You are here: / Judges
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO MEET THE COURT’S FILING DEADLINE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this foreclosure case did not have sufficient cause to dismiss the complaint sua sponte (another reminder that sua sponte dismissals of complaints rarely survive appeal);

“‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . “[A] court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to move for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by an arbitrary date set by the court” … . “To obtain appellate review of an order or portion of an order issued sua sponte, a party may move to vacate the order or portion of the order and appeal as of right to the Appellate Division if that motion to vacate is denied” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the … order and to restore the action to the court’s active calendar, as the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale by July 26, 2017, was not a sufficient ground upon which to sua sponte direct dismissal of the complaint … . James B. Nutter & Co. v Heirs & distributees of the estate of Rose Middleton, 2024 NY Slip Op 03472, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point; Failure to meet a filing deadline set by the court was not an adequate reason for the judge’s sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint.

 

, ,

AFTER A VALID TRAFFIC STOP, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED WHILE HIS PAROLE OFFICER WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE; DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS THEN SEARCHED AND HEROIN WAS FOUND; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED UNDER THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD, NOT THE “RIGHT TO INQUIRE” STANDARD APPLIED BY THE SUPPRESSION COURT (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, remitting the case for a determination of the suppression motion under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined there was a question whether the defendant was illegally detained after a valid traffic stop to allow investigation of a possible parole violation. The parole officer was called to the scene, the defendant’s car was searched, and heroin was found:

The proper standard for detaining an individual beyond “the time reasonably required” to complete a traffic stop is reasonable suspicion … . Given that a traffic stop is a “limited seizure” of the occupants of a vehicle, “[f]or a traffic stop to pass constitutional muster, the officer’s action in stopping the vehicle must be justified at its inception and the seizure must be reasonably related in scope, including its length, to the circumstances which justified the detention in the first instance” … . A “continued involuntary detention of [a] defendant . . . constitute[s] a seizure in violation of their constitutional rights, unless circumstances coming to [the officer’s] attention following the initial stop furnishe[s] . . . reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity” … . Likewise, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a] seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation . . . become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission of issuing a ticket for the violation” … . In this vein, although that “mission” encompasses ” ‘ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop,’ ” it does not include additional measures designed to detect evidence of criminality … . Thus, an otherwise lawful traffic stop may not be prolonged “absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual” … .

… [T]here is record support for the affirmed finding that the traffic stop was justified at its inception, based upon the police officer’s observation that defendant committed a traffic infraction … . However, the courts below evaluated whether the traffic stop was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required for its completion under the founded suspicion standard applicable to the common law right to inquire … , a lesser standard than the reasonable suspicion necessary to prolong a traffic stop. As a result, remittal is necessary to allow for consideration of this issue under the proper standard. People v Thomas, 2024 NY Slip Op 03319, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: After a valid traffic stop, the question whether defendant was properly detained to allow inquiry into suspected crimes unrelated to the traffic infraction is analyzed under the “reasonable suspicion” standard, not the lesser “right to inquire” standard.

 

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S LACK OF CAPACITY TO COMMIT ARSON WAS “1400 DAYS LATE,” THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE LATE NOTICE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to accept late notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense to the arson charge. The defendant had been evaluated and treated for mental illness since childhood. When a new attorney was assigned to the defense, the notice of the intent to present psychiatric evidence was served “1400 days late.” The defense sought to introduce expert testimony to demonstrate defendant did not have the capacity to commit arson at the time of the offense:

We … hold that the trial court’s application of CPL 250.10 precluding Mr. Sidbury’s [defendant’s] psychiatric defense was an abuse of discretion. We have been clear that the governing principle animating CPL 250.10 is “procedural fairness and orderliness” with the intention of “eliminating the element of surprise” for the prosecution … . The statute formulates a procedure for defendants to serve notice of their intent to present psychiatric evidence that is “prepared and presented manageably and efficiently,” such that it allows for “proper notification, adversarial examination, and preclusion when appropriate” … . * * *

Although the statute provides for service of the notice within 30 days of the defendant’s not-guilty plea, the court has discretion to permit service of a late notice “[i]n the interest of justice and for good cause shown” … . Late notice is permissible “at any time prior to the close of evidence”—including after trial has commenced  … .

The decision to permit late notice is within the discretion of the trial court … . That discretion, however, is “not absolute,” because “[e]xclusion of relevant and probative testimony as a sanction for a defendant’s failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement implicates a defendant’s constitutional right to present witnesses in [their] own defense” … . Instead, the trial court must “weigh [the defendant’s constitutional] right against the resultant prejudice to the People from the belated notice” … . People v Sidbury, 2024 NY Slip Op 03318, CtApp 6-18-24

Practice Point: Although service of notice of intent to present psychiatric evidence as a defense should be made within 30 days of the not-guilty plea, the court has the discretion to accept late notice at any time prior to the close of evidence (because the constitutional right to present a defense is at stake).

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO RULE ON A MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION; AN APPELLATE COURT MUST REMIT FOR A RULING BY THE TRIAL COURT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a ruling, noted that a judge’s failure to rule on a trial order of dismissal motion does not constitute a denial of the motion. Therefore an appellate court cannot rule on the evidentiary issue raised in the motion and must send the matter back for a ruling:

The failure of a trial court to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal cannot be deemed a denial of that motion, and thus we must hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . People v Kohmescher, 2024 NY Slip Op 03287, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Because the failure to rule on a motion for a trial order of dismissal is not a denial of the motion an appellate court cannot address the issue and must remit for a ruling by the trial court.

 

, ,

THE JURY REQUESTED A READBACK OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS; THE JUDGE ONLY PROVIDED A READBACK OF THE DIRECT AND ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THE TOPIC WAS NOT ADDRESSED ON CROSS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not meaningfully respond to a jury note requesting both the direct testimony and the cross-examination on a specific topic. The judge only provided the direct testimony and erroneously told the jury the cross-examination did not address the topic:

… [T]he jury submitted a note requesting, inter alia, a readback of testimony from the victim “about the time she was in the car on Glenwood until she was out of the car from both defense and the DA’s questions.” The court responded to the jury’s request by reading back only testimony from the victim on direct examination about the time that she was inside the car. The court did not order the readback of any cross-examination, which included questioning about inconsistencies in the victim’s account of the incident, including questions about the victim’s earlier statement to the police describing a conversation that she had with defendant outside the car and questions regarding her statement to the police on the day of the incident that the driver of a car attempted to pull her into the car through the window. The court also instructed the jury that only direct examination included questions with respect to the victim being inside the car and, despite the jury’s request to hear questioning from both the prosecution and the defense, the court did not request clarification from the jury whether they wanted to hear the defense’s cross-examination regarding the incident. A meaningful response to a request for a readback of testimony “is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to be read back … . People v Dortch, 2024 NY Slip Op 03283, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here the jury requested a readback of the direct and cross on a specific topic. The judge provided only the direct which did not constitute a meaningful response to the jury note. New trial ordered.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF HIS CHILDREN WHILE INCARCERATED; HE MADE SERIOUS EFFORTS TO RECONNECT WITH THE CHILDREN AFTER HIS RELEASE; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT RATHER THAN PERMANENTLY TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined father, after his release from prison, made efforts to reconnect with his children which warranted a suspended judgment rather than permanent termination of his parental rights. While incarcerated father had not cooperated with efforts to place the children:

A suspended judgment “provides a brief grace period to give a parent found to have permanently neglected a child a second chance to prepare for reunification with the child” … . Notably, we may substitute our discretion for that of the trial court even in the absence of an abuse of discretion … , and here we conclude that a suspended judgment, rather than termination of parental rights, was in the children’s best interests … . At the time of the dispositional hearing—just two months after his release from prison—the father had found full-time employment, participated in weekly visitation with the children, had started communicating regularly with the children’s foster family regarding the children, and was in the process of finding housing and completing a mental health evaluation and parenting classes, while the children were reportedly happy to be visiting with the father regularly. “Given the child[ren]’s . . . young age, [the father’s] recommencement of regular visitation, . . . the sustained efforts on the part of [the father following his release from prison], and the Legislature’s express desire to return children to their natural parents whenever possible” … , we conclude that the father “should have been granted a ‘second chance’ in the form of a suspended judgment” … . Matter of Rodcliffe M., Jr. (Rodcliffe M., Sr.), 2024 NY Slip Op 03267, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Family Court has the option of issuing a suspended judgment to give a parent a second chance to avoid termination of parental rights.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY REFUSING TO ATTEND THE TRIAL AND DIRECTING DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT CONCLUDED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s conviction after he was tried in absentia. Defendant was properly denied a request for new counsel. Defendant then directed his attorney not to participate in the trial and defendant did not attend the trial. Defense counsel did not participate, except to make a motion for a trial order of dismissal outside the presence of the jury. The two-justice dissent would have reversed on ineffective assistance grounds, concluding that defense counsel should have participated in the trial, despite defendant’s directive:

Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention inasmuch as defendant waived the right to effective assistance of counsel by directing defense counsel not to participate in the proceedings … . * * * When the court had defendant brought into the courtroom and informed him that he had the right to be present for trial and participate in his defense, defendant again objected to the entire proceeding, reiterated that he had fired defense counsel, refused to answer the court’s questions, and renewed his request for substitute counsel. When the court responded that defendant would not receive another attorney but had the right to proceed pro se, defendant left the courtroom. Defense counsel subsequently informed the court that he intended to follow defendant’s directive not to participate in the proceedings. The trial was then held in defendant’s absence. Defense counsel was present but did not participate, except to move, outside the presence of the jury, for a trial order of dismissal.

We conclude that, under these circumstances, defendant waived his right to effective assistance of counsel … . Defendant’s “desire to prevent counsel’s participation, coupled with his adamant refusal to represent himself, translates into an intentional failure to avail himself of his constitutional right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State’s accusations” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]), and he must therefore “accept the decision he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made, and the consequences of his intentional actions and choices” … . People v Lewis, 2024 NY Slip Op 03245. Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Defendant did not attend the trial and directed his attorney not to participate in the trial. Defense counsel did not participate. The majority held defendant had waived his right to effective assistance. A two-justice dissent argued defense counsel’s failure to participate constituted ineffective assistance and would have ordered a new trial.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON FIRST DEGREE, THE WEAPON BEING AN IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED); THE ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD DEGREE COUNT IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WHICH MUST BE DISMISSED; COUNTY COURT IMPROPERLY RESENTENCED DEFENDANT IN HIS ABSENCE, REQUIRING VACATION OF THE SENTENCE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined (1) the attempted criminal possession of a weapon third degree must be dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a weapon first degree and (2) the judge’s resentencing the defendant on the attempted criminal possession of a weapon third conviction in defendant’s absence was improper and warranted vacation of the sentence. The defendant was convicted of possessing an improvised explosive device (IED), essentially a bomb:

A person is guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree “when, with intent to commit a crime, he [or she] engages in conduct” wherein “[s]uch person possesses any explosive or incendiary bomb [or] bombshell” (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.02 [2]). The terms explosive substance, explosive and incendiary bomb are not defined in the Penal Law. Explosives are, however, defined in the Labor Law as “gunpowder, powders used for blasting, high explosives, blasting materials, detonating fuses, detonators, pyrotechnics and other detonating agents, fireworks and dangerous fireworks as defined in section 270.00 of the [P]enal [L]aw, smokeless powder and any chemical compound or any mechanical mixture containing any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients in such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition by fire, friction, concussion, percussion or detonation of any part thereof may cause and is intended to cause an explosion” (Labor Law § 451). The terms explosive or incendiary bomb were added to Penal Law § 265.02 (2) in 1970 to cover Molotov cocktails within the meaning of the statute … . We agree with defendant that it would be impossible to commit the greater crime — criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree — without concomitantly, by the same conduct, committing the lesser crime involving possession of an explosive, incendiary bomb or bombshell. Thus, the conviction for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree must be vacated and dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count … . People v Graham, 2024 NY Slip Op 03104, Third Dept 6-6-24

Practice Point: Here the attempted criminal possession of a weapon third degree was dismissed as an inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a weapon first degree.

Practice Point: Resentencing the defendant in defendant’s absence is a violation of defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights to be present and requires vacation of the sentence.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN SO INFORMED; REVERSED AND REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court and ordering a hearing on defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea on ineffective assistance grounds, determined defendant, a citizen of Haiti, sufficiently demonstrated he had never been informed of the deportation consequences of the guilty plea and he would not have pled guilty if he had been so informed:

… [D]efendant proffered a sworn affidavit wherein he averred that counsel did not inquire as to whether defendant was a citizen, never discussed with defendant his immigration status nor did he advise defendant that he could be deported as a result of his guilty plea. Defendant also asserted that, during the plea proceeding, County Court never inquired about whether he was a United States citizen, his immigration status or advised that a conviction could result in deportation. This assertion is supported by the record, which reveals no mention of citizenship or deportation at any point during defendant’s plea or sentencing … . Defendant also averred that he moved to the United States approximately 20 years ago, when he was six years old, and that his entire family resides in this country … . Furthermore, defendant asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial if he had been informed that this conviction could result in deportation … . Thus, defendant sufficiently alleged that counsel failed to provide him with any information regarding deportation consequences of his plea and that defendant was prejudiced because he would not have pleaded guilty had he been advised of these consequences, such that a hearing is warranted … . Indeed, given defendant’s affidavit as well as the record of the plea proceeding, there is a genuine concern that, as defendant asserts, he was never advised of the deportation consequences of his plea. Accordingly, this matter must be remitted to County Court for a hearing on defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion. People v Philippe, 2024 NY Slip Op 03105, Third Dept 6-6-24

Practice Point: The failure to inform a non-citizen defendant of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea can constitute ineffective assistance.

Practice Point: A non-citizen defendant who shows he was not informed of the deportation consequences of the guilty plea and sufficiently demonstrates he would not have pled guilty if he had been so informed is entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate the guilty plea.

 

, , ,

A SANDOVAL RULING ADDRESSED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF LIMITED REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION; AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED RAPE, THE DEFENDANT TOLD THE VICTIM HE HAD SPENT SEVERAL YEARS IN PRISON; WITHOUT SEEKING A PRIOR VENTIMIGLIA RULING, THE PEOPLE INFORMED THE JURY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S “YEARS IN PRISON” STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM IN THE OPENING; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial, determined the prosecutor’s introduction of a statement defendant made to the victim about his prior incarceration warranted reversal of defendant’s rape conviction. The prosecutor had not sought a prior “Ventimiglia” ruling on the admissibility of the statement. The statement was the subject of a prior Sandoval ruling which allowed limited reference to the prior conviction in cross-examination of the defendant. The trial judge, after hearing argument on the “Ventimiglia” issue after the statement had been introduced, determined the statement would have been ruled admissible had a prior request for a ruling been made:

In ruling on the People’s proffer, County Court fashioned a Sandoval compromise that limited the scope of questioning to the existence of the conviction and when it occurred, with no information about “the title, the classification, the violent nature under the Penal Law [or] the sentence . .. as well as underlying facts, unless the defense were to open the door with regard to those issues.” In spite of that ruling, in their opening statement, the People stated that, during the encounter but prior to any sexual assault, defendant “disclosed something unexpected, something that jarred [the victim]”; specifically, that “he had spent several years in prison.” * * *

We find that the People’s introduction of the statement referencing defendant’s prior incarceration without first seeking an advanced Ventimiglia ruling was improper … . While County Court’s Sandoval compromise was limited to the introduction of such evidence on cross-examination, it directly addressed the proof at issue; specifically, the allowable reference to defendant’s prior conviction. To this point, the People’s contention that the evidence was not subject to a prior ruling as it was part of the criminal conduct itself runs contrary to the fact that the Sandoval proffer on this exact evidence before trial reflected that it was subject to a discretionary determination as to whether the probative value outweighed the risk for real prejudice. Thus, the People effectively deprived defendant of the benefit of such analysis prior to introduction of the evidence by circumventing the Sandoval ruling … . People v Osman, 2024 NY Slip Op 03106, Third Dept 6-6-24

Practice Point: Here, at the time of the alleged rape, defendant told the victim he had spent several years in prison. Although the People sought a Sandoval ruling on the admissibility of evidence of defendant’s prior conviction during defendant’s cross-examination, the People did not seek a “Ventimiglia” ruling on the admissibility of such evidence in its direct case. The People’s reference to defendant’s statement in their opening was deemed reversible error.

 

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