You are here: / Judges
,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT THE MOTION TO INTERVENE BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ANSWER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PAPERS, A THRESHOLD SHOWING INTERVENTION WAS WARRANTED WAS MADE AND THE DENIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the motion to intervene by Poloncarz was properly denied because the proposed answer was not included with the motion papers. but because Poloncarz made a showing warranting intervention, the motion should have been denied with leave to renew:

“A motion seeking leave to intervene, whether made under CPLR 1012 or 1013, must include the proposed intervenor’s . . . complaint or answer (CPLR 1014)” … . “The court has no power to grant leave to intervene where, as here, the prospective intervenor[ ] did not include in [his] motion papers ‘a proposed pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought'” … . Here, Poloncarz, in his official capacity as Erie County Executive, failed to include his proposed answer in his motion papers. Nevertheless, he made a threshold showing that his defense and the Nassau action have a common question of law and fact, that he has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and that intervention will not unduly delay the determination of the Nassau action or prejudice the substantial rights of any party … . Accordingly, although the Supreme Court was “without the power to grant such relief inasmuch as [Poloncarz, in his official capacity as Erie County Executive,] has failed to comply with CPLR 1014,” the court should have denied the motion with leave to renew that branch of the motion which was for leave to intervene in the Nassau action on proper papers … . Landa v Poloncarz, 2023 NY Slip Op 01891, Second Dept 4-12-23

Practice Point: A court cannot grant a motion to intervene if the proposed complaint or answer is not submitted with the motion papers. Here, because a threshold showing intervention was appropriate was made, the denial should have been “with leave to renew.”

 

, ,

THE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AFFECTED ONLY THE COUNTERCLAIMS, STRIKING THE ENTIRE ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the sanctions imposed for spoliation of evidence were too severe:

… [T]he drastic remedy of striking the entire answer and all the counterclaims was not warranted … . Here, plaintiff failed to establish that the unavailability of the lost and destroyed evidence prejudiced it and left it unable to prosecute its action. Indeed, plaintiff argued only that its ability to defend the counterclaims was compromised. Therefore, the appropriate sanction under the circumstances should have been directed solely to the counterclaims. Harry Winston, Inc. v Eclipse Jewelry, Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 01840, First Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Striking the answer as a spoliation sanction was not warranted. Plaintiff demonstrated only that the ability to prove the counterclaims was affected. The sanctions should have been confined to striking the counterclaims.

 

, , , , ,

COURTS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED POWER TO REVIEW AN ARBITRATOR’S RULING; HERE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HER AUTHORITY BY ORDERING BACK PAY FOR A REINSTATED COUNTY EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator in this employment dispute did not exceed her authority when she ordered that the employee be reinstated with back pay. The employee had been absent from work and the employer (the county) the absence a voluntary resignation. Supreme Court had affirmed the employee’s reinstatement but found the arbitrator had exceeded her authority by ordering the back pay:

… “[J]udicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited. Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (b) (1), a court may vacate an award when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator’s power” … . “Outside of these narrowly circumscribed exceptions, courts lack authority to review arbitral decisions, even where an arbitrator has made an error of law or fact” … . “[I]t is well settled that an arbitrator has broad discretion to determine a dispute and fix a remedy, and that any contractual limitation on that discretion must be contained, either explicitly or incorporated by reference, in the arbitration clause itself” … .

We discern no basis to vacate the arbitrator’s award as to back pay and benefits. Notably, the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] does not contain “a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power” … . In fact, it does not explicitly limit the arbitrator’s authority in any way other than stating that the arbitrator does not have the power to “amend, modify or delete any provision of the CBA,” which does not set any limitations on the arbitrator’s power to order the remedy that he or she sees fit … . Matter of County of Albany (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Albany County Local 801), 2023 NY Slip Op 01828, Third Dept 4-6-23

Practice Point: Here the arbitrator ordered a county employee reinstated with back pay. Supreme Court held the arbitrator exceeded her powers by ordering back pay. The Third Department noted the courts’ limited review powers re: arbitration rulings and found no basis for concluding the arbitrator had exceeded her powers.

 

, ,

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG RULING WHICH CANNOT BE APPEALED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PROMPTED BY A MOTION, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR 5015 IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY; THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE CAN BE APPEALED, AS WAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE HERE (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 because no motion to dismiss had been made and plaintiff was not given any warning or an opportunity to respond. The court noted that when a judge makes a wrong ruling, here the dismissal of the complaint, the proper procedure is a motion to set aside the order pursuant to CPLR 5015. The motion to set aside should have been granted:

A trial court has inherent power, as well as statutory power under CPLR 5015, to set aside an order on appropriate grounds … . “Vacating the dismissal order is consistent with the public policy of this State to dispose of cases on their merits and upholds the principle that a trial court’s power to dismiss an action sua sponte should be used sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances” … .

There were no extraordinary circumstances warranting the complaint’s dismissal. Wohnberger v Lucani, 2023 NY Slip Op 01758, First Dept 3-30-23

Practice Point: Here no motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 was made, but the judge dismissed the complaint sua sponte. A motion to set aside the order dismissing the complaint pursuant CPLR 5015 was made and denied. The denial was then successfully appealed here. This is the appropriate remedy when no appeal lies from the original order because the order was not issued pursuant to a motion.

 

, , ,

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.

 

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