You are here: / Judges
, ,

DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY INTO HIS HOME (THE PAYTON ISSUE); THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PAROLE WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing, determined the judge should not have found the police entry into defendant’s residence (the Payton issue) was justified by the parole warrant without a hearing to determine validity of the parole warrant:

” … A parole violation warrant by itself justifies the entry of the residence for the purposes of locating and arresting the defendant therein . . . provided that, as here, the officers ‘reasonably believe[d] the defendant to be present’ in the premises … . … Inasmuch as defendant challenged the factual basis for and the continued validity of the parole violation warrant at the time of his arrest, which he alleged was executed solely by police officers unaccompanied by parole officers, that was error.

Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 8004.2 (a), a parole violation warrant cannot be issued without “probable cause to believe that [the parolee] has violated one or more of the conditions of their release.” “Probable cause exists when evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances that would convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is more probable than not that the subject releasee has committed the acts in question” (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [b]). If a parole officer believes that there is probable cause that the parolee has violated a condition of release “in an important respect,” that parole officer is required to report that to the parole board “or a designated officer,” such as a senior parole officer (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [a]), at which time “a notice of violation may be approved” (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [c]) and a warrant for “retaking and temporary detention may [be] issue[d]” by, among others, a designated officer (9 NYCRR 8004.2 [d]). Notably, a parole violation warrant may be administratively canceled “[a]t any time” after it is issued (9 NYCRR 8004.11 [a]).

Here, inasmuch as defendant sufficiently raised the Payton issue in his omnibus motion, and the People’s opposition papers did not resolve the issue as a matter of law, the court should have afforded defendant the opportunity to put the People to their proof regarding the alleged probable cause for the warrant, i.e., absconding, and whether the warrant was still active at the time defendant was arrested … . People v McCracken, 2023 NY Slip Op 03614, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Here the entry into defendant’s home was justified by a parole warrant. Because the defendant challenged the validity of the parole warrant, and the People did not demonstrate its validity in their papers, defendant was entitled to a judicial determination after a hearing.

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WAS BEING PAID BY HIS FAMILY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge should have, but did not, conduct an inquiry into defendant’s allegation his assigned counsel was being paid by his family:

… Supreme Court violated his right to counsel when it failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into defendant’s complaint that his assigned counsel accepted payment from his family. … [T]rial courts have the “ongoing duty” to ” ‘carefully evaluate serious complaints about counsel’ ” … . * * *

Here, defendant sent a letter to the court alleging … that his assigned counsel was being paid by his family, which is a serious complaint involving unethical and illegal conduct (see generally County Law § 722-b [4]). Although the court began to engage defense counsel in a discussion concerning defendant’s letter, before defense counsel was able to address the concerns raised by defendant in the letter, the court interjected and said, “You are going to represent [defendant] at trial.” The court then addressed defendant directly and concluded its comments to him by stating … “You are not going to get another attorney.” At no time did the court make any inquiry into defendant’s allegation that his family had paid defense counsel to represent him. … [W]e conclude that the court violated defendant’s right to counsel by failing to make a minimal inquiry concerning his serious complaint … . People v Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 03609, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Here defendant requested new counsel on the ground his assigned attorney was being paid by his family (apparently a violation of County Law). The judge’s failure to inquire into the complaint violated defendant’s right to counsel.

 

, ,

PRECEDENT DID NOT REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ADMIT, UNDER SANDOVAL, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SIMILAR TO THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL; RATHER THAT PRECEDENT ONLY HELD EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR CONVICTION SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED SOLELY BASED ON SIMILARITY; THE PREJUDICE VERSUS PROBATIVE-VALUE ANALYSIS SHOULD STILL BE APPLIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge was not bound by Fourth Department precedent to admit, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior possession of a weapon conviction in this criminal possession of a weapon prosecution. The Fourth Department has held that evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely based on similarity with the offense on trial. But here the Fourth Department made clear that the prejudice versus probative-value analysis should still be applied where the crimes are similar:

… [T]he court cited this Court’s decision in People v Stanley (155 AD3d 1684 [4th Dept 2017] …) and advised defense counsel that she “may want to discuss [her arguments] with the Fourth Department,” explaining that Stanley was “their ruling, not my ruling” and that it was “bound by [the Fourth Department’s] rulings.” …

Stanley, however, stands for the proposition that “[c]ross-examination of a defendant concerning a prior crime is not prohibited solely because of the similarity between that crime and the crime charged” … . That means that a Sandoval application by the People should not be automatically denied merely because a prior conviction is similar in nature to the present offense, and certainly does not mean that a court must automatically grant the People’s application. There was nothing in Stanley that “bound” the court in this case and, to the contrary, the court was required to make its own discretionary balancing of the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction against its potential for undue prejudice … . People v Colon, 2023 NY Slip Op 03583, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Precedent holding that, under Sandoval, evidence of a prior conviction should not be excluded solely because it is similar to the crime on trial does not mean that similar crimes should automatically be admitted. The prejudice versus probative-value analysis should be still be applied to similar crimes.

 

, , , ,

PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FAILED TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INQUEST; THE APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE NEGLECT OF THEIR ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the application for damages in this personal injury action should not have been denied due to plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to submit medical records for more than a year after the inquest. Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by their counsel’s inaction:

Although plaintiffs’ counsel had timely subpoenaed the relevant medical records and those records were apparently delivered to the subpoenaed records room in the courthouse, they were not available at the inquest. Supreme Court therefore reserved decision to give plaintiffs time to submit evidence supporting their damages claim. After a period of more than one year in which plaintiffs’ counsel failed to provide the requested information, Supreme Court issued an order … denying the application for damages on the ground of failure of proof.

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the underlying default. Although we share the court’s concern regarding the extended delay and the inattentiveness of plaintiffs’ former counsel, counsel’s neglect in pursuing his clients’ action should not be permitted to redound to the clients’ detriment … . Counsel did not deny that he failed to respond to communications from the court, but explained that the delays were due to a problem in his firm’s case management system, which did not provide reminders … . These circumstances present a type of law office failure for which the clients should not be penalized , particularly in light of the strong public policy preference for deciding cases on the merits … . In addition, defendants defaulted and therefore will not be prejudiced … . Rosario v General Behr Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03560, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here the attorney’s failure to submit medical records requested by the judge after an inquest was not the type of law office failure for which plaintiffs should be penalized. The judge should not have dismissed the application for damages based on counsel’s neglect.

 

,

VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404; WHEN A NOTE OF ISSUE IS VACATED, THE ACTION REVERTS TO A PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE STATUS AND CAN BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT MEETING THE STRINGENT CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. The note of issue had been vacated but the action had not been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404. Therefore the criteria for restoring an action that had been marked off for more than a year did not apply:

Pursuant to CPLR 3404, “[a] case . . . marked ‘off’ or struck from the calendar . . . and not restored within one year thereafter, shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismissed without costs for neglect to prosecute.” “A plaintiff seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked ‘off,’ and after the case has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must demonstrate a [potentially] meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant” … .

Here, the order … vacating the note of issue was not equivalent to an order marking “off” or striking the case from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 … . Thus, CPLR 3404 did not apply “because the case reverted to its pre-note of issue status once the note of issue was vacated” … As it is undisputed that there was neither a 90-day demand served upon the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3216 nor an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and that discovery is complete, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar … . Carrero v Pena, 2023 NY Slip Op 03448, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Restoring an action to the calendar after it has been marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404 for more than a year is subject to the stringent requirements of CPLR 3404. But vacating a note of issue, as opposed to marking off the case, restores the action to pre-note of issue status and the action can be restored without meeting the CPLR 3404 requirements because CPLR 3404 is not applicable.

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s robbery conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the trial judge acted as an advocate for the prosecution when questioning witnesses. The issue was not preserved but the Second Department exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction:

“[A] trial judge is permitted to question witnesses to clarify testimony and to facilitate the progress of the trial, and, if necessary, to develop factual information,” so long as the judge does not take on the function or appearance of an advocate … . Here, the Supreme Court engaged in its own lines of inquiry, which detailed the nature of the surveillance equipment tracking the defendant, elicited a detailed description of the perpetrator and the bags he was carrying, and what the perpetrator was observed doing on the video surveillance camera, asked leading questions as to what the guard saw and heard as the perpetrator left the store and triggered the store alarm, and noted that when the guard approached the perpetrator and asked for the merchandise back, the guard even said, “please,” but the perpetrator still refused to return the items.

The Supreme Court also repeated the perpetrator’s allegedly threatening language, “[K]eep going or watch what’s going to happen to you,” and noted that it looked like the perpetrator was reaching for something and the guard did not want to find out what it was. During the direct examination of the arresting officer, the court elicited the fact that the officer observed a duffel bag containing the stolen property on the subway platform next to the defendant.

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court took on the function and appearance of an advocate, at times even engaging in a running commentary on the testimony against the defendant. The court’s conduct left the impression that its opinion favored the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the merits of the People’s case … . People v Pulliam, 2023 NY Slip Op 03482, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A trial judge can ask questions of witnesses but cannot take on the appearance of an advocate for the prosecution.

 

, , ,

SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice LaSalle, determined plaintiff’s surgery, even after a defense request for a pre-surgical physical exam, is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions. In this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after a defense demand for a pre-surgery medical exam:

… [T]he First Department has recently rejected the proposition that a spoliation analysis can apply in such a situation. In Gilliam v Uni Holdings, LLC (201 AD3d 83), the First Department held “that the condition of one’s body is not the type of evidence that is subject to a spoliation analysis” … . After noting that “[s]poliation analysis has long been applied to a party’s destruction of inanimate evidence,” the First Department concluded that the “state of one’s body is fundamentally different from inanimate evidence, and medical treatment, including surgery, is entirely distinct from the destruction of documents or tangible evidence which spoliation sanctions attempt to ameliorate. To find that a person has an ‘obligation,’ to preserve his or her body in an injured state so that a defendant may conduct [a medical examination], is antithetical to our belief in personal liberty and control over our own bodies” … . * * *

We agree with the First Department’s conclusion in this regard, for the reasons stated in its opinion. It is not reasonable to require a plaintiff to delay medical treatment, and potentially prolong his or her suffering, solely to allow a defendant to examine the plaintiff’s body in a presurgical state. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff has not “refuse[d] to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fail[ed] to disclose information which . . . ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126). Fadeau v Corona Indus. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03453, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: Here in this traffic accident case, plaintiff underwent surgery before the action was commenced and again after the defense demand for a pre-surgery physical exam. Joining the First Department, the Second Department held that surgery is not spoliation of evidence and does not trigger sanctions.

 

, , ,

THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW AND VIOLATED THE “SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION” RULE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the second motion for summary judgment made by the bank in this foreclosure action was not a valid motion to renew and violated the “successive summary judgment rule:”

“While a court has discretion to entertain renewal based on facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion, the movant must set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to submit the information in the first instance. When no reasonable justification is given for failing to present new facts on the prior motion, the Supreme Court lacks discretion to grant renewal” … . … [P]laintiff failed to provide any justification for its failure to present the new evidence supporting the second motion as part of its prior motion.

“Even considered as a successive motion for summary judgment, such a motion ‘should not be entertained in the absence of good cause, such as a showing of newly discovered evidence'” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to present good cause.

The second motion also did not fit within the “narrow exception” to the successive summary judgment rule … . This narrow exception permits entertainment of a successive motion when it is “substantively valid and the granting of the motion will further the ends of justice and eliminate an unnecessary burden on the resources of the courts” … . Here, entertaining a second summary judgment motion involved review of multiple disputed issues, including whether the plaintiff established the defendants’ default, the plaintiff’s compliance with the contractual condition precedent, and the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1304. Thus, rather than eliminating a burden on the Supreme Court, the court’s consideration of the second motion actually imposed an additional burden on the court. “‘Successive motions for the same relief burden the courts and contribute to the delay and cost of litigation. A party seeking summary judgment should anticipate having to lay bare its proof and should not expect that it will readily be granted a second or third chance'” … . Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Gittens, 2023 NY Slip Op 03373, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: The failure to explain why available evidence was not submitted in the first summary judgment motion will result in denial of a motion to renew.

Practice Point: The second motion here violated the “successive summary judgment motion” rule. The criteria are explained.

 

, ,

OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR A LATE (POST-NOTE-OF-ISSUE) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined outstanding discovery furnished good cause for plaintiff’s late (post-note-of-issue) motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case. The appellate division then reached the merits and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

… [P]laintiff demonstrated good cause for his delay in moving for summary judgment … . As an initial matter, we note that the court directed the plaintiff, over the plaintiff’s objection, to file a note of issue or face sanctions or dismissal of the action, despite the fact that a significant amount of discovery, including … the depositions of the parties, had yet to occur … . * * *

… [P]laintiff established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendants’ failures, as the owner and the general contractor at the construction site, to satisfy their nondelegable duty to provide him with a safe and adequate ladder necessary for him to perform his elevation-related work at the site … . * * *

… [D]efendants established … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence by demonstrating that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the condition that the plaintiff alleged caused his injuries and that they had no authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work at the time of his accident … . Panfilow v 66 E. 83rd St. Owners Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03357, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Outstanding discovery constitutes good cause for a late (post-note-of-issue) motion for summary judgment.

Practice Point: Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall cause.

Practice Point: Defendants entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action–no notice of the condition and no authority to control the means and methods of plaintiff’s work.

 

, ,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING (1) THE HUSBAND’S REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF THE COURTROOM SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC, NOT CONCEALED FROM THE PUBLIC IN EMAILS, AND (2), THE COURTROOM CLOSURE WAS IMPROPERLY BASED ON AN EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC-TRIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 4 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have ordered closure of the courtroom pursuant to Judiciary Law section 4 in this divorce proceeding. The criteria for closure of a courtroom are discussed in some detail. Here the judge ordered some documents to be submitted under seal and then based the closure on the existence of sealed documents as evidence. That justification for closure is not one of the exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4:

The motion court did not provide the public and the press adequate notice of the husband’s courtroom closure request. Because it directed the parties to file their submissions on the application for courtroom closure by email, the submissions were not reflected on “the publicly maintained docket entries,” as required … .

We also reverse on substantive grounds. “Public access to court proceedings is strongly favored, both as a matter of constitutional law . . . and as statutory imperative …” … . In the order appealed here, the motion court improperly read an exception into the “statutory imperative” of NY Judiciary Law §4 that does not exist. The first part of that statute, entitled “Sittings of courts to be public,” states: “The sittings of every court within this state shall be public, and every citizen may freely attend the same . . .” The only exceptions to this rule are set forth in the statute’s next sentence: “except that in all proceedings and trials in cases for divorce, seduction, rape, assault with intent to commit rape, criminal sexual act, bastardy or filiation, the court may, in its discretion, exclude therefrom all persons who are not directly interested therein, excepting jurors, witnesses, and officers of the court” … .

Here, the motion court used its discretion to insert another, unwritten category of cases into the statutory exception: proceedings that could entail arguments that implicate documents filed under seal. We find its decision to do so to have been improper … . Paulson v Paulson, 2023 NY Slip Op 03310, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: A request for courtroom closure must be accessible by the public, not concealed in email exchanges.

Practice Point: Courtroom closure based on a reason not included in the public-trial exceptions in Judiciary Law section 4 is an abuse of discretion.

 

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