You are here: / Judges
, , ,

DEFENDANTS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, I.E., THE DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF EMAILS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER, PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants should have been sanctioned for spoliation of evidence, i.e., the failure to preserve relevant emails. The plaintiffs alleged defendants performed faulty renovation-work and thereby breached the renovation contract:

“Under the common-law doctrine of spoliation, when a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, the responsible party may be sanctioned under CPLR 3126” … . “The Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining what, if any, sanction should be imposed for spoliation of evidence” … . “A party that seeks sanctions for spoliation of evidence must show that the party having control over the evidence possessed an obligation to preserve it at the time of its destruction, that the evidence was destroyed with a culpable mind, and that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party’s claim or defense such that the trier of fact could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” … . “‘A culpable state of mind for [the] purposes of a spoliation sanction includes ordinary negligence'” … . Further, “[s]triking a pleading is a drastic sanction to impose in the absence of willful or contumacious conduct and, in order to impose such a sanction, the court ‘will consider the prejudice that resulted from the spoliation to determine whether such drastic relief is necessary as a matter of fundamental fairness'” … . “In contrast, where the moving party has not been deprived of the ability to establish his or her case or defense, a less severe sanction is appropriate” … . “[A]dverse inference charges have been found to be appropriate even in situations where the evidence has been found to have been negligently destroyed” … .

… [P]laintiffs demonstrated that the defendants were on notice that they had an obligation to preserve their email accounts and emails prior to the time that they were lost or destroyed. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that the emails were lost or destroyed with a culpable state of mind and that the emails were sufficiently relevant to the litigation … . Nonetheless, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the drastic remedy of striking the defendants’ answer was not warranted … . Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the defendants’ answer to the extent of directing that an adverse inference charge be issued at trial against the defendants with respect to the loss or destruction of their email accounts and emails … . Dorman v Luva of NY, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise explanation of the criteria for finding spoliation of evidence and the appropriate sanctions. In this breach of contract action, plaintiffs demonstrated defendants destroyed or lost relevant emails with a “culpable state of mind.”

 

, , ,

RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge, who had declined to issue a temporary “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) for respondent and had set the matter down for a hearing, did not have the authority to, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and dismiss the petition. After respondent had threatened self harm he was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

… [O]ne day prior to the scheduled hearing, Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued a decision canceling the hearing and dismissing the petition. As grounds for the dismissal, the court found that dismissal best served the interest of preserving judicial and law enforcement resources given respondent’s inability to purchase a firearm due to the arrest pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, purported hospital admission pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) and the lack of any indication that respondent owned any firearms in New York at the time of the proceeding. …

To begin, as the order on appeal was issued on a sua sponte basis, no appeal lies as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). Nevertheless, “we treat the notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal and grant the request” … .

… Supreme Court’s sua sponte order dismissing the petition must be reversed. “[S]ua sponte dismissals are to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant them” … . Here, there is no indication that such extraordinary circumstances exist. The grounds relied upon by Supreme Court — that the relief that would be provided by an ERPO was “duplicative and an inefficient use of judicial and law enforcement resources” — to the extent that they could constitute meritorious grounds for dismissal, require that petitioner be given the opportunity to respond and object … . Moreover, CPLR 6343 (1) clearly mandates that if a temporary ERPO is denied, such as occurred here, the court hold a hearing, no later than 10 business days after the application for the ERPO is served on the respondent, to determine whether an ERPO should be issued. Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal on grounds that are entirely absent from the statute was improper, and we therefore reverse and remit to conduct a hearing as required. Matter of Hogencamp v Matthew KK., 2025 NY Slip Op 06106, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right. Permission to appeal must be requested.​

Practice Point: Here the respondent threatened self harm and was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. A judge’s authority is constrained by the Mental Hygiene Law. Once an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) is denied by the judge and the matter is set down for a hearing, the judge cannot, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and deny the petition for reasons not prescribed in the Mental Hygiene Law.

 

, , ,

THE “REFRAIN FROM GANG-RELATED ASSOCIATIONS” PROBATION CONDITIONS WERE STRUCK BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD ANY CONNECTION WITH GANGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined a probation condition imposed by the court must be stricken because it was not shown to be related to “defendant’s rehabilitative prospects:”​

Defendant’s challenges to two of his probation conditions as unrelated to his rehabilitation do not require preservation and survive his waiver of the right to appeal … . * * *

… [T]he probation condition requiring defendant to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation” must be stricken, as there is no evidence that defendant’s crime was connected to any gang activities or that he has any history of gang membership or gang … . Accordingly, this condition was not reasonably necessary to further defendant’s rehabilitative prospects based on his background and proclivities …. . People v Holguin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06141, First Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Challenges to probation conditions need not be preserved for appeal and survive a waiver of appeal.

Practice Point: The appellate courts will strike probation conditions which are not demonstrated to be relevant to the defendant’s offense. Two other decisions, not summarized here, were released this week in which the probation condition requiring defendant to financially support dependents was struck because it was not shown to be relevant to defendant’s rehabilitation for the charged offense. (People v Bonfante, 2025 NY Slip Op 06068, Second Dept 11-6-25;  People v Larkin, 2025 NY Slip Op 06077, Second Dept 11-6-25)

 

, ,

PETITIONER, A TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUAL, WAS ENTITLED, FOR PERSONAL SAFETY REASONS, TO THE SEALING OF THE RECORD OF HER NAME-CHANGE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner, a transgender individual, was entitled, for her personal safety, to the sealing of the record of her name-change proceeding:

We analyzed Civil Rights Law § 64-a in Matter of Cody VV. (Brandi VV.) (226 AD3d 24 [3d Dept 2024]). There, Supreme Court — the same justice — denied an applicant’s request to seal the record of the applicant’s name-change proceeding … . Reversing the court’s denial and ordering the applicant’s record sealed, we observed, in sum and substance, that the relevant statutory language reflects the Legislature’s determination that transgender individuals face threats to their personal safety that are real, constant and everywhere … . Thus, only in an “extraordinary” case will there be a “substantial basis” to find that an open court record of a name change proceeding would not place a transgender applicant’s safety at risk … .

In a “customary” case like this one, protecting the applicant from the threat of harm posed by an open court record of a name change proceeding necessarily takes priority over the public’s ability to access that court record … . To reverse those priorities is to intrude upon the policymaking authority of the Legislature. To deny a sealing request based upon those inverted priorities is to abuse the limited judicial discretion available under Civil Rights Law § 64-a. To decline to seal the record despite the applicant’s showing of jeopardy is to place the applicant at risk of the very harms the statute is meant to guard against … .

​… [P]etitioner affirmed her transgender status and that she was seeking to change her name to one that reflects her female gender identity, which is the name she uses in her personal and professional life. She expressed her fear that public access to her name change would disclose her transgender status and place her at increased risk of hate crimes, harassment and other discrimination. In view of the totality of circumstances … , petitioner has demonstrated that she is entitled to have the record of her name change proceeding sealed pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 64-a … . Matter of Kieran B., 2025 NY Slip Op 06006, Third Dept 10-30-25

Practice Point: In Civil Rights Law 64-a, the legislature recognized the personal safety issues raised when a transgender individual seeks a name-change. Therefore, sealing of the name-change record reflects the legislative intent and should be the general rule.

 

, , ,

THE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk-level determination, held that the record did not establish that defendant waived his right to be present at the risk-level hearing:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing” (… see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . “Before proceeding in the defendant’s absence, the court must make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant’s absence was deliberate” (… see Correction Law § 168-n[6]). Here, defense counsel expressly stated that the defendant was not waiving his right to be present after he failed to appear for the SORA hearing, and there is no evidence in the record that the defendant was made aware of the consequences of failing to appear for the SORA hearing or that his absence … was deliberate.

Since the record fails to establish that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination thereafter, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n(3). People v Blount, 2025 NY Slip Op 05972, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what must be placed on the record to explain a defendant’s absence from a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT HE INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE BUILDING HE ENTERED AND REMAINED UNLAWFULLY; THEREFORE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT’S VIOLATION OF A STAY-AWAY ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s plea to attempted burglary, determined defendant’s plea allocution negated an essential element of the offense, thereby calling into question the voluntariness of the plea: Burglary requires the intent to commit a crime while unlawfully entering or remaining in a building. Defendant did not admit he intended to commit a crime in the building. The fact that he violated a stay-away order by entering the building was not sufficient:

During the plea allocution the court asked defendant if it was true that he knowingly entered and remained unlawfully at the premises, which is a dwelling, and attempted to commit a crime inside. Defendant responded, “That wasn’t my intent, but I did remain unlawfully.” Defense counsel then stated “Yes, there was a protective order which he violated.” The court then asked defendant, “That was with the intent to violate the order of protection, is that right”? Defendant responded, “Yes.”

A key element of burglary is establishing the defendant’s intent in entering or remaining unlawfully in a building to commit a crime therein … . The violation of a stay-away provision in an order of protection, alone, cannot, without more, be used to establish the requisite state of mind to elevate criminal trespass to a burglary … .

Once defendant denied his intent to commit a crime within the premises, the court was required to inquire further to ensure that defendant’s guilty plea was, in fact, knowing and voluntary … . As the People concede, given that the court failed to inquire and improperly accepted the guilty plea, the plea must be vacated … . People v Gee, 2025 NY Slip Op 05924, First Dept 10-28-25

Practice Point: To constitute burglary, the defendant must intend to commit a crime when entering or remaining in a building. It is not enough that, by entering the building, the defendant violated a stay-away order. The defendant must have intended to commit a crime in the building.

 

, , ,

THE DEFENDANT, PERSONALLY, MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROVERT THE PROSECUTION’S PREDICATE FELONY ALLLEGATIONS, AND TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PREDICATE FELONY SENTENCING SCHEME, EVEN WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL CONCEDES THE ISSUE; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, remitted the matter to give defendant the opportunity to personally controvert the prosecution’s predicate felony allegations, and to challenge the constitutionality of the predicate felony sentencing scheme, despite the defense attorney’s concession of the issue:

… [D]efendant’s challenge to his sentence has merit. The court denied defendant his statutory right to personally controvert the prosecution’s predicate felony allegations when it refused to consider his specific challenge and instead accepted defense counsel’s concession of the issue. Since the court summarily declared defendant a predicate felon and imposed an enhanced sentence, we modify and remit to Supreme Court, where defendant may controvert the predicate felony allegations and have an opportunity to assert his separate constitutional challenge to the Criminal Procedure Law’s predicate felony sentencing scheme. * * *

… Based on the full text of CPL 400.15 (3) and its placement in the predicate sentencing statutory scheme, we conclude that a court must ask the defendant personally if they wish to controvert any allegations in the prosecution’s statement. A totality of factors support this conclusion. First, CPL 400.15 (3) requires that the defendant receive a copy of the statement and that the court ask them if they wish to controvert any allegation contained therein. This procedure thus mandates that the defendant personally has notice of the allegations against them and a corresponding opportunity to be heard. Second, CPL 400.15 (3) refers to the defendant using personal pronouns, which is a deviation from the rest of the statute’s impersonal diction … .

Third, given the significant consequences of the decision to controvert and the information relevant to making that decision, it is unlikely that the legislature intended for defense counsel to be able to refuse to controvert in the face of the defendant’s opposition, without any further inquiry by the court. Indeed, the failure to controvert results in an automatic sentence enhancement in the present case and in any future sentences and therefore has lifetime ramifications … . …

These factors, considered together, make clear that the term “defendant,” as written in CPL 400.15 (3), refers to the defendant personally. In these key ways, CPL 400.15 (3) differs from provisions of the CPL that refer to the “defendant” interchangeably with “the defense,” without additional language suggesting that the legislature requires a court to direct its inquiry to the defendant. People v Wright, 2025 NY Slip Op 05869, CtApp 10-23-25

Practice Point: A defendant, personally, must be given the opportunity to controvert the prosecution’s predicate felony allegations, and to challenge the constitutionality of the predicate felony sentencing scheme, even in the face of defense counsel’s concession of the issue. Here the matter was remitted for that purpose​.

 

,

THE JUDGE READ THE WRONG DEFINITION OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE TO THE JURY; NEW TRIAL ON THAT CHARGE ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s attempted robbery first degree conviction and ordering a new trial on that count, determined County Court provided the jury with the wrong definition of the offense:

Defendant was charged with attempted robbery in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 160.15 (2), defined as forcibly stealing property while armed with a deadly weapon. When the court instructed the jury on this count, it initially made reference to the requirement of being armed with a deadly weapon. However, when thereafter summarizing the elements of this crime, the court omitted the deadly weapon element and instead substituted in its place the element of causing serious physical injury to the victim, which is a different theory of robbery in the first degree … . This error was repeated by the court when the jury asked for the definitions of the crimes to be read back. Under these circumstances, the jury was left to consider an internally inconsistent definition of attempted robbery. Given that ” ‘the charge, read as a whole against the background of the evidence produced at trial, likely confused the jury regarding the correct rules to be applied in arriving at a decision’ ” … , the court’s error was not harmless and remittal for a new trial on this count is necessary … . People v Smith, 2025 NY Slip Op 05847, Third Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Here the judge’s reading the wrong definition of the charged offense to the jury required a new trial on that charge.

 

, ,

THE PROOF OF ALL THE CHARGES, INCLUDING THE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER OF A TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILD, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS; HOWEVER THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF MOLINEUX EVIDENCE AND OTHER EVIDENTIARY ERRORS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined that the proof was sufficient to support all the convictions, including depraved indifference murder of a two-year-old child. Defendant claimed the child fell from a bunk bed. But the injuries were catastrophic and included a depressed skull fracture. A new trial was required because of evidentiary errors by the judge, including the admission of prior crimes and bad acts as Molineux evidence:​

Prior to trial, County Court partially granted the People’s Molineux application to the extent of allowing testimony pertaining to defendant’s prior acts of domestic violence and aggression toward the mother, as well as his 2011 conviction of aggravated driving while intoxicated (hereinafter DWI) with a minor in the car. … The People elicited trial testimony from the mother about a December 2017 incident in which defendant became explosively angry while drinking and “trash[ed]” her house; however, “[n]othing was physical” on that occasion. The mother also testified about a January 2018 incident in which defendant was physically violent, revealing that he had repeatedly punched her in the face and in the arm on that occasion. The People were allowed to introduce photographs of the bruises the mother sustained during the January 2018 incident. The evidence regarding defendant’s DWI conviction was referenced during his interview at the Sheriff’s Department in connection with the underlying incident, which was published to the jury.

The December 2017 incident of aggression did not involve physical violence, as alleged here, and was not probative of any issue in this case … . … [T]he photographs depicting the mother’s injuries from the January 2018 incident should not have been admitted into evidence, as they provided the ]jury with a visualization of defendant’s past violent conduct and were extremely prejudicial in the context of a prosecution requiring proof that defendant acted with a level of depravity sufficient to sustain a conviction under Penal Law § 125.25 (4) … . … The evidence pertaining to defendant’s 2011 DWI conviction also should not have been admitted, as it was not probative of any issue in the case, did not fit within any recognized Molineux exception, and was unduly prejudicial since it involved a different child and tended to suggest to the jury that defendant was previously reckless with a minor in his care while consuming alcohol. Since the proof of defendant’s guilt was entirely circumstantial and was not overwhelming, these improper Molineux rulings cannot be considered harmless … . People v Bohn, 2025 NY Slip Op 05846, Third Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what is and what is not admissible prior crime and bad-act (Molineux) evidence in a murder trial.

 

, ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO RETURN THE CHILD TO MOTHER DURING THE PENDENCY OF NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS FOR THE CHILD’S RETURN WILL ENSURE THE CHILD’S SAFETY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s application during the neglect proceedings for the return of her child should have been denied:

Family Court’s finding that the child should be returned to the mother lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record … .  Although the court properly determined, based on the evidence of the child’s physical injuries and her statements, that the mother was the person who inflicted the injuries, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to determine that the risk of harm could be mitigated by the conditions it imposed on the mother in the order under review … .

The court improvidently minimized both the nature and extent of the risk to the child and overstated the potential impact of its order on the child’s safety. Nothing in the mother’s testimony indicated that she understood the emotional harm she caused the child or expressed any genuine remorse over her actions. Initially, she tried to attribute the child’s injuries to an unrelated incident that took place several months earlier. She then claimed to be unaware of how the injuries occurred and ultimately opted to “plead the fifth.” Taken as a whole, the mother’s testimony reflects a lack of insight into how her conduct led to the child’s removal from her care. This lack of understanding further undercuts Family Court’s conclusion that services would be sufficient to mitigate the risk of harm posed to the child while in the mother’s care, and its belief that the mother would comply with the service plan. Although the mother took steps to enroll in services, the mere enrollment is insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence indicating that returning the child to her care would pose a risk to the child’s health and safety. Matter of M.M. (Chelsea B.), 2025 NY Slip Op 05887, First Dept 10-23-25

Practice Point: Here Family Court’s determination that imposing conditions for the child’s return to mother, who had injured the child, would ensure the child’s safety was not supported by the evidence. Therefore it was an abuse of discretion to order the child’s return to mother during the pendency of the neglect proceedings.​

 

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