You are here: / Judges
, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S TESTIMONY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE TESTIMONY EXCEEDED THE CPLR 3101 (D) DISCLOSURE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for a mistrial in this medical malpractice action should have been granted. The trial judge should not have precluded plaintiff’s expert’s testimony on the ground the scope of the testimony exceeded the CPLR 3101 (d) disclosure:

Because portions of the expert’s testimony purportedly fell outside the notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d), the Supreme Court struck all of this expert’s testimony concerning [defendants] Inglis and Shukla. However, even assuming that portions of the expert’s testimony fell outside the CPLR 3101(d) disclosure, it was error to strike all of his testimony concerning Inglis and Shukla. … [T]o the extent that portions of the expert’s testimony fell outside the CPLR 3101(d) disclosure, the relevant subject matter was raised in the bills of particulars and in the expert’s affirmation submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Under these circumstances, the court improvidently struck the expert’s testimony concerning the treatment provided by Inglis and Shukla … .

In addition, the Supreme Court sustained objections to questions of the same expert about whether Mosu departed from the accepted standard of care, for a lack of foundation. The court erred in precluding the expert from testifying as to whether Mosu departed from the accepted standard of care since there was a foundation for the expert’s testimony, including the defendants’ and plaintiff’s trial testimony, and the relevant medical records … . Johnson-Hendy v Mosu, 2022 NY Slip Op 00409, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , ,

THE DEPOSITION OF THE NONPARTY MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER IN THE COOPERATIVE REGARDING LEAKS IN THE UNITS WAS PROPER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STOPPED AND SUPPRESSED BY THE JUDGE; SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY FOR FRIVOLOUS AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT WERE WARRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the deposition of a witness, Ruth Miller, was proper and the judge should not have ordered the deposition to cease and should not have suppressed the portion of the deposition which had already been taken. Miller was a nonparty majority shareholder in the cooperative and the action concerned leaks in the units. The First Department further determined that sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel were warranted:

It was an improvident exercise of discretion for the court to issue a protective order under CPLR 3103(a) barring a continuation of the deposition of nonparty Ruth Miller. Miller is the majority shareholder of the Coop, and therefore is a key figure in the events surrounding plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of contract claims regarding leaks in plaintiffs’ units. Moreover, Miller was a member of the Board during a period of time when decisions were made about building maintenance, which is a relevant issue in plaintiffs’ action. Thus, her testimony is “material and necessary” (CPLR 3101[a] …). …

… [i]t was error for the court to sua sponte issue a suppression order of the testimony previously taken (see CPLR 3103[c]). Defendants made no showing that evidence was improperly or irregularly obtained during the deposition, or that prejudice to a substantial right had accrued through discovery of improperly obtained evidence … . …

… [C]ounsel’s behavior at the deposition was frivolous and unprofessional. Among other things, counsel called the witness “a liar” and told her on the record that she had done “plenty wrong” and had “plenty to worry about in this case,” despite the fact that she is not even a party to the action. Sanctions against counsel are therefore warranted (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 …). Gendell v 42 W. 17th St. Hous. Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00272, First Dept 1-18-22

 

, , ,

THE LANDLORD’S SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROHIBITED BRINGING THE ACTION IN CIVIL COURT; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed the landlord’s summary proceeding on the ground that it should have been brought in Civil Court, not Supreme Court. COVID-related Executive Orders prohibited actions for nonpayment of rent in Civil Court. The First Department noted that a sua sponte order is not appealable as of right, but deemed the notice of appeal to be a request for leave to appeal which was granted:

The motion court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaint on the ground that this action was a landlord-tenant dispute that should have been brought as a summary proceeding in Civil Court. Supreme Court has unlimited general jurisdiction over all real property actions, including those commenced by a landlord against a tenant (NY Const, art VI, § 7[a] …). Supreme Court, however, has the discretion to decline to entertain such an action on the ground that a pending action in Civil Court was the proper forum … .

Here, Supreme Court was the appropriate forum for this action to recover rental arrears because the Executive Orders implemented in response to the pandemic precluded the landlord from commencing a nonpayment proceeding in Civil Court during the relevant period, compelling the landlord to commence this action. A&L 1664 LLC v Jaspar Hospitality LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00264, First Dept 1-18-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s right to counsel had not been adequately protected and returned the case to pre-suppression-hearing status. Defendant refused to speak with his attorney and the judge, despite defendant’s presence in the courtroom, never discussed the issue with the defendant before denying a request to assign new counsel:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s right to counsel was not adequately protected. The defendant’s request for new counsel, made through assigned counsel, contained serious factual allegations concerning the defendant’s complaints about his assigned counsel and the breakdown of communications between assigned counsel and the defendant … . Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court failed to meet its ongoing duty to make inquiries to determine whether there was good cause for the requested substitution by denying the request without speaking directly with the defendant … . Thus, reversal is warranted. Further, on the record presented, the matter should be restored to pre-suppression-hearing status. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s suppression determination and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment. People v English, 2022 NY Slip Op 00189, Second Dept 1-12-22

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND INDICTED WHILE OUT ON BAIL; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE REVOKING THE ORDER RELEASING DEFENDANT ON BAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the courts was required to hold a hearing before revoking the order releasing defendant on bail. Defendant was out on bail when he was arrested three times and indicted on one set of charges:

… CPL 530.60(2)(a) states that “[w]henever in the course of a criminal action or proceeding a defendant charged with the commission of a felony is at liberty as a result of an order of recognizance, release under non-monetary conditions or bail issued pursuant to this article it shall be grounds for revoking such order that the court finds reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed one or more . . . violent felony offenses.” By its express terms, this statutory section applies to situations where a principal is accused of committing violent felony offenses while he or she was “at liberty as a result of . . . bail” on a pending felony charge (id.). A principal charged with a felony who was out on bail on that charge necessarily includes individuals charged with qualifying offenses since the setting of bail is not initially authorized for nonqualifying offenses (see CPL 510.10[1], [3], [4]). … CPL 530.60(2)(a) clearly applies to the circumstances here. Since the People applied for remand on the sole basis that the principal was accused of committing violent felony offenses while at liberty on the underlying felony charges, the court was required to apply the standard in CPL 530.60(2)(a) and to conduct the hearing mandated in CPL 530.60(2)(c). People ex rel. Rankin v Brann, 2022 NY Slip Op 00153, Second Dept 1-11-22

 

, ,

IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NO APPEAL LIES FROM A JUDGE’S DECLINING TO SIGN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; THE ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this Article 78 proceeding, noted that no appeal lies from a judge’s declining to sign an order to show cause. The only remedy is a motion to vacate the final judgment:

No appeal lies from an order declining to sign an order to show cause, since it is an ex parte order that does not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701[a][2] … ).

No party requests that we consider relief under CPLR 5704(a). In any event, we note that Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to sign plaintiffs’ proposed order to show cause … . Plaintiffs sought to bring on a motion to renew an order that denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, thus terminating the special proceeding. Renewal is not available under such circumstances … . Instead, an application to vacate a final judgment must be brought pursuant to CPLR 5015 … . This principle applies specifically in the context of a challenge to “a judgment dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition” … . Matter of Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Dept., 2022 NY Slip Op 00041, First Dept 1-6-22

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE INTERVENTION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; STRONG TW0-JUSTICE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over an extensive two-justice dissent, affirmed defendant’s murder conviction. The majority noted that some of the trial judge’s remarks would have been better left unsaid, but held the judge did not intervene excessively. The dissent disagreed:

… [W]hile many of the Supreme Court’s interventions were proper attempts to clarify testimony and facilitate the progress of the trial, we agree with our dissenting colleagues that other remarks would better have been left unsaid. Nevertheless, when the record is viewed as a whole, the court’s conduct, to the extent it was improper, did not prevent the jury from arriving at an impartial verdict on the merits … . * * *

From the dissent:

Viewing the record as a whole, the Supreme Court’s conduct, taken together with, inter alia, its disparate treatment of the two experts … , its efforts to point out inconsistencies in the testimony of the defendant’s wife … , and its assistance in eliciting testimony from the People’s witnesses … , “demonstrated apparent bias in favor of the People” … . This improper interference deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and thus, a new trial is warranted before a different Justice … . People v Martinez, 2022 NY Slip Op 00037, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 WAS DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, THE ORDER WAS SELF-PRESERVED AND APPEALABLE; THE PRESENTATION OF AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT THE ACTION WAS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, DESPITE THE MOTION COURT’S REJECTION OF THE ORDER AS INCOMPLETE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a concurrence and an extensive two-justice dissent, determined; (1) the dismissal of the foreclosure complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 was appealable, even though it was dismissed, sua sponte, on a ground not raised by the parties; and (2) the fact that the plaintiff submitted an order, albeit an order which was rejected for incompleteness, within one year of defendant’s default rendered  the dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3215 unavailable as a remedy:

The [motion] court employed CPLR 3215(c) reasoning, never argued by the parties, to decide a CPLR 3215(c) motion, just as in Rosenblatt [119 AD3d 45],  the court employed reasoning under CPLR 3212, which was never argued by the parties, to decide a CPLR 3212 summary judgment motion. Under the authority of either Rosenblatt or Tirado [175 AD3d 153], the analysis and reasoning of the court, in the order appealed from, although sua sponte, self-preserved the issues for appellate review because it was pursuant to the same CPLR section within which the plaintiff’s motion was based and was dispositive to the action. * * *

… [T]he plaintiff presented a proposed ex parte order of reference within the one-year statutory period. The fact that the Supreme Court rejected the order of reference as defective is beside the point, as the mere presentment of it established the plaintiff’s intent to proceed toward the entry of judgment and not to abandon the action … . Citibank, N.A. v Kerszko, 2022 NY Slip Op 00032, Second Dept 1-5-22

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, ADD A PARTY TO THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING; APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined Family Court did not have the authority to, sua sponte, add a person with whom mother had had a relationship, Rory EE, as a party in the paternity proceeding. All involved agreed Rory EE had no involvement with the child and equitable estoppel was not an issue:

… [A] court cannot, on its own initiative, add or direct the addition of a party … . Rather, the court may only summon a person who should be joined, if the court has jurisdiction over the person; if jurisdiction over the person can be obtained only by his or her consent or appearance, the court must determine whether the proceeding should be permitted to proceed in that person’s absence (see CPLR 1001 [b] …).

Family Court plainly did not have the authority to make Rory EE. a named party to this proceeding. … Family Court has also failed to obtain jurisdiction over Rory EE. No petition or summons, or supplemental summons, was filed against or served upon him … , no party has moved to add him as a necessary party and there has been no stipulation to that end (see CPLR 1003 … ), and he has not appeared before Family Court or otherwise consented to the court’s jurisdiction (see CPLR 320 [b] …). … [W]e reverse and remit for further proceedings, at which time the parties remain free to move for or stipulate to Rory EE. being added as a necessary party, or not, and, absent such a motion or stipulation, and if his joinder is deemed to be necessary, the court is limited to directing that reasonable efforts be made to join him as a party or considering whether this matter should proceed in his absence (see CPLR 1001 …). Matter of Schenectady County Dept. of Social Servs. v Noah DD., 2021 NY Slip Op 07587, Third Dept 12-30-21

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED, WITHOUT A HEARING, THAT NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY MATTER OR THAT NEW YORK WAS AN INCONVENIENT FORUM; MOTHER HAD RELOCATED TO HAWAII WITH THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the court should not have summarily, without a hearing: (1) New York did not have jurisdiction over the custody proceeding; and (2) New York was in inconvenient forum. Mother had relocated to Hawaii with the children:

The court made the initial custody determination for the children in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (hereinafter UCCJEA) and, therefore, would ordinarily retain exclusive continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a … . In order to determine the issue of whether it lacked exclusive continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1)(a), the court should have afforded the parties an opportunity to present evidence as to whether the children had maintained a significant connection with New York, and whether substantial evidence was available in New York concerning the children’s “care, protection, training, and personal relationships” … . …

If, upon remittal, the court determines that it does retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a, it may exercise that jurisdiction or it may decline to do so if it determines, upon consideration of all of the relevant statutory factors and after allowing the parties to be heard, that New York is an inconvenient forum … . Matter of Sutton v Rivera, 2021 NY Slip Op 07548, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

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