You are here: / Judges
,

ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT CAN DIRECT A PARTY TO SUBMIT TO COUNSELING AS PART OF A VISITATION OR CUSTODY ORDER, THE COURT CANNOT SO CONDITION A PARTY’S REAPPLICATION FOR PARENTAL ACCESS AFTER A DENIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department upheld Family Court’s denial of parental access to the father, but Family Court should not have conditioned father’s ability to reapply for parental access on completion of a parenting skills class, getting mental health treatment, and submitting a letter from a therapist that he was not a danger to the children:

A court deciding a custody proceeding “may properly direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a visitation or custody order” … . “However, a court may not direct that a parent undergo counseling or treatment as a condition of future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights”… .. Here, the Family Court erred in conditioning the filing of any future petitions by the father to modify his parental access upon his successful completion of a parenting skills class, his enrollment in mental health treatment, and his submission of a letter from his therapist stating that the father would not pose a danger to the child’s mental, physical, or moral welfare. Accordingly, we modify the order so as to eliminate those conditions. Matter of Mazo v Volpert, 2024 NY Slip Op 00426, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: After denying parental access, the judge cannot condition that party’s reapplication for access on taking classes and getting therapy.

 

, , ,

DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT WITHOUT A HEARING BASED UPON PRIOR ARRESTS WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR A WEAPON WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court in this Article 78 proceeding, determined that the respondent-judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for a pistol permit without a hearing was arbitrary and capricious. Although petitioner had prior arrests, none involved violence or a weapon:

Although the respondent was entitled to consider the petitioner’s prior arrests, the record reflects, among other things, that none of the petitioner’s arrests involved violent crimes or a weapon. The record also contains the petitioner’s explanation of the circumstances surrounding his prior arrests; his activities since, which include employment, home ownership, charitable work, and abstinence from alcohol; evidence of the petitioner’s having successfully completed a firearms course; and the opinion of a psychologist that the petitioner has no current risk factors that renders him unsuitable to own and carry a firearm. Further, based upon the record before us, it is apparent that the respondent did not give the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the stated objections to his pistol permit application … .

Accordingly, we annul the determination denying the petitioner’s application for a pistol permit and remit the matter to the respondent to afford the petitioner the opportunity to respond to the stated objections to his pistol permit application at a hearing, after which the respondent shall make a new determination of the petitioner’s application. In remitting this matter to the respondent for a new determination, we express no opinion as to the merits of the new determination. Matter of Maher v Hyun Chin Kim, 2024 NY Slip Op 00425, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Although prior arrests which were not violence- or weapon-related can be considered by the judge re: an application for a pistol permit, the application should not be denied without a hearing allowing the applicant to address the objections to the application.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A UNIFIED TRIAL (LIABILITY AND DAMAGES) IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NATURE OF THE INJURIES WAS RELEVANT TO HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the defense verdict and ordering a new trial, determined plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on liability and damages should have been granted. Plaintiff was crossing a street when she was struck by defendant’s vehicle which was making a left turn across the crosswalk. Defendant alleged plaintiff walked into the side of defendant’s van. Plaintiff’s treating physician opined that the injury was consistent with plaintiff being in front of the van when she was struck. Because the injuries were relevant to the liability aspect of the trial, a unified trial was necessary:

Judges are encouraged to direct a bifurcated trial of the issues of liability and damages in any action to recover damages for personal injuries “where it appears that bifurcation may assist in a clarification or simplification of issues and a fair and more expeditious resolution of the action” … . “Although bifurcation is encouraged in appropriate settings, bifurcation is not an absolute given and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to exercise discretion in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances presented by the individual cases” … . A unified trial is appropriate where the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries has “an important bearing on the issue of liability” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial on the issues of liability and damages. The plaintiff and the defendant driver, the only witnesses to the accident, offered conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred, and the plaintiff demonstrated that evidence regarding the nature of her injuries was probative in determining how the accident occurred … . Marisova v Collins-Brewster, 2024 NY Slip Op 00414, Second Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by defendant’s van in a crosswalk. Defendant alleged plaintiff walked into the side of the van and obtained a defense verdict. Plaintiff’s injuries indicated she was struck by the front of the van. Plaintiff’s motion for a unified trial should have been granted.

 

, , ,

THE PROSECUTOR AND THE JUDGE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALFORD PLEA WOULD BE PREMISED ON HIS ABILITY TO APPEAL A GRAND-JURY EVIDENCE ISSUE; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD SUCH CONDITIONAL PLEAS ARE GENERALLY NOT ACCEPTED IN NEW YORK; MATTER SENT BACK TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, sending the matter back for a motion to withdraw the plea (if defendant so chooses), determined County Court’s telling the defendant he could appeal his claim that the grand jury was tainted by inadmissible hearsay was erroneous. Defendant, with the judge’s and prosecutor’s permission, decided to enter an Alford plea based on the understanding he could appeal the grand-jury-evidence issue. But the Third Department held that such conditional pleas are generally not accepted in New York and sent the matter back to allow defendant to withdraw the plea:

“As a rule, a defendant who in open court admits guilt of an offense charged may not later seek review of claims relating to the deprivation of rights that took place before the plea was entered,” such as evidentiary or technical defects. Although defendant, the People and the court all agreed that defendant’s Alford plea would be premised on the preservation of his right to raise these issues on appeal, conditional pleas such as this are generally not accepted in this state … , and the contentions he sought to preserve do not fall within the “extremely limited group of issues [that] survive[ ] the entry of a guilty plea” … . In this respect, we cannot overlook defendant’s assertion that his decision to enter an Alford plea was predicated on County Court granting the People’s motion to preclude his defenses and the corresponding promise that he could challenge that determination on appeal. Accordingly, as defendant is no longer receiving the full extent of his bargain, we remit the matter for County Court to allow defendant to withdraw his plea, should he elect to pursue that course … . People v Hafer, 2024 NY Slip Op 00341, Third Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here defendant’s Alford plea, with the permission of the judge and prosecutor, was conditioned on his being able to appeal a Grand Jury evidence issue. The Third Department held that such conditional pleas are generally not accepted in New York. Defendant was allowed to move to withdraw his plea if he so chooses.

 

,

​ ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE COMMITED DEFENDANT TO SIX MONTHS IN A SECURE FACILITY PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20(6) WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, who entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, should not have been committed to a secure facility pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) based on a finding defendant suffers from a dangerous mental condition or is mentally ill without first holding a hearing:

The Supreme Court committed reversible error by issuing a commitment order without conducting an initial hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) … . The court’s obligation to provide the initial hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) is mandatory … . At the initial hearing “the People must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant either suffers from a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill” … . Here, the court improperly made a finding that the defendant suffers from a dangerous mental disorder and committed him to a secure facility for six months without first conducting a mandatory hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20(6) and, thus, deprived the defendant of an opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatric examiners and to present his own testimony … . People v Anthony N., 2024 NY Slip Op 00328, Second Dept 1-24-24

Practice Point: Before a defendant can be committed to a secure facility for six months based upon a finding defendant suffers from a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill, the court must conduct a hearing.

 

, , , ,

THERE IS NO INDICATION MOTHER WAS INFORMED OF HER COUNSEL’S WITHDRAWAL BEFORE THE PERMANENCY HEARING WAS HELD IN MOTHER’S AND COUNSEL’S ABSENCE; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT AND MOTHER’S ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined it was not demonstrated mother was informed of her counsel’s intent to withdraw from representing her before the judge conducted the permanency hearing in counsel’s and mother’s absence and found against her. The two-justice dissent argued no appeal lies from a default and mother’s recourse was to move to vacate the default pursuant of CPLR 5015(a):

It is well established that the mother, as a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to article 10 of the Family Ct Act, had both a constitutional and a statutory right to the assistance of counsel … . Once counsel has been assigned, an attorney of record may withdraw from representation only upon reasonable notice to his or her client … . Such requirement remains true even where a party fails to appear at proceedings or there are allegations of a breakdown in communication between the client and the attorney … .

Here, there is no indication in the record that the mother’s assigned counsel had informed her that she was seeking to withdraw as counsel … . Nor does the record reveal that Family Court made any inquiry into such notice or whether there was good and sufficient cause for such withdrawal … . Matter of Richard TT. (Kara VV.), 2024 NY Slip Op 00215, Third Dept 1-18-24

Practice Point: There is no evidence mother in this neglect proceeding was informed of her counsel’s withdrawal before the court made the neglect finding in her and her counsel’s absence. Matter reversed and remitted.

Practice Point: Two dissenters argued no appeal lies from a default and mother’s only remedy is a motion to vacate the default.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER FILED A PETITION FOR CUSTODY AFTER GRANDMOTHER WAS AWARDED CUSTODY, FATHER’S APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined: (1) the fact that father filed a petition for custody after custody had been awarded to grandmother did not render father’s appeal of the custody-award to grandmother moot; (2) because the judge failed to make a searching inquiry, father did not effectively waive his right to counsel:

“Once a court makes a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist” to conclude that a parent relinquished his or her otherwise superior right to custody as compared to a nonparent, “that issue cannot be revisited in a subsequent proceeding seeking to modify custody and, thus, such a finding may have enduring consequences for the parties” … . In the order appealed from, the Family Court determined that the requisite extraordinary circumstances existed. This appeal is therefore not academic, among other reasons, because the court’s determination in the order appealed from imposes enduring consequences upon the father that will “impact the scope of the pending proceedings” … . …

Family Court failed to conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that the father’s waiver of his right to counsel was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently … . The hearing record demonstrates that the father did not wish to proceed pro se, but felt that he had no other option but to do so … . To the extent the attorney for the child contends that the court was not required to conduct a searching inquiry because the father did not demonstrate that he was entitled to assigned counsel, this contention is without merit. A court’s obligation to ensure the validity of a party’s waiver of his or her right to counsel extends beyond indigent parties … . In any event, the father indicated that he lacked the funds necessary to afford an attorney, and the court failed to inquire into the father’s financial capability to retain counsel … . The court had an independent obligation to conduct such an inquiry and could not rely solely upon information received from the Legal Aid Society of Orange County regarding whether the father qualified for its services … . Matter of Turner v Estate of Laura Katherine Jane Turner, 2024 NY Slip Op 00193, Second Dept 1-17-24

Practice Point: Here father’s appeal of the award of custody to grandmother was not moot, even though father first filed for custody after the award of custody to grandmother.

Practice Point: A sufficient inquiry into whether a party’s waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, voluntary and intelligent must go beyond whether the party is financially entitled to assigned counsel.

 

,

THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFFS’ RECUSAL MOTION; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS ACTIVE IN THE JUDGE’S ELECTION CAMPAIGN (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge in a traffic accident case should have granted plaintiffs’ recusal motion. Plaintiffs had learned defense counsel was active in the judge’s election campaign and had failed to disclose that information to the parties:

…Justice Muller did not disclose to the parties that defense counsel and his law firm were providing assistance to his judicial campaign. Plaintiffs independently learned of the fundraiser, prompting them to raise the issue and seek the judge’s recusal. The record establishes that the law firm hosted a fundraising event for Justice Muller, that the names of defense counsel and five other attorneys from his firm appeared as supporters on Justice Muller’s campaign website and that defense counsel wrote a favorable opinion letter endorsing Justice Muller’s candidacy which appeared in several news publications throughout the Fourth Judicial District. Furthermore, the JCEC’s [Judicial Campaign Ethics Center’s] … letter clearly states that Justice Muller was “disqualified, subject to remittal, from presiding over matters involving defense counsel and his law firm, including partners and associates, during the course of [his] judicial campaign” … . Although we have no way of knowing Justice Muller’s reasons or intentions, it is undisputed that he did not disclose the JCEC letter to the parties until a month after receiving it, when his campaign results became official, and he was elected to a new term of office. As judges need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Justice Muller should have disclosed the JCEC letter upon receipt and recused from the matter as soon as possible (see Rules Governing Jud Conduct [22 NYCRR] §100.3 [E] [1]; Advisory Comm on Jud Ethics Op 03-64 [2003]). Therefore, Justice Muller abused his discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for recusal. Minckler v D’Ella, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to disclose to the parties defense counsel’s involvement in the judge’s election campaign required recusal.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS AND EXHIBITS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF HE WERE AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter, determined the judge should not have denied defendant’s motion to vacate his plea without holding a hearing. Defendant alleged he would not have pled guilty if he had been informed of the deportation consequences:

According to the defendant’s motion and exhibits, he allegedly immigrated to the United States at approximately 17 years of age, resided here for approximately 26 years, was employed in the United States, and had two children here. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s allegations in his motion that he would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have gone to trial had the court warned him of the possibility of deportation, were sufficient to raise an issue of fact in that regard … . Therefore, the County Court erred in deciding the defendant’s motion to vacate his plea without a hearing. People v Hernandez, 2023 NY Slip Op 06752, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: If a defendant, in a motion to vacate his plea, raises a question of fact about whether he would have pled guilty if he had know he could be deported, the judge should not deny the motion without holding a hearing.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE HAD A COURT OFFICER COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY ABOUT A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER OUTSIDE OF THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should not have communicated with the jury outside of the defendant’s presence and should not have delegated the court’s duty to a court officer. When the jury sent out the verdict sheet, the judge noticed a mistake. The jury had indicated “guilty on all counts,” including count 2, but the jury should have been instructed to skip count 2 if it found defendant guilty of count 1. The judge sent a court officer to the jury to explain the mistake. The jury came back with a verdict of guilty on count 2. Defense counsel did not object to the procedure:

“[A] defendant has the right to be present during all critical stages of a trial and . . . this includes the right to be present when the jury is given instructions or information by the court” … . “Equally true is that the court may not delegate to a nonjudicial staff member its authority to instruct the jury on matters affecting their deliberations” … . While “[a] Trial Judge may properly authorize a court officer to speak to a deliberating jury when the subject of the communication is administerial[,] . . . a Trial Judge who authorizes a court officer to communicate with a jury on matters which are not administerial not only errs, but commits an error so grave as to warrant reversal even though the defendant’s attorney might have consented to the occurrence of the error” … .

… Supreme Court improperly delegated a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member at a critical stage of the proceedings. … [T]he instruction was not a mere ministerial matter. Under the circumstances, where the jury was deliberating and had expressed confusion about the relationship between counts one and two, the court’s rejection of the verdict sheet and the instruction to correct it was an instruction regarding the jury’s deliberation … . Thus, the defendant was absent during a critical stage of the trial, and the court improperly delegated a judicial duty to a nonjudicial staff member … . People v Fulton, 2023 NY Slip Op 06750, Second Dept 12-27-23

Practice Point: It is reversible error for a judge to communicate with the jury outside the defendant’s presence.

Practice Point: It is reversible error for a judge to allow a court officer to communicate with the jury about a substantive matter.

 

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