You are here: / Judges
,

IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST STEPMOTHER, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF THE CHILDREN WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating the five-year orders of protection in favor of the children (re: respondent stepmother) in this neglect proceeding, determined the statutory criteria for issuance of the orders of protection were not met:

… [T]he stepmother contends that the court erred in issuing orders of protection in favor of the children with a duration of five years. We agree, and we therefore reverse the orders of protection … . In an article 10 proceeding, the court may issue an order of protection, but such order shall expire no later than the expiration date of “such other order made under this part, except as provided in subdivision four of this section” (Family Ct Act § 1056 [1]). Subdivision (4) of section 1056 allows a court to issue an independent order of protection until a child’s 18th birthday, but only against a person “who was a member of the child’s household or a person legally responsible . . . , and who is no longer a member of such household at the time of the disposition and who is not related by blood or marriage to the child or a member of the child’s household.” Here, the orders of protection do not comply with Family Court Act § 1056 (1) and (4) because no other dispositional orders were issued with respect to the children at the time the court issued the orders of protection and the stepmother, although no longer living in the home, remains married to the children’s mother … . Moreover, the court erred in issuing the dispositional orders of protection without first holding a dispositional hearing. “The Family Court Act directs that a dispositional hearing be held as a condition precedent to the entry of a dispositional order such as the order of protection granted by Family Court here” … . Matter of Kayla K. (Emma P.-T.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02668, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED BECAUSE IT WAS INDUCED BY THE JUDGE’S PROMISE THAT ALL THE COURT’S ORDERS COULD BE APPEALED; IN FACT, THE DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION THAT TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE DUPLICITOUS COULD NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice, determined the defendant’s guilty plea was induced by the judge’s promise that defendant could appeal from all the court’s orders. In fact, however, by pleading guilty defendant could not appeal the order rejecting his argument that the first two counts of the indictment were duplicitous:

We agree … with defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review … , we nevertheless exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). “A trial court is constitutionally required to ensure that a defendant, before entering a guilty plea, has a full understanding of what the plea entails and its consequences” … , and where “a guilty plea has been induced by an unfulfilled promise, the plea must be vacated or the promise must be honored” … . Here, the court repeatedly promised defendant, who was proceeding pro se, that he would retain the right to appeal from all of its orders. The court reiterated that promise during the plea colloquy and did not advise defendant that he was forfeiting any challenge by pleading guilty. We conclude, however, that “[b]y pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his . . . contention that the first two counts of the indictment were duplicitous” … . Consequently, “[i]nasmuch as the record establishes that defendant, in accepting the plea, relied on a promise of the court that could not, as a matter of law, be honored, defendant is entitled to vacatur of his guilty plea” … . People v Mothersell, 2022 NY Slip Op 02661, Fourth Dept 4-22-22

Practice Point: Here the defendant’s guilty plea was induced by the judge’s promise all the court’s orders could be appealed. In fact, the guilty plea precluded raising on appeal defendant’s contention two indictment counts were duplicitous. Even though the issue was not preserved for appeal, the Fourth Department vacated the guilty plea.

 

, ,

THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE DEFENDANT PUNCHED THE POLICE OFFICER AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS SPRAYED IN THE FACE WITH PEPPER SPRAY; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE TO THE ASSAULT CHARGE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, over a two-justice dissent, determined the justification-defense jury instruction should have been given in this assault case. The defendant punched a police officer after the defendant was sprayed in the face with pepper spray:

… [T]he People introduced into evidence a video recording of the assault, in which defendant can clearly be seen punching a police sergeant after defendant is sprayed in the face with pepper spray. Testimony revealed, and the video corroborated, that the pepper spray was deployed because defendant was refusing to take off his shoes and change into footwear provided by the jail so that an officer could finish searching him before bringing him into the jail. However, the video depicts a very brief time period between the initial directive for defendant to remove his footwear and the deployment of the pepper spray. Based on this fact, combined with other circumstances surrounding the incident, we find that there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the use of the pepper spray constituted excessive force in this scenario. People v Heiserman, 2022 NY Slip Op 02588, Third Dept 4-21-22

Practice Point: Here there was evidence that the police officer’s spraying defendant in the face with pepper spray constituted the use of excessive force. Defendant punched the police officer after the defendant was sprayed and was charged with assault. The failure to instruct the jury on the justification defense was reversible error. Two dissenters disagreed.

 

,

FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED TO FATHER THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S ACCESS TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Family Court, determined father should not have been given the power to suspend mother’s access to the child:

… [T]he Family Court erred in including two provisions in the order appealed from that effectively allow the father to determine whether parental access with the mother should be suspended. These provisions do not appear to give the mother the opportunity to judicially challenge the father’s determinations concerning her compliance with the Personalized Recovery Oriented Services (PROS) program or whether she had unsupervised parental access with the child … , and, consequently, constitute an improper delegation of authority by the Family Court to the father to determine when the child can have parental access time with the mother … . Matter of Felgueiras v Cabral, 2022 NY Slip Op 02410, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: Here Family Court should not have allowed father to control mother’s access to the child—an improper delegation of the court’s authority.

 

,

ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VERDICT WAS RENDERED SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence should not have been granted because it was made more than 15 days after the jury verdict:

The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) as untimely, as it was made more than 15 days after the jury verdict was rendered, without good cause shown for the delay … . Galarza v Heaney, 2022 NY Slip Op 02395, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: A motion to set aside a verdict made more than 15 days after the verdict was rendered, without a demonstration of good cause for the delay, should not be granted.

 

, ,

HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRECLUSION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s attorney offered a reasonable “law office failure” excuse for not complying with a discovery deadline (conditional order of preclusion):

“The court has discretion to accept law office failure as a reasonable excuse (see CPLR 2005) where that claim is supported by a detailed and credible explanation of the default at issue” … . “Conversely, where a claim of law office failure is conclusory and unsubstantiated or lacking in credibility, it should be rejected” … .

Here, in opposition to the defendants’ separate motions, inter alia, in effect, to enforce the conditional order, the plaintiff’s counsel provided a detailed and credible explanation of the law office error that resulted in the failure to comply with the conditional order … . The plaintiff also demonstrated potentially meritorious causes of action … . Fortino v Wheels, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02393, Second Dept 4-13-22

​Practice Point: Here counsel offered a detailed, credible explanation for law office failure (failure to comply with a deadline for discovery). That explanation was coupled with the demonstration of potentially meritorious causes of action. Defendant’s motion to enforce the conditional preclusion order should not have been granted.

 

,

DEFENDANTS WERE UNABLE TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S ILLNESS AND THE COVID-19 SHUTDOWN; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to extend the time for making a summary judgment, for reasons related to COVID-19, should have been granted:

… [T]he defendants submitted evidence showing that after their prior motion was decided, the plaintiff did not attend scheduled independent medical examinations because of illness and that discovery was further delayed by the COVID-19 shutdown. As a result, the defendants established good cause for their failure to timely move for summary judgment … . Under these COVID-19-related circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for leave to renew those branches of their prior motion which were to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and extend the time to move for summary judgment. Upon renewal, the court should have granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness and to extend the time to move for summary judgment. We therefore remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the selection of a new date by which summary judgment motions shall be filed…. . Newfeld v Midwood Ambulance & Oxygen Serv., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02422, Second Dept 4-13-22

​Practice Point: The COVID-19 shutdown was a valid excuse for defendants’ inability to complete discovery. Defendants’ motion to extend the time to file a summary judgment motion should have been granted.

 

, ,

THE PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DISCOVERABLE MATERIALS TO THE DEFENDANT UNTIL A WEEK BEFORE TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL TO ALLOW THE ISSUES TO BE FULLY LITIGATED; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) the protective order upon an expedited review (CPL 245.70), determined that defense counsel should have been provided with the People’s application to withhold certain discoverable materials from the defendant until a week before trial:

Inasmuch as the People offered no basis to withhold these materials from defense counsel and, in fact, pursuant to the proposed order submitted by the People, defense counsel would be permitted to access them as soon as County Court signed the order, the better practice would have been to permit defense counsel access to the application and materials prior to the hearing on the protective order so that counsel could participate in it to the fullest extent practicable. …

Defense counsel should, with the appropriate caveat not to disclose them to or discuss their contents with his client pending determination of the application, be permitted to view the application and the materials at issue and thereby meaningfully participate in the hearing before County Court in order to advocate on behalf of his client and assist in reaching an appropriate outcome. Accordingly, the instant application should be granted and the matter remitted for a new hearing following further disclosure to defense counsel. People v Escobales, 2022 NY Slip Op 02354, Third Dept 4-8-22

Practice Point: Here County Court should have disclosed to defense counsel the People’s application to withhold certain discoverable materials from the defendant until a week before trial. Without the application, defense counsel could not fully litigate the issues. (The People had no objection to disclosing the withheld materials to defense counsel as soon as the requested order of protection was signed.)

 

,

THE JUDGE, IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS SENTENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM MAKING “ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS” WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that the judge who denied defendant’s second motion to set aside his sentence should not have precluded defendant from making “additional applications” without the permission of the court:

We … agree with defendant that County Court abused its discretion in ordering that prior court approval was required before any further motions were filed. Notably, the authority cited by County Court — 22 NYCRR part 130-1.1 — by its own terms applies to only civil actions or proceedings (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). Moreover, even if such authority does exist in a criminal action … , defendant has not engaged in sufficiently excessive, protracted and/or unwarranted litigation as to justify such action here. … . People v Maloy, 2022 NY Slip Op 02312, Third Dept 4-7-22

Practice Point: Here the court abused its discretion in prohibiting defendant, who had made two motions to set aside his sentence, from making additional motions without permission from the court. It is questionable whether a judge has that authority on the criminal, as opposed to civil, side.

 

,

A COURT REVIEWING THE DENIAL OF A FOIL REQUEST CANNOT BASE ITS RULING AFFIRMING THE DENIAL ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE AGENCY TO WHICH THE REQUEST WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that a court reviewing the denial of a FOIL request cannot base its ruling on a ground that was not cited by the agency to which the request was made:

“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the production of material pursuant to FOIL, the agency denying access has the burden of demonstrating that the material requested falls within a statutory exemption, which exemptions are narrowly construed” …  This showing requires the agency “to articulate a particularized and specific justification for denying access,” and “[c]onclusory assertions that certain records fall within a statutory exemption are not sufficient; evidentiary support is needed” … . “If the court is unable to determine whether withheld documents fall entirely within the scope of the asserted exemption, it should conduct an in camera inspection of representative documents and order disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material” … .

“It is the settled rule that judicial review of an administrative determination is limited to the grounds invoked by the agency” … . A reviewing court “‘is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis'” … . Matter of McFadden v McDonald, 2022 NY Slip Op 02265, Second Dept 4-6-22

Practice Point: A court affirming the denial of a FOIL request cannot do so on a ground not raised by the agency to which the request was made.

 

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