You are here: / Judges
, ,

THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD (AFC) IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER HAD, AS A JUDGE, PRESIDED OVER A DIFFERENT CUSTODY MATTER INVOLVING MOTHER, BUT INVOLVING DIFFERENT CHIDREN AND A DIFFERENT FATHER, DID NOT REQUIRE AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFACTION OF THE AFC PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 17 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the attorney for the child (AFC) in the instant custody matter, who, as a judge, had presided over another custody case involving mother and different children, was not subject to automatic disqualification:

Various factual circumstances exist where disqualification of an attorney under Judiciary Law § 17 has been found. * * *

… [T]he custody case noted by the mother neither involved the subject children nor the subject children’s father] Rather, it was an entirely separate proceeding involving different children and a different father. Furthermore, the mother does not allege any factual ties between these underlying proceedings and the prior custody case … . Indeed, the only common tie between them is that the mother was a litigant. … [O]nly the mother, and not her present custody claim over the subject children, had been before the AFC during his tenure as a judge.

… [T]he mother’s fitness as the custodial parent presumably was an issue presented in her prior custody case. It is also an issue present here. Equating a discrete issue with a “matter” provided in Judiciary Law § 17, however, impermissibly stretches the meaning of “matter” such that it does not comport with “action, claim, . . . motion or proceeding” — the other terms in Judiciary Law § 17 … . … [I]n view of the jurisdiction of Family Court and the particular cases such court hears, a party’s fitness as a custodial parent frequently arises as an issue whether directly or indirectly. By giving an expansive view to “matter,” the AFC, a former Family Court judge who had presided over countless proceedings in the past, would be disqualified from representing any party in any future case where another party in such case was previously before the AFC in one of those past proceedings — a result that would occur without regard to the nature of either the past proceeding or future case. Matter of Corey O. v Angela P., 2022 NY Slip Op 02044, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: The fact that the attorney for the child (AFC) in this custody case presided, as a judge, over another custody case involving mother, but involving different children and a different father, did not require automatic disqualification of the AFC pursuant to Judiciary Law section 17.

 

, , ,

IN THIS SEX-OFFENSE CASE, THE SENTENCING JUDGE VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW BY REFUSING TO DISCLOSE THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT TO THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT PLACING THE REASONS FOR NONDISCLOSURE ON THE RECORD; THE ISSUE SURVIVED THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing before a different judge, determined the sentencing judge who reviewed the victim impact statement in this sexual-offense case, and who granted the victim’s request to keep the victim impact statement confidential, violated CPL 390.50, which requires the judge to state the reasons, on the record, for not disclosing a victim impact statement to the defendant. The issue survived defendant’s waiver of appeal:

… [W]e find that defendant’s CPL 390.50 (2) (a) argument must survive the waiver of appeal as the Legislature has, without qualification or restriction, expressly mandated that “[t]he action of the court excepting information from disclosure shall be subject to appellate review” (CPL 390.50 [2] [a]), and courts “may not create a limitation that the Legislature did not enact” … . …

… [T]he record before us does not reflect any ruling by County Court with respect to the victim’s request to except her statement from disclosure. We therefore must conclude that the court failed to set forth “the reasons for its action” on the record, in violation of CPL 390.50 (2) (a) … . The record also does not reflect that any consideration was given to redacting the victim’s statement, leaving defendant wholly “unable to verify the accuracy of the information [therein] or meaningfully respond to it,” in further contravention of the statute … . What is clear, however, is that defendant never had the opportunity to review the victim’s statement and that County Court heavily relied upon it in fashioning its sentence. People v Ortiz, 2022 NY Slip Op 02041, Third Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: If a sentencing judge wishes to withhold a victim impact statement from the defendant, the reasons for nondisclosure must be placed on the record (CPL 390.50). This issue survives a waiver of appeal.

 

,

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH ASSAULT SECOND AND ATTEMPTED ASSAULT SECOND BUT DID NOT ALLEGE THE USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; THE PEOPLE’S THEORY AT TRIAL WAS DEFENDANT USED A PVC PIPE AS A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT; BUT, TO CORRECT THE FLAWED INDICTMENT, THE JUDGE, A DAY BEFORE THE END OF THE TRIAL, AMENDED THE INDICTMENT TO CHARGE ASSAULT THIRD AND ATTEMPTED ASSUALT THIRD; THE AMENDMENT PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, vacating defendant’s conviction with leave to resubmit, determined the indictment should not have been amended at the end of the trial to charge defendant with assault third and attempted assault third, instead of assault second and attempted assault second as originally charged in the indictment. The indictment did not allege the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. The last minute amendment was an effort to correct that charging flaw. However the People’s theory, before the grand jury and at trial, was defendant used a PVC pipe as a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. But, because of the amendment, the jury was not asked to consider the deadly weapon or dangerous instrument element:

An indictment may be amended to correct “matters of form, time, place, names of persons and the like” (CPL 200.70[1]). An amendment must not “change the theory or theories of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence before the grand jury . . . or otherwise tend to prejudice the defendant on the merits” (CPL 200.70[1]). …

… [N]otice could not have been given, because the indictment’s deficiency was not discovered until one day before the trial concluded. This unorthodox correction is not the kind of procedure sanctioned under CPL 200.70 or 300.50. The amendment was therefore not a mere correction of a “misnomer” of the offense in the accusatory clauses of the indictment … . …

… [D]efendant was prejudiced by the amendment. The People’s theory before the grand jury was that Bari’s injuries were caused by the use of a dangerous instrument, i.e., the bike rental sign. The prosecutor in her opening statement made references to the bike rental sign. She did so in her summation even after the court deleted the original second-degree hate crimes and replaced them with third-degree hate crimes. Further, on the People’s case, the prosecutor elicited testimony from Bari to support this theory. Thus, the People tried the case from inception to conclusion, and defendant mounted a defense, on the theory that a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument was used in the commission of the hate crimes. On the last day of the trial, however, the court amended the indictment and charged the jury with variations of third-degree assault, which do not require proof of the existence of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. Thus, after hearing evidence of a dangerous instrument throughout the trial, the jury received instructions that did not require it to find that the People had proven the existence of a dangerous instrument beyond a reasonable doubt to convict defendant of the third-degree hate crimes or the third-degree assault. This result was an impermissible change in the theory of the prosecution. People v Winston, 2022 NY Slip Op 02080, First Dept 3-24-22

Practice Point: Here the indictment was flawed because it charged assault second but did not allege use of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. The People’s theory at trial was that defendant used a PVC pipe as a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. A day before the end of the trial, the judge amended the indictment to charge assault third. The amendment was improper and prejudiced the defendant.

 

, , ,

BRADY MATERIAL WAS WITHHELD, CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT A COMPLAINANT’S INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS NOT ALLOWED; THE INQUIRY AFTER A POLLED JUROR INDICATED SHE MAY NOT HAVE AGREED WITH THE VERDICT WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating the assault second conviction and dismissing the count, and reversing the gang assault and assault first convictions, determined: (1) Brady material was withheld by redacting the name of a 911 caller who indicated defendant was not involved in the assault; (2) cross-examination of a police officer about a discrepancy between a complainant’s testimony and a statement attributed to the complainant in a police report should have been allowed; and (3) the judge should have inquired further after a juror indicated she “was not sure” about some of the convictions when the jury was polled:

While the contents of the 911 call may have provided some clues as to the identity of the caller, the defendant should not be forced to guess as to the identity of this caller. In addition, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable possibility that disclosure of the caller’s identity and contact information would have led to evidence that would have changed the result of the proceedings … . …

… [T]he court erred in precluding defense counsel from questioning the police witness about the contents of the report and the alleged prior inconsistent statement of complainant one …  . …

… [W]hen the jury was polled and asked if the verdict was theirs, juror number nine stated, “Um, I’m not sure, with some, but most of them, yes.” Although the Supreme Court thereafter inquired of juror number nine if the verdict announced to the court was her own, it did so by asking her “is that a yes or a no” in the presence of the remaining jurors, despite evidence before the court suggesting that juror number nine may have succumbed to pressure to vote with the majority even though she did not agree with the verdict as to certain counts. The court’s inquiry was therefore not sufficient … . People v Ramunni, 2022 NY Slip Op 02022, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here Brady material, the identity of a 911 caller, was withheld, cross-examination about inconsistent statements attributed to a complainant was not allowed, and a juror who, when polled, said she may not have agreed with verdict was not sufficiently questioned by the judge. One count of the indictment was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered on the gang assault and assault first counts.

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS AGAINST HIM AND WAS PENALIZED FOR REJECTING THE JUDGE’S PLEA OFFER AND GOING TO TRIAL; THE ISSUES WERE NOT PRESERVED BUT WERE CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating one conviction and reducing the sentence for another, exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction over the unpreserved errors, determined defendant had been deprived of his right to confront a witness against him and the judge imposed a harsher sentence because defendant exercised his right to a trial:

… [T]he defendant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine a DMV employee who was directly involved in sending out the suspension notices or who had personal familiarity with the mailing practices of the DMV’s central mail room or with the defendant’s driving record … . Thus, the testimony of the DMV employee was improperly admitted in order to establish an essential element of the crime of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree in violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation … . …

… [P]rior to trial, the Supreme Court made its own plea offer to the defendant of an aggregate term of 1½ years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of 2 years of postrelease supervision in full satisfaction of the 16-count indictment … .The court … stated to the defendant: “You should understand the way I operate is as follows: Before trial with me you get mercy; after trial you get justice” … . The defendant declined the plea offer and proceeded to trial, after which he was acquitted of the top counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. The court then sentenced the defendant on the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree to a term of 5 years of imprisonment to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 2 years. People v Ellerbee, 2022 NY Slip Op 02016, Second Dept 3-23-22

Practice Point: Here the DMV employee who had personal knowledge of the mailing of the license suspension notice to defendant and the defendant’s driving record apparently was not called as a witness. Therefore defendant was deprived of his right to confront the witness about an essential element of the offense. In addition, the judge imposed a much harsher sentence than that offered as part of a plea bargain. The judge thereby penalized the defendant because he chose to go the trial. Both of these errors were not preserved for appeal but were considered in the interest of justice.

 

, , ,

A LOCAL ONLINE NEWS OUTLET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM A FAMILY COURT HEARING REGARDING WHETHER A DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM A NEGLECT PROCEEDING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS; THE OUTLET IS ENTITLED TO A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined appellant, an online local news outlet, should not have been excluded from an attorney-disqualification hearing and was entitled to a transcript of the hearing. The respondent in a neglect proceeding had moved to disqualify the deputy county attorney on conflict of interest grounds. Appellant’s owner deemed the motion newsworthy because the deputy county attorney had just been elected City-Court Judge. When appellant’s owner attempted to attend the disqualification hearing he was denied entry:

… “[T]he general public may be excluded from any hearing under [Family Court Act] article [10] and only such persons and the representatives of authorized agencies admitted thereto as have an interest in the case” (§ 1043). In making that determination, however, “[a]ny exclusion of courtroom observers must . . . be accomplished in accordance with 22 NYCRR 205.4 (b)” … . That rule provides that “[t]he general public or any person may be excluded from a courtroom [in Family Court] only if the judge presiding in the courtroom determines, on a case-by-case basis based upon supporting evidence, that such exclusion is warranted in that case” … . The rule further provides certain nonexclusive factors that a Family Court judge may consider in exercising his or her discretion, and requires that the judge make findings prior to ordering any exclusion … .

… [T]he court abused its discretion in excluding appellant from the hearing on the underlying disqualification motion. … [T]he court violated 22 NYCRR 205.4 (b) by failing to make findings prior to ordering the exclusion, and … there is no indication … that the court rendered its determination based on … evidence or considered any of the relevant factors in exercising its discretion. Moreover, … the court lacked an adequate basis to exclude appellant from the hearing on the disqualification motion … . * * *

… [T]he release of the transcript is consistent with Family Court Act § 166 and 22 NYCRR 205.5. … [T]he statute provides in relevant part that although “[t]he records of any proceeding in the family court shall not be open to indiscriminate public inspection[,] . . . the court in its discretion in any case may permit the inspection of any papers or records” … . The statute thus “does not render Family Court records confidential, but merely provides that they are not open to indiscriminate public inspection” … . The statute makes clear that Family Court “has the discretionary statutory authority to permit the inspection of any record by anyone at any time … .Matter of Rajea T. (Niasia J.), 2022 NY Slip Op 01940, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Although the general public can be excluded from Family Court Article 10 proceedings, the judge exercising the discretion to exclude an observer must make certain findings in accordance with 22 NYCRR 205-4 (b). Family Court here made no findings and abused its discretion by excluding the news outlet. The court proceeding concerned whether the county attorney handling the neglect case should be disqualified on conflict of interest grounds, and did not concern the underlying allegations of neglect. The news outlet is entitled to a transcript of the hearing.

 

, ,

THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO PRONOUNCE THE DEFINITE TERM COMPONENT OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REQUIRED VACATION OF THE SENTENCE AND REMITTAL FOR RESENTENCING; THE ISSUE SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting for resentencing, determined the definite term component of the sentence was not pronounced by the court:

CPL 380.20 provides that a court “must pronounce sentence in every case where a conviction is entered.” That statutory requirement is “unyielding” … . A violation of CPL 380.20 “may be addressed on direct appeal notwithstanding [any] valid waiver of the right to appeal or the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review” … . “When the sentencing court fails to orally pronounce a component of the sentence, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in compliance with the statutory scheme” … .

Here, although the certificate of conviction states that defendant was sentenced to a split sentence of a definite term of time served in jail and five years of probation, which is consistent with the sentencing promise made during the plea proceeding, the court failed to orally pronounce during the sentencing proceeding the definite term component of defendant’s sentence as required by CPL 380.20 … . People v Adams, 2022 NY Slip Op 01921, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Every component of a sentence must be “pronounced” by the judge in open court or the sentence will be vacated.

 

, ,

THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined the criteria for imposing the maximum restitution surcharge of 10% were not met:

… [T]he judgment … is … modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the surcharge to 5% of the amount of restitution … . * * *

… [T]he court erred in imposing the 10% surcharge because there was no ” ‘filing of an affidavit of the official or organization designated pursuant to [CPL 420.10 (8)] demonstrating that the actual cost of the collection and administration of restitution . . . in [this] particular case exceeds five percent of the entire amount of the payment or the amount actually collected’ ” … . People v Webber, 2022 NY Slip Op 01904, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: Before the maximum restitution surcharge of 10% can be imposed, an affidavit must be filed demonstrating the actual cost of collection.

 

, ,

WHERE AN ORDER CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION, THE DECISION CONTROLS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court in this post-judgment matrimonial case, determined the decision controls the discrepancy between the order and the decision:

… [B]oth parties expressly agreed in the oral stipulation that plaintiff’s benefits would be distributed “[i]n accordance with the Majauskas formula.” That oral stipulation was an unambiguous expression of the parties’ intent to follow Majauskas, …

… [T]he amended order conflicts with the court’s written decision insofar as the … amended order purports to award defendant 23.86% of a former spouse survivor annuity under 5 USC § 8341 (h) (1). The stated percentage represents defendant’s share of plaintiff’s gross monthly annuity, as calculated by the court pursuant to the Majauskas formula, but the court in its decision made no award to defendant of a former spouse survivor annuity, which, had it been awarded, would have expressly conflicted with the parties’ agreement. Where, as here, there is a conflict between the decision and the order, the decision controls, and we therefore modify the amended order accordingly … . Reukauf v Kraft, 2022 NY Slip Op 01898, Fourth Dept 3-18-22

Practice Point: If there is a conflict between an order and a decision, the decision controls.

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING SANCTIONS, I.E., PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED TO PAY $10,000 IN COUNSEL FEES TO DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge did not follow the procedural requirements for imposing sanctions, i.e.,  $10,000 in attorney’s fees to defendant’s counsel, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel:

The motion court’s sua sponte award of sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel did not satisfy the procedural requirements of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Court (22 NYCRR) § 130-1. That section provides that a court may award costs or impose sanctions “upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard” … and “only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate” … . DeSouza v Manhattan RX LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01875, First Dept 3-17-22

Practice Point: Before a judge can impose sanctions, here ordering plaintiff’s attorney to pay counsel fees in the amount of $10,000 to defendant’s attorney, the relevant rules in 22 NYCRR 130-1 must be complied with, i.e., affording an opportunity to be heard and issuing a written decision explaining the conduct, why it was found frivolous and the reasons for the amount awarded or imposed.

 

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