You are here: / Judges
, , , ,

DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION DESPITE THE PRIOR GRANTING OF AN IDENTICAL MOTION BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK’S PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER SEVERAL DEFENDANTS IN THIS INTERNATIONAL BANK-FRAUD AND MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pitt-Burke, determined the denial of a defendant’s motion to dismiss on forum-non-conveniens grounds was a proper exercise of discretion, despite the fact that the identical motion by another defendant had already been granted. The case stems from an elaborate international fraud and money-laundering scheme which allegedly resulted in the theft by hackers of $81 million from plaintiff bank. The opinion addresses forum non conveniens, long-arm “conspiracy” jurisdiction and conversion but is too complex and detailed to fairly summarize here. With respect to forum non conveniens, the court wrote:

Forum non conveniens is a common-law doctrine that presumes jurisdiction … . … [T]the initial question before this Court is whether Supreme Court had the discretion to deny the … defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds when it had already granted another defendant’s motion to dismiss under the same doctrine. We answer this question in the affirmative and find that the … defendants have not demonstrated that Supreme Court’s denial was an improvident use of discretion. * * *

… [W]e find Supreme Court’s determination to deny each defendant’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds was not an abuse of discretion. However, this determination only represents half of our inquiry, as a finding that it was proper for Supreme Court to deny defendants’ motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds does not equate to a finding that Supreme Court had personal jurisdiction over all … defendants. Indeed … , plaintiff has failed to establish personal jurisdiction over Reyes, Pineda, Capina, and Agarrado. Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. 2024 NY Slip Op 01112, 2-29-24

Practice Point: Whether to grant a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is discretionary. Here the denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion despite the prior granting of an identical motion brought by another defendant.

 

, ,

THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S CALCULATIONS WERE BASED RENDERED THE REPORT INADMISSBILE HEARSAY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the confirmation of the referee’s report in this foreclosure action, determined the absence of the records relied upon for the referee’s computations rendered the report inadmissible hearsay:

“The report of a referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” … . “However, computations based on the review of unidentified and unproduced business records . . . constitute[ ] inadmissible hearsay and lack[ ] probative value” … .

… [T]he referee’s report was improperly premised upon unproduced business records. In support of its motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit from an employee of the plaintiff, An Dang, which the referee relied upon in computing the amount due to the plaintiff. However, the record does not reflect that the plaintiff submitted the business records upon which An Dang or the referee relied in computing the total amount due on the mortgage, as well as payments for taxes, insurance, and other advances. Therefore, the referee’s findings were not substantially supported by the record … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Jong Shin, 2024 NY Slip Op 01029, Second Dept 2-28-24

Practice Point: In a foreclosure action, a referee’s report based upon records which were not submitted to the court is inadmissible hearsay.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT’S RELIGION-BASED DIRECTIVES IN THIS CUSTODY CASE WERE NOT WITHIN THE “BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD” CATEGORIES OUTLINED IN THE SEMINAL CASE, ALDOUS V ALDOUS, AND WERE THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, over a partial concurrence and partial dissent, determined Family Court’s directives with respect to religion in this custody case should be vacated:

While a court may consider religion as a factor in determining the best interests of a child in custody disputes, “it alone may not be the determinative factor” (Aldous v Aldous, 99 AD2d 197 …). Additionally, cases that do consider religion as a factor generally fall into three separate categories: (1) when a child has developed actual religious ties to a specific religion and one parent is better able to serve those needs; (2) a religious belief violates a state statute; and (3) when a religious belief poses a threat to the child’s well-being … . This standard, enunciated in 1984, continues to be followed … .

None of the three categories outlined in Aldous are applicable to the case before us. The July 2020 consent order granted the parties joint legal custody with equal parenting time. Notably, no reference is made to religion in the custody order. At the time the petitions were filed, the child was not quite two years old and, as such, not of an age so as to allow him to have developed actual religious ties to a specific religion. Nor does the record reveal that the father’s religious beliefs violated a state statute or threatened the child’s well-being. As a result, Family Court improperly intervened in the parties’ religious dispute … . Thus, the court’s directives to the parties that neither parent shall permit the child to attend religious services or instruction until an agreement between the parties is reached on this issue, to address the issue of religion while participating in court-ordered coparenting counseling, and that a failure to reach an agreement with regard to religion will — after completing the court-ordered number of coparenting sessions — constitute a change in circumstances for purposes of modification, were issued in error and should be vacated. Matter of Joseph XX. v Jah-Rai YY., 2024 NY Slip Op 00950, Third Dept 2-22-24

Practice Point: The religious directives issued by Family Court in this custody case were outside the three “best interests of a child” categories outlined in the controlling case, Aldous v Aldous, i.e., “(1) when a child has developed actual religious ties to a specific religion and one parent is better able to serve those needs; (2) a religious belief violates a state statute; and (3) when a religious belief poses a threat to the child’s well-being.”

 

, , ,

THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim for lost profits should not have been converted to a summary judgment motion and the counterclaim must be dismissed because defendant did not demonstrate consequential damages for lost profits was contemplated by the parties when the contract for the sale of goods was entered. The contract was for the sale of military ordnance (target practice rounds) for the Mexican Navy. In its counterclaim, the defendant alleged the goods were not timely delivered and were not accepted by the Mexican Navy:

Lost profits are a form of consequential damages that a buyer, such as the defendant, may recover if “the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know [of them] and which could not reasonably [have been] prevented by cover or otherwise” (UCC 2-715[2][a] …). “To determine whether consequential damages were reasonably contemplated by the parties, ‘the nature, purpose and particular circumstances of the contract known by the parties should be considered, as well as what liability the defendant fairly may be supposed to have assumed consciously, or to have warranted the plaintiff reasonably to suppose that it assumed, when the contract was made'” … . In order to recover consequential damages, a pleading party is required to allege that the damages were foreseeable and within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made … . “[W]here the damages reflect a loss of profits on collateral business arrangements, they are only recoverable when (1) it is demonstrated with certainty that the damages have been caused by the breach, (2) the extent of the loss is capable of proof with reasonable certainty, and (3) it is established that the damages were fairly within the contemplation of the parties” … .

Here, the defendant’s allegations, even as supplemented by an affidavit from its president, failed to sufficiently allege that consequential damages as lost future profits resulting from the cancellation of the defendant’s contract with the Mexican Navy due to the plaintiff’s breach of contract were within the plaintiff’s contemplation at the time of entering into the contract for the sale of goods (see UCC 2-715[2][a] …). Island Ordnance Sys., LLC v Amerimex, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00897, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: With respect to a contract for the sale of goods controlled by the UCC, a claim for lost profits must specifically allege “lost profits” as an element of consequential damages was contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was entered, not the case here.

 

,

THE JURY NOTE REQUESTED THE “DEFINITIONS” OF THE CHARGED OFFENSES; DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED THE JUDGE TO ALSO REREAD THE JUSTIFICATION INSTRUCTION IN THIS MURDER CASE; THE JUDGE REFUSED; BECAUSE THE JURY’S NOTE WAS SPECIFIC AND DID NOT REQUEST THE JUSTIFICATION INSTRUCTION, THE JUDGE PROPERLY DENIED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, with a concurrence, affirming defendant’s convictions in this murder, attempted murder and assault case, determined the judge did not err by denying defense counsel’s request to reread the justification jury instruction after the jury sent out a note asking for the definitions of the charged offenses. The jury asked for “[a]ll definitions discussed: Murder II, Manslaughter I, Depraved Murder II, etc.,” Because the request was deemed specific the justification instruction was not reread because the jury didn’t request it:

… “[T]he form of the jury’s” note indicated a request that the jury be recharged on the elements of the crimes … . The jury note asked for “all definitions” contained in the charges: the jury did not simply ask for “all definitions” to be read back but instead chose to limit which “definitions” it sought by providing an exemplary list containing the first three of the ten criminal offenses on which the trial court had originally instructed the jury and ending the list with “etc.” The usage of “etc.” in this context corroborates this interpretation of the note because et cetera at the end of a list signals “others especially of the same kind” … . That the jury did not seek further instruction or clarification after the recharge also supports our conclusion that the trial court correctly interpreted the jury note and responded meaningfully and with the complete information sought … . People v Aguilar, 2024 NY Slip Op 00849, CtApp 2-20-24

Practice Point: A judge must respond “meaningfully” to a jury note. Here the note requested definitions of the charged crimes. The judge properly denied defense counsel’s request to reread the justification instruction because the jury’s not was specific and did not mention justification.

 

, ,

THE ATTEMPT TO CORRECT A SENTENCING MISTAKE IN THE DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHT TO BE PRESENT (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the attempt to correct a mistake in the term of postrelease supervision in defendant’s absence violated defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights:

As the People concede, defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights to be present at sentencing were violated when the court resentenced defendant in his absence to correct a mistake in the term of postrelease supervision imposed (see CPL 380.40[1] …). Accordingly, the sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for resentencing with defendant present. On remand, the court shall also address the discrepancy between the five-year term of postrelease supervision imposed on the weapon possession count at the original sentencing and the three-year term of postrelease supervision count reflected in the amended sentence and commitment sheet … . People v McCallum, 2024 NY Slip Op 00816, First Dept 2-15-24

Practice Point: Here the attempt to correct a mistake in the period of postrelease supervision in the defendant’s absence required vacation of the sentence.

 

, ,

AS LONG AS PLAINTIFF TAKES SOME ACTION THAT WOULD LEAD TO ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND NINETY DAYS OF THE DEFAULT, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the sua sponte dismissal of the foreclosure complaint, noted that as long as a plaintiff initiates some action for the entry of judgment within one year and ninety days after a default, the action should not be dismissed as abandoned. Here the plaintiff made a request for judicial intervention within one year and ninety days:

… [P]laintiff demonstrated that, within one year after the defendants’ default, it filed a request for judicial intervention which sought a foreclosure settlement conference within the foreclosure action as mandated by CPLR 3408. “Where, as here, a settlement conference is a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a default judgment (see CPLR 3408[a], [m]), a formal judicial request for such a conference in connection with an ongoing demand for the ultimate relief sought in the complaint constitutes ‘proceedings for entry of judgment’ within the meaning of CPLR 3215(c)” … . Since the plaintiff demonstrated that it initiated proceedings for the entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale within one year after the defendants’ default, it was not required to proffer a reasonable excuse or demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action (see CPLR 3215[c] …). US Bank N.A. v Jerriho-Cadogan, 2024 NY Slip Op 00790, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: Here in this foreclosure action the bank made a request for judicial intervention within one year and ninety days of the default. The action should not have been dismissed as abandoned.

 

, , ,

THE SEARCH WARRANT SEEKING CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) FROM THE NEW JERSEY CELL PHONE COMPANY WAS FAXED TO NEW JERSEY FROM NEW YORK; THEREFORE THE WARRANT WAS “EXECUTED” IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OR CPL ARTICLE 690 (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined the search warrant for cell site location information (CSLI) was executed in New York, where the warrant was faxed from, not in New Jersey, where the T-Mobile records were located. Therefore there was no violation of the New York Constitution or Criminal Procedure Law 690.2-(1). The CSLI was used to place the defendant at the location of the stabbing at the time of the stabbing:

Just as the term “executed” is not defined in CPL article 700, it is also not defined in the New York Constitution or CPL article 690. Nevertheless, in determining where a warrant is “executed” within the meaning of CPL 700.05(4), the Court of Appeals looked to where the actions of the law enforcement officers took place. It follows that in determining where a search warrant is “executed” within the meaning of the New York Constitution and CPL 690.20(1), we similarly must look to where the actions of the law enforcement officers took place. Here, the action of the subject law enforcement officer—the act of faxing the search warrant to T-Mobile—took place in New York … .

The “core” of the Fourth Amendment is to “protect the right of privacy from arbitrary police intrusion” … . A service provider accessing and retrieving its subscribers’ CSLI and call detail information located in the service provider’s own business records does not implicate its subscribers’ right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment … . It is only when agents of the government act that the subscribers’ Fourth Amendment rights are implicated. Since the actions of the government’s agents that encroached on the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights—the faxing of the warrant—took place in New York, we conclude that this is where the search warrant was executed. People v Riche, 2024 NY Slip Op 00785, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: Here a search warrant seeking cell site location information (CSLI), which was faxed from New York to the cell phone company in New Jersey, was “executed” in New York and therefore did not violate the New York Constitution or Criminal Procedure Law Article 690.

 

, ,

THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS UNDER MEDICATION AT THE HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; AT TRIAL THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO REJECT THE STATEMENT IF THEY FOUND IT WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE; AND THE DEFENSE BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE EXCLUSION OF FOUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined: (1) the statement given by the defendant when he was under medication at the hospital should have been suppressed; (2) at trial the judge should have instructed the jury to reject the statement if they found the statement was not voluntarily made; and (3) the defense Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s exclusion of four African-American prospective jurors should have been granted:

At the time of the interrogation, the defendant had recently been in a medically induced coma, had come out of surgery only hours before, and his condition “was still sufficiently serious that he was in the intensive care unit” … . The defendant “was lying on his back on a hospital bed, encumbered by tubes, needles, and breathing apparatus” when the detective approached him … . At the time of the police questioning, the defendant was drowsy from painkillers administered to him, his right arm was handcuffed to the hospital bed, and his left arm was bandaged and immobilized from the earlier surgery. The defendant was positioned upright so that the detective could question him, and when the defendant expressed that this caused him pain and requested medical assistance, the detective denied the request and coerced the defendant by stating that he would obtain medical assistance after he had questioned the defendant. * * *

Where, as here, the defendant has placed in issue the voluntariness of his statements to law enforcement officials, “the court must submit such issue to the jury under instructions to disregard such evidence upon a finding that the statement was involuntarily made” … . * * *

… [T]he record demonstrates that the articulated reasons were not applied equally to exclude other prospective jurors … . Under these circumstances, the prosecutor’s explanations as to the four prospective jurors were pretextual, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial on this ground … . People v Parker, 2024 NY Slip Op 00783, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: The statement given by defendant when he was under medication at the hospital should have been suppressed.

Practice Point: At trial, where defendant has placed the voluntariness of his statement in issue, the jury must be instructed to reject the statement if they find it was not voluntarily made.

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor accepted a juror who was a college student living at home but who was not African-American, and the prosecutor rejected four African-American prospective jurors because they were college students living at home with limited life experience. The Batson challenge should have been granted.

 

,

THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL OF TWO SEPARATE CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS, COUPLED WITH THE ABSENCE OF LIMITING JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged comprehensive opinion by Justice Rodriguez, over a two-justice comprehensive concurring opinion, determined that the consolidated trial of two separate criminal transactions, without appropriate limiting jury instructions, was reversible error:

The first indictment charged defendant with, among other counts, attempted murder. In relation to the first indictment, no gun was recovered, the alleged victim was not injured, and the evidence showed that there was at least some degree of animus between defendant and the alleged victim. The defense theory was thus that the discharged gun was in fact the victim’s. The second indictment, concerning an incident nearly six months later at a different location, charged defendant with possession of a firearm that was recovered on the person of his companion. The principal evidence supporting the second indictment was a set of suggestive jail phone call recordings.

Consolidated trial of indictments like the two at issue here is not necessarily error. However, defendant suffered impermissible prejudice as a result of (1) the nature and quantum of the evidence presented and (2) the specific respective theories of the prosecution and the defense. Supreme Court thus abused its discretion and committed error in trying the indictments together.

Although prejudice may in general be adequately ameliorated by appropriate limiting instructions, the jury received no such instruction here. People v Davis, 2024 NY Slip Op 00746, First Dept 2-13-24

Practice Point: This comprehensive majority opinion and and the comprehensive concurring opinion cannot be fairly summarized here. Consult this opinion for the law associated with consolidation of indictments for trial.

 

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