You are here: / Judges
, ,

SETTING A RETURN DATE LESS THAN 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT, UNDER THE FACTS, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to provide the requisite 20-day notice in an Article 78 petition, under the facts, was not a jurisdictional defect and the dismissal of the petition was an abuse of discretion. Petitioners sought to contest a ruling of the NYS Office of Children and Family Services which refused to find a maltreatment report unfounded re: one of the petitioners:

Pursuant to CPLR 7804 (c), “a notice of petition, together with the petition and affidavits specified in the notice, shall be served . . . at least [20] days before the time at which the petition is noticed to be heard.” However, CPLR 2001, which has been held to apply to service defects … , authorizes a court to “permit a mistake, omission, defect or irregularity . . . to be corrected, upon such terms as may be just, or, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced, the mistake, omission, defect or irregularity shall be disregarded.” In deciding whether a defect in service is a “technical infirmity” within the scope of CPLR 2001, “courts must be guided by the principle of notice to the [respondent] — notice that must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections” … .

… [I]t is … wholly undisputed that the subject application was not heard on the return date proposed by petitioners, nor was there any appearance before Supreme Court, either held or calendared, prior to respondents’ motion. It is further undisputed that, apart from failing to strictly comply with CPLR 7804 (c), petitioners properly served respondents. Thus, this case is functionally no different than those in which a return date has been omitted from a notice of petition, and such failures have been held to be technical infirmities within the scope of CPLR 2001 … . Given these facts, although the return date on the notice of petition was defective at the time of service, we find that the service effectuated by petitioners was reasonably calculated to apprise respondents of this proceeding and afford them the opportunity to defend against it … . Matter of Naomi R. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2023 NY Slip Op 02362, Third Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: Here, under the facts, the failure to provide the required 20-day notice (service at least 20 days before the return date) for an Article 78 petition did not prejudice the respondent and was not a jurisdictional defect. The petition should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A STATUS CONFERENCE AND COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIVE TO MOVE FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE BY A SPECIFIED DATE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, rejecting its own precedent in this foreclosure action, determined the judge did not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss the complaint for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to appear at a status conference and move for an order of reference by a specified date:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . The plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive in the order dated September 13, 2017, was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint … . Moreover, the court was without authority to, sua sponte, direct dismissal of the complaint based upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with its directive to proceed by motion where, as here, the plaintiff was entitled to proceed either by motion or trial … . …

… 22 NYCRR 202.27 was not a proper basis for directing dismissal of the complaint … . Where a party appears as scheduled, 22 NYCRR 202.27 “provides no basis for the court to summarily dismiss the action for failure to prosecute” … . Nothing in the record establishes that the plaintiff did not appear or was not ready to proceed at the final status conference … . To the extent our cases have held that a failure to comply with a directive in a prior status conference order amounts to a nonappearance at the status conference or a failure to announce readiness to proceed “immediately or subject to the engagement of counsel” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 202.27 … , such cases should no longer be followed … . “In general, [t]he procedural device of dismissing a complaint for undue delay is a legislative creation, and courts do not possess the inherent power to dismiss an action for general delay” … where, as here, the statutory preconditions to dismissal under CPLR 3216, which is the statutory provision addressing “[w]ant of prosecution,” have not been met…. . U.S. Bank N.A. v Bhagwandeen, 2023 NY Slip Op 02349, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: A judge’s authority to dismiss a complaint in the absence of the statutory conditions in CPLR 3216 (failure to prosecute) is extremely limited. Here in this foreclosure action the Second Department rejected its own precedent and held plaintiff’s alleged failure to appear at a status conference and comply with the directive to move for an order of reference by a specified date did not justify the sua-sponte dismissal of the complaint.

 

, ,

JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER AND FATHER AND PRIMARY CUSTODY TO FATHER WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this divorce proceeding, determined the award of joint legal custody and the award of primary custody to father were not supported by the evidence. The hostility between father and mother and father’s violent behavior were not given proper consideration:

“Entrusting the custody of young children to their parents jointly, especially where the shared responsibility and control includes alternating physical custody, is insupportable when parents are severely antagonistic and embattled” … . In determining whether joint legal custody is appropriate, “the question of fault is beside the point” … . …

… [T]he court failed to give adequate weight to the father’s extensive history of domestic violence or his continued minimization of his actions and denial of the nature and extent of his mental illness. The evidence established that the father engaged in multiple acts of domestic violence against the mother in the presence of the children. Despite having been convicted of and serving a jail sentence for one of those acts, the father continued to deny that he had ever engaged in domestic violence. Further, although the father has been diagnosed, by more than one provider, with a bipolar disorder, he testified at trial that he could not recall ever having been given such a diagnosis. Both the mother and the father testified that the father had discontinued the use of his prescribed medications without discussing it with his treatment providers. The father had also threatened to commit suicide on more than one occasion, prompting calls to the police that resulted in brief hospitalizations for which the father blamed the mother. At the time of the trial, the evidence established that the father’s current medication regimen was inappropriate for Bipolar Disorder treatment and that the father was not currently engaged in any regular mental health counseling. Crofoot v Crofoot, 2023 NY Slip Op 02205, Fourth Dept 4-28-23

Practice Point: The hostility between mother and father and father’s violent behavior and mental illness were not given appropriate weight when the court awarded joint legal custody to mother and father and primary custody to father.

 

,

THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY DISMISSED A JUROR WHEN SHE DIDN’T APPEAR WITHOUT MAKING AN INQUIRY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, over a concurrence, determined judge improperly dismissed a juror in the absence of an adequate inquiry:

After juror No. 1 was selected and sworn in, but before jury selection had concluded, County Court made a record that juror No. 1 “needed to go home due to some health issues” but was advised, and agreed, to return the next day at 9:00 a.m. However, as of 9:28 a.m. the next morning, the court noted that juror No. 1 had not returned and, because the juror had left ill the prior day, the court found it “necessary to just replace her with the first alternate at this point.” Defense counsel then registered an exception to the court’s replacement of juror No. 1 … . Thereafter, County Court failed to conduct any inquiry regarding the absence of juror No. 1. When asked whether the court had received any notification from the juror, the court responded, “No. Basically, I don’t have juror number one. She’s just plain not here. She left early yesterday ill . . . . So, we are going to replace juror number one.” Although replacement of a juror is generally left to the court’s discretion, “[w]ithout a reasonably thorough inquiry, . . . the exercise of the court’s discretion on the ultimate issue of whether or not to replace the juror [was] uninformed” … .. County Court was certainly not required to wait two hours before substituting juror No. 1, but, on the record before us, it impermissibly presumed that she was “unavailable for continued service without conducting the requisite reasonably thorough inquiry and determining that [the] juror [was] not likely to appear within two hours” … . People v Watts, 2023 NY Slip Op 02144, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: Here a juror didn’t show up at 9:30 a.m. and the judge replaced her without making an inquiry. Defense counsel preserved the error by registering an exception. A new trial was ordered.

 

, , , ,

THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS REMITTED TO FAMILY COURT; APPELLATE REVIEW WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS OF FACT ADDRESSING CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AND THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter to Family Court in this family offense proceeding, noted that appellate review was impossible without findings of fact:

The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record … .

Effective appellate review requires that appropriate factual findings be made by the hearing court since it is the court best able to measure the credibility of the witnesses … . In granting or denying a petition for an order of protection, the Family Court must state the facts deemed essential to its determination (see CPLR 4213[b] … ). Remittal is not necessary, however, where the record is sufficient for this Court to conduct an independent review of the evidence … .

Here, the Family Court, which was presented with sharply conflicting accounts by the parties regarding their allegations, issued mutual orders of protection without setting forth any findings with respect to the credibility of the parties or the facts deemed essential to its determinations (see CPLR 4213[b]). Since the record presents factual issues, including questions of credibility, and in light of the conflicting allegations made by the parties against each other, resolution thereof is best left to the court of first instance … . Matter of Sealy v Peart, 2023 NY Slip Op 02128, Second Dept 4-26-23

Practice Point: Here in this family offense proceeding appellate review was not possible because the Family Court judge did not make any findings addressing conflicting evidence and the credibility of witnesses. The matter was remitted because the record was not sufficient for an independent review.

 

, , ,

THE BRAKES FAILED ON A LIMOUSINE OWNED BY PETITIONER AND 20 PEOPLE DIED; PETITIONER PLED TO 20 COUNTS OF CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND, PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT, WAS SENTENCED TO PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE; BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT IN THE SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPEARED FOR RESENTENCING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WHO DECIDED TO IMPOSE PRISON TIME; PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS PLEA, THE MATTER WAS SET FOR TRIAL AND PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING TO REINSTATE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; THE PETITION WAS DENIED OVER A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresia, over a dissent. denied the petition to reinstate the original sentence in the prosecution of the owner of a limousine service. The brakes failed on one of petitioner’s limousines and the driver, 17 passengers and two pedestrians were killed. Petitioner pled guilty to 20 counts of criminally negligent homicide and was sentenced to two years of interim probation, community service, followed by a period of probation. When it was discovered that the two-year interim probation was illegal, petitioner appeared before a different judge for resentencing, the respondent in this proceeding. The respondent refused to abide by the plea agreement and informed the petitioner he would impose a prison sentence. Petitioner withdrew his plea and the case was set down for trial. Petitioner then brought this Article 78 petition seeking a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition and specific performance of the plea agreement. In a complex ruling too detailed to fairly summarize here, the relief was denied. The dissenter argued petitioner was entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement:

Mandamus to compel is an extraordinary remedy, commanding “an officer or body to perform a specified ministerial act that is required by law to be performed. It does not lie to enforce a duty that is discretionary” … . * * *

“… [I]mposing a criminal sentence is never ministerial” … . * * *

… [A] review of the merits leads us to conclude that the issuance of a writ [of prohibition] is unwarranted … . A “defendant [is not] entitled to specific performance of [a] plea bargain unless he [or she has] been placed in a ‘no-return position’ in reliance on the plea agreement” … . Matter of Hussain v Lynch, 2023 NY Slip Op 02049, Third Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: This opinion should be consulted for the criteria for a writ of mandamus versus a writ of prohibition in the context of requiring a judge to abide by a plea agreement.

 

,

THE CUSTODY RULING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING; FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON COMPLIANCE WITH TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Family Court, held the custody determination should not have been made without a best interests hearing and father’s parental access should not have been conditioned on compliance with treatment:

“Custody determinations should generally 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” … . “A court opting to forgo a plenary hearing must take care to clearly articulate which factors were—or were not—material to its determination, and the evidence supporting its decision” … . “Similarly, visitation determinations should generally be made after a full evidentiary hearing to ascertain the best interests of the child” … .

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 … . Moreover, the court failed to articulate the factors and evidence material to its determination … .

The Supreme Court also erred in suspending the father’s parental access without determining the best interests of the child … . Furthermore, the court improperly conditioned the father’s future parental access or reapplication for parental access rights upon his compliance with treatment … . Matter of Baez-Delgadillo v Moya, 2023 NY Slip Op 01994, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Custody determinations usually should not be made absent a best interests hearing. Parental access should not be conditioned on the parent’s compliance with treatment.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a directive to apply for an order of reference was not an appropriate ground for dismissing the complaint sua sponte:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Here, the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directive to file an application for an order of reference was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct dismissal of the complaint … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate order … and to restore the action to the active calendar. U.S. Bank N.A. v Turner, 2023 NY Slip Op 02023, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Sua sponte dismissals of complaints should be rare. Here the failure to file an application for an order of reference in a foreclosure action was not an adequate justification for a sua sponte dismissal.

 

, ,

A SEX OFFENDER MAY PETITION ANNUALLY FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE RISK LEVEL CLASSIFICATION; SUCH A PETITION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY PRIOR PETITIONS WITHIN A YEAR SEEKING OTHER RELIEF UNDER THE CORRECTION LAW (SECOND DEPT), ​

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a sex offender can petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification, notwithstanding prior petitions within a year seeking other relief:

… [T]he petition … sought a downward modification of the defendant’s risk level classification. Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2), any sex offender required to register or verify under SORA may petition annually for modification of his or her risk level classification … . As the defendant had not petitioned for a modification of his risk level classification within the prior year, he was not procedurally barred from seeking such relief in the instant petition. Therefore, upon receipt of the petition, the court should have followed the procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o(4) and conducted a hearing on the petition. People v Ghose, 2023 NY Slip Op 02021, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: A sex offender may petition annually for a modification of the risk level classification. Such a petition is not precluded by prior petitions within a year seeking other relief under the Correction Law.

 

,

FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON HIS PARTICIPATION IN COUNSELING OR TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father’s access to the child should not have been conditioned upon his participation in counseling or treatment:

“A court deciding a custody proceeding may direct a party to submit to counseling or treatment as a component of a [parental access] 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 parental access petitions by the father upon his completion of a parenting class, and we modify the order … , so as to eliminate that condition … . Matter of Coley v Steiz, 2023 NY Slip Op 01995, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: In a custody proceeding, father’s parental access should not be conditioned upon his participation in counseling or treatment.

 

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