILAR ASSAULTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about the foreseeability of the underlying incident, an alleged sexual assault in the steam room at defendant Equinox’s gym, which precluded summary judgment. Although Equinox had no prior notice with respect to the person who allegedly assaulted plaintiff, there was evidence Equinox was aware of other similar incidents in the steam room:

The Court of Appeals has “repeatedly emphasized” that “[o]nly in rare cases” can questions concerning foreseeability be decided as a matter of law … . * * *

Here, the motion court determined that plaintiff’s alleged attack was not foreseeable because “the ‘notice’ plaintiff relies upon concerns other alleged incidents in the steam room, none of which involved plaintiff’s assailant” and that “some of the other incidents]appear to involve consensual behavior.” New York courts, however, have never required prior incidents to have been committed by the same assailant or even be of the same type of conduct to which the plaintiff was subjected … . … [A]t least three of the other gym members reported that they had been sexually harassed, including the member who complained mere weeks before the assault on plaintiff … .

The motion court additionally found that, even if defendants did have a duty to plaintiff to prevent his alleged assault, “they met their duty to implement reasonable policies to decrease the likelihood of such an incident” and plaintiff failed to present a material issue of fact “with respect to these policies and procedures.”  * * *

We find that whether plaintiff’s alleged assault was foreseeable to Equinox and whether Equinox implemented adequate security measures to decrease the likelihood of such incidents are questions of fact and plaintiff’s negligence claim should advance to a jury trial. We cannot say, as a matter of law, that another gym member allegedly assaulting plaintiff against the backdrop of multiple complaints of inappropriate sexual conduct inside the steam room was “extraordinary under the circumstances or not foreseeable in the normal course of events” … . Crandall v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04902, First Dept 10-8-24

Practice Point: Whether an injury to plaintiff was foreseeable from defendant’s perspective can rarely be decided as a matter of law.

 

, , , ,

FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO SHOWING THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL PRIOR TO THE FALL WARRANTED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE CHARGE; UNDER THE FACTS, STRIKING DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined striking defendant’s answer for destruction of video evidence in this slip and fall case was not warranted, an adverse inference jury instruction was a sufficient sanction. Defendant provided video of plaintiff’s fall in compliance with plaintiff’s attorney’s request. Nine months later plaintiff’s attorney requested video showing the area prior to the fall, but it had been overwritten by then:

Plaintiffs’ counsel sent defendants a preservation letter approximately seven days following the accident. Defendants responded by producing several minutes of video of the accident itself, which was reasonably compliant with plaintiffs’ request for video surveillance of “the incident.” However, there was no pre-fall video footage provided to aid plaintiffs in establishing defendants’ actual or constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition on the floor. Defendants’ employee, who culled the video footage provided, was no longer in defendants’ employ and was not available to be deposed as to his or her reasons for selecting particular video footage. Plaintiff’s counsel did not alert defendants of a need for additional video footage depicting the pre-fall circumstances at the accident site until nine months after receipt of the initial video clip, which was well after the software that operated defendants’ surveillance cameras had overwritten the video surveillance from plaintiff’s accident date.

Plaintiff’s proof established that defendants had control over the relevant surveillance and preserved it to the extent requested, but absent deposition testimony from defendant’s former employee who prepared the video clip as to his reasons for selecting the footage he or she did, the culpability issue cannot be definitively resolved. Nevertheless, the destroyed evidence video compromised the fairness of the litigation so as to warrant an adverse inference sanction … . Lev v Eataly USA LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 04910, First Dept 10-8-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff’s counsel requested video of “the incident” in this slip and fall case, which was provided. Nine months later plaintiff’s counsel requested video showing the area prior to the fall re: the issue of defendant’s notice of the condition. By that time the video had been overwritten. Plaintiff was entitled to an adverse inference jury instruction. Striking the defendant’s answer was deemed too severe a sanction.

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS DEEMED INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED PREJUDICIAL REMARKS MADE TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS (TO THE EFFECT “I CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT BECAUSE I AM NO LONGER A DEFENSE ATTORNEY”), AND FOR AGREEING TO THE JUDGE’S REQUEST TO HAVE THE TWO SIDES ALTERNATE GOING FIRST IN EXERCISING PEREMPTORY JUROR CHALLENGES (IN VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW) (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed defendant’s conviction on ineffective-assistance grounds. Defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s repeated statements to prospective jurors that he can sleep at night because he is a prosecutor and no longer a defense attorney. Defense counsel agreed to alter the statutory peremptory juror-challenge procedure, which requires that the People must exercise their peremptory challenges first. Defense counsel agreed to alternate which side went first:

The first error occurred during voir dire when defense counsel failed to object to patently improper comments from the prosecutor regarding his ability to sleep at night now that he is a prosecutor and no longer a defense attorney. Perhaps it was a legitimate strategy for defense counsel not to object to the first improper comment of that nature given that defense counsel may not have wanted to draw more attention to the prejudicial comment. For the same reason, defense counsel might be excused for not objecting when the prosecutor repeated the comment to the same group of prospective jurors. We can discern no legitimate strategy, however, for defense counsel to remain quiet when the prosecutor made the same comment for the third, fourth and fifth times during voir dire. At some point, defense counsel was obligated to protect defendant from the prejudice arising from the repeated acts of prosecutorial misconduct and, at the very least, request a curative instruction from the court.

Defense counsel also erred in not objecting—and, indeed, consenting—to the court’s unlawful procedure of having the parties alternate which side went first in declaring whether they wished to exercise a peremptory challenge to a particular prospective juror. CPL 270.15 (2) provides that the People “must exercise their peremptory challenges first and may not, after the defendant has exercised [the defendant’s] peremptory challenges, make such a challenge to any remaining prospective juror who is then in the jury box.” After the court stated that its practice was to have parties alternate their exercise of peremptory challenges, defense counsel, evidently unaware of the statute’s mandate, said, “I’ll go first. He can go first. I don’t care.” As a result, on numerous occasions during voir dire defense counsel stated whether or not she was peremptorily challenging a prospective juror before the prosecutor was required to state his position.

Although the court’s violation of CPL 270.15 (2) does not constitute a mode of proceedings error, it was certainly prejudicial to defendant and we can conceive of no legitimate strategy for defense counsel’s acquiescence to the unlawful procedure. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case in totality and as of the time of the representation, “[o]ur review of this record indicates that defendant was not afforded meaningful representation and was therefore deprived of a fair trial” … . People v Stewart, 2024 NY Slip Op 04863, Fourth Dept 10-4-24

Practice Point: Although it is not a mode of proceedings error to alternate which side goes first in exercising peremptory challenges to prospective jurors in violation of the criminal procedure law, here defense counsel’s agreement to the procedure was deemed ineffective assistance of counsel and a new trial was ordered.

 

, , , ,

THE ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT IRRATIONAL; THE AWARD MUST BE CONFIRMED EVEN WHERE THE COURT DISAGREES WITH THE INTERPRETATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s ruling that petitioner firefighters were entitled to paid emergency leave should have been confirmed. In recent weeks, the appellate courts across the state have been emphasizing the finality of an arbitrator’s award, even where the court might have decided the matter differently:

“[J]udicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited” … . “The court must vacate an arbitration award where the arbitrator exceeds a limitation on his or her power as set forth in the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]” … . The court, however, lacks the authority to “examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one” … .

Here, the arbitrator merely interpreted and applied the provisions of the relevant CBA, as he had the authority to do … . We are powerless to set aside that interpretation even if we disagree with it … . Contrary to respondent’s urging, the arbitrator’s determination was not irrational; nothing in the CBA suggests that a request for emergency leave may not be made prior to the start of a tour of duty, and the arbitrator provided a justification for his determination … . Matter of Local 32, Intl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, A.F.L.-C.I.O.-C.L.C. (City of Utica), 2024 NY Slip Op 04878, Fourth Dept 10-4-24

Practice Point: The appellate courts are making it clear that an arbitrator’s award should not be tampered with by the courts as long as the arbitrator has not exceeded his or her powers.

 

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