You are here: / Judges
,

DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS WARRANTING STRIKING ITS ANSWER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant’s (Motors’s) failure to turn over records despite four court orders and defendant’s attempt to mislead plaintiff about its compliance with the discovery requirements warranted striking defendant’s answer:

We find that Motors’s failure to produce these records was willful and contumacious, in view of the fact that it did not do so despite four courts orders, and in light of its interrogatory response implying that it had complied with its discovery obligations in an apparent attempt to mislead plaintiff (see CPLR 3216 …). Although the other defendants were represented by the same counsel as Motors, there is no indication that they exercised control over Motors or were in possession of Motors’s records … .

Motors’s dilatory behavior warrants striking its answer … . Lopez v Bronx Ford, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06068, First Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here defendant’s failure to comply with four discovery orders and its attempt to mislead plaintiff about its compliance was deemed willful and contumacious warranting striking defendant’s answer.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT READ THE JURY NOTE IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE PARTIES AND THE JUDGE’S PARAPHRASE OF THE CONTENTS OMITTED SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF IT; THE FACT THAT THE JURY ANNOUNCED IT HAD REACHED A VERDICT BEFORE THE NOTE WAS CALLED TO THE PARTIES’ ATTENTION DID NOT MATTER; THE MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s failure to read the entire note from the jury to the parties was a mode of proceedings error. The fact that the jury announced it had reached a verdict before the note was read was not determinative:

The trial court’s failure to read to the parties the entirety of a note submitted just before the jury reached a verdict deprived counsel of meaningful notice (see CPL 310.30 … ). The note was not shown to counsel, and the court’s paraphrase omitted significant aspects of the jury’s requests, including a request for reinstruction on the count charging second-degree assault, which was the only count on which defendant was found guilty. The fact that the jury announced that it had reached a verdict before the note was read did not cure this mode of proceedings error … . People v Heyworth, 2022 NY Slip Op 06072, First Dept 10-27-22

Practice Point: Here the jury had announced it had reached a verdict before the jury note was called to the parties attention. The judge did not read the note to the parties in its entirety and the judge’s paraphrase of its contents omitted important aspects of it. This was deemed a mode of proceedings error requiring a new trial.

 

,

A FINE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the fine imposed at sentencing, determined the sentencing judge should not have imposed a fine that was not part of the plea agreement:

County Court improperly enhanced the defendant’s sentence by imposing a fine that was not part of the negotiated plea agreement … . Under the circumstances of this case, we find it appropriate to vacate so much of his sentence as imposed a fine, so as to conform the sentence imposed to the promise made to the defendant in exchange for his plea of guilty … . People v Ruiz, 2022 NY Slip Op 06016, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here the imposition of a fine at sentencing which was not contemplated by the plea agreement was deemed an improper enhancement of the sentence.

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE IMPROPERLY SPECULATED AND CONSIDERED UNCHARGED CRIMES; SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the sentencing judge improperly speculated and considered uncharged crimes:

… [C]ertain remarks made by the County Court demonstrate that, in imposing sentence, it improperly speculated and considered that the defendant had committed additional similar crimes for which she had not been apprehended. Consequently, the defendant must be resentenced … . People v Jeffriesel, 2022 NY Slip Op 06012, Second Dept 10-2622

Practice Point: Here the judge’s remarks at sentencing revealed improper speculation and consideration of uncharged crimes. The sentence was vacated and resentencing ordered.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT ALLEGING ABUSE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF A GROUP FOSTER HOME, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A DISCOVERABILITY HEARING BEFORE DETERMINING WHICH FOSTER-CARE RECORDS WERE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case, determined the judge should have held a discoverability hearing before which foster-care records could be released to the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged he was abused in 1991 and 1992 by an employee of a group foster home (Little Flower):

Social Services Law § 372(3) requires “authorized agenc[ies],” including Little Flower, to “generate and keep records of those [children] who are placed in [their] care” … . Foster care records are deemed confidential (see Social Services Law § 372[3]), “considering that they must contain individualized and often highly personal information about the [children]” … . The confidential nature of such records serves “[t]o safeguard both the child and [his or her] natural parents” … , as well as others who may be “the subjects of such records” … . Although foster care records are entitled to a presumption of confidentiality, they may nonetheless be deemed discoverable pursuant to the provisions of CPLR article 31 … . Moreover, since “[the] statutory confidentiality requirement is intended [in part] to protect the privacy of children in foster care,” it should not be used “to prevent former foster children from obtaining access to their own records” … , although this does not mean that they are always entitled to unfettered disclosure thereof. Even when considering a request for disclosure from a former foster child, “[a]n agency [may] move for a protective order where some part of the record should not be produced” … . * * *

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it declined to conduct a discoverability hearing before deciding that branch of Little Flower’s motion which sought a protective order regarding the purportedly confidential portions of the records. We therefore remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to conduct such a hearing and to “clearly specify the grounds for its denial or approval of disclosure with respect to each document or category of documents” … .  Cowan v Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 2022 NY Slip Op 05989, Second Dept 10-26-22

Practice Point: Here, in this Child Victims Act suit, the judge should have held a discoverability hearing before deciding which foster-care records could be released to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged he was abused in 1991 and 1992 by an employee of a group foster home.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED AT TRIAL BUT REPRESENTED HIMSELF IN PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS; THE JUDGE NEVER ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING ONESELF OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ATTORNEY ACTING AS A “LEGAL ADVISOR” TO THE DEFENDANT AND AN ATTORNEY WHO “REPRESENTS” THE DEFENDANT; CONVICTION REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED TO REPEAT PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).

​The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, reversing the appellate division, determined the judge never adequately explained to the defendant the risks associated with representing himself, and the judge did not explain the difference between an attorney who acts as a “legal advisor” to the defendant as opposed to an attorney who “represents” the defendant. Although the defendant was represented at trial, he was not represented during much of the pretrial proceedings. The matter was remitted to repeat the pretrial proceedings:

… [T]he court’s record exploration of the issue did not warn defendant of the risks of proceeding pro se or apprise him of the importance of a lawyer in the adversarial system, nor does the record as a whole demonstrate that defendant effectively waived his right to counsel. Initially, the court conducted no discussion whatsoever of these issues before stating that defendant was representing himself … . Although the court later told defendant that it was “not a great idea” to represent himself, that defendant was putting himself “in a very bad position,” and that a lawyer would have knowledge of criminal procedure that defendant did not, these brief, generalized warnings do not satisfy the requirement for a searching inquiry … . * * *

… [W]hen the court, in its discretion, permits standby counsel … , it should explain to the defendant the court’s rules regarding the role of a legal advisor or standby counsel and how that role differs from representation by an attorney. People v Baines, 2022 NY Slip Op 05919, CtApp 10-24-22

Practice Point: When a defendant seeks to represent himself, the judge must adequately explain the associated risks, as well as the difference between an attorney who acts as a “legal advisor” to the defendant and an attorney who “represents” the defendant. Here the defendant was represented at trial but not during some of the pretrial proceedings. The matter was remitted to repeat the pretrial proceedings.

 

,

THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE DISCHARGED JUST PRIOR TO THE LUNCH BREAK; A PROBLEM WITH A SITTING JUROR AROSE DURING THE BREAK AND THE JUROR WAS REMOVED; DELIBERATIONS HAD NOT YET BEGUN BUT THE ALTERNATE JURORS WERE NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE; THE JUDGE THEREFORE SHOULD NOT HAVE RECALLED ONE OF THE ALTERNATE JURORS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the appellate division and ordering a new trial, determined that once the alternate jurors were discharged they were not longer “available for service.” Therefore, the judge should not have seated one of the discharged alternate jurors after a trial juror was removed for alleged misconduct. The alternates were discharged just before the court broke for lunch. During the break, before deliberations had begun,  the problem with the sitting juror arose. The Court of Appeals noted that, had the judge waited to discharge the alternates until deliberations were about to begin, instead of before the lunch break, there would have been no need for a mistrial:

Prior to the start of deliberations in defendant’s trial, the court discharged the alternate jurors. A trial juror was subsequently challenged and ultimately removed for alleged misconduct, and the court recalled, questioned, and seated one of the discharged alternates. Seating of this discharged alternate juror was error. An alternate juror, once discharged, is no longer “available for service” as a replacement for a trial juror…. . * * *

… [W]hen the trial judge thanked the alternate jurors for their service and “excused [them] from this case,” the alternate jurors were discharged. At that point, the alternates “cease[d] to function” as jurors … and were no longer available for service under the statute. People v Murray, 2022 NY Slip Op 05916, CtApp 10-20-22

Practice Point: Once an alternate juror is discharged the alternate is no longer “available for service” and cannot be recalled even if deliberations have not yet begun.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FAMILY COURT’S SUA SPONTE FINDING THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E., A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER, WARRANTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT AND AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, found there had been a change in circumstances, i.e., a breakdown in communication between mother and father,  justifying awarding sole custody to mother. The evidence did not support the finding that communication had broken down:

… Family Court erred in determining that the parties being unwilling or unable to cooperatively raise the child constituted a change in circumstances and sua sponte modifying the prior order. … Initially, the parties did provide some evidence as to how each has failed to properly communicate with respect to the child, such as the father being unresponsive to the mother’s messages regarding child support payments and the mother failing to inform him that she had unenrolled the child from daycare. However, the mother acknowledged that the father has been able to communicate with her via the TalkingParents app to discuss issues regarding the child, such as custodial exchange dates. The father similarly stated that he has been able to communicate with the mother via email. Thus, although their communication is strained at times, partially as a result of these proceedings, the record does not establish that it has completely broken down … . Indeed, “[t]he record establishes that the parties’ relationship was no more antagonistic during [the relevant time] period than it was at the time of the entry of the original order” … , which, in this case, was only two months prior to the filing of the father’s petition. Accordingly, Family Court should not have proceeded to a best interest analysis and, instead, should have continued the joint legal custody arrangement reflected in the prior order … .Matter of Karl II. v Maurica JJ., 2022 NY Slip Op 05905, Third Dept 10-20-22

Practice Point: Here the evidence did not support the Family Court judge’s sua sponte finding that communication between mother and father had broken down warranting a modification of the custody arrangement.

 

, ,

THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS CONCERNING WHETHER DEFENDANT BREACHED THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED FACTS; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction by guilty plea, determined the judge should not have determined defendant breached the cooperation agreement without a hearing. The prosecutor argued defendant breached the agreement by not providing information which defendant didn’t reveal until he was about to testify against a codefendant in accordance with the agreement. The defendant argued the information did not relate to the codefendant and he did not believe it was relevant at the time the cooperation agreement was created:

“[S]entencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding and . . . ‘the sentencing process, as well as the trial itself, must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause'” … . Generally, “a guilty plea induced by an unfulfilled promise either must be vacated or the promise honored” … , but, where no promises are breached by the People and a defendant fails to abide by the terms of a cooperation agreement, a court is not obligated to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea … . Under the circumstances present here, these important issues have not been adequately resolved because the Supreme Court failed to hold a hearing or conduct a sufficient inquiry into whether the defendant violated the terms of the cooperation agreement … . …

This record reflects that the parties are sharply at odds as to whether there was a material breach of the cooperation agreement when the defendant provided additional information in response to new evidence shown to him during the codefendant’s trial … . The determination of this issue rests on nuanced considerations, including the defendant’s intent and the prosecutors’ interactions with the defendant while preparing for the codefendant’s trial. A hearing would have provided, among other things, an opportunity for the defendant to testify about the nature of the belatedly disclosed information, his reasons therefor, and his understanding of its importance to the case against the codefendant. People v Owensford, 2022 NY Slip Op 05716, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Here there were nuanced disputed facts concerning whether defendant breached the cooperation agreement. The judge should have held a hearing to resolve the disputed facts. Conviction reversed and matter remitted.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETER; A NEW HEARING TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ attorney’s request for an interpreter should have been granted. Defendant Rowshan claimed she was never served in this foreclosure action and she testified at the hearing on the validity of the service of process:

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 217.1(a), “[i]n all civil . . . cases, when a court determines that a party . . . is unable to understand and communicate in English to the extent that he or she cannot meaningfully participate in the court proceedings, the clerk of the court or another designated administrative officer shall schedule an interpreter . . . from an approved list maintained by the Office of Court Administration.” “‘The determination whether a court-appointed interpreter is necessary lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to make the fact-intensive inquiries necessary to determine whether there exists a language barrier'” so as to require an interpreter … .

Here, the record reflects that Rowshan was unable to meaningfully participate in the hearing due to her limited capacity to understand and communicate in English … . In multiple instances throughout her testimony, Rowshan’s testimony was not responsive to the questions posed to her, Rowshan did not know the meaning of simple words, and she made confusing statements demonstrating her limitations in understanding English. * * *

Since the Supreme Court determined, after the hearing, that Rowshan’s testimony was lacking in credibility due to “contradictions, misstatements and inconsistencies,” the record reflects that the denial of the defendants’ application for an interpreter may have influenced the court’s determination. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Parvez, 2022 NY Slip Op 05683, Second Dept 10-12-22

Practice Point: Here the judge’s failure to grant defendants’ attorney’s request for an interpreter required reversal and a new hearing. The defendant’s testimony revealed her limited understanding of English and the court’s ruling was based upon a determination of her credibility.

 

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