You are here: / Judges
, ,

EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS A DISBARRED ATTORNEY, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO MAKE SURE THE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the judge should have ensured defendant knew the risks of conducting the trial pro se before allowing defendant, a disbarred attorney, to represent himself:

A court must determine that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel is made competently, intelligently, and voluntarily before allowing that defendant to represent himself or herself … . In order to make that evaluation, the court “must undertake a ‘searching inquiry’ designed to ‘insur[e] that the defendant [is] aware of the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without counsel'” … . The court’s inquiry “must 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” … . Nonetheless, no specific litany is required and a reviewing court may look to the whole record, not simply to the questions asked and answers given during a waiver colloquy, in order to determine whether a defendant actually understood the dangers of self-representation … . Subsequent warnings, however, cannot cure a trial court’s earlier error in not directing the defendant’s attention to the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation … .

Here, although the record demonstrates that the Supreme Court was aware of the defendant’s pedigree information, including his status as a disbarred attorney, the court failed to ascertain that the defendant was aware of the risks inherent in proceeding without a trial attorney and the benefits of having counsel represent him at trial … . Contrary to the People’s contention, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates that the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation were known by the defendant … , as the court neither “tested defendant’s understanding of choosing self-representation nor provided a reliable basis for appellate review” … . People v Crispino, 2021 NY Slip Op 04918, Second Dept 9-1-21

 

,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT THE SENTENCE RUN CONSECUTIVELY WITH A SENTENCE WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN IMPOSED BY A DIFFERENT COURT; THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE REMEDY IS TO STRIKE THE DIRECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, In a full-fledged opinion by Justice NeMoyer, determined the sentencing court did not have the authority to order the sentence to run consecutively with a sentence that had not yet been imposed by a different court. The appropriate appellate remedy is to strike the directive, rather than send the matter back for resentencing:

A sentencing court has no power to dictate whether its sentence will run concurrently or consecutively to another sentence that has not yet been imposed. When a sentencing court violates that rule and purports to direct the relationship between its present sentence and an anticipated forthcoming sentence, the proper remedy is usually to strike the improper directive, not to remit for a new sentencing proceeding at which the court could exercise the very power it lacked originally. * * *

Rather than remitting for resentencing, the proper remedy under these circumstances is to simply vacate County Court’s improper directive with respect to consecutive sentencing. That remedy will put defendant in the same position as if County Court had not issued that illegal directive in the first place. Such a remedy will also adequately “protect” the People’s interests, since it will place them in the exact position they would have occupied had County Court not issued its illegal directive. Indeed, because the People had no legitimate right or interest in County Court’s original illegal sentence, the People have no right or interest that could be “protected” with a remittal order calculated only to achieve the very outcome — consecutive sentencing — that they had no right to obtain in the first place. People v Barthel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04834, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

,

THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BUT A STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed defendant’s conviction over a strong two-justice dissent. The defendant argued on appeal that defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the judge’s excessive questioning of witnesses. The issue was not preserved by objection. The majority held the judge’s questioning of witnesses did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The dissenters disagreed in a detailed memorandum which lays out the facts of the case and the judge’s interjections:

From the dissent: … [C]ontrary to the position of my colleagues in the majority, I find that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court’s repeated and egregious questioning of witnesses. Throughout the trial, the court asked more than 200 questions of witnesses which, among other things, assisted the prosecution in eliciting significant testimony and establishing the foundation for the admissibility of evidence, characterized the testimony of witnesses, and served to undermine the defense strategy. Thus, I conclude that a new trial is warranted before a different Justice. * * *

I conclude that in this case, the defendant was deprived of a fair trial, as the trial judge engaged in a pattern of repeatedly interjecting himself into the questioning of witnesses throughout the trial. The trial judge engaged in extensive questioning of witnesses, usurped the role of the prosecutor, elicited significant testimony from the People’s witnesses, made statements summarizing and characterizing the testimony of witnesses, undermined the defense’s cross-examination of the People’s witnesses, and “generally created the impression that [he] was an advocate for the People” … . People v Parker, 2021 NY Slip Op 04766, Second Dept 8-25-21

 

, , ,

THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK WAS A DA WHO HAD WORKED ON DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, vacating defendant’s sentence, determined the judge should have recused himself from the sentencing because his law clerk was a former DA who had worked on the case. The issue was not preserved but was considered in the interest of justice:

The defendant’s contention that the trial justice should have recused himself from presiding over the sentencing proceeding, on the ground that the justice’s law clerk was a former Queens County Assistant District Attorney who, in that capacity, had worked on the early stages of this case, is unpreserved for appellate review. We nevertheless reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05[2]). For the reasons discussed in our decision and order on an appeal by the defendant’s codefendant (People v Hymes, 193 AD3d 975), the trial justice should have recused himself from presiding over the sentencing proceeding (see People v Suazo, 120 AD3d 1270).

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence imposed, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing before a different Justice. People v McPhee, 2021 NY Slip Op 04723, Second Dept 8-18-21

 

,

THE MOTION TO RESETTLE REQUESTED A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE PARTIES’ RIGHTS WHICH CANNOT BE ADDRESSED BY RESETTLING AN ORDER; A MOTION TO RESETTLE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS CLERICAL ERRORS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to resettle the court’s order requested a substantive change in the parties’ rights which can not be addressed by resettling an order:

… [T]he court … granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to resettle the order … and thereupon deleted the provision directing that the defendant shall receive $284,069.66 of the proceeds from the sale of the subject property before the remainder is split equally between the plaintiff and the defendant.  * * *

“Resettlement is generally intended to remedy clerical errors or clear mistakes in an order or judgment when there is no dispute about the substance of what that order or judgment should contain” … . “It may be used where the order improperly reflects the decision or fails to include necessary recitals, but [it] cannot be used to obtain a ruling not adjudicated on the original motion or to modify the decision which has been made” … . …

The court’s determination … to reform the parties’ open court stipulation upon its finding that the parties did not intend to agree to the monetary award effectuated a substantive change in the parties’ rights, rather than the correction of a clerical error. Renaud v Renaud, 2021 NY Slip Op 04624, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

COURTS HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW EVEN IF BASED ON INFORMATION KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION; HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW ADDRESSED AN OMISSION IN THE ORGINGAL MOTION PAPERS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RAISED SUA SPONTE AS THE GROUND FOR DENYING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to renew in this foreclosure action should have been granted. The judge denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on a ground not raised by the parties—plaintiff’s failure to submit a power of attorney authorizing a party to act as a loan servicer. The motion to renew addressed that omission, which had been raised by the judge sua sponte:

“Generally, ‘a motion for leave to renew is intended to bring to the court’s attention new or additional facts which were in existence at the time the original motion was made, but were unknown to the movant'” … . “However, the requirement that a motion for leave to renew be based upon new or additional facts unknown to the movant at the time of the original motion is a flexible one and the court, in its discretion, may also grant renewal, in the interest of justice, upon facts which were known to the movant at the time the original motion was made”… .

Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew based upon the submission of the limited power of attorney, since the plaintiff’s initial failure to submit the power of attorney was raised sua sponte by the court … . NP162, LLC v Harding, 2021 NY Slip Op 04612, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

, ,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY ENTERED WAS NOT PRESERVED; THE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HIS BOYKIN RIGHTS AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s argument that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered was rejected by the majority as unpreserved. The dissent agreed the issue was not preserved but argued the judge’s failure to adequately inform defendant of the Boykin rights warranted reversal in the interest of justice:

From the Dissent:

Mindful that County Court was not required “to specifically enumerate all the rights to which . . . defendant was entitled”.. , as defendant notes, the court nonetheless failed to explain, let alone refer to, any of the constitutional trial-related rights that he would forfeit by pleading guilty … . Rather, at the plea proceeding, the court focused almost exclusively on defendant’s waiver of an intoxication defense, as well as any other potential defenses, and whether defendant understood the benefits and risks of going forward with a trial. The record also fails to disclose that the court “obtain[ed] any assurance that defendant had discussed with counsel the trial-related rights that are automatically forfeited by pleading guilty or the constitutional implications of a guilty plea” … . People v Simpson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04579, Third Dept 7-28-21

 

,

IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPUTING TOO MUCH INCOME TO AND AWARDING TOO LITTLE MAINTENANCE TO PLAINTIFF WIFE; IN ADDITION DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED 50% OF THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS AND THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A POSTTRIAL VALUATION OF THE BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this divorce action, determined the imputation of income to plaintiff, the amount of maintenance awarded to plaintiff were not supported by the evidence. In addition the award of 50% of plaintiff’s business to defendant and the ordering of a posttrial valuation of the business were deemed improper:

… [T]he Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion by imputing an annual income of $80,000 to the plaintiff when calculating her maintenance award. During this 28-year marriage, notwithstanding her college degree and various certifications, the plaintiff, who was 55 years old at the time of trial, had been a stay at home mother and homemaker for almost 10 years and had never earned more than $19 per hour from employment upon returning to work outside the home, while the defendant was the primary wage earner for the family and earned a substantial income. Moreover, the plaintiff’s business was not a financial success. …

“In cases such as this one, commenced prior to January 23, 2016 …, factors to be considered are, among others, the standard of living of the parties, the income and property of the parties, the distribution of property, the duration of the marriage, the health of the parties, the present and future earning capacity of the parties, the ability of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting, the reduced or lost earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance, and the presence of children of the marriage in the respective homes of the parties” … . Weiss v Nelson, 2021 NY Slip Op 04573, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

, ,

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH BATSON INQUIRIES FOR THREE BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS; BASED ON THE JUDGE’S REMARKS THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND REPORT BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have conducted a Batson inquiry with respect to the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to three black prospective jurors. The appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was sent back for a hearing and report before a different judge. The trial judge’s remarks about the number of black jurors being representative of the community (“this is not the Bronx”) and the fact that three black jurors served were deemed irrelevant:

Contrary to the trial court’s finding that the number of black prospective jurors to actually serve on the jury (three in total) was fairly representative of the community, as represented by the court’s remark that “[t]his is not the Bronx,” such consideration is “irrelevant” to the issue of whether the People’s exercise of peremptory challenges was discriminatory … . Similarly, to the extent the People emphasize that three black prospective jurors served on the jury, that fact does not obviate the defendant’s prima facie showing of discrimination … .

Accordingly, we find that the defendant satisfied the first step of the Batson inquiry with respect to the prosecution’s exercise of peremptory challenges to each of the three black prospective jurors at issue. Thus, the trial court should have proceeded with the second step and, if applicable, the third step with respect to each of the Batson challenges … . People v Brissett, 2021 NY Slip Op 04366, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that the judge should not have ordered relief not requested by the plaintiff:

… [T]he Supreme Court erred by, in effect, sua sponte, directing dismissal of all of [defendants’] affirmative defenses to the complaint … . The plaintiff did not move for summary judgment dismissing any of [defendant’s] affirmative defenses, and the court erred in awarding this unrequested relief … .  MacKay v Paliotta, 2021 NY Slip Op 04348, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

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