You are here: / Judges
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, noted that the judge should not have, sua sponte, vacated the judgment of foreclosure as against those defendants who did not move for that relief:

“A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” … . “[T]he defense of lack of jurisdiction based on improper service is personal in nature and may only be raised by the party improperly served'” … . Here, Hickson was the only defendant who moved to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court had no basis to, sua sponte, vacate so much of the judgment of foreclosure and sale as was against the defendants other than Hickson and to direct the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants for lack personal jurisdiction. Lehman Bros. Bank v Hickson, 2020 NY Slip Op 04932, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , , ,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY GRANTED; MOTION TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE PROPERLY DENIED; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SERVICES BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion to dismiss claims that were not in the notice of claim was properly granted, and plaintiffs’ motions to amend the notice of claim and for leave to file a late notice of claim were properly denied. The Second Department noted that the loss of services claim should not have been dismissed (sua sponte) because that relief was not requested. The action alleged negligent supervision by the school. Plaintiff student was allegedly pushed into a wall during gym class by another student who had been bullying her for some time:

The plaintiffs’ new claims of other purported bullying incidents and Dupper’s [plaintiff-student’s father’s] claim that he suffered stress, anxiety, and depression as a result of the … incident constitute new theories of liability which were not included in the notice of claim and should be dismissed … . …

The plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to the notice of claim add substantive new facts and new theories of liability not set forth in the original notice of claim and which are not permitted as late filed amendments to a notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e(6) … . …

… [T]he plaintiffs’ failure to include a proposed notice of claim with their cross motion alone was a sufficient basis for denying that branch of the cross motion … . C.D. v Goshen Cent. Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 04916, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

THE ONLY WAY TO COMPEL A JUDGE TO SIGN A DOCUMENT TO CREATE AN APPEALABLE PAPER IS A MANDAMUS ACTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78; THE FAILURE TO BRING THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING PRECLUDED APPEAL IN THIS CASE; THE OPINION INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPEALABLE PAPER ARE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED DEFINITIVE ON THE TOPIC (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, over a concurrence, determined the plaintiffs’ only option when the judge refused to sign the transcript of the oral decision (CPLR 2219) and, in the alternative, refused to sign the proposed order with notice of settlement (22 NYCRR 202.48[a]), was a mandamus proceeding to compel the judge to sign. Without the judge’s signature, there was no appealable paper and plaintiffs could not appeal the decision disqualifying plaintiffs’ counsel. Because the four-month statute of limitations for bringing an Article 78 (mandamus) action had long passed, the plaintiffs could not bring the appeal. The opinion includes a clear and comprehensive explanation of what constitutes appealable paper pursuant to CPLR 2219 and 22 NYCRR 202.48[a] which should be saved as a reference resource:

… [T]he Justice failed or refused to later sign the transcript of the proceedings, and therefore, the transcript never qualified as an order for purposes of its enforcement or for an appeal … . While the transcript bears the signature of the court reporter who certified its truth and accuracy, the court reporter’s certification does not substitute for the plain and separate obligation set forth in CPLR 2219(a) that a judge or justice sign his or her name or initials to the document (see CPLR 5512[a] …). The absence of the Justice’s signature on the transcript had the effect of preventing the plaintiffs from directly appealing the adverse determination to the Appellate Division.

Likewise, the Justice failed or refused to sign the proposed order that was submitted to him, with a copy of the transcript and with notice of settlement. Such an order, if signed with or without modification of its proposed language, would have become an enforceable order and subject to appeal. Parties are entitled to orders that are both enforceable and appealable, and those fundamental rights should not be thwarted by any jurists’ unwitting failure to abide by the requirements of CPLR 2219(a) … . * * *

Absent a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, the plaintiffs can receive no relief on this appeal. This Court cannot compel under the guise of CPLR 2219(a) and 22 NYCRR 202.48 relief that can only be properly accomplished by mandamus, which is now untimely. Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04913, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO SERVE A CONFERENCE SCHEDULING ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS, WHICH APPARENTLY RESULTED IN THE PLAINTIFFS NOT ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ FULLY SUBMITTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have dismissed defendants’ summary judgment motion in this car accident case because defendants apparently did not serve an order scheduling a conference on the plaintiffs. Apparently the defendants appeared at the conference but the plaintiffs did not:

22 NYCRR 202.27 governs what a court may do in the event that the plaintiff, the defendant, or both parties fail to appear at a scheduled calendar call or conference. Specifically, where the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not, the court may grant judgment by default or order an inquest … . Where the defendant appears but the plaintiff does not, the court may dismiss the action and order a severance of counterclaims or cross claims … . If no party appears, the court may make such order as appears just … .

Here, since the defendants apparently appeared at the conference … , but the plaintiffs did not appear, the sanction available to the Supreme Court was the dismissal of the action and the severance of any counterclaims or cross claims. Clearly, the denial of the defendants’ summary judgment motion as a sanction for not serving the plaintiffs with a copy of the order … , was not a penalty authorized under the plain language of 22 NYCRR 202.27(b). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendants’ motion was fully submitted and ready to be decided several months prior to the court’s issuance of the … order scheduling a conference, the court should not have denied the motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 and should have decided the motion on its merits …  Indeed, even if neither party had appeared for the scheduled settlement conference, in which case the court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27(c), was authorized to make “such order as appears just,” under the circumstances present here, it would have been an improvident exercise of discretion to sanction the defendants by denying their fully submitted summary judgment motion without regard to an evaluation of its merit … . Charalabidis v Elnagar, 2020 NY Slip Op 04912, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

, , ,

INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS DAMAGES-ONLY PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF; $5,500,000 VERDICT SET ASIDE AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new trial in this personal injury action which had resulted in a $5,500,000 verdict, determined the “burden of proof” jury instruction should not have been given in this damages-only trial:

… [T]he defendants contend … that the verdict and judgment must be set aside on the ground that they were deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court’s improper jury instruction on the law. Specifically, the defendants contend that the court erroneously charged the jury with respect to the burden of proof.

“A trial court is required to state the law relevant to the particular facts in issue, and a set of instructions that confuses or incompletely conveys the germane legal principles to be applied in a case requires a new trial”… .

Here, we agree with the defendants that under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court’s determination to charge Pattern Jury Instructions 1:60 was improper in the context of a trial limited to the issue of damages only and was prejudicial to the defendants in that it shifted the burden of proof. In light of the court’s error in the charge, substantial justice was not done since the jury was not instructed with the germane legal principles to be applied … . Gorokhova v Consolidated Edison of N.Y., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04828, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

, ,

ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, once the motion court found defendant’s counsel ineffective for failing to inform defendant he risked being sentenced to life in prison as a persistent felony offender after trial, the motion court could not leave the convictions in place and reinstate the original sentence. Defendant had been offered a plea offer with a sentence of 4 1/2 to 9 years which he rejected and moved to vacate the guilty plea pursuant to CPL 440.10:

CPL 440.10(4) provides that “[i]f the court grants [a defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440], it must, except as provided in subdivision five or six of this section, vacate the judgment, and must dismiss the accusatory instrument, or order a new trial, or take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (emphasis added). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plain language of CPL 440.10(4) requires that, upon a finding that a defendant’s CPL 440 motion is meritorious, a court must, in the first instance (absent the exceptions in subdivisions five or six of CPL 440.10 which are not relevant here), vacate the judgment … , and upon so doing, must then select one of three options: (1) “dismiss the accusatory instrument,” (2) “order a new trial,” or (3) “take such other action as is appropriate in the circumstances” (CPL 440.10[4]). Since the court found that the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, it should have granted the defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion by vacating the judgment of conviction … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 04849, Second Dept 9-2-20

 

, ,

WHETHER MOTHER MOVED MORE THAN 40 MILES WAS AN ISSUE IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY ACTION; FAMILY COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE MOVE WAS 39 MILES; THE DISSENT ARGUED FAMILY COURT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE BASIS OF THE JUDICIAL NOTICE WHICH PRECLUDED A CHALLENGE TO THE FINDING (THIRD DEPT).

he Third Department determined Family Court properly found that mother had not moved beyond the 40-mile limit imposed by the settlement agreement. The Family Court judge took judicial notice of the distance involved in the move which was determined to be 39 miles. The dissent argued Family Court erred in not specifying the basis for the judicial notice, thereby making it impossible to challenge:

From the dissent:

Although it is well settled that “‘a court may take judicial notice of facts which are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to easily accessible sources of undisputable accuracy'” … , judicial notice of a fact is improper when it is “from a hearsay source or from unidentifiable or nonindisputable sources outside the record or at a time subsequent to the close of testimony” … . Fundamental fairness thus dictates that a court, before it takes judicial notice of a fact, provide the parties with the basis for its notice and “afford the parties the opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice in the particular instance” … . Otherwise, the determination of whether such fact is or is not “of common knowledge or determinable by resort to sources of indisputable accuracy” cannot be properly tested or reviewed … .

… .Family Court never disclosed the basis for its 39-mile calculation, and it announced that it was taking judicial notice of that “fact” after testimony had concluded and only in the context of its written decision. As such, the parties never had an opportunity to be heard on this issue or dispute the basis for such judicially noticed finding. Nor does the record reflect that Family Court had a factual basis for its conclusion that the relocation provision of the agreement — which the court itself recognized as ambiguous — required that the 40-mile radius be measured between the outermost borders of Deposit and Clarks Summit, rather than from the parties’ respective residences or some other location, particularly since the language of the agreement requires the mother’s residence for the children, and not the boundary line of Clarks Summit, to be within a 40-mile radius from an undetermined location in Deposit. Indeed, the testimony of both parties contradicts the court’s interpretation … . Matter of Lonny C v Elizabeth C., 2020 NY Slip Op 04620, Third Dept 8-20-20

 

,

THE SENTENCING COURT INDICATED IT COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS SENTENCING AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE BUT SENTENCING COURTS HAVE DISCRETION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RE-SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s sentence and remitting the matter, determined the sentencing court erroneously indicated it had no discretion to deviate from the sentencing agreement with the People:

“[T]he sentencing decision is a matter committed to the exercise of the court’s discretion and . . . can be made only after careful consideration of all facts available at the time of sentencing” … . “The determination of an appropriate sentence requires the exercise of discretion after due consideration given to, among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation and deterrence” … . Here, the court indicated that it had no choice but to sentence defendant pursuant to its agreement with the People … , and the sentencing transcript, read in its entirety, does not reflect that the court conducted the requisite discretionary analysis … . We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court for resentencing. People v Knorr, 2020 NY Slip Op 04690, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

, ,

FAMILY COURT RESOLVED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AND CREDIBILITY ISSUES WITHOUT A HEARING, FAILED TO ACCEPT ALLEGATIONS IN A PRO SE MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION AS TRUE, IMPOSED A SANCTION FOR A VIOLATION OF A CUSTODY ORDER WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE CONTROLLING STATUTES, AND FAILED TO TAKE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN INTO ACCOUNT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, noted several errors in these proceedings which began with father’s violation of custody petitioner followed by two modification of custody petitions by mother. All the petitions were brought pro se. Family Court erred: (1) in dismissing mother’s modification petitions without a hearing; (2) in failing to accept as true and liberally construe mother’s pro se allegations; (3) in making factual findings and credibility determinations in the absence of a hearing on the modification petitions; (4) and in imposing an impermissible sanction on mother for an alleged violation of a custody order:

Family Court did not liberally construe the mother’s pro se petitions, accept her allegations as true, afford her the benefit of every possible inference or resolve credibility issues in her favor when determining the motions to dismiss. …

… [R]ather than accept the mother’s allegations as true, Family Court improperly made factual findings and credibility determinations, inappropriately resolving the conflicting versions of events, as set forth in the mother’s petitions and the father’s supporting affidavits, against the mother and in favor of the father … . …

… [T]he only available penalty that Family Court may impose for a willful violation of a custodial order without a concurrent modification petition pending is a monetary fine and/or a period of imprisonment (see Judiciary Law § 753 [A]; Family Ct Act § 156 …). However, Family Court sanctioned the mother by modifying the joint legal order of custody and granting the father sole legal custody of the children without determining whether there had been a change in circumstances. In addition, Family Court failed to engage in any discernible analysis of whether a modification was in the best interests of the children. Matter of Gerard P. v Paula P., 2020 NY Slip Op 04515, Third Dept 8-13-20

 

,

BY ENTERING A PLEA AGREEMENT WITH A TESTIFYING CODEFENDANT THE TRIAL JUDGE ABANDONED THE ROLE OF A NEUTRAL ARBITER AND DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial before a different judge, determined defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the judge’s entering a plea agreement with a testifying codefendant:

The defendant …  contends that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial by the County Court’s act of entering into a plea agreement with the testifying codefendant. The court’s agreement with the codefendant was made in conjunction with a cooperation agreement reached between the codefendant and the People. The codefendant had been charged with, inter alia, murder in the second degree. The People had promised to recommend a determinate sentence of imprisonment between two and seven years in exchange for the codefendant’s guilty plea to the reduced charge of attempted robbery in the second degree. However, the court promised the codefendant a sentence of only probation in exchange for her testimony against the defendant. Although the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), we nevertheless reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

We agree with the defendant that, under the circumstances here, the County Court committed reversible error when it “negotiated and entered into a [plea] agreement with a codefendant requiring that individual to testify against defendant in exchange for a more favorable sentence” … . By doing so, “the trial court abandoned the role of a neutral arbiter and assumed the function of an interested party, thereby creating a specter of bias that requires reversal” … . People v Greenspan, 2020 NY Slip Op 04408, Second Dept 8-5-20

 

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