You are here: / Judges
, , ,

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.

 

, , ,

PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 241(6, 200 and common law negligence action, determined; (1) portions of a defendant’s summary judgment motion brought more than a month after the ordered deadline where properly dismissed as untimely; (2) the aspect of the untimely summary judgment motion which had been timely raised in another defendant’s summary judgment motion was properly considered; (3) the industrial code requires shutting down the electricity when worker’s are doing electrical work, therefore plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an aerial bucket working on electrical lines when injured in an explosion:

Absent a “satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness,” constituting good cause for the delay, an untimely summary judgment motion must be denied without consideration of the merits … . However, “[a]n untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where a timely motion was made on nearly identical grounds” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants … failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), which was predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(3) and (4). 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(3) provides, among other things, that where the performance of the work may bring any person into physical or electrical contact with an electric power circuit, the employer “shall advise his [or her] employees of the locations of such lines, the hazards involved and the protective measures to be taken.” 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4) requires, in pertinent part, that employees who may come into contact with an electric power circuit be protected against electric shock “by de-energizing the circuit and grounding it or by guarding such circuit by effective insulation or other means” … . These regulations, which refer to the duty of employers, also impose a duty upon owners … . Wittenberg v Long Is. Power Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 01329

Practice Point: A summary judgment motion brought a month after the ordered deadline may be dismissed as untimely.

Practice Point: A portion of an untimely summary judgment motion which was timely raised by another defendant may be considered.

Practice Point: The industrial code provisions requiring that electrical power be shut down to protect electrical workers supported plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action.

 

, , , , ,

IN THIS ACTION BY A PROPERTY OWNER WHO LOST THE PROPERTY TO FORECLOSURE: (1) THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKERS SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION; AND (2) THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF REAL PROPERTY LAW 441-C, AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversed Supreme Court in this action against real state brokers who, plaintiff alleged, did not provide plaintiff with proper documentation for a short sale of plaintiff’s property. The short sale was not approved by the lender and plaintiff lost the property in foreclosure. The Second Department determined: (1) the judge should not have granted summary judgment to defendants on the ground plaintiff suffered no damages because that issue was not raised by defendants in the motion; (2) the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action should not have been dismissed; (3) the Real Property Law section 441-c action alleging defendants acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” should not have been dismissed; and (4) the constructive-trust cause of action should not have been dismissed:

A court is generally limited to the issues or defenses that are the subject of the motion … . * * *

“[I]t is well settled that a real estate broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal” … . * * *

… [T]he causes of action pursuant to Real Property Law § 441-c(1)(a) and 19 NYCRR 175.4, alleging that they acted with “untrustworthiness and incompetency” in dealing with the plaintiff and the property [should not have been dismissed].. … [T]here exists a private right of action for such offenses … . Perez v Mendicino, 2024 NY Slip Op 01323, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: A judge does not have the authority to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion papers;

Practice Point: Real estate brokers owe a fiduciary duty to their clients.

Practice Point: There exists a private right of action for a violation of Real Property Law 441-c for a real estate broker’s “untrustworthiness and incompetency.”

 

,

BECAUSE MOTHER HAD RELINQUISHED CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE MATERNAL GRANDFATHER FOR MORE THAN 24 MONTHS, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING BEFORE RULING ON MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the maternal grandfather, who had custody of the child for more than 24 months with the consent of mother, demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances’ which warrant a “best interests of the child” hearing before ruling on mother’s petition for custody:

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72, “an ‘extended disruption of custody’ between the child and the parent ‘shall constitute an extraordinary circumstance'” … . “The statute defines ‘extended disruption of custody’ as including, but not limited to, ‘a prolonged separation of the respondent . . . and the child for at least twenty-four continuous months during which the parent voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child and the child resided in the household of the petitioner grandparent or grandparents'” … . “Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody” … .

… [T]he maternal grandfather sustained his burden of demonstrating the existence of extraordinary circumstances. The evidence at the hearing established a prolonged separation of the subject child from the mother for more than 24 continuous months, during which the mother voluntarily relinquished care and control of the child and the child resided in the household of the maternal grandfather … . Matter of Elisa F. v Daniel D., 2024 NY Slip Op 01306, Second Dept 3-13-24

Practice Point: Here the child, with mother’s consent, was in the custody of the maternal grandfather for more than 24 months before mother brought the petition for sole custody. The maternal grandfather’s custody of the child for mote than 24 months constituted “extraordinary circumstances” warranting a “best interests of the child” hearing before ruling on mother’s petition.

 

, , ,

THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE APPELLANT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING VALIDLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court in this family offense proceeding, determined the record was insufficient to conclude the appellant had validly waived his right to counsel:

A party in a Family Court Act article 8 proceeding has the right to be represented by counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262[a][ii] …). That party, however, may waive the right to counsel, provided that the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . To ensure a valid waiver, the court must conduct a “searching inquiry” of that party … . While there is no rigid formula to be followed in such an inquiry, and the approach is a flexible one … , the record must demonstrate that the party “‘was aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … .

Here, the record is inadequate to demonstrate that the appellant validly waived his right to counsel … . The deprivation of a party’s right to counsel guaranteed by Family Court Act § 262 requires reversal without regard to the merits of the unrepresented party’s position … . Matter of Mendez-Emmanuel v Emmanuel, 2024 NY Slip Op 01180, Second Dept 3-6-24

Practice Point: In a family offense proceeding the respondent has a right to counsel. If the record doesn’t demonstrate a valid waiver of the right to counsel, a new hearing will be ordered.

 

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