You are here: / Judges
, , ,

THE MOTION COURT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE CROSS-CLAIMS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should have considered the deposition transcripts, which were certified but unsigned, and should have granted defendant driver’s (Jara Mejia’s) motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the cross-claims. Jara Mejia’s car was stopped when it was struck from behind:

“A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident” … . In support of his motion, Jara Mejia submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony and transcripts of the deposition testimony of the plaintiffs, Tsering, and Cruz Arce. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, Jara Mejia’s unsigned but certified deposition transcript was admissible, “since the transcript was submitted by the party deponent himself and, therefore, was adopted as accurate by the deponent” … . In addition, while the remaining deposition transcripts were also unsigned, they were certified and their accuracy was not challenged … . Thus, the deposition transcripts were admissible and should have been considered by the court on Jara Mejia’s motion. Gironza v Macedonio, 2024 NY Slip Op 04306, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when submitted by the party deponent himself.

Practice Point: Certified but unsigned deposition transcripts are admissible in support of summary judgment when their accuracy is not challenged.

 

, ,

THE USUAL PROHIBITIONS RE: VACATING ORDERS ISSUED OPON A PARTY’S DEFAULT DO NOT APPLY IN CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS; TO MODIFY CUSTODY, A FULL AND PLENARY HEARING IS NECESSARY; IF A PARTY DOES NOT APPEAR IN A MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, AN INQUEST SHOULD BE HELD TO CREATE A RECORD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, noted that courts should be more willing to vacate orders issued upon a party’s default in child custody matters. Mother had defaulted and custody was modified awarding custody to father. Mother’s motion to vacate the modification order should have been granted:

Although the determination of whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is a matter left to the sound discretion of the Family Court … , “the law favors resolution on the merits in child custody proceedings” … . “Thus, the ‘general rule with respect to opening defaults in civil actions is not to be rigorously applied to cases involving child custody'” … .

Moreover, modification of an existing order of custody and parental access may be made only “‘upon a showing that there has been a subsequent change [in] circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child'” … . “‘A custody determination, whether made upon the default of a party or not, must always have a sound and substantial basis in the record'” … . “Generally, the court’s determination should be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry, or, where a party failed to appear, after an inquest” … . Matter of Paez v Bambauer, 2024 NY Slip Op 04205, Second Dept 8-14-24

Practice Point: Child custody should not be modified without a full and plenary hearing, or an inquest (if a party fails to appear).

Practice Point: The rigorous rules re: vacating an order issued upon a party’s default are relaxed in child custody matters.

 

,

​HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO APPEAR OR ANSWER AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, granted defendants an extension of time to answer the complaint in the face of plaintiff’s cross-motion to enter a default judgment, The defendants did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to appear or answer or the existence of a potentially meritorious defense:

… [I]n support of that branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants, the plaintiff submitted proof of service of the summons and complaint, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the defendants’ default in answering or appearing … . The defendants’ motion, which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), was untimely, since it was made after the time to file an answer had lapsed … . By not opposing the facially adequate branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which for leave to enter a default judgment, in form or in effect, the defendants did not meet their burden of establishing a reasonable excuse for their default and demonstrating the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action. Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants should have been granted … , and the Supreme Court erred by, sua sponte, granting the defendants an extension of time to answer the complaint … . Digital Direct & More, Inc. v Dialectic Distrib., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 04196, Second Dept  8-14-24

Practice Point: Here is another example of the appellate courts cracking down on “sua sponte” rulings on motions which have no support in the record.

 

, ,

TO, SUA SPONTE, DECIDE BRANCHES OF A MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES DEPRIVED PLAIINTIFF OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THE JUDGE’S DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the judge should not have decided branches of a motion and cross-motion on a ground not raised by the parties, i.e. “in the interest of justice” on the ground the action was commenced “when foreclosures were stayed due to [the[ Covid-19 pandemic:”

“The lack of notice and opportunity to be heard implicates the fundamental issue of fairness that is the cornerstone of due process” … . As the plaintiff correctly contends, the Supreme Court improperly determined the subject branches of the parties’ motion and cross-motion on the ground that the action was commenced when “foreclosures were stayed due to [the] Covid-19 pandemic.” Sino [defendant] did not argue in support of the cross-motion that the plaintiff improperly commenced the action during any COVID-19-related stay or that it was prejudiced because the action was commenced during any COVID-19-related stay. Thus, the plaintiff was prejudiced, since it was “never afforded the opportunity to present evidence refuting the court’s sua sponte determination” … . Accordingly, the court should not have determined the subject branches of the motion and cross-motion on a ground that was never raised by the parties … . Austin 26 Dental Group, PLLC v Sino Northeast Metals (U.S.A.), Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04187, Second Dept 8-14-24

Practice Point: Judges cannot decide motions on a ground not raised by the parties.

 

, ,

HERE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT THE PROSECUTOR’S RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES WERE NON-PRETEXTUAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly denied Batson challenges to the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges:

From the dissent:

Although trial courts are permitted to implicitly determine that the race-neutral explanations offered by the prosecutor are not pretextual … , we find that the language utilized by County Court cannot be construed as making an implicit determination. County Court did not state that it believed the race-neutral reasons offered by the prosecutor; instead, the court indicated that it “believe[d] there’s a race-neutral reason . . . which would permit a . . . peremptory challenge by the People, not subject to Batson.” This language demonstrates that the court only considered whether the People had proffered a race-neutral reason and not whether the race-neutral reason was pretextual as required under the third step of the Batson inquiry, despite defendant’s arguments to this effect … . People v Morgan, 2024 NY Slip Op 04165, Third Dept 8-8-24

Practice Point: As part of a Batson juror challenge, the judge must determine whether the race-neutral reasons for a peremptory challenge are genuine (non-pretextual). Here two dissenters argued the judge did not make that determination.​

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY’S REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINING THEY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have ordered a mistrial after the jury’s repeated communications stating they could not reach a unanimous verdict:

The jury sent its third note regarding deadlock on the fourth day of deliberations, which not only stated that the jurors were “hopelessly deadlocked,” but also that “[a] unanimous decision would only be able to be achieved by the abandonment” of the jurors’ “firm . . . convictions,” and that “any change in their decisions would be untrue and unjust” … . Thus, the jury unequivocally informed the court that any unanimous verdict would be the result of jurors abandoning their genuine beliefs about the defendant’s guilt or innocence in order to achieve a unanimous verdict, which demonstrated that it would have served no purpose to provide additional instructions to the jury to continue deliberating … . Moreover, portions of the court’s instructions delivered after that note were potentially coercive, including the court’s statements that “some of you are locked into your positions and you’re fixed in those positions and inflexible and that’s contrary to what jurors have to do during jury deliberations,” and that “when you were selected as jurors you promised me that you would deliberate and discuss your views with your other jurors, so if you refuse to deliberate or close off your mind then you’re violating your promise and your oath to me” … . Notably, the jury returned a unanimous verdict later on the same day the court gave those instructions. Thus, under the circumstances, the court should have discharged the jury and declared a mistrial. People v Calixte, 2024 NY Slip Op 04079, Second Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: Here the jury sent out three articulate and detailed notes explaining they could not reach a unanimous verdict. The judge should have declared a mistrial.

 

, , ,

A WITNESS IS NOT UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY AT A TRIAL BASED UPON THE FEAR OF COMMITTING PERJURY DURING THAT TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial, determined a witness was not be unavailable to testify at the trial based upon her fear she would commit perjury at the trial:

“A witness may not claim the privilege of the [F]ifth [A]mendment out of fear that he [or she] will be prosecuted for perjury for what he [or she] is about to say. The shield against self-incrimination in such a situation is to testify truthfully, not to refuse to testify on the basis that the witness may be prosecuted for a lie not yet told” … . “Fear of a perjury prosecution can typically form a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment only where the risk of prosecution is for perjury in the witness’ past testimony” … .

“[T]he court focuses inquiry on what a truthful answer might disclose, rather than on what information is expected by the questioner” … . Simply put, the Fifth Amendment “does not permit a witness to invoke the privilege on the ground that he [or she] anticipates committing perjury sometime in the future” … . There is “no doctrine of ‘anticipatory perjury’ ” … . * * *

We … conclude that the court erred in declaring the victim unavailable and allowing her testimony from the first trial to be read to the jury at the retrial. Inasmuch as the victim was the only person who identified defendant as the person who shot her, we cannot conclude that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming, and therefore the error cannot be deemed harmless … . People v Smith, 2024 NY Slip Op 03973, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The Fifth Amendment does not permit a witness to invoke the self-incrimination privilege on the ground the witness anticipates committing perjury in the future.

 

, ,

THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR APPOINTED TO HANDLE DEFENDANT’S CASE DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE COUNTY LAW; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed the convictions and dismissed the indictment because the special prosecutor appointed to handle the case did not meet the statutory qualifications:

“County Law § 701 (1) allows a court to appoint a special district attorney in situations where the district attorney is ‘disqualified from acting in a particular case to discharge his or her duties at a term of any court’ ” … . The Court of Appeals, “[a]cknowledging that a court’s authority under County Law § 701 ‘to displace a duly elected [d]istrict [a]ttorney’ raises separation of power concerns, [has] cautioned that ‘[t]his exceptional superseder authority should not be expansively interpreted’ ” … . As relevant here, section 701 (1) (a) explicitly limits the superseding authority of a court to “appoint[ing] some attorney at law having an office in or residing in the county, or any adjoining county, to act as special district attorney.” Where, as here, a court exceeds its authority by appointing a special district attorney who does not meet those statutory requirements, “[t]he indictment must be dismissed to preserve the integrity of a statute designed narrowly by its terms and by its purpose to fill emergency gaps in an elected prosecutorial official’s responsibility” … . People v Callara, 2024 NY Slip Op 03969, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: If the special prosecutor appointed to handle defendant’s case does not meet the qualifications in the County Law, the convictions will be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SANDOVAL HEARING, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was erroneously deprived of his right to be present for the Sandoval hearing:

Where a defendant is denied the right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, reversal of defendant’s conviction is required (… see … CPL 260.20), unless “defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous” … . Here, it cannot be said that defendant’s presence at the hearing would have been superfluous because the court’s ruling was a compromise and thus, it was not “wholly favorable to defendant” … . People v Anderson, 2024 NY Slip Op 04042, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Defendant was erroneously denied his right to be present at the Sandoval hearing, new trial ordered.

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT GIVE RESPONDENT ANY TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE CHILD SUPPORT HEARING AND INDICATED SHE HAD PREDETERMINED THE OUTCOME; ORDER REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should have given respondent mother time to prepare for the child-support hearing. In addition, the Fourth Department noted the judge had improperly “predetermined” the case:

Family Court erred when it determined that his alleged violation of the child support order was willful and sentenced him to incarceration because the court did not afford respondent the right to a fair hearing … . Although “[n]o specific form of a hearing is required, . . . at a minimum the hearing must consist of an adducement of proof coupled with an opportunity to rebut it” … , and the court must provide “counsel reasonable opportunity to appear and present respondent’s evidence and arguments” … . Here, the court denied respondent’s assigned counsel an adjournment to allow her time to prepare for the hearing, for which she had no prior notice, and further prohibited her from conferring with respondent before the court attempted to swear in respondent to testify, and the court in so doing denied respondent his right to counsel and, thus, denied him a fair hearing, prior to sentencing him to a period of incarceration … .

Further, the record demonstrates that the court “had a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing” … and “took on the function and appearance of an advocate” … . Specifically, the court, inter alia, sua sponte transformed what was scheduled as an appearance for a “[r]eport” into a hearing, over the objection of respondent’s assigned counsel; exhorted that, “[i]f [respondent] wants to be cheeky with me, we’ll be cheeky”; advised the parties in advance that the hearing was only “going to take ten minutes”; sought to call respondent as a witness for the court’s own line of questioning regarding his employment and inquired of respondent’s counsel whether respondent would “like to answer my questions now or would he like to go to jail today”; and asked respondent if he had “clean underwear on,” thereby implying that he would be going directly to jail after the hearing. Matter of Onondaga County v Taylor, 2024 NY Slip Op 04040, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: Here the Family Court judge was reversed because she did not give respondent mother time to prepare for the child support hearing and indicated to respondent she had predetermined the outcome of the hearing.​

 

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