You are here: / Judges
, ,

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.

 

, , ,

THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS AN AGREEMENT TO AGREE WHICH CONTEMPLATED ONLY OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES FOR A BREACH; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS TO, SUA SPONTE, AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS (FIRST DEPT).

​The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the letter of intent (LOI) was an agreement to agree which, if breached, supported only out-of-pocket damages, not cover damages. The judge improperly relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs:

… [R]ecovery for breach of a preliminary agreement’s confidentiality provision could not be based on “the theory that it would have acquired” the company at issue, as the “defendant[] w[as] not bound to go forward with the transaction” … . * * *

… [T]he text of the LOI and the surrounding circumstances support a finding that the parties did not contemplate cover damages at the time of contracting. That the parties entered only a preliminary agreement with no obligation to close a transaction and no specific damage provision for breach conclusively shows that defendant did not wish to assume the risk of covering whatever replacement transaction plaintiffs might pursue … .

… [T]he court improperly relied on credibility determinations to resolve material issues that should have been resolved by the jury. It is “not the function of a court deciding a summary judgment motion to make credibility determinations” … . Cresco Labs N.Y., LLC v Fiorello Pharms., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03305, First Dept 6-20-23

Practice Point: Here the letter of intent was an agreement to agree which contemplated only out-of-pocket damages for a breach.

Practice Point: The judge should not have relied on credibility determinations to, sua sponte, award summary judgment to plaintiffs.

 

,

A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BROUGHT BEFORE ISSUE IS JOINED IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that a summary judgment motion brought before issue is joined should not be considered:

Initially, we discern no error with Supreme Court treating plaintiff’s order to show cause, filed two days after commencement of the action, essentially as a motion for summary judgment seeking ultimate relief … . However, “[a] motion for summary judgment may not be made before issue is joined and the requirement is strictly adhered to” … . “Particularly in an action for declaratory judgment, all of the material facts and circumstances should be fully developed before the respective rights of the parties may be adjudicated” … . Accordingly, rather than reaching the merits, Supreme Court should have determined that plaintiff was barred from seeking summary judgment at the time and denied the motion as premature … . That defendant answered and issue was joined prior to the return date of the order to show cause does not change this determination … . Sackett v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 03274, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: A summary judgment motion is premature if brought before issue is joined and should not be considered by the court.

 

,

FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVALID (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the failure to inform defendant of the details of postrelease supervision rendered the plea invalid:

… [A]t the plea proceeding, the County Court mentioned that the sentence would include postrelease supervision, but did not specify the period of postrelease supervision to be imposed, nor did the court indicate the maximum potential duration of postrelease supervision that may be imposed. As the People concede, the court’s failure to so advise the defendant prevented his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent … . People v Pryor, 2023 NY Slip Op 03241, Second Dept 6-14-23

Practice Point: A guilty plea is not knowing, voluntary and intelligent unless the defendant is informed of the specific period of postrelease supervision and the maximum potential period of postrelease supervision. It is not enough simply to mention that postrelease supervision will be imposed.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A STUN BELT DURING THE TRIAL WITHOUT THE JUDGE’S OR PROSECUTOR’S KNOWLEDGE; THE MAJORITY HELD THIS WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; A TWO-JUDGE DISSENT DISAGREED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, determined the fact that defendant was wearing a stun belt without the knowledge of the judge or the prosecutor was not a mode of proceedings error. However questions remain about whether defendant received effective assistance of counsel (failure to object) remain and a hearing on the motion to vacate the conviction on that ground is required. The dissent argued the stun-belt-error constituted a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal:

It is undisputed that sheriff officials required defendant to wear a stun belt at trial, that neither the People nor the trial court were aware of that fact, and that defendant failed to preserve any argument concerning the stun belt. Because the trial court did not articulate a particularized need for defendant to wear a stun belt, the use of that restraint was error … . The courts below thus did not abuse their discretion by summarily denying the portion of defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion based on his unpreserved assertion of a Buchanan [13 NY3d 1] error, which could have been raised before the trial court.

The courts below erred by summarily denying the portion of defendant’s motion concerning his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Given the conceded Buchanan violation, factual issues exist concerning trial counsel’s effectiveness. For instance, County Court should determine if counsel had a legitimate explanation for declining to object. There has been no hearing concerning whether defendant voiced his concerns about wearing the stun belt to his trial attorney as he contends … . Further, defendant submitted evidence in support of his motion which raises factual questions as to whether he consented to wearing the stun belt at trial … . Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim should be decided under the applicable standard … on a full record following a hearing … . People v Bradford, 2023 NY Slip Op 03187, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: Before a defendant is required to wear a stun belt during trial, the judge must explain the reasons on the record. Here neither the judge nor the prosecutor was aware defendant was wearing a stun belt. The majority determined the belt did not constitute a mode of proceedings error. The two-judge dissent disagreed.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED PRO SE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing defendant’s conviction, in a memorandum decision which did not describe the facts, determined the judge did not conduct a “searching inquiry” before allowing defendant to proceed pro se:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and a new trial ordered. In contrast to People v Duarte (37 NY3d 1218 [2022]), the trial court here recognized defendant as having unequivocally requested to proceed pro se. However, the court failed to conduct the required “‘searching inquiry’ to ensure that the defendant’s waiver [of the right to counsel] is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” (People v Silburn, 31 NY3d 144, 150 [2018] … ). People v Holmes, 2023 NY Slip Op 03186, CtApp 6-13-23

Practice Point: When a defendant requests to go ahead with a trial without an attorney, the judge must conduct a “searching inquiry” to determine if the waiver of the right to counsel is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The failure to do so requires and new trial.

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE STATED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO AN APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid:

… [D]efendant’s waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because County Court’s oral colloquy mischaracterized it as an “absolute bar” to the taking of an appeal … . …

Furthermore, the written waiver executed by defendant did not contain any clarifying language to correct deficiencies in the oral colloquy. Rather, it perpetuated the oral colloquy’s mischaracterization of the waiver of the right to appeal as an absolute bar to the taking of a first-tier direct appeal and even stated that the rights defendant was waiving included the “right to have an attorney appointed” if she could not afford one and the “right to submit a brief and argue before an appellate court issues relating to [her] sentence and conviction” … . People v Shea’Honnie D., 2023 NY Slip Op 03137, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: A waiver of appeal is not absolute and the judge’s characterizing a waiver as absolute invalidates it.

 

, , ,

IN THIS MURDER TRIAL, THE PROSECUTOR REPEATEDLY BROUGHT UP UNCHARGED CRIMES WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE PRETRIAL SANDOVAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE DID NOT INTERVENE; THE DEFENSE DID NOT OBJECT; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s murder and weapons convictions, determined prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene (there were no defense objections) required a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly mentioned uncharged crimes which were not brought up in the Sandoval proceedings:

During their direct case, however, the People elicited testimony from three different witnesses about a prior bad act that had not been included in their Sandoval/Molineux proffer.  * * *

The prosecutor asked defendant whether the incident, which had occurred approximately a decade earlier, involved him shooting a rifle toward another person. Defendant denied this, and he was then questioned as to whether he tried to reload the rifle but was stopped by bystanders, which he also denied. The prosecutor then asked, “is that how you handle your confrontations, you grab a gun and just fire away?” The prosecutor continued the questioning in this vein by asking defendant whether it was “[k]ind of like . . . … [when] you just fired a warning shot out the window, correct?” The prosecutor subsequently cross-examined defendant relative to the incident involving him shooting someone off a motorcycle — which … was not included in the People’s Sandoval/Molineux motion. … [T]he prosecutor inquired as to whether defendant had stated in a recorded jail call that another inmate had urinated in his bed and that, if he caught who did it, he would stab that person in the neck with a pencil. * * *

… [T]he magnitude of the prosecutor’s misconduct was the fact that County Court made no effort to intervene or otherwise attempt to minimize or alleviate the prejudice being caused to defendant…. . People v Nellis, 2023 NY Slip Op 03046, Third Dept 5-8-23

Practice Point: Although the convictions were not against the weight of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and the judge’s failure to intervene warranted a new trial. The prosecutor repeatedly brought up uncharged crimes which were not ruled upon in the Sandoval proceedings.

 

, , ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPOINTED MOTHER GUARDIAN OF THE JUVENILE, DISPENSED WITH SERVICE ON FATHER, AND MADE FINDINGS TO ALLOW THE JUVENILE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL JUVENILE IMMIGRATION STATUS (SJIS); ALL OF THE COMPLICATED, INTERTWINED STATUTORY LAW EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother should have been appointed guardian of the juvenile and the court should have made findings to allow the juvenile to apply for special immigration juvenile status (SIJS). Family Court should not have required a birth certificate to prove the juvenile’s age:

Family Court Act § 661(a) permits the Family Court to appoint a guardian for a youth between the ages of 18 and 21 in order to establish that the youth is “dependent on a juvenile court” (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]) for purposes of an application for SIJS … . The provisions of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act (hereinafter SCPA) apply to the extent they are applicable to guardianship of the person of a minor or infant and do not conflict with the provisions of the Family Court Act … . …

… [T]here is no express requirement to submit certified copies of birth certificates in a proceeding such as this pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a) … . … [T]he Family Court is only required to ascertain the juvenile’s age, and there is no statutory requirement that a petitioner submit any particular evidence to establish the juvenile’s age (see id.; SCPA 1706[1]). Here, for purposes of this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a), the record supports a finding that the child is under the age of 21 … . …

Family Court should have granted the guardianship petition and the mother’s motions to dispense with service on the father and for the issuance of an order making the requisite declaration and specific findings so as to enable the child to petition for SIJS. Matter of Joel A. A. R. (Eddy A. A. G.), 2023 NY Slip Op 02881, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here the complicated, intertwined statutory law controlling special juvenile immigration status (SJIS), as well as the related evidentiary requirements in Family Court,  are explained in some depth.

 

,

WHERE A JURY NOTE DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DESCRIBE A REQUESTED EXHIBIT, THE NOTE MUST BE READ OR SHOWN TO THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES MUST BE ALLOWED INPUT RE: THE PROPER RESPONSE; HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge did not follow proper procedure re: notes received from the jury during deliberations:

The court did not follow the procedures set forth in People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270[1991]) with regard to several jury notes. The record does not reflect that the court read or showed four of the jury’s notes to the parties or afforded them an opportunity to provide input regarding the proper response to the notes. Indeed, the record contains no indication that these four notes, each of which sought trial exhibits, were responded to at all. While “[n]otes that only require the ministerial act of sending exhibits into the jury room do not implicate the requirements of O’Rama” and CPL 310.30 … , notes that do not unambiguously describe the requested exhibits warrant input from counsel and are subject to O’Rama’s requirement of meaningful notice. Here, at least two of the notes that the court did not address fall into this latter category. Because of this mode of proceedings error, a new trial is called for. People v Baptiste, 2023 NY Slip Op 02835, First Dept 5-25-23

Practice Point: Although the judge need not share with the parties a note from the jury which requires only a ministerial act, the judge must share a note which is ambiguous about which exhibits are requested. The failure to share the note requires reversal and a new trial.

 

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