You are here: / Judges
, , ,

A RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DEALS ONLY WITH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADINGS AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined the judge improperly refused to consider evidence submitted by defendants in opposition to claimant’s summary judgment motion citing the law of the case doctrine. The judge’s “law of the case” ruling, however, was based on her prior ruling on a motion to dismiss. Because a motion to dismiss addresses only the sufficiency of the pleadings, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case with respect to a subsequent summary judgment motion:

It is well settled that the law of the case doctrine “applies only to legal determinations that were necessarily resolved on the merits in a prior decision” … , and that a court’s order denying a motion to dismiss is “addressed to the sufficiency of the pleadings” and does not “establish the law of the case for the purpose of” motions for summary judgment … . We thus agree with defendants that the court erred in refusing to consider defendants’ proof in opposition to the motion … . Riley v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01647, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: A ruling on a motion to dismiss is not the law of the case for a subsequent summary judgment motion.

 

, ,

A SIROIS HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER WITNESSES ARE UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY BECAUSE OF INTIMIDATION IS A MATERIAL STAGE OF A TRIAL; DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEARING; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should not have conducted the Sirois hearing, which is a material stage of a trial, in the absence of defendant and defense counsel. The hearing determined two witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Defense counsel was allowed to submit questions to be posed during the hearing:

… [A] new trial is warranted with respect to the criminal possession of a weapon count because he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial (… see generally CPL 260.20). During the suppression hearing, allegations were made that defendant, or people acting at his behest, had threatened two witnesses to the underlying incident about testifying against defendant. The People, therefore, requested a Sirois hearing and sought a determination that the witnesses had been made constructively unavailable to testify at trial by threats attributable to defendant, allowing them to introduce at trial statements made by the witnesses that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay … . * * *

The court erred in conducting the Sirois hearing without defendant or defense counsel present. “[A] defendant’s absence at a Sirois hearing has a substantial effect on [their] ability to defend the charges against [them] and, thus, a Sirois hearing constitutes a material stage of the trial” … . A “[d]efendant [is] entitled to confront the witness[es] against [them] at [such a] hearing and also to be present so that [the defendant can] advise counsel of any errors or falsities in the witness[es]’ testimony which could have an impact on guilt or innocence” … . People v Steele, 2024 NY Slip Op 01642, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point; Here defendant and defense counsel were excluded from the Sirois hearing which determined two prosecution witnesses were unavailable to testify because of intimidation. Because the hearing is a material stage of the trial, defendant must be present. Allowing defense counsel to submit written questions was insufficient. A new trial was required.

 

, ,

A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a prior ruling in a prior action finding that withheld documents were protected from disclosure did not trigger the collateral estoppel doctrine in the instant action because the prior ruling did not indicate the specific privilege invoked for each document:

… [T]he court abused its discretion in summarily denying the motion on the basis that it had previously ruled that the withheld documents were protected from disclosure in a prior action involving the parties. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue when “the identical issue necessarily [was] decided in the prior action and [is] decisive of the present action, and . . . the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue [had] a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination” … . Preclusion of an issue occurs only if that issue was ” ‘actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided’ ” in the prior action … . While in the prior action the court denied a motion to compel the identical documents contained in the privilege log, the court did not specifically address whether the withheld documents were protected and which protection, such as attorney-client privilege, applied to each document. Thus, there is no evidence that the identical issue, decisive in this action, was necessarily decided in the prior action … . Wiltberger v Allen, 2024 NY Slip Op 01635, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: Collateral estoppel applies only when the issues are identical. Here, even though the documents at issue were found to be privileged in the prior action, the precise privilege applied to each document was not described in the prior order. Therefore it is not clear the issues are identical in the instant proceeding, so the application of collateral estoppel to preclude disclosure is not available.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN PRIOR NOTICE OF THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DECISION TO ASSESS 25 POINTS FOR A RISK FACTOR WHEN THE SORA BOARD SUGGESTED FIVE AND THE PEOPLE AGREED TO FIVE; NEW HEARING ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the SORA risk-level assessment and remitting the matter for a new hearing, determined the defendant did not have notice of the judge’s sua sponte assessment of 25 points for risk factor 2, when both the SORA Board and the People recommended a five point assessment:

… [T]he court assessed 25 points under risk factor 2 even though the Board had recommended that five points be assessed and the People requested five points. Although the court stated during an appearance prior to the SORA hearing that “it does appear that the upward modification [sic] that was requested [in writing] by the People may be warranted in regards to the sexual intercourse factor,” the court misapprehended the nature of the People’s request for an upward departure, which plainly was not based on a disagreement with the Board’s recommendation under risk factor 2. In any event, the court did not grant an upward departure; instead, after determining at the hearing that only five points should be assessed under risk factor 2, the court later assessed 25 points based on an indication in the case summary that defendant stated at sentencing on the qualifying offense that he had consensual sexual intercourse with the victim.

Because defendant did not have notice that the court was considering a sua sponte assessment of additional points under risk factor 2, we “reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to [Supreme] Court for a new risk level determination, and a new hearing if necessary, in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights” … . People v Acosta, 2024 NY Slip Op 01626, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

Practice Point: The judge in a SORA risk-level hearing cannot, sua sponte, increase the number of points assessed for a risk factor without prior notice to the defendant. Notice that the People will seek an upward departure does not constitute notice of increased points for a specific risk factor.

Similar issue and result where the People did not give notice of their intent to request a 10 point assessment for risk factor 12. People v Lostumbo, 2024 NY Slip Op 01639, Fourth Dept 3-22-24

​

​

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have determined New York courts no longer had jurisdiction over this modification of custody case without holding a hearing:

In November 2018, the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application to relocate with the child from New York to Connecticut. In an order dated May 31, 2022, the court awarded sole custody of the child to the mother and suspended the father’s parental access upon the father’s default in appearing at a scheduled court appearance. The father subsequently filed a petition to modify the order dated May 31, 2022, so as to award him sole physical custody of the child. At a court appearance on December 5, 2022, the court stated, inter alia, that the mother had “relocated to Connecticut years ago” and that “[t]he [c]ourt no longer has jurisdiction.” …

The Supreme Court should not have summarily determined, without a hearing, that it lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the child had been residing in Connecticut. The court made previous custody determinations in relation to the child in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and, therefore, would ordinarily retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a … . In order to determine whether it lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1)(a), the court should have afforded the parties an opportunity to present evidence as to whether the child had maintained a significant connection with New York and whether substantial evidence was available in New York concerning the child’s “care, protection, training, and personal relationships” … . Matter of Holley v Mills, 2024 NY Slip Op 01542, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Although the court in 2018 granted mother’s application to relocate to Connecticut with the child, it may have continuing jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have decided it did not have jurisdiction over father’s petition to modify the custody order without holding a hearing about the child’s connections to New York.

Similar jurisdiction issue in a child support modification proceeding (governed by Family Court Act 580-205(a)) in Matter of Sherman v Killian, 2024 NY Slip Op 01550, Second Dept 3-20-24

, ,

IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHETHER THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY DEEMED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS TO HAVE BEEN WAIVED BY THE PLEA, OR WHETHER THE JUDGE REJECTED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS AFTER CONSIDERING IT AS REQUIRED; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, remanding the matter for consideration of youthful offender status, determined it was not clear from the record whether the judge improperly denied youthful offender status because it has been waived by the plea or whether youthful offender status had been considered and rejected:

Although the court stated at sentencing that it would not grant defendant youthful offender status with regard to Indictment Nos. 3801/16 and 583/17, “there is nothing in the record to indicate that it actually independently considered youthful offender treatment,” as required by CPL 720.20(1) and People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), “instead of denying such treatment because it was not part of the plea agreement” … . While a court need not set forth its reasons for denying youthful offender treatment … , it is still required to “clarify expressly whether it had ‘actually consider[ed] youthful offender treatment’ or whether it had improperly ‘ruled it out on the ground that it had been waived as part of defendant’s negotiated plea'” … . Because the court did not satisfy this obligation, we remand the matter for a determination of whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender treatment as to the promoting prison contraband and attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance convictions. People v J.G., 2024 NY Slip Op 01520, First Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: In rejecting youthful offender status, the judge need not give the reasons but the record must reflect the judge considered the issue and did not improperly consider it waived by the plea.

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY HELD SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION BECAUSE COUNTERCLAIMS WERE STILL BEFORE THE COURT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined that plaintiffs were properly allowed to amend their complaint, which had been dismissed without prejudice, because counterclaims were still before the court:

… [T]he Appellate Division dismissal of the second amended complaint due to lack of standing or capacity was without prejudice …. . The order contemplated that the company could “in theory, be revived,” but simply stated that [plaintiff] had done so improperly. Therefore, there is nothing in the Appellate Division’s order or opinion that would prevent plaintiffs from pursuing their claims after curing the standing or capacity issue. …

The question on appeal, then, is whether the Appellate Division’s decision required the plaintiffs to commence a separate action instead of seeking leave to file an amended complaint. Whatever the answer to that question might be in a case in which no action remained between the parties in Supreme Court, … here the action remained pending in Supreme Court because of the [defendants’] counterclaims. Therefore, Supreme Court retained control over the parties and continued to adjudicate claims related to the same transactions that formed the subject-matter of the complaint. For that reason, the Appellate Division order also did not render the case final for purposes of appealability, as no appeal to the Court of Appeals may be taken from an order which leaves claims pending in the action between the same parties … .

Because the original action remained pending in Supreme Court even after the complaint was dismissed, Supreme Court retained the power to grant leave to plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. Favourite Ltd. v Cico, 2024 NY Slip Op 01496, CtApp 3-19-24

Practice Point: Here the appellate court had dismissed the complaint without prejudice and the issue was whether plaintiffs could file an amended complaint, or whether plaintiffs had to start a new lawsuit. The Court of Appeals held Supreme Court retained the power to allow an amended complaint because counterclaims were still before the court.

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL WITH ELEVEN JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL ON ALL COUNTS WITHOUT INQUIRING WHETHER A VERDICT HAD BEEN REACHED ON ANY OF THE COUNTS; RETRIAL OF THIS MURDER CASE PROHIBITED ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, granting petitioner’s request for a writ of prohibition, determined retrial of this murder case was prohibited on double jeopardy grounds. Apparently one juror (juror number five) had done independent research on the charge of murder in the second degree and jurors had complained about racial tension in the jury room, implicating the same juror. There was an indication that jurors had agreed on verdicts for five of six charges. Petitioner asked to continue the trial with 11 jurors, which requires the judge’s consent. The judge denied the request. Defense counsel asked that the jury be polled on the counts for which verdicts had apparently been reached. The judge refused the request and declared a mistrial:

… [T]he People have not met their burden of demonstrating that the declaration of a mistrial was manifestly necessary. Assuming, arguendo, that juror number five was grossly unqualified to continue serving, we conclude that the court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial without considering other alternatives. Petitioner expressed his desire to waive trial by a jury of 12 individuals and proceed with the remaining 11 jurors, an option that has been endorsed by the Court of Appeals “if circumstances arise that warrant such a request” … . Although the court has discretion to deny a request to proceed with 11 jurors—as the court did here—that discretion is limited … . The record here is devoid of evidence that petitioner’s request was not tendered in good faith, that the request was ” ‘a stratagem to procure an otherwise impermissible procedural advantage’ ” … , or that deliberation with 11 jurors could not “produce a fair verdict” … . Under the circumstances presented, as urged by defense counsel, “it would have been appropriate to poll the remainder of the jurors to ascertain whether they could render an impartial verdict” … .

Moreover, “it was an abuse of discretion to have declared a mistrial on all of the counts in the indictment without inquiring whether a decision had been reached on any of the charges” … . Although there was not “overwhelming evidence” that a partial verdict had been reached … , the jury’s note asking for guidance on next steps “[i]f we have a decision on five counts but not on one of them” presented more than a mere inference that the jury may have reached a partial verdict, and the subsequent communications with the jury did not indicate otherwise … . Under these circumstances, the court was required to make an inquiry “as to whether a verdict had been reached on any of the counts . . . before declaring a mistrial over the petitioner’s objection” … .

On this record, “[n]either physical impossibility to proceed nor manifest necessity to declare a mistrial as to the entire indictment has been demonstrated” … because the court failed “to obtain enough information” whether a mistrial was actually necessary as to all counts … . Matter of Shipmon v Moran, 2024 NY Slip Op 01424, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Under these facts, it was an abuse of discretion to deny petitioner’s request to continue the trial with 11 jurors. Retrial prohibited on double jeopardy grounds.

Practice Point: Under these facts, it was an abuse of discretion to fail to inquire whether the jury had reached a verdict on any counts. Retrial prohibited on double jeopardy grounds.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF ALL THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THE GUILTY PLEA, INCLUDING THE FINE; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s conviction to driving while ability impaired by drugs, determined the sentencing judge did not inform defendant of the direct consequences of the guilty  plea:

“It is well settled that, in order for a plea to be knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of that plea” … . “The direct consequences of a plea—those whose omission from a plea colloquy makes the plea per se invalid—are essentially the core components of a defendant’s sentence: a term of probation or imprisonment, a term of postrelease supervision, a fine” … , and the failure to advise a defendant at the time of the guilty plea of all of the potential direct consequence of that plea “requires that [the] plea be vacated” … . Here, the court advised defendant that, upon a violation of interim probation, he could be sentenced “to anything allowable by law which . . . is up to two and a third to seven years in the department of corrections,” but failed to advise him of any other potential direct consequences of the plea, including a fine (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]). We note that defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not encompassed in an appeal waiver … , and that preservation of defendant’s contention was not required under the circumstances of this case inasmuch as “defendant did not have sufficient knowledge of the terms of the plea at the plea allocution and, when later advised, did not have sufficient opportunity to move to withdraw [his] plea” … . People v Abraham, 2024 NY Slip Op 01419, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: If a judge fails to inform a defendant of the direct consequences of a guilty plea, including the fine, the plea must be vacated.

 

, , ,

THE SUPPRESSION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG “DEBOUR” LEVEL TO THE INITIAL INQUIRY BY THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT AND REQUESTED THAT HE STEP OUT OF THE CAR; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RULED UPON UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD, THE APPELLATE COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUE AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision, remitted the matter for another ruling on defendant’s suppression motion. The trial judge determined that the police officer conducted a level one (DeBour) inquiry when he ordered the defendant out of the car. In fact, the officer conducted a level three inquiry which required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Because the ruling on defendant’s suppression motion was based upon the wrong standard, the matter was remitted for a ruling under the correct standard:

… [T]he patrol lieutenant engaged in a level three intrusion under De Bour when he ordered the occupants out of the vehicle … . Although an “officer’s initial approach of [a person] and request for identification [may constitute] a permissible level one encounter” under De Bour, it is well established that an “officer’s request that [a person] exit [a] parked vehicle elevate[s] the situation to a level three encounter under De Bour” and requires reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot … .

Because the court erroneously concluded that the patrol lieutenant engaged in only a level one intrusion when he directed defendant to step out of the vehicle, the court had no occasion to consider whether the patrol lieutenant had reasonable suspicion justifying that directive … . Although the People concede that the patrol lieutenant lacked reasonable suspicion, we are precluded “from reviewing an issue that . . . was not decided by the trial court” … . People v Taylor, 2024 NY Slip Op 01449, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: When the police officer approached defendant and asked defendant to get out of the car, the officer was conducting a level three DeBour inquiry which required reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The suppression judge erroneously applied the criteria for a level one inquiry and denied suppression. Because the correct suppression issue was never ruled upon, the appellate court was forced to remit the matter for a ruling under the correct DeBour standard.

 

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