You are here: / Judges
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS AFTER TRIAL WHEN, IN FACT, HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS GROUND FOR AN ATTACK ON HIS SENTENCE AND THEREFORE DID NOT NEED TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, determined defendant’s guilty plea should be vacated because he was under the impression he was avoiding a 45 year sentence when, in fact, he could have been sentenced to a maximum of 20 years. Although defendant did not move to withdraw his plea which is usually required to preserve the issue for appeal, here the defendant had no knowledge of the ground for a motion to withdraw:

… [T]he court repeatedly told defendant that he faced a possible sentence of 45 years, but not that defendant’s sentence would ultimately be reduced to 20 years. …

The Court of Appeals … has carved out an exception to the preservation doctrine, in certain instances. “because of the ‘actual or practical unavailability of either a motion to withdraw the plea’ or a ‘motion to vacate the judgment of conviction,'” reasoning that ” ‘a defendant can hardly be expected to move to withdraw his plea on a ground of which he has no knowledge’ ” … . …

Here, the court’s misinformation had great significance. The court repeatedly warned defendant that he could face 45 years in prison if he proceeded to trial on all three of his open burglary cases, and neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel corrected the record. Moreover, defendant, who had already had a failed allocution, did not plead guilty until just before jury selection was to begin, and after the court had repeatedly warned him that he could face as much as 45 years in jail if he proceeded to trial and was convicted. People of the State of New York v Joseph, 2020 NY Slip Op 07472, First Dept 12-10-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES; THE APPELLATE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW THAT ISSUE; THE APPELLATE COURT IS ALSO POWERLESS TO REVIEW THE SECOND GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION ARGUED BY THE PEOPLE ON APPEAL BECAUSE THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; MATTER SENT BACK TO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE SECOND ISSUE SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE SO ADVISED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined: (1) the motion court should not have decided the suppression motion on a ground not raised by the parties and the appellate court is powerless to review that issue (search valid pursuant to the automobile exception); (2) the other ground for upholding suppression argued by the People on appeal was decided in defendant’s favor and therefore the appellate court cannot review it (search valid as an inventory search). The denial of the suppression motion was reversed and the matter was sent back for review of the inventory search issue should the People be so advised:

The People’s current contention that the search of the defendant’s SUV was proper under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the police had probable cause to believe that the SUV contained a weapon is improperly raised for the first time on appeal … . … [T]he hearing record reveals … the People were relying solely on the theory that the gun was recovered pursuant to a lawful inventory search after the SUV was removed from the location. This Court “cannot uphold conduct of the police, and thereby affirm a trial court’s denial of suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to such conduct, on a factual theory not argued by the People before the trial court” … . …

As an alternative ground for upholding the suppression ruling, the People argue, as they did in the Supreme Court, that the recovery of the gun was lawful pursuant to a valid inventory search. However, because the Supreme Court decided the inventory search issue in the defendant’s favor, this Court is precluded from reviewing that issue on the defendant’s appeal … . …  Under the circumstances presented here, where we lack statutory authority to review an issue resolved in the appellant’s favor at a suppression hearing, the Court of Appeals has instructed that the required remedy is to “reverse the denial of suppression and remit the case to [the] Supreme Court for further proceedings” with respect to that issue … . People v Tates, 2020 NY Slip Op 07405, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

,

SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN THE SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE FIRST TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s sentence imposed after a second trial, determined the sentence imposed after the first trial should not have been “enhanced:”

“Under the Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution, a presumption of vindictiveness applies where a defendant successfully appeals an initial conviction, and is re-tried, convicted, and given a greater sentence than that imposed after the initial conviction” … . “[C]riminal defendants should not be penalized for exercising their right to appeal” … .  Where, as here, the defendant is convicted of the same count at a new trial following a successful appeal, the sentencing court may not impose a higher sentence unless its reasons for doing so affirmatively appear on the record, and are “‘based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding'” … . Inasmuch as the prosecutor asserted that the defendant demonstrated no remorse for his crimes, the record reflects only that the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and exercised his constitutional right to remain silent … . In addition, the ongoing impact of the crime on the complainant does not constitute “identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding” … . Accordingly, the court should not have imposed the higher sentence. People v Diaz, 2020 NY Slip Op 07392, Second Dept 12-9-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A 30-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT A DECEASED DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO SUBSTITUTE A REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for a 30-day adjournment to petition or move to have the public administrator appointed for a deceased defendant’s (Conrad’s) estate should have been granted. Supreme Court had granted the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to substitute a representative of the deceased defendant pursuant to CPLR 1021:

A motion to substitute a party “may be made by the successors or representatives of a party or by any party” and is to be made within a reasonable time after the death of the party (CPLR 1021). “[I]f the event requiring substitution is the death of a party and timely substitution has not been made, the court, before proceeding further, shall, on such notice as it may in its discretion direct, order the persons interested in the decedent’s estate to show cause why the action or appeal should not be dismissed.” (id).

CPLR 1015(a) provides that “[i]f a party dies and the claim for or against him is not thereby extinguished the court shall order substitution of the proper parties.” … . Moreover, “[i]t is well settled that the death of a party divests the court of jurisdiction to render a judgment until a proper substitution has been made, so that any step taken without it may be deemed void, including an appellate decision” … . …

In light of the relatively short passage of time between Conrad’s death and the time defendants’ motion was made, the allegation in plaintiff’s complaint that the reverse mortgage upon which this case is premised was obtained fraudulently and is null and void, and the fact that the defendant banks had not even moved for substitution in the related foreclosure action, it was an abuse of discretion for the motion court not to allow plaintiff, at a minimum, the additional 30 days requested to seek to have the public administrator appointed so that the case could move forward and be decided on the merits. Dugger v Conrad, 2020 NY Slip Op 07313, First Dept 12-8-20

 

, , ,

THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TOWN STEMMING FROM THE TOWN JUSTICE’S ISSUANCE OF AN ARREST WARRANT FOR PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the malicious prosecution cause of action against the town should have been dismissed. Plaintiff daughter filed a report accusing her mother of withdrawing money from the daughter’s account without permission. An arrest warrant was issued. Plaintiff thereafter produced a power of attorney allowing her to withdraw money from her daughter’s account and the larceny charge against plaintiff was dropped. Plaintiff then brought a malicious prosecution action against the town and the village:

Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, a judge is immune from civil liability for any acts that he or she performs in the exercise of his or her judicial function … .

Defendants correctly observe that plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim against the Town is premised solely upon the Town Justice signing the warrant authorizing plaintiff’s arrest. The record indisputably establishes that the Town Justice signed the arrest warrant in the exercise of his judicial function. Consequently, the doctrine of judicial immunity applies and Supreme Court should have dismissed the malicious prosecution claim against the Town on that basis … . Gagnon v Village of Cooperstown, N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 07256, Third Dept 12-3-20

 

, ,

IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF-DEBTOR, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that, as a matter of comity, based upon an order in bankruptcy court, a New York court will substitute the bankruptcy trustee as a party in a suit involving the plaintiff/debtor. Here there was no such order and the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted:

“‘[T]he integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of all of their assets'” … . “By failing to list causes of action on bankruptcy schedules of assets, the debtor represents that it has no such claims” … .

“[O]nce a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced, all legal or equitable interests of the debtor become part of the bankruptcy estate, including any causes of action (… see 11 USC § 541[a][1]). Accordingly, where a debtor has sought chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, “the causes of action formerly belonging to the debtor . . . [vest] in the trustee for the benefit of the estate . . . [and] [t]he debtor has no standing to pursue such causes of action” … .

In cases where a plaintiff-debtor has successfully petitioned the bankruptcy court to reopen the bankruptcy to include a pending action, this Court has invoked the doctrine of comity to permit substitution of the bankruptcy trustee as a plaintiff … . Here, however, the Supreme Court went further, directing [plaintiff] to seek such relief from the bankruptcy court and denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint … . …

Under these circumstances, the court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint … . Nevertheless, the trustee, if he or she should chose to re-commence the case in his or her own name, will enjoy the protection offered by CPLR 205 … . Turner v Owens Funeral Home, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 07238, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION’S JOINT REQUEST TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL EVALUATED; ONCE A DEFENDANT IS DEEMED COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, THE DECISION WHETHER TO PRESENT AN INSANITY DEFENSE IS THE DEFENDANT’S, NOT THE COURT’S, TO MAKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the convictions, determined: (1) the trial judge should not have rejected the request by both defense counsel and the prosecutor to have the defendant’s mental health and fitness for trial evaluated; and (2) once a defendant is found competent to stand trial the decision whether to present an insanity defense is the defendant’s alone. Here defense counsel was ordered by the judge to present an insanity defense, over defendant’s objection:

… [W]hen confronted with evidence that the defendant was not taking his required medication and was not able to communicate rationally with his attorney, the Supreme Court should have granted the joint applications of the People and the defense to have the defendant examined pursuant to CPL 730.30(1) to determine his fitness to proceed … . …

… [A] defendant found competent to stand trial has the ultimate authority, even over counsel’s objection, to reject the use of a psychiatric defense … . Thus, once the Supreme Court determined the defendant to be competent to stand trial, it should not have interfered with that authority by “order[ing]” defense counsel, over the defendant’s objection, to present an insanity defense. People v Bellucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 07215, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s foreclosure action, sua sponte, as abandoned pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. Supreme Court, after plaintiff’s unopposed motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed the plaintiff to “submit judgment.” When plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment for signature, Supreme Court dismissed the action because the proposed judgment was not submitted within 60 days. The 60-day time limit only applies when a party is directed to submit the judgment “on notice:”

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48, an order or judgment which is directed to be settled or submitted on notice must be submitted for signature within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order or judgment be settled or submitted. A party who fails to submit the order or judgment within the 60-day time period will be deemed to have abandoned the action or motion, absent good cause shown … . In this case, when the Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, it did not direct that the proposed judgment had to be settled or submitted on notice. 22 NYCRR 202.48 does not apply where, as here, the court merely directs a party to submit an order or judgment without expressly directing that the order or judgment be submitted on notice … . James B. Nutter & Co. v McLaughlin, 2020 NY Slip Op 07178, Second Dept 12-2-20

 

, ,

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM PROSECUTING THE DEFENDANT FOR ALLEGED SEX OFFENSES ON THE GROUND THAT, AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD PRESIDED OVER FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT AND THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE CHARGED SEX OFFENSES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined petitioner, the county district attorney, should not have been disqualified from prosecuting Jamel Brandow for sex offense charges on the ground that, as a Family Court judge, the district attorney had presided over Family Court proceedings against Brandow which also involved the alleged victim of the current charges:

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 17, a former judge “shall not act as attorney or counsellor in any action, claim, matter, motion or proceeding, which has been before him [or her] in his [or her] official character” … . Here, contrary to respondent’s determination, the underlying criminal matter was not in any way before petitioner in his former judicial capacity. Although petitioner presided over proceedings brought against Brandow in Family Court in 2008, the matters litigated in those proceedings bear no similarity to the allegations of sexual misconduct charged in the indictment … . Further, although petitioner determined that Brandow violated an order of protection issued in favor of the victim and others, the violation did not arise out of any contact between Brandow and the victim. Accordingly, as the underlying criminal matter was not previously before petitioner in his judicial capacity, Judiciary Law § 17 does not prohibit petitioner’s prosecution of the subject criminal charges … . Matter of Czajka v Koweek, 2020 NY Slip Op 07009, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

,

FATHER HAD BROUGHT HIS CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS CURRENT; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SUSPENDED JAIL SENTENCE CONDITIONED ON PAYMENT OF FUTURE CHILD SUPPORT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined that once father had paid the child support arrears the court did not have the authority to impose a suspended jail sentence:

… [T]he father … is aggrieved by … the order suspending [the jail] sentence upon the condition that he comply with the support order for three years. A jail sentence imposed for a party’s civil contempt in failing to comply with an order — such as the father’s willful failure to pay support as ordered — is not punitive and only serves “the remedial purpose of compelling compliance” with the order … . There was “no remedial purpose to be served by continued confinement” or the threat thereof once the father had brought his support payments current … and, indeed, the order of commitment should not have been issued because the father had already “complie[d] completely with the underlying support order” … . Family Court accordingly erred in suspending the sentence and was obliged to discharge it without condition. Matter of Dupuis v Costello, 2020 NY Slip Op 06992, Third Dept 11-25-20

 

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