You are here: / Judges
,

FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should have held a hearing on father’s petition for a modification of custody:

… [T]he father alleged … that, since the prior order, he has relocated to a small, quiet apartment but now has a lengthy commute each way to exercise his parenting time, the child wishes to spend more time with him and the prior order provides him with a limited amount of a parenting time when considering the progress he has made to care for the child. Family Court sua sponte dismissed the father’s petition without prejudice, finding that the father failed to allege a sufficient change in circumstances. The father appeals.

Family Court erred in dismissing the petition without holding a hearing. “A parent seeking to modify a prior order of custody and visitation is required to demonstrate that a change in circumstances has occurred since entry thereof that then warrants the court engaging in an analysis as to the best interests of the child” … . “While not every petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing” … , “[g]enerally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” … . Matter of Neil VV. v Joanne WW., 2022 NY Slip Op 03557, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Where, as here, a facially sufficient petition for a modification of custody had been filed, petitioner is entitled to a hearing.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S PLEA COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT (JURAT) OF HIS PERJURY CONVICTIONS; PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating the plea to perjury, determined defendant’s plea colloquy negated an essential element of the crime:

… [W]e conclude that defendant is entitled to challenge the plea because he made statements during the colloquy that negated an essential element of the crime … . “A person is guilty of perjury in the third degree when he [or she] swears falsely” … . “A person ‘swears falsely’ when he [or she] intentionally makes a false statement which he [or she] does not believe to be true . . . under oath in a subscribed written instrument” … . An “‘[o]ath’ includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated” … . The document in question was captioned as an “Affidavit of Financial Information.” The preamble begins with the representation that defendant, “being duly sworn, deposes and says the following under penalty of perjury.” The following statement is included above defendant’s signature: “I have carefully read the foregoing statements contained in this Affidavit of Financial Information. They are true and correct.” The document includes defendant’s signature and a jurat completed by defendant’s attorney in July 2017 … . The same is true for the amended affidavit signed in August 2017.

During the plea allocution, defendant explained that he received the affidavit from his attorney by e-mail “and then [he] filled it out on e-mail as well and sent it right back to him.” No statement was made that the attorney actually administered an oath to defendant before he signed the affidavits. Given defendant’s limited explanation of the affidavit sequence, County Court was obligated to further inquire as to the oath element before accepting the plea … . People v Marone, 2022 NY Slip Op 03543, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s plea colloquy negated an essential element of the crime. The judge should have inquired further before accepting the plea. Plea vacated.

 

,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO PROSECUTED DEFENDANT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction should not have been considered by the judge whose law clerk was the District Attorney at the time of defendant’s conviction:

As one of the grounds raised in his CPL article 440 motion, defendant argued that he was deprived of his right to appear before the grand jury due to the actions of the District Attorney. The parties do not dispute that, at the time that defendant’s CPL article 440 motion was decided, the judge’s law clerk was the former District Attorney who had prosecuted defendant. That said, defendant contends that the judge should have recused himself from deciding defendant’s motion. We agree. “Not only must judges actually be neutral, they must appear so as well” … . In view of the law clerk’s direct involvement in defendant’s case during her tenure as the District Attorney and the allegations made in the CPL article 440 motion about her conduct while she was prosecuting him, as well as taking into account the need to maintain the appearance of impartiality, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the judge to decide defendant’s motion … . People v Roshia, 2022 NY Slip Op 03546, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: The judge should not have decided defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction because the judge’s law clerk was the DA who prosecuted defendant.

 

, ,

THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO STOP DELIBERATIONS IF IT FOUND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED TO THE TOP COUNT (MURDER); DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter conviction in the interest of justice, determined the jury instruction on the justification defense was flawed. The instruction did not explain that if the justification defense was the basis for acquittal on the top count (murder here) the jury must not consider the lesser counts:

… Supreme Court inadequately charged the jury regarding his justification defense. Although this issue is unpreserved inasmuch as defendant failed to raise it during the charge conference and did not object to the final charge … , we nevertheless find it appropriate to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to take corrective action and reverse defendant’s conviction … .

Where … a defendant raises a claim of self-defense, the trial court commits reversible error if it fails to “instruct the jury that, if it finds the defendant not guilty of a greater charge on the basis of justification, it is not to consider any lesser counts” … . This error was compounded by the verdict sheet, which directed the jury to consider manslaughter in the first degree if the jury found defendant not guilty of murder in the second degree; the verdict sheet did not contain a qualifier if the acquittal of murder was based on the defense of justification … . Even though … “the jury may have acquitted on the top charge[] without relying on defendant’s justification defense, it is nevertheless impossible to discern whether acquittal of the top count[] was based on the jury’s finding of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the lesser count[] to which justification also applied” … .People v Harris, 2022 NY Slip Op 03548, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: If the justification defense is to be considered by the jury, the jury must be instructed to stop any further deliberations (re: the lesser counts) if the justification defense is deemed to apply to the top count. Here the issue was not preserved by an objection to the jury instruction, but the Third Department reversed in the interest of justice.

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT SEPARATELY PRONOUNCE A SENTENCE FOR EACH CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, noted the sentencing judge did not pronounce sentence separately for the two counts:

… [W]e are …  obliged to remit for resentencing. The sentencing transcript reflects that County Court imposed a single sentence upon defendant and “failed to pronounce sentence separately on each of the two counts [of] which [she was convicted], as required by CPL 380.20” … . As a result, the matter must be remitted so that County Court can pronounce sentence on each count … . People v Robbins, 2022 NY Slip Op 03549, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: A sentencing judge must pronounce a sentence separately for each conviction.

 

, , ,

BOTH THE WIFE AND THE JUDGE WERE AWARE OF THE HUSBAND’S MENTAL ILLNESS IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION IN WHICH THE HUSBAND WAS PRO SE; WHEN THE HUSBAND FAILED TO APPEAR FOR THE INQUEST AN INQUIRY INTO WHETHER A GUARDIAN AD LITEM SHOULD BE APPOINTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should have conducted an inquiry into whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed for the husband in this divorce action. The husband did not appear at the inquest and both the wife and the judge were aware of the husband’s significant mental illness:

Judgment was entered in this divorce proceeding after the husband, pro se, failed to appear for an inquest. At the time of the inquest, both the wife and Supreme Court were aware that the husband had been diagnosed with a significant mental health condition, which resulted in episodes during which the husband was demonstrably unable to care for himself or otherwise protect his interests. Indeed, at the conclusion of the inquest, the court explicitly acknowledged that the husband’s absence was likely attributable to his mental health. Thus, before entering judgment upon the husband’s default, there should have been an inquiry into whether a guardian ad litem was necessary (see CPLR 1201, 1203 …). Because there was no inquiry, the judgment must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including, if necessary, an inquiry into the husband’s current capacity … . Richard v Buck, 2022 NY Slip Op 03335, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Here both the wife and the judge in this divorce action were aware of the husband’s mental illness. When the husband, who was representing himself, did not appear at the inquest, an inquiry into whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed should have been made.

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (IP’S) SON AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HOLDING A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have merely accepted the Court Examiner’s position that petitioner, the Incapacitated Person’s (IP’s) son, should be removed as guardian of the property. A hearing should have been held:

Petitioner interposed an answer in which he raised issues of law and fact. He claimed, in part, that some of his actions did not require further court order but were permissible under the original order appointing him as guardian. He also claimed that he obtained prior court approval, albeit in the informal manner (i.e. emails or phone calls) employed by the previous judge who was assigned to this matter. He also made credible arguments that the decisions he made benefitted, and did not harm, the IP’s estate … .

Rather than hold a testimonial hearing, Supreme Court simply accepted what the Court Examiner claimed in her motion and appointed a nonrelative successor guardian…. . …

We have long recognized that strangers will not be appointed either a guardian of the person or the property unless it is impossible to find someone within the family circle who is qualified to serve … . The preference for a relative may be overridden by a showing that the guardian-relative has rendered inadequate care to the IP, has an interest adverse to the IP or is otherwise unsuitable to exercise the powers necessary to assist the IP … . Moreover, the ultimate remedy of removal may be an abuse of discretion, where a guardian’s errors do not prejudice or harm the estate. The court should also consider whether other less drastic remedies, such as ordering compliance or reducing the Guardian’s compensation, would be appropriate. None of these considerations were addressed by the Supreme Court before removing petitioner…. . Matter of Roberts, 2022 NY Slip Op 03336, First Dept 5-19-22

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court improperly accepted the Court Examiner’s position and removed the Incapacitated Person’s (IP’s) son as guardian of the property without holding a hearing or making any findings. A full testimonial hearing, giving petitioner (the IP’s son) the opportunity to be heard, should have been held. The court noted that appointing a stranger as guardian is a last resort and that there are options, such as reducing a guardian’s compensation, which should be considered.

 

,

PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO TIMELY FILE AND SERVE HIS OPPOSITION PAPERS AND DEMONSTRATED A POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE OPPOSITION PAPERS BEFORE ISSUING ITS ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION; THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion to vacate an order dismissing the petition issued after Supreme Court refused to consider petitioner’s opposition papers should have been granted. Petitioner had made a good faith effort to timely file and serve the papers and demonstrated a potentially meritorious cause of action:

The petitioner, who had until July 13, 2018, to submit opposition papers to the respondents’ motion, filed pro se opposition papers with the court on July 13, 2018. He failed, however, to properly serve the respondents with a copy of the opposition papers, or to provide the court with proper proof of service. Nonetheless, the petitioner did file with the court a defective affidavit of service, in which dates of service were blank and which was neither signed nor notarized. Moreover, a copy of the opposition papers that the petitioner had emailed to the respondents was later discovered in the “junk” email folder of the respondents’ counsel. “Clearly, the [petitioner] made a good faith, albeit unsuccessful, attempt to timely . . . respond to the motion,” and the court “should have considered the absence of any evidence that the [petitioner’s] default was intentional, made in bad faith, or with an intent to abandon the action” … .

… [T]he petitioner’s arguments in support of the amended petition demonstrate a potentially meritorious cause of action … . Lastly, the respondents have “neither alleged nor established that [they] would be prejudiced by vacating the default and hearing the matter on the merits” … . Matter of Brennan v County of Rockland, 2022 NY Slip Op 03240, Second Dept 5-16-22

Practice Point: Here petitioner’s good faith effort to timely file and serve his opposition papers demonstrated he did not intend to abandon the action. Supreme Court should not have refused to consider his opposition papers before issuing its order dismissing the petition. The order should have been vacated.

 

,

ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS A COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint because there were no “extraordinary circumstances:”

The Supreme Court erred … in, sua sponte, directing dismissal of the complaint … . “‘A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal'” … . Here, although the plaintiff’s submissions were insufficient to demonstrate his entitlement to a default judgment, no extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant dismissal of the complaint … . Binder v Tolou Realty Assoc., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 03223, Second Dept 5-18-22

Practice Point: Absent so-called “extraordinary circumstances.” a judge does not have the authority to, sua sponte, dismiss a complaint. Here plaintiff’s evidence was not sufficient to support a default judgment, but that insufficiency did not justify dismissing the complaint.

 

,

ALTHOUGH BAIL-SETTING IS NOT APPEALABLE, WHETHER THE BAIL-SETTING COURT COMPLIED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY STANDARDS INHIBITING EXCESSIVE BAIL IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION; HERE THE BAIL-SETTNG COURT DID NOT COMPLY WITH CPL 510.30; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the matter, determined that, although bail-setting is not appealable, the habeas corpus petition was the proper vehicle for a review of whether the constitutional or statutory standards inhibiting excessive bail were met. Here it was alleged the bail-setting court did not comply with CPL 510.30 by explaining its finding that remand was the least restrictive option:

… [A]fter considering all of the relevant factors under CPL 510.30 (1), the bail-setting court determined that remand was the least restrictive condition. We conclude that the bail-setting court failed to comply with the statutory mandate of CPL 510.10 (1) because it failed to “explain its choice of release, release with conditions, bail or remand on the record or in writing.” We therefore reverse the judgment, reinstate the petition, and grant the petition in part, and we remit the matter to the bail-setting court for further proceedings to satisfy the requirements of CPL 510.10 (1) … . People ex rel. Steinagle v Howard, 2022 NY Slip Op 02901, Fourth Dept 4-29-22

Practice Point: Although bail-setting is not appealable, a habeas corpus petition can be used to argue the bail-setting court did not comply with the constitutional or statutory standards inhibiting excessive bail. Here the court’s failure to explain its choice to remand the defendant violated CPL 510.30.

 

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