You are here: / Judges
, , ,

IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED TIME AND TESTIMONY RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court and ordering a new hearing in this family offense proceeding, determined the judge should not have placed time and testimony restrictions on the hearing:

Order of fact-finding and disposition … , which, after a hearing, determined that respondent husband committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, and entered a one-year order of protection directing him … to refrain from assaulting or harassing petitioner wife and the parties’ two children … , unanimously reversed … .

Family Court erred in not conducting a full fact-finding hearing. The court improperly restricted the hearing, without notice to the parties to just 15-20 minutes and limited the testimony, including that of petitioner wife. Given this, Family Court is directed to conduct a full hearing on the petition and make the requisite factual findings … . Matter of Kristina M. v Paul M., 2021 NY Slip Op 06957, First Dept 12-14-21

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY, DID NOT ADMIT HE POSSESSED A STOLEN “MOTOR VEHICLE,” AS OPPOSED TO A “MOTOR CYCLE,” AND THE JUDGE DID NOT INQUIRE FURTHER; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY A MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined the judge should have inquired further when defendant did not admit he possessed a “motor vehicle,” as opposed to a “motor cycle.” The court noted the issue may be raised on appeal without having moved to withdraw the plea:

As charged here, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree requires possession of “a motor vehicle . . . other than a motorcycle” … . During his plea allocution the defendant admitted to possession of “a motor cycle.” No further inquiry was made by the Supreme Court.

“[W]here a defendant’s factual recitation negates an essential element of the crime pleaded to, the court may not accept the plea without making further inquiry to ensure that defendant understands the nature of the charge and that the plea is intelligently entered” … . Where, as here, the court fails in its duty to inquire further, a defendant may raise a claim regarding the validity of the plea even without having moved to withdraw the plea … .

Here, as the defendant contends and the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court’s failure to inquire into the validity of the plea after the allocution clearly negated an essential element of the crime requires reversal of the judgment of conviction … . People v Douglas, 2021 NY Slip Op 06857, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AS A SANCTION FOR FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT BECAUSE THE CONDUCT DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant (Hudes) in this dispute over an easement should not have been sanctioned by ordering him to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for “frivolous conduct.” The facts were not described. The sanction was inappropriate because the behavior which triggered it did not occur within the proceeding before the court:

Courts have discretion to award costs or impose financial sanctions against a party or attorney in a civil action for engaging in frivolous conduct (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[a], [b]). Conduct may be deemed frivolous if it is “undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another,” or “asserts material factual statements that are false”… . However, the scope of the rule is limited to frivolous conduct in the proceeding before the court, and does not extend to “tortious conduct in general” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in awarding the plaintiff attorneys’ fees against Hudes personally, since Hudes’ misconduct did not occur within the proceeding before the court and, therefore, was not “frivolous” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 … . Industry LIC Condominium v Hudes, 2021 NY Slip Op 06836, Second Dept 12-8-21

 

,

IN THIS POST-DIVORCE ACTION, THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE PARTIES’ REAL PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the court should have conducted a hearing before distributing the proceeds of the sale of the parties’ farm in this post-divorce action:

… [T]he court erred in deciding the value of plaintiff’s credits without a full evidentiary hearing permitting the parties to offer proof of valuation … . Plaintiff offered no direct proof of the value of the relevant assets, and defendant was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the court-appointed appraiser or review the appraisals … . The court’s decision also failed to articulate the factors it considered or the reasons for its determination to partially grant certain credits to plaintiff and deny others … . … [W]e remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the parties’ entitlement to credits. Edwards v Edwards, 2021 NY Slip Op 06504, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER TREATMENT (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the judge should have determined whether defendant, who had been convicted of an armed felony, was eligible for youthful offender treatment:

“[W]hen a defendant has been convicted of an armed felony . . . and the only barrier to his or her youthful offender eligibility is that conviction, the court is required to determine on the record whether the defendant is an eligible youth by considering the presence or absence of the factors set forth in CPL 720.10 (3)” … . Here, the People concede that the sentencing court failed to make any appropriate on-the-record determination. We accept the People’s concession and, accordingly, the case should be remitted for consideration of youthful offender treatment. People v Hargrove, 2021 NY Slip Op 06427, Ct App 11-18-21

 

, ,

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

 

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