You are here: / Judges
, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY; HERE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT, EVEN THOUGH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the trial judge properly allowed plaintiff to call her treating physician to rebut the testimony of defendants’ expert, even though the doctor’s testimony could have been presented in her case-in-chief:

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in permitting plaintiff to call her treating radiologist as a rebuttal witness … . While plaintiff’s radiologist’s testimony could have been offered as part of her case-in-chief, and her failure to offer the testimony at that time deprived her of the right to make use of it as affirmative evidence, she still had the right to offer the testimony in order “to impeach or discredit” the testimony of defendants’ expert radiologist … . Reinoso v New York City Tr. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02242, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: In a civil case, a judge has the discretion to allow a plaintiff to present rebuttal evidence which could have been presented in the case-in-chief.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN SEVERAL PROSPECTIVE JURORS INDICATED THEY WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s sexual-abuse conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when several prospective jurors indicated they would be inclined to believe the victim:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR [Mr. L.]: … I would say that I do think that there is a lot of disincentives to come forward at all. And to come forward to this point, it would surprise me that someone would get that far without there being anything at all to it

THE COURT: Okay. …

MR. LYNCH: I know some of you raised your hand. Who agrees with the statement that Mr. L. just said?” (at which time 5 jurors raised their hands).

This statement by prospective juror (Mr. L.) and the apparent agreement by the other prospective jurors who raised their hands was sufficient to raise “a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial” … . The court erred in not engaging in any further inquiry of these jurors in order to elicit an unequivocal assurance of their impartiality and their ability to follow the court’s instructions … . People v Ledezma, 2022 NY Slip Op 02236, First Dept 4-5-22

Practice Point: In this sexual abuse case, five prospective jurors agreed with a prospective juror who said he would be inclined to believe the victim because of how hard it is to come forward. The judge should have made further inquiries. New trial ordered.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT THREATENED TO FIND RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT WHEN HE DID NOT PROVIDE PROOF HE FAILED TO APPEAR BECAUSE HE WAS HOSPITALIZED, FAMILY COURT DID NOT ULTIMATELY GIVE RESPONDENT A “DEFAULT WARNING;” RESPONDENT AND HIS COUNSEL WERE PRESENT AT THE FACT-FINDING BUT WERE PRECLUDED BY THE COURT FROM PARTICIPATING; RESPONDENT HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON THE ABANDONMENT ISSUE; REVERSED AND REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined respondent father in this termination of parental rights proceeding was not in default and that he was entitled to present a defense. To explain his failure to appear, respondent said he was hospitalized but he did not provide any proof of hospitalization when the court requested it. The court then found respondent to be in default and precluded respondent and his counsel from participating in the termination hearing:

Petitioner and the attorney for the child argue that the appeal must be dismissed because the challenged order was entered upon respondent’s default. We disagree. In its written decision, Family Court stated that it had advised respondent’s counsel at the December 18, 2019 appearance that, if the requested medical documentation was not timely provided, it “would find [respondent] in default” and “the trial would be an [i]nquest.” Our review of the record, however, confirms that no such warning was given. Instead, the court cautioned that if respondent failed to comply, it would “proceed with the proceeding with regard to the termination of his parental rights.” This is not a default warning but notice that the hearing would go forward on January 15, 2020. However frustrating respondent’s noncompliance with the court’s reasonable directive to provide documentation of his hospitalization may have been, the key point here is that respondent and his counsel were in attendance at the fact-finding hearing. We fully appreciate that trial courts are vested with broad authority to maintain the integrity of their calendars. Under the circumstances presented, however, we conclude that Family Court abused its discretion in holding respondent to be in default and precluding any participation at the hearing … . Matter of Makayla NN. (Charles NN.), 2022 NY Slip Op 02165, Third Dept 3-31-22

​Practice Point: Here Family Court never gave a “default warning” to respondent father when he failed to provide proof he did not appear because he was hospitalized. Father, who was present at the fact-finding, should not have been found to be in default and precluded from participating in the termination of parental rights proceeding.

 

, , ,

THE WIFE’S REQUEST FOR MAINTENANCE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND THE HUSBAND’S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE WHOLLY ADOPTED BY SUPREME COURT; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT AWARDED MAINTENANCE ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the wife was entitled to maintenance in this divorce proceeding. The parties had been married for 44 years. The wife’s income was around $31,000 and the husband’s income was around $117,000. Both were retired. The Third Department noted that Supreme Court did not give any indication of its rationale for rejecting the wife’s application and adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law:

“The amount and duration of a maintenance award are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed provided that the statutory factors and the parties’ predivorce standard of living are considered” … .. “The court need not articulate every factor it considers, but it must provide a reasoned analysis of the factors it ultimately relies upon in awarding or declining to award maintenance” … .

Supreme Court wholly adopted verbatim the husband’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, without articulating the factors it considered or providing a reasoned analysis for its rulings on the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. “[F]indings of fact submitted pursuant to CPLR 4213 (a) cannot constitute the decision of the court [as] mandated by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g)” … . Although Supreme Court failed to set forth its rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance, “because our authority is as broad as that of the Supreme Court, we need not remit this issue” … . Louie v Louie, 2022 NY Slip Op 02172, Third Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here in this divorce proceeding the judge did not give any indication of the rationale for rejecting the wife’s request for maintenance and wholly adopted the husband’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of fact cannot constitute a court’s decision. Rather than remitting the matter, the Third Department awarded maintenance.

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR SAID TRAVEL PLANS PROHIBITED HER FROM SERVING BEYOND THE PROJECTED LAST DAY OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have inquired further when a prospective juror said travel plans prohibited her from serving beyond the projected last day of the trial:

During jury selection, the court advised the panel that the trial could last until April 17, 2018. The panelist at issue stated that she “absolutely” could not serve on April 18, because she had irrevocable travel plans for that day. When defense counsel said that “we are starting to get closer to the 16th, 17th,” and asked whether she “may not be able to give [her] best attention” if “we started moving in that direction,” the panelist said, “Yes.” Counsel challenged this panelist for cause because of the concern that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial due to her travel constraints. In the alternative, counsel sought to question this panelist further. The court denied the challenge because it believed that the trial “should never even get that close.” Defendant was compelled to exercise his final peremptory challenge against this panelist. The court should have granted defendant’s request for further inquiry to determine her ability to serve … . Given that her travel plans precluded her from serving a single day beyond the court’s estimated outer limit for the trial, the panelist gave the impression that she would have difficulty focusing on the trial, as she stated, and that, if selected, she might have been biased in favor of reaching a verdict quickly … . People v Bowman, 2022 NY Slip Op 02208, First Dept 3-31-22

Practice Point: Here a prospective juror had firm travel plans and therefore could not serve beyond the projected last day of the trial. The judge should have inquired further when defense counsel suggested she may have difficulty focusing on the trial. The juror may have been biased in favor of a quick verdict. Defense counsel used a peremptory challenge; new trial ordered.

 

, ,

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.

 

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