You are here: / Judges
,

FAMILY COURT, SUA SPONTE, SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INCARCERATED FATHER’S PETITION ALLEGING MOTHER’S NONCOMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER MANDATING COMMUNICATION WITH THE CHILD WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, should not have, sua sponte, dismissed, without a hearing, father’s petition alleging mother’s noncompliance with provisions of an order requiring communication between child and father, who is incarcerated:

Where, as here, a petition sets forth facts of willful noncompliance which, if established at a hearing would provide a basis for the relief sought, Family Court must afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard … . The father alleged that he is being denied his routine monthly phone call, as well as calls at Christmas and the child’s birthday, as required by the consent order. Accepting the representations from counsel for the mother and the attorney for the child that missed calls were made up and that the child no longer wishes to communicate with the father and chooses not to respond to his correspondence, Family Court concluded that there were no contested facts and dismissed the petition. In doing so, the court failed to address the mother’s obligation under the consent order to encourage the child to communicate with the father. Whether she failed to do so as alleged remains a disputed contention necessitating relevant testimony, not simply the arguments of counsel. Nor did the court address the father’s claim that the mother failed to provide updated photographs and school records. In our view, the court erred in dismissing the petition without a hearing … . Matter of Shannon X. v Koni Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 01215, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH FATHER MISSED PLEADING AND DISCLOSURE DEADLINES, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OMISSIONS WERE WILLFUL; THEREFORE PRECLUDING FATHER FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE IN THE CUSTODY MODIFICATION PROCEEDING WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined father should not have been precluded from offering evidence in the modification of custody proceeding. Although father missed several court-imposed deadlines for responding papers and disclosure, the sanction was too severe:

… [A]lthough the father failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines for responsive pleadings and discovery, the record lacks any evidence of willfulness on the part of the father to warrant a drastic sanction of complete preclusion … . The father was represented by assigned counsel at the May 7, 2018 conference during which the initial discovery schedule was established. Shortly thereafter, the mother served a first demand for interrogatories and combined discovery demand. … In the meantime, the father was assigned new counsel who appeared for the July 16, 2018 conference, at which time the deadlines were extended. At the fact-finding hearing, the father’s counsel stated that delay in responding “is predominantly my fault and I will make that very explicitly clear on the record.” In light of the preliminary conference orders, counsel also made the meritless assertion that the mother’s discovery demands were ineffective for lacking court authorization. On the other hand, counsel did serve a response to the interrogatories — although that response was unverified. In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that the father’s conduct was willful. Additionally, “modification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing with the parties given the opportunity to present in open court evidence as to the best interest[s] of the child” … . Here, the preclusion of all of the father’s testimony renders it difficult to determine the best interests of this child (see id.). Based on the foregoing, we remit the matter for a new hearing. Matter of Tara DD. v Seth CC., 2020 NY Slip Op 01227, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE MOTHER DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONSIDERED AND DENIED MOTHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Family Court, determined the judge, sua sponte, should not have dismissed father’s modification of custody petition for failure to state a cause of action because mother did not request that relief. The Third Department went on to consider mother’s motion for summary judgment and deny it:

“[A] motion for summary judgment may be utilized in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding, but such a motion should be granted only when there are no material facts disputed sufficiently to warrant a trial” … . “In a custody modification proceeding, the controlling ‘material fact’ is whether or not there is a change in circumstances so as to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children would be served by modifying the existing custody arrangement” … .

Here, the mother failed to meet her initial summary judgment burden. There can be no dispute that only five months had elapsed since entry of the March 2018 order and, as such, the “automatic” change in circumstances provision incorporated in that order had not been triggered. The father, however, sought modification based upon several other alleged changes in circumstance, including that the mother had been disparaging the father in front of the children in violation of the March 2018 order and that she is living in a homeless shelter. The mother, in her motion for summary judgment, makes no mention of these allegations or otherwise attempts to refute them in any way. Matter of Anthony F. v Christy G., 2020 NY Slip Op 01228, Third Dept 2-20-20

 

, ,

JUDGE PROPERLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly set aside the verdict awarding $0 for pain and suffering in this Labor Law 240 (1) action, despite plaintiff’s failure to object to the verdict as inconsistent:

… [P]laintiff’s failure to object to the jury’s award of $0 for both past and future pain and suffering as inconsistent with the jury’s awards for past and future lost earnings and future medical expenses did not preclude the court from deciding whether ” the jury’s failure to award damages for pain and suffering [wa]s contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitute[d] a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation'” … . Natoli v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00988, First Dept 2-11-20

 

,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that Supreme Court in this foreclosure action should not have, sua sponte, revoked the previous acceleration of the debt because plaintiff did not request that relief:

… [T]he Supreme Court should not have revoked the previous acceleration of the mortgage debt and directed that the mortgage remain an installment contract, inasmuch as the plaintiff did not seek such relief in its motion or cross-move for it in response to the defendant’s cross motion … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Salko, 2020 NY Slip Op 00566, Second Dept 1-29-20

 

, ,

TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE SUMMARY JURY TRIAL RULES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the trial should not have, sua sponte, declared a mistrial in this summary jury trial (SJT) in an attempt to correct an evidentiary error. The mistrial violated the parties’ STJ stipulation which constitutes a binding contract:

The SJT rules to which the parties stipulated provide, among other things, that “[p]arties agree to waive any motions for directed verdicts as well as any motions to set aside the verdict or any judgment rendered by said jury” and that the “Court shall not set side any verdict or any judgment entered thereon, nor shall it direct that judgment be entered in favor [of] a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law, nor shall it order a new trial as to any issues where the verdict is alleged to be contrary to the weight of the evidence” … .

The court erred in sua sponte declaring a mistrial and setting aside the verdict. While this was an attempt to correct an admittedly erroneous evidentiary ruling, the parties’ stipulation to a summary jury trial, subject to the applicable rules and procedures for Bronx County, was a legally binding contract … . Since the summary jury trial rules for Bronx County do not provide for any means to correct errors of law committed during trial, the court exceeded the boundaries of the parties’ agreement by setting aside the verdict, regardless of whether it in fact did so on its own initiative in the interest of justice … .

… [T]his holding does not proscribe post-trial motions of any kind in connection with summary jury trials; rather, it abides by the parties’ own proscriptions made at the time that they stipulated to proceed with a summary jury trial. There was nothing barring the parties from stipulating to reserve their right to appeal or move to set aside the verdict on the ground of an error of law. Vargas v LaMacchia, 2020 NY Slip Op 00556, First Dept 1-28-2o

 

, , ,

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DECLARED A MISTRIAL TO ACCOMMODATE A JUROR’S WEEKEND PLANS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED; RETRIAL BARRED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, granting petitioner’s application for a writ of prohibition and dismissing the indictment, determined the trial court should not have, sua sponte, declared a mistrial to accommodate a juror’s weekend travel plans. Retrial was barred:

The trial court was not compelled by manifest necessity to declare a mistrial and terminate the proceedings …, and accordingly, retrial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Federal and New York State Constitutions … . It was an abuse of discretion to declare a mistrial in order to accommodate a juror’s weekend travel plans, including a Friday, which she belatedly informed the court about during deliberations, where the court, as requested by defendant, reasonably could have directed the juror to report for deliberations the following day, and the court also failed to confirm that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked at the time … . Matter of Bannister v Wiley, 2020 NY Slip Op 00522, First Dept 1-28-20

 

, , , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE NOT BEFORE IT; THE ORDER SETTLING A CLASS ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES AND OVERTIME SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED INVALID CERTAIN OPT-OUT STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND WERE NOT OTHERWISE BEFORE THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this class action seeking unpaid wages and overtime, determined Supreme Court should not have. sua sponte, declared certain opt-out statements (opting out of the class action settlement) invalid because the issue was not raised by the plaintiff’s motion and the opt-out statements were not properly before the court:

Pursuant to the February 2018 order, all class members who did not opt out were permanently enjoined from asserting, pursuing, and/or seeking to reopen claims that were released pursuant to the settlement agreement. The February 2018 order also contained a handwritten provision declaring that “[t]he opt outs received on 1/26/18 from Lee Litigation Group are deemed invalid as they were dated prior to the Class Notice which was sent 12/27/17, and do not contain the required opt-out language pursuant to the Class-Notice ordered by this court on November 22, 2017.” Such relief was not sought in the motion filed by the plaintiffs nor was it contained in the proposed order submitted to the court by the plaintiffs’ counsel.  …

CPLR 908 provides that “[a] class action shall not be dismissed, discontinued, or compromised without the approval of the court,” and that “[n]otice of the proposed dismissal, discontinuance, or compromise shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs.” Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court should not have, sua sponte, declared invalid certain opt-out statements that were not part of the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion and which relief was not requested in the motion. “[A] court may grant relief that is warranted by the facts plainly appearing on the papers on both sides, if the relief granted is not too dramatically unlike the relief sought, the proof offered supports it, and there is no prejudice to any party” … . Here, the court strayed from this principle … . The relief awarded by the court, sua sponte, in the handwritten provision in the February 2018 order is “dramatically unlike” the relief sought by the plaintiffs and was prejudicial to the appellants … . Moreover, the opt-out statements referred to in the February 2018 order were not among the exhibits submitted on the plaintiffs’ motion, and therefore were not properly before the court for consideration … . Robinson v Big City Yonkers, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00447, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO ADVISE DECEDENT AND THE NURSE MIDWIFE AGAINST HOME BIRTH; SUCH FAILURE COULD CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DEATH; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED IN PART ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this medical malpractice action should not have been granted. Defendant, Lascale, is a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist specializing in maternal-fetal medicine. Plaintiff’s decedent died in childbirth when she was assisted at home by a certified nurse midwife (Moss Jones). Plaintiffs alleged Lascale negligently failed to advise decedent and Moss Jones of the dangers of a home birth given the baby’s size and the fact decedent had previously given birth by caesarian section. Lascale argued his limited role, analyzing periodic sonograms, did not include advice on delivery. The Second Department noted that the motion court, sua sponte, should not have granted defendant’s motion based in part on an issue not raised by the parties:

Although Lescale, a board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist, purported to limit the scope of his duty to the field of maternal-fetal medicine, and the performance and interpretation of ultrasounds, it was within such limited scope of duty to consult with the decedent and Moss Jones … , concerning his diagnosis of suspected fetal macrosomia [the baby was very large], and how such diagnosis would increase the risks of a VBAC [vaginal birth after caesarian section] home birth, given all of the other risk factors that were present. Given such risks, it was also within the scope of Lescale’s duty to advise the decedent and Moss Jones against proceeding with the planned VBAC home birth. * * *

“When a question of proximate cause involves an intervening act, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence” . “It is only where the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the norm… al course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant’s conduct, that it may possibly break the causal nexus” … .

* * * Whether the decedent would have heeded appropriate warnings and advice by Lescale in light of, inter alia, the purported warnings she was given by Moss Jones, or her own views, is for the jury to decide … . Romanelli v Jones, 2020 NY Slip Op 00316, Second Dept 1-15-20

 

, ,

JUDGES SHOULD NOT ASK A DEFENDANT WHETHER HE OR SHE IS A US CITIZEN IN PLEA PROCEEDINGS; RATHER JUDGES SHOULD INFORM ALL DEFENDANTS THE PLEA TO A FELONY MAY RESULT IN DEPORTATION IF HE OR SHE IS NOT A US CITIZEN (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, over a concurrence, rejected defendant’s argument that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed he would be deported as a consequence of the plea. There was no indication in the record that plaintiff was not a US citizen. Defendant told the court he was a citizen. And the pre-sentence report indicated defendant was a naturalized US citizen. However, the Second Department took the opportunity to instruct the courts how the citizenship issue should be handled:

… [A] trial court should not ask a defendant whether he or she is a United States citizen and decide whether to advise the defendant of the plea’s deportation consequence based on the defendant’s answer. Instead, a trial court should advise all defendants pleading guilty to felonies that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty plea may expose them to deportation . This recommendation is consistent…  with the Court of Appeals’ pronouncement in Peque: “[T]o protect the rights of the large number of noncitizen defendants pleading guilty to felonies in New York, trial courts must now make all defendants aware that, if they are not United States citizens, their felony guilty pleas may expose them to deportation” … . Additionally, this recommendation is consistent with the legislature’s pronouncement in CPL 220.50(7). Although that statute, deemed to be repealed September 1, 2020, indicates, in part, that “[t]he failure to advise the defendant pursuant to this subdivision shall not be deemed to affect the voluntariness of a plea of guilty or the validity of a conviction, nor shall it afford a defendant any rights in a subsequent proceeding relating to such defendant’s deportation, exclusion or denial of naturalization[,]” it specifically provides, in part, that “[p]rior to accepting a defendant’s plea of guilty to a count or counts of an indictment or a superior court information charging a felony offense, the court must advise the defendant on the record, that if the defendant is not a citizen of the United States, the defendant’s plea of guilty and the court’s acceptance thereof may result in the defendant’s deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States”… . Moreover, giving a “short, straightforward statement” … regarding deportation will neither add significantly to the length of the plea proceeding nor encroach meaningfully on the trial court’s discretion. Whether a defendant receives the Peque warning should not depend on the defendant having to acknowledge, on the record in open court, that he or she is not a United States citizen, particularly since eliciting noncitizen status may raise, in some cases, concerns of compelled self-incrimination … . People v Williams, 2019 NY Slip Op 09303, Second Dept 12-24-19

 

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