You are here: / Judges
, ,

PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME PAY, SPREAD-OF-HOURS PAY AND WAGE THEFT PREVENTION ACT CAUSES OF ACTION, INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion court should not have denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint in this action alleging “violations of minimum wage, overtime pay and spread-of-hours pay under the Labor Law and violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) …” . The First Department granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, finding them entitled to liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees:

Plaintiffs established prima facie that defendants violated Labor Law §§ 190-199, 650, and 652 and 12 NYCRR 142 and 146-1.6 by failing to pay them minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread-of-hours pay. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 requires an employer to pay an employee for overtime, i.e., working time over 40 hours, at a wage rate of 1½ times the employee’s regular rate, defendant Georgios Liristis, owner of defendant GE & LO Corp. d/b/a Burger Hut, testified that plaintiffs each worked 8- to 10-hour shifts, six days a week, and were paid a fixed salary. Although 12 NYCRR 142-2.4(a) requires that, for any day in which an employee’s spread of hours exceeds 10 hours, the employee receive one hour’s pay at the minimum wage rate in addition to the minimum wage, the record shows that plaintiff Galindo Tezoco, who regularly worked shifts over 10 hours, did not receive the additional hours’ pay.

Defendant Liristis’ testimony establishes that defendants failed to pay three of the five plaintiffs the prevailing minimum wage during the relevant periods. Defendants cannot avail themselves of the “tip credit,” since they undisputedly failed to provide notice of the tip credit in writing … .

Plaintiffs established that defendants violated the WTPA by failing to provide them with wage statements (see Labor Law § 195[3]) and by failing to provide wage notices to plaintiff Silverio Tezoco … . It is undisputed that defendants failed to provide any wage notices or wage statements during the course of plaintiffs’ employment. Tezoco v GE & LO Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 06463, First Dept 11-18-21

 

, ,

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined the judge’s ruling that defendant can be cross-examined about prior convictions if the defense cross-examines the People’s witnesses on their criminal histories was improper:

A trial court may “make an advance ruling as to the use by the prosecutor of prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts for the purpose of impeaching a defendant’s credibility” … . “[A] balance must here be struck between the probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant’s credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, measured both by the impact of such evidence if it is admitted after his testimony and by the effect its probable introduction may have in discouraging him [or her] from taking the stand on his [or her] own behalf” and thereby denying the jury significant material evidence … . These considerations “simply do not apply to a witness who is not a defendant, and cross-examination of such a witness should therefore be permitted with respect to any immoral, vicious or criminal act committed by him [or her] which may reflect upon his [or her] character and show him [or her] to be unworthy of belief” … .

… Supreme Court failed to engage in the appropriate balancing between the probative worth of the convictions on the issue of the defendant’s credibility against the possible prejudice to the defendant … , and, instead, improperly conditioned its Sandoval ruling on whether defense counsel would impeach the People’s witnesses with their criminal histories. …  Whether the defendant impeaches the credibility of the People’s witnesses during cross-examination based upon those witnesses’ criminal histories, or whether the People’s witnesses testify, are not relevant factors to consider in making a Sandoval ruling … . People v Brannon, 2021 NY Slip Op 06184, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

THE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF A JURY TRIAL WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon convictions, determined the judge did not make an adequate inquiry to ensure defendant’s waiver of a jury trial was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Although the issue was not preserved, the appeal was considered in the interest of justice:

A defendant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial is governed by CPL 320.10, which provides, in relevant part, that a defendant “may at any time before trial waive a jury trial and consent to a trial without a jury in the superior court in which the indictment is pending. . . . Such waiver must be in writing and must be signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court, and with the approval of the court” … . In addition, the record as a whole must also reflect that “[t]he circumstances surrounding the waiver . . . support the conclusion that it was knowing, intelligent and voluntary” … . While the trial judge eliciting the defendant’s “full understanding of the importance of the right being waived” … is considered good practice, “no particular catechism is required to establish the validity of a jury trial waiver” … .

… [A]t the time of the purported jury waiver, the 76-year-old defendant—who had no prior contact with the criminal justice system other than a disorderly conduct violation dating back to 1980—had a recent history of paranoid delusional thinking and possible early dementia and was being treated with anti-psychotic medication. The defendant had been examined several times pursuant to CPL article 730 and had repeatedly been found unfit to proceed in the two years immediately following his arrest. … [D]uring the very terse oral colloquy that preceded the signing of the written waiver, the Supreme Court did not ask the defendant, for instance, if he was compliant with his anti-psychotic medication and was able to understand the proceedings. Indeed, the court failed to ask the defendant a single question relating to the waiver. People v Black, 2021 NY Slip Op 06183, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVED, DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE PRO SE WAIVED ANY LACK-OF-JURISDICTION ARGUMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint and noted that a party (Taddeo) who has not been served, but who appears in the action pro se, has waived a lack-of-jurisdiction argument:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . Moreover, a ministerial dismissal, made without notice and without benefit of further judicial review, is erroneous … . Under such circumstances, the court should direct the parties to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed, and enter a formal order of dismissal on notice to the parties… .

Here, the Supreme Court never ordered the plaintiff to show cause why its failure to serve [defendant] should not result in the dismissal of the complaint. The court had only directed the plaintiff to provide certain information, and the plaintiff did so.

The Supreme Court also erred in concluding that the failure to serve [defendant] constituted a jurisdictional defect. “An appearance by a defendant in an action is deemed to be the equivalent of personal service of a summons upon him [or her], and therefore confers personal jurisdiction over him [or her], unless he [or she] asserts an objection to jurisdiction either by way of motion or in his [or her] answer” . Here, by filing a pro se answer that did not include an objection to jurisdiction, Taddeo waived any argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him … . Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Taddeo, 2021 NY Slip Op 06147, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY RE: DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO PROCEED WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new custody hearing, determined the judge did not make the required inquiry before allowing defendant to waiver her right to counsel:

The parent of any child seeking custody or contesting the substantial infringement of his or her right to custody of such child must be advised “before proceeding that he or she has the right to be represented by counsel of his or her own choosing, of the right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel, and of the right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same” (Family Ct Act § 262[a][v]; see Judiciary Law § 35[8] …). A party may waive the right to counsel, provided he or she makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of that right … . Here, the Supreme Court failed to conduct the requisite inquiry before allowing the defendant to proceed pro se with regard to the hearing and determination of the defendant’s motions to modify and/or vacate the custody order … . Wondemagegehu v Edem, 2021 NY Slip Op 06213, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

, , , ,

THE ISSUE WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT OBJECTIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS BE RULED ON WITHIN 15 DAYS WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; THE 15-DAY RULE IS MANDATORY AND MUST BE ENFORCED; THE MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BECAUSE HER ACTION WAS THE CATALYST FOR THIS DECISION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mazzarelli, determined: (1) the issue whether objections to child support rulings must be ruled on within 15 days (Family Court Act 439(a)) will be considered on appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine; (2) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) (CPLR 8600, et seq) mother-petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees because her action served as a catalyst to this decision enforcing the 15-day rule:

The mother has established that this is not the first time in this case that the issue has arisen. Further, the issue is not likely to be resolved without application of the exception, because the Family Court can so easily obviate it by issuing a decision on the objections, albeit after the expiration of the 15 days. Courts have applied the exception under similar circumstances … . * * *

The statute is mandatory insofar as it plainly states that the court “shall,” within 15 days of an objection to a support award being fully submitted, issue a ruling on it … . * * *

Because the CAJ [Chief Administrative Judge, NYC Family Court] responded to the mother’s petition by assigning a Family Court judge to rule on her objections, and because the CAJ offers no substantial justification for not having enforced Family Court Act § 439(e) before the petition was filed, the matter should be remanded for an assessment of the mother’s attorneys’ fees under the State EAJA. Matter of Liu v Ruiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 06089, First Dept 11-9-21

 

,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s untimely cross-motion for summary judgment should not have been granted because the delay in making the cross-motion was not satisfactorily explained:

Pursuant to CPLR 3212(a), courts have “considerable discretion to fix a deadline for filing summary judgment motions” … , so long as the deadline is not “earlier than 30 days after filing the note of issue or (unless set by the court) later than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown” … . Absent a “satisfactory explanation for the untimeliness,” constituting good cause for the delay, an untimely summary judgment motion must be denied without consideration of the merits … . However, an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may nevertheless be considered by the court “where a timely motion was made on nearly identical grounds” … .

… Supreme Court erred in considering the plaintiff’s untimely cross motion. The cross motion was made months after the deadline imposed by the court had elapsed, and the plaintiff offered no explanation for the delay. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his cross motion did not raise nearly identical issues as [defendant’s] timely motion, which had a different factual basis and addressed substantively different violations of the Industrial Code … . Dojce v 1302 Realty Co., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05950, Second Dept 11-3-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEEMED HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT SHACKLED DURING A PORTION OF THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant should not have been shackled during the trial, but deemed the error harmless:

Defendant … contends that County Court erred in allowing him to be shackled during a portion of the trial. It is well settled that “a defendant has a right to be free of visible restraints during criminal proceedings unless the trial court states a case-specific reason for their use” … . The use of shackles has been deemed appropriate “for reasons of security, to prevent disruption of the trial, harm to those in the courtroom, escape or release of the accused, or the commission of other crimes” … . The record discloses that, in making its determination, County Court considered the nature of the crime with which defendant was charged, deferred to the correction officers’ recommendations and referenced defendant’s verbal outbursts throughout the morning. These are insufficient reasons to restrain defendant … .

… [W]e are satisfied that this error was harmless as the evidence demonstrated that defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and there was no reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial. We are even more confidant of this conclusion in light of the fact that County Court gave curative instructions to the jury on numerous occasions — including during jury selection, at the commencement of the trial and during final jury instructions — and especially considering that the jury was aware that defendant was already incarcerated … . People v Banch, 2021 NY Slip Op 05894, Third Dept 10-28-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant was not adequately warned about the risks of representing himself:

The record “does not sufficiently demonstrate that defendant was aware of his actual sentencing exposure” … , including the potential for his sentences in two pending cases, arising from unrelated incidents, to run consecutively. The court also failed to inquire into defendant’s understanding of “the nature of the charges” … . This despite defendant’s admission that he did “[n]ot necessarily” understand the charges in one case and was “still coming to grips with the charges” in the other case. The court’s statement during the waiver colloquy that defendant was “facing felony charges” was inadequate for that purpose.

Moreover, the court’s inquiry did not “accomplish the goals of adequately warning a defendant of the risks inherent in proceeding pro se and apprising a defendant of the singular importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication” … . The court failed to warn defendant about the numerous pitfalls of representing himself before and at trial, such as unfamiliarity with legal terms, concepts, and case names; the potential challenges of cross-examining witnesses and delivering an opening statement and summation as a pro se criminal defendant. While there is no mandatory “catechism for this inquiry,” there must be a “searching inquiry” conducted by a court before permitting self-representation … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, we find that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. People v Perry, 2021 NY Slip Op 05826, First Dept 10-26-21

 

,

THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS GUARDIAN BY A NON-FAMILY-MEMBER IN THE ABSENCE OF A TESTIMONIAL HEARING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Incapacitated Person’s (IP’s) son should not have been removed as guardian and replaced with a non-family-member in the absence of a testimonial hearing:

Rather than hold a testimonial hearing, Supreme Court simply accepted what the Court Examiner claimed in her motion. The Court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law to justify the removal of petitioner. Nor did it hold that removal of the petitioner was in the best interest of the IP. Petitioner did not have any opportunity to testify under oath, or rebut the allegations made against him, despite his competency as a guardian being directly at issue … . A testimonial hearing in this case is necessary so that the record can be developed, and the disputed issues of fact and law can be resolved.

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. Matter of Roberts v Maxis, 2021 NY Slip Op 05833, First Dept 10-26-21

 

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