You are here: / Judges
,

ALTHOUGH THE RECORD SUPPORTED FATHER’S PERMANENT NEGLECT AND THE TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISPENSED WITH THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING ABSENT FATHER’S CONSENT; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined that although the record supported terminating father’s parental rights based upon permanent neglect, Family Court should not have dispensed with the dispositional hearing absent the consent of the parties:

Both petitioner and the attorney for the child share the position that Family Court properly dispensed of the matter without a separate dispositional hearing and, alternatively, that there is sufficient evidence in the record for this Court to render a disposition. However, Family Ct Act § 625 (a) expressly provides that, “[u]pon completion of [a] fact-finding hearing, [a] dispositional hearing may commence immediately after the required findings are made; provided, however, that if all parties consent the court may, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, dispense with the dispositional hearing and make an order of disposition on the basis of competent evidence admitted at the fact-finding hearing” … . Here, the court stated that there was “no need for a further or separate dispositional hearing” before rendering its determination that respondent had permanently neglected the child and terminating his parental rights. However, there is no indication that respondent affirmatively consented to dispense with the hearing and, “absent consent, the requirement of a dispositional hearing may not be circumvented” … . Matter of Harmony F. (William F.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00259, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: Here, even though the record supported Family Court’s termination of father’s parental rights, in the absence of father’s consent, Family Court should not have dispensed with the dispositional hearing.

 

,

AFTER A JUROR CAME FORWARD DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SAY SHE THOUGHT THE DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER IN HIS CAR DURING THE TRIAL AND OTHER JURORS EXPRESSED SAFETY CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO TRIAL SPECTATORS, THE JUDGE INTERVIEWED EACH JUROR AND PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON A GROSSLY-UNQUALIFIED-JUROR ARGUMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined County Court properly denied defendant’s CPL 330.30 motion to set aside the verdict on the ground a juror was grossly unqualified. A juror (No. 6) had come forward during deliberations to say she thought the defendant had followed her in his car during the trial and had concerns for her safety. According to Juror No. 6, other jurors expressed safety concerns with respect to spectators at the trial. The judge interviewed each juror and concluded a mistrial should not be granted:

Upon review of the private colloquy between County Court and juror No. 6, we disagree with the dissent’s view that County Court failed to engage in a probing and tactful inquiry taking into due account the juror’s responses. “The [t]rial [j]udge generally is accorded latitude in making the findings necessary to determine whether a juror is grossly unqualified under CPL 270.35, because that [j]udge is in the best position to assess partiality in an allegedly biased juror”  … .The trial court is tasked with “evaluat[ing] the nature of what the juror has seen, heard, or has acquired knowledge of, and assess its importance and its bearing on the case” … . County Court, “[i]n concluding that a juror is grossly unqualified, . . . may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on [his or] her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent [him or] her from rendering an impartial verdict” … . This Court likewise should not speculate. People v Fisher, 2023 NY Slip Op 00248, Third Dept 1-19-23

Practice Point: After a juror came forward during deliberations to say he had concerns for her safety because she thought defendant had followed her in his car during the trial, the trial judge interviewed her and the other jurors. The majority concluded defendant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied. There was a two-justice dissent.

 

, ,

TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A) THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PATTERN OF NEGLECT, NOT, AS HERE, A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL); THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that dismissal for failure to prosecute requires more than one instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready to proceed on the trial date). Rather, a pattern of neglect must be shown in order to deprive plaintiff of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a):

While the prior action was dismissed due to plaintiff’s unreadiness to go forward with the trial as scheduled on December 16, 2022 … , the … trial court, in dismissing the case, did not set forth on the record any additional instances of neglect by the plaintiff that could “demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation” (CPLR 205[a] …), as opposed to one particular lapse, namely, the lack of readiness on the trial date. The court’s statement that the case had been “languishing since 2010” does not suffice, inasmuch as it fails to specify any “specific conduct . . . demonstrat[ing] a general pattern of delay” (CPLR 205[a] …). As this Court has recently held, a “general pattern of delay” must comprise more than one instance of dilatory conduct … . U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Fox, 2023 NY Slip Op 00046, First Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff will not be deprived of the six-month recommencement benefit of CPLR 205(a) unless there has been more than a single instance of neglect (here plaintiff was not ready for trial). In addition, the judge must, in the order dismissing the action, set forth the facts demonstrating a pattern of neglect before the plaintiff will be prohibited from recommencing the action.

 

,

WHETHER THE CORPORATE VEIL SHOULD BE PIERCED IS A FACT-BASED DETERMINATION GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FINDINGS BY THE MOTION COURT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED FACTS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ALLOWING THE CORPORTE VEIL TO BE PIERCED REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should not have granted summary judgment allowing the corporate veil to be pierced and holding the defendants liable for a judgment against the corporation (DJJMS). The appellate division noted that a determination the corporate veil should be pierced is a fact-based analysis not suited to summary judgment:

The elements of veil piercing are that (1) the owners exercised complete domination and control of the corporation with respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff’s injury … . Plaintiffs who seek to pierce the corporate veil bear a heavy burden … .

“[C]omplete domination of the corporation is the key to piercing the corporate veil” … , but the motion court did not cite sufficient, undisputed facts to show that defendants exercised complete domination of DJJMS. It noted that veil piercing occurs “when the principals are using the corporation ‘as their personal piggy-bank'” but cited no facts to support its apparent determination that defendants so used DJJMS … . The motion court did not adequately detail relevant, undisputed facts to show that defendants have “abused the privilege of doing business in the corporate form,” including facts showing that, as a matter of law “there was a failure to adhere to corporate formalities, inadequate capitalization, commingling of assets, and use of corporate funds for personal use” … . … The motion court apparently presumed that the transfer at issue …  caused DJJMS to be judgment proof, but the court does not cite any undisputed fact, other than the fact of the transfer itself, to support its conclusion. Etage Real Estate LLC v Stern, 2022 NY Slip Op 07499, First Dept 12-29-22

Practice Point: Whether the corporate veil should be pierced is a fact-laden inquiry which is not suited for summary judgment.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS VISITATION PROCEEDING REQUIRED REMITTAL FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge’s failure to make findings of fact in the visitation proceedings required remittal:

Although the court recited that its determination was based upon the proof adduced at the fact-finding and Lincoln hearings, it did not make factual findings. Furthermore, the record is also not sufficiently developed in order for us to make an independent determination. In this regard, at the fact-finding hearing, the father withdrew his request for in-person visitation with the child and, on appeal, the father requests monthly telephone contact with the child. The mother testified that she opposed additional visitation than what was provided for in the 2013 order because the child showed signs of fear and apprehension, did not have a relationship with the father and was not engaged in writing letters to the father. The mother also testified that the child has a fear associated with prison and violence.

Other than the mother’s conclusory testimony, there was scant evidence, if any, demonstrating that the child having telephone contact with the father would be detrimental to the child’s welfare … . Moreover, even crediting the mother’s testimony about the child’s fear, it is unclear whether such fear relates to in-person visitation with the father at a prison or to telephone calls, as the father now requests. Because the record evidence is not sufficiently developed to determine whether the father should be awarded monthly telephone contact with the child, the matter must be remitted for a new hearing … . Matter of Anthony T. v Melissa U., 2022 NY Slip Op 07287, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In this “expansion of visitation” proceeding, the judge did not make findings of fact and the record was not sufficient for the appellate court to rule, the case was remitted to Family Court for a new hearing.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH TWO CHILDREN HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM MOTHER’S CARE AFTER NEGLECT FINDINGS AND MOTHER ALLEGEDLY CONCEALED HER PREGNANCY AND FAILED TO SEEK APPROPRIATE PRENATAL CARE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING MOTHER HAD NEGLECTED HER NEWBORN WAS NOT APPROPRIATE; MATTER REMITTED TO BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined summary judgment finding respondent mother had neglected and derivatively neglected her newborn baby was not appropriate. Two children had been removed from mother’s care based on neglect findings,. Mother allegedly had concealed her pregnancy and allegedly had not sought appropriate prenatal case. But triable issues of fact remained. The matter was sent back to be heard by a different judge:

Upon review of the record and considering the nature of the prior neglect findings, the passage of time, and the questions concerning the degree of progress made by respondent over that time, we find that there are triable issues of fact precluding summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b] …). Petitioner’s motion was centered upon the two prior findings of neglect and respondent’s failure to abide by the corresponding orders of disposition … . However, the petition itself acknowledged that respondent had recently become more compliant with petitioner, resulting in expanded visitation with her children, and had been making improvements in her engagement with services and communication skills. According to the petition, respondent had put together a safety plan for the subject child to live with her, and petitioner saw this as “a strength” and was “hopeful in working with” respondent on this plan. Further, petitioner pointed out in opposition to the motion that she had improved her housing and employment situation and ended a relationship with an abusive partner…. .

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a fact-finding hearing concerning the allegations in the petition … . Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to remit to a different judge for the purpose of conducting the hearing. Matter of Ja’layna FF. (Jalyssa GG.), 2022 NY Slip Op 07271, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Summary judgment is almost never appropriate in a child-neglect matter. Here summary judgment finding mother had neglected her newborn based on neglect findings re: two other children and allegations mother had concealed her pregnancy and failed to seek appropriate prenatal care was reversed. There existed several triable issue of fact, including recent cooperation by mother. The matter was remitted for a hearing in front of a different judge.

 

, , ,

THE ADMISSION ALLOCUTION IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE JUDGE QUESTION THE JUVENILE AND A PARENT, FELL SHORT OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IN THE FAMILY COURT ACT; PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing respondent’s admission to criminal mischief in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined: (1) the validity of the admission was not moot despite the completion of the one-year placement, and the issue need to be preserved for review; and (2) the admission allocution was insufficient:

… [R]espondent’s argument that the plea allocution did not comply with Family Ct Act § 321.3 is not moot — despite the expiration of respondent’s placement — because the delinquency determination challenged herein “implicates possible collateral legal consequences” … .

… Family Court must “ascertain through allocution of the respondent and his [or her] parent or other person legally responsible for his [or her] care, if present, that (a) he [or she] committed the act or acts to which he [or she] is entering an admission, (b) he [or she] is voluntarily waiving his [or her] right to a fact-finding hearing, and (c) he [or she] is aware of the possible specific dispositional orders” (Family Ct Act § 321.3 [1]). Although respondent’s mother was present at the April 2021 allocution, Family Court only asked her whether she had sufficient time to speak to respondent about the proceedings….  The record reflects that the court failed to question respondent’s mother regarding the acts to which respondent admitted, his waiver of the fact-finding hearing or her awareness of the possible dispositional options. As a result, Family Court’s allocution fell short of the statutory mandate … . Matter of Christian VV. (Christian VV.), 2022 NY Slip Op 07275, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: The Family Court Act requires that the admission allocution in a juvenile delinquency proceeding involve both the juvenile and a parent. Here the allocution of respondent and his mother fell short of the statutory requirements and the juvenile delinquent petition was dismissed. Although the respondent had already completed his placement, the issue was not moot because of the possible collateral consequences of the delinquency determination.

 

, ,

THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE; AND AN APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER ARGUMENTS ON ISSUES NOT RULED ON BELOW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea and the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid, the motion to suppress should not have been denied on a ground not raised by the parties, and the appellate court cannot rule on issues not decided below:

… [T]he court conflated defendant’s appellate and trial rights by asking the defendant “[i]s that what you wish to do to waive your right to appeal and your other rights . . . by pleading guilty[?]” Instead, the majority of the court’s colloquy of defendant’s appellate rights focused on sentencing, on which the court itself needed clarification, not in differentiating trial from appellate rights.

… [T]he court made other errors in its oral colloquy that further justify invalidating defendant’s waiver of his appellate rights. Specifically, the court failed to advise defendant of the nature of the right to appeal … , erroneously mischaracterized the finality of the waiver … , and failed to discuss the written waiver form with defendant … . The detailed written waiver that defendant executed with counsel cannot save the numerous errors in the court’s oral colloquy, as “‘a written waiver is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal'” … . * * *

… [A]bsent “on-the-record acknowledgements of [defendant’s clear] understanding” … of his appellate rights waiver, the presumption of defense counsel’s competent representation during the plea negotiations is simply insufficient to overcome the court’s deficient colloquy … . * * *

… [T]he People never disputed that defendant had standing to challenge the search warrant. Therefore, the court should not have denied the motion “based on a ground not raised by the People” … . … [T]he People’s current arguments on appeal are precluded by People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]) because the suppression court did not rule upon these issues, and this Court may not affirm on those alternative grounds … . People v Bonilla, 2022 NY Slip Op 07304, First Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: Here the waiver of appeal was deemed invalid and there was an extensive dissent on that issue. The motion to suppress should not have been denied on a ground not raised by the People. An appellate court cannot consider issues not ruled on below.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS NON-JURY TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing the judgment (after a non-jury trial) of foreclosure and sale, determined plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with RPAPL 1303:

RPAPL 1303 requires that a notice titled “Help for Homeowners in Foreclosure” be delivered to the mortgagor along with the summons and complaint in residential foreclosure actions involving owner-occupied, one- to four-family dwellings … . “The statute mandates that the notice be in bold, 14-point type and printed on colored paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and that the title of the notice be in bold, 20-point type” … . “Proper service of an RPAPL 1303 notice is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and noncompliance mandates dismissal of the complaint” … . The foreclosing party bears the burden of establishing compliance with RPAPL 1303 … .

Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence at trial establishing that it complied with the specific requirements of RPAPL 1303, or that it delivered such notice to Nodumehlezi [defendant] at all. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court’s reliance, in a posttrial decision, on documents that had been previously e-filed to establish the plaintiff’s compliance with RPAPL 1303 was improper, since Nodumehlezi had no opportunity to rebut the previously filed affidavit of service and the related documents … . 21st Mtge. Corp. v Nodumehlezi, 2022 NY Slip Op 07212, Second Dept 12-21-22

Practice Point: Here there was a non-jury trial and plaintiff did not prove compliance with RPAPL 1303. The judgment of foreclosure and sale was reversed.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BANK MADE A DEFECTIVE MOTION (WHICH WAS REJECTED) FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND DID NOT CORRECT THE ERRORS IN THE MOTION FOR TEN YEARS; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ACTION HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACTION SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action, by filing a motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default, demonstrated it did not intend to abandon the action and the matter, therefore, should be restored to the calendar. The facts that the motion was initially rejected and plaintiff delayed ten years before addressing the defects in the motion did not require a different result:

Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint in this action pursuant to CPLR 3215(c). The plaintiff demonstrated that it filed a motion, inter alia, for an order of reference on October 24, 2008, which was within one year of the defendants’ default in the action. Presenting this motion to the court was sufficient to demonstrate the plaintiff’s intent to have the action proceed, notwithstanding that the motion papers were ultimately rejected by the court as defective … .. Although our dissenting colleague notes that the plaintiff thereafter failed to explain its failure to fix the defects that resulted in the motion papers being rejected for a period of 10 years, once a plaintiff establishes “compliance with CPLR 3215(c),” it is “not required, under the plain language of that subdivision, to account for any additional periods of delay that may have occurred subsequent to the initial one-year period contemplated by CPLR 3215(c)” ,,, ,Thus, because the plaintiff did not abandon the action, the court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal order and to restore the action to the active calendar … . Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Lamarre, 2022 NY Slip Op 07056, Second Dept 12-14-22

Practice Point: The plaintiff bank in this foreclosure action made a defective motion for an order of reference within one year of defendant’s default. That motion was sufficient to demonstrate plaintiff did not intend to abandon the action, even though motion was rejected and plaintiff did not correct the defects in the motion for ten years. The judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint and the matter should have been restored to the calendar.

 

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