You are here: / Judges
, , ,

BASED ON THE PEOPLE’S THEORY, THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IS PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO USE IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO CALL A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR $1000 TO HIRE A PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge (1) should not have instructed the jury that possession of a weapon is presumptive evidence of an intent to use it unlawfully against another (2) should not have prevented defendant from calling as a witness a nurse practitioner who treated him at a psychiatric facility and (3) should have granted defendant’s request pursuant to the County Law for $1000 to hire a psychiatric expert:

County Court erred in charging the jury with respect to the presumption set forth in Penal Law § 265.15 (4) concerning the possession of weapons, i.e., that the possession by any person of any weapon is presumptive evidence of intent to use the same unlawfully against another. Pursuant to the statute, that presumption applies only where the defendant possesses the weapon in question (see Penal Law § 265.15 [4] …). Here, the People did not proceed on any theory that defendant had possession of the weapon at issue. … .

… [T]he court abused its discretion by precluding defendant from calling a proposed witness at trial, namely, a nurse practitioner who treated him at the Mohawk Valley Psychiatric Center prior to the incident, on the grounds that her testimony was not relevant and that defendant failed to give timely notice under CPL 250.10 (1) (c). It is well settled that “[a criminal] defendant has a fundamental right to call witnesses in his [or her] own behalf” … . Here, defendant established that the proposed witness would have provided relevant testimony with respect to his defense and also established good cause for the delay in the notice, and the People failed to establish any prejudice … .

“Pursuant to County Law § 722-c, upon a finding of necessity, a court shall authorize expert services on behalf of a defendant, and only in extraordinary circumstances may a court provide for compensation in excess of $1,000 per expert” … . Here, we conclude that the court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s application on the sole ground that defendant had a retained attorney … . People v Osman, 2023 NY Slip Op 00581, Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: Based on the People’s theory the jury should not have been instructed that possession of weapon is presumptive evidence of an intent to use it unlawfully against another. The defendant’s request to call a witness who could offer relevant evidence should not have been denied where the delay in notification was explained and there was no prejudice. The defendant’s request pursuant to the County Law for $1000 to hire a psychiatric expert should have been granted.

 

, , ,

THE LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER OR THE PREANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; IT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed petitioners’ declaratory judgment action against the town for lack of standing. The petitioners sought a ruling that the town had failed to enforce a zoning code provision which prohibited respondent-defendant from operating a commercial business out of his residence. Although the town moved to dismiss the action, it did not raise lack-of-standing in its answer or its motion. Therefore the judge did not have the authority to dismiss on that ground:

“Standing ‘is an aspect of justiciability which, when challenged, must be considered at the outset of any litigation’ ” … . Nonetheless, “a party’s lack of standing does not constitute a jurisdictional defect” … , and therefore a challenge to a party’s standing is waived if the defense is not asserted in either the answer or a preanswer motion to dismiss … . Here, the Town’s motion with respect to the second cause of action was not based on petitioners’ alleged lack of standing. Thus, we conclude that the court erred in sua sponte reaching the issue of standing with respect to that cause of action … . Matter of Cayuga Nation v Town of Seneca Falls, 2023 NY Slip Op 00575. Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: A lack-of-standing is not a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, if it is not raised in the answer or a preanswer motion to dismiss, it is waived and the judge cannot raise it sua sponte.

 

,

ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT CAN DIRECT MOTHER TO ENGAGE IN COUNSELING, SUBMIT TO DRUG TESTS AND TAKE MEDICATION, FAMILY COURT CAN NOT MAKE THE DIRECTIVES A PREREQUISITE FOR VISITATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Family Court did not have the authority to make mother’s compliance with drug-test, medication and counseling directives a prerequisite for visitation:

… [T]he court erred in requiring the mother to participate in counseling, take her medications as prescribed, and provide proof of a negative hair follicle test prior to having therapeutic visitation with the children. Although the court may include such directives as a component of visitation, it does not have the authority to make them a prerequisite to visitation … . We therefore modify the orders accordingly, and we remit the matters to Family Court to fashion schedules for the mother’s therapeutic visitation with each child. Matter of Sharlow v Hughes, 2023 NY Slip Op 00518, Fourth Dept 2-3-23

Practice Point: Family Court can direct mother to submit to drug tests, engage in counseling and take medication but it cannot make the directives a prerequisite for visitation.

 

,

A PRESENTENCE REPORT MUST BE CREATED FOR EACH OFFENSE; HERE THE JUDGE USED A PRESENTENCE REPORT PREPARED FOR A DIFFERENT UNRELATED OFFENSE; THE SENTENCE WAS ILLEGALLY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the sentencing court should not have used a presentence report created for an earlier, unrelated offense. A unique presentence report for each offense is mandatory:

CPL 390.20 provides that “[i]n any case where a person is convicted of a felony, the court must order a pre-sentence investigation of the defendant and it may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of such investigation” (CPL 390.20[1]). This statutory language is mandatory … and a sentencing court’s failure to obtain a presentence report renders the sentence imposed invalid as a matter of law … .

Here, the County Court sentenced the defendant on the murder conviction without ordering or receiving a presentence report relating to the murder conviction. Instead, the court relied on a presentence report prepared in connection with the defendant’s conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, the facts and circumstances of which were not related to the facts and circumstances of the murder conviction. … [T]his did not satisfy the requirements of CPL 390.20, and therefore the sentence was illegally imposed. People v Shearer, 2023 NY Slip Op 00445, Second Dept 2-1-23

Practice Point: A judge cannot use a presentence report prepared for one offense in a sentencing for a different, unrelated offense.

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED WITH THE CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT A SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO WHETHER RESPONDENT FATHER WAS KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this custody proceeding should not have proceeded without a searching inquiry into whether father was making an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel:

At an appearance before the Family Court on the mother’s petition, the court advised the father of his right to counsel, and the father requested an adjournment to obtain an attorney. The court stated that it would email the father contact information for Legal Aid and scheduled a date for a virtual hearing on the petition. On the scheduled hearing date, the father appeared without counsel and the court did not inquire whether the father was waiving his right to counsel. The court commenced the hearing with the father proceeding pro se. By order … , the court, after the hearing, among other things, awarded the mother primary physical custody of the child, with parental access to the father. The father appeals.

The father, as a respondent in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, had the right to be represented by counsel … . “A party may waive that right and proceed without counsel provided he or she makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel” … . “[T]o determine whether a party has validly waived the right to counsel, a court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that the waiver has been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently” … .

Here, the Family Court failed to conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that the father’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made … . Matter of Mercado v Arzola, 2023 NY Slip Op 00321, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Here father, the respondent in a custody proceeding, had a right to counsel. The judge should not have proceeded with the hearing without making a searching inquiry into whether father was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel.

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH POSSESSION OF A WEAPON OUTSIDE HIS HOME OR BUSINESS; THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THEY NEED ONLY FIND DEFENDANT POSSESSED A LOADED FIREARM; THE POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTION WAS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the possession-of-a-weapon conviction, determined the People were required to prove what was alleged in the indictment and the bill of particulars, i.e., that defendant possessed the weapon outside his home or business. The judge charged the jury they need only find defendant has knowingly possessed any firearm:

… [T]he defendant was charged in count 1 of the indictment with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under the theory that, on the date in question, he knowingly possessed a loaded firearm and that such possession was not in his home or place of business (see Penal Law § 265.03[3]). * * *

“Where the prosecution is limited by the indictment or bill of particulars to a certain theory or theories, the court must hold the prosecution to such narrower theory or theories” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the People were required to prove at trial as an element of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree that the possession of the loaded firearm was not in the defendant’s home or place of business (see Penal Law § 265.03[3] …). As the defendant correctly contends, the Supreme Court’s instruction impermissibly removed from the jury’s consideration an element of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree as charged in count 1 of the indictment … . People v Reid, 2023 NY Slip Op 00336, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: The People are constrained to prove what is charged in the indictment and alleged in the bill of particulars. If the judge instructs the jury otherwise, the conviction will be reversed. Here the judge determined defendant had a prior conviction and his possession of a weapon, no matter where, would support a conviction. Therefore, the judge reasoned, the jury need not be instructed that the possession must be outside defendant’s home or business as charged in the indictment. The conviction was reversed.

 

,

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.

 

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