You are here: / Judges
, , ,

ABSENT A STIPULATION BY THE PARTIES, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE WITHDRAWN THE FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the family offense petition should not have been withdrawn by the judge because the parties did not stipulate to the withdrawal:

Where, as here, the matter has been submitted to the court, “the court may not order an action discontinued except upon the stipulation of all parties appearing in the action” (CPLR 3217[b]). In this case, there was no stipulation from the parties. Thus, the court erred in directing that the petition was withdrawn … . Matter of Johnson v Lomax, 2023 NY Slip Op 01675, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: A judge cannot withdraw a family offense petition which has been submitted to the court without a stipulation by the parties.

 

,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE ITS REASONS FOR DETERMINING CHILD SUPPORT BASED ON PARENTAL INCOME IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP; THE ORIGINAL SUPPORT LEVEL BASED ON THE STATUTORY CAP REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined father’s objections to the level of mother’s child support obligation should not have been granted. Family Court had more than doubled the support obligations based on the couple’s income level, which was above the statutory cap. But Family Court did not sufficiently articulate the reasoning underlying the discretionary increase:

The Child Support Standards Act “‘sets forth a formula for calculating child support by applying a designated statutory percentage, based upon the number of children to be supported, to combined parental income up to a particular ceiling'” … . “Where . . . the combined parental income exceeds the statutory cap, in fixing the basic child support obligation on income over the cap, the court has the discretion to apply the factors set forth in Family Court Act § 413(1)(f), or to apply the statutory percentages, or to apply both” … . “However, the Family Court must articulate an explanation of the basis for its calculation of child support based on parental income in excess of the statutory cap” … . “This articulation should reflect ‘a careful consideration of the stated basis for its exercise of discretion, the parties’ circumstances, and its reasoning why there [should or] should not be a departure from the prescribed percentage'” … .

Here, the Family Court did not set forth a sufficient basis for its determination to calculate child support based on combined parental income exceeding the statutory cap. Further, the record shows that based on certain factors, including the parties’ disparity in income and the child’s standard of living, the child support obligation should be calculated based only on combined parental income up to the statutory cap … . Matter of Butta v Realbuto, 2023 NY Slip Op 01671, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: The court must articulate its reasons for determining child support based upon parental income exceeding the statutory cap. Here the court’s failure to do so resulted in reinstating the child support level which was based on the statutory cap.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTHER’S CUSTODY PETITION WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a hearing was required in this custody proceeding:

“Custody determinations . . . require a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the material facts and circumstances in order to permit the court to ascertain the optimal result for the child” … . Accordingly, “custody determinations should ‘[g]enerally’ be made ‘only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry'” … . “This general rule furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interest of a child” … . “[W]here . . . facts material to the best interest analysis, and the circumstances surrounding such facts, remain in dispute, a custody hearing is required” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in making a final custody determination without a hearing and without inquiring into the best interests of the parties’ child … . Matter of Bendter v Elikwu, 2023 NY Slip Op 01670, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: Factual issues raised in a custody proceeding should not be decided without a hearing.

 

, ,

IN AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES AFTER DEFENDANT DEFAULTED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED LIABILITY ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have considered issues of liability in the inquest on damages after defendant’s default:

After conducting the inquest, the court found … that the plaintiff had failed to proffer credible evidence that the accident occurred or that she had sustained an injury that was caused by the defendants, and directed the dismissal of the complaint. …

By defaulting, the defendants admitted “all traversable allegations in the complaint, including the basic allegation of liability” … . As such, the sole issue to be determined at the inquest was the extent of the damages sustained by the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court should not have considered issues of liability … . Youngja Lee v Hong Kong Supermarket, 2023 NY Slip Op 01668, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point: A judge should not consider issues of liability in an inquest on damages after the defendant’s default.

 

, , ,

PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE AS A DISCOVERY SANCTION WAS NOT WARRANTED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WILLFUL OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT AND THE SANCTIONED PARTY WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the discover sanctions imposed by the judge on plaintiff were not warranted:

… Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by imposing the drastic sanction of preclusion upon the plaintiff without affording the plaintiff adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, including on facts relevant to whether the plaintiff’s noncompliance was willful and contumacious. The defendant did not move for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the interim order, nor did the court make its own motion or include language in the interim order warning that noncompliance would result in sanctions. The court also made its determination without oral argument, such that it is unclear what opportunity the plaintiff had to explain the circumstances of its noncompliance. …

… [E]ven if the plaintiff had been provided with adequate due process, the Supreme Court still would have improvidently exercised its discretion by, inter alia, precluding the plaintiff from serving further demands and from introducing certain documents. The record contains no showing of “a clear pattern of willfulness and contumacious conduct necessary to justify [such] sanctions” … . There is no indication that the plaintiff “repeated[ly] fail[ed] to comply with court-ordered discovery” or “fail[ed] to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time” … . Instead, this case involves a “single incident of noncompliance” with a court order, which was insufficient to warrant a sanction as drastic as preclusion … , especially given the policy of resolving cases on their merits and the fact that discovery was still ongoing at the time the court made its determination. Korsinsky & Klein, LLP v FHS Consultants, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01667, Second Dept 3-29-23

Practice Point; Before precluding evidence as a discovery sanction, there must be a finding of willful and contumacious conduct and the the sanctioned party must be given a chance to explain the failure to comply with discovery orders.

 

, ,

​ THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE TRIAL WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; A MIDTRIAL RODRIGUEZ HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter for a hearing to determine whether a witness’s identification of defendant was confirmatory, noted that the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory for the first time based on the witness’s trial testimony. A Rodriguez hearing should have been when the issue came up at trial:

The witness in question disclosed on cross-examination at trial that he had identified defendant as the assailant in a photograph shown to him by the police. The People’s CPL 710.30 notice did not reference this identification. Defense counsel thus asked the court to strike the witness’s testimony on the ground of lack of notice, but the court, relying on the witness’s trial testimony, ruled that the People were not required to give notice because the identification was confirmatory. That was error. As the Court of Appeals has made clear, “prior familiarity should not be resolved at trial in the first instance” (Rodriguez, 79 NY2d at 452 …), and, in any event, the witness’s trial testimony was not sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the identification was confirmatory.

Although the witness testified that he knew defendant because he had seen him “a couple of times” at the barber shop, and that the two had each other’s phone numbers, he also testified that he did not know defendant well, that he knew him only by a common nickname, and that they never spoke again after the assault. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing would have allowed defense counsel to flesh out the extent of the relationship between the two men, thereby allowing the court to make a more informed determination as to whether the pretrial identification of defendant was confirmatory as a matter of law. People v Alcaraz-ubiles, 2023 NY Slip Op 01637, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: If the defense is not given notice of a witness’s identification of the defendant, the witness cannot testify about the identification unless it was “confirmatory,” I.e., based on knowing the defendant. Here the judge should not have found the identification confirmatory based on the witness’s trial testimony. A midtrial Rodriguez hearing should have been held. The matter was remitted.

 

,

AS CHARGED IN THIS CASE, CRIMINAL TRESPASS THIRD IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY THIRD AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s criminal trespass third conviction, determined the judge should not have instructed the jury on that offense as a lesser included offense of burglary third degree:

“To establish that a count is a lesser included offense in accordance with CPL 1.20 (37), a [party] must establish ‘that it is theoretically impossible to commit the greater crime without at the same time committing the lesser’ ” … . As charged here, “[a] person is guilty of criminal trespass in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property (a) which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders” (Penal Law § 140.10 [a]). The plain language of that statute “clearly requires that both buildings and real property be fenced or otherwise enclosed in order to increase the level of culpability from trespass . . . to criminal trespass in the third degree” … . Inasmuch as that requirement is not an element of burglary in the third degree (see § 140.20), it is theoretically possible to commit burglary in the third degree without committing criminal trespass in the third degree under section 140.10 (a), and thus “a violation of that section cannot qualify as a lesser included offense of third-degree burglary” … . People v Newman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01621, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: As charged in this case, trespass third is not a lesser included offense of burglary third.

 

, ,

​ A WAIVER OF APPEAL NOT MENTIONED UNTIL SENTENCING IN INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DECISION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDACT STATEMENTS MADE WITHOUT COUNSEL FROM THE PREPLEA INVESTIGATION REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined (1) the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because the waiver was not mentioned until sentencing, after defendant pled guilty, and (2) the judge never decided defendant’s request to have certain statements, made without counsel, redacted from the preplea investigation report:

A waiver of the right to appeal is not effective where, as here, it is not mentioned until sentencing, after defendant pleaded guilty … . …

Defendant … contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to redact from the preplea investigation report statements that defendant made during the preplea investigation interview, because those statements were made without the presence of counsel. … [D]efendant preserved the issue for our review by moving to redact the statements from the preplea investigation report … . The court stated that it was reserving decision, but there is no indication in the record that the court ever issued a decision. It is well settled that a court’s failure to rule on a motion cannot be deemed a denial thereof . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine defendant’s motion.  People v Wallace, 2023 NY Slip Op 01616, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: A waiver of appeal not mentioned until sentencing is invalid.

Practice Point: When a judge fails to decide a motion, here a motion to redact statements from the preplea investigation report, the appellate court cannot consider the motion to have been denied and must remit for a decision.

 

,

THE PLEA-BARGAINED SENTENCE WAS BELOW THE STATUTORY MINIMUM, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING OR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

​The Fourth Department remitted the matter for resentencing because the sentence imposed was below the statutory minimum:

… [T]he sentence promised to defendant as part of his guilty plea and imposed upon him at sentencing, i.e., 8 years to life imprisonment, is illegal because it fell below the statutory minimum (see Penal Law §§ 70.08 [3] [b]; 265.03). Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the remedy at this stage is not to vacate his guilty plea, but to remit the matter to County Court … . On remittal, the court will have the discretion to either, if possible, ” ‘resentence defendant in a manner that ensures that he receives the benefit of his sentencing bargain or permit both parties the opportunity to withdraw from the agreement’ ” … . People v Mcdowell, 2023 NY Slip Op 01606, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the plea-bargained sentence was below the statutory minimum. The matter was remitted for resentencing (if possible) or withdrawal of the plea agreement.

 

, ,

THE IMPOSITION OF TWO CONSECUTIVE PERIODS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined consecutive periods of post release supervision should not have been imposed. Although the issue was not raised on appeal, an appellate court cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand:

… [T]he court erred in imposing consecutive periods of postrelease supervision. Penal Law § 70.45 (5) (c) requires that when a person is subject to two or more periods of postrelease supervision, those periods merge with and are satisfied by the service of the period having the longest unexpired time to run … . Because we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand … , we modify the judgment accordingly…. . People v Koeberle, 2023 NY Slip Op 01605, Fourth Dept 3-24-23

Practice Point: Here the imposition of two consecutive periods of postrelease supervision was illegal. The issue was not raised on appeal, but an appellate court cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand.

 

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