You are here: / Judges
, ,

THE OBVIOUS BIAS OF THE JUDGE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court in this termination of parental rights proceeding, determined the bias of the judge deprived mother of due process of law. In another decision issued on February 2, 2024, the Fourth Department criticized the same Family Court judge for abandoning her judicial role and acting as an advocate in a child placement proceeding (Matter of Zyion B …, 2024 NY Slip OP 00550):

… [T]he record demonstrates that Family Court “had a predetermined outcome of the case in mind during the hearing” … . During a break in the hearing testimony, a discussion occurred on the record with regard to a voluntary surrender. When the mother changed her mind and stated that she would not give up her child, the court responded, “Then I’m going to do it.” At that point, the only evidence that had been presented was the direct testimony of one caseworker. The court’s comments, in addition to expressing a preconceived opinion of the case, amounted to a threat that, should the mother continue with the fact-finding hearing, the court would terminate her parental rights … . Those comments were impermissibly coercive (see generally Social Services Law § 383-c [6] [d]). That the court made good on its promise to terminate the mother’s parental rights cannot be tolerated.

The record further demonstrates that the Family Court Judge was annoyed with the mother’s refusal to surrender her parental rights to the child. We are compelled to remind the Family Court Judge “that even difficult or obstreperous litigants are entitled to ‘patient, dignified and courteous’ treatment from the court, and that judges must perform their duties ‘without bias or prejudice’ ” … . Matter of Anthony J. (Siobvan M.), 2024 NY Slip Op 00574, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: Here the judge made it clear she had already decided mother’s parental rights should be terminated at the outset of the hearing. The judge’s bias deprived mother of her right to due process of law.

 

,

FAMILY COURT JUDGE CRITICIZED BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT FOR ABANDONING HER ROLE AS A JUDGE AND ACTING AS AN ADVOCATE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Although the appeal was moot, the Fourth Department took the opportunity to criticize the Family Court judge for acting as an advocate in this child placement proceeding:

At the hearing, the Judge “took on the function and appearance of an advocate” by choosing which witnesses to call and “extensively participating in both the direct and cross-examination of . . . witnesses” … , with a clear intention of strengthening the case for removal. For example, she asked a … caseworker whether the mother was “hostile, aggressive, violent or out of control,” and repeated questions to that caseworker using the same or similar phrasing at least 10 times. When the mother’s counsel objected to the Judge’s leading questions of another witness regarding incidents outside the relevant time period, the Judge overruled the objection, stating that “there’s no one else to run the hearing except for me.” She also introduced and admitted several written documents during the mother’s testimony over the objection of the mother’s counsel, and despite the mother’s statement that she could not read and was not familiar with the documents. In short, the Judge “essentially ‘assumed the parties’ traditional role of deciding what evidence to present’ ” while simultaneously acting as the factfinder … and thereby “transgressed the bounds of adjudication and arrogated to [herself] the function of advocate, thus abandoning the impartiality required of [her]” … .

This ” ‘clash in judicial roles,’ ” in which the Judge acted both as an advocate and as the trier of fact, “[a]t the very least . . . created the appearance of impropriety” … , particularly when the Judge aggressively cross-examined the mother regarding topics that were not relevant to the issue of the child’s removal and seemed designed to embarrass and upset the mother … . One such area of cross-examination concerned the fact that the mother had become pregnant several months before the hearing, but had been forced to terminate the pregnancy when it was determined to be ectopic. The Judge repeatedly questioned the mother regarding how many times the mother had engaged in sexual intercourse with the father of the terminated fetus, even though such information does not appear to have been relevant to the issue of the subject child’s placement inasmuch as, inter alia, there was no indication that the man was ever in the subject child’s presence. The Judge also asked the mother baseless questions about whether that man was a pedophile. Matter of Zyion B. (Fredisha B.), 2024 NY Slip Op 00550, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department criticized the Family Court judge for acting as an advocate in this child placement proceeding.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO READ THE NOTE FROM THE JURY VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder conviction, determined the judge committed a mode of proceedings error by paraphrasing the note from the jury instead of reading it verbatim:

The jury note … stated … “[w]e, the Jury, request: to hear the read-back of [a restaurant worker’s] cross-examination where she is asked how many times she had seen the defendant at the restaurant. She indicates that she had seen him 2 times while she was working at the counter, and multiple times while she was not at the counter but through the security camera play-back. We wish to hear this portion read back. We also request to hear the portion of the cross-examination where she is asked and answers when she identified [a shooter shown in the surveillance video] as the defendant to the police” … . The court did not read the note aloud verbatim and the record does not reflect that the court showed the note to the parties. Rather, the record reflects that the court addressed the note before counsel and the jury by stating, “the readback that you have requested of [the restaurant worker’s] cross-examination where she is asked how many times she had seen the defendant at the restaurant will now be read back for you along with the second portion of that which reads, ‘We also request to hear that portion of the cross-examination where she is asked and answers when she identified [the shooter] as the defendant to the police.’ We’ll read both those portions.” The court failed to read the second and third sentences contained within the jury note. We conclude that by improperly paraphrasing the jury note, the court failed to give meaningful notice of the note … . People v Crawford, 2024 NY Slip Op 00528, Fourth Dept 2-2-24

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to read the note from the jury verbatim was deemed a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal of a murder conviction.

 

, , ,

SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE PRIOR MOTIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, held that the bank violated the prohibition of successive summary judgment motions:

“Generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” … . “Evidence is not newly discovered simply because it was not submitted on the previous motion” … . “Rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alternative evidentiary means” … . “Successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to submit any newly discovered evidence on the subject motion that could not have been submitted on either of its prior two motions, and did not demonstrate sufficient cause why the third motion should have been entertained … . Thus, the Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint … . U.S. Bank N.A. v Kelly, 2024 NY Slip Op 00448, First Dept 1-31-24

Practice Point: Unless based on new evidence not available for a prior motion, successive summary judgment motions should not be entertained by the court.

 

,

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.

 

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